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 Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)
The Chancellor announced a £9.1 billion energy bills rebate last week. This includes a £200 energy bill discount for households across the UK, including Wales, as well as an additional £175 million to the Welsh Government.
Beth Winter
On Monday, this Conservative Government imposed a real-terms cut to social security benefits and pensions of approximately 4%. This is on top of the hike in national insurance contributions, the rise in the energy price cap and cuts to universal credit and working tax credit, which the Bevan Foundation in Wales has estimated will take approximately £286 million out of the Welsh economy. People in Wales are genuinely fearful of the impact that these cuts are going to have on living standards, so I ask the Secretary of State: how can he justify voting for these measures, which will not only exacerbate existing poverty but drive more and more people into hardship and poverty?
Simon Hart
The hon. Lady has constituents, as we all do, who are of course concerned about the cost of living challenges ahead, but I hope I can reassure her by naming, as I have already done, a few of the measures we are putting in place. They include the substantial additional money via the Barnett formula for the Welsh Government, but also the universal credit taper is worth £1,000 per household, the increase in the living wage is also worth £1,000 a year for those in receipt of it and there are the warm home discounts. Of course, the main thrust of what we are trying to do is create the right circumstances for a jobs-led recovery.
Nick Smith
Tesco’s boss says that food inflation will hit 5%. Families across Wales will struggle to cope, so how will the Secretary of State help people in food poverty?
Simon Hart
I can only refer the hon. Member to my earlier comments. We want to be extremely sure, just like him, because Conservative Members have a similar dynamic in our own constituencies, that we are putting in place everything we can, whether that is the universal credit taper, the increase in the living wage, an increase in the tax threshold, or indeed the jobs-led recovery I have mentioned. The fact is that the economic prospects for the UK, including Wales, are actually growing at a reasonable pace, although it can always be faster and greater. I am hoping I can reassure his constituents, just as I am attempting to reassure mine, that we have their best interests at heart when it comes to food poverty.
Nia Griffith
People do understand the need to provide more money for health and social care, but Welsh businesses and workers—they now face rampant inflation, bringing escalating costs and reduced consumer spending power—are angry that the UK Government are hitting them with the national insurance rise while the Chancellor has simply written off billions. What talks has the Secretary of State had with Cabinet colleagues about implementing concerted efforts to recover the £5 billion of taxpayers’ money taken fraudulently by criminals in covid support, and about engaging with companies that were vastly overpaid by the UK Government for personal protective equipment contracts on recognising their corporate social responsibility and returning excess profits, rather than hitting workers and businesses across Wales with this national insurance rise?
Simon Hart
The hon. Lady raises an important point about fraud. All I can tell her is that the Treasury is a world leader in tracking down, eliminating and reducing the risk of fraud, and I think she should give it some credit for the remarkable work that it has already done in that respect.
Anna McMorrin
An 80-year-old constituent of mine has contacted me to say that he and his 78-year-old wife currently pay £68 a month on energy bills and they just about manage, but they have been told that that will go up to nearly £3,000 for the year. Meanwhile, BP has announced its highest profits in years. The Government’s answer is to hand out loans, but Labour has a plan to make energy companies pay. My constituent is worried and angry, and he wrote to me asking me to shout and scream at the Secretary of State. I do not think that will work, but what does he expect me to say to my constituent?
Simon Hart
What I hope I could pass on to the hon. Lady’s constituent is that deploying the usual Labour response to pretty well every problem in the world, which is to find somebody and tax them, is not the right answer, because that would have a knock-on cost that would then be picked up by the very constituent she mentioned. The idea that tax is anything other than a disincentive in this particular instance is a myth. Much more important are our attempts to make sure that families in the position her constituent points out are looked after to the best of our ability.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
As my right hon. Friend has mentioned, the Chancellor has announced that 80% of English households will receive a £150 council tax rebate with effect from April this year. As a consequence, the Welsh Government have received an additional £175 million under the Barnett formula. Is it a matter of regret to him, as it is to me, that the Welsh Government have not yet announced that that money will be passed on to Welsh council tax payers, who are entitled to precisely the same benefits as their English counterparts?
Simon Hart
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. The Treasury was explicit in what the Barnett consequentials were for the Welsh Government, and I agree with him. I do not understand why families and businesses in Wales are still unclear about how that money will be used.
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
People in rural areas will be at a particular disadvantage during the upcoming energy price crisis. About two thirds of my constituents are not connected to the gas grid and are therefore not covered by the protection of the energy price cap. Does my right hon. Friend agree that as rural areas will experience particular hardship, the Welsh Government have a responsibility to act fast to get the £175 million that they have just received out the door as quickly as possible?
Simon Hart
Absolutely. I refer to my earlier answer. That is critical, because we probably have a higher proportion of people in Wales in that position than almost anywhere else in the UK. So this is urgent, and I urge Labour Members to put as much pressure as they can on their colleagues in Cardiff to make it happen.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the increase in and extension of the warm home discount, which will shield the most vulnerable across the UK from the impact of inflation?
Simon Hart
I certainly will. There is a contrast worth highlighting, as the Government’s solutions to these problems are to provide direct and positive interventions for families across Wales rather than defaulting to the lazy position of finding an energy producer and taxing it, as if that would resolve the problem.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
It is not just record inflation that is hitting Welsh households hard. Rents in Wales have increased by nearly 10% in the last year, the third highest rate in the United Kingdom outside London and Northern Ireland. When it comes to paying bills, the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Secretary thinks that a monthly saving on the BBC licence fee of 87p over two years is
“one of the few direct levers we have in our control as a Government.”—[Official Report, 17 January 2022; Vol. 707, c. 39.]
Is that really the extent of the Government’s ambition to help people in Wales cope with a Conservative cost of living crisis?
Simon Hart
I am grateful—I think—for the hon. Lady’s question, but she seems to overlook the numerous examples that I have already given, and I have an even longer list of ways in which the UK Government have stepped in, during covid in particular. We have helped protect 470,000 jobs and 60,000 Welsh businesses, dished out £2.4 billion in business loans, increased the living wage and adapted the universal credit taper—I could go on, if only you would allow me, Mr Speaker. She needs to reflect on the long list of positive things to which Labour has contributed almost nothing by way of assistance.
Jo Stevens
Well, people across Wales are facing the biggest drop in living standards in 30 years under the Secretary of State’s watch. Inflation is at a 10-year high and rising, national insurance levels are increasing by more than 10%—another Tory broken manifesto promise—energy bills are up 54% and rents in Wales are up 10%. Wales is bearing the brunt of the incompetence and chaos not just at No. 10 but at No. 11, while the Secretary of State sits at the Cabinet table and lets it all happen, does he not?
Simon Hart
No. The hon. Lady seems to have forgotten that there has been something called a pandemic in the last two years, and that has had a significant effect on the global economy. She also seems to have forgotten that her party is responsible for a number of the standard of living issues in Wales, yet we never hear so much as a squeak of criticism about Welsh Labour’s performance in Cardiff. I urge her again to reflect—perhaps through Hansard tomorrow—on the comments that I have made and the numerous ways in which the Government have intervened in some of these economic challenges, the result of which is that more people are now on the payroll than before the pandemic began and the UK economy is the fastest growing in the G7. Perhaps she should reflect on those facts before raising the issues that she has.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the lowest paid in Wales will benefit from our increase in the national living wage, protecting them from the impact of rising inflation?
Simon Hart
I certainly can. In answering that question, it is also worth reflecting on the fact that the Labour solution around VAT—an interesting recognition of a Brexit dividend—would not have that effect. The Treasury analysis is that Labour’s proposal would unduly hit the families our proposals are designed to help.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
There will be a full evaluation of the fund’s impact on the provision of public service broadcasting for young people, including Welsh language content. The Government are committed to Welsh language broadcasting. S4C will receive £88.8 million a year for the first two years of the licence fee settlement, rising in line with inflation thereafter.
Ben Lake
Diolch, Mr Speaker. The fund’s 5% target for content in the indigenous languages has been invaluable to producers of Welsh language children’s programmes such as an upcoming drama series about children’s mental health and, of course, the production of new episodes of “Sali Mali”. Mike Young, the producer of “Sam Tan” and the creator of “SuperTed”, has previously stated that those much-loved favourites would not have been made without state support. Will the Minister agree to meet me to discuss the impact of the fund’s closure and ways we can secure the future of original children’s content in the Welsh language?
David T. C. Davies
I would be delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss that issue. I would approach it with an open mind. I will perhaps remind the hon. Gentleman that it was a Conservative Government who established S4C. It was also a Conservative Government who introduced the Welsh Language Act 1993. He may also know that it was a Conservative Chairman of the Welsh Affairs Committee who allowed Welsh to be spoken for the first time in Select Committee hearings. Modesty prevents me from saying any more on that, but I can assure him that we will always want to support the Welsh language.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
The Secretary of State recently met the Culture Secretary to discuss the delivery of the UK Government’s £5 billion Project Gigabit, which will deliver gigabit connections to the hardest to reach 20% of the UK. Up to 234,000 homes and businesses in Wales should benefit from this investment.
Jonathan Edwards
Diolch, Mr Speaker. According to the House of Commons Library, 17.4% of lines in my constituency receive less than 10 megabits per second, one of the worst records in the British state. It is clear, therefore, that the UK Government and Welsh Government broadband strategies are failing large parts of Carmarthenshire. Will the Wales Office emphasise that mission 4 of the levelling-up White Paper published last week prioritises areas that have been neglected so far?
David T. C. Davies
Those figures are concerning, and I agree that that connectivity needs to become a priority. However, the statistics will also show that the number of homes connected to fast broadband in Wales has risen from just 11% in 2019 to 47% in 2022. That number continues to rise and later this week—in fact, tomorrow—I shall be visiting the Swansea Bay growth deal to look at a project that will further increase connectivity in Wales.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
Bore da and diolch, Mr Speaker. Following on from that question about speed and infrastructure in Wales, my hon. Friend may be aware that back in the ’80s and ’90s I travelled quite quickly with my fellow students on the train from Lampeter to Aberystwyth. Will he provide an update on the likelihood of bringing back the train line between Carmarthen, Lampeter and Aberystwyth, especially in the 200th anniversary year of the setting up of St David’s University College in Lampeter?
David T. C. Davies
That is an exciting and interesting suggestion, and one of a number that will be looked at. What I am doing, with the Secretary of State for Wales and the Secretary of State for Transport, is looking at projects already under way, such as the improvements to the north Wales coast line and to the south Wales relief line.
Mr Speaker
I think the hon. Member for Lincoln (Karl MᶜCartney) was trying to say that there would be an improvement to broadband if the train line was reopened. That is the only way his question can be connected to the lead question.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
The Conservative manifesto promised gigabit-capable broadband to every home and business across Wales, and across the UK, by 2025. How does the Minister justify the levelling down in his Government’s so-called levelling-up White Paper, which now only states targeting 70% to 80% by 2025?
David T. C. Davies
I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree that we have set some very ambitious targets. I certainly hope we are going to meet them, but I just point out once again that the number of homes connected to fast broadband has risen from just 11% to 47% in three years. I think that is an exceptionally good outcome. I can assure him that we want to see that figure continue to rise.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
Diolch, Mr Speaker. The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) is absolutely right to raise this issue, because broadband speeds in urban areas—not only in Wales, but in England—are not always up to the mark. At the same time, will the Minister praise, for example, Openreach, which provides fibre to the premises in very rural areas of Wales such as the Dysynni valley in southern Snowdonia?
David T. C. Davies
I am not sure whether my hon. Friend wants to declare a particular interest. Obviously we support Openreach in delivering fibre to the hardest-to-reach areas, but I take him back to the whole purpose of Project Gigabit—to deliver to the hardest-to-reach 20%. The figures already show that we are being very successful in achieving that greater connectivity in rural Wales.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)
There is no public appetite at all in Wales to devolve the Crown Estate, which would serve merely to fragment the market and delay the further development of key projects.
Joanna Cherry
The Scottish Government have awarded 25 GW of offshore wind development rights through Crown Estate Scotland to 17 projects, which has put Scotland at the forefront of global offshore wind development. It is more than double the UK’s existing offshore wind capacity and it will create high-quality jobs and significant local investment. Why does the Secretary of State not think that devolving the Crown Estate to Wales would benefit the people of Wales in the way that it is benefitting the people of Scotland?
Simon Hart
I have spoken on this subject recently to port authorities, investors, councils, employees and, most importantly, the public. Not a single person—not one—has suggested to me that the future of floating offshore or, indeed, any other renewables will benefit from the devolution of the Crown Estate. This is an international opportunity for Wales. The supply chain benefits are huge and, actually, the Scottish National party’s ambitions are far too modest in this respect.
Allan Dorans
The recent devolution of the Crown Estate seabed is predicted to enable Scotland’s offshore wind farms to reliably power around 30 million homes across the United Kingdom. Has the Secretary of State assessed how many millions of homes could be powered by Welsh offshore generation?
Simon Hart
I think I caught the majority of the hon. Gentleman’s question. Yes, we have undertaken significant analysis of the potential, but the potential is massively enhanced by this being a UK-wide—an international—approach. It is not enhanced—indeed, it is jeopardised—by constant reference to devolution of the Crown Estate, which seems to be almost off-putting to future investors in this particular sector.
Richard Thomson
Well, it has not put off investment in Scotland, certainly.
The Crown Estate portfolio in Wales, with its marine assets, has risen in value from £49 million in 2020 to its current value of £603 million. The evidence from Scotland is that it is hugely beneficial for the devolved Government to be handling that and maximising the supply chain opportunities. Why is the Minister not open to the idea of devolving it, or is the message to the people of Wales that when it comes to governance in Wales, Westminster still knows best?
Simon Hart
Absolutely not. I made it clear earlier that where I take my advice from and listen the most intently is the views of port authorities, councils, investors, employees and the public. That is what really matters to me. This is about job creation and sustaining jobs and not about looking at every single issue through the prism of independence and what works for the Scottish Government. This is about making this work for the people of Wales, and that is what is important to us.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
Devolution of the Crown Estate is a total red herring, and it so cynical of nationalists to turn every issue into an anti-United Kingdom process row. Does my right hon. Friend agree that floating offshore wind represents a hugely important opportunity for Wales, particularly for the port of Milford Haven in my constituency—Milford Haven is shared by his constituency—and will he assure the House that he and his colleagues at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy are doing everything to ensure that Wales and Pembrokeshire benefit from the opportunities of renewable marine energy?
Simon Hart
My right hon. Friend is right; I met the Crown Estate last week and had exactly that conversation. I have to say that it was an exciting, interesting, innovative conversation about all the possibilities that he mentions, which exist across the whole UK but particularly in the Celtic sea. I repeat what I said earlier: the emphasis and impetus come from investors, members of the public and port authorities, not from nationalists who just wish to look at everything through the prism of their own power base.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
The Secretary of State has just said that there is no public interest or appetite at all, and that not one person is saying that devolving the Crown Estate is a good idea. By this morning, 10,000 people had already signed a petition asserting Wales’s right to reap the benefits of our own national resources.
The ScotWind auction raised almost £700 million for Scotland’s public finances. To reassure the Secretary of State, this is not a new tax. In the heat of the cost of living crisis, Scottish renewable natural resources generate revenue for the benefit of the Scottish people, providing a better welfare service than in Wales. Is it not clear that devolving the Crown Estate in Scotland has improved the Government’s ability to respond to the cost of living crisis, and so it would in Wales?
Simon Hart
Shock, horror—the hon. Gentleman raises that petition. Of course, it represents a tiny, tiny, tiny proportion of the population of Wales, even assuming that everybody who signed it is resident in Wales.
I chose my words carefully earlier. The people I want to listen to most intently are the people who will do the work and benefit from the work: port authorities, councils, employees, the public and investors. Every single person I have spoken to about the issue concludes that devolving the Crown Estate is nothing more than a distraction that would actually damage the prospects of its being the success story it deserves to be.
Hywel Williams
“Parity with Scotland” is possibly not the catchiest of slogans, but here it is just a matter of fairness. Will the Secretary of State now commit, in this Parliament, to the devolution of the Crown Estate to Wales?
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
The Government are committed to levelling up across the whole United Kingdom, including Wales. Better connectivity and infrastructure are key to that, which is why we asked Sir Peter Hendy to conduct the Union connectivity review.
Andrew Bowie
Does my hon. Friend agree that in addition to the actions that he has announced, the Union connectivity review pledges to do much more, including reducing journey times on the east coast rail line and protecting important domestic routes between London and Aberdeen, for example? It shows levelling up in action and is a demonstration of this Government working for the entire United Kingdom, including Wales.
David T. C. Davies
To draw on the link between Wales and Scotland, I congratulate Loganair, which flies between Cardiff and Edinburgh and will no doubt benefit from the cut in air passenger duty for regional airports. As a result, we can expect to see an increase in demand for flights, which is good news for Cardiff airport, good news for travellers and good news for the Union.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
Cross-border links are vital to achieving levelling up in every part of the United Kingdom, including Wales. Last week, I met the Welsh Government’s Transport Minister to discuss how our Governments can work together to improve those vital links, including through the recommendations in the Union connectivity review.
Christian Matheson
If you go by train to north Wales, Mr Speaker, the chances are that you will go through Chester. We have plans ready to go to increase capacity at Chester station, but we are being held up because the Minister’s colleagues in the Westminster Department for Transport will not agree on Union connectivity grants for Network Rail and Transport for Wales. Will he please have a word and tell them to get a move on?
David T. C. Davies
I am sure that my colleagues in Westminster will be doing absolutely everything they can to improve connectivity links between Wales and England, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman could have a word with his colleagues in the Welsh Labour Government, who have decided to abandon road building in Wales. Traffic congestion is bad for the environment, and a good road network is good for a flourishing economy.
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
The Llanymynech-Pant bypass proposal is the most important connection for my constituency, although it is 90% in England. I welcome the Treasury Bench’s commitment of £45 million to get it to the next stage, but will the Minister meet with me to ensure that the Welsh Government, with their road blocking and lack of vision on Union connectivity, deliver this road?
David T. C. Davies
My hon. Friend has been an absolute champion of the bypass over many years—[Interruption.]—and I am sure that everyone on this side of the House is deeply disappointed—
David T. C. Davies
I am sure that everyone on this side of the House is deeply disappointed that the Welsh Labour Government have decided to abandon road building in Wales.
Mr Speaker
Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I want to point out that the British Sign Language interpretation of proceedings is available to watch on parliamentlive.tv.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
I can tell the House today that it is my intention to return on the first day after the half-term recess to present our strategy for living with covid. Provided that the current encouraging trends in the data continue, it is my expectation that we will be able to end the last domestic restrictions, including the legal requirement to self-isolate following a positive test, a full month early.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Gareth Bacon
The Northern Ireland protocol frustrates business, undermines the Belfast agreement, and restricts the free movement of goods and people within our United Kingdom. What action will my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Union take to reunite the UK and uphold the interests of all its residents, including those living in Northern Ireland?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is quite right. The protocol does not require, contrary to how it is being applied by our friends, all foods, all medicines and all plants to be systematically checked in the way that they are. We must fix it, and with good will and common sense I believe we can. However, if our friends do not show the requisite common sense, we will of course trigger article 60.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
Was the Business Secretary right to say that fraud is not something that people experience in their day-to-day lives?
The Prime Minister
Of course, this Government and this country despise those who defraud people, and that is why we crack down on fraudsters. We have strengthened our anti-fraud taskforce and we are bringing forward an economic crime Bill. We also attach huge importance to tackling neighbourhood crime and crimes of violence, and I am pleased that those crimes are down 17%.
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister’s answer has a big hole in it. We have had lockdowns for the past two years; two crimes that people could commit were online fraud and throwing parties. So far as I can see, the numbers for both have gone through the roof.
However, I was asking the Prime Minister about the 14,000 cases of fraud a day. Many older people have been duped out of hard-earned savings, but the Business Secretary casually suggests on TV, “Don’t worry; it’s not real crime.” There is a crime gang in Manchester nicking cars and shipping them around the world, all financed by covid loans from the taxpayer. What is the Chancellor’s response? Write off £4 billion in losses, and block an investigation by the National Crime Agency. The Prime Minister’s Cabinet is turning a blind eye to scammers. Is it any wonder that his anti-fraud Minister realised that no one in Government seemed to care and threw in the towel?
The Prime Minister
No, because what we are doing is tackling crime across the board. That is why we are investing more in tackling fraud, but we are also tackling the neighbourhood crime that does such massive psychological damage to people in this country. We are tackling knife crime, burglary and crimes of violence in the street with tougher sentences—which Labour voted against, by the way—and putting more police out on the street. And we are able to afford it because we have a strong economy and we are coming back strongly from covid, and that is thanks to the big calls that this Government got right.
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister’s anti-fraud Minister quit, saying that the failure of Government to tackle fraud was “so egregious” that he had to
“smash some crockery to get people to take notice.”
It seems that the Prime Minister has not noticed the broken plates and shattered glass all around him. It is almost as if he has been completely distracted for weeks.
Talking of scams, households are going to have to fork out an extra £19 billion on their energy bills. The Government are insulting people’s intelligence by pretending they are giving them a discount. It is not; it is a con. It is a buy now, pay later scheme. A dodgy loan, not a proper plan. [Interruption.] He shakes his head, so let me put this in language he might understand. When his donors give him cash to fund his lifestyle and tell him he has to pay it all back later, are they giving him a loan or a discount?
The Prime Minister
Our plan to tackle the cost of living is faster, more efficient and more generous than anything that Labour has set out. We have lifted the living wage by record amounts, we have cut the effective tax for people on universal credit and we are now setting out a fantastic plan to help people with the cost of energy. It is more generous and more effective than anything Labour has set out. It is £9.1 billion—it is huge sums that we are using to help people across the country—and the only reason we can afford it is that we have a strong economy, the fastest growing in the G7— as I think I may have pointed out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman last week—not just last year but this year as well.
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister clearly hasn’t got the first clue what the Chancellor has signed him up to, so let me help him out. His plan is to hand billions of pounds of taxpayers’ cash to energy companies and then force families to pay it off in instalments for years to come. If it sounds like he is forcing people to take out a loan, and it looks like he is forcing people to take out a loan, is it not just forcing people to take out a loan?
The Prime Minister
We are giving people in bands A to D council tax valuations across the country—27 million homes—the equivalent of a £150 rebate off their council tax. Labour’s offer is £89. Ours is faster, more generous and more effective. This is a global problem, caused by the spike in gas prices, but what Labour would do is clobber the oil and gas companies right now—[Interruption.] Yes they would—with a tax that would deter investment in gas, just when this country needs gas as we transition to green fuel. It would be totally ridiculous, and it would raise prices for consumers.
Keir Starmer
I was always worried that the Prime Minister wasn’t one for reading terms and conditions and that he didn’t understand what the Chancellor had signed him up to. He has just confirmed my worst fears. There is an alternative—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. If you want to carry on, carry on outside: I am not having this perpetual noise coming from the Front Bench. Secretaries of State should know better. I expect better. I certainly do not need to put up with it any more.
Keir Starmer
There is an alternative. The Prime Minister can stand up to his Chancellor and tell him to support families rather than loading them with debt. He can tell him to look at those bumper profits of the oil and gas giants. Shell’s profits are up £14 billion this year. BP’s profits are up £9.5 billion this year. Every second of the day, they have made £750 extra profit from rising prices. At the same time, households are facing an extra £700 a year on their bills. Why on earth are this Government forcing loans on British families when they should be asking those with an unexpected windfall to pay a little more to keep household bills down?
The Prime Minister
The Labour plan would clobber suppliers. It is an improvement on what I thought the right hon. Gentleman stood for, which was nationalising the energy companies. Maybe he has dropped that one now. I cannot tell whether he has dropped that one; maybe he has. What he would be doing is hitting the energy companies at precisely the moment when we need to encourage them to go for more gas, because we need to transition now to cleaner fuels, and this Government are providing £9.1 billion of support. It is more generous than anything Labour is offering.
I repeat my point: the only reason we can do it is that we kept our economy moving in those hard times, when Labour took the wrong decisions. We came out of lockdown in July last year when the Leader of the Opposition opposed it, and we kept going over Christmas and new year when they opposed it, and that is why we have the fastest-growing economy in the G7, not just last year but this year as well, as I never tire of saying.
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister can bluff and bluster all he likes. The reality is this. On top of the Tory tax rises, on top of the soaring prices, the loan shark Chancellor and his unwitting sidekick have now cooked up a buy-now, pay-later scheme. It leaves taxpayers in debt, while oil and gas companies say that they have more money than they know what to do with. It is the same old story with this Government: get in a mess, protect their mates and ask working people to pick up the bill. But is the Prime Minister not worried that everyone can now see that with this Prime Minister and this Chancellor it is all one big scam, and people across the country are paying the price?
The Prime Minister
What they can see is a Government who are absolutely committed to doing the right thing for the people of this country and taking the tough decisions, when Labour is calling for us to take the easy way out and spend more taxpayers’ money. It was this Government who decided to keep going in July, when the Leader of the Opposition wanted to stay in lockdown. We kept going over Christmas and new year.
By the way, it occurs to me that we were also able to use those Brexit freedoms to deliver the fastest booster roll-out and the fastest vaccine roll-out—[Interruption.] Yes, when the Leader of the Opposition not only voted 48 times to go back into the EU—yes he did—but he also voted to stay in the European Medicines Agency.
Our plan for jobs is working. We have record low youth unemployment. Our plan for the NHS and care is working. Labour has no plan at all. Our plan for the country is working. We have a great vision to unite and level up across our country. Labour has no plan whatever. I say to him: plan beats no plan. We have a great plan for our country; they play politics.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Yes. I think it was only last week that I was congratulating my hon. Friend on her fantastic advocacy for nuclear in Ynys Môn. Do not forget, Mr Speaker, that Labour allowed nuclear capacity to decline by 11% on their watch; I do not think my hon. Friend has forgotten that. We want to get back up there, and that is why there will be at least one big nuclear project this Parliament—at least one—and our Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill will support that objective.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
Mr Speaker, I am sure that you and the entire House will want to join me in welcoming the Remembering Srebrenica campaign, that launched our yearly events in Parliament last night. We must all continue to strive for ongoing peace in Bosnia.
The flurry of changes in Downing Street over the last few days is a sight to behold. It is amazing how much energy this Prime Minister can sum up when it comes to saving his own skin. But while he has been busy rearranging the deckchairs, in the real world people continue to be punished by the Tory cost of living crisis. Yesterday, openDemocracy found that as a direct result of the Chancellor’s national insurance hike nurses will, on average, take a £275-a-year pay cut in April. That pay cut will hit at the very same moment that soaring energy bills land—bills that have shot up £1,000 in the space of a year.
It is a bill day and the rest of the public simply cannot afford it. So, rather than the Prime Minister and the Chancellor scrapping over the Tory leadership, will they do something useful and scrap their regressive hike in national insurance?
The Prime Minister
It was interesting that the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) did not mention that, because I think everybody can see how vital this is. We have to clear our covid backlogs; we have 6 million people already on the waiting lists; I am afraid that will go up, and we need to be recruiting the staff now. That is why we are recruiting 50,000 more nurses. There are 11,000 more this year than there were last year. To the point made by the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), let me say that we have increased the starting salary for nurses by 12.8%, in addition to the bursaries and other help that we give them. We value our nurses, we love our NHS and we are paying for it.
Ian Blackford
Actions speak louder than words and if the Prime Minister wants to reward nurses, he needs to pay them. They are the very backbone of the national health service—the very people he is hitting with a pay cut in April. I should not have to remind the Prime Minister that at the same time as those nurses were going into work every day to fight a pandemic, 16 different parties were happening in his Government. The public know what nurses sacrificed during the pandemic, and they know exactly what this rule-breaking Prime Minister and his Government were up to. So are the Prime Minister and his Chancellor seriously telling those nurses that their reward for seeing us through the pandemic is a £270 wage cut?
The Prime Minister
What we are telling the people of this country now is that we back our fantastic nurses all the way. What they want is more nurses, which is why record numbers are in training and why we had 11,000 more in the NHS this year than there were last year. Those are fantastic investments in our country and in our society, and I must say that it is peculiar that, as I understand it, the Scottish nationalist party’s approach to healthcare is now to cut off the bottom of doors in schools in Scotland in order to improve ventilation.
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Jane Stevenson), who is truly a modern-day Lady Wulfruna. She is completely right; Wolverhampton and the Black Country were at the heart of the first industrial revolution and they are at the heart of the current 21st-century green industrial revolution. I am very glad that since April 2020 we have seen 125,000 starts for the sector-based work academy programme, partly at least thanks to her lobbying and support, and wild horses will not keep me away from Wolverhampton.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
Seventy-four-year-old Janet had £25,000 stolen by fraudsters. She told the BBC:
“The money was my mum and dad’s and I just felt I let them down.”
For Janet, and for the 4 million people who fell victim to fraudsters and online scammers last year, fraud is a crime. So does the Prime Minister understand the hurt that he and his Ministers cause fraud victims such as Janet when they write them out of the crime figures and dismiss fraud as something that people do not experience in their day-to-day lives? Will the Prime Minister correct the record on crime figures, and apologise?
The Prime Minister
I direct the House to what I have already said to my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer). The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that this Government hate fraud and online fraud. We are tackling the scammers by helping people to come forward when they get an email—when they get duped. We are of course helping them in any way that we can, but we are also cutting the crime that affects people up and down our country—the neighbourhood crime—and dealing with the county lines drugs gangs, and the right hon. Gentleman should support that as well. I am proud that those numbers have come down by 17%.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend very much for everything she does to support education for girls. Twelve years of quality education for every girl in the world is probably the single most transformative thing we can do to improve the world. I remember working with my friend Uhuru Kenyatta on that declaration and we will certainly ensure that everybody at the Commonwealth meeting signs up to it.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
First, I am very sorry about the hon. Gentleman’s constituent and for the difficulties she has been through. I understand very much her feelings, but in what the hon. Gentleman has just said I am afraid he is completely in error.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is a great champion for Dudley and for the Black Country. I am delighted to hear that the Black Country & Marches Institute of Technology is now open and will certainly keep his kind invitation in mind.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
The Prime Minister
Yes, I agree completely that there must be a solution that commands cross-community support. At the moment, there is no doubt that the balance of the Good Friday agreement is being upset by the way that the protocol is being operated, and we need to fix that. That is what we will do, and, if our friends will not agree, we will, as I said earlier, implement article 16.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for that suggestion, which is both interesting and ingenious. The oil and gas companies create hundreds of thousands of jobs in the UK, and they are very important to our economy. I will do what I can to take forward his request for a meeting with them, but I remind him and the House that we have frozen fuel duty for 12 years in a row, saving people £15 in the cost of filling up their tanks, compared with 2010.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I do not think that the hon. Lady should let the thugs and yobs who bullied and harassed the right hon. and learned Gentleman off the hook, because they are culpable, any more than she should let the Iranian Government off the hook, because they are culpable.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Since 2017, referrals for children’s mental health have gone up by 60%. Eating disorders among young girls have gone up by 400% since lockdown, and we know that social media companies play a huge part in that. Given that social media platforms such as TikTok are providing “crack for kids” in terms of adult content, negative imagery and addictive algorithms, will my right hon. Friend consider implementing a 2% levy on social media companies, which would raise £100 million to fund mental health resilience programmes for children?
The Prime Minister
I know that my right hon. Friend has campaigned on this issue assiduously, and he is quite right about the psychological damage that social media can do. I have heard what he has had to say recently about TikTok. We will see what we can do to address all these issues in the forthcoming online harms Bill.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I am afraid that the hon. Lady is wrong in what she says, because we are investing massively in Yorkshire—investing in 640 more police in Yorkshire and investing in education in Yorkshire—but she has misunderstood what we said at the time of the £96 billion integrated rail plan. What we are saying is that we will look at ways in which we can ensure that we protract the eastern leg of High Speed Rail from north of Birmingham to Bradford. What we are not doing is coming up with a scheme before we have decided exactly what to do and how to fund it, but we are not ruling it out.
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
I served my country with pride in the Royal Green Jackets. I will always be a rifleman and a veteran. I welcome the veterans’ strategy that the Prime Minister has just brought out, but I ask him whether veterans will always be at the heart of this Government’s strategy and whether everything will be done to see that they always get what they need and are honoured?
The Prime Minister
Yes, that is why we have set up an Office for Veterans’ Affairs and have ensured that veterans get preferential treatment on public transport, which was one of the first things I did when I became Prime Minister. It is why we ensure that veterans receive particular support and encouragement in employment, and we encourage employers to take on veterans as well.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
That is a curious question to come from a Member on the Benches that contain someone who took, I think, £586,000 from the Chinese Government to support his office. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that this Government took the brave and necessary step of making sure that we excluded Huawei from our critical national infrastructure, and that was the right thing to do, whatever he says.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
May I ask the Prime Minister a question about Sue Gray’s report—[Interruption.] Colleagues may groan, but I am only asking it because I asked the Prime Minister this question last week and did not get a straight answer. It is important, because it is about those who make the law obeying the law. The Prime Minister wants to be judged on the facts, and that is right, so may I ask him for a commitment at the Dispatch Box? On conclusion of the Metropolitan police investigation, will he ensure that Sue Gray’s final report is published immediately and in full?
The Prime Minister
With the greatest respect to my right hon. Friend, I believe that I did answer that question last Monday, or whenever it was—possibly last Wednesday as well. I will repeat for the benefit of the House that as soon as all the inquiries are concluded I will immediately publish in full whatever Sue Gray gives me.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady for that question and for all the hard work she does on behalf of Nazanin. We remain committed to securing the release of Nazanin and all the very difficult consular cases that we have in Iran. As the hon. Lady knows, the International Military Services, or IMS, debt is difficult to settle and square away for all sorts of reasons to do with sanctions, but we will continue to work on it and I will certainly make sure that we have another meeting with Richard Ratcliffe in due course.
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Dover is once again beset by miles of traffic jams along the motorways, affecting residents and local businesses alike—not because of Brexit but because of Brussels bureaucracy and red tape. Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister meet me to discuss how we can invest in our local roads, the M2, the M20 and the Dover traffic assessment project to unclog those roads once and for all, and how we can get rid of the unnecessary red tape for a trading global Britain?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right in what she says. As the economy rebounds, we are seeing all sorts of pressures. We need to ensure that we clear bottlenecks everywhere in our system and that is what we will do.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
That is precisely the point—it already has been. That event already has been submitted for investigation.
Afghanistan Humanitarian Crisis: UK Response
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Foreign Secretary if she will make a statement on the UK response to the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Vicky Ford)
The humanitarian situation in Afghanistan remains deeply concerning. In January, the UN requested nearly $4.5 billion for 2022—the largest humanitarian appeal on record. The UN has announced that it will be holding an international pledging conference on 31 March, and the UK is strongly supportive of that conference. On 28 January 2022, the Foreign Secretary announced £97 million of humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan from the UK. This latest allocation of vital support delivers the Prime Minister’s promise to double the aid to Afghanistan, to £286 million. By the end of January 2022, we had disbursed over £176 million in aid, and will disburse the remainder by the end of this financial year—that is, the end of March.
UK aid allocated since October is supporting over 60 hospitals, providing health services for more than 300 million people, ensuring that 4.47 million people get emergency food assistance through the World Food Programme, and will provide 6.1 million people with emergency health, water, protection, shelter and food, through the UN Afghanistan humanitarian fund.
In addition to providing immediate assistance, we are playing a leading role in international efforts to address multiple causes of the crisis. The provision of basic services such as health and education remains critical. We continue to explore solutions for service delivery such as payment of frontline delivery workers. We are working closely and monitoring Afghanistan’s economy, specifically its lack of liquidity, and we are working with partners to seek solutions. The UK also played a key role pressing for a resolution establishing a humanitarian exemption under the UN Afghanistan sanctions regime. On 27 January, the UK Government laid legislation to implement UN security Council resolution 2615. That will save lives and reduce the impediments faced by humanitarian agencies.
Mr Mitchell
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. I thank the Minister for her response.
The stark reality is that Britain can and must do more to rise to this horrific challenge. The inescapable facts are that the Taliban won and we lost, but we had previously promised that the military withdrawal would not be followed by economic and political withdrawal. Indeed, in 2010, when we announced the end of the combat role for British troops, we doubled aid and development spending from the UK as we had promised.
Although the £286 million pledged recently is extremely welcome, it is still not clear over what period it is all being spent and whether it is new and additional funding. It is, however, clear that it is not enough. The tremendous response to the Disasters Emergency Committee’s appeal for Afghanistan in December shows too that the British people do not think it is enough, as once again ordinary citizens across Britain have responded magnificently.
The appalling reports from brave journalists such as Christina Lamb cannot be read without tears of anguish at the plight of our fellow human beings, who are selling their daughters into early marriage and parting with body organs to provide food for their families. This is not science fiction; these are facts, attested to by British journalists and charities working on the ground while the World Food Programme is trying desperately to feed 20 million starving people.
Some 90% of the people in Afghanistan do not have enough to eat. Five million are living in camps. Four million are just over the border in Iran, and they will not stay there; they will be heading for Europe and for Britain before long. UN professionals have made clear that $4.4 billion is required, and, typically, fair burden-sharing would mean that the UK would agree to provide about 10% of that. Why is the UK not hosting this important and welcome pledging conference in March?
Before the Prime Minister decided to vaporise the Department for International Development, there were dedicated officials, steeped in the practicalities and respected across the world, who were able to bring together the necessary technical skills, connections and experience to lead the international community to a better and more responsible place. As Britain’s International Development Secretary, I spent half my time urging, pleading and cajoling my counterparts in the rich world to step up to the plate. Britain led, and the international community followed. We need the same oomph, the same vigour from Britain today to make this happen. It is not just an appeal to our humanity; it is firmly and completely in our own national interest.
Vicky Ford
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about the generosity of the British people in responding to this very serious humanitarian crisis. It is a deeply tragic situation. However, the UK Government have also responded, and have shown leadership across the world. The £286 million that we have promised will be spent by the end of this financial year. It has been spent continually over this period, and will be spent by 31 March. That is the date on which the United Nations will host its new donor conference, and the UK is absolutely supportive of that initiative. It is vital that all countries come together through the UN to step up to the mark.
It is also thanks to UK leadership that the United Nations Security Council backed the resolution that we had suggested to enable the delivery of urgently needed humanitarian aid, while preserving sanctions against the leading Taliban figures. That means that the aid can continue to flow, and will not be held back because of those sanctions. As I said last month, we are also working to encourage the World Bank, as a matter of urgency, to repurpose the Afghanistan reconstruction trust fund, which would unlock a further $1.5 billion. Indeed, I had discussions with my officials about that just this morning.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
Let me start by thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) for securing a vital urgent question.
This is not the first time that I have risen to my feet to speak about the humanitarian disaster faced by the people of Afghanistan; nor do I believe that it will be the last. The Opposition have warned continually and forcefully of the catastrophe that is unfolding before our very eyes. We warned that the country was heading towards a humanitarian cliff edge. We warned that tens of millions of Afghans faced imminent starvation, including millions of children. We warned that the situation would ultimately deteriorate as the country heads into a freezing winter. The response from the Government has been sorely, sorely lacking.
Quite simply, the international community has turned its back on ordinary Afghan people in their time of greatest need. Rather than a stepping up to the plate on the international stage, we have seen a complete withdrawal. It is a scandal that so far all the Government have offered is finally to send the money that it promised, by March. This was money pledged at the beginning of the disaster; things are now much worse. It is no good the Government saying that they have doubled aid when they halved it the previous year. The UK’s financial support for Afghanistan is at the same level as it was in 2019, when there was no impending catastrophe on this scale. Worse still, the Government have so far made no commitment to putting forward any of the additional $4.4 billion asked for by the UN.
This catastrophe will continue to get worse without a co-ordinated international response. It is a moral imperative that we act swiftly to help Afghanistan at its time of greatest need. We know the money can reach the people in need if directed through the United Nations and other partners, so I ask the Minister the following. What communications has she had with her European counterparts on hosting the global pledging conference suggested by me, our former Prime Minister Gordon Brown and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill)? What representations has she made to free up the $1.2 billion sitting in the World Bank that could be used to pay the wages of Afghan healthcare workers and teachers? Will she commit here today to donate the additional funds to the UN appeal for which the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield called? If so, how much?
The appalling scenes in Afghanistan should not divide the opinion of the House. I plead with the Government to do the right and moral thing and urgently step up their response to this unfolding tragedy.
Vicky Ford
It is extremely important, when we talk about such a tragic situation, that we get the facts right about what the UK Government are doing on behalf of the British people. We have announced and already spent more than £176 million of aid, which is supporting more than 60 hospitals, providing health services to more than 300,000 people, ensuring that more than 4 million people are getting emergency food assistance and providing 6.1 million people with emergency health, water and protection. That is what the UK is already doing, and the money is going out week by week, month by month. As promised, by the end of this financial year, at the end of March, our aid will have reached £286 million.
We also announced £97 million in January. As I said last time I was at the Dispatch Box on this subject, it is incredibly important that we work with partners across the world and support the UN, which has announced the largest ever appeal. That is why we are working with it and supporting its donor-led conference.
We are also working to unlock the money at the World Bank. It is a complex issue that involves bringing different people together, but we are leading on that. We have also led on unlocking the money that is getting to the people who need it, because of the exemption we helped to introduce on sanctions.
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on dragging the focus of this House away from the playground and back to the real and terrible world.
I am wearing the emblem of the genocide in Srebrenica. What we are witnessing in Afghanistan is virtually genocide by starvation. We cannot, in a civilised world, allow this to continue. Will my hon. Friend please work with the Ministry of Defence to see how we can practically provide not simply hard cash but food, tents, clothes and the things people really need, not in March but now?
Vicky Ford
That is an extremely important point, because we are working, as much as we can, to get aid through to the people who need it. We are working through a lot of different organisations, including the Afghanistan Humanitarian Fund, the World Food Programme, the International Organisation for Migration, the United Nations Population Fund and the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, which is also funding local partners.
My colleague Lord Ahmad, the Minister with responsibility for south Asia and the UN, has also met senior Afghan women in this country to help shape the policy and the programme by making sure we hear their feedback. Our policies and programmes are also being informed by Afghan leaders, including Shukria Barakzai, Fawzia Koofi and Hasina Safi. That includes supporting local agencies on the ground, especially those focused on women and girls. Lord Ahmad met them very recently, too.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
We hear an awful lot in this place about global Britain—where is global Britain now? The harsh Afghan winter has already set in and the United Nations estimates that only 5% of Afghans have enough good food to eat each day. That was made clear as far back as September and the situation has clearly worsened since. The UK Government have absolutely no excuse if they claim to have been caught by surprise as this famine has developed.
Military operations in Afghanistan cost the UK public purse £28 billion or thereby, and the shambolic handling of the UK and international coalition’s withdrawal from the country has accelerated the current humanitarian disaster. As a former military stakeholder, the UK has a moral obligation to support the wellbeing of Afghan people, so why can the FCDO not find a fraction of that £28 billion to support the UN’s emergency famine appeal? So far, the UK Government have not given anything to the appeal. Support does not cut it: it is money that works. The UK has committed a mere £286 million and only given £176 million of that to date. What is the Minister doing to accelerate the delivery of humanitarian aid to those most in need on the ground in Afghanistan?
Vicky Ford
As I have already said, the funding the UK is putting in day by day and week by week already supports 4.47 million people in Afghanistan. We recognise that the UN has launched its largest-ever appeal and we are working to unlock the money at the World Bank. The date of that conference has been announced as 31 March and we will be supporting it; we are extremely supportive as it is. However, we are also doing a huge amount of international work, including encouraging Muslim majority countries to play a full role in seeking to influence the Taliban. For example, the Foreign Secretary visited Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Indonesia in October and November and met the gulf Foreign Ministers again in December to discuss that and other issues. The Prime Minister’s special representative, Nigel Casey, met the Taliban representatives in Oslo last month. We are pushing on all sides, first, to improve the aid that comes in, secondly, to get the aid to the people and, thirdly, to encourage other neighbours and countries to step up to the mark.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
Let us cut to the chase: no Minister has met the Taliban. I met them in November and they told me to my face that they could not cope. That is what is leading to extreme poverty, mass malnutrition and a million children close to starvation. It is so simple for us to blame the Taliban, but we chose to hand responsibility to this insurgency, knowing that the economy would then collapse. Now we compound the tragedy by freezing international funds. Does the Minister not agree that if we are to break the impasse and help the Afghan people whom we abandoned, it is now time to recognise the Taliban so that we can get that urgent funding into the country and save lives? That would be an example of leadership and an example of global Britain.
Vicky Ford
Our officials have very pragmatic engagement with the Taliban at official levels, especially pressing on human rights and humanitarian issues. For example, in October the PM’s special representative for the Afghan transition, Sir Simon Gass, and the chargé d’affaires for the UK mission to Afghanistan, Dr Martin Longden, travelled to Afghanistan, where they held talks with the Taliban. The Prime Minister’s special representative met Taliban representatives late last month and officials have continued to discuss the humanitarian situation. In terms of getting funding to where it is needed to ensure that the humanitarian aid can get there, it was the UK that worked with leadership to get the resolution at the UN giving a humanitarian exemption, meaning that funds can flow for humanitarian need despite the sanctions
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
It is a hallmark of this Government to say, “Everything’s all right; we’re doing everything we need to do.”, but clearly voices from across the House are saying, “Everything is not all right, and you had at least four months when you were warned about this humanitarian crisis affecting millions of people in Afghanistan.” Will the Minister commit to come back to this House with a proper and comprehensive statement on the day we return after recess, to ensure that we are satisfied that there is a comprehensive international and domestic response?
Vicky Ford
As I have said already, the UK funding is providing food aid to 4.47 million people. It is an enormously tragic situation. The UK has stepped up for over 4 million people, and we need others also to step up more. We know that there is going to be a long-term need as well, which is why we are supporting the UN conference that will happen at the end of March. We are working with all the relevant partners—as I have said, the World Food Programme and the many other UN organisations—to make sure that the funding we are putting in is getting to where it is needed. That is supporting 4.4 million people at the moment, and as I have said, this will go up to 6.6 million when we include the support we are also putting in for health, water, protection, shelter and so on.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
Last week, the US Treasury Department issued guidance to international banks on sanctions exemptions on humanitarian grounds enabling international banks to transfer money to charities and aid agencies—for example, to pay the wages of teachers or health workers. As a practical step that the Government could take immediately, would the Minister instruct the Treasury, the Financial Conduct Authority, the Bank of England or whichever organisation holds responsibility to issue such guidance to British banks this week?
Vicky Ford
I will certainly take up my right hon. Friend’s suggestion with the Minister responsible for south and central Asia.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Let me cut to the chase with the Minister and say that she knows what we must do if we are going to deliver the food to stop this crisis for children. The pictures of children begging, obviously with no food, really gets to all of us, does it not? I have to say to the Minister that she is aware—surely she is aware—that if we are going to get in this food and this help, we have to work with the major international charities. A member of my family is in a very senior role in one of those big agencies. Will she promise me that she will talk to the leaders of those key organisations—she knows who they are—and say, “Are you getting enough resources to deliver on the ground?”? Will she promise to do that today?
Vicky Ford
The funding we are giving is being channelled through many different organisations, including UN organisations such as the World Food Programme, and through the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs into local organisations too. My colleague, the noble Lord responsible for this area, meets them regularly to discuss any blockages in getting the food there. It is a really challenging and heartbreaking situation—everybody understands that—and my colleague is meeting them regularly. That is the way this is currently being funded to make sure that the funding is going not through Government or Taliban organisations, but through those humanitarian aid organisations.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
The Minister will know that true political influence comes from having a physical presence. Could she please confirm what the FCDO physically has on the ground in Kabul, and whether that footprint will increase?
Vicky Ford
I am afraid I am not at liberty to discuss individual situations, especially those of local charities, for example, because I have been told that to do so could put them at risk.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
The former Secretary of State for International Development Rory Stewart said yesterday:
“It’s unbelievable that an international coalition which could find 130BN dollars a year for Afghanistan when fighting there, cannot find 5 per cent of that amount to prevent millions of Afghans from starving. The West abandoned Afghanistan to the Taliban in August. Now it is abandoning Afghans to starvation. Betrayal follows betrayal.”
Can I ask the Minister what the UK Government have done in real terms, working with the international community, to really help prevent the starvation of the Afghan people?
Vicky Ford
As I have already said from this Dispatch Box, the aid we have allocated since October is supporting 4.47 million people to get emergency food assistance through the World Food Programme, as well as supporting 60 hospitals and 300,000 people with health services. We are working with various UN agencies, including the World Food Programme, to make sure that that is delivered, and we are fully supportive of the UN donor conference, which it has announced will be held on 31 March.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
Alongside the humanitarian issues are many concerns about women. Four women—Parwana Khil, Tamana Paryani, Mursal Ayar and Zahra Mohammadi—have just been seized off the street and imprisoned, and everybody is incredibly worried about them. Does the Minister have any information on their whereabouts, because we are concerned about their safety?
Vicky Ford
I thank my hon. Friend for that, and I would be more than happy to follow up with an answer following this urgent question. Since Operation Pitting ended, we have also supported more than 3,000 people to leave Afghanistan or to move from third countries to the UK, so we are continuing to help relocate people.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
The Minister mentions Operation Pitting. An Afghan gentleman came to my surgery in agony: his family have not left the house or seen daylight for months and he is worried about what is happening to his country. To add insult to injury, the leave to enter for the 15,000 Afghans who are now here expires at the end of this month. When we add all that strife together, their mental health is suffering. Will the Minister guarantee now at the Dispatch Box that by the end of this month all those Afghans who came here will be given leave to remain?
Vicky Ford
As the hon. Lady knows, the Home Office Minister—the Minister for Afghan Resettlement—leads on that subject, so I suggest we raise that with her. Significant cross-Government effort has been under way to ensure that the thousands of Afghans who have been evacuated to the UK receive the support they need to rebuild their lives.
Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)
What is happening in Afghanistan today is a catastrophe of epic proportions. For those who committed so much to that country, particularly the families of the servicemen and women who lost their lives, the Government’s current trajectory makes their lives harder, not easier, in dealing with that sacrifice. I urge the Government to think again. If we can commit £30 billion to a military project such as Afghanistan, it is obscene that we cannot commit more than 5% in foreign aid to rebuilding that country and saving as many lives as we can, having invested so much over so long.
Vicky Ford
My hon. and gallant Friend is absolutely right. We owe a huge debt of gratitude to the 150,000 people who served in Afghanistan and, in particular, to the 457 who so sadly lost their lives and the many others who had life-changing injuries. For 20 years they denied terrorists a safe haven from which to launch attacks against the UK, and enabled development that improved the lives of many millions of people in Afghanistan. I remind him that the UK funding going in at the moment is helping to feed more than 4 million people. It is a very tragic situation but that funding is going through, and we are working with others and pressing to unlock the funds at the World Bank and the support of the donor conference.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Do the Government recognise that this catastrophe will continue to unfold before our eyes unless the Afghan banking system starts working again? In particular, do the Government support the release of frozen Afghan central bank reserves to restore inter-bank lending? On donor funds, whether they are held by the World Bank or being asked for from donors around the world, do the Minister and all those involved understand that we need speed? It may be complex, but people starving or having to sell their children are not interested in complexity; they want help now. A meeting later this month or next month is, frankly, too late.
Vicky Ford
As I have said, we are closely monitoring the economic situation, especially the lack of liquidity, and we are working urgently with partners to seek solutions, including calling for that money to be released from the World Bank.
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
Afghanistan has been dependent on foreign aid and FDI since time immemorial. Indeed, my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), who is no longer in her place, referred to the former Member for Penrith and The Border and the need for at least 5% funding immediately. Western Governments got Afghanistan wrong last August, 10 years ago and 20 years ago. As we look to the future, what will UK-Afghanistan relations and strategy look like?
Vicky Ford
It is an enormously complicated situation. We are engaging with the Taliban at official level, especially on the humanitarian situation and human rights. We are currently focused on ensuring that our committed funds are getting to the 4 million-plus people we are supporting with food aid and other aid, encouraging the return of girls to education when schools go back in March, and doing everything we can to encourage the international community to step forward and address the current situation, which is indeed very serious.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
Further to the point made by my friend the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), I suspect that the Minister saw the comments from General Lord Richards, who called on the west to come to terms with the Taliban being the Government in Afghanistan. None of us wanted that outcome, but innocent people are starving and freezing to death and it feels like we are sleepwalking into a catastrophe. Will she look again at what more can be done to unfreeze state assets, lift sanctions and restart the Afghan economy, in order to give people in Afghanistan some sense of hope for the future?
Vicky Ford
On sanctions, as I said, we have already made progress as the humanitarian exemption that came into UK law on 27 January has helped to unlock funding. On whether we should recognise the Taliban, we have a long-standing policy of recognising states, not Governments, and the Prime Minister has been clear that if the Taliban want international acceptance, they must abide by international norms. However, that does not stop us from engaging at official level, especially on humanitarian issues.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
The Afghan citizens resettlement scheme is one of the most generous such schemes in this country’s history. However, while some local authorities are providing homes—they are ready and available—there appear to be delays from the Home Office in processing and matching them to Afghans resettled through the scheme. Will the Minister please ask the Minister for Afghan Resettlement to write to me with an update specifically on the properties offered by Blaby District Council?
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
Not only does famine kill, but starvation and malnutrition will scar the bodies and brains of a generation and beyond. Every day that we delay means that recovery will be more expensive than acting now. We need cash in the system and the Afghan economy. If the World Bank could release reconstruction funds today, how quickly could that cash be flowing through the Afghan economy?
Vicky Ford
I completely agree that it is important to keep money flowing through the Afghan economy and, as I said, we are working with the World Bank on that. On 25 January—a couple of weeks ago—the UK also supported the Asian Development Bank with a £405 million support package for the Afghan people, funded from the Asian Development Fund.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Obviously, when the evacuation took place, and immediately afterwards, Afghanistan was the centre of attention. Naturally, people have forgotten about it, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) on bringing it to the attention of the House once again. At the start of the evacuation, 656 families in my constituency had relatives in Afghanistan who were trying to get out. This weekend, I discovered some more, most of whom are still trapped there and are UK citizens. May I suggest to the Minister that we should have a facility, via the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, whereby MPs can confidentially feed in details about the people who are still trapped there, so that assistance can be provided? Clearly they are under threat from the Taliban and in peril. We need to retain confidentiality but assist them to leave if that is what they want to do.
Vicky Ford
As I said, this is a hugely concerning situation. On helping people to leave the country, the UK has been working to allow Afghan nationals to cross borders into neighbouring countries such as Pakistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. We have supported more than 3,400 people to leave Afghanistan since the end of Operation Pitting. The Afghan citizens resettlement scheme is managed by the Home Office, so my hon. Friend should raise that issue with the Home Office. On the Afghan relocations and assistance policy scheme, which is for people who helped the Government, people can still apply to that. I understand that the Minister for the Armed Forces is due to be holding a resettlement surgery shortly, so perhaps my hon. Friend could raise those issues with him directly. If not, he should certainly write to me and I will pass the details on.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
The Minister will recognise that from all parts of the House there is a desire for more action, not simply from the world community, but from this Government of ours. It is good to know that 4 million people are being helped, but there are probably 37 million people facing starvation at this very moment, and they will continue to face starvation unless we see the reconstruction of the Afghan economy. Where is the World Bank up to on that? What are the Government doing to bring pressure to bear to say, “We need action now, not in months’ time”?
Vicky Ford
I completely agree. This is a complex situation, but we are pressing the World Bank. We are also working with it and the UN to find solutions to allow international non-governmental organisations to access currency in Afghanistan, which is another issue.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
Successive Governments have committed United Kingdom forces to Afghanistan and we have spent billions of pounds. We now have a situation where millions of people are starving, and we must cut through the bureaucracy and get food to people, because otherwise they will starve to death. We sit here in a country where we can feed ourselves and we do our very best to feed our whole population. For goodness’ sake, Minister, please, we have to get more food into Afghanistan and get it there now.
Vicky Ford
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that this is an incredibly concerning humanitarian situation. We have pledged our funding, and it is going through and getting through to those we are supporting, but it is important that the rest of the world also steps up. I understand that some countries— the European Union and United States—have also made announcements such as we have since the UN launched its appeal. We are absolutely supporting that UN appeal, because the momentum needs to continue. This is a very urgent situation.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Many of my constituents have close family members in Afghanistan who worked bravely to further our shared aims in the country, including by working alongside NATO forces, in the media and on supporting women’s rights. So many who could not get out are at ongoing serious risk from the Taliban and are still in hiding. Constituents have told me recently about how family members are being hunted by the Taliban, who are going door to door. The humanitarian crisis is making things so much worse, with food prices rising and the impossibility of access to the help that is needed. With 31 March two months away, will the Minister work with colleagues across Government and across this House, and use our soft power to bring the international community together more quickly and with greater urgency, not only to tackle the humanitarian crisis but to accelerate the evacuation and resettlement of Afghans still at risk?
Vicky Ford
The Ministry of Defence’s ARAP scheme is still open and people can still apply, and the hon. Lady should raise individual cases with the Armed Forces Minister. We have supported some 3,400 people to leave Afghanistan since the end of Operation Pitting, including 700 British nationals and eligible dependants. We will continue to work to ensure that those who are eligible can try to depart the country safety, and that includes holding the Taliban to account for their commitment on safe passage.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Ex-pats and diaspora community groups, such as Glasgow Afghan United in Glasgow North, play a hugely important role in sending remittances back and keeping channels of communication going with the humanitarian situation on the ground, and indeed trying to support friends and family members who want to leave Afghanistan. What support are the Government providing to those kinds of groups to ensure that support continues to be provided, that channels of communication are kept open and that voices on the ground are heard?
Vicky Ford
As I mentioned earlier, this is an extremely serious situation. My colleague Lord Ahmad regularly meets the various aid organisations that we work with, and he has been meeting Afghan leaders, including many women Afghan leaders, to ensure that they are feeding into our projects. Just last week, he met a group of very senior Afghan women who have come to this country, including businesswomen and judges, to feed in their views and what they are hearing from the communities they have left behind, to ensure that that is helping to shape our policies.
Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
As we have heard and seen in the utterly heartbreaking scenes on our TV screens every night, urgent humanitarian aid is absolutely essential, but people in Afghanistan also desperately need access to basic public services. Can the Minister set out what the Government are doing to co-ordinate a global plan to get the money needed to keep local schools, clinics and hospitals running?
Vicky Ford
The money that we have already announced is providing over 6 million people not only with food but with health, water, protection, shelter and so on. I agree on the importance of ensuring that children and young people, especially girls, can return to school. The Taliban have said that they can, but we want to see that delivered when schools reopen at the end of the holidays at the beginning of March. We will continue to work with other organisations, especially going into the UN pledging conference, to call people together to ensure that those donations come through.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
It is estimated that the war in Afghanistan cost the US $2 trillion. The same BBC report indicates that the UK cost was $1.5 billion per annum. The Minister says that the UK Government are committed to spending £286 million this year. Can she explain why the spending on war dwarfs the spending on aid, despite the clear humanitarian crisis and the UK’s moral obligation to the country?
Vicky Ford
None of us wishes to be in this situation. There is a deeply concerning humanitarian situation, and what we all saw happening over the summer when the Taliban moved in so quickly left a really difficult situation, but Operation Pitting and the work of our soldiers to evacuate those 15,000 people was really incredible. It is important now that funding comes from across the world, not just from the UK. We continue to be a leading donor with the money we have contributed so far, which is helping the 4 million. I cannot comment any further ahead of the conference, but I am sure that the House will be informed as and when we make further announcements through written ministerial statements.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am sorry, but the answers we have heard today are just completely inadequate. I do not think the Minister understands that tens of millions of people will starve to death in Afghanistan unless she steps up and meets the need, economically and politically, to put in the resolution that we need. I have been trying to meet Ministers with the only Afghan MP in our country. Two months have gone by and we still do not have a meeting. MPs know their communities and how to get the money to the frontline, but they need help from this Government. Where is it?
Vicky Ford
My colleague Lord Ahmad met a group of leading Afghan women in this country only last week. If the hon. Lady would like to contact me about her particular contact, I will make sure he reaches out so that such roundtables can include other people recommended by this House. It is a deeply tragic situation. It is many millions of people. There are other very, very difficult humanitarian situations across the world. Just last week, I announced further funding for humanitarian aid in Somalia, in Kenya and in Ethiopia—a very serious situation. The UK’s aid is currently providing food for over 4.4 million people. We will support the conference and the House will continue to be updated when we have more news to share.
Mr Speaker
Can I just say that I am bothered about this: if Members ask to meet Ministers, Ministers should try to make sure they are available, otherwise they are beginning to ignore the Back Benchers to whom Ministers are meant to be answerable.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is clear to me that we have a moral obligation to support the people of Afghanistan, who feel abandoned. The Minister stated that UK funding is getting to where it is needed. With that in mind, it is vital to ensure that support is delivered on the ground for Christians who are at the bottom of the pecking order for Taliban assistance. What can be done to ensure that food is received by Christians and other ethnic minorities? What will be done to improve a dire and precarious position, and ensure that UK funding gets, as the Minister stated, to where it is needed?
Vicky Ford
We work with a lot of different local organisations through the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. If there are specific organisations that the hon. Member would like to engage with, then he can contact me.
Mr Speaker, regarding meetings with Ministers, I am more than happy, of course, to meet Members, but in this case, I think that the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) needs to meet the Minister responsible, my noble Friend Lord Ahmad. However, I will follow up on that point, because it is the first time I have heard an inquiry of that nature.
North Sea Oil and Gas
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text 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
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy if he will make a statement on reports that six North sea oil and gas fields are due to be given the green light this year.
The Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change (Greg Hands)
There will continue to be ongoing demand for oil and gas over the coming years. It is a clear choice between a transition that secures our energy, protects jobs and leads to innovation in new technologies like carbon capture and hydrogen, and an extinction for our energy sector, as I think the hon. Lady proposes. Flicking a switch and turning off our domestic source of gas overnight would put energy security, British jobs and industries at risk, and we would be even more dependent on foreign imports. The way we produce oil and gas is cleaner than in many jurisdictions, so it would be illogical to import them at further expense to Britain and our planet.
The fields referred to in these reports are already licensed, some dating back to as early as 1970, and are now going through the usual regulatory processes. All proposals are subject to a rigorous scrutiny process prior to consent, as opposed to licensing, by our expert regulators, including an environmental impact assessment and a public consultation. No decisions have been taken by the regulators, so it would be inappropriate to comment further on that process. However, to be clear, continued support for Britain’s oil and gas sector is not just compatible with our net zero goals; it is essential if we are to meet the ambitious targets we set for ourselves while protecting jobs and livelihoods.
As announced last year, and forming part of the North sea transition deal, we will introduce a climate compatibility checkpoint for any new licences to ensure that any future licensing rounds remain consistent with our goals. Meanwhile, we continue to make progress on developing new nuclear, which I think the hon. Lady also opposes, and renewables that will power our future. Today, we have announced that we are ramping up our options for our flagship renewable scheme, contracts for difference, establishing new industries, boosting investment and creating jobs in our former industrial heartlands.
Caroline Lucas
That was a frankly extraordinary statement by the Minister. The idea that the solution to an energy crisis caused by high gas prices is to increase our reliance on gas seems pretty risible. The UK still holds the COP presidency and is, of course, bound by the Glasgow climate pact, so why is he ignoring the international agreement that
“limiting global warming to 1.5 °C requires rapid, deep and sustained reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions”
and giving the green light to the extraction of more oil and gas?
Will the Minister confirm whether he and his Government are actually still committed to net zero by 2050 and the interim targets? Frankly, judging by their actions, that seems to be in question.
Why is the Minister not listening to experts such as the International Energy Agency, which could not have been more explicit? Perhaps he has not read its “Net Zero by 2050” report, but if he had, he would know that 2021 is the cut-off point for the development of any new oil and gas fields if we want to hit internationally agreed climate goals. Does the Minister acknowledge that the proposals go against the spirit, if not the letter, of that warning?
Is the Minister aware that renewables are already cost competitive, with wind and solar beating new gas generation hands down? Let us not have any more of this guff about more transition fuels being needed.
Will the Minister explain to the House and to our constituents why the Government are not investing in real energy security for people? Why not roll out an ambitious street-by-street energy efficiency and insulation programme, instead of pretending that we need more oil and gas to keep our homes warm and to bring people’s bills down?
Why are Government decisions about new licences being taken behind closed doors? MPs only hear about them through media reports.
When does the Minister plan to update the Oil and Gas Authority’s usual processes and the environmental impact assessment framework to minimise the economic recovery of North sea reserves? When will he get rid of the outdated MER duty that calls on the Government to maximise economic recovery? He needs to be guided by the climate science and, quite frankly, he is not.
Finally, will the Minister agree that any Government recommendation to the OGA that undermines the House of Commons’ formal declaration of a climate emergency, as well as our international climate obligations, should at the very least be subject to a parliamentary vote?
Greg Hands
Let me first say that it is a pleasure to take a question from the hon. Lady. I have been in this role for four months, and I think I am right in saying that this is the first time that she has actually asked me a question about energy and climate change, so I am delighted to see her here today.
We are not increasing our dependence on gas. We are clear that we are increasing the production of renewables, which is actually part of the solution for the medium to long term—and even the short term. We are not resting on our laurels about having the world’s largest offshore wind sector; we are quadrupling that capacity over the decade. What we are not increasing is our dependence on imported foreign gas. The point of this is that our domestic production emits far less carbon and is obviously better for our energy security.
The hon. Lady says we are ignoring COP, but it is quite the opposite. The COP President continues to be hard at work for the rest of the year. Of course, we remain adherent to our net zero strategy, which I launched at this Dispatch Box back in October.
Renewables are cost-effective—the hon. Lady is quite right. They have become a lot more cost-effective thanks to the actions taken by this Government on contracts for difference and our hard work over 12 years to increase the percentage of our electricity generation coming from renewables from 7% to 43%.
The hon. Lady talks about decisions behind closed doors, but these are not decisions. These licences have already been licensed, and further regulatory processes will continue throughout the year.
The hon. Lady asked whether we are guided by the climate science. Of course we are. We are leading in climate science.
Finally, it is now 33 years since the Green party’s best ever electoral performance in the UK. I think it scored 12% in the 1989 election, but it has not come close since. Why is that? At that time, it was saying that it was impossible to take action on emissions while still growing the economy. This country and the Conservative party has proven the Green party comprehensively wrong. We have grown the economy by 78% while cutting emissions by 44%, delivering for the people of this country both on the economy and on the environment.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
My right hon. Friend mentions nuclear power. Does he welcome the successful nuclear fusion experiment that has taken place today? Does he agree that it is far better for us to produce our own gas and oil than to depend on expensive foreign imports?
Greg Hands
I entirely agree. A very important announcement on fusion is being made today by the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman). My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) is quite right about the progress we are making in this place, which is opposed by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), her party and various other Opposition parties. We are moving forward on nuclear. Money is going into the Rolls-Royce small modular reactors programme; Hinkley Point C is being built; we are moving towards a final investment case for a further nuclear power plant in this Parliament; and we have a future nuclear enabling fund. We are moving forward on nuclear, which is an essential part of this country’s future energy needs and energy security.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
The truth is that the Government are thrashing around after what we now know has been a decade of failure on energy, particularly on the transition to a low-carbon energy economy. They have no answer to the energy crisis that millions of families in our country face.
This is not a long-term answer either. The energy price crisis is a fossil fuel crisis, so the long-term answer must be to go further and faster on zero-carbon energy, energy efficiency and clean energy storage. On energy security, the Opposition believe that the long-term answer lies in zero-carbon energy. We need a phased and just transition in the North sea, but that cannot be an excuse for business as usual and pretending that the climate crisis does not exist.
There is one crucial climate test that should be applied to the current proposals and other proposals: whether they are compatible with keeping global warming to 1.5°. In the energy White Paper, the Government said that they would
“develop the existing checkpoints in our processes before proceeding with future licensing rounds.”
Is the Minister saying that the proposals he describes are exempt from that statement in the energy White Paper? Can he explain how what he has said today is consistent with its approach? Can he tell the House whether he believes that any future licensing decisions must be compatible with keeping global warming to 1.5°? Can he tell us how that assessment will be made?
Greg Hands
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. Of course, he could have made his own UQ application today on this very topic, but let me answer him.
Yes, we are absolutely committed to a zero-carbon energy system. We are committed to a decarbonised power sector by the year 2035, so long as it is consistent with security of supply, as well as being consistent with the net zero strategy to get the UK to net zero by 2050. I have not heard recently whether the Labour party is still committed to getting to net zero by 2030, which I think was in its manifesto at the last election. Perhaps it would be helpful if one day the hon. Gentleman updated us on that really very ambitious target.
On compatibility with action on global emissions, the answer is “Absolutely.” That is why a key part of the North sea transition deal was the climate compatibility checkpoint that we announced just a year ago. The consultation, which closes on 28 February, refers to future licences; the current licences would still need consent from the regulators. Nothing has changed in the Government’s position or in the process. We look forward to responding to the climate compatibility checkpoint consultation in due course.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
Our commitment to net zero is not in any sense incompatible with making use of our domestic reserves. Otherwise, we will simply be reliant on imported gas from Putin and the Gulf, creating insecurity and greater emissions in the process. If we want our oil and gas companies to invest, we need to provide them with certainty. Will my right hon. Friend reaffirm the principles that I committed to as Exchequer Secretary, as other Treasury Ministers did: fiscal stability and maximising economic recovery in the North sea basin? It is through that combination that we can encourage our world-leading oil and gas companies to invest for the future.
Greg Hands
My right hon. Friend was a brilliant Exchequer Secretary.
As a former Treasury Minister, I can say how well he was regarded in Government and in this House for the important work that he did at HM Treasury. He is right: this is not in itself a debate between gas and renewables. The current debate is whether we get the gas that we currently need from the UK continental shelf or import it from abroad. Foreign imports come at a higher price in regard to emissions and our energy insecurity.
It is worth reminding ourselves that 50% of UK gas comes from the UK continental shelf; that is a good position to be in. An additional 30% comes from Norway, which I regard as a very good, stable and secure source. On the investment picture, he is also right—and the Chancellor was absolutely clear on this in his statement on Thursday—on the importance of more investment coming into the North sea, not just for the short term but for the transition going forward.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
I welcome this urgent question because it gives us all an opportunity in this Chamber to reflect upon the fact that when the UK Government need to meet their energy demands and their financial demands, the first thing they seek to do is to turn the tap on in Scotland and exploit our natural resources. Whilst they are willing to do that, they are simultaneously unwilling to deliver carbon capture and underground storage in the north-east of Scotland, unwilling to match the Scottish Government’s £500 million just transition find, and of course unwilling to finally end the renewables robbery that is the TNUoS—transmission network use of system—account charging scandal. May I ask the Secretary of State a very simple question: when is he going to show similar haste on those important issues?
Greg Hands
I listen to the hon. Gentleman week in, week out, claiming that the UK Government, when it comes to energy, are doing down Scotland. The exact opposite is the truth. We are very supportive of Scottish nuclear, which he is opposed to. The Hunterston nuclear plant closed just a few weeks ago, which had provided, at low cost, zero-carbon energy to all of Scotland’s homes on an equivalent basis for 31 years. We heard not a peep out of him. We hear the Scottish First Minister recommending that particular fields not be given approval. How does that land among the 200,000 people in this country who are dependent on the oil and gas sector, of which about 40%—80,000 or so—are in Scotland, particularly north-east Scotland?
On CCUS, the hon. Gentleman knows that the Acorn cluster is the reserve cluster, and has significant UK Government support. I have met with Storegga and many other participants in recent weeks. The transition review is led by Ofgem and of course we will look at cost and affordability in relation to transition.
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman’s ideological opposition to nuclear, and now the increased opposition to oil and gas and the North sea transition, shows that the SNP is not fit to run an energy policy for Scotland, and the people of Scotland will be thankful that the matter is reserved.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Nothing could be more dangerous to our position as a secure destination for investment than the imposition of windfall taxes, could it?
Greg Hands
My right hon. Friend makes a strong point. Of course the line from the Treasury—speaking as a former Treasury Minister—is that all taxes are always under review, but I repeat the words of the Chancellor from Thursday, that a windfall tax is “superficially appealing” but probably counterproductive. He reminded us that oil and gas companies pay corporation at twice the rate of non-oil and gas companies, and that the sector has already paid some £33.7 billion in taxes since the year 2010.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
In November, the COP President was reduced to tears after ambitions to phase out fossil fuels were voted down at the last minute. Three months later, the UK Government are tanking efforts to keep us to 1.5º by approving these six new oilfields. It is not just about looking at the energy supply and demand in this country; it is about setting an example. If we are to approve this fossil fuel exploration, what is to stop other countries from following suit?
Greg Hands
I very much welcome the hon. Lady’s question and the chance to put on the record the brilliant job done by the COP President. At the start of the year running up to the conference, only 30% of global GDP was covered by a net zero commitment. That rose to 90% after the conference, which sets an example. I am the co-chair of the Powering Past Coal Alliance, an international group calling for the phasing out of coal—something I am proud of.
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
There is one thing that none of us in this House must ever apologise for: defending the interests of our constituents. I look across my constituency and across the country, and it is quite clear that energy bills are going to soar. That is partially due to a lack of energy security. But let us be clear: coal is a very dirty fossil fuel; gas is less so; nuclear is fairly clean; and renewable is right at the top of the tree. I commend the Government for recognising that we must never let the perfect be the enemy of the good, by ensuring that we get cheaper fuel supply to our people.
Greg Hands
My hon. Friend puts it very well and succinctly. The key word to use is “transition”: the transition from our existing energy mix to the energy of the future.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Granting new oil and gas exploration in the North sea flies in the face of the Government’s net zero commitment. Closer to home, the Tory-controlled Surrey County Council is defending in court a decision to approve four oil wells in Horse Hill, Surrey. Why are the Government getting behind Surrey County Council’s defending in court the destruction of green land and the introduction of massive new CO2 pollution, in direct conflict with their own net zero ambition?
Greg Hands
On the second matter, it would not be right for me to opine on planning decisions. On the first, the licences are not new—I do not think the hon. Lady heard my statement—regardless of what she may read in The Daily Telegraph. In some cases, they were granted as early as 1970. The issue is how those licences are taken forward once they have regulatory approval.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s confirmation that these are not new fields and, in some cases, have been licensed for many decades. Can he confirm that these fields and their production profiles are already factored into this Government’s energy transition plans for net zero by 2050—not only the Government’s plans but the recommendations of the Climate Change Committee? As part of an already declining domestic production profile, even those and further oil and gas fields that are still to come do not close the gap between current oil and gas provision and renewables, although that gap will steadily close as time goes on.
Greg Hands
My hon. Friend makes some strong points. He is absolutely right that these are not new fields; they are fields that have already been licensed and that therefore have been taken into account in our net zero strategy and in our upcoming carbon budgets. What that would mean if they were to get regulatory approval—I stress that that is an independent process—is that probably, in the future, we would be importing more gas, which would come with higher emissions and at a higher price.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
We do have another urgent question and a statement before we even come to the main business, so I urge colleagues to keep their questions brief.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
We have a Prime Minister whose approach is “Do as I say, not as I do”. In his speech to the United Nations General Assembly on 22 September last year, he stated:
“We are approaching that critical turning point—in less than two months—when we must show that we are…learning, and maturing, and finally taking responsibility for the destruction we are inflicting...It is time for humanity to grow up.”
I do not care much for the Prime Minister, but I care about this country’s reputation. Has he misled the United Nations?
Greg Hands
We are proud of the record and our delivery at COP, and the COP President continues to deliver. It is a fantastic achievement to get coal written into a COP document for the first time. We should be proud of the fact that we are the co-chair of the Powering Past Coal Alliance, and the fact that so much more of the world’s GDP has been under net zero obligations at the end of the UK’s year than at the beginning.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
The UK’s journey to net zero will still require some fossil fuels during the transition period. While my right hon. Friend focuses on our sustainable future, will he ensure that domestic production meets our transition needs? If we do not see that, all we will see is increased emissions.
Greg Hands
My hon. Friend is right: this is an industry in transition, which is why we did the North sea transition deal with the sector last March. There are obligations in both directions. For instance, the industry has an obligation to electrify offshore, while we need to work with the industry to transform jobs, skillsets and the energy mix. As my hon. Friend says, this is a transition, not an attempt to close down the sector, which I think is what the Green party is calling for.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I welcome this decision, especially because it will secure important investment, create jobs, help to reduce fuel imports, give us greater fuel security, and indeed, in the longer term, help to reduce the energy crisis that the country faces. Does the Minister agree that the objective of any energy policy should be to safeguard those who are vulnerable, and that that should take precedence over the possibility that any such policy will influence global temperatures in the future?
Greg Hands
The right hon. Gentleman has asked a probing question. I would say that we have both those obligations. We are obligated to take action on climate change and reducing emissions, and the UK is a world leader in that regard. We are also obligated to deliver energy, at an affordable price, to the people of this country. The £9.1 billion package of support that the Chancellor announced last week, with the £350 rebate on bills, was intended to do precisely that.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The problem is that the Minister is still talking about 2050 when we have a crisis right now. It is clear that the Government refused to support a windfall tax on the energy companies so that they could invest in their oil and gas production, rather than the money going to our constituents who are struggling with their energy bills. That is not going to be settled, so may I ask the Minister why he will not impose a windfall tax on these companies so that they can contribute to the just transition and invest in green energy for the future?
Greg Hands
The Chancellor outlined the disadvantages of a windfall tax at the Dispatch Box last Thursday, when he said that it was “superficially appealing” but probably counterproductive. He also said that oil and gas companies were paying corporation tax at twice the rate paid by other companies, and that taxing UK activity on something that is traded globally would probably cost UK jobs and drive up the price of retail fuel, and would certainly make the UK less energy-secure.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
I cautiously welcome this news. It will help to secure 100,000 jobs in the industry and in the north-east of Scotland, and I think that in the current political times it will help to deliver resilience to energy supplies not just here but across Europe.
Will the Government commit themselves to taking three actions in parallel to help to save the planet as well as saving jobs? First, will they attach a zero-carbon obligation to each new licence underpinned with fiscal and fine regimes? Secondly, will they accelerate just transition approval for the Acorn carbon capture and storage cluster? Thirdly, will the Minister meet me to discuss how to support the development of carbon capture technologies at sites such as the Mossmorran Natural Gas Liquids and Ethylene plants in my constituency?
Greg Hands
I thank the hon. Gentleman for taking a slightly more constructive approach than his Scottish National party colleague, the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn). He is right: we can save the planet and save jobs at the same time. He called for a zero-carbon obligation, but I suggest that he should wait to see the results of the consultation on the climate compatibility checkpoint; he will have heard what I said earlier about how the UK Government are supporting carbon capture, utilisation and storage; and as for meeting him, of course I will do so.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
According to UK statistics, the amount of oil and gas sourced from the North and Celtic seas has ballooned. It has doubled year on year. One oil company chief executive is reported to have described his company as
“literally like a cash machine”
as he handed billions of pounds to shareholders as a result of those increased exports. Is the reality not that that exploitation has more to do with maximising profits and tax revenues than dealing with the domestic energy crisis?
Greg Hands
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. I will need to have a look at the timeframe for his statistic on doubling production, because clearly during the first year of the pandemic, in particular, production was very low. I would have to look at that. I think his call is for higher taxation, and again it is worth looking at the tax being paid by the sector. Since 2010, the sector has paid £33.7 billion in taxes, and £375 billion over the past 50 years.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Although I, like many, welcome the fact that new gas and oil supply can be found in the North sea, the timescale will not help fuel poverty in the interim. What is the Department doing to secure fuel at appropriate prices for working families in my constituency of Strangford and, indeed, across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Greg Hands
The hon. Gentleman is right that matters being discussed today are for gas production in the future, but I refer him to the Chancellor’s statement to the House on Thursday for the package of support being provided by the Government. That will include £350 on bills, made up of a £200 discount on the bill and a £150 rebate on council tax. We are also raising the national minimum wage from £8.91 an hour to £9.50, we have frozen fuel duty for 12 years, and, of course, we are providing additional discretionary funds to local authorities to make sure that those who are not covered by those schemes are.
TOEIC English Language Tests
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before we come to the next urgent question, I want to inform the House that I am aware that there are certain live court cases that are relevant. Given the importance of the subject matter, Mr Speaker has granted a limited waiver to allow general reference to the issues, but Members should not refer to the detail of live cases.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement about reports of failings in the test of English for international communication, or TOEIC, language tests in 2012.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
I am aware that BBC “Newsnight” is tonight examining the Home Office’s response to systemic fraud that took place in the teaching of English international communication exams prior to 2014. In 2014, the BBC’s “Panorama” programme uncovered examples of organised fraud on a significant scale taking place during TOEIC exams, as they are known, which were at the time required under immigration rules for student and other visas. The Home Office’s subsequent investigation into the abuse of English language testing revealed systemic cheating that was indicative of significant organised fraud. Ministers and Parliament were clear at the time that they expected a robust and speedy response. As such, the Government took a number of steps to fix the broken student visa system that operated before 2014 and to prevent such abuse from happening again.
The actions taken included stopping more than 1,000 colleges bringing bogus or low-quality students into the country who intended to work, not study. Given the scale of the fraud, it is impossible to say that nobody was wrongly affected and a number of appeals have succeeded. However, we continue to believe that there was a large-scale problem with cheating, as the BBC uncovered. Individuals affected have always had the right to challenge Home Office decisions through appeal or judicial review. Many have done that and it is important to note that the courts, up to the Court of Appeal, have consistently found that the evidence of invalid cases was enough for the Home Office to take the action it did.
However, as the Home Secretary set out to the Home Affairs Committee on 2 February and as the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) will be aware, the upper tribunal presidential panel is currently considering the case known RK/DK, which involves many of the issues raised by the BBC in relation to ETS TOIEC. The determination in that case will have a critical bearing on the Home Office’s future approach to ETS TOIEC-related cases, so it would be inappropriate to comment directly on the BBC’s findings ahead of that determination. I can confirm, though, that we will announce the next steps once we have received and considered the judgment.
Stephen Timms
In 2011, the Home Office gave a licence to the US firm ETS to operate its TOIEC English language test to establish whether overseas students could speak English well enough to study in the UK. Nearly 60,000 students took the test over three years but, as the Minister said, in 2014 “Panorama” exposed cheating at a number of TOIEC test centres and the ETS licence was withdrawn.
In response, ETS promised to analyse its recordings of all the students who had taken the test. Having done that, ETS told the Home Office later in 2014 that 96.5% of the students had either definitely or probably cheated. The Home Office seems to have failed to ask even the most basic questions about that absurd claim, now discredited, and it went ahead and cancelled the visas of more than 30,000 students. Contrary to what the Minister said, no appeal was available other than for students to go back to their home countries and then appeal, but in reality there was no provision there to make an appeal. Thousands of innocent students had their futures destroyed.
This morning, the original “Panorama” team has reported that ETS knew about the cheating well before the “Panorama” programme but did nothing because it wanted to keep the revenue. The BBC has also reported that the Home Office was told in 2012 by ETS whistleblowers but, instead of cancelling the licence then, allowed ETS to carry on for another two years. Thousands of innocent students were dragged into disaster as a result. Home Office failings have wrecked the lives of thousands of innocent people.
The Home Secretary told the Home Affairs Committee a year ago that too many people had been hurt and that a resolution was needed, but there has been no progress since. Will the Minister now come forward with a straightforward mechanism, as promised by the previous Home Secretary two and half years ago, to enable innocent students to clear their names and rebuild their lives?
Kevin Foster
As I have already touched on, I will not be commenting more widely on some of the matters that are currently sub judice, but I point out again that the scale of cheating exposed at the time was endemic. It is a rather bizarre argument that we should have gone earlier and harder on this issue. I made it clear in my statement that the courts up to the Court of Appeal have consistently found that there was enough evidence of invalid cases for the Home Office to take the action it took.
As I pointed out, there are opportunities for appeals. Those who have been here for some time may well be able to make claims based on their private life or human rights claims that would allow them to secure status in this country.
At the core of all this is the need to reflect on what has happened over the past 10 years in respect of what was previously the tier 4 route and is now the student route. We have reformed a system that was wide open to abuse and that brought the name of our education sector into disrepute. We have created a new system, particularly in respect of the new student visa, that works for students and education providers and, crucially, in respect of the Home Office balancing the need for compliance with the wish to facilitate the ambitions of hundreds of thousands of people who wish to study at our world-leading institutions. The student visa system is a world away from where it was in the past.
Finally, I should point out that 20 people have been convicted for their role in the systemic and organised cheating in English tests. That speaks strongly to the actions we took. As I said, there continues to be a process through the courts for those who wish to challenge the decision in their own cases. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we encourage the courts to make a determination if there is an allegation of dishonesty in relation to TOIEC. As I said, when the final judgment comes from the panel, we will respond more fully.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) for securing this urgent question. I must also say that I look forward to working constructively with the Minister, but I can assure him that we will robustly hold him to account as well.
We know there is a moral vacuum at the heart of this Conservative Government. We know that No. 10 is a shambles and that the Home Office under this Home Secretary is not fit for purpose. This case brings all those fundamental flaws into a toxic combination of indifference and incompetence. The harrowing accounts that have emerged include a man who was held in a cell for months on end, wrongly accused of failing his test, without any right to release or even to appeal. Students who could have contributed so much to our country have been wrongly deported based on unreliable evidence and as a result have suffered deep and intolerable injustice and personal hardship. As one student put it:
“I want my future back.”
It goes without saying that the Labour party supports the use of English language tests, and of course we support efforts to target cheating, but we must utterly condemn the blind eye that the Home Office turned to ETS’s failings. Can the Minister therefore tell us why on earth the Home Office thought it appropriate to allow a discredited ETS to manage the initial investigation in 2014, and to rely on its deeply questionable data? Do the Government intend to continue to rely on ETS’s claims? If so, how can the Home Office be sure the data is reliable? What action do the Government plan to take to right those wrongs? Will they continue to force migrants through the demeaning process of lengthy legal battles rather than resolving the matter internally? Will the Minister commit now, from the Dispatch Box, to a mechanism that will allow innocent students to clear their names?
This is, of course, just one of a litany of Home Office failures under this Conservative Government since 2010, from the Windrush scandal to data leaks and the ongoing small boats crisis. The Home Secretary must now take full responsibility for this shocking miscarriage of justice.
Kevin Foster
Let us start on a constructive note: I welcome the hon. Gentleman, my new shadow, to his place. The circumstances that led to his appointment are obviously unfortunate, but I genuinely welcome it and look forward to having a constructive relationship with him, as I have with other shadow Ministers, on matters where there is agreement and where it is in everyone’s interest that we engage constructively.
Turning to the comments the hon. Gentleman has just made, I find it quite interesting to get a lecture on how to set up an immigration system from the party that initially set up the tier 4 system, with its many flaws that we discovered on coming into government 12 years ago. It is a bit rich to be getting a lecture now on the fact that there was a need to reform massively our student visa system to ensure any form of effective compliance within it.
However, as I have touched on, I will not get drawn on the wider facts within the court case. We have already seen judgments and determinations up to and including the Court of Appeal saying that the evidence was sufficient to justify taking the actions we took at the time. I respect the fact that people have the ability to go to the courts, particularly now that people are getting leave under our private or family life rule; that is not a huge surprise, given that we are talking about people who entered the UK, in many cases, at least eight years ago.
Our position is that there are mechanisms, but we are awaiting the determination. We will be able to set matters out more fully then; I hope we all understand why it makes sense to get that particular tribunal determination and then announce and confirm our next steps, rather than speculating on what it might say.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
I too pay tribute to the very tenacious right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), as well as to Migrant Voice, the immigration lawyers and most of all the students who have all refused to accept the outrageous injustices perpetrated on them by the Home Office. Yes, there was significant fraud, but the Home Office must wake up to the fact that there was systemic injustice for innocent students. It came about because, despite its having been put under criminal investigation, that very same company, ETS, was asked by the Home Office to be judge and jury on tens of thousands of students and to mark its own tainted, dodgy homework.
That company’s verdicts were accepted without question; no opportunity was given to students to provide their own evidence, or even to see or hear the evidence against them. It was not so much Home Office negligence as maliciousness, and one of the worst excesses of the hostile environment policy. The questions today are: what will be done to fix it and what lessons can be learned?
On fixing it, it is not good enough to hide behind out-of-country appeals or judicial reviews. Those are hopeless processes. The Minister needs to consult on a process that is independent and fast and that can allow students to right the wrongs that have been meted out to them, and there will also have to be a compensation scheme. Finally, what has the Home Office learned from all of this, and is it not about time that this whole episode was also handed to Wendy Williams?
Kevin Foster
The biggest lesson that was learned was the need to transform our student visa system from one that was all too often a flag of convenience for those looking to come to work in the UK rather than for those genuinely looking to study. As we have said, the system has been absolutely transformed. It is one of our most compliant routes. It has allowed us to bring in additional benefits such as the graduate route that we created last year, plus more simplified processes for those applying for a student visa in the UK, both of which are very much rooted in the excellent relationship that we now have with the sector. Let us be very clear, we got rid of more than 1,000 sponsors, who, it is safe to say, were not meeting the high standards that the sector more widely provides.
On the specifics, again, we are waiting the determination from the tribunal. I have touched on the judgments that we have already had on the evidence that we used for the basis of our action, up to and including the Court of Appeal. Once we have the determination of the tribunal, we will be happy to confirm our next steps.
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
One of my constituents was woken at 6 in the morning, dragged from the home that he shares with his British wife and child and detained for days. He lost the right to work and was catapulted towards bankruptcy, unable to pay more legal costs. For year, after year, after year, he was terrified of another knock on the door. Although this is the story of one constituent, it is the story of many of my constituents. All they want is a fair chance to clear their names, and, frankly, they deserve compensation as well. I would be really grateful to hear something from the Minister, as this has dragged on for too long. The Government must create a process to end this scandal. When will they do so?
Kevin Foster
Again, once we have the tribunal determination, we will set out more fully what our response is, rather than speculating today on what that response may be. As I have said, other people are making applications under the status of their private and family life. We have changed our guidance to make it clear that that status is not a block to the application being granted. Obviously, decision makers in the Home Office will now appropriately balance matters of eight years ago with what someone’s private or family life may be today, and look at the proportionate outcome in a case.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
It is pretty clear that today’s urgent question—I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) on obtaining it—will not be the last word on this matter. I wonder whether, when we return to this in the fullness of time, the Minister’s answers will look quite as robust as the delivery with which he offers them to the House today. Instead of doubling down on the history of the Home Office’s dealings with ETS, would it not have been better to bring in somebody independent of the Home Office to restore a bit of trust in the system, which is so manifestly lacking?
Kevin Foster
We are talking about actions taken during the time of the coalition Government. Obviously, we were grateful for the support of the right hon. Gentleman’s party at that time.
On bringing in independent systems, we have touched on that. There is an ability to appeal decisions to the courts, and we encourage the courts, where there is a case before them, to make a determination, and we have been doing that for some time. Again, we await the tribunal. The right hon. Gentleman is speculating on the outcome. We will see what the outcome actually is and then bring forward what we believe should be the next steps.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
I have as constituents a married couple: the wife is originally from the Philippines; they have been married for several years. She was sucked into this scandal by having, by chance, to use one of these centres and was deemed to have cheated the system. If she makes a subsequent application, it will be assumed that she has been dishonest previously and she will not be allowed to apply. I urge the Minister, now that there is enough doubt and murkiness about these systems, to draw a line and to say to everybody who applied previously, “We will not tarnish your reputation. It is a fresh application and do your best.”
Kevin Foster
As I said, we have already amended our guidance where a person’s right to a private and family life in the UK is relevant. An allegation in relation to TOEIC is not a block and does not mean that an application would not be granted. It is not an overriding consideration, as other evidence of criminality or dishonesty in the immigration system may well be. The hon. Gentleman will be familiar with that.
Again, the tribunal has not given us a timescale, but we believe we are not far away from getting a final determination which will allow us to bring forward our next steps based on that determination, rather than speculating about what the determination might be. At the moment, there is not a block on a person making another application, and our guidance will, of course, take into account the balance of the individual’s rights and interests versus conduct of at least eight years ago.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I have constituents who are affected by the TOEIC scandal, and I also have constituents who are affected by the paragraph 322(5) highly-skilled migrants scandal. What they have in common is the devastating impact of accusations of being of poor character or of cheating. Will the Minister look again at the cases of my constituents, all of whom claim to have had no bad character and no cheating? Will he apologise to them for the hell he has put them through?
Kevin Foster
As always, I am happy to look at individual cases referred to me, but it would not be appropriate for me to discuss individuals on the Floor of the House. On the overall position, we have to look back at the scale of what was happening eight years ago. It is not happening in our immigration system today, as we have transformed the student visa system.
On another route that has been cited, we are making sure that things such as HMRC data are rightly used in immigration applications. As it stands, the tribunal determination is imminent and we will announce further steps once we have it.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I also have many constituents who are affected by this appalling TOEIC scandal, both the tier 4 migrants who were bringing the skills that we so badly needed in this country and the students who were coming here to learn extra skills to take back to their home country. When this scandal hit them, they were forced either to live under the radar on no income while they fought to get justice for themselves through the courts, or to give up and go home, as many did.
It caused huge shame to those who had to go home, particularly the students who had paid a fortune to take the courses. Some of them had given up in the third year, and the universities did not allow them to catch up and they had to start all over again. All the people I met were willing and able to take further English exams. In fact, several had already passed a higher-level test, the International English Language Testing System test. Will the Government at least consider giving those who remain in the system some justice by letting them take a further English test?
Kevin Foster
It might be tempting to say, “Why not take a further English test?” Of course, if somebody has been living in the UK for eight years, it is likely that their English will have improved considerably since their test. As I have outlined, there is a reason why we shut down more than 1,000 bogus colleges a decade ago: we had a route that was completely open to abuse. It was a flag of convenience for the many people who were coming to the UK to work, not to study. That is why the biggest lesson learned was to have an effective student route, which is what we have today.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
We all know that people cheated on the TOEIC tests. We also know that unreliable evidence condemned many innocent victims, perhaps thousands of them, to a life of abject hardship and poverty. They are unable to work or study, their life has been put on hold and their reputation has been absolutely trashed. They need justice. What mechanism can the Minister offer to get them out of this situation that will not cost them further money that they simply do not have?
Kevin Foster
As touched on, people can appeal to the courts, and many are getting determinations based on their private and family lives. As I have mentioned already, courts up to and including the Court of Appeal have held that our approach, given the evidence we had of systemic cheating in the system, was appropriate and proportionate. However, we await the latest determination, which will then allow us to announce what further steps we may wish to take.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
I have English language schools in my constituency that are of very high quality and are very robust, and they have dozens of former students whose lives are in limbo because of this scandal and who continue to suffer from the effects of it. The Minister said that they have the option of applying through the family life system or they can go to court. Would it not be better to consider reviewing all those cases and giving those people some justice?
Kevin Foster
As the hon. Member says, we now have a very strong system of English language tuition and of both universities and other higher education institutions sponsoring under our student route. That works very well, is highly compliant and is an absolute world away from the system that existed 12 years ago. On what he suggests about other areas, there is the ability, as I have said, for people to make private life applications if they are here in the UK. However, on the wider position, I think it makes eminent sense, given that we are awaiting a determination from the highest tribunal in effect—the upper tribunal presidential panel—to actually have that determination and then consider what the next steps will be, rather than to announce something speculative.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Minister for answering the urgent question.
Integration White Paper
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
With permission, I would like to make a statement on the integration White Paper.
The covid-19 pandemic has been a living example of the importance of working together as one. Whether it is the extraordinary success of the vaccination programme or the work to identify and protect the most vulnerable, we were at our best when we were working across traditional boundaries towards a common goal. We must learn the lessons of the pandemic and channel this spirit of collaboration.
Although huge progress has been made in bringing together our health and care services and local government, our system often remains fragmented and too often fails to deliver joined-up services that meet people’s needs. Thanks to incredible advances in health and care, people are enjoying longer life expectancies, but may be living with more complex needs for longer. Navigating a complex health and care system to meet those needs can be hard, especially when services are often funded, managed and delivered separately. People too often find that they are having to force services to work together, rather than experiencing a seamless, joined-up health and care journey.
If we are to succeed in our goals of levelling up our nation, we must keep working to make integrated health and care a reality across England. Today, we are publishing the integration White Paper, which shows how we will get there. It is the next step in our ambitious programme of reform, building on the Health and Care Bill and the social care reform White Paper, which this Government introduced to the House in December.
This White Paper has been shaped by the real-world experience of people, as well as by that of nurses, care workers and doctors on the frontline, drawing on some of the great examples of collaborative working we have seen, particularly during the pandemic. It will make health and care systems fit for the future, boost the health of local communities and make it easier to access health and care services. It is a plan with people and outcomes at its heart—no more endless form filling, no impenetrable processes and no more bureaucracy that sees too many people getting lost in the system and not receiving the care they need.
First, we will ensure strong leadership and accountability, which is critical to delivering integration. Local leaders have a unique relationship with the people they serve. Our plans will bring together local leaders to deliver on shared outcomes, all in the best interests of their local communities, and encourage local arrangements that provide clarity over health and care services in each area, including aligning and pooling budgets. This arrangement has already been successfully adopted in several local areas. We have suggested a model that meets these criteria, and we expect areas to develop appropriate arrangements by spring of next year. Local NHS and local authority leaders will be empowered to deliver against these outcomes, and will be accountable for delivery and performance against them. They will be supported by a new national leadership programme addressing the skills required to deliver effective system transformation and strong local collaboration.
Integration supports transparency, and joining up NHS and local authority data means that we can provide local people with better insights about how their area’s health and care services are performing. With access to more information, they will be more empowered to make decisions about where and how they access care. There will be a new single accountable person for delivery of a shared health and care plan at local level. In practice, that could mean an individual with a dual role across health and care or a single lead for a place-based arrangement.
Secondly, we will do more to join up care. At the moment, too many people are bounced around the system or have to tell their story multiple times to different professionals to get the care that they need, which is frustrating for people and frontline workers alike. There are so many opportunities here. Closer working between primary and secondary care can allow care that is closer to home, keeping people healthy and independent for longer, and closer working between mental health and social care services can reduce crisis admissions and improve the quality of life for those living with mental illness. The White Paper sets out how we will get there, using the power of data to give local leaders the information that they need to establish new, joined-up services to tackle the issues facing their communities.
Thirdly, we will make the best use of the huge advances in digital and data. We have seen throughout the pandemic how digital tools can empower people to look after their health and take greater control of their care—for instance, through the NHS app or remote monitoring technologies. Where several organisations are involved in one person’s care, there is a real opportunity to bring together data safely to create a seamless and joined-up experience. The White Paper reiterates our commitment to having shared records in place for all people by 2024, providing local people with a single, functional health and care record that everyone involved in care can access in a secure way. That will mean every professional having access to the key facts relating to a person’s condition, such as their diagnoses and medications. That will improve care, too, with professionals able to make care plans in full knowledge of the facts.
We have seen a rapid expansion of digital channels in primary and secondary care services in recent years, but there is plenty more that we can do. This year, one million people will be supported by digitally enabled care pathways in the comfort of their home. The White Paper sets out how we will open up even more ways for people to access health and adult social care services remotely. We will also support digital transformation by formally recognising the digital data and technology profession within the NHS “Agenda for Change”, and including basic digital, data and technology skills in the training of all health and care staff. Integrated care systems will be tasked with developing digital investment plans so that we can ensure that digital capability is strong right across the board. That means data flowing seamlessly across all care settings, with technology transforming care so that it is personalised to the patient.
Finally, the White Paper shows the part that the workforce can play. The health and care workforce is one of the biggest assets that we have, and we want to make it easier for people working in health and care to feel confident in how the system works together in the best interests of those they care for and to feel empowered to progress their careers across the health and care family. To drive that, integrated care systems will support joint health and care workforce planning. We will improve training and ongoing learning and development opportunities for staff. That means creating more opportunities for joint continuous development and joint roles across health and social care, increasing the number of clinical practice placements in adult social care for health undergraduates and exploring the introduction of an integrated skills passport to allow health and care staff to transfer their skills and knowledge between the NHS, public health and social care.
The White Paper represents a further step in our journey of reform, building on the foundation laid in the Health and Care Bill, looking ahead to a future of health and care in this country with people at its very heart. It paints a vivid picture of a health and care system with more personalised care and greater transparency and choice, where early intervention prevents the most serious diseases, using the power of integration to give people the right care, in the right place, at the right time.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, which I got about 30 minutes ago, but I confess that I read most of it some 30 years ago when I was developing joint services. After waiting an eternity for the Department of Health and Social Care White Paper, the Government are spoiling us with their third paper of the year. All these papers are necessary to try to remedy the disastrous Lansley Act—the Health and Social Care Act 2012.
We acknowledge that reversing that Act and the integration of health and social care, however it is defined, is extremely difficult, but this integration will not be delivered by the White Paper and it is certainly not well defined. It is not clear how this fits with the Health and Care Bill, which is currently in the Lords. Even the experts involved in the Committee and elsewhere are repeatedly tripping over crucial issues such as the relationship between integrated care boards, integrated care partnerships and integrated care systems. How do they work with health and wellbeing boards? Where is the clinical leadership? Where is the accountability to local people? I banged on a lot about accountability in the Bill Committee so I am glad that somebody was at least listening and that we seem to have a bit of progress, but where are the voices of local people who are increasingly being asked to pay more for less?
Like a house made of crepe paper, this gossamer-thin White Paper collapses with the faintest breeze of scrutiny. Let us be clear: it is not a plan, nor is it even a starting strategy. It is just a series of woolly claims about how things could be better, unsupported by any evidence or analysis of the resources and organisational and funding flow changes that will obviously be necessary. It could have been written at any time over the past 30 years. It contains little that is new and nothing to illustrate new thinking or new attitudes. It relies on the bogus assumption that because something may work for a while on a small scale, it will obviously work everywhere. It is not any kind of plan for integrated care that people will recognise; these are just aspirations about integrated systems.
There is little to explain how a joined-up system would be managed, how it would be accountable to the public, patients and service-users, how the funding will be allocated and shared or how performance would be assessed and weaknesses addressed. Nothing in the White Paper addresses the key issue of balancing what is locally determined against national standards and national entitlements.
Crucially, there is nothing to address the key barrier to integration—that social care and the NHS are in different empires with no level playing field. One is means-tested and one is not. One has national criteria for entitlement and one does not. The way in which they are governed and funded is totally different and they are kept going by two separate workforces with no aligned terms and conditions.
I welcome the announcement of a skills passport and we will certainly look at the detail of that. However, unless there is pooled funding on a major scale—out-of-hospital funding—there will be no system drivers to really improve integration. This White Paper is again about simply encouraging, but we have had 30 years of that.
The reality is that the White Paper is remarkable for what it does not do. It does not seem to help children and young people. It does not address the challenge of how to care for and support working-age adults with a disability. It does not really value or assist the informal workforce or carers.
Our NHS and care system is under enormous pressure after years of austerity funding made incalculably worse by the impact of the covid pandemic, but the challenges that it faces are manifest, from a legacy of a “hospital first” approach to a decades-long failure to share care records. That runs alongside chronic underfunding and devaluing of public health, huge gaps in the workforce and wholly inadequate social care provision, with more than 500,000 people waiting for assessment and hundreds of thousands more denied access to care of any kind because the barrier for access is far too high.
This is a will-o’-the-wisp White Paper: one minute it is there before us only to vanish at a glance. The truth is that there does not seem to be anything of note that cannot already be done. Fundamentally, what is the point of it? As things stand, the number of patients waiting for care will continue to rise for the next two years, and there is no plan—not even the ambition—to get waiting times and waiting lists down to the record lows seen under the last Labour Government.
Worse still, these proposals will see patients paying more in tax but waiting longer for care. The Government are blaming covid, but will the Minister tell us when the target for NHS patients in England to be treated within 18 weeks was last met? If he cannot remember, it was in fact in 2016, four years before the pandemic. It is clear from the announcement yesterday and here today—just as it is from the decade of Tory mismanagement that left the NHS ill-equipped to cope with covid—that the longer we give the Conservatives in office, the longer patients will wait. Their time really is up.
Today is not a serious endeavour; it is a greatest hits of soundbites and buzzwords, randomly assembled to make a decent press release and get an outing on the evening bulletins. It is a desperate desire to own the news cycle and calm Tory Back Benchers’ nerves. It really is disappointing and it is simply not good enough.
Edward Argar
It is a pleasure to see the shadow Minister in her place—she will know that I genuinely mean that, because she and I spent many happy days upstairs in Committee debating exactly these issues. This White Paper sets out clearly the next steps and builds on the strong foundations of integration that that legislation put forward, with the integrated care boards, integrated care providers and integrated care systems, which our deliberations in Committee and in this House demonstrated were clear, understandable and effective in providing locally based governance; bringing together at an ICB level NHS services within a locality, and within an ICP broader ranges of services, including housing providers and others. This has been bringing together the national health service we have with the localised delivery we all seek.
That is one of the key points of the White Paper: the next steps in how to deliver place-based solutions and allow the system to continue to evolve organically through that permissive approach that characterises the legislation we are putting through Parliament, rather than the prescriptive approach that the Labour party at times appears to prefer. The White Paper contains new thinking on new ways forward, drawing on not just the lessons of the pandemic but much longer-standing arrangements within localities, recognising best practice for integration between health and social care, and reflecting that organic development that occurs within a place as local leaders, local communities and those using the services work together to deliver services that work best for them.
The hon. Lady touched on how some of this might work in practice and talked about funding and budgets. We have made it clear—I used to use this when I was a local councillor—that section 75 of the National Health Service Act 2006, on the ability to pool budgets, has been effective, but it is time to go further and explore whether that remains the most effective vehicle by which that sharing of budgets can be undertaken, so it is right that we look at this.
The hon. Lady touched more broadly on social care and the NHS. I have to say to her that we announced our White Paper for social care last September. She mentioned the plethora of White Papers. We rightly recognise the different parts of the health and social care system and have clear plans for each of them. Those different White Papers together form a coherent whole, putting forward reform proposals that will make a difference for patients and others alike. I have to say to the Opposition that, much as they may gently chide us on this, in 13 years in government they had two Green Papers, one royal commission and one spending review priority, but still no reforms to improve social care provision in this country. This Government have seized the nettle and brought forward proposals that will genuinely move us forward.
Finally, on the hon. Lady’s points about yesterday’s announcement on NHS waiting lists, this Government have been transparent with the British people about the challenge ahead of us and about our plan to meet that challenge. Our approach, which combines ambition with realism, has been welcomed by stakeholders across the health and social care space. Ours is the party of the NHS. We are the party that has put the resources into that NHS, with £33.9 billion put into law at the start of 2020, and then record funding through the health and care levy, which the Labour party voted against.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
As one in the long line of former Health Secretaries with scars on their back—to quote Sir Tony, if we are allowed to—from when they tried to integrate the health and care systems, I warmly welcome this White Paper. I think it is more than aspirations. But there are three central elements of the plumbing that we have to get right, and I want to ask the Minister, who I know is very committed to this, for his response.
First, previous attempts to have pooled budgets for vulnerable people have been bedevilled by the fact that the NHS has not wanted to pool its budgets with an underfunded social care system. The grant to local government is still not generous, to say the least. The Select Committee on Health and Social Care recommended an increase of £7 billion a year by the end of the Parliament, but it is actually going up by £2 billion a year. What will we do to overcome the resistance in the NHS to merging budgets with a social care system that is feeling very stretched?
Secondly, it is a very big step forward that everyone will have a single electronic health and care record by 2024, but my simple question is whether the public will be able to access the data. Patients are the best guarantors and defenders of their own health, so they should be able to access everything that professionals can see about them.
My third question is about having a single professional responsible for someone’s care. What is the role of GPs in that? For most members of the public, the central person responsible for their care is their GP. Is it not time to go back to the days when everyone had their own family doctor, instead of a different doctor every time they call the surgery? They might not see the same person every time, but there should be someone at the GP surgery who is responsible for their overall care, whether that is in the health system or the social care system.
Edward Argar
My right hon. Friend speaks with typical wisdom and common sense on these issues. I will briefly address each of his three points in turn.
On pooled and shared budgets, I have to say that I think section 75 of the National Health Service Act 2006 has worked well. When I was cabinet member for health and adult social care at my council—I had more hair then, and it was not grey—I also sat on a primary care trust board as a non-executive member. I had a senior director of that PCT on my management team; we forged a common purpose, recognising that there would be some areas in which NHS moneys were greater than those put in by the local authority and vice versa, but the shared goal was achievable only when we worked together. I think that there is genuinely something to build on, and the ICSs, ICBs and ICPs at the upper level will be the vehicle to move the process forward. When I was doing it, there was a degree of personal relationship moving it forward, rather than necessarily a systematised approach, but I genuinely think that there is a willingness and a recognition of the need for this.
On public access to electronic records, my right hon. Friend’s central point is absolutely right: it is important to recognise that such data is our data and individuals’ data. We must always be wary about doing something to someone, as opposed to in partnership with them. That principle will underpin our approach in this space.
Finally, my right hon. Friend referred to a single responsible professional—not a single point of contact, but someone who brings together an individual’s care. He is right to highlight the importance of general practitioners. May I put on record my gratitude to GPs not only for all their work over the past two years, and for all they do day in, day out, but for the wisdom and care that they bring to addressing their patients’ needs?
Since my right hon. Friend’s time as Secretary of State, there has been a continual drive to increase the number of doctors in our health service. Not all will become general practitioners, but we need to continue to make general practice accessible and to encourage people to choose it as an incredibly exciting and rewarding career. One of the key elements of making what he describes work is building up a body of general practitioners who are able to perform such tasks. I pay tribute to his work; we are continuing that work and building on his foundations. I am grateful for his questions and for his contributions.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement. I think it fair to say that England is late to the integration game; Scotland and Wales have been legislating and moving in that direction for 20 years. The Scottish Government are pushing forward plans for a national care service to ensure that social care is fit for the 21st century, and have developed the NHS Pharmacy First Scotland scheme to spread the burden of frontline care and make pharmacies the first port of call for patients when GP and hospital visits are not necessary.
What lessons have been learned from the devolved nations? Any new plan for the NHS will not change the reality of the challenges facing the NHS organisation across all four of our nations, including that of vacancies. While Scotland’s workforce has grown by 20% under the SNP, Brexit is still hampering our ability to recruit from EU nations. Will the Minister discuss loosening Brexit and immigration controls with his fellow Ministers to help alleviate that situation?
Edward Argar
I saw the hon. Gentleman’s final point coming. To his original point, we are always happy to speak to the devolved Administrations and learn from their ideas, just as I am sure they occasionally look to England to see what they can learn—that is part of being a member of this Union. I speak regularly to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), including about such matters. To his final point, all I would say is that since 2010 we have seen around 30,000 more doctors and 38,000 more nurses in the English NHS—I have highlighted the role that my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) played in that—so I think we are doing a pretty good job of continuing to grow the workforce. There is much more to do, but we have a plan and we are delivering on it.
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
I welcome this ambitious and much-needed programme of reform. One of the greatest challenges is ensuring the accountability of NHS bodies to local people, and I wonder whether the Minister could say a bit more about how these plans will ensure that local NHS bodies are accountable to the local people they serve.
Edward Argar
These plans build on what we are proposing in our legislation. At the heart of the Bill are integrated care systems, which bring together at ICB level and ICP level the local authorities that are elected to represent their areas, local people—Healthwatch will have a key voice in this space—and of course the local NHS.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
The clinical commissioning group in Barnsley says that it is struggling with unprecedented capacity issues. With a record 6 million patients waiting for planned NHS treatment across the UK, can the Minister explain how we will tackle the crisis in waiting times through this White Paper?
Edward Argar
The hon. Lady will have seen yesterday the announcement and publication of our plan to tackle waiting lists caused by the covid pandemic, the investment that underpins that, the approach to the workforce and how we will bring those waiting lists down. This White Paper builds on that; they are complementary and work together. This is about looking to the future to improve how our systems work together, but we set out a clear and comprehensive plan yesterday to do exactly what she speaks of.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I declare my interest as a doctor. I wonder what the practical consequences of this will be. Can I suggest to my hon. Friend, whom I admire greatly, that one of those practical consequences might be to end the awful business of people waiting for weeks and weeks in acute hospital beds for discharge to more appropriate settings in the community? It does them no good, it is massively expensive to the system, and it prevents them moving on to places that can better care for them and give them what they need while allowing the acute sector to do what it can do, which is to manage people who are acutely unwell. At the moment we have 10,000 people in the system waiting for discharge. That will not do, and I would be interested to know from my hon. Friend how these proposals will help.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend in this respect. Discharge of people from hospital safely, either into a care home setting or back to their own home with support, is vital not only for their own health outcomes but for the flow of patients through our acute hospitals to enable A&Es and other parts of the system to function effectively. Through the national discharge taskforce and through the work we have done throughout the pandemic, we are bringing together acute hospitals and local authorities, and we have made huge strides together within localities in improving this and learning lessons. This White Paper sets out a way in which they can be embedded to ensure that they continue to deliver long-lasting benefits.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
My constituent Lynn is a powerful and loving advocate for her husband Andy, but she is at her wits’ end because she has to repeat the same information time and time again to nurses, consultants, dementia specialists, carers and the Department for Work and Pensions. When will the White Paper make her life a little bit easier? Despite her frustrations, she knows that all those professionals are working incredibly hard, but there just are not enough of them. How can it be that the Minister has said in this statement that he wants integrated care systems to have a joint health and care workforce plan, but he is still refusing to put that commitment to a workforce strategy into the Health and Care Bill?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her comments and for highlighting the situation Lynn and Andy find themselves in. What we seek to do, through what I said about care records, is exactly what she and I think they would wish to see, which is to reduce the number of unnecessary or duplicative interactions with the system.
She touches on workforce. I set out in my remarks earlier that since 2010, under this Government, there have been over 30,000 more doctors and 38,000 more nurses. In just the past year, we have seen a huge increase in the number of nurses—I think 11,000—and an increase of about 5,000 doctors. We continue to grow the workforce and we are already working to do so. My right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), who is no longer in his place, set a lot of that in motion. We have also commissioned from Health Education England and NHS England, now that we have announced their merger, the long-term 10-year workforce strategy, which I look forward to with interest.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Kettering General Hospital and Northampton General Hospital have between them 1,100 beds, 300 of which are occupied mainly by elderly patients who have completed their medical treatment and await discharge either into a care home or a domiciliary care setting. Meanwhile, adult social care is provided by the two unitary authorities, which contract with over 80 different domiciliary care providers. Would the Minister welcome ambitious proposals from Northamptonshire along the lines of those already being pursued by Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, whereby the NHS itself provides domiciliary care? Unless we get those 300 patients into an appropriate setting out of hospital, our hospitals will for ever be clogged up.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who quite rightly never misses an opportunity to pay tribute to his local hospital trust. As he knows, I am always happy—as is my hon. Friend the Minister for Care and Mental Health—to hear any ideas for innovation that may improve outcomes for patients and communities.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
As we have heard, councils and health service bodies have been taking the opportunity to work together in the absence of Government action. In Gateshead, we have a joint commissioning director for health and care, which has worked out very well. So things have been happening without the White Paper. The key to addressing integration is the workforce. With thousands of NHS vacancies and thousands of social care vacancies, we really need to address that issue. We need a comprehensive, detailed plan on restructuring the social care workforce to ensure it is recognised as much as the NHS workforce.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, although I am not entirely convinced on her point about the absence of Government action. Yes, co-operation has been happening organically from the ground up, but that has been encouraged and supported by Government action—including various pots of funding, for example relating to discharge during the pandemic—driving that activity and helping to foster that culture of co-operation. She highlights the importance of the workforce and the need for increasing numbers. That is a point I have already acknowledged. I have made clear that the Government have a plan and are already delivering increases in the workforce.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
I welcome the White Paper, not least because we have had to put through a very painful tax increase and want the Government to get on with things, but also because the Minister faces considerable challenges, including demoralising intransigence between competing bureaucracies, a hugely complex task of integrating information systems, and the need to rip up and replace the truly horrendous workforce planning system for change of pay and other conditions, as other Members have said. All those things are going to bog the Minister down, so will he do two things? First, will he set up a special taskforce to look at quick wins to start to deliver improvements? Secondly, reinforcing what my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee said, will the Minister agree to put control of, and full information about, patient records in the hands of patients, so that they can use effective choice?
Edward Argar
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He is, I think, alluding to the fact that quite considerable inputs in the form of taxpayers’ money and resources go into the system. Members sometimes fall into the trap of talking about inputs as the ultimate result, whereas my hon. Friend quite rightly talks about outcomes for patients and ensuring that money is well spent and delivers reform and improved outcomes. That is exactly what this paper is determined to achieve.
On my hon. Friend’s final two points, I will certainly consider taskforces. We have used one on tackling delayed discharge, so I know their value. I also take his point about data, and underpinning that is something that underpins all our work: co-design and doing things with patients, not to them. We must recognise that it is their data and that they should have control of it.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
The Minister talks about ICBs, but he knows full well that they are able, under his Bill, to delegate functions and budgets to private providers, which represents a clear Government privatisation agenda.
The Minister talks about transferring skills and knowledge across the NHS, public health and social care, but how will that work in practice? Will the NHS be running training courses for private sector care organisations? If so, why should the NHS hand over valuable intellectual property and spend time gifting it to big business? Will he explain what that will mean for NHS staff?
Edward Argar
We have had these debates before. The hon. Lady knows that the pace of privatisation was fastest under the last Labour Government, when the increase in spend on the private sector was much steeper. We have always been clear in our belief in the founding principles of our NHS, which is free at the point of need, but we have also been clear, as have every other Government since the foundation of the NHS, that there continues to be a role for voluntary sector organisations and private sector providers in that context.
On the hon. Lady’s final point, it is important, as in this White Paper, that we bring out the opportunity to help increase knowledge and share skills across the NHS, local authorities and the voluntary sector.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Given this excellent statement, it would be remiss of me not to thank the Minister publicly for the decision to retain the Frimley integrated care system, which was absolutely the right thing to do.
Will the Minister outline his plans for lessons from the best-performing ICSs to be shared across all ICSs, so that we can keep costs down and improve efficiency right across the network?
Edward Argar
My hon. Friend knows, by virtue of the outcome, the persuasive and compelling case made by him and other right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the Chamber in respect of Frimley ICS and its boundaries. As so often in this place, my view is, “If you ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” and his ICS is doing a fantastic job and other ICSs can learn from its success. Mechanisms and organisations through which chairs of ICSs get together and share best practice already exist, but we will continue to examine whether that could be better systematised, so that best practice can be disseminated more widely.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
We have heard already how budgets can be pulled, how place leaders can be appointed and, importantly, how shared outcomes can be set between health and care through our health and wellbeing boards with local authorities. Will the Minister assure me that accountability of the single accountable person will come through democratic structures, such as health and wellbeing boards or local authorities, to ensure that that if the public are unhappy, they can change things by voting them out?
Edward Argar
The hon. Lady will know from the debates on the Health and Care Bill that we are moving forward with opportunities for local authorities to be engaged not just at partnership level, as some are already, but more directly with the NHS at the ICB level. Health and wellbeing boards will continue to be a hugely important part of that.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
There is a lot of what, to me, seems to be rather mind-numbing jargon in the statement, but only one mention of nurses. Could the Minister tell me—ideally without the jargon—about the impact of the statement on the nursing profession?
Edward Argar
As I mentioned in my earlier answers, this White Paper needs to be taken in conjunction with what we announced yesterday in respect of waiting list recovery, the September social care White Paper and, more broadly, our approach to growing our nursing profession, through increasing the skills and numbers in that profession. We are already well on target for 50,000 more nurses in the profession.
This White Paper looks at the specific aspect of the integration of social care and health and permissive ways for local areas to come up with their most effective place-based arrangements, many of which are already in development. It is, quite rightly, not specific about any individual profession, nor do we believe it should be, because it is for local places to develop their own local plans to reflect their local needs.
Point of Order
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call Ed Davey, on a point of order in connection with the Code of Conduct, to rectify a failure to declare.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to apologise to the House for not declaring my interest when tabling two parliamentary questions last year: one on 13 May and one on 4 June. I tabled the questions because of my long-standing interest in climate change, and as a result of constituency casework. An administrative oversight resulted in a breach of the rules, and for that I am sorry. I have put in place measures to ensure a similar mistake cannot be made again. I wish to put on record my thanks to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards for her time and care in rectifying this matter.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the right hon. Member for his point of order. There will be no further points of order on this issue.
Seals (Protection)
Wednesday 9th February 2022
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Seals (Protection) Bill 2021-22 View all Seals (Protection) Bill 2021-22 Debates Read Hansard Text
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
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to make the intentional or reckless disturbance or harassment of seals an offence; to make further provision about the protection of seals; and for connected purposes.
We are very lucky in this country to be home to more than a third of the world’s grey seal population. A globally rare species resident in the UK, grey seals are the equivalent of an African elephant. In addition, the UK is home to 30% of European common seals, which are, sadly, in alarming decline. Seals are present around the UK coastline, with some areas being more visible breeding grounds than others.
I was thrilled to hear from the Zoological Society of London, which conducts surveys on the number of seals in the Greater Thames estuary, that the latest population survey estimated that 700 harbour seals and 3,000 grey seals live in the Thames estuary. As a Medway MP, I was pleased to discover how many seals are drawn to the Medway and Swale estuaries to rest and pup on the excellent mud flats and salt marsh habitat, due to the abundance of prey, including smelt and sea bass. I am pleased to see some Essex colleagues on the Benches, for I know they will be just as interested in the estuary population.
In fact, the Medway houses the largest no-take fish zone in the UK, making it the perfect restaurant for seals. The essential top predator role performed by seals recycles nutrients, helping to keep a balanced marine ecosystem. Notwithstanding the obvious environmental benefits of seals, it is important to recognise, in some parts of the UK, the economic boost that wildlife assets such as seals provide, through tourism, to communities on the coast. But that brings with it dangers—ones that can be overcome but none the less are still there.
Seals are not without challenges but, sadly, they come from us humans. Like many people, I was horrified by the dog attack on Freddie the seal near Hammersmith bridge last year. I know through my work with Mary Tester, a British Divers Marine Life Rescue medic who was in charge of Freddie, how he brought joy to the local community and visitors alike, especially during lockdown. The injuries that Freddie suffered, sadly, resulted in the decision being made to put him down. Unfortunately, that is not the only example of the devastating effects that disturbance, whether intentional or reckless, has on seals. Last month, a runner in the north-east of England caused a stampede of more than 100 seals after he ignored the advice of seal stewards and approached the group that were resting on the rocks. The distressed seals fled back towards the water; the Yorkshire Seal Group confirms that the reckless behaviour would have undoubtedly caused numerous injuries to the fleeing seals and may have led to loss of life for some of the pups.
Seals face a range of issues and pressures, such as habitat loss and chemical and plastic pollutants, that require global solutions. However, preventing disturbance is something we in this Parliament can do with a minor tweak to existing legislation. Doing so would also result in greater awareness.
Disturbance has serious and potentially life-threatening effects, but it can easily be avoided. It is defined as any action that disrupts a seal from a settled state in response to a perceived threat. Disturbance causes stress and wastes vital energy reserves, often resulting in injury, while broken ribs or jaws can prove fatal. Conserving energy is vital for survival in the wild, and seals can quickly enter a fatal energy deficit spiral through chronic disturbance.
Actions resulting in serious disturbance can be intentional, reckless or negligent. Serious disturbance is caused when people are too close, too visible or too noisy. The harm done to disturbed seals may not be immediate or obvious, but minimising serious or chronic disturbance will greatly improve any seal’s chances of survival. I am pleased that the Government, together with the Seal Alliance, launched a new awareness campaign in spring last year. The “Give Seals Space” campaign asks for the public to be aware of the impact their behaviour can have on vulnerable wildlife. That includes keeping well away from seals so that the seals cannot smell, hear or see them, keeping dogs on a lead, never feeding seals and taking all litter home. However, there is still more to be done and there is a call for action from across the country.
In a response to the parliamentary petition “Strengthen laws protecting seals”, which gained more 26,000 signatures—one from every constituency in Parliament—the Government confirmed that they would be providing funding for signs to be put on the banks of the Thames to help to raise awareness of the impact of disturbance on seals and the importance of keeping dogs under close control. I assure the House that I will be contacting colleagues at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Seal Alliance to ensure that we can have some of these fantastic “Give Seals Space” signs on the River Medway, and I encourage other hon. Members to look at the material provided by the Seal Alliance.
Sadly, we cannot rely solely on goodwill and human behaviour. We need the legislative back-up to make intentional and reckless disturbance illegal. Seals are currently afforded a number of protections. They are covered by the 1979 Bern Convention, and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee recognises that the UK has a special responsibility to protect seals on behalf of the rest of the world. Thankfully, numerous pieces of legislation have made it an offence to “take, injure or kill” a seal within 12 nautical miles of the British coast.
However, as I have made clear, disturbing a seal, whether intentionally or not, can have fatal consequences. Therefore, my Bill calls on the Government to make a simple yet crucial amendment to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, whereby someone who intentionally or recklessly disturbs or harasses a seal shall be guilty of an offence. That would ensure that seals are treated the same as whales and dolphins in British legislation. The Joint Nature Conservation Committee’s quinquennial review suggested such amendments be made to the Act to help address the issue of disturbance. It is crucial that existing legislation is reviewed to avoid legal loopholes that prevent prosecution for disturbance caused by a third party: a dog, vessel or drone under human control.
I know that colleagues at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs recognise the issue, and I applaud and thank them, especially the Minister, for the work that has been carried out so far to raise public awareness. I believe the cross-party support for my ten-minute rule Bill and for my early-day motion, and the outpouring of public emotion following Freddie’s death, shows that there is the political and public will to make a positive change.
Finally, I would like to say a special thank you to everyone who has helped to get us to where we are today: the public, commercial operators, conservation groups including the Marine Conservation Society, Whale and Dolphin Conservation, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Wild Justice, and individuals such as Chris Packham and Dr Ben Garrod. I thank leading seal charities the Seal Alliance, Seal Protection Action Group and the Seal Research Trust, the numerous local wild seal organisations and rescue and rehab centres in the UK and Europe, and British Divers Marine Life Rescue. I also want to say a special thank you to Mary Tester of Marine Life Rescue, Sue Sayer of Cornwall Seal Group Research Trust, and Anna Cucknell, project manager at the Zoological Society of London.
I hope that we can work together to ensure that we enjoy our coastal habitats, fully appreciate them, and share our seas successfully with wildlife now and for future generations.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Tracey Crouch, Duncan Baker, Andrew Rosindell, Ben Lake, John McDonnell, Henry Smith, John Nicolson, Sammy Wilson, Sarah Olney, Jim Shannon, Dr Neil Hudson and Dame Caroline Dinenage present the Bill.
Tracey Crouch accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the first time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 March, and to be printed (Bill 254).
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I have now to announce the result of today’s deferred Division on the draft Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (Amendment) Regulations 2022. The Ayes were 303, the Noes were 215, so the Ayes have it.
Police Grant Report
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
We now come to the debate on the Police Grant Report (England and Wales). The Order Paper notes that this instrument has not yet been considered by the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. I have now been informed that the Committee has considered the instrument, and has not drawn it to the attention of the House.
3.7 pm
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
I beg to move,
That the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) for 2022–23 (HC 1084), which was laid before this House on 2 February, be approved.
It gives me great pleasure to announce to the House the final police funding settlement for the fast-approaching new financial year.
The foremost role of Government is to keep the public safe from harm. Our effort to deliver that most critical of functions depends to a large extent on the work of our police service. As this settlement demonstrates, we remain firmly and fully committed to strengthening the resources and capabilities available to the police as they confront crime and protect our citizens.
Last year Parliament approved a funding settlement resulting in an increase of up to £636 million being made available for the policing system. This included an increase in Government grant funding of £425 million for police and crime commissioners in England and Wales to continue to strengthen police forces through our officer recruitment programme. I am delighted to say that with this funding, along with the £700 million received for year 1 of the programme, more than 11,000 additional officers have been recruited as of the end of December 2021. That means that we are more than halfway to meeting the 20,000 target, which is something to shout about. However, I assure the House that we are not resting on our laurels. We must keep up the momentum, because every new officer through the door is another courageous individual we can call upon in the fight against crime.
Beyond the recruitment drive, this year we have invested £180 million in combating serious and organised crime, £500 million in Home Office-led police technology programmes to replace outdated legacy IT systems, and £45 million in the safer streets fund to put proven prevention measures in place in areas plagued by neighbourhood crime, and to help combat violence against women and girls. The building blocks are now in place; now it is time to hit the accelerator, and next year’s settlement will enable the police to go further than before in confronting crime.
One of the most consistent asks from policing around funding is certainty, and on this we have also delivered. The spending review provides forces with a three-year settlement, ensuring that they have the necessary confidence and stability to pursue long-term strategic planning, as well as maintaining strengthened officer numbers. In 2022-23, the Government will be investing up to £16.9 billion in the policing system—an increase of up to an additional £1.1 billion when compared with last year. Of that significant investment, we have made an additional £550 million of Government grants available to police and crime commissioners in England and Wales. As well as supporting continued officer recruitment, that funding will allow forces to invest in critical capabilities, while focusing on modernising the police service to meet future demand.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
I am delighted that the work of the Conservative police and crime commissioner in Cheshire is paying off, with more than 100 new officers in post already. Could the Minister tell me, though, what work is going into ensuring that we retain officers? Recruitment and retention go together, and having spoken to members of the Police Federation, I am concerned that we are witnessing some churn. Is that something that he is aware of and dealing with?
Kit Malthouse
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Cheshire constabulary on their recruitment. I am told that they have recruited 149 officers to their complement, which is a fantastic achievement. They still have to get to their allocation by March, and their allocation next year will, I think, be a further 120 on top, so my hon. Friend should see plenty of uniforms across that beautiful county in the months and years to come.
My hon. Friend is quite right that recruitment is only half the battle; retention is the other half. We are monitoring the attitudes and experience of those new recruits incredibly closely. I know he will be pleased to hear that their satisfaction in the job, the fulfilment of their expectations of the job, is overwhelmingly positive, but we need to bear that in mind as we train them and instil the right values in them. As they hopefully embark on a long-term career, we will be staying in touch with their sentiments very closely.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
Will the Minister comment on capital investment support for police forces? My understanding is that the new joint firearms unit between Dyfed-Powys, Gwent and South Wales police will cost around £40 million, and that has largely been funded out of reserves. Clearly, that is not sustainable.
Kit Malthouse
Having been, effectively, a police and crime commissioner in the past, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that the removal of the distinction between capital and revenue receipts and spending would have been a blessed relief. In the old days of local government restrictions in that regard, in the police and in local authorities, there was an entire science devoted to the creation of capital as revenue and the conversion of revenue into capital, to get round the Treasury rules, but we have done away with that division now. [Interruption.] Of course, as a chartered accountant, I feel slightly bereft, having been put out of business. It was quite an art form, which was very satisfying to achieve.
However, the removal of that division means that a cheque goes to the police and crime commissioner, and along with the chief constable they may then decide on the division between capital and revenue as they wish. Having handled such budgets in the past, I think that is a very welcome development. I know, for example, that in Wales that has been used to great effect. In Dyfed-Powys the police and crime commissioner, on first coming into the role, made a huge investment in CCTV across the entire force area, which is paying enormous dividends, and he is able to do that as he wishes, capital and revenue being irrelevant. That is the kind of freedom that we want to give police and crime commissioners as they pursue their mission.
This is a crucial year for policing, particularly on the recruitment programme. The settlement is designed to ensure that we hit that important mark of 20,000 new officers. Forces have made outstanding progress to date, and that is testament to the hard work of all involved in the campaign. The recent statistical release of the police uplift programme demonstrates how many forces have already met, or in some cases exceeded, their year 2 target. PCCs are grabbing this investment with both hands and already a number of forces have more police officers on their books than they ever had before.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
The Minister knows that Durham constabulary is an efficient force—it has been recognised as such—but since 2010 we have lost 325 police officers. Even with this funding, we will still be 153 short on where we would have been in 2020. How does he square that?
Kit Malthouse
By the time we get to the end of the uplift programme, there will be a large number of forces who are above the number of police officers that they had in 2010. That will be a function of decisions that were made by police and crime commissioners in the intervening decades.
Kit Malthouse
It absolutely is—they had to make often difficult decisions about finances. I was one of those police and crime commissioners, so I know that prioritising police numbers within that overall formula means that some have a better baseline from which to build than others. For example, in London, for which I was responsible, we made a strong case to the then Mayor, now the Prime Minister, that it was our job to prioritise police numbers. As a result, the baseline to build off the uplift programme means that the Metropolitan police now have the highest number of police officers they have ever had in their history, with more to come.
I cannot mitigate the financial decisions made by police and crime commissioners in Durham, the West Midlands or other forces, but, having said that, Durham will receive significant extra police officers in the third year. I hope that with the freedom and flexibility on extra funding that the police and crime commissioner will get through the precept will mean that they might well add to that number as well.
Mr Kevan Jones
It is not me saying that Durham is an efficient force. The inspectorate said that it is an “outstanding” force in that regard. It lost 325 officers. It will still be worse off by 153 officers by the end of the uplift, and the reason for that is the low precept in the council tax base in County Durham. Unless that is sorted out, the force will never be able to afford the Minister’s ambitions, unlike the Chancellor’s constituency, which will end up with 190 more police officers than it had in 2020.
Kit Malthouse
I am happy to continue the argument with the right hon. Gentleman outside the Chamber rather than occupying significant amounts of time on what is—
Kit Malthouse
No, I am not wrong. There are forces similar to Durham that will be in a better position. It has to be the case that financial decisions made by police and crime commissioners have an impact, otherwise what is the point of having them and on what basis did they stand for election? The Mayor and I stood for election in London on the basis that we absolutely wanted to maintain police numbers, and I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman—
Kit Malthouse
I am not going to continue the argument. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he goes back and looks at the manifestos that the police and crime commissioner in Durham produced in those elections and see whether they promised to prioritise police numbers or not, or whether all they did was whinge about Government funding. I am happy as a trade to take responsibility for the very difficult financial decisions that this Government had to take after the crash in 2007-08 and after our coming into government in 2010. I take responsibility for that—I absolutely do. Thank God we did as well, given what has happened to us subsequently. However, I will only do that if the right hon. Gentleman will take responsibility for the decisions of his police and crime commissioner in those intervening 10 years. I will move on.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Minister’s debate with the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) comes to the heart of how the Government go about this. The money that is given to the police and crime commissioners is £796 million, I think, as long as the full flexibility of the precept option is taken up. Does that not undermine the whole purpose of the accountability of police and crime commissioners?
Kit Malthouse
I am a bit perplexed by that. No, absolutely not. We are giving full flexibility. They can use the £10 if they want and if they do not they do not have to. All they have to do is justify that decision to the people who elect them. Happily, as far as I can see, every single one of them so far has taken the full £10, which suggests to me by the crowdfunding decision that we got the number about right. In some parts of the country, not least in Wales where they have other flexibility, they might go further. In my view we have given them lots of flexibility and they are using it. I hope that they will use it wisely to raise police officer numbers in Durham and elsewhere.
Mr Carmichael
The purpose of the precept is to give flexibility and accountability to the police and crime commissioners. Effectively, under this settlement the police and crime commissioners have to be accountable for decisions made by the Minister.
Kit Malthouse
I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman’s logic is right. Absolutely not. If they want to raise the contribution by less than £10, they can. There is no problem with that and the idea of there being an upper limit and a cap is a well-accepted feature of police funding. If a police and crime commissioner wants to raise the contribution by £5, £6 or £7 they can, and in fact if they do not want to spend it on police officer numbers they do not even have to do that. The right hon. Gentleman is making a rather poor argument, and I might say that the settlement has been greeted with pretty universal pleasure and a claim by police and crime commissioners from across the political divide, so I am not quite sure where this dissatisfaction is coming from.
Kit Malthouse
No, I have to move on.
Police officers, whether new recruits or experienced hands with decades of service, perform a unique and vital role in our society. I must put on record how grateful I am—I know that all hon. Members are—to everyone in the policing family, including civilian staff and volunteers who work tirelessly day in, day out to keep our people safe from harm.
I return to recruitment. It is only right that the Government hold forces to account to ensure that they are delivering the outcomes that the public expect from this investment. The Government will therefore once again create a ringfenced grant to ensure that the success of the police uplift programme is maintained in the coming year. Forces will be allocated a share of the £135 million grant in line with their funding formula allocation. As in previous years, forces will be able to access the funding as they deliver progress on their recruitment targets.
As announced in the 2021 spending review, police and crime commissioners in England will have access to further flexibility around levels of police precept to make additional funding available for local matters for the next three years. The settlement allows PCCs in England to raise council tax contributions for local policing by up to £10 a year for a typical Band D household. If all police and crime commissioners decide to maximise that flexibility, the outcome will be a further £246 million of funding for local policing in the coming year. I must stress that—we have discussed this—council tax levels are a local decision, and I know that police and crime commissioners weigh carefully in the balance what their local people can afford and want to see from policing before they make that decision.
We are also enabling counter-terrorism policing to confront terrorism in all its forms. That is why, for the first time, funding for counter-terrorism policing will total over £1 billion. That significant funding will allow CT policing officers to continue their critical work, support ongoing investigations, and continue investment in the operations centre and in armed policing. In addition to the increase in Government grants and additional precept flexibility, I am delighted to announce that we are investing £1.4 billion to support national policing priorities that will benefit all police forces across England and Wales. That funding will help accelerate progress on key areas of Government focus including crime reduction and improvements to the service received by the public. Of that investment, £65 million will support policing capabilities specifically, including funding to drive improvements in local police performance; measuring responsiveness to 101 and 999 calls; and funding for a national crime laboratory to push the use of innovative data science techniques to prevent and reduce crime.
The Government recognise the need to maintain focus on cutting crime to make our communities safer. That is why we are also providing additional investment in regional organised crime units so that they are equipped with the capabilities they need to tackle serious and organised crime and to protect the most vulnerable citizens from abuse. We are committed to working with PCCs and other partners to tackle crime and make our streets safer. As announced at the 2021 spending review, we will provide investment in new projects to improve crime prevention as well as maintaining and enhancing existing programmes. Funding arrangements for specific crime reduction programmes will be confirmed in due course and will follow a matched funding principle.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
May I commend to the Minister the idea of sending a police officer to every scene of a burglary? In that respect, I commend Northamptonshire police’s Operation Crooked, which has slashed domestic break-ins across the county by 48% in two years, down from 5,500 burglaries in 2019 to 2,850 in the 12 months to December 2021. That is what the public want to see. It is demonstrably effective and a really good use of the funding that he is giving to the police.
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend is an eagle-eyed participant in the House, and in the “Beating Crime Plan” that we published last July he will have seen a chapter entitled “Excellence in the basics”. In that chapter was exactly the proposal that he outlined from Northamptonshire: that we would purloin that idea and spread it to other forces. For the moment, Northamptonshire and Greater Manchester police will do exactly as he says and visit every burglary, because we believe that forensic and other opportunities eventually drive the numbers down. It is that basic fulfilment of people’s expectations that we want to see from this increased funding, and I congratulate his force on leading the way on that.
As I have set out, the Government continue to invest significantly in policing. It is therefore only right that we expect policing to demonstrate to the taxpayer that such funding is spent effectively and efficiently while ensuring the highest possible quality of service for the public. As announced at the spending review, the Government will expect to see over £100 million of cashable efficiency savings delivered from force budgets by 2024-25. For 2022-23, we expect to see £80 million of efficiency savings, which is reflected in the funding set out in that part of the settlement.
With greater investment in modern technology infrastructure and interoperable systems, we expect to see an increase in productivity and therefore the delivery of key outcomes. We will continue to work with and support the policing sector through the efficiency in policing board, with a renewed focus on the improvement of the measurement of productivity gains so that we can show how our investment delivers for the public beyond the rather dry management language in which it is described.
Right from the beginning this Government have made clear where we stand on law and order: on the side of the law-abiding majority and squarely behind the brave men and women who go to work every day to keep us all safe. This settlement demonstrates our unwavering commitment to ensuring that the police have the resources they need to drive down crime, protect the public and improve outcomes for victims. I commend the settlement to the House.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the people who serve in our police service. It has not been an easy time: 10 years of cuts followed by covid has placed enormous strain on them. Thanks also go to the officers who work here to keep us safe and to those who acted with such bravery on Monday as an angry mob surrounded the Leader of the Opposition shouting claims made by the Prime Minister in this place last week. We must not, though, shy away from recent reports on some of the worrying misogynistic, racist and sexist culture and practice in policing that have shocked many of us and challenged police throughout the country to strive always for higher standards.
The police grant report comes at a difficult time for the country. Inflation is rising, energy prices are rising and taxes are rising. We have had a wasted decade of low growth, the challenges of covid and a Government who have wasted billions and billions on covid fraud and incompetent PPE contracts that never delivered. In April, tax goes up, and inflation is forecast to rise to 6% in the spring. The Government’s only answer is a buy now, pay later energy scheme that will not help those most in need or help the economy.
Because of the Government’s mismanagement of the economy, the additional funding in this year’s police grant will not go anywhere near as far as we need it to go. There has never been a more important time to invest in policing.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that when the Government announce increases in police funding, as the Minister has done today, they forget to tell people that the bulk of that funding will come from local council tax payers? The Government are continuing the policy of the past 11 years of moving the cost of police funding from central Government to local taxpayers.
Sarah Jones
My right hon. Friend is completely right: a third of the extra funding now comes from the council tax precept. That is a very high proportion.
Total crime went up 14% over the past two years—contrary to what the Prime Minister said in this place last week, for which he has been criticised by the UK Statistics Authority. As we heard earlier in Prime Minister’s questions, there are 14,000 cases of fraud every day—although the Prime Minister and the Government do not count them as real crime. Arrests are down and prosecutions are at their lowest levels. Just one in 50 burglaries result in a charge and, shamefully, only 1.3% of reported rapes lead to a charge. Criminals are getting away with it.
A proper plan backed by proper investment has never been more important, yet we yet have a demoralised police workforce who have declared no confidence in the Home Secretary. Pay in real terms is lower than it was in 2010. Despite the uplift that has already taken place, the total police workforce has more than 17,000 fewer people in it than it had in 2010. The number of police leaving the service with mental health problems is high. Neighbourhood policing is decimated, with nearly 50% of police community support officers gone and police staff cut.
Only 400 of the first tranche of 6,000 new police officers were deployed in neighbourhood roles. Police officers are backfilling vital police staff roles because forces do not have the budgets to pay the salaries of the number of police staff they need. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) has said, despite the uplift many areas will still end up with fewer officers than they had in 2010. Merseyside will be 456 officers short and the West Midlands will be 1,000 officers short. This is the woeful context in which we debate the police grant.
The overriding sense I take from the police grant report is the total lack of any meaningful ambition to come even close to fixing some of the challenges we face, and the lack of any kind of vision or plan from the Home Office to tackle crime and its causes. It is a woeful attempt to make up for a decade of cuts by heaping the tax burden on to local council tax payers through the precept.
Budgets have started to increase, but they are not inflationary increases. We are not back to 2010 levels in real terms. Once money for new officers is counted out of the figures, direct funding to PCCs is rising by only 4.8% at a time when inflation is rising steeply and is predicted to reach 6% in the spring. That means the Tories’ failure to keep inflation down will hit day-to-day police budgets and the police’s ability to keep communities safe.
While police officers across the country recover from the pandemic, they will be paying higher national insurance and higher energy and petrol costs. Officers and staff will see less value in their income because of inflation. The Government are also demanding £80 million in efficiency savings on top of it all. Members should not just take my word for it; Gloucestershire’s Conservative PCC, Chris Nelson, has had to admit that his manifesto pledge to add 300 officers is “unachievable,” adding that he would be “jolly lucky” to achieve it.
In Merseyside, it is estimated that inflation will cost £2.3 million, the pay increase will cost £5 million and the national insurance increase will cost £2.3 million, while Merseyside police is making savings of £2.9 million. The additional precept income is being used to cover the cost of pay, price inflation and the national insurance levy. Earmarked reserves are being used to balance the budget in-year, and there is a potential long-term increase in expensive police officers sitting behind desks to cover crucial police staff roles.
With these kinds of pressures, how can arrests and prosecutions increase? How can the police tackle serious violence, violence against women and girls, drug addiction and all the other pressures with the strength we expect? That is Conservative Britain.
The Government expect more and more police funding to come from local taxpayers, but there is a gross inequality in this overreliance on the precept because it is the most deprived communities, those with the fewest band D properties, that will get the least. There should be no winners and losers when it comes to public safety.
Northumbria has the lowest band D precept, and just 18% of Northumbria police’s funding came from the precept in 2021-22, whereas Surrey police got 55% of its funding from the precept. Budget pressures will be even greater if PCCs are not able to bring in as much as the Government have projected from the council tax precept, as the £296 million increase depends on every PCC making full use of the flexibility to increase the precept. Even if they all do so, as we think they will all be forced into doing, it means more tax rises on local people during a cost of living crisis.
We are debating police funding, so we should return to the age-old question of when the Minister will finally get round to reforming the funding formula. This was vaguely promised by the Minister before the election but, if the Government wait until 2024, they will have spent nine years dithering while police forces have had to make massive efficiency savings and local taxpayers have had to pay the price. Is there any chance of news of progress today?
This settlement should be a real opportunity to recruit a more diverse police service that better reflects the communities it serves. The annual increase in the proportion of black and minority ethnic officers is 0.3 percentage points. At that rate, it will take 20 years to reach 14% black and minority ethnic officers, which is the make-up of the country, so much more needs to be done, so much more.
Only one in 20 crimes leads to prosecution. The “Beating Crime Plan”, whatever the Minister says, has no meat, no ideas and no strategy. It will not do to pretend that everything is okay with press releases that the UK Statistics Authority says
“presented the…figures in a misleading way.”
It will not do to claim that crime has fallen because of the “Beating Crime Plan”, when it has actually risen, and when certain crimes which reduced in number did so largely because of covid restrictions and are now on the rise again. It will not do to allow antisocial behaviour to blight people’s lives, serious violence to make a generation of young people fearful, and women and girls to continue to be the victims of violence and abuse.
We need a properly funded police service, an economy that functions and leadership from the Government. That is what the public expect. A Labour Government would put victims first and ensure that every neighbourhood where people are frightened and afraid has a new police hub and neighbourhood prevention teams, bringing together police, community support officers, youth workers and local authority staff. Labour’s record in government shows that, unlike this Government, we can be trusted on policing and crime. By the time we left government, there were 6 million fewer crimes than in 1997. It took us years to build up neighbourhood policing, and this Government are spending their years undoing that good work.
The Opposition will not vote against the plans, because some funding is better than no funding, despite the poor economic conditions that the Conservatives have created, which will mean that the money does not go anywhere near as far as we need. This Government, like the two Conservative Governments before them, are failing to deliver on crime. They are failing to bring down total crime, failing to deliver justice to victims, failing to rebuild neighbourhood policing and now failing to control the inflation hitting day-to-day police budgets. They should go back to the drawing board and try again: “Must do better.”
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister and particularly the Conservative police and crime commissioner for Dorset, David Sidwick, for all their hard work. However, I do not think I am remiss in reminding the Minister that I have been sharing my views with him for some time on the police funding formula and Dorset’s priority in it. I warmly encourage him to accelerate the changes that a little while ago in this House he kindly said he would make.
I feel that there is an assumption within the Government that Dorset is a wonderful place. It is, of course—it is full of rolling green hills, chocolate-box villages and so on—but we have many difficulties to contend with as well. Dorset is an importer of serious and organised crime, including county lines drugs gangs that use our rail networks to get into West Dorset. The population of Dorset trebles in the summer months, when people from all over the country come to our beautiful county. It has such places as the Cerne Abbas giant, Sherborne abbey, the Jurassic coast and Lyme Regis, so we can understand why people would like to visit, but that attraction brings interest from those who wish to deal drugs.
It is important to note that Dorset comes right at the top for demand, which is measured by crime pressure and calculated on the basis of severity of crime and number of officers per force. Demand in Dorset is three times the national average, but our police force is 28th out of 41 for total funding. That does not sound too bad in the grand scheme of things, but it takes into account the local funding from the precept; in the police grant report, Dorset police force comes 40th out of 41. The funding calculations do not take into account the huge seasonal population increase. There needs to be a real understanding that Dorset is the sixth highest region in the country for visitor trips. Regrettably, the methodology used means that Dorset is not eligible for violence reduction funding. I hope that the Minister will consider that point next year.
I recognise that this year’s settlement has increased the funding for all police forces. I put on record our gratitude to the Minister for the 4.8% increase that Dorset has received, but it is a little less than the 5.8% average. I am not petitioning for limitless funding for police support, as some Labour Members and others in the House have done, but I hope that the Minister appreciates my petition to him, to the Government and to the House for Dorset to get its fair share to ensure that we can do what is right by our constituents.
Our police and crime commissioner, David Sidwick and the chief constable have impressive plans to tackle the drug issue in Dorset, along with others. I know it is a national priority, but the reality is that we really need the resources to do it. Dorset requires and deserves its fair share of the police funding settlement, so that we can protect the people who need it and we can take on the criminals who take advantage. The police and crime commissioner has recently written to the Minister, and I have followed that up. I think the police and crime commissioner is doing an exceptional job, and I hope the Minister will be able to respond and meet us in reasonably short order so that we might be able to address some of these matters. I know that Dorset police want to get on with their priorities and indeed with national priorities, but they need the backing of the Government and funding to do that, and I hope my right hon. Friend will indeed take that into account.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I would like to begin by thanking the men and women of Durham police and the support staff for their commitment and dedication, particularly given the difficult time they have had over the last couple of years with the pandemic, and for their support during Storm Arwen recently. I would also like to put on record my thanks to Jo Farrell, the chief constable, for her effective leadership of a force which, despite what the Minister pushed to one side, has been continually rated as outstanding for its effectiveness and efficiency. I am sorry that the new police and crime commissioner did not see fit to brief MPs on the settlement, but that does not matter, because I have been making the same arguments about the budget for the past 11 years, and I possibly know the police budget better than many.
To listen to Ministers today, we would think that the election of the Government in 2019 was ground zero and that nothing happened before then, or that nothing that happened before then was their responsibility. Somehow it is not their fault that we in County Durham lost 325 experienced police officers or, for example, that Dorset, even after the much-vaunted 20,000 officers promise, will still have 70 police officers fewer than it had in 2010. This did not happen by accident; this happened because of the political decisions taken by successive Tory Governments since 2010. It is very interesting that the Minister said that the first duty of Government is to protect citizens and policing is a main part of that, but the main point is that the police funding budget was cut by some 16% over that period.
The other point—and this leads to the problem we have in Durham and, I think, in many forces, including Dorset—is the fact that policing was traditionally funded mainly by the central Government grant and the precept then made up the remainder. What has happened since 2010, and it continues in this latest settlement today, is that that central Government grant has been cut by 30%, which has basically pushed the cost of policing on to local council tax payers. The overall tax burden has gone up since 2014-15 by some 13% on local council tax payers. In some areas, it has gone up even more than that, and I will explain the reasons why in a minute.
The Minister has again peddled the same line today. The Government say that there will be x millions extra for policing, but what they never say is that the bulk of that will come not from central Government taxation, but from local council tax payers. The Minister then says that it is up to the local police and crime commissioner to decide whether to put up the council tax. No, they should read the actual policy. It assumes that the announced funding figure is based on all the councils putting it up to the maximum. Frankly, they do not have a choice in that if they want effective local policing.
All I ask of the Minister and of the Government is to be honest when they make these announcements. When they announce that the budget is going up this year by a certain number of hundred millions, why do they not split it out into what the Government are doing centrally and what increase the Government are asking local council tax payers to pay?
Kit Malthouse
If the right hon. Gentleman had listened carefully to my speech, he would have heard me say specifically that £500-odd million was coming from the Government to PCCs, and that, if they all took their flexibility, £200-odd million was coming from the PCCs. I specifically enunciated in my speech what the balance was. By the way, Mr Deputy Speaker, as I know that the right hon. Gentleman will not want to mislead the House, let me say that that does not indicate that the bulk of police funding is coming from the precept. It is quite the reverse: the bulk is coming from central taxation.
Mr Jones
I understand police funding, and I understand what the Government have been up to for the past 12 years. When the Minister—and he did this today—or the Prime Minister say that this Government are providing an extra certain amount of money for policing, why do they not put that caveat on it? They never do, because that is the sting in the tail. That has been happening continuously. It happens not just in policing, but in local government funding and in the funding for our fire and rescue services, so this creates a problem for local policing, local government and the fire and rescue service in County Durham. It has got to the point where our fire and rescue service will survive this year, but could actually fall over next year, because of the way in which this Government continue to push the emphasis onto the local council tax payer.
Why is this a particular problem for County Durham? The root of it is that 58% of the properties in County Durham are in council tax band A. In Wokingham, in Surrey, only 2.8% are in band A. So, if the precept for policing in County Durham is increased by 1%, it will raise £3.8 million, whereas in Surrey, it raises £8.9 million. Therefore, what we basically have with this policy, which is slowly pushing more and more funding onto local council tax payers, is that the poorest areas with the lowest council tax banding systems are the losers, while other, more affluent, areas are the gainers.
The Government have this slogan—they govern in slogans—that they will create another 20,000 new police officers, but, again, in County Durham, we have lost 325 officers since 2010. Even with the settlement today and the PCC putting the precept up to the maximum, we will still be, by the end of this, 153 officers short of where we were in 2010. I look forward to the next election when the three Conservative Members for County Durham put out their election leaflets, claiming another 20,000 police officers. I doubt whether they will be honest with the public and say that the party of which they are members has cut the police officers by 153 over that period. The problem is not just about numbers, but about the experience of those officers. Because of those cuts, we have lost some long-serving, experienced officers, who have been replaced by individuals who will logically take a while to gain experience. In any organisation, historical and corporate knowledge is important when it comes to the effectiveness of a police force, so it is not just about numbers, but about the experience of those officers.
As I have said, we will end this period with 153 fewer officers than we had in 2010. The Chancellor of the Exchequer’s constituency in North Yorkshire will end up with 190 more officers than it had in 2010. That is because every 1% increase in the precept in County Durham raises about £400,000, whereas in North Yorkshire it raises £800,000. Unless we tackle the funding formula, areas such as County Durham—and, I suspect, Dorset—will continue to be at a disadvantage.
That goes to the central point, which is that this is all a result of the Government continuing with a political decision that they took 11 years ago when they said, “We are going to cut central funding and push it on to local council tax”. Let us add to that the fact that policing is just one part of law enforcement, but we have seen court closures in County Durham and cuts in the number of prosecutors in the CPS, which has led to a system in crisis. That comment does not come from me; it comes from talking to local police officers. Even when they are successful in catching criminals, getting them through the court system is time-consuming. I accept that covid has had an effect, but a lot of it is not about that; it is about the capacity of the CPS and courts to find the time needed.
The Minister said that the Conservatives were the party of law and order. I am sorry, but we have to look at our courts system and our justice system today—they are not the party of law and order, given the paralysis in our justice system. The situation is also not fair for victims because they are waiting an inordinate length of time to get justice or even court dates, and in the end, some will think that they have not got justice when cases are dropped because of the time they have taken.
If we do not have a fundamental review of the funding formula, the situation will continue. Even with this settlement, County Durham—I put this on record yet again—which is deemed an “efficient” and “effective” force and as “outstanding” by the inspectorate, is still missing some £10 million for the next few years. Where will that come from? The only way is through more efficiencies. I have spoken to the chief constable and some great things have been done to make sure that there are improvements. However, over the past 11 years, the pressures on our police have not stood still, which has not helped. Legislation has put more demands on them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), the shadow Minister, said, the nature of crime, is changing. House burglaries are traumatic and terrible for individuals, but so are fraud and scams. I found it pretty depressing to hear the Business Secretary more or less dismissing fraud as though it is somehow a victimless crime. Just speak to some victims of that type of crime—they feel terrible. But fraud is a crime that is going to need more specialism. The nature of crime and the demands on our police force are changing, and that needs long-term stability and investment in our police force to provide such specialism. Without that, we will continue this cycle.
The Minister is a very combative individual and, on a personal basis, I get on quite well with him. However, the approach is all front; all smoke-and-mirrors. We need to disaggregate the spin and the headlines about 20,000 officers from the reality of what is happening on the ground. Unless the funding formula is addressed quickly, efficient and good police forces such as Durham will continue to suffer. The only people who will pay for that are my constituents and people in County Durham, who will do so through higher council tax bills and a potentially poorer service.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this important debate. I wish to start, as I am sure every Member would, by paying tribute to the police officers and staff from Bedfordshire police. Everyone who serves as an officer or member of staff in a police force does so in a noble profession; they keep us safe and look after the most vulnerable. We cannot thank them enough for what they do.
In Bedfordshire, in the settlement, we now have 1,369 officers, which is 135 more than we had back in 2010, and we have a budget that has gone up to £136.1 million, which is an increase of 5.4%. It would be remiss of me not to say thank you for those increases. Gratitude is sometimes somewhat slow to come off the lips of politicians, but occasionally it is due and where it is due I pay it gladly. The Minister knows well that the Bedfordshire police finances have been sustained in recent years only through a series of special grants. Last year, he was kind enough to give us two of £3.6 million each, making a total of £7.2 million. It was only because we had those two special grants, which we have had for a number of years now, that we have been able to balance the books. I am sure he will agree that that is not a sustainable basis on which to go forward, and he will therefore not be surprised to hear me raise again the issue of the funding formula. In Bedfordshire’s case, this goes back to 2004 and the introduction of damping, which has taken about £3 million—the equivalent of about 95 officers on our streets—off our budgets. We are starting to make good on some of that with the increases, but it is not sustainable to leave Bedfordshire police finances where they are with the current funding formula.
This is not just about increases in budgets, because we have to look at what those budgets are asked to do. The Minister will know that we have a high number of organised criminal gangs and of county lines gangs in Bedfordshire. He will also know that from time to time we need hundreds of officers to police things such as Traveller funerals. If we look at Operation Venetic, we see that Bedfordshire had 26 packages of intelligence, whereas Hertfordshire, a much larger county, had only 11 and Cambridgeshire, bless it, did not have any. That illustrates the extent of the demand in Bedfordshire, whose budget has been adversely affected by the introduction of damping from 2004. This is not just about the total officers; it is also about where those officers are based. The largest town in my constituency is Leighton Buzzard. In 1988, it had a police station, with an inspector, six sergeants and 27 constables— 34 warranted officers in the town. Now we have a shared emergency services hub. Unfortunately, we do not have a 24/7 first responder presence, which we used to have. It takes time for officers to travel to where the crime is. They do not have magic carpets or a TARDIS to get from A to B. If they are travelling from Luton or wherever, that takes time. It is often low-paid staff in our pubs and clubs who have to deal with the first five or 10 minutes of the fight. That is not the role of bartenders and people working in hospitality, so where those officers are matters and sorting out the funding formula will enable us to deal with that issue.
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
Is the hon. Gentleman concerned that the closure of some police stations might make it quite a long journey to take somebody from an incident to the police station for the processing, taking too much time out of their shift, and we are perhaps getting to a point where there are not as many arrests as we would expect for the types of crimes that our constituents are seeing on the streets and would like to have tackled? Does he share my concern that the closure of police stations is not allowing us to deal with that antisocial behaviour on our streets?
Andrew Selous
The hon. Lady is right; time spent taking offenders to custody suites is time when those officers cannot be on the streets doing their job. However, we cannot spend the same pound twice. I would like to see a 24/7 first responder response, and there are ways we can do that. We have a large public estate, and I think we need to be a bit more imaginative about how and where we base our police officers, because the primary focus is on having officers on the beat in our large centres of population 24/7.
On the police funding formula review, I have been asking every Policing Minister about this since I was elected in 2001, and I was pleased to have confirmation from the Prime Minister recently that we are moving forward and are going to deliver on this. I also received a letter from the Minister himself, in which he said that the consultation on the police funding formula review would take place this summer—so I have it in writing in an official letter from the Home Office. I was very pleased indeed to read that. It sounds as if the train has left the station. This is about being fair to Bedfordshire and those other forces that have been left out, and I look forward to swift implementation. The Minister talked about effective transition arrangements for that review. I want it to be effective but I do not want it to take too long, and I hope he will bear that in mind.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
This is welcome news, but it will be interesting to see when the train actually arrives. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that part of that review has to involve the fundamental question of what the split should be between central Government funding and what is raised locally?
Andrew Selous
The right hon. Gentleman is right, in that no one likes paying council tax—I have often called it the most unpopular tax in the UK. The primary focus for us in Bedfordshire is to have a well-funded force, to have enough officers and to have them in the right places, and our greatest issue is the resolution of the funding formula issue. This Government have committed to that, and they have done so very publicly. We will have the consultation this summer. It needs to deliver, and deliver quickly.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
I want to start by paying tribute to the officers and civilian staff in both police forces that cover my constituency: South Wales police and Gwent police. I also pay tribute to the wider police family. I was fortunate enough a few years ago to take part in the police parliamentary scheme, and I did some shifts with the Met here in London. I know that we are all grateful for the dedication and professionalism of all our police officers right across the country.
I obviously welcome any new officers, but it is important to remember that the increase in the number of officers is merely replacing the 20,000 police officers that have been cut since 2010. It is also important to remember, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) has highlighted, that the significant resource is now being put on the council tax payer and that in areas such as his and mine that will have a detrimental impact on council tax payers.
Mr Kevan Jones
I know that my hon. Friend’s area is similar to mine, in that it has a low council tax base. This is also unequal because, as council tax is a regressive tax, we are asking the poorest people to pay the most.
Gerald Jones
I absolutely agree. I do not have the exact figures, but the number of properties in band A in my constituency, and in his, is significant compared with other parts of the country.
I want to talk about neighbourhood policing, because its decimation has been felt acutely across the country. Neighbourhood policing is a key foundation of policing, and it has two major benefits: providing reassurance and building a rapport across communities; and providing a deterrent against what is often low-level disorder before it becomes a bigger issue. As the shadow Policing Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), has highlighted, it seems that only 400 of the first 6,000 officers were deployed to neighbourhood roles. I am pleased that in Wales, thanks to the Welsh Labour Government, we have had significant financial support to employ 500 additional police community support officers, with an additional 100 being added during this current term of the Senedd. These officers support the police and the local authority community safety officers in helping to provide reassurance to residents and to act as a deterrent. Labour’s plan for the new community safety hubs will be a huge step forward.
This takes me back to the early 2000s, when I was a county councillor under the last Labour Government. In my ward we had a policing team of four officers—two constables and two PCSOs—who worked closely with the council community safety wardens, youth workers and local councillors. In fact, we carried out monthly door-to-door community safety surgeries with police officers, so that local authority issues and policing issues could be tackled jointly. That certainly had the impact of driving down antisocial behaviour. Sadly, that style of policing has been decimated across the country. We know that total crime is up 14%, not down, as the Prime Minister wrongly claimed. Over the past two years, the reduction in the number of officers has clearly had an effect on that increase in crime, and it is still having an impact now.
Finally, will the Minister consider the unfair position of Welsh police forces in respect of the apprenticeship levy? I understand that Welsh forces are around £6 million worse off compared with English forces due to the Home Office’s funding formula. Despite ongoing discussions between the four police forces, the Home Office and the Welsh Government, the matter remains unresolved, so I ask the Minister to examine that issue again because the situation is unacceptable and unsustainable.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me in this interesting debate. I want to heap praise on my hon. Friend the Minister, with whom I have had many dealings and who has been simply fantastic at talking to us in Dorset. We look forward to him visiting us as soon as possible. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder), who is right here beside me and who spoke on Dorset’s behalf. I shall be brief, although I suspect I may repeat some of his facts and figures, but they are worth repeating.
I also thank the new chief constable, Scott Chilton, and our new PCC, David Sidwick. I am glad to say that they are joined at the hip and want to tackle crime—that is refreshing—and protect us on the streets. They are doing a wonderful job, and my hon. Friend and I, and the other Dorset MPs, are right behind them both.
In 2006, when I was selected to be the candidate in Dorset, I remember waving my placard saying, “More money for the police.” I regret to say that we were bottom of the funding formula, but we still are, and the Minister knows that. Out of the 41 forces, we are the 40th, excluding the council tax precept, which many hon. Members have mentioned, including the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones)—we do not always agree politically, but I will call him my friend and we sit together on the Defence Committee. I agree to a certain extent that this is a vulnerability, but council tax is high in Dorset and paying any more would affect my constituents, many of whom are struggling to pay this dreadful tax. I know my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson), a Government Whip, is equally passionate about the police in Dorset.
I now have a few statistics—forgive me, but the Minister will understand. Under the national funding formula, Dorset receives £91.79 a head. The range is from £188 to, say, £90. The median is £109.28. To reach it, Dorset would need another £13.5 million in funding. On net revenue expenditure, Dorset is 28th out of 41 forces—I think my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset mentioned that. The median is £189 a head, and Dorset would need an extra £5.4 million to reach the median.
Dorset is so beautiful that millions of people visit it, and we welcome them. However, the population trebles in the summer, and there is no extra funding or resources for that. There is no extra grant funding to tackle drugs and violence, despite the 10-year drugs strategy. Yet Bournemouth, which is not in my seat but clearly part of Dorset, is ninth in the country for heroin and crack cocaine use. This is a worrying trend, and Bournemouth, Poole and Christchurch—town or city; call it what you will—have a growing problem and need the resources to tackle it. We also have no violence reduction unit or Project ADDER funding—the Minister will understand what those are.
I have had briefings from Dorset police that county lines is a real problem for us in Dorset. I worked with my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset on this, and the railway police came down to Weymouth to brief me on the issue of 14, 15 or 16-year-old youngsters travelling by train, sent by drug dealers—now, more often than not, armed with knives, which is extremely worrying, or with cash—and getting into Dorset to ply this ghastly and evil trade.
Dorset is 40th out of 41 on the national funding for violence prevention and safe spaces. Our request to join the electronic monitoring of offenders pilot was sadly rejected. The crime pattern between ’17 and ’21 is well understood and follows an established pattern, but it remains high. We receive more 999 calls than most similar group forces, despite a similar volume of crime. That is mainly due to the peak in the summer and all the millions of people who come to our beautiful county. We are the sixth-highest area for visitor trips, but that is not considered in the national funding formula.
My hon. Friend mentioned the crime pressure estimate, which measures severity of crime using the Home Office tool against the number of officers in the force. Dorset crime pressure in 2020 is more than three times the national average—the highest of any force. Organised crime groups such as county lines disrupt Dorset police disproportionately compared with larger forces. We are a rural area, but the volume of crime we are getting is disproportionate to our ability to deal with it in such an area.
Finally, and extraordinarily, we are just outside the top 10 for armed deployments per 100,000 head of population. That is extraordinary, when we live in what my hon. Friend described as a “chocolate box” area. That is clearly what so many people think we are, but we have our issues, and I know the Minister is aware of that. We look forward very much to him coming down to visit us; I hope that when he meets the new and excellent PCC and our chief constable, we can discuss how to resolve at least some of those issues.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to join my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) in paying tribute to the officers and staff of Bedfordshire police, who keep our county and its residents safe.
Crime remains a serious and major concern for many of my constituents, but my contribution will focus on 10 pieces of good news on crime. First, there is the news about the funding formula, an issue that has cross-party support in Bedfordshire. I am so pleased that the Minister has now brought forward that review and that, as he said, the train has left the station.
Secondly, the Minister will know that funding is a partnership between the national funding formula and local councillors. I am sure he will be pleased to learn that the cross-party police and crime panel agreed unanimously, with no abstentions or votes against, an increase in the local precept to support the local policing plan. I pay tribute in particular to the chair of that committee, Councillor Ian Dalgarno.
Thirdly, there is the leadership of our police and crime commissioner, Festus Akinbusoye, and the programme he has put in place to direct those resources in the most effective way. He has said that the funding he is receiving locally will pay for 72 additional police officers and that he will focus them on rural crime teams, which are so important in my constituency. As my piece of good news 5(a), I also commend the Minister on taking forward the hare coursing legislation that is so important for so many rural constituents. Festus has also paid due attention to the responsibility to get the security and policing right at Luton airport—another important issue locally.
Festus has also paid due attention to the responsibility to get the security and policing right at Luton airport—another important local issue. Following the inspiring leadership of the Prime Minister, knife crime reduction—a crucial issue across the country—is now a priority in Bedfordshire. On prosecuting serious sexual violence, Bedfordshire was in the lowest quartile a few years ago but is now the sixth best, which is a tribute to our chief constable. Burglary and detection rates have trebled in the past year, and the rates of solving burglary have doubled.
My tenth and final piece of good news is the strength, confidence and hard work of the officers of Bedfordshire police who, through the covid period, continued to keep us safe, and continue today to provide that quality of service that the British public have every right to expect.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
This has been a good debate; if only it was a good settlement. A wasted decade of low growth under the Conservatives is holding back Britain; it has left our economy weakened, with inflation, national insurance and energy prices all putting pressure on the police. Inflation is predicted to rise still, which will put more pressure on our services. The Government have wasted public money through crony contracts, covid fraud and PPE waste, so there is less funding for policing.
To make up for the lack of central Government police funding, the Minister is burdening local taxpayers. Total crime is rising, prosecution rates are at an all-time low, and criminals are getting away with it. The police do not feel supported; pay is still lower in real terms than it was in 2010. The settlement will not go far enough. There is no leadership from Government on the challenges facing the service and no plan to cut crime.
This was an interesting debate that touched on all the major issues that we have debated on many occasions.
Richard Drax
The hon. Lady accuses the Government of not cutting crime, but I remind her that it is the chief constable and their officers—they do such a valuable job—who tackle criminals, not the politicians.
Sarah Jones
I was not aware of that. I thought the Government had some role in tackling crime, but clearly the Conservative Government think not.
With 17,000 fewer people working in the police force now than in 2010, it is also harder for the police to do the job that we expect them all to do. I was glad to hear about the new train leaving the station on the funding formula, and I was pleased to see Bedfordshire Members in the Chamber—if they were not here making the argument, on either side of the House, I would worry that something was amiss. I am glad that they have an answer on a timescale, but the formula was first promised in 2015 so we are already seven years down the line. I look forward to seeing that.
There was much debate about the council tax precept and the fact that a third of the increased funding must now come from council tax. It is not possible to level up by using the precept to pay for policing. Inequality is bedded in to the formula. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) said eloquently that it is the sting in the tail, and the hon. Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) agreed with that. The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) said that no one likes paying council tax; everybody is being forced to put council tax up to its highest level. The Cambridgeshire Conservative PCC, who has asked for a £9.99 tax increase on band D properties, stated that
“if I thought for one minute that we were likely to get substantial financial increases from government then I would’ve happily used reserves to plug the gap and not ask to raise the precept.”
The Conservative PCC for Bedfordshire said that rising costs due to inflation means taxes will need to rise to avoid cuts in police services. He said:
“We are facing rising costs across the public sector because of inflation. This means that next year an increase in the precept will be needed just for Bedfordshire Police to maintain its current position and meet the costs of pay and price increases.”
We heard about police numbers and the lack of policing in our neighbourhoods. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) talked about the 500 additional PCSOs that the Welsh Government are providing, which will make a difference. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham talked about the lack of police officers—the 325 they have lost and how, even with the increasing numbers, they will still be 153 officers short. The alternative universe that the Government try to peddle—that somehow they did not cut tens of thousands of police before they started to recruit a few—will not wash. There are 17,000 fewer people working in police services than there were in 2010.
Crime affects everywhere. The hon. Member for West Dorset talked about the delightful area he represents, but also about the violent criminal drug gangs and county lines that are there. This is an issue that every single one of our constituents cares about. Criminals are getting away with it. Charge rates are at a record low. Victims have lost faith in the criminal justice system. The Government are not showing any real grip on tackling crime. They do not have any ambition to get prosecution rates up. They cannot level up without cutting crime. I hope the Government will go away and think again.
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
I am grateful to all Members who have contributed to this debate. It has been useful and I know that police officers up and down the land will have particularly welcomed at this difficult time the tributes to their bravery and commitment to the work they do to keep us all safe. I add my gratitude to them.
There were two key themes coming out of the debate. As the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) said, the Bedfordshire “massive” are, as usual, present for these debates, as they have been every year for the last few years, and the Dorset posse have been pushing me hard on the funding formula. I am pleased to confirm that work is under way. The technical oversight group has been appointed and has a chair. We expect to go to consultation this summer and I will begin my parliamentary engagement, shall we say, in late spring, so Members should look out for an invitation to a meeting winging their way quite soon. I explained what might happen with the formula.
I would just caution those calling for a funding formula review. This is a very complex process, as those who have been involved in funding formula reviews in the past will know. There are two things to bear in mind. First, all cannot have prizes. There will undoubtedly, proportionately or otherwise, be a redistribution from one to another in a funding formula. Secondly, when particular indicators are pushed, such as tourism, there may be unintended consequences. For example, I get a strong lobby on tourism and visitor numbers from south-west Members, but if that were to be part of the funding formula what would that say about funding for London? How much of the overall cake would then be absorbed from forces across the land to deal with visitor numbers in London? We deal with that in London through a capital city grant and obviously there would be a consequence to that being part of the funding formula. I do not necessarily want to dwell on that point, but I ask Members to think carefully about unintended consequences before they make a contribution towards the consultation.
Richard Drax
London is a metropolitan area and far easier to police. Dorset is a massive rural area with fewer police. The point is that rurality is not taken into account in the funding formula.
Kit Malthouse
There is, actually, in the current funding formula a sparsity indicator, but nevertheless these are exactly the sorts of issues we will have to deal with in future and they are certainly something I want to focus on.
The other broad issue which a number of Members mentioned was dealing with a specific problem in a specific geography that may emanate from elsewhere. A number of Members, particularly those from Bedfordshire and Dorset, mentioned county lines. It is worth remembering that we are spending significant amounts of money on dealing with county lines in London, west midlands and Merseyside, where the vast bulk of the exporting drugs gangs come from. Money spent in London on intercepting and dealing with those gangs will pay benefits in Shaftesbury, Luton and other parts of the country. We make that investment in those forces, but on behalf of the whole country. That is a part of our having to see the whole of policing expenditure as a system, whether that is the National Crime Agency—which is no doubt doing work on the Dorset coast—the Metropolitan police doing work on county lines, or indeed the British Transport police, with whom I am very pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) met. We are funding its taskforce on county lines, which is doing extraordinary work intercepting young people with knives, drugs and cash on the rail network, gripping it in a way that it has not been gripped before.
Andrew Selous
On the point about focusing on where county lines come from, they also come from Luton, which is another reason why Bedfordshire needs to be treated fairly.
Kit Malthouse
As my hon. Friend knows, we have been happy to fund Operation Boson, which has been dealing with serious and organised crime and drug dealing in and around Luton—which, as he says, is a particular hotspot. Our county lines settlement provides some money for receiving, or importing, forces to try to step up to the plate. However, I hope all those forces will realise that there will be a huge impact on violence specifically in their areas if they co-operate with the operations coming out of those three big exporting forces, and I hope that people will look carefully at both the funding formula and the impact of the overall investment package on their force before drawing a negative inference.
Kit Malthouse
No, I am going to finish, because we have to move on to other business.
The hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) invariably presents a dystopian vision of our work on crime. She is a very hard person to please. Let me now read out the bit of her speech that she obviously crossed out for some reason, in order to remind the House that according to the most recent Office for National Statistics publication, produced just last week, violence is down by 15%, murder by 16%, stabbings by 15%, theft by 20%, burglaries by 30%, car crime by 28%, and robberies by 34%.
Kit Malthouse
I will not.
I am the first to admit that the fight against crime is always two steps forward and one step back—it is never a linear progression—but after this settlement, and given the history of the Prime Minister and myself in this particular matter of policy, I hope that no one will doubt our commitment to fighting crime throughout the United Kingdom, and I hope that through this settlement we have once again demonstrated our enduring commitment to the police who conduct that difficult job. We are giving them the powers, the resources and the tools that they need to continue this ever-important battle, and I hope that the House will support the financial settlement.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) for 2022–23 (HC 1084), which was laid before this House on 2 February, be approved.
Local Government Finance (England)
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We now come to the two motions on local government finance, which will be debated together. The Order Paper notes that these instruments have not yet been considered by the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, but I can happily inform the House that they have now been considered. Gloriana. I call the Secretary of State to move the first of the two motions.
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and Minister for Intergovernmental Relations (Michael Gove)
I beg to move,
That the Local Government Finance Report (England) 2022–23 (HC 1080), which was laid before this House on 7 February, be approved.
Mr Deputy Speaker
With this we shall consider the following motion:
That the Referendums relating to Council Tax Increases (Principles) (England) Report 2022–23 (HC 1081), which was laid before this House on 7 February, be approved.
Michael Gove
The House should also note that the Local Government Finance Report has since been updated with a small correction on page 14. Like you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am grateful to the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments for its careful consideration of these reports.
Before I turn to the details of the reports, may I say a brief word of thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher), who until very recently served as Minister for Housing and Planning? We will be starved of his eloquence at the Dispatch Box, because he has been translated to the Whips Office, but I know that that eloquence will not be wasted on my right hon. and hon. Friends, who will benefit from his wisdom and gentle guidance as they consider which Lobby to enter in the light of all the delicate matters that we discuss.
I should add that it was on the watch of my right hon. Friend that the number of first-time buyers in the country reached a record level, and that the stewardship he displayed, and also the imagination and attention to detail, were those of a model Minister. He will be missed. I should also add that although his shoes are both difficult to fill and always highly polished, we are nevertheless very fortunate to have in the Minister for Housing, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), an excellent new addition to our departmental team. We welcome him to his place, and we know that he is a doughty defender of the interests of the north of England, of local government overall, and of those who aspire to live in and to own a decent home. I am therefore grateful for the fact that he has joined the team.
The local government finance settlement makes available, to local government in England, core spending power of £54.1 billion for 2022-23. This is an increase of £3.7 billion on 2021-22, a real-terms increase of 4.5%.
It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge that the considerable eloquence of the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) will be deployed inter alia in drawing attention to the years from 2010 to 2017-18 when there were necessary economies in local government spending. I suspect, although I cannot be certain, that she will for partisan reasons, entirely fairly, seek to contrast the restraint in public spending during those years with the increases that we are now making to suggest that the increases do not make up for the previous restrictions on public spending, but it is impossible to consider those restrictions without appreciating the context of the economic circumstances that the coalition Government inherited in 2010—I do not wish to make any partisan points—and that required us to deal with the inevitable consequences of the financial crash.
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
I am not going to delve into history; I would just like to talk about the pandemic of the last couple of years. In my constituency, Newham Council is about £10 million shy because of covid spending, which will have ongoing consequences. Much of it has come from revenue accounts for temporary accommodation. Newham has the largest housing list in the country and the second highest rate of child poverty, yet we are still having to cope with covid costs of £10 million and counting without any respite from the Treasury.
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady makes a series of important points. Newham Council faces serious pressures for a variety of reasons, as do so many in local government. This provides me with an opportunity to draw attention to, and to praise, the efforts not only of elected councillors but of those who work in local government in Newham and elsewhere who, in dealing with the strains of covid over the past two years, have shown immense determination, energy and forbearance.
Whichever party had been in power, these covid costs would have been inevitable because of the nature of the pandemic. I would argue that the big choices made by the Prime Minister on the vaccination programme and the approach we took immediately before Christmas in the wake of the omicron wave have been vindicated by events. I would also argue that the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s adoption of the furlough programme ensured that our economy weathered the storm more effectively than other economies did. Because of those big decisions made by the Chancellor and the Prime Minister, we are now in a position where the spending review can increase expenditure by 4.5% in real terms.
Ms Brown
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for mentioning how very difficult it has been to be a councillor or officer in local government over the past two years. They have had a terrible job, but it is not made easier when they were told that their costs would be covered only to find themselves £10 million shy and counting. I hope he will take that away and think about how he can give respite.
Michael Gove
Absolutely. The position of those who are served by Newham Council has been very clearly outlined by the hon. Lady. Within the context of the settlement we are debating today, we will look at all the additional support we can give to those who are dealing with the consequences of covid.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
Boroughs such as Newham will benefit from £38 million under the settlement, compared with rural areas such as Dorset, which will receive nothing. Does my right hon. Friend agree that should be borne in mind?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes an important point, but it is vital not to pit urban against rural or Dorset against London. In the debate on the police grant report, he and my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) drew attention to particular crime challenges that Dorset faces, with major cities such as Bournemouth in the broader Dorset area, issues of county lines and rurality, and pressure on public services overall. They were absolutely right to do so. We have sought to ensure that in the settlement we provide Dorset’s police and fire and rescue service with appropriate resource, but of course we keep things constantly under review.
For the benefit of the House, I will briefly run through the details of the funding settlement. Overall, the settlement funding assessment—in essence, what used to be the revenue support grant allocation—comes to some £14,882,000,000, a truly significant amount and a significant increase. In the local government finance settlement, we are also increasing our compensation to local authorities for under-indexing the business rates multiplier. We are making sure that local authorities have the opportunity to raise the council tax precept by 2% on the social care precept and that they benefit from an improved better care fund from the new homes bonus. The rural services delivery grant, which helps to address some of the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) so ably raised, is being held at £85 million.
Perhaps the two most substantial changes are the increase in the social care grant, to take account of the particular pressures on local authorities as a result of the challenges that adult social care services face, and the additional £822 million that has been made available in a specific services grant. That money is unringfenced, and it is in keeping with the direction of our “Levelling Up” White Paper and of the Government overall in recognising that, wherever possible, those in local government are best equipped to meet local needs. That principle of devolution and local discretion will be in our mind as we consider how to reform local government finance further in future.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman is being generous in giving way. He will know that Salford City Council has faced budget cuts of £232 million since 2010 and has stated that the approach to funding that he outlines does not adequately reflect the demand that it faces. Does he agree that true levelling up requires funding to meet actual demand, and that it requires differentials for poverty, inequality and council tax payers’ ability to pay to be effectively factored into Government grant methodology?
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady makes an important point. As we review future reforms to local government finance, I look forward to working with her and other colleagues to make sure that her point about deprivation, which affects a considerable number of her constituents, is reflected in our overall approach. It is important to say that the most relatively deprived areas of England—those in the upper decile of the index of multiple deprivation —will receive 14% more per dwelling in available resource through this year’s settlement than the least deprived areas. The settlement serves the cause of social justice with a redistribution towards poorer areas, but of course we keep these things under review.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Why does the Secretary of State think that the Conservative chair of the Local Government Association, James Jamieson, has criticised the settlement for not including sufficient funding to tackle the considerable additional pressures on local services, particularly with respect to vulnerable adults and children?
Michael Gove
I talked to James Jamieson this morning, as I do most weeks. One reason why he leads the LGA is that he is a brilliant Conservative council leader. If James were here, I think he would say he was not criticising but encouraging us, as any friend would, to do even better. It is striking that the welcome that the local government sector gave this year’s funding settlement was broader, deeper and more cordial than it has been for some years. Politics being politics, any sector will always, entirely understandably, want its champion to be someone who can ask for more.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I note that the Secretary of State does not want to talk about what has happened in the past, but my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) raised a point about need. It was no accident that the Government took the needs formula out of the local government settlement, meaning that areas such as mine and hers, which have high demand for social services—County Durham has over 900 looked-after children in care—have been the net losers. I am sorry, but it is not about pitting cities or areas against one another; it is just a matter of fact that certain areas have higher demands because of their demographics. That has to be taken into consideration, but the Secretary of State’s Government took the needs formula out during the coalition era.
Michael Gove
The right hon. Gentleman makes a number of points and ensuring that I addressed them all would mean that I would be here well after the moment of interruption. We could discuss the difficult economic situation that the coalition Government inherited in 2010. We could discuss the way that we unringfenced funding to ensure that local authorities could respond to that. We could discuss the particular way in which some local authorities, irrespective of political colour, were able to use their resources more effectively. We could discuss the way in which interventions beyond direct local government funding under the coalition Government sought to address deprivation. It is striking, for example, that between 2010 and 2014 the Education Secretary—whoever he was—managed to introduce a pupil premium that saw millions flowing to the very poorest students, an initiative that had not been introduced under the previous Labour Government and that helped to close the gap between advantaged and disadvantaged children.
The right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) is an brilliant campaigner for citizens in Stanley and North Durham. He makes his case effectively and he is right to remind us that when we look at local government finance it is important to bear in mind need and deprivation. That is what we are doing as we look overall at how we can review local government funding later on.
Michael Gove
I can never resist the right hon. Gentleman, so I am happy to give way again.
Mr Jones
The Secretary of State just does not get it. Those were not options; they were political choices taken by the coalition Government. The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles and I are making is that on issues such as looked-after children and adult social care—he should remember that in County Durham life expectancy has gone down in the past 10 years—it is not optional for councils to intervene. They have a statutory obligation to do so and if that is not taken into account in the formula, councils in areas such as County Durham and Salford and Eccles will always be at a disadvantage because the right hon. Gentleman’s Government, of which he is a part, took that out of the funding formula.
Michael Gove
Again, the hon. Gentleman—my apologies, the right hon. Gentleman, and quite right too —makes three important points. On looked-after children, the whole position that we have had to take over the past 10 years on children in social care has been driven by a variety of factors that mean that we deal with the challenges of looked-after children and children at risk of abuse and neglect in a more intense fashion. That is why Josh MacAlister’s review of children in social care is so important and I hope that when it is published the right hon. Gentleman will welcome it.
On adult social care, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that there is a greater degree of pressure, not just because we have an ageing population, although I note his important point about life expectancy in County Durham, but because we have more people moving into adulthood who, thanks to advances in medical care, also require social care. That is why in this settlement local authorities can make use of more than £1 billion of additional resource specifically for social care. On top of that funding, as was outlined in the presentation of the White Paper earlier today by my hon. Friend the Minister for Health, £162 million in adult social care reform funding is also being allocated to help local authorities.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I could recognise the valuable approach the coalition Government took under the then Secretary of State in removing ringfences, but we can contrast that with the number of pots that are being created that local authorities have to bid into, which seems like ringfencing by another name. The Secretary of State mentioned Councillor Jamieson, the chair of the LGA, who said at the Select Committee that we cannot sort out local government finance until we sort out social care funding. The LGA is looking for a big solution and it is disappointed that the levy highlighted as solving the problem actually gives no mainstream money to local councils to deliver important social care services.
Michael Gove
The Chair of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee makes two very important points. First, there is the tension, which always exists, between ensuring that we devolve as much funding as possible and simplify the funding landscape. There is also the need from time to time to respond to specific challenges. The one relates to the other, because local government, as he made rightly clear in his second point, wants additional funding for adult social care made available to it, and worries, for well-rehearsed reasons, that much of the additional funding will be devoted to the NHS’s immediate needs rather than long-term reform. I believe that the White Paper introduced earlier today on the integration of adult social care between the NHS and local government to an even greater degree will help address those issues. However, I recognise that they are serious ones and that the House will want to examine both the White Paper and any legislation that we introduce in due course.
I am conscious that many Members across the House will want to use the debate both to praise those in local government and to make specific cases for future funding reform. However, the settlement that we have secured marks a real recognition of the importance of local government and the Government’s determination to ensure that we strengthen its hand in dealing with the social ills that our country faces. That is why I commend the increase in the local government finance settlement to the House.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
I enjoyed the Secretary of State’s debate with himself on what I was about to say; let me try to enlighten him. I must say, having treated us to a lecture about the causes of the global financial crash and the reasons for the deep and harsh cuts inflicted on our communities in the past 12 years of Conservative Government, he struck a different tone from that struck yesterday with northern leaders at the convention of the north. When he was challenged by the Liverpool Echo about whether the Government accepted that they—and he personally—played a role in the problems that he has been dispatched to solve, he said:
“You can never know with…hindsight whether”
those decisions “were judged just right”. I will leave it to Members to decide whether the Secretary of State is saying one thing to the House and another to the north of England. To misquote Eminem, “Will the real Secretary of State please stand up?”
The trouble is that the core spending power that the Secretary of State has trumpeted in press releases comes from our pockets. Bills have gone up and shopping costs more, so, as he should well know, people across the country are trying to keep their heads above water. Surely he can see the problem with the settlement that he has brought to the House today. For a decade, people have had money stripped out of their places and taken out of their pockets by the Government. The council tax rebate does not compensate us for that; nor does his settlement for councils. He has given us a partial refund on our money and asked us to be grateful.
Unsurprisingly, the Secretary of State was not asking people to be grateful for that last week when he was touring the country trying to sell his White Paper to a sceptical public. He did not say to people in Grimsby, Blackpool and Liverpool that this is the offer on the table from the Government: they can pay more to stand still or pay the same and get less. For all the gloss on this announcement, he is continuing to cut the central fund to councils in real terms, so, if places want to get the spending power that he promised, taxes will have to go up. That is a direct consequence of the decisions made by Ministers and the Tory Government.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is actually worse than that? For local authority funding, in the last 10 years—we continue to have it today—we have had a movement away from central Government funding and on to local council taxpayers, and areas such as County Durham, where 56% of properties are in band A, are severely limited in their ability to raise that revenue, whereas areas such as Surrey can raise a lot more. The net effect is a movement of resources away from areas such as County Durham to places such as Surrey.
Lisa Nandy
My right hon. Friend is exactly right. Worse than that, it is at a time when people can least afford to bear it. Walk into any community in any part of the country and we find people talking about the impact of runaway inflation under the Government and their inability to pay their gas and electricity bills and meet the costs of the weekly shop. How can the Secretary of State look them in the eye and tell them that he is forcing council tax rises on them of 3% in just a few months’ time, and that is on top of the increases in national insurance that his Government are so determined to bring in?
In 2019, the Secretary of State promised that people will keep more of what they earn and more will be invested in public services. That was an election promise, and it turns out that neither of those things is true. In the past seven years, the proportion of funding for local councils from central Government has nearly halved. The Government are doing less, so people are having to do more, and they have made people pay £10 billion more in council tax this decade.
Just yesterday, the Secretary of State was in Liverpool telling our northern leaders that they should
“judge us on our actions in the future.”
How about we judge him on his actions right now? How on earth did he get here—a Conservative politician, who once promised that hard-working people would keep more of what they earn under a Conservative Government, throwing new taxes on struggling families like confetti and treating the British public like a cash machine? This is the consequence of a high-tax, low-growth Government, and in every community people are paying the highest possible price for this Tory Government.
How can the Government have got their priorities so wrong? This week, BP announced £10 billion in profits, but while we said that oil and gas companies should pay more in tax so people could keep more of their own money—remember that phrase?—the Secretary of State backs the oil giants, and all this Government have done is offer families a dodgy loan to ease the pain now and to be paid back later. They have stripped £15 billion from our councils over the last decade, and in the last couple of weeks, with one stroke of a pen, they wrote off £13 billion of our money to fraudsters and dodgy contractors.
Where is the investment we were promised? Even after getting levelling-up funding, in 144 areas, people are £50 million worse off. North-east Lincolnshire, Dudley and Hyndburn have all lost under his deal. Blackpool, which the Secretary of State visited last week—and it is a town, by the way, not a city, if he wants to let the Prime Minister know—is down 1.92% in real-terms in funding to its council. Does he not understand what councils are dealing with? We are still in a pandemic, and these are the people who stepped up to run test and trace services when the Government failed. These are the heroic people—the council workers, the public health workers, the NHS workers—who rolled out the vaccine in record time.
Two days ago, the Government cut the public health grant in real terms, telling councils to pick up the slack. These are the same councils that have a half a billion pound funding shortfall for children with special educational needs. Remember the Sure Starts that the right hon. Gentleman closed—over 1,000 of them across the country—when he was the Education Secretary? Remember the time he lost a High Court battle for slashing funding for nursery children? On his watch, he set in train a process that saw spending on vulnerable children fall by half over this decade.
Actions have consequences. The Secretary of State said yesterday that he understood why we would be cynical about a Government Minister coming and promising us the earth. Well, we are not cynical; we are furious. We are still paying for what he did as Education Secretary, so when he rocks up and tells us that we can have less to do more, and talks about renaissance Florence and the rise and fall of the Roman empire, we have had enough. Our local leaders, meanwhile, are living in the real world—grappling with climate change and rising transport costs—and having to compensate for what the Government have taken from us and our communities, with all the added costs that come from inflation at a 30-year high.
The Secretary of State must know that by far the biggest factor driving up costs is the crippling cost of social care. We have just had an exchange about that in the House, because it affects every single community in this country. However, this is also at the heart of levelling up, because it is our towns that are ageing as good jobs have left and young people have had to get out to get on. These are the places where pressure on social care is most acute, but they are also the places where property prices are lower and the rise in council tax that he is promoting and forcing on people across this country produces the least. When his Department steps down, as it is doing today, these are the places least able to step up.
That is how we get a settlement in which parts of this country have fallen further and further behind while others have pulled further and further ahead. This is what he was tasked with fixing. That is before we even consider that, for six years now, the Government have been wasting our time, announcing and re-announcing intentions to review the system, yet all we have again for the fourth year in a row is a one-year settlement.
“Levelling up requires a focused long-term plan of action”.
Those are not my words, Mr Speaker, but those of the Secretary of State in his White Paper that he published last week.
We are getting sick and tired of the spin and the hype. Levelling up surely has to mean levelling with us and being honest about what this Government are doing. We are getting big promises and nothing to show for it. People are not fools, though; they can see through the shine, through the press releases, and see that life is getting harder and harder under this Conservative Government. Today should have been the day when the Secretary of State set that right, but instead he came with more of the hype, more of the slogans and more of the spin. It will not do.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate and a pleasure to be here with my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax). We are here today to represent Dorset and to make sure that the Government take on board the priority of Dorset, particularly for me as the Member for West Dorset.
I was busy looking through the revenue support grant spreadsheet the other day when it had just been announced to see whether Dorset was in it. I did not see it. I thought that that was an error, but, regrettably, Dorset does not feature in the revenue support grant. My neighbouring colleagues and I have been looking for a meeting with the Secretary of State for a little while now. I am very grateful that there has been a bit of a flurry of action and that, hopefully, we will have that meeting very soon, but I just want to say how disappointed we are that, after the draft finance settlement was put forward, and despite my colleagues and I hoping to meet Ministers and, indeed, the Secretary of State, we have not been able to do so in order to make the case on behalf of the residents, not just of West Dorset but of the wider Dorset Council area.
The last time that I had a look, Dorset had the second highest council tax in the country at band E level—£2,233 for a band E property before any discounts, with a revenue support grant of zero. Wandsworth’s band E council tax is £845 per annum, yet it has a revenue support grant of £24.3 million. In Dorset, 30% of the population is over 65 years old, with all of the associated social care costs, difficulties and challenges that go with it, compared with Wandsworth, where only 10% of the population is over 65. London receives 10 times the amount per passenger journey than we do in Dorset to support local transport and bus services. Indeed, only more recently, we hear of billions more going to support Transport for London, yet we are struggling in Dorset to run a bus service.
In Dorset, we have a railway line with the worst frequency in the country. I was looking through this wonderful levelling up document, which is very good and I commend it to the House, but, although it contains many excellent initiatives for the country, regrettably there is not much in there for Dorset. I say to the Secretary of State that we would be very grateful if he considered the letter that the Leader of the Council sent to him just a week or two ago to help us with this issue, particularly in terms of the local plan. That would be much appreciated. Also, in terms of future levelling-up plans, any influence he might bring to bear ahead of a future six-year contract to be signed with the DFT and one of the local railway companies to operate that railway line with the worst frequency in the country would be much welcomed.
I shall conclude, because I know that my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset wants to speak and I do not want to steal any of his thunder. The point that I shall repeat for the House is that whilst the perception from many in the House is that Dorset is a well-off community—a chocolate-box area with plenty of lovely thatched houses—we have more than our fair share of difficulties. Conservative-led Dorset Council has done an excellent job managing those difficulties over the last couple of years and I think it is fair to say that we are very grateful to the Department for many of the things that have happened in recent times.
I particularly welcome the fact that, as I understand it, the Dorset local enterprise partnership is under review. We would be very grateful if that could be expedited imminently; it will run out of money with which to operate quite soon. As the Minister knows, I am a clear advocate of change because I do not think it has delivered much, and I think the effectiveness of the LEP is an indicator of how much or little there may be in the levelling-up plan to benefit rural Dorset.
I will be supporting my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s motion today. I understand that he has had many difficult things to navigate, but I want to put clearly on the record that it is not acceptable for us, going forward as Dorset MPs, and particularly for me, as the Member for rural West Dorset, that we continually end up in this place, where we have some of the highest council tax rates in the country, with zero revenue support grant, when others, who have some of the lowest council tax rates in the country, have considerable millions of pounds of support.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State is right: the settlement this year is better than in some previous years. The core spending power is up by 7.4%, though I think his definition of inflation is somewhat different from mine. The scrutiny unit of the House of Commons told me that the Bank of England’s inflation rate is 5.4%, so that does not give quite such a big increase in the real-terms rise in core spending as the Secretary of State indicated. But it has to be set against the background that since 2010, local government has had the biggest cuts of any part of the public sector.
The Secretary of State was explaining how the coalition Government had to respond to a financial crisis; but there were choices in the way that response was made. One of the choices was to single out local government for those spending cuts. Perhaps the suspicion was that it was easier to pass the responsibility on to others to decide which bits of the public sector were to be cut—libraries, parks or bus services, or whatever else local authorities had to resort to in order to reduce their expenditure.
It is also, I think, uncontested that the poorest parts of our country had the biggest cuts. That is a reality with the Government grant. The Secretary of State made the point—he produced the figures—that the poorest areas have done slightly better this year. I accept that: I think the figures show it, but it is slightly better on top of substantially worse situations for the previous 10 years, and they are having to recover from that. I will return to the issue of levelling up later.
For my own city of Sheffield, the grant cut has meant that £3 billion-worth of grant in real terms has been lost since 2010. That is an awful lot of money when thinking about what could have been done with that in terms of levelling up. Yes, the situation has been better since 2015. Government figures show that spending power has gone up by 2.1% in real terms. Actually, per head, though, it has fallen by 2.2%. So even since 2015, real spending power per head has fallen across the country.
Some significant themes have continued this year that we ought to reflect on for the longer term. The Secretary of State has been talking about the longer term; I think it is right that we should view these settlements in a longer-term context for the future. First, council tax in my own city of Sheffield was 41% of council spending in 2010; it is now 59%. That is a really significant switch of where the money comes from. Spending on social care is now two thirds, as opposed to about half. Again, that is a switch in what the money is spent on. My real concern is that although councils have properly responded—not just in Sheffield, but all over the country —to the pressures in social care and given it a priority, for very obvious reasons, it means that all the other day-to-day essential services that councils provide have been cut even more. Many libraries across the country are shut; the services in parks have been reduced; cuts have been made to bus services right across the country—we have heard Conservative Members complaining about those; money has been cut from road safety schemes; and cuts have been made in terms of the availability of public health inspectors to go into food shops. One issue I know the Secretary of State is really concerned about is planning departments, where a significant cut has been made to resources. There is a real democratic issue here: most people do not receive services from social care, but the public do, as a whole, look at their street cleaning, parks, libraries, buses and other important services, and they are paying more council tax—I have just described the extra money that comes from council tax—and getting less for it. There is a real challenge to our whole democratic system if we allow that to continue. I think the Secretary of State probably recognises that and we need to address it.
In the face of that, councils have done remarkably well. They have probably produced more efficiency savings than the rest of Government put together; if the rest of Government worked as well as councils have done, we would all be in a much better place. Most councils, like Sheffield’s, have used reserves very prudently; they are only able to get through the social services crisis we are in because of the reserves we have. Great credit must go to council officers and councils across the country, particularly to those in my city of Sheffield. Councils have also done a remarkable job during covid, be it on food parcels for the elderly and people who are shielding, on working with the health service jointly to deliver effective services, or through directors of public health doing test and trace far more efficiently and effectively than that the national system, at far less cost. We can be proud of what local government has done in those circumstances.
There were one or two disappointments about the settlements, but to put it slightly more positively I will call them “challenges for the future”. First, this is a single-year settlement. Local councils want multi-year settlements; we can all agree on the reasons why, and that is important. Secondly, on fair funding, it cannot be right that we have a settlement here based on 2014 data, with some of it going back to 2000. I accept the challenge; one person’s fair funding is another person’s unfair funding. That is going to be an interesting challenge for the Secretary of State, but I would say that levelling up has to be part of a fair funding review. It cannot be about individual bits of money; levelling up has to be about mainstream core funding and getting the distribution of that right to reflect the need for levelling up.
We have to get a new source of funding for social care. We have to get money from a levy or whatever source to come in. I welcome the attempt to integrate health and social care. I do not think it should be brought into one giant service; getting local councils and the health service to work together is right. They have done brilliantly well in Sheffield during the pandemic, with the clinical commissioning group, the director of public health and the director of social care working together. One of my worries is that in the reforms to the health system we do away with that place-based approach that a CCG gives. I welcome the letter that the Secretary of State has just sent and the offer to meet officials. It is really important that that place-based delivery of services—councils and the health service working together at a local level—is maintained. I hope that that is absolutely seen through.
The other two issues are still waiting to be done: business rates reform; and protection for the high street as part of that, with some sort of digital sales tax. When are we going to get it? Everyone seems to think that we ought to have one, but we have not actually got one. I mentioned the level of council tax now—the amount out of the totality of council spending. Council tax is regressive. If we look at the amount people pay compared with the value of their houses as they go up, we see that it is completely disproportionate. So we need a council tax review reform as well as a business rates reform if we are going to deal with this for the future.
Finally, I come to one regret. I look at the public health grant, where there is a 2.8% increase—if inflation is 5.4%, that means a reduction in real terms. The public health service has done a brilliant job, and I give credit to Greg Fell and his team for what they have done in Sheffield, but covid has shown us the health inequalities in our communities that need addressing. Is that cut not therefore a complete mistake at a time when we need more prevention and more attempts to reduce those inequalities?
In Sheffield, if I get on a bus in the west end of the city and go to the east end, life expectancy changes by 10 years. That simply cannot be right. Our public health director and his staff in that service, working with the health service, are key to addressing those problems. It is disappointing that their reward for all the work they did during the pandemic is to see a real-terms cut in their spending.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate and to follow both the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) and my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder), who is sitting beside me.
I give credit to our leader, Councillor Spencer Flower, and our chief executive, Matt Prosser. I also agree with the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) that we should thank all staff and officers, who have done a fantastic job over the pandemic in particular. I welcome the good news that they are all heading back to their offices now—the sooner the better, frankly.
I have huge respect for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and I know he understands, being a true Conservative, that the best way to raise money is to lower taxes. The sooner we have some really bright blue Tory policies to do that, we will get more money for the Treasury, which can hopefully be better spent for local authorities and all the public services we need to spend money on. Otherwise, we will have to keep raising taxes—as Labour, of course, would do—and the pips will squeak for all of us, but particularly for the less well off, who are struggling, as we all well know.
Dorset, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset has said, sets one of the highest council taxes in the country, and the unfair proportion of it lands on the Dorset council tax payers—a point that has already been made—with precept rises in various areas of council tax. I am grateful to him; we lobbied hard for the one-year settlement and we got more than we expected; we budgeted for between £4 million and £8 million, and we got £10.4 million.
Richard Drax
I am going to crack on, because I think there are many colleagues who want to speak; I know the right hon. Gentleman will have something to say later when he is called. We got £10.4 million, for which I am extremely grateful, although some has been ring-fenced and £3.1 million is for one year only.
Statistics are incredibly dull and can be misused, but I will just utter some to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the 2021-22 Budget, to exemplify our particular issue. Our income is 85% from Dorset taxpayers, versus 67% on average for other unitary councils. The business retention rate is 14% for Dorset and 24% on average for other unitary councils. The revenue support grant, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset said, is zero—nul points.
That counters the notion that we have moved to a unitary council, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State knows, we have led the way in the country—I know the Government want to go further with other authorities—and we cannot be seen to fail. I emphasise that and ask him to take it into account. So much has been done and so much money has been saved and cut that statutory services are under huge pressure. I know he is aware of that, but let me say it anyway.
The key issue, as we have heard, is that too much is one-off funding, when we need time to plan and far more funding for further ahead: three, four or five-year funding would be fantastic, so that we can plan and have certainty. The unfair distribution of the revenue support grant means that we get none—nil. The business retention rate, as I have said, is lower in Dorset than elsewhere, and the rural authority has additional costs that are not accounted for. That is where the funding formula needs to change.
We also have an accumulated debt of £70 million on the high-needs block for children with special educational needs. The Department for Education’s support is needed to eliminate that debt. For example, one child I know is costing the council £1.5 million to get the care that they need—and rightly so, but that care has to be provided from outside the county and that is costing Dorset Council vast sums of money.
Next year’s budget proposals include a 3% increase in council tax and an almost 1% increase for the social care precept. That means that for adult social care there is a 10% increase of £13 million to £141 million. For children’s services, there is a 4% increase of £2.7 million to £74.5 million—mainly for children in care and for disabled and SEN children. On climate and ecological emergency response, £10 million in capital investment has been put aside over the next five years. Finally, £750,000 will go to support new homes under the registered provider scheme.
Those are all extreme pressures facing a rural constituency such as mine, that of my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset, and those of other Dorset MPs. Again, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is aware of that, and I am grateful because, since my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset spoke, I understand a meeting has kindly been organised by the Secretary of State’s staff. I look forward to discussing these issues, and more, with him in person, along with the council leader and chief executive.
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
Before I get into the substance of what I want to say about this settlement, I want to make a couple of remarks to the Secretary of State. There was a debate yesterday in Westminster Hall on local government funding in Merseyside—the Liverpool city region, as we now call it—which was covered by the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the hon. Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien). In his response, he chose not to answer any of the questions asked by me or my hon. Friends from the city region. The Secretary of State is unfailingly polite and always pays attention to what people say, so I say to him ever so discreetly—of course, no one else can hear what I have to say—that he needs to have a word with the Under-Secretary of State, who should understand that one of the basic requirements of replying to a debate is to respond to what people said during it.
Unfortunately, the local government finance settlement, as others have said, is still 20% lower now than it was in 2012-13. I will return to the implications of that for Knowsley, but I will first make some general comments, some of which have already been made, about the overall implications for local government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) pointed out, it represents a one-year settlement and, in a typically fluent, well-informed speech, she made it clear why that is unacceptable. I simply add that it is impossible for local government to plan ahead unless local authorities know more than a year ahead—preferably three years—what they will receive in grants. I am sure the Minister and the Secretary of State are well aware that that is an impediment for local authorities, and I hope that they will address it in future settlements.
My hon. Friend also mentioned that the Government promised—if the Government deliver on this, I am sure that it will be welcomed—that the next settlement will better reflect local levels of need. That would be important if it did address the disparities in deprivation between local authorities in different parts of the country, rather than to continue with the shift towards sparsity and population-based measures, which are manifestly unfair on those areas with the greatest need. I therefore ask the Minister—perhaps he will take the time to answer this at some point—to confirm that need will be properly accounted for in any new grant distribution system.
There is also justifiable concern that if Knowsley does not increase council tax by 2.99%, it would forgo permanent funding that the Government might assume will be available when determining future funding allocations. Will the Minister reassure me that the Government will not penalise those local authorities that, for whatever reason, decide that 2.99% is unaffordable to their residents?
I also worry that the settlement will be insufficient to cover inflationary pressures—for example, democratic pressures, legislative cost pressures, and pressures as a result of the health and social care levy on national insurance and energy price rises of up to 50%. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) pointed out, the general level is already above 5% and could, by the end of the year, be as much as 6%. That will mean that the settlement will be less generous than it appears to be at the moment. Will the Minister again give us some assurance that any additional inflationary pressures that influence the way that the grant will work for local authorities will be considered sympathetically?
The settlement includes funding for new burdens, such as adult social care, children’s social care and home-to-school transport. Unfortunately, however, it is wholly inadequate and will not cover, for example, the £12 million that Knowsley faces as a result of these additional demands.
I turn to the specific implications of the settlement for Knowsley. As the Minister will know, since 2010 Knowsley has had its grant support reduced by £116 million. That figure was referred to in a debate yesterday. The cumulative effect of that on a small borough such as Knowsley—the third most deprived authority in England, by the way—is enormous. It means not only that services that are badly needed by people cannot be extended or grown to meet need—I have referred to some of the pressures that brings—but that people’s life chances are impaired, sometimes irreversibly, by the lack of support that they get. That is nothing to do with any intention on the part of Knowsley; it is simply a matter of the money not being there to do everything that it needs to do. Will the Minister undertake to start the process of reversing that unfair and unacceptable trend whereby areas with high need, such as Knowsley, end up having some of the highest cuts in grant support anywhere in the country?
The picture I have painted so far is one of unrelieved gloom, particularly for Knowsley, so let me make a couple of positive points. First, as my hon. Friend pointed out, the 8.5% increase in core spending power that Knowsley will get is welcome, although, frankly, it does not do anything like address the problem of the £116 million that we have lost over the past decade.
Secondly, despite the crushing loss of grant that we have experienced, Knowsley Council, amazingly, managed to bring about some transformational changes, including the regeneration of Kirby town centre. As a result of the fact that there were years and years of successive private sector owners who failed to regenerate the town centre, the council, very bravely, bought it and is now in the process of wholesale regeneration, which is obvious for all to see. There is also the Shakespeare North project, which I do not know whether the Minister is aware of—probably not.
Sir George Howarth
I am pleased to hear that, so maybe he is not completely a Shakespearean tragedy. The Shakespeare North project, into which, to be fair, the Government have put a substantial amount of investment, is a huge success. I pay tribute to the Government for putting money into the Arts Council, to Knowsley Council for putting in a substantial amount, and to the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority and metro Mayor Steve Rotheram for also contributing. I should also mention the private donors, including Lady Anne Dodd—the widow of Ken Dodd—who put £400,000 into the project for a comedy space.
Knowsley Council has been the driving force behind Shakespeare North, on which it should be congratulated, and much else besides that I do not have time to go into. However, there are important projects still awaiting Government support that we had hoped would come from the levelling-up fund, such as the regeneration of Huyton town centre. Knowsley Council put forward a really good project for regenerating Huyton town centre, and I totally reject the assertion that such projects were selected on merit alone because, frankly, this project would have been far better than some that were funded. As I said yesterday, there is real concern that the levelling-up fund has so far been politically skewed in a way that means Knowsley, yet again, loses out.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government’s fixation on competition for such funding is inefficient and is clearly being used by the Government as a pork barrel? It puts a lot of pressure on councils such as Knowsley Council, which have already faced cuts, to put in the officer time to make such bids. Would it not be better to scrap the whole nonsense of bidding for this type of funding?
Sir George Howarth
My right hon. Friend makes a typically forceful point, and I agree with him.
Frankly, it is pretty grim to say to one local authority, “You have to be set against another authority for any project, and it won’t necessarily be based on the need of the community; rather, it will be based on a political choice that might not reflect that need.” In Knowsley’s case, the decision does not reflect the need.
As I said earlier, Knowsley is the third most deprived borough in England and it received nothing from the levelling-up fund—it was not 0.1%; it was nothing. That cannot possibly reflect a fair distribution of those resources. I made that point to the Minister during yesterday’s Westminster Hall debate, and he did not respond. I hope he will now take this opportunity to do so. I suggest to him—again, he overlooked this yesterday—that he grants a meeting to me and Knowsley Council to discuss what can be done to get the funding we need through the levelling-up fund for the regeneration of Huyton town centre.
There are some small but encouraging signs that the Government might be beginning to recognise the gross unfairness that the last decade has meant for areas such as Knowsley. I give them a small amount of credit for that, but those of us who are more fair-minded recognise the importance of need. The Government are now talking about accepting need as an important part of funding mechanisms, but we do not yet have any evidence to support that assertion.
Finally—I notice you are looking at your watch, Mr Deputy Speaker, so I had better be quick—there was a time when I chaired the local authority finance committee and understood the distribution mechanism then, which was based on multiple regression analysis. I do not know whether the Minister is familiar with that, but I have to confess that I am not so well informed on the current mechanism. I am reminded of Palmerston being asked, many years after the event, to explain the Schleswig-Holstein affair, which was a border dispute between Denmark and Germany. He replied that only three people ever understood it: first, Prince Albert, who by that time was dead; secondly, Bismarck, who by that time had gone mad; and thirdly, Palmerston himself, and unfortunately he had forgotten.
When it comes to talking about local government distribution mechanisms and formulae, I feel I am very much in the Palmerston category, but I shall undertake to do better in future. I am sure that my hon. Friends the Members for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) and for Wigan are now much more expert on the subject than I am. We welcome the fact that some small harbingers of change have been promised and will watch very carefully for them actually to come about.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I fear that, in local government terms, I am perhaps in the same vintage as the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Sir George Howarth) and have perhaps also experienced the Palmerston effect over my years in local government finance. Since I was elected to Havering Council in 1974—as a very young man, I might add—the nature of the finance settlement has changed and things have come and gone. We had the rate support grant and then the block grant, then we had standard spending assessments and then the revenue support grant, and there were any number of combinations thereof. The one thing that has been constant is that nobody has ever been satisfied with the settlement and, almost by its nature, nobody ever will be.
I remember, in the days when I was a young councillor, the late Lord Healey, when he was the Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer, telling the local government sector that “the party is over”. The difficulty of getting the balance right in the funding of the local government element expenditure from the centre has bedevilled Governments of all parties. In a sense, it is a problem that will always be there while we have the highly centralised local government finance system that we have in the United Kingdom. That contrasts with the much greater levels of financial and, indeed, fiscal devolution to be found in local authorities and the local government sector in the rest of Europe and in the United States. That is a long-term issue; I know my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is up for long-term issues and imagination, so hope he will take that away for the future.
If it is really to be delivered, it seems to me that levelling up can be sensibly achieved only if we look at fiscal and financial devolution as well. I commend to my right hon. Friend and his Minister the excellent work done by the London Finance Commission—I must admit to having served on one of its iterations—which was set up by the then Mayor of London, who is now the Prime Minister, so it has good provenance for the Minister to look at it in those terms.
The Secretary of State will remember that he and I dealt with local government when he was a rising young shadow Minister in the 2005-2010 Parliament, and I know he takes a real interest in the subject. When subsequently I was a Minister, it was generally delegated to the junior Minister to make the local government financial settlement statement, perhaps because there was less generous news to be given than is the case today. Nevertheless, I am delighted that the Secretary of State has been able to bring us some positive news in person. We can, of course, all make the case, genuinely and on a cross-party basis, that we would like to see more for our individual local authorities and for the sector, but it is noteworthy that London boroughs—including my local authority, Bromley—have seen a real-terms increase of 4%, which is a significant difference from the situation that has pertained in the past. For a number of reasons, I will say that it is not enough, but I recognise it as a step in the right direction.
I take on board the point that has been made by other Members that that increase is welcome, but in the long term we need, as well as a much deeper reform of the system, to move away from single-year settlements, because they make it extremely hard, even for the best organised of local authorities, such as Bromley, to plan on any long-term basis. No business would operate on the basis of single-year financial planning and we need to move back to multi-year settlements as soon as possible. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be well seized of that point.
The hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), the Chairman of the Select Committee, made a number of important points and speaks with great wisdom on these matters. I join him in commending the work done by officers and members in local government, with which I have always been proud to be associated. The chief executive of Bromley Council, Ade Adetosoye, was recognised by the Prime Minister in the Chamber on his appointment as a Commander of the Order of the British Empire for his transformational work, but many hundreds of thousands of others in local government are doing their bit, and we ought to salute them and the elected members who do a lot of hard work at the grassroots.
On where we should go forward from here, may I posit some observations from the point of the view of the London Borough of Bromley, a well-run, low-cost—I will return to that—and efficient authority. It is the only London borough to be entirely debt-free, but also it levies, I think, the second-lowest council tax in Greater London. That is not helped by the precept from the Mayor; it would be even lower without that. It is also an authority that has matched the reductions in expenditure from central Government and gone further with its own cost savings through an innovative approach to the way it delivers its services, to outsourcing and to investing wisely to generate income from its significant reserves, all of which have seen it through difficult times. It is a model of how a local government ought to be run, but none the less it faces very significant cost pressures.
One of those pressures is that we have the highest percentage of over-65s in Greater London. The population of Greater London has grown by more than 1 million, but in many of the outer boroughs the demographic change includes a mixture of young families moving in from the centre in one part of the borough and a static, ageing population at the other end, which creates pressures on both the schools and adult social care elements of funding at the same time. In Bromley’s case we have an additional factor, which is our proximity to inner London. A raft of other changes—the benefits cap and so on—has undoubtedly put pressure on a borough where the journey from Bromley South station to Victoria station takes 20 minutes, so there are considerably increased pressures on our homelessness budget as well. The difficulty of any formula-based system—back to my point about devolution—is that it is never easy to pick up all the nuances that any local authority will have. That applies even within London, never mind across the country.
The position I hope that the Minister might be able to move to is this: social services and the NHS are intimately connected. We had a further statement earlier today about integration. Although there has been a significant increase in funding for the national health element and the services it delivers, the local authority social services element of the same population—we need both elements to support the growing elderly population—has not had an increase in funding to the same degree. We can therefore get the bizarre and perverse situation where the ability of NHS funded services to help people is compromised, because there is not the same level of care when patients leave hospital and go back into the community. I hope that we can consider a better approach to joining up and better aligning the funding from those two elements.
Bromley, by the way, has done pioneering joint working between the two. I hope that the Secretary of State might like to come down to Bromley at some point—he has many fans there—and see on the ground what is being done. In particular, I commend the point made by the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East, about the importance of not losing in these reforms the place-based element that we see from clinical commissioning groups. Our CCG and our Bromley place director, Dr Angela Bhan, are absolutely magnificent at pushing that local element, and we do not want to lose that in the reforms.
Although we recognise that the capping of care costs and the fair cost of care reforms represent additional funding, there are considerable additional commissioning costs that first would have to be taken onboard. There will also be significant reductions in income further down the track from the reforms. Therefore, we need to look at smoothing out fairness of funding overall. Bromley’s overall estimate is that the changes will bring an additional funding burden of more than £10 million per annum, which is not currently covered. We need to find means of addressing that funding gap, and since that comes from a central policy, they ought not to fall upon the taxpayer.
The other issue that we need to look at is the public health grant, which has remained flat in real terms over three years. As we move to a post-covid situation, there will be long-running consequences, not least the impact of long covid on some of our population and many other things that will need to be picked up. We need to look again at how we deal with that.
Another element that is not directly within the local government finance settlement but that I hope the Secretary of State, as a former Education Secretary will take on board, although it is not in the general fund, is the shortfall in funding through the dedicated schools grant, particularly to meet special educational needs. That will create a deficit situation for Bromley and many other London boroughs and local education authorities in future years, as part of demographic changes. There have been some changes: the tightening of the ring fence on the dedicated schools grant, and introducing a statutory override last year. That was helpful, but it is not a long-term solution.
I hope that we can press ahead, as a Government, with the SEND review, and therefore find adequate funding to go with it. There is a particular perverseness that while some of the increased cost pressures on children’s social care can be funded, SEN transport is not funded from the dedicated schools grant. Since they are all part and parcel of the same package of the child’s educational needs, it seems strange that, although we can cover the cost of the education itself, we are not able to cover such costs out of the same pot.
I hope that we can look at the way the system operates. We need a system that rewards efficiency. We do not have any financial mechanism at the moment that rewards efficient, low-cost authorities such as Bromley. When I was a Minister in the Department, I was told politely by one of my officials, “Surely, efficiency is its own reward, Minister.” That is nice, but it does not really help when trying to balance the budgets and not pass on unfair costs to council tax payers.
We need a system where behaviour that leads to long-term efficiency and saving, as Bromley has demonstrated, is incentivised and rewarded within the local government grant system, until we move on to something more sophisticated in future. I was never able to crack it, and the then Secretary of State, the noble Lord Pickles, was never quite able to, although we made efforts, with the Localism Act 2011 and the Local Government Finance Act 2012. Perhaps the Secretary of State will be able to go further than we were able to, to reward good behaviour by elected members in a way that is demonstrable to their voters and communities. That, surely, would be a worthwhile thing to achieve.
We need to look at area cost adjustments. Bromley has one of the lowest area cost adjustments for the London area. The way that London property markets and other costs have shifted over recent years is such that there is really no distinction to be drawn between the costs of delivering services in Bromley, and, say, Richmond and Kingston in south-west London, which are much better compensated by the area cost adjustment. We need a review of how that works. I also hope that we can look at giving local authorities more freedom to raise and spend their own resources across the piece.
I mentioned the homelessness budget. Our difficulty, which I must say links to planning, is that there is pressure on housing, for the reasons I have set out. Bromley is willing to build new housing in the right place—the right place is important. Even with planning reforms, however, the private sector either is now too expensive for low-income households—in areas such as ours, it is usually taken up by young professionals who work in the City or the west end and are not yet able to get a mortgage—or falls into the lower grades of accommodation, if I may put it that way, with houses in multiple occupation that are not suitable for families and that we would not wish to see families in. We need to join up all the policy areas of housing, planning and local government funding to ensure that we do not create a perfect storm and leave families falling through the gaps in the system. That is part of the reason that Bromley has significant pressures on its homelessness budget, which as an outer London borough it had not had previously.
Finally, we expect Bromley’s population to grow above the national average, but funding is not currently being relocated on the basis of population growth. Surely, with our much better technology to store data, we could be more fleet of foot in updating these things. We have a projected increase of 18.9% in over-65s, compared with 12.1% in the rest of London. That will be a problem across the country, but surely we must make cleverer use of our data to update the figures on which we base the payments made centrally.
I could say much more, but for the sake of time I will not. I commend to the Secretary of State and the Minister the London Borough of Bromley’s 13 January submission to the consultation on the provisional settlement, in which Mr Peter Turner, our excellent director of finance, sets out many of the issues in detail. I would be happy to meet the Secretary of State and the Minister to discuss in more detail how a good and successful local authority can come up with ideas to help the system to work even better.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I pay tribute to all those who work in local government, particularly for the immense efforts that they have made over the past two years to meet the needs of their local communities, and to the elected members in all parties who serve their communities for not much recompense. It is a noble calling and something I enjoy doing; we should pay tribute to them. I must also throw in a mention of those who serve on parish and town councils, most of whom do so without any recompense whatever and have stepped up to the plate.
Over the past few years, as we have effectively seen caps on public spending in the principal authorities, the ability to raise a precept without going through the process of a local referendum has meant that many parish and town councils have really stepped into the breach. For their sake as much as for principal authorities, we should regret that we are still on one-year budgets. To have a single-year settlement for a fourth year disrespects all local government authorities—the parish and town councils that are not in direct receipt of grant support, as well as the principal authorities that are—and makes it very hard for them or the organisations that depend on them to plan. That is not an argument about the amount of money; it is about levelling with authorities and ensuring that they can plan ahead and serve their communities efficiently and with ambition.
There is an awful lot that we could talk about, but I do not want to take too long or tick every box, so I will make just a few observations. Like other hon. Members, I regret very much the failure to keep public health spending in line with inflation, or anything like it, as we learn more and more about the importance of preventive healthcare, both physical and mental. I pay tribute to Colin Cox and all those in Cumbria’s public health team who have worked utterly tirelessly through the pandemic, keeping us safe and giving us the advice, confidence and reassurance that we all desperately need. They have been responsible for excellent systems throughout this very difficult time.
It is worth bearing in mind just what this means—not funding public health well. While tiers 2, 3 and 4 of the mental health support framework for young people are provided through contracted services, through the NHS and through child and adolescent mental health services, tier 1 is the responsibility of public health services run at county level. The poor funding for public health in our county means that the amount we spend on young people’s preventive mental health care in Cumbria equates to 75p per child per year.
Let us ignore for a moment the moral wrong of that small amount of funding. What does it mean in terms of the consequences in later life? I carried out a survey last year and found that 28% of young people referred to CAMHS were waiting over six months to be seen. Unless we invest in tier 1 preventive mental health care, we will increasingly see people cropping up further down the line with conditions that are much more tragic and much more difficult and expensive to treat. I ask the Secretary of State to think again about investment in public health throughout the country, not just in mental health and not just in Cumbria.
We have seen no real-terms increase in the rural element of the grant, and the lower-tier services grant has not been increased. District councils, which are much more likely to be in rural areas, are not receiving the support that they need. I do not want to see a push-and-pull and a fight between rural and urban communities—such activities are often misplaced—but it is worth pointing out that those who operate services in rural communities do so relatively inefficiently, because they are dealing with the same sort of issues but with much smaller numbers. There may be only 30 children at a school in the south lakes, for example, not because it is of poor quality and unable to recruit pupils but because only about 14 kids live in the catchment area, and 30 pupils mean that it is over-performing. In my constituency there are two high schools—secondary schools—with fewer than 200 pupils, and probably about a dozen primary schools with fewer than 60. I can think of two with fewer than 30. They have small school rolls not because they are not good schools, but because they represent vast areas of land in the Lake district and the dales. The lack of an understanding of rural needs means that the needs of those schools become greater and greater.
When it comes to funding formulas, one issue in particular concerns me. It depends on which metric we look at and whom we believe, but I do believe that Cumbria may have the worst pothole problem in the country, for one reason in particular. Ours is, I think, the second biggest county in England, and I think that therefore we have the second biggest number of roads. We have one of the smallest populations in any county—we certainly have the smallest concentrations of population anywhere in the country—and yet we have colossal numbers of visitors, 38 times more each year than the number of people who live in the county. The tourists who are so welcome in the lakes and the dales and elsewhere in Cumbria are helping to contribute to the wear and tear of our roads, but they are not contributing to the upkeep. I should like the Secretary of State to think carefully about how he can compensate rural communities like mine—particularly tourist-heavy communities—bearing it in mind that although, after London, the Lake district is the most visited place in Britain, it does not receive any compensation to help it to fund the services that are used by those visitors, which is a terrible shame.
We should bear it in mind that over a third of the increased funds available to local authorities this year is money that councils have to raise, with a £1.4 billion increase in council tax. Council tax is an unfair form of taxation: it is disproportionately paid by those on lower incomes, and it puts a greater burden on household outgoings. Combined with the national insurance rise that is coming in a few weeks’ time, this puts an additional burden on people with low and middle incomes which they cannot afford.
The increase in council tax is, broadly speaking, for social care, and no sensible council will miss the opportunity to find that money to protect its social care provision. The national insurance rise is being sold as a measure that will help social care provision, but it is not really going to do that. It will not lead to what we really need, which is an upgrade in the terms and conditions and pay for people working in social care. Without that, we will neither recruit nor retain the people we need. In Cumbria, we have seen a 32% reduction in social care beds in just six and a half years. It is deeply troubling for people to have a rise in taxation outgoings both to the local authority and nationally but to see nothing for it, and nothing that will help retain those people whom we clearly need working in social care.
One reason why we have great difficulty in meeting social care needs in Cumbria is our inability to provide places for the workforce to live, which is a major responsibility of unitary and lower-tier authorities. As the Secretary of State knows—I think he has agreed to meet me to discuss this issue—rural Britain in particular faces a massive housing crisis, which is costing us in so many different ways, and while we have had this crisis for many years, through the pandemic it has become a catastrophe.
Two things have happened. First, roughly speaking, 80% of house sales in Cumbria during the pandemic have been to the second-home market, weakening communities and leaving them with an ever smaller permanent population. That means that we lose the services. If we lose a number of kids at a school, we may lose the school as well as the bus service, the post office and what it is to have a life in a community. The other thing that has happened, since the end of the eviction ban last year, is a massive increase in people evicted from relatively affordable private rents to turn those houses into Airbnbs instead.
Hon. Members can imagine the existing number of holiday let properties in a place such as the Lake district, and in my district alone in a 12-month period last year they increased by 32%. Where did those properties come from? Ordinary families in my community have been evicted—kicked out. They may have been there for years. I think of one family who raised their kids there for 16 years and were kicked out with little notice. They had to leave the community and move their children because the Government did not scrap section 21 evictions having promised to do so. That leaves us with no staff available for care homes or all the other provision that we need. It is a moral outrage, and it practically undermines our economy.
As we look to support local government, I would love the Secretary of State to look at the ways in which he can affect that by, for instance, changing planning law so that a family home cannot be turned into a second home or a holiday let without asking the planning authorities for permission. That would keep a lid on the problem and maintain and protect the communities represented by me and others in other beautiful parts of the country. That would not cost anything—perhaps a bit more resource for planning departments for enforcement —so there is a way of adding value to our communities without necessarily spending any more money.
I have one final ask via the Secretary of State to the Chancellor of the Exchequer: why do we not consider following the Welsh Government’s lead in providing local authorities with permission to double council tax on second homes? That would be a disincentive for second homes and protect communities from too many of them. It would also create a revenue stream, which those communities could invest in supporting new affordable homes and protecting local schools that would otherwise have too few kids to be viable. I would love him to look at and think about those things. As we suffer through many other challenges such as the cost of living crisis and recovery from the pandemic, I want him to focus in particular on the housing catastrophe that affects the economy and community in so many rural areas such as mine.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
This has been a really interesting debate. I want to pick up a few points made by hon. Members. In particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) gently—and rightly—chastised the Government for not offering a multi-year agreement for local government and asked what has happened to business rates reform. He and my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Sir George Howarth) rightly made afresh the point about the need for a fair funding review to focus genuinely on need and poverty if the Government’s levelling-up agenda is to have any substance.
If I may, I will also praise the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) and his point about fiscal and financial devolution for local government. Sadly, we remain one of the most centralised nations, certainly in Europe, in the way we approach local services. Like him, I would strongly support the Secretary of State’s taking up the challenge of negotiating with the Chancellor of the Exchequer for more fiscal devolution for local government. Nowhere is the argument for such fiscal and financial devolution more pertinent than in the scandalous treatment of Transport for London, with the Secretary of State for Transport demanding that the Mayor of London put up council tax to pay for concessionary fares for the elderly and the young—of which more anon, if I may. I also thought the hon. Member was right about special educational needs and the need to provide more dedicated funding, particularly to London authorities as virtually every London borough is facing huge additional pressures in that area.
Local councils are fundamental to the quality of the places where we live. They are not always universally loved, but they are essential for keeping our communities safe and our streets clean. They help create the environment in which we all want to live—for example, through the planning decisions they take—and they drive opportunities for young and old to access high-quality education, the arts, sports and leisure. Yet, tragically, they have been neglected for a decade under the Conservative party.
Too many in our communities up and down the country feel that they are not able to influence the future of the area in which they live, and that they have too little control over how their area looks, how it changes and the services they can access. If we are to help constituents shape the areas they live in and drive improvements in the services they depend on, then one—not the only one, but a crucial one—of the essential routes to doing that is to empower local councils. That means tackling the legacy of the active neglect of local councils which, I am afraid to say, has characterised the Treasury and much of the Department in recent years.
A number of bodies over recent years have published studies that paint an all-too-similar and familiar picture of declining support from central Government to local councils. Those funding cuts have made it easier for developers to do what they want where they want, and the 600-plus changes to planning law that Ministers have brought in have certainly helped in that regard. The funding cuts have made it harder to strengthen community-run services, and they have put pressure on councils to sell community assets and slowed down investment in crucial local services.
The National Audit Office has charted how the spending power of local councils, funded by central Government, has fallen in real terms by more than 50% in the last 10 years. Those cuts in funding have coincided with growing pressures on council-run services through bigger populations; the increasing numbers of the elderly, vulnerable adults and young people needing vital care and support; and, in London in particular, the rising number of homeless families. All of that has helped to squeeze the discretionary funding that councils have to spend on enforcement action against antisocial behaviour and rogue developments, as well as on street cleaning, services such as libraries, and supporting local charities, all of which have together impacted slowly but steadily on the quality of life in our towns and district centres.
Across London, since 2010, councils have seen a 25% reduction in funding, even though there are 1 million more Londoners. Harrow remains one of the lowest-funded councils both in London and nationally. We are fortunately well led by Councillor Graham Henson, we have strong officers and, certainly over the last four years, we have had very strong finance leads in Natasha Proctor and Councillor Adam Swersky. However, over the last 10 years, the main source of funding from central Government to Harrow—the revenue support grant—has reduced by 97% to just £1.6 million, a reduction of over £50 million for Harrow. There are other grants, but they are ringfenced to a large extent. To maintain balanced budgets, the council has had to find £150 million of savings as well as ways to raise new income, and has had to decide between making cuts to services or raising council tax. It has been able to make savings and efficiencies of some £98 million over that time, but it has had to reduce services and consistently to increase council tax in line with the Government’s expectations.
Despite all those steps, every year it remains a huge challenge to balance the council’s budget. Harrow has a good track record of financial management. It has strong collection rates and has not reported a revenue budget overspend for many years. It has not had to use its small reserves to prop up its budget. It is a remarkable tribute to officers and councillors in Harrow that they have such a good record of financial management, but of course in the past two years in particular they have done all that while managing the disproportionate impact of covid on the borough. Of course, the pandemic has affected every part of the UK. In Harrow there has been a significantly higher than average rate of infection compared with the rest of London, yet Harrow has received one of the lowest allocations of emergency funding of all London boroughs. In 2019-20, Harrow’s core spending power per head was estimated to be £170 lower than the London average and £75 lower than the England average. The fair funding review that has been promised needs to tackle that disparity.
Despite the considerable financial challenges the council has faced, it has succeeded in securing the future of vital community assets. The future of Harrow Arts Centre is now secure, investment in the Sir Roger Bannister athletics stadium has been achieved and the Harrow Museum has a new funding future. That is all positive and the council is trying to increase support to the victims of domestic violence and to young carers, as well as to improve street cleaning and to increase enforcement activity and investment in local parks. However, it is not able to increase support or invest at the level that it and local residents would want because of the financial challenges that I have set out.
Councils are far from universally popular, as I have said. They can seem too remote and their services can be frustrating to access, but in my experience in Harrow there are proud and committed staff in every part of the council who are determined to do what they can to make Harrow an even better place to live. Harrow councillors, those from my party and those in the opposition ranks, who challenge them, are remarkably dedicated given that most are paid very little and have to manage their responsibilities alongside other jobs. I want Harrow to be an even better place to live, and first of all that requires the Government to invest more in the ambitions of local people by supporting Harrow Council more than they have to date.
I also want to mention London and how the Mayor of London is being pressured into raising council tax to protect vital travel concessions for young people and the over-60s and to provide further funding for policing. Indeed, I understand that the Secretary of State for Transport personally told the Mayor that council tax had to go up. The pandemic has had the same devastating impact on the finances of TfL as it did on privatised rail companies, yet those failing privatised rail companies were bailed out straight away and without any strings attached.
Despite the Mayor’s doing the right thing to protect Londoners during the pandemic, the Transport Secretary is still refusing to fund TfL properly, offering only another sticking plaster deal. As I understand it, the Transport Secretary is refusing to meet the Mayor to discuss those issues.
Chris Loder
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Secretary of State for Transport and this Conservative Government have—I understand for the second time—given the Mayor a multibillion-pound settlement to help with the operation of TfL, which has been to the detriment of constituencies such as mine in West Dorset, where we are not able to get the transport, in favour of Transport for London?
Gareth Thomas
With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not think it will help the people of West Dorset or the rest of the UK in general if we leave London with a poor transport service. Just as I would like to see his community getting better support from the Secretary of State, I hope he might have the grace to recognise that Harrow and London in general also need to be properly supported as we come out of the pandemic.
Gareth Thomas
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. I do not know whether the hon. Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) has been challenging the Government in that regard—I think I heard a bit of gentle criticism, but perhaps he needs to make some more pointed remarks to the Secretary of State in private.
We are in the midst of a cost of living crisis, and Government Ministers are demanding further council tax rises to fund local councils, the police and transport for the elderly and the young in Harrow. That is yet another financial blow to hard-hit families. If, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) on the Front Bench rightly said at the outset, the Conservative party had not allowed so much money to be wasted on fraud, corruption and personal protective equipment that could not be used, there would be money to invest in more policing in local councils such as Dorset and, crucially, Harrow, and to invest in better services for local people in my borough and beyond.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
We have just heard it in a debate on the police grant, and we have heard it in this debate with the Secretary of State: the Government are treating 2019 like year zero. Anything that happened before then was nothing to do with them. He is increasingly trying to push the narrative that decisions around funding, local government, policing, fire or anything have somehow happened by accident. They have not: they have happened because of deliberate political decisions that, in some cases, the Secretary of State—who I think has been in the Government since 2010—has taken.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) said that the most savage cuts have been made to local government, with a 56.3% cut in the past decade. The Cameron-Osborne approach was to cut the central Government funding to councils from central taxation and push it on to local council tax payers, thereby deflecting the blame when local councillors and council officials had to take some very tough decisions. We have had the galling situation over the past 10 years in County Durham of Conservative councillors standing up and blaming the Labour council for raising the council tax, when they know the real reason is that the formula being used has shifted the way local government is funded in this country from central to local taxation.
In County Durham’s case, that means that the county council’s budget has been cut by £232 million a year—40% of the council’s budget. The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) referred to Lord Pickles, and in the early days, we were told, “Don’t worry about this; it can all be sorted out if councils get more efficient”—that if they had fewer pot plants in council offices, as I think was said at one stage, or stopped serving tea and coffee at meetings, or sacked all their chief officers, somehow that would fill the gap. Well, that is absolute nonsense.
Another issue that affects counties like County Durham is that we now have an inbuilt mechanism that deliberately moves money from the poor areas with the highest need, to more affluent areas. That is no accident, but the result of a political choice. I take as an example County Durham, where 58% of our properties are in council tax band A, so if we raised the council tax by 1% we would raise £3.8 million. There are a couple of higher-band properties in my constituency—there is at least one castle, which may well be in the higher tax bracket—but there are very few higher band properties across County Durham. That should be compared that with Wokingham in Surrey, where only 2.8% of properties are in band A, so if it raises council tax by 1% it generates £8.9 million. Add to that the fact that we are not just moving that money to areas of lower need, but are ensuring that the poorest people in County Durham, or Knowsley or any other deprived community, pay the most, because we all know that council tax is a very aggressive form of taxation.
That is continuing. We again have a one-year settlement, and councils are now having to work out what they will do in coming years. The Policing Minister told us earlier that when it came to the fairer funding review on police funding, the train had left the station. He gave no indication of when it would arrive. Unless we tackle this issue, councils such as County Durham will always be at a disadvantage
As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East said, there is a lot of press and PR. The Government work on the basis of slogans, gimmicks and spin, and the latest one is levelling up. I might be one of the few people who have actually read the entire levelling-up White Paper, including the annex.
Mr Jones
Yes, I am, and the hon. Member for Redcar (Jacob Young) called me an anorak, so possibly I am both.
The White Paper’s analysis is not bad in that it raises the issue that we should be tackling, but it offers no solution to enable us to do that. I really enjoyed the undergraduate thesis on the Venetian city state and how Babylon was built, but again it did not reach any conclusions. Nevertheless, we have a Government who talk in terms of levelling up. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East is right: you cannot have levelling up if you exclude the way in which local government is financed.
The other sad thing is that the Government’s approach has mainly been around capital projects. I think it is because the Prime Minister has a fixation—he has a fixation on quite a few things—on projects where you can see that something is being built. No doubt a Minister or local Conservative Member of Parliament can unveil a plaque and say, “This is what we have achieved.” As my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Sir George Howarth) said, if it was a fair process, fine.
I used to have a saying, when I was in local government, that any idiot can spend capital, which they can. The more difficult thing is to get the revenue streams into the future. Like my right hon. Friend, distantly I used to understand local government finance, but no doubt my knowledge is a bit out of date. What I do recognise is that we can spend as much capital on projects as we like, but what is needed is the revenue funding to go alongside it for the day-to-day needs of our local communities.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley covered the bidding process very well, but the point is that, if it were a fair process, then fine, but it is not. Quite clearly, it is a pork barrel approach to the doling out of money to certain Conservative seats. Let me give an example in County Durham. Which constituency has either got new towns funding or levelling-up funding? The answer is Bishop Auckland.
Mr Kevan Jones
I do not disagree with the Secretary of State. County Durham is a wonderful county. It has some great towns and, more importantly, great people. But why did Bishop Auckland get that money as opposed to any of the other towns in County Durham? Well, it has a Conservative Member of Parliament. I doubt that it will be getting much funding in the future, following the recent antics of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison), with her criticism and plotting against the Prime Minister. She will be on the naughty step for a while, and will not get any future funding. The important thing is that this must be clear. I also question the bidding process. The problem with the process, as my right hon. Friend has said, is that it takes a lot of time and effort to take this through. Officer time is taken up, and councils are limited in the amount of officer time that they have. Then they have to go into some beauty parade, which is clearly rigged by the Government. The real issue in terms of levelling up is this—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I did not want to jump in as a kneejerk reaction, but I have been considering what the right hon. Gentleman has just said. He has made a very serious criticism of a Member of this House. I just want to check whether he has given notice to the hon. Lady that he intended to criticise her on the Floor of the House?
Mr Kevan Jones
I am not aware how I criticised the hon. Lady, Madam Deputy Speaker. If you could illuminate and tell me how I did, I would be quite happy. I would not necessarily want to criticise her.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The right hon. Gentleman most certainly made reference to another Member. My interpretation was that he was criticising her, but the point is that he made specific reference to her. I just want to check that he gave her notice of his intention to do so.
Mr Kevan Jones
I am sorry, but I do not know where in Standing Orders it says that you have to give notice. If a Member is criticising someone or raising a point, I agree with you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but when a Member is referring to a Member, which is what I did there—
Madam Deputy Speaker
The right hon. Gentleman can try to argue with the Chair for as long as he wishes. I am concerned about keeping good order in this Chamber, and my interpretation of what the right hon. Gentleman said was that it was a serious criticism of the hon. Lady. Perhaps the most subtle thing for him to do is to undertake to tell her that he criticised her on the Floor of the House and apologise for not having given her notice of his intention to do so.
Mr Kevan Jones
I have to say, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not known for my subtlety. I am not sorry. I do not quite understand the point. The point I made was in reference to what has been in the newspapers. I was not criticising the hon. Lady. Frankly, if she is working against the Prime Minister, I would congratulate more than anything, not criticise her. I do not think that it was a criticism—
Madam Deputy Speaker
We do not need any more of this. I have said what I have said. It is not for the right hon. Gentleman to argue with me. Will he please now continue with his speech?
Mr Kevan Jones
I will, and I will take this up further, Madam Deputy Speaker.
May I now come back to the main points? We are talking about some really serious things, and I am sorry that we have been diverted. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East said, if levelling up means anything, it means building up those communities. It is not necessarily about bricks and mortar, but about trying to pull the fabric together.
County Durham has high levels of deprivation, with people more likely to need social care and intervention by the health service at a lower age—in their 50s—than in most places. There are huge demands on adult social care. One thing that makes me very angry is the fact that in the last 10 years, life expectancy in County Durham has actually been falling. The idea that there is a part of this wealthy country where our citizens’ life expectancy is falling is deeply disturbing and wrong.
This brings me to the issue of public health. I give full credit to Amanda Healy, the director of public health in County Durham, and her officers, who have worked tirelessly, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East that if we had given test and trace to them, they would have made a damn sight better job of it than the billions that were wasted nationally. We now have a situation where we have a cut in the public health grant. The last time the Government were consulting on the public health grant, County Durham was going to lose 40% of its funding. The problem is that if we really want to tackle the inequalities, we have to do it in terms of public health. It is no good trying to shy away from that.
We now have a situation whereby, as part of the levelling-up agenda, everything seems to be tied to changing the local government arrangements. County Durham has been offered a county deal. I do not understand why the Government are looking at changing the local government structures of an area—[Interruption.] I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. You are interrupting what I am saying. I can’t hear myself think.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will simply withdraw what he has just said.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am sure that it has irritated the right hon. Gentleman, and I am sure that he has never irritated anyone himself. Irritation is something that is allowed in this Chamber; indeed, it is endemic.
Mr Jones
I am glad it is, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Turning to the devolution deal, one of the bare minimums that we have looked for is a replacement for the money that we would have received from the European Regional Development Fund. The Government gave a clear pledge that, once we left Europe, that money would be matched, but it is quite clear from looking at the Treasury Red Book that it will not be. That money is important in County Durham because it allows us to fund programmes such as DurhamWorks, which works with young people who want to get into work. It has been a tremendous success, but its funding ends in 2023 and there is no more after that, so it is important that at a bare minimum we get the equivalent of that funding. However, if we have to bid for it, the bidding process will take up the time and effort of our officers, and there is also the question of the transparency of the process.
I will turn now to the White Paper, which I have read. I actually like the Secretary of State; he is a thinker. It was certainly a loss when he was demoted from the post of Justice Secretary, because he had some great ideas around how to reform the justice sector. I plead with him to take some of the ideas in the White Paper, ensure that we have the funding review that has been put alongside it, and stop this nonsense of tying resources to a requirement for devolution or to messing and tinkering around with the governing structures locally. He must then ensure that that system tackles these issues and puts back what is needed in the formula, which is a needs-based assessment.
As I have said, County Durham has more than 900 children in care. That is not cheap and it has led, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East said, to adult social care and looked-after children gobbling up nearly 70% of the budget. That is not sustainable over the long term for doing the other things that my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley mentioned, when he talked about ensuring that everything else that people expect—parks, services and basic communities—is there.
There is an opportunity here, and one thing we can say about the Secretary of State is that he is a thinker and he wants to drive change. I think he was out of the Chamber when I said that the main themes in the White Paper are correct. It is about not getting bogged down in the detail of governance, deals and devolution that does not actually mean devolution; it is just about trying to get the funding in place.
I have been a leader in local government and also a Minister, and I think that if the Secretary of State looks at some of the innovation taking place in local government, he will see that the quality of some of the officers in local government is fantastic—there are some great people there doing some great things. What we have to do is free up their time, give them credit when they are doing things and support those politicians who are actually there. Let us get away from the idea that mayors are the answer to everything or that these people do not have the responsibility. This issue affected our Government as much as it has affected his. The Treasury just does not trust these people, but frankly it should, because in local government we have some great innovators. We have people who will tackle the real issue, which, as I say, is not just about bricks and mortar; it is about making the real change that happens at a local level.
I wish the Secretary of State well in his ambitions. I hope he has a good fight with the Treasury, to ensure that he gets the resources so that if we are going to make real change at the local level, we will actually make a real difference. We have political differences in this place, but we do actually want what most people want, which is the best for their local community.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
There have been some excellent contributions, from Members across the House, highlighting the brilliant work that many of our councils—yes, I include parish and town councils—right across the country have been doing in these challenging periods. That has been noted by hon. Members today. We heard interesting contributions from the hon. Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder), who has been mixing it up a little on the issues of region versus region, and rural versus urban. I suggest to him that he should probably get the broadband sorted out in Ilfracombe, so that when the Chancellor is there in the future he can send a positive tweet to the likes of the Prime Minister.
Mike Amesbury
I must move on—I have acknowledged the hon. Gentleman.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), who chairs the Select Committee, referred to the political choice of austerity over a 10-year period and the stark consequences for Sheffield City Council—I think £3 billion was cut from the council. My right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Sir George Howarth) referred to the need for three-year settlements. I believe we are now in the fourth year of one-year settlements. How can we plan resources effectively—how can we plan for the future and invest in early years—when we have continued one-year settlements?
The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) rightly referred to the need for genuine fiscal and financial devolution, and I concur. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) spoke about the public health grant, which is being reduced in real terms, and the pressures on mental health. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) referred to devolution, concurring with the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) referred to the cut of more than 50%, as measured by the National Audit Office, that has been imposed over the past 10 years in communities up and down the country.
If the levelling-up White Paper did not already out the Department as being devoid of any real ambition or strategy to better the lives of people across our regions, this settlement is the confirmation. It might not be 300 pages, and I might not have learned much about the last 10,000 years of urban settlements, but it once again reminds us that this Government do not truly back our communities, do not back our councils and certainly do not back our country. No wonder that Tory councillor and Local Government Association Chairman James Jamieson, whom the Secretary of State phones on a regular basis—
Mike Amesbury
Every morning, I think. No wonder he stated that he was disappointed that council tax went up by a massive 31% between 2010 and 2021 while the area base grant has been cut, on average, by 37%. Tory Ministers have just piled the pain on to hard-pressed families, who pay more while receiving fewer services that are vital to making life work in our communities.
The Secretary of State has been waxing lyrical about the core spending power. Does he think that our residents, communities and constituents have missed the fact that inflation is at its highest for 30 years? Taking that into account outs this settlement for what it is: a 2.2% reduction compared with last year. It is a settlement that assumes local authorities will all raise council tax by the maximum amount without needing a referendum, meaning that councils will have to choose whether to raise much-needed funding while being well aware of the real financial pressures on households. The social care precept on top of the social care levy create a double whammy of taxation for residents, while providing insufficient resources for adult social care, according to the Tory leader of Surrey County Council. Indeed, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst raised exactly that point.
The draft of the settlement also came with another announcement, because the Government have once again kicked local government finance reform—the fairer funding review—into the long grass. It is desperately needed. Council tax as the main source of local authority income, as hon. Members across the House have said, is inherently unfair and regressive. We need that funding review very soon indeed.
The reform of business rates is another thing that we apparently will not see this year. We desperately need a new system that reflects the modern nature of business, that has some relation with money that goes through the till, that rebalances our high street versus online, and that boosts local economies rather than stifling them. However, we are of course not getting that. Could there be a clearer sign that the Government do not have a real plan?
The Secretary of State mentioned the announcement earlier this month of the £150 council tax rebate. We would very much like to see the detail of that, because we have had little so far. Indeed, our councils’ financial officers and leaders have had little information. How are councils to be involved in handing out that money? Will it be by cash, cheque or electronic payment? In some areas, such as Manchester, 49% of residents do not pay by direct debit, so there are some real practical difficulties there. Have the Secretary of State or the Minister estimated how much the administration will cost?
These woefully inadequate short-term fixes will not stop the cost of living crisis. The Government choosing to put taxes up on working people—the Government cannot escape the fact that they are now at a 70-year high—while cutting benefits and utterly failing to tackle rising food and energy bills simply pushes more people into poverty. Of course, the money is spare change compared with the £15 billion that our communities have had taken away over the last 12 years. Finances have gone that could have kept vital services open. Instead, the public now do not have 921 libraries, over 1,000 children’s centres and 368 swimming pools, to name but a few. The public health grant has been cut, but we are not quite out of the covid/omicron crisis at the moment. Real-terms increases are desperately needed.
We do not have a Secretary of State for Levelling Up; he is quite rapidly becoming the Minister for closing down, boarding up and laying off. The Government have kept our regional towns and cities down and held them back. No wonder this week’s newspapers representing communities across the north used their front pages to plead with the Secretary of State not to leave them behind, after 12 years. They pointed out the fact—this is a damning indictment of the inequality under this Government—that a baby girl born in Salford will, on average, die 10 years earlier than one born in the Secretary of State’s Surrey constituency. I know that he will not be at all proud of that fact, but he really needs to do something about it.
In conclusion, the sad truth is that the Government have left people and communities behind for over 12 years. We now know that they simply do not have a plan to change; they just have a scorecard with 12 mission statements of failure over the last 12 years. We know that, as a nation, we can do better than this. Any genuine levelling up of our communities will chiefly be delivered by local authorities. They need three-year settlements. The funding needs to be adequate, with long-term resources, devolved freedoms and budgets that reflect the work that local authorities put into their communities—communities that are genuinely powered up to deliver the fair and green future that our constituents and our nation require.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Neil O'Brien)
I begin by paying tribute to the work of councils across the country. Over the last two years, they have been our foot soldiers in the fight against covid. They have innovated, worked hard and done incredible things to keep our vital services going, and they cannot be thanked often enough. I also thank officials in central Government and the Minister for Levelling Up Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Kemi Badenoch), for their work in producing this balanced settlement today. She is away following the death of her father but she has done a lot of work to bring us to this point.
I also thank Members from across the House for their thoughtful and considered contributions to the debate. I would like to take some of them in turn and, as I do so, I will highlight what the settlement will mean for their area’s spending power. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder)—the spending power of his area will go up by 6.8%—made the important point that even though areas may look pretty, or “chocolate box” to use his words, we must recognise that there are areas of serious deprivation in some of them. That is one of the reasons why we are maintaining the rules over such grant. It is at the highest level—£85 million—that it has been. I know that his council leader has met with the former Minister for Housing, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher), and the letter that they sent has been replied to. I look forward to further conversations with my hon. Friend.
Chris Loder
I really appreciate my hon. Friend responding to these points. I should be clear for the record that I, my colleagues and the leader of the council have been asking to meet Ministers for a very long time. I appreciate my hon. Friend’s comeback, but it is important to note that we would appreciate it if the meeting were expedited. I do not think that it has taken place.
Neil O'Brien
I assure my hon. Friend that we will expedite that.
Let me turn to the thoughtful comments made by the Chair of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts)—the spending power of Sheffield will go up by 7.6% under this settlement. He noted, to use his phrase, that the settlement was better than in some years, which may be faint praise, but we will take it. He raised the very important long-term issue about the relevance of upward pressure on social care caused by an ageing society, and one in which we do a better job of caring for the sick and disabled. As a party, we have taken difficult decisions to adequately fund that and the NHS, and difficult decisions on tax. We are also taking steps, as we set out in the House earlier, to promote the integration of health and social care, because we all know that is one of the crucial things we can do to make that sustainable in the longer term.
Mr Betts
I mentioned the letter from the Secretary of State offering a meeting with officials. Perhaps it could be a meeting with Ministers, and perhaps I could be allowed to bring someone from the CCG and someone from the city council, who are doing great work together, to explain what they really want to see to marry up this place-based approach to health with local government.
Neil O’Brien
Absolutely, and the hon. Gentleman anticipates the point I was about to make.
Of course, deepening devolution is one way of driving the integration agenda to save money and produce better services. The hon. Gentleman referred to the important health and life expectancy gaps, and the White Paper sets out the steps that the Department of Health and Social Care will take through its health inequalities strategy and its new tobacco strategy.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) noted the importance of keeping taxes down, and I strongly agree. That is why the settlement keeps the increase to 2%, with 1% for social care—far lower than the double-digit increases we saw in many years under the Labour party.
I will reply at length to the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Sir George Howarth). This morning I relayed all the points raised in the important debate on funding in Merseyside to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and we talked it through. I completely agree about the need for a multi-year settlement. We had to have one-year settlements because of the turbulence around covid, but we aim to have a multi-year settlement. Yes, it will take account of the need for levelling up and of inflation.
I am pleased the right hon. Gentleman mentioned Shakespeare North, as I was previously involved in its central Government funding. It is a brilliant project, and he rightly paid tribute to some of the individuals who are helping to make it happen.
The right hon. Gentleman also made some important points about the levelling-up fund. Seventy-five per cent. of the money has so far gone to top-priority areas, and only 6% has gone to bottom-priority areas. It is highly skewed towards the poorest areas and, in the first round, £20 million went to Liverpool, next door to Knowsley, and £37 million went to the Liverpool city region as a whole. It is not correct that there is a political process. There is competition, and there are arguments for having non-competitive funding, which is why there will also be an allocation through the UK shared prosperity fund. There are arguments for competition to get good bids, but we must not traduce civil servants who score the bids and allocate the money.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) will see spending power in his constituency go up by 6.2%.
Sir George Howarth
If, as the Minister says, I am wrong about how these decisions have been arrived at, will he apprise me of what was wrong with the Knowsley bids?
Neil O’Brien
Again, the right hon. Gentleman anticipates my next point. I am happy to facilitate a meeting between officials in Knowsley and officials in central Government to talk about the bid, but this is done on an objective basis. [Interruption.] It does not seem that the right hon. Member for Knowsley wants to make an intervention, as he is chuntering from a sedentary position. Liverpool, as I said, has received funding, so it is not politics; it is about getting the best bids and the right money to the right places. The spending settlement means an extra 8.5% for Knowsley.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst made a verbal slip when he talked about when he was a young man. Of course, he meant to talk about when he was an even younger man, so I correct the record. He and the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), who is sadly no longer here, made important points about the public health grant, and those points are why we are protecting it in real terms across the SR period and why we have an extra £300 million to tackle obesity, an extra £170 million to improve Start4Life and children’s mental health services and an extra £560 million to improve drug and alcohol treatment.
The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale also made an important point about second homes, and we recently closed the tax loophole to try to address that issue.
The hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), in whose constituency spending power will go up by 6.8%, made the case for more devolution to more places. I agree: we are both widening devolution through the county deals process and deepening it where we already have it. I should point out that the only place in England that had devolution under the previous Labour Government was London, which is just part of the country; there was no devolution for the rest of England and we have put that right.
I hope that the right hon. Member for North Durham will reflect on the point he made and his serious criticisms of my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison). Let me simply say that my hon. Friend is a superb, dynamic young Member of this House who has a lot of ideas and is making things happen for her constituency. Likewise, the same is true of the new council in Durham, where Labour is out of power for the first time in 100 years. Why is that? I do not seek to make partisan points in this speech, so let me simply say that perhaps one reason why voters in County Durham have turned away from Labour is that they are looking for people with a positive agenda who will get a devolution deal, and not people who just criticise from the sidelines.
Let me move on and address some of the other points made by the right hon. Member for North Durham that were slightly more becoming of him. He talked about having read all of the levelling-up White Paper; he will realise, then, that it marks an approach distinctly different from that under the previous Labour Government, when we saw the increasing concentration of research and development spending in Oxford, Cambridge and London. In the “Levelling Up” White Paper we increase spending outside the greater south-east by 30% over this spending review settlement period; we bring devolution to the rest of England, not just to London; and we get central Government back into the business of driving major urban regeneration in 20 places. Central Government were taken out of that business by the Labour Government’s decision to get rid of English Partnerships—a decision that, in retrospect, I think Labour will regret.
I am conscious that I am taking up time, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the year ahead, councils in England will be boosted by up to £3.7 billion in extra funding. That is a real-terms increase of 4.5% and includes an extra £822 million for services through a one-off services grant. The settlement puts councils on a firm footing for the year ahead—one on which they can build and grow. It maintains the things that are already working, such as the rural services delivery grant; it raises funding in areas where more support is needed, such as through the extra £72 million for the revenue support grant; and it makes sure that no council anywhere in England will receive less money by updating the funding floor.
The settlement reflects the reality of 2022 and the acute pressures faced by the social care sector, with an extra £1 billion made available to alleviate pressure in the year ahead and £162 million to pave the way for the landmark social care reforms we are putting on the statute book. With a core referendum principle of 2%, plus an extra 1% adult social care precept, the settlement protects taxpayers with the lowest expected average council tax rises since 2016-17.
Several Opposition Members made points about the wider context, which includes the £1,000 extra that people working full time will get from our massive increase to the national living wage—a Conservative achievement. It also includes the £1,000 extra that 2 million households will get because of our changes to the universal credit taper rate so that people can keep hold of the money they earn.
We are being asked to believe that there has been a road to Jericho moment and this is now a low-tax Labour party that also wants to spend more money on everything and cut the deficit. It simply does not add up. There have been moments in this debate when Labour Members have said, in short terms, that the funding for public services is paid for by taxation; we are on the edge of an intellectual breakthrough, Madam Deputy Speaker! If only they had learned that lesson before they left behind the biggest deficit in this country’s entire peacetime history—a deficit that we had to spend many years clearing up, with our coalition partners. On that non-partisan note, let me bring the debate to a close. I commend the settlement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
No, no more.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Local Government Finance Report (England) 2022–23 (HC 1080), which was laid before this House on 7 February, be approved.
Resolved,
That the Referendums relating to Council Tax Increases (Principles) (England) Report 2022–23 (HC 1081), which was laid before this House on 7 February, be approved.—(Steve Double.)
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We now come to motion No. 4—[Interruption.] No, no, we have finished that one. Arguments can now be continued behind the Chair, which is perfectly reasonable, but not here.
Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I will not detain the House, but it seems a suitable opportunity just to say a word of thanks to the two members of the Intelligence and Security Committee who are leaving, and a word of welcome to the two who are joining.
The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) is well known for the calmness and conscientiousness of her approach to politics, and her good sense and good judgment on all issues to which she turns her hand. Our loss is the Home Affairs Committee’s gain. I felt honour bound to vote for her for that position, even though we knew that we would be losing her services which were much valued on the ISC, but we wish her every success in her new post.
My right hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) brought his keen enthusiasm for the subjects with which the Committee deals strongly to bear and, as a result, has significantly shaped the make-up of our future programme of study. We are grateful to him for all his contributions.
The fact that we are gaining a former Attorney General, in the shape of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), is particularly apposite, because who better than a former Attorney General to be around to remind both the Government and the agencies of their obligations under the Justice and Security Act 2013? Sometimes those obligations are slightly overlooked, and we look forward to the strength and legal underpinning which his skills will bring to the ISC.
Finally, it is a pleasure to welcome the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), who entered the House at the same time as I did in 1997. I particularly remember working with her on a cross-party basis on a very moving campaign that she undertook in relation to the tragic loss of the MV Derbyshire with all her crew. This was the largest ship of the British mercantile fleet ever to be lost at sea. As a result of her campaigning, and that of her predecessor in Liverpool, the wreck was eventually discovered and the crew absolved of any blame for the loss that had claimed their lives. It was a pleasure to work with her on a cross-party basis then. I, and I am sure all other members of the Committee, look forward to working with her on a cross-party basis in the future.
With that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I thoroughly endorse the recommendations in the motion.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I congratulate the new Leader of the House on his appointment and wish him all the best.
As the senior Opposition member of the ISC, I thank the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) for his contribution to the Committee. I do not think that I am betraying any confidences by saying that the Committee did not always agree on everything, but his commitment and dedication to its work cannot be questioned. I wish him well for the future.
I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson). I agree with the Chair of the ISC, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), that the Home Affairs Committee’s gain is our loss: she was a dedicated member of the Committee and took an active part. She will be missed; I wish her well in her endeavours.
I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) to the Committee. Like the right hon. Member for New Forest East, I have worked with her for several years. I know that she will make a positive contribution.
Mr Jones
I also look forward to working with the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), who will be an asset to the Committee. The Committee does a lot of work that is often not seen. I know that our two new members will add to the Committee’s important role in the scrutiny of our security services.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
As this is his first appearance at the Dispatch Box as Leader of the House, may I welcome the right hon. Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer) to the role? The shadow Leader of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), is very much looking forward to their exchange at business questions tomorrow. I know that she would want me to place on record her thanks to the former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg). She very much appreciated his courtesy in communication outside the Chamber and their robust exchanges in it.
Like the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) and my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), I thank on the Opposition’s behalf the outgoing members of the Intelligence and Security Committee. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) and the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) have served the Committee, Parliament and this country diligently. We thank them for their service and wish them well in their new roles.
The Opposition welcome the appointment of the Committee’s incoming members. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) and the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright) will approach the Committee’s serious and important work with diligence, objectivity and a sense of service to their country. We wish them well and thank them for taking up their important roles.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I welcome the newly appointed Lord President of the Council to the Dispatch Box.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mark Spencer)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. After my five years in the Whips Office, I hope that the House will indulge me for the next hour as I set out my thoughts.
I thank the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) and the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) for their kind words of support; I hope that they continue tomorrow morning. I look forward to business questions. I will not speak tonight about my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg); I think that that deserves a wider audience, so I shall do it tomorrow.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) and the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) for their service on the Committee. I wish my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright) and the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) good luck. They were selected by a very wise former Chief Whip, so I am sure that they will serve on the Committee with expertise.
I hope that the House will support the motion. I wish both new members well as they join this important Committee. I commend the motion to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That Dame Diana Johnson and Mark Pritchard be removed from the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament under Schedule 1 to the Justice and Security Act 2013 and Maria Eagle and Jeremy Wright be appointed to that Committee under section 1 of that Act.
Business without Debate
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Delegated Legislation
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Industrial Waste
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of 70 constituents who are concerned about a permit that has been issued by the Environment Agency, allowing thousands of tonnes of industrial waste to be spread on one of the most beautiful parts of the United Kingdom.
The petition states:
The petitioners…request that the House of Commons urge the Government to consider the concerns of the petitioners and urge the Environment Agency to withdraw the permit allowing industrial waste to be spread on the Musden Low area.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that the Environment Agency should reconsider the permit allowing thousands of tons of industrial waste to be spread on the Musden Low area; notes that this is one mile from the conservation village of Calton and within the Peak District National Park; declares that there has been a detrimental impact on wildlife, especially the RED listed Curlew which was common in the area before the spreading started but has now virtually disappeared; further that the spreading has caused a pungent smell which penetrates people’s washing and homes and makes it unpleasant to be outside; further that there is unsuitable access for road tankers, which are causing damage to roads and verges; further that several public footpaths cross into the designated spreading area; and further that the risk assessment presented to the Environment Agency had various points that were questionable or omitted such as underground water courses and soil type.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to consider the concerns of the petitioners and urge the Environment Agency to withdraw the permit allowing industrial waste to be spread on the Musden Low area.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002712]
Neonatal Leave and Pay
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)
Every year in the UK, tens of thousands of babies receive neonatal care. For the families of these children, the experience can be life changing. Neonatal care is the type of care that a baby receives in hospital if they are born premature, full-term but with a condition or illness that needs medical attention, or with a low birth weight. Rather than families bringing their child home shortly after birth, the child is admitted to a specialist neonatal care unit to receive the support that ensures they receive the best possible chances of survival and quality of life.
A wealth of evidence already exists that shows that, for children in neonatal care to have the best possible outcomes, they need their parents to be as involved in their care as much as possible and as early as possible. The Government already agree with this, and that the current leave and pay entitlements do not adequately support parents when their child is born sick or premature and requires neonatal care.
Many parents and campaigners have welcomed the proposals wholeheartedly to deliver neonatal leave and pay that will allow parents to take additional time off work when their child is in neonatal care, ensuring that they are no longer in the impossible position of having to choose between keeping their job and spending time with their baby. I am grateful to have secured this Adjournment debate to highlight the importance of delivering the Government’s commitment to delivering neonatal leave and pay by a set target date of 2023, and to make the case for how those in all parts of the House can work together to overcome the challenges and provide this vital support for families at the earliest possible opportunity.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this Adjournment debate. I welcome this discussion as an essential part of employment reform, and I support him fully in his wish to expedite legislation so that both parents can take this leave together as a shared benefit. For that reason, I understand he will have lots of support right across the Chamber to achieve his goal.
Luke Hall
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support because for me, like for so many parents, this is personal.
In my own family’s case, my wife was admitted to hospital 22 weeks into her pregnancy following a number of complications, and we were completely unprepared to be told at that point—22 weeks in—that she could give birth at any time and that she would have to stay in hospital for the duration of the pregnancy, as well as that if she did go into labour, our baby might not survive long after childbirth, and if they did, the overwhelming likelihood was that they would live with significant disabilities or challenges.
Even with the incredible and compassionate support that you receive from neonatal intensive care unit consultants, taking you through every step and answering every question, there really is nothing that can prepare you for that type of conversation or for the choices that you are asked to make. I know that all parents deal with that in their own different way, but for me it left a mark that I know will never really leave me.
In our case, like so many others, this meant staying in hospital and praying every single day that the pregnancy lasted as long as possible. Every day feels like a month, but also like an incredible accomplishment, and I was in complete awe of my wife and so many other women who handled everything so magnificently. Six weeks later, our son, William, was born on 6 January last year, weighing just 2.4 lbs.
We did not know that our son was not breathing when he was born—we found that out a lot later; I cannot remember exactly when—but I do remember being told that he was going to be okay, and my wife was able to hold him for a few moments before he was taken to neonatal intensive care, where he stayed for 72 very long days before coming home. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the incredible team at Southmead Hospital and our midwife, Bev Alden, who was genuinely superb in going above and beyond the call of duty to support us.
The reason why I have highlighted this point about the journey before birth to the Minister at the start of this debate is to make the serious point that, for so many people, having a premature child is a very long journey. It does not start the day the child is born; it can start weeks or months beforehand. Delivering neonatal leave and pay supports families in one part of that journey, but not for the whole journey. There is more that Government, businesses, organisations and individuals can do to support them, but neonatal leave and pay is one thing the Government can do quickly.
Currently, the parents of a child in neonatal care rely on their existing statutory leave entitlements so they can be off work while their child is in hospital. That means that parents spend a proportion of their maternity or paternity leave with the baby in hospital. Babies who have spent a long time in hospital after birth are usually at an earlier stage in their development when their mother or parents go back to work, in comparison with their peers. That can be particularly challenging for mothers, many of whom would have liked to have additional time with their child but cannot afford to take any more time off. That leads only in one direction—less parental involvement in care, causing immense stress and leaving parents unsupported. It reduces the opportunity for bonding time with their child.
The current system is also a massive barrier for fathers and non-childbearing parents in particular. Earlier this week, 75% of parents who responded to a survey from Bliss, the incredible charity, said that they or their partner went back to work before their baby was home from hospital. Some of those children will still have been on ventilation and receiving critical care. Previous research suggests that the most common reason for that is they simply cannot afford to take more time off work. That is happening every single day, right around the country, to families of premature and sick children.
Paid leave for parents of babies in neonatal care already exists in different countries around the world. In Ireland, paid maternity leave is extended by the amount of time between birth and the original expected birth date, and there is a similar system in Germany. In Sweden, maternity leave begins at the point the baby is discharged from hospital, rather than the birth date. Here in the UK, the Government and we, generally, have a record of supporting parents to be proud of. We have a generous and flexible system for many parents. The Government and the Minister are committed to making the UK the best place possible to live and work, and that includes the ability to grow and raise a family. That is why so many people were delighted by the Government’s commitment to finally deliver on neonatal leave and pay and to put it in the last manifesto.
I want to make the point of the significant mental and emotional toll on parents in the situation of having a child in neonatal intensive care. Research by Bliss back in 2018 shows that 80% of parents who have a child admitted to neonatal intensive care felt that their mental health suffered, and a huge 35% of parents report that their mental health was significantly worse after time on the neonatal unit. Regardless of the circumstances, parents want to be with their children. That is obvious; all parents will say that. But when your child is so small and vulnerable, it is painfully difficult to be apart from them. You just want to be there.
Even when they are in the best possible hands, a NICU can be a really worrying and scary place to be. They take some getting used to, because you are with lots of new people, there are children in very difficult circumstances and just because of the noise—the constant beeping from equipment around the unit takes getting used to. The mental pressure on parents is huge. I would say to anyone trying to understand the experience, imagine having to sit with your child in an incubator or having to learn how to feed your child through a tube, while worrying whether you can afford to pay your bus fare home. For too many people, that is the case.
Imagine going through this journey while feeling guilty about not spending time with the children you have at home, because you are in the NICU every spare minute of the day. You feel guilty, because you are unsure how to hold and support your child. When you do have time at home, I promise every spare minute is spent in a permanent state of worry about receiving unscheduled telephone calls from the hospital bearing bad news, which, for too many, do come. You worry about the pressures that it puts on you as a family, and about how you would cope as a family unit if the worst were to happen. I distinctly remember our darkest day when we were told that our son was going downhill quickly and he was going to be treated for necrotising enterocolitis, and that one potential outcome for which we would have to be prepared was for him to be transferred to a hospice.
Let me make this point to the Minister: we cannot expect parents to be worrying about whether they will have a job to go back to while dealing with these situations. The Government agree with this—there is no disagreement—so it is time for us to work together to deliver it. The Government want to do it, and I know that the Minister does as well. He has been hugely supportive to me and to colleagues on both sides of the House who have talked to him about this issue on a number of occasions. I thank him for his help, and I also thank the Government for the work that they have done on the issue since the general election.
In the March 2020 Budget, the Chancellor reaffirmed the Government’s ambition to deliver this important reform, and earmarked the necessary funding to deliver the policy in 2023-24. In the same month, the response to the consultation was published. It confirmed a number of further details about the delivery of neonatal leave and pay, including the intention to legislate through the Employment Bill. I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister, during Prime Minister’s questions in November last year, repeat the commitment to deliver legislation “one way or another”.
So we all want to do this. The question is how are we going to do it, when, and through what vehicle in Parliament? Ministers have made clear that they want to do it through the Employment Bill. The argument I would advance to this Minister is that the Employment Bill is significant and substantial legislation that will take time to pass through Parliament. While neonatal leave and pay enjoys widespread cross-party support, many wider aspects of the proposed Bill are likely to face far greater opposition. Despite the uncontroversial nature of the proposal, tying its successful delivery to the more controversial Employment Bill is not the fastest way in which to secure its introduction.
Generally when we are introducing reforms of this type, they take effect from April, at the start of the financial year. In order to meet the 2023 target for which the Government have set aside funds and to which they have committed themselves, neonatal leave and pay legislation will need to have passed through Parliament before that date, in enough time to ensure that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and employers are given sufficient notice. If we are to meet the commitment to deliver this on time, we need to start now.
I wrote to the Minister about the issue in October, and he kindly wrote back to me, informing me of the progress that his Department was making. He also made it clear that significant work was required for the policy to be delivered, including the extra work that would have to be done by HMRC to ensure that staff were ready to upgrade the necessary IT systems. The policy will take time to implement, and that is why I think there are legitimate questions to be asked about the delivery vehicle for this reform. I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm that the Government still intend to deliver it from April 2023.
I think that one clear way in which this can be delivered on time is through a stand-alone Bill. The policy development and the consultation have already taken place, and there is a precedent for passing reforms of this type through Parliament quickly. The Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Act 2018 provides a clear model for us to pass this legislation. It is uncontroversial, and it has cross-party and cross-sector support. In the past, the Minister has made a point that I completely appreciate—that this will have to be delivered alongside other measures in the Employment Bill—but I should be grateful if he could explain exactly what those measures are, and also explain why they cannot be delivered as part of stand-alone legislation. I also ask him whether he will meet me, the new Leader of the House—assuming that my right hon. Friend is willing—and other Members to discuss how this can be delivered on time, which is what we all want to see.
I do not want to give too long a list, but I should be grateful if the Minister could update the House on the work that he and his Department have already done in anticipation of delivering this policy, to ensure that it will be ready on time and ready to go once we can find a legislative vehicle to deliver it. I should like to know whether, for example, the guidance is ready for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and HMRC, and how much work has been done. Finally, I should like to know whether the Department is starting to explore alternatives to deliver support for families if it proves difficult to legislate. I hope I have managed to convey at least a sense, on behalf of many families around the country, of how important this commitment is and how grateful we are to the Minister and the Government for making it. We all want to see it delivered and rolled out as quickly as possible. It is down to us to find the right vehicle for that, because delivering neonatal leave and pay will enable the thousands of babies born into neonatal care every year to benefit from their parents’ being where they should be, by their side, providing that vital care. It will also deliver support and reassurance to all those new mothers, fathers and carers who need it the most in the most vulnerable and stressful days of their lives. I say to the Minister, “The solution is clear, it commands widespread support and it is within our grasp—please help us to make it happen.”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall) wholeheartedly on securing today’s debate. This is an important issue, and I am very grateful to him for bringing it to the attention of Parliament in the way he did, baring his soul. I know Roisin will be proud of him today.
We have heard his personal account that the impact of having a young baby in neonatal care has on parents, and the additional pressure that having to balance employment with caring for their child places on them. My hon. Friend has spoken with such depth of personal experience and it brings home that what we do here, when we are looking to bring forward the Employment Bill, and all the work the officials do matters. This really matters on a human scale to people on a day-to-day basis, as we have just heard. I am grateful to him for his candour, and for raising awareness of this issue. It is a shame that the rhythm of this House means that that speech has not had the audience in the Chamber, but I know people will be watching it and reading the account in the Official Report. Bringing this matter to our attention is amazing.
In the UK, an estimated 100,000 babies are admitted to neonatal care every year following their birth. Many of those babies spend prolonged periods of time on a neonatal care unit in a hospital as a result of having been born prematurely, or for other health conditions. It is, as we have heard, an incredibly worrying and stressful time for parents. They will naturally want to be able to focus their attention on getting through that period, supporting each other and their baby. However, some may have concerns about their ability to do that and keep their jobs. I sympathise with anyone who has found themselves in that position.
Currently, parents in those circumstances tend to rely on their statutory leave entitlements, for example maternity or paternity leave. In practice, that means a considerable proportion of their leave may be used while the baby in still neonatal care or that they do not have sufficient leave to remain with their baby for the necessary period.
A survey conducted by the charity Bliss in 2019 found that 66% of fathers had to return to work while their baby was still receiving specialist neonatal care, and that 36% of fathers resorted to being signed off sick in order to spend time with their baby in a neonatal unit. That can, in some cases, have a negative impact on their employment record. Fathers and partners may also experience negative effects on their physical and mental health from trying to combine work with caring for the child and the mother. Other parents of babies in neonatal care have reported that they had to return to work earlier than they had planned due to suffering financial hardship from being away from work.
Considering those different scenarios, it is clear that the current leave and pay entitlements do not adequately support parents of babies in neonatal care. In March 2020, following a Government consultation on the issue, we committed to introducing the new entitlement to neonatal leave and pay, and I can assure my hon. Friend that we remain very much committed to that. Our planned neonatal leave and pay entitlement will allow parents to take additional time off work in circumstances where their child is admitted to neonatal care, ensuring that they are no longer in the incredibly difficult position of having to choose between risking their job and spending much-needed time with their baby.
Neonatal leave and pay will apply to parents of babies who are admitted into hospital up to the age of 28 days and who have a continuous stay in hospital of seven full days or more. Eligible parents will be able to take up to 12 weeks of paid leave on top of their other parental entitlements such as maternity and paid paternity leave. Neonatal leave will be a day-one right, meaning that it will be available to an employee from their first day in a new job. Statutory neonatal pay, like other family-related pay rights, will be available to those employees who meet continuity of service and minimum earnings tests.
While we understand that the introduction of neonatal leave and pay will create a small burden on businesses, we believe that the benefit to business will outweigh any costs. Policies such as neonatal leave and pay that enable parents to participate in the labour market and to succeed and progress in work not only benefit individual employees but give employers access to a bigger pool of talent. Such reforms will also help businesses, because employers who embrace family-friendly policies are so much more likely to see greater employee loyalty, commitment and motivation.
In addition to our plans to introduce neonatal leave and pay, the UK has a range of policies in place that support employees to balance work with family life and other personal commitments and responsibilities. They include: a right to request flexible working; generous family-related leave and pay entitlements; and protections from detriment for parents who take or seek to take family-related time off work. The UK’s maternity leave system is one of the most generous in the world. Pregnant women and new mothers are entitled to take up to 52 weeks of leave—that is a day-one right with no qualifying period of service—and up to 39 weeks of statutory maternity pay if they are eligible. Maternity leave can be started up to 11 weeks before the expected week of childbirth.
Fathers of premature babies have the flexibility to take their one or two weeks of paternity leave and pay within eight weeks of the expected date of birth rather than having to take the leave within eight weeks of the baby’s actual birth, if they wish. We also have a manifesto commitment to make paternity leave more flexible and will set out our response on that in due course.
The right to emergency leave—time off for dependants —allows all employees a reasonable amount of unpaid time off work to deal with an unexpected or sudden emergency involving a child or dependant and to put care arrangements in place. Additionally, all employed parents have a right to up to 18 weeks of unpaid parental leave for each child up to a child’s 18th birthday.
The Government are committed to introducing new employment measures as we seek to build a high-skilled, high-productivity, high-wage economy that delivers on our ambition to make the UK the best place in the world to work and grow a business. I reassure my hon. Friend that further detail on reforms to our employment framework will be published in due course. Naturally, covid-19 has affected our progress in introducing the new entitlement to Parliament, but we remain committed to doing so as soon as parliamentary time allows. In the meantime, we are moving forward with the work. That includes working with lawyers on our legislative approach, which is likely to include both primary and extensive secondary legislation, as well as considering how the entitlement will be implemented. It will also, in due course, require accessible and thorough guidance for both employers and employees.
As I mentioned, delivery of the new entitlement will need primary legislation as well as changes to the HMRC IT payment system to allow employers to administer statutory neonatal pay on behalf of the Government. Officials are in discussion with HMRC colleagues about the establishment of that IT system. It is a large-scale project, and we are ensuring that the relevant teams in HMRC are as prepared as possible, that they fully understand what is required and how much resource will be needed. We are doing the necessary groundwork so that we are in the best position to implement neonatal leave and pay once legislation is in place.
I recognise my hon. Friend’s points about whether the entitlement could be delivered through a stand-alone Bill or alternative measures. Due to pressures on parliamentary time, it might be challenging to introduce a stand-alone Bill, but we remain committed to introducing neonatal leave and pay and will do so as soon as parliamentary time allows. We understand and sympathise with the position of parents with children in neonatal care and remain fully committed to the introduction of neonatal leave and pay. In the meantime, we have other parental leave entitlements that are available to new parents and we encourage employers to continue to respond with flexibility and compassion to parents in that very difficult position. I have spoken to a number of businesses that have great schemes in place to deal with such life events, such as ASOS. I try to showcase that good work, because they do not need to wait for a legislative framework.
I close by thanking my hon. Friend for his incredible contributions to the debate and I thank everyone who has worked hard to raise awareness of the difficult situation of parents remaining in employment when their children are in neonatal care. As always, I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and other Members of the House to discuss the issues further as we move towards getting these provisions on the statute book.
Question put and agreed to.
Deferred Division
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Deferred Divisions
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The House divided: - Ayes: 303 / Noes: 215 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Draft Waste and Agriculture (Legislative Functions) 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 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Jo Churchill)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Waste and Agriculture (Legislative Functions) Regulations 2022.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. This draft statutory instrument was laid before the House on 13 January. It makes small but crucial changes to repatriate powers to the UK and to correct an error in a previous agriculture SI by restoring an accidentally omitted definition of “appropriate authority”. The instrument covers two areas: waste management and agriculture. I will take each in turn.
First, on waste management, the draft instrument will transfer powers, relating to several directives concerning waste, from the European Commission to the Secretary of State. Where appropriate, those powers are also transferred to the devolved Administrations. The powers will give the Secretary of State and, where appropriate, the devolved Administrations the ability to make regulations to set various technical standards, criteria, thresholds and conditions. The instrument will make parts of retained EU law functional again and does not introduce new policy.
All the standards are currently operational, and we do not anticipate the need to alter them in the near future, although there may be a need to amend them looking forward. For instance, without the amendments made by this SI, we would not be able to make regulations to take account of a superior waste treatment method, if one were developed, so our high environmental standards would be weakened.
I will briefly outline the power or powers being transferred from each EU directive. Regulation 5 will transfer the powers to set standards for the sampling of waste going into landfill from the landfill directives. Regulations 6 to 9 will transfer powers from the end-of-life vehicles directive: to update and modify exemptions covering the use of certain heavy metals in vehicles, based on scientific or technical progress; to specify minimum requirements for the certificate of destruction for waste motor vehicles; to modify conditions for storage and treatment of waste motor vehicles in line with scientific or technical progress; and to specify material and component coding standards for vehicles.
Regulations 10 and 11 will transfer powers from the mining waste directive to modify non-essential elements, such as guidelines for inspecting waste facilities and sampling methods, and to update regulations in line with scientific and technical progress. Regulations 12 and 13 will transfer powers from the batteries directive to specify export criteria and to grant exemptions from labelling requirements for batteries and accumulators.
Regulations 14 through to 17 will transfer powers from the waste framework directive: powers to prescribe detailed criteria for what substances may be considered a by-product of a manufacturing process, rather than a waste product, whereupon it can be sold or treated differently; powers to prescribe detailed criteria for when waste may no longer be considered waste, such as if a substance can be put to a more useful purpose elsewhere; and powers to specify the application of the formula for incineration facilities.
Regulations 18 through to 20 will transfer powers from the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive to update the following: selective minimum treatment technologies for waste electrical and electronic equipment, or WEEE; the technical requirements for WEEE treatment and storage operations; the non-exhaustive list of products listed as falling into each of the categories specified in the WEEE directive; and the crossed-out wheel bin symbol being transferred from the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive. The powers could, for example, be used to tighten the treatment requirements of substances in WEEE found to be hazardous to health and the environment.
The powers, apart from those relating to the battery and mining waste directives, apply in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The powers relating to the battery and mining waste directives will apply in England, Wales and Scotland, but not Northern Ireland.
I will now briefly cover the draft instrument’s effect on agriculture-related legislation. The instrument will amend regulation EU 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as it relates to the organisation of common market and rural development measures to correct an error. Regulation-making powers from that regulation were previously transferred to the Secretary of State and their counterparts in the devolved Administrations by three EU exit SIs.
However, the effect of the interactions between the three SIs has resulted in said regulation no longer containing a definition of “appropriate authority” in relation to the financing, management and monitoring of the organisation of common markets and rural development measures. This instrument therefore reinserts the definition of “appropriate authority” into article 2 of regulation EU 1306/2013 and revokes the ineffective definition in the previous EU exit SI, the Agriculture (Payments) (Amendment, etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, to correct the deficiency.
No impact assessment has been prepared for this instrument because the instrument only repatriates powers to the UK and corrects an accidental omission in a previous EU exit SI. The impacts will be considered if the regulations are made using the repatriated powers. Safeguards are provided through a requirement in relation to the waste-related powers to consult appropriate authorities and such other persons as the Secretary of State or the devolved authorities consider appropriate before making regulations under these powers.
Any regulations made under the powers would receive parliamentary scrutiny through the negative procedure except for the one agriculture-related power to make regulations in the event of an emergency to make payments to the beneficiaries. This allows the use of the urgent affirmative procedure when it is both necessary and justifiable, to ensure that beneficiaries can be paid. I commend the regulations to the Committee. [Interruption.]
The Chair
I can hear ringing—perhaps it’s my ears. Would someone throw whatever device is doing it out of the window, please?
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I am grateful to be back here with the Minister discussing more secondary legislation; in many ways, I do not feel that my week in London can be complete without a debate on delegated legislation from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I will put the Minister out of her misery and confirm that Labour will not be opposing the statutory instrument. However, before we pack up and go I want to say a few things that are important to keep in mind.
As we all know, the European Commission has powers related to directives concerning waste, including those specifically covering end-of-life vehicles, batteries and accumulators, and electrical and electronic equipment, as well as to the overarching waste framework directive. This instrument transfers several technical powers and functions relating to those resources and waste management directives from the European Commission to the Secretary of State—who I am sure is grateful to still be in his job—and, depending on the power, to his devolved Administration counterparts.
The transfer will allow for the correct functioning of the relevant retained EU legislation following the UK’s departure from the EU. This instrument seeks to enable the UK and the devolved Administrations to maintain their environmental standards on the safe handling of waste, levels of recovery, recycling and treatment of waste. The functions listed in the instrument are routine and in several cases, the standards, requirements or other functions set out are already in place and working well. The powers are purely to be able to change them in future should that be necessary, rather than seeking to actively update or amend them at the moment.
Although we on these Benches cannot see any immediately obvious pitfalls—and I can confirm that we have looked—the instrument does open the door to potential divergence in technical standards. It is also important to note that any regulations made under the new powers would be done via the negative procedure, so there would not be so much room for effective scrutiny. The Minister will know what we think about that.
The powers in question are to set or alter certain technical criteria related to waste and agriculture. In the waste sector, the technical functions relate to: standards for sampling of waste going to landfill, from the landfill directive; exemptions covering the use of heavy metals in vehicles; minimum requirements for the certificate of destruction; conditions for storage and treatment; material and component coding standards for vehicles from the end-of-life vehicles directive; guidelines for inspecting waste facilities and sampling methods; updating regulations in line with scientific and technical progress, from the mining waste directive; export criteria; exemptions from labelling requirements, from the batteries directive; definitions of “by-products” and “end of waste”; application of the efficiency formula for classifying incineration facilities, from the waste framework directive; minimum treatment technologies; technical requirements for WEEE treatment and storage; categorisation of products specified in the directive; and the crossed-out wheeled bin symbol, from the waste electricals and electronic equipment directive, or WEEE.
As the Minister will know, I am a champion of our country as a Union of four equal nations; that is why I am concerned about the potential for divergence on technical standards between the European Union and the United Kingdom, and of course internally between the four nations of our country. I accept that there could be positives, too. For instance, the standards around WEEE treatment and storage could be strengthened and made more compatible with a circular economy for electronics.
Can the Minister confirm whether she plans to strengthen those standards? I would welcome an explicit answer, if possible, today. I also ask her to think about the formula for waste incineration facilities. That formula could be applied more stringently in conjunction with planning rules to ensure that only the most efficient facilities are permitted. Can the Minister let me know what the situation there would be?
These are important issues, albeit viewed as niche by most people in the real world out there—not least by my constituents in Newport West; I suspect that goes for the people of Bury St Edmonds, too. But that is why these debates are important. Our departure from the European Union changed life as we know it and required real change in what we do and how we do it. This instrument testifies to that.
In winding up, I would like to acknowledge Heeran Buhecha Fordyce and Pamela Frost for their work at the Department. Too often, our staff in this place and civil servants do not get the acknowledgement that they deserve.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
It is nice to see you in the Chair, Mr Bone. I join the official Opposition in saying that we will not oppose the delegated legislation in front of us. I am grateful that the Government were able to consult with the relevant Committee bodies on the SI that deal with devolved matters and that legislative consent motions were agreed to by each Committee.
I have one question. The notification states that in future the use of any of the regulation-making powers will be covered by the waste and resource common framework. How would that operate if, for example, the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive formulated policy commitments to continue to allow EU environmental standards, for example? Would UK Government Ministers override that by reducing legislative competencies in the devolved Governments and Administrations of the UK?
Jo Churchill
I will address the WEEE regulations first. We are currently reviewing those regulations to find ways to drive up collection for reuse and recycling, encouraging better eco design and ensuring that manufacturers and retail, including online marketplaces, take greater responsibility—something we have often spoken about. We will consult on the proposals in the summer and the consultation will also be on behalf of the devolved Administration at that point. As the hon. Member for Newport West knows, my door is always open. I would be happy to speak to others about how we can best work together. Although we all have jurisdiction on waste in our own areas, consistency around what we do benefits not only the industry but individuals.
If the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire will excuse me, I will write to him rather than hold the Committee up, as his question involved a degree of complexity. We will make sure that we respond, but in short I do not anticipate the problem. I believe that Scotland would like to use the powers resulting from the directive change shortly. It is important that we build consistency and flexibility—that is my short answer, but we will write to the hon. Gentleman to cover it off completely.
I thank the hon. Members for Newport West and for West Dunbartonshire for their helpful contributions. Now that we have left the European Union it is essential that legislation should reflect this new future. I trust that hon. Members accept the need for this instrument and I thank them for saying that they will make no objection.
The instrument makes small, crucial changes to repatriate powers and correct an additional accidental omission in a previous EU exit SI. The instrument will make it possible to swiftly update technical standards, criteria and thresholds in the field of waste management to reflect the latest developments and ensure that high environmental standards are maintained. It will also ensure that our agricultural legislation regarding the organisation of common markets and rural development measures functions as intended.
Once again, I thank hon. Members. I associate myself with the hon. Member for Newport West’s comments about staff, who work diligently behind the scenes and very often do not get thanked. I thank them for their support of the Committee today. I hope that the Committee will join me in supporting the regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Corrections
(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
The latest job figures tell a very positive story. There is now a record number of people in payroll employment in the UK, with 23,000 people added to payrolls in Scotland in December alone. With around 1.25 million vacancies across the UK, up 33,000, or 2.7% in a month, and by 467,000, or 58.9% since the start of the pandemic, there are many further opportunities for people to move into and, importantly, progress in work and increase their earnings.
[Official Report, 24 January 2022, Vol. 707, c. 790.]
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 my speech.
The correct information should have been:
David Rutley
With around 1.25 million vacancies across the UK, up 33,000, or 2.7% in a month, and by 462,000, or 58.9% since the start of the pandemic, there are many further opportunities for people to move into and, importantly, progress in work and increase their earnings.
Cost of Living
The following are extracts from the Westminster Hall debate on 25 January 2022.
David Rutley
We are also investing in our young people through the kickstart scheme: 112,000 young people have started a life-changing six-month work placement, and 10,000 of those starts were in Scotland.
[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 25 January 2022; Vol. 707, c. 279WH.]
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 my speech.
The correct information should have been:
David Rutley
We are also investing in our young people through the kickstart scheme: 122,000 young people have started a life-changing six-month work placement, and 10,000 of those starts were in Scotland.
David Rutley
Secondly, winter fuel payments will be made to over 11 million pensioners this winter, ensuring that older people have the security and dignity they deserve. Households with someone of state pension age will receive £200, and households with someone over 80 will receive £300. Thirdly, cold weather payments help vulnerable people in receipt of certain income-related benefits to meet the additional costs of heating during periods of unseasonably severe cold weather. That includes older people receiving pension credit and those receiving an income-based benefit with a disability component or where the household includes a child under five. In 2020-21, just over 4 million payments were made, at a cost of just over £100 million.
[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 25 January 2022; Vol. 707, c. 281WH.]
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 my speech.
The correct information should have been:
David Rutley
In 2020-21, just over 4 million payments were made, at a cost of around £98.9million.
Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Disabled Persons) Bill
Wednesday 9th February 2022
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Disabled Persons) Act 2022 View all Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Disabled Persons) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
My selection and grouping for today’s meeting is available online and in the room. No amendments were tabled. We will have a single debate covering the six clauses of the Bill. The formal decisions on those clauses will be taken without further debate at the end.
Clause 1
Duties of Drivers
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray, and I thank all members of the Committee for their attendance and assistance in scrutinising this Bill today. I hope it will be helpful if I explain what the Bill seeks to achieve, and what its clauses will do.
The Bill aims to amend the Equality Act 2010 to do four main things. First, it creates new duties for taxi and private hire vehicle drivers and private hire vehicle operators to ensure that a disabled person is provided with reasonable assistance, and is not unfairly charged or refused a booking simply because they are disabled. Secondly, it affords disabled passengers assistance in identifying a vehicle where appropriate. Thirdly, it requires local licensing authorities to maintain and publish a list of wheelchair-accessible taxi and private hire vehicles, ensuring that both the new and existing duties are consistently applied. Fourthly, it amends the taxi and private hire vehicle driver exemptions for those with a disability or physical impairment, to ensure they are exempt only from the duties it would be unreasonable for them to fulfil.
Clause 1 would create two new sets of duties in sections 164A and 165A of the Equality Act, and amend the existing duties in section 165 of that Act. Section 164A would create new duties on drivers of non-wheelchair-accessible taxis and private hire vehicles not to refuse carriage to any disabled person who could reasonably travel in their vehicle; to make every reasonable effort to ensure the disabled passenger is comfortable and safe while travelling; and not to charge them any extra for doing so.
The amendments to section 165 would complement section 164A by ensuring that those duties are consistently applied to drivers of designated wheelchair-accessible taxi and private hire vehicles. Section 165A would create new duties on drivers of private hire vehicles and pre-booked taxis to assist any disabled person to identify the vehicle at no extra charge. This would support not only visually impaired passengers, but those with less evident impairments, such as cognitive, memory and learning impairments.
For too long, the Equality Act’s patchwork of rights and protections, based on specific impairments, vehicles and ways of travelling, have excluded many disabled people from basic rights and protections when travelling in a taxi or private hire vehicle. These new and amended duties cover not only any disabled person who can reasonably access a taxi or private hire vehicle, whether it be wheelchair accessible or not, but the range of scenarios in which a disabled person intends to travel. If a wheelchair user intends to transfer to a passenger seat, it cannot be right that they would have rights and protections if they were accessing a designated wheelchair-accessible taxi or private hire vehicle, but would have no rights or protections in a non-designated wheelchair-accessible vehicle. This Bill will put that right.
Clause 4 proposes to add a new offence for private hire vehicle operators who fail or refuse to accept a booking from any disabled person because of their disability, or charge extra for duties that their drivers must fulfil—a right and protection currently offered only to assistance dog owners, which should apply to all disabled people. Clause 5 proposes amendments to sections 168 and 170 of the Equality Act to ensure that the duties not to make, or propose to make, any additional charge for carrying an assistance dog are consistent with the same duties applied in relation to disabled people and wheelchair users in sections 164A and 165A. That clause would also make other minor and consequential amendments in relation to certain definitions and cross-referencing for the numbering of sections.
Collectively, the new and revised duties in clauses 1, 4 and 5 will resolve the inconsistencies in the Equality Act 2010. No matter their impairment or the type of vehicle they wish to travel in, disabled people should not be unfairly treated when accessing a taxi or private hire vehicle. These clauses will provide any disabled person with protections from, and rights not to be subject to, unfair treatment, providing reassurance that they will receive reasonable assistance to travel where they want to go.
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
I have listened with great interest to my right hon. and learned Friend. This is a most welcome Bill. Many taxis in London already do the things he highlights—I am a big supporter of London taxis, because they do a fantastic job and offer a good service—but the new duties are needed to ensure that those with disabilities are treated as fairly and equally as everybody else. I welcome the Bill, and I put on the record that London taxis are great.
Jeremy Wright
I agree with my right hon. Friend: London taxis are great. He will be reassured to learn that I spoke to representatives of London taxi drivers about the Bill. He is entirely right: there are many very good drivers of taxis and private hire vehicles who do all the things the Bill is intended to achieve. But as he will recognise, and as I will repeat in a moment, it is important to raise the standards for all drivers. However, he is entirely right to recognise the good work of London taxi drivers and, indeed, taxi drivers elsewhere in the country.
It is important to note that, to make the Bill work in practice and ensure that taxi and private hire vehicle drivers and operators are not unfairly penalised, defences are in place for cases where a driver could not reasonably have known that a passenger was disabled or required mobility assistance, or where a driver could not reasonably or safely have carried the passenger and their wheelchair or mobility aids. However, in order for the existing duties in section 165 of the Equality Act to work for any wheelchair user intending to travel in a wheelchair-accessible taxi or private hire vehicle, they must be applied consistently across the country.
Clause 3 would amend the existing duties on local licensing authorities in section 167 of the Equality Act, requiring them to maintain and publish their list of designated wheelchair-accessible taxi and private hire vehicles. That matters because it is only by being designated a wheelchair-accessible taxi or private hire vehicle that the duties on drivers set out in section 165 apply. The clause would end the current state of affairs where these duties apply only based on a local licensing authority’s decision to maintain a designated list or not. It would also go further than that, requiring local licensing authorities to publish their lists, providing easily accessible information about locally accessible services to wheelchair users who rely on those wheelchair-accessible vehicles.
Currently, section 166 of the Equality Act allows a driver of a designated wheelchair-accessible taxi or private hire vehicle to apply for an exemption on medical grounds or owing to a physical condition. A driver with an exemption is, by default, exempt from all the duties in section 165, including the duty not to charge disabled passengers extra, which are not affected by an exempt driver’s medical or physical condition. Clause 2 would amend section 166 so that exemptions apply only to duties to give the passenger such mobility assistance as is reasonably required under new section 164A and section 165 of the 2010 Act. Other duties, such as to carry the passenger and not to impose additional charges, would still apply to drivers who hold medical exemption certificates.
Finally, clause 6 covers the extent and commencement of the Bill. First, it provides that the Bill applies to England and Wales and to Scotland. Secondly, it will commence at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which it is passed. This will ensure the swift implementation of the rights and protections that the Bill offers disabled people while providing local licensing authorities and drivers sufficient time to review and prepare for the changes. On that point, I stress, as I said a moment ago, that the Bill will not impact the excellent service that the vast majority of drivers already provide to disabled people, as they already fulfil the fundamental duties that the Bill proposes.
During the covid-19 pandemic, for example, drivers provided a vital service, transporting essential workers to their places of work and ensuring that those who needed it most arrived safely at their medical appointments. However, we must ensure that all drivers meet the reasonable duties in the Bill so that any disabled person has rights and protections to access a taxi or private hire vehicle across the country.
I hope that that explanation of the Bill has been helpful to the Committee and that the reasons I have set out make it clear that the law simply cannot continue to provide rights and protections for some disabled people when accessing taxis or private hire vehicles, but not others.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mrs Murray. I start by congratulating the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam on bringing the Bill forward and overcoming all the hurdles that private Members’ Bills face to get to this stage.
Disabled people across the country still face unacceptable barriers when going about their everyday lives, not least when travelling. Research shows that 60% of disabled people do not have a car, and public transport is still nowhere near accessible enough. Hence, for many disabled people, taxis are the only option if they are to continue to live an independent life. As the explanatory notes highlight, disabled people take on average twice the number of taxi journeys each year as those without disabilities. The Bill therefore presents a perfect opportunity to tackle discrimination against all disabled people when they use taxis and private hire vehicles. Its aims are commendable and have the full support of the Opposition.
I am proud of the last Labour Government’s landmark Equality Act 2010, which provides comprehensive protections against discrimination that is due to someone’s disability. It is in that spirit that I share the assessment in this Bill that specific rights already given to wheelchair users and those with guide dogs should be extended to all disabled people. The new obligations under clause 1 are eminently reasonable and have the potential to vastly improve the lives of people with disabilities.
I also welcome the provisions under clause 3, which require local authorities to maintain a list of wheelchair-accessible vehicles. Although the majority of local authorities do that already, we support making it mandatory. That will ensure that wheelchair users can quickly and conveniently book a taxi, safe in the knowledge that it will be accessible to them.
However, after a decade of austerity I am concerned about the capacity that local authorities have to create and maintain their lists. For instance, in my patch, Sheffield City Council has seen its spending power cut by £215 million since 2010—almost a half of its total budget. I note that in the explanatory notes the Department for Transport commits to publishing guidance for local authorities. I would welcome further details from the Minister about that and a commitment to providing administrative support to local authorities whose budgets are already stretched wafer thin. We must ensure that the lists are up to date and easily accessible across the entire country or the provision simply will not work.
I move on to the issue of enforcement. Although current legislation makes it an offence to refuse to carry a passenger on the basis that they have a guide dog with them, all too often we hear stories of people still being turned away for that reason. Given these new duties, we must ensure that people with disabilities are fully aware of their rights and know exactly who to turn to if they are ever denied them. It is also vital that taxi drivers have the adequate guidelines and training to match their new responsibilities. We must ensure that they have the confidence to assist people of all disabilities before, during and after their journeys. Guidance and training must cover how to provide safe and comfortable travel to people with all disabilities and make drivers aware of the specific adjustments that they may have to make.
It is our hope that the two-month period between the Bill’s being passed and its coming into force will be used by the Government to ensure that all taxi drivers are fully aware of their new obligations. The Bill will, of course, rightly penalise those who fail to live up to their responsibilities. However, it is our sincere hope that the primary outcome of this legislation will be a cultural change whereby people can safely and confidently use taxis without fear of being discriminated against due to their disability.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
I consider the hon. Lady’s remarks to be very constructive and I strongly agree with them. I am sure she will join me in balancing the requirements of this private Member’s Bill, which are very necessary, against a recognition of the fantastic service that many taxi drivers and private hire vehicles have provided, particularly during the covid crisis. They have been a lifeline for many disabled and vulnerable people.
Gill Furniss
I completely agree. I represent an area where a large number of taxi drivers live. At one point, my son-in-law was a taxi driver; I praise him every day for his past service. He spent a lot of time taking renal patients to hospital in the early mornings. The job is about not just picking up people from the roadside but getting people to dialysis and children with special needs to school. It is something of a public service.
I invite the Minister to outline how she intends to work with local authorities to ensure that the message is effectively communicated to all taxi and private hire vehicle drivers.
I conclude by once again commending the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam for progressing the Bill and the Minister for giving it the Government’s support. The Bill will not put an end to the discrimination that disabled people continue to face every day, but it is a big step in the right direction. I look forward to working in the spirit of cross-party co-operation to ensure that it delivers on its aims.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Wendy Morton)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray, in this Committee to consider the private Member’s Bill of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam. I put on the record my thanks to him for his dedication and hard work in bringing the Bill forward.
First, and most importantly, I would like to reiterate a point raised on Second Reading: the vast majority of taxi and private hire vehicle drivers provide a professional and first class service, as we have heard from hon. Members on both sides this morning. They strive to support all passengers, both disabled and non-disabled, including during the worst of the covid-19 pandemic. The Bill is not intended to unfairly penalise or put unreasonable burdens on these drivers—indeed, it will make things fairer for them. It is not right that some drivers have legal duties under the Equality Act 2010 while others do not. The Government remain committed to ensuring that disabled people have the same access to transport as everyone else, which is why I am pleased to confirm that the Bill has the full support of the Government.
At present, only wheelchair users and assistance dog users have the rights and protections under the 2010 Act concerning the use of taxis and private hire vehicles. Even those rights and protections do not apply consistently. Clauses 1 and 4 would rectify that by creating new duties to ensure that any disabled person who could reasonably travel in a taxi or private hire vehicle is protected against refusals and extra costs, and afforded reasonable assistance to make their journey in comfort and safety, regardless of their disability and whether the vehicle is wheelchair-accessible or not, provided that their wheelchair or mobility aids can be carried safely and reasonably in the vehicle.
I am pleased to say that the Bill would go further than rectifying that inconsistency. In addition, it would afford disabled passengers assistance in identifying the vehicle where appropriate. Crucially, it would also strengthen existing duties. Clauses 1, 3 and 5 would tighten the wording in the 2010 Act to ensure that the duties are appropriately defined. In particular, clause 3 would remove the postcode lottery for the duties applied to wheelchair-accessible taxis and private hire vehicles by requiring all local licensing authorities to maintain and publish a list of wheelchair-accessible taxis and private hire vehicles. That is currently not a requirement.
Although I am pleased that 70% of authorities in England have none the less chosen to provide such a list, 30% still do not. The Bill will address that, ensuring that drivers of vehicles on such lists will be subject to the relevant duties. I am satisfied that defences are in place for cases in which a driver could not reasonably have known that a passenger was disabled or required mobility assistance, or could not reasonably or safely have carried the passenger and their wheelchair or mobility aids.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
It is worth noting that clause 3 standardises the lists across all local authorities. That is very welcome because, as Members will know, rules are not currently standardised across all local licensing authorities.
Wendy Morton
My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is important to ensure that disabled people and people who require help or a wheelchair have confidence that this information is available and consistent. Let us face it: people do often move around from one local authority to another, so consistency is important.
Our expectation is that all local licensing authorities already have data available on wheelchair-accessible vehicles, as they already provide this data to the Department for Transport annually. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough asked about the cost to local licensing authorities of publishing such a list, and we expect that cost to be low. To support local licensing authorities to implement the new duties, the Government will update our current statutory guidance in advance of the Bill’s commencement. I hope that offers the hon. Lady the reassurance that she is looking for.
The Bill would greatly support the Government’s aim of improving the accessibility of the transport network by increasing assistance and protection against discrimination for disabled taxi and private hire vehicle passengers. I reiterate my thanks to my right hon. and learned Friend for his hard work and for the collaborative way in which we have got to this point. I look forward to following the Bill through its remaining parliamentary stages.
Jeremy Wright
With your leave, may I begin by thanking you, Mrs Murray, for shepherding us so efficiently through this process? I also offer my thanks to your Clerk, who has given me some very sage advice throughout the Bill’s passage. I hope that he will not stop now and continue to offer that advice as we move forward to the remaining stages.
I thank very much the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough, who speaks for the official Opposition, for her support for the Bill, and I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for everything that she said. May I take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend on her well-deserved promotion in the Department? I hope that she will continue to take an active interest in the Bill as it proceeds.
Finally, I thank every member of the Committee for their engagement. As everyone has said, this is an opportunity to improve the lives of people in this country who have disabilities. In too many places, including those represented by members of the Committee, those people are wholly reliant on taxis and private hire vehicles to assist them in getting around, so the rights in the Bill will make a real difference. I am grateful to hon. Friends and Opposition Members for their involvement in the Bill, which I hope will make further progress in its remaining stages.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill to be reported, without amendment.
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
Special Educational Needs and Children’s Mental Health Services
(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
Yvonne Fovargue (in the Chair)
Before we begin, I remind hon. Members to observe social distancing and to wear masks.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered special educational needs and children’s mental health services.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship, Ms Fovargue. It is timely to be holding this debate in Children’s Mental Health Week. Today I want to focus on one aspect of mental health—specifically, the conditions that fall under the wider banner of special educational needs.
The difficulty that families in West Berkshire experience in seeking a diagnosis has been raised with me since I was first elected, but it was not until I conducted a constituency-wide survey last summer that I understood the extent of its prevalence and urgency. For many people in West Berkshire, accessing CAMHS—child and adolescent mental health services—for diagnosis of a potential learning difficulty is an extraordinary uphill battle. Waiting times regularly exceed two years for an autism diagnosis and can be substantially longer. I know that this problem also exists in other parts of the country.
When I was preparing for this debate, I asked affected families to get in touch with me, and was overwhelmed by responses, which came from everyone from mums and dads through to headteachers and GPs. The Minister whom I expected to respond to the debate, the Minister for Care and Mental Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan), is not in her place, but I had a word with the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), in advance. The issue as it affects West Berkshire is less about a lack of funding—the Berkshire West clinical commissioning group has received additional investment for this—and more about accountability and the adequacy of the service. I have had too many letters and emails to refer to them all, but I would like to tell hon. Members about three of my constituents, whose stories capture the issue more widely.
The first is Steffi Whelan, who told me about her 11-year-old son. He has been waiting more than two years for a CAMHS appointment. His problems began seriously in year 4. What began as outbursts of screaming in class evolved into something more disruptive. Sometimes he would tear up work or behave in a way that was completely unsustainable for the teacher. In time, he was moved from that primary school to another, and his parents have been told that he will not be emotionally able to move on to an ordinary secondary school. He is now nearing the end of year 6, and despite all of that, the family are still waiting for their first appointment.
Melanie Fenemore told me about her nine-year-old son, Archie, who was strongly suspected to have autism. Melanie was first referred to CAMHS in October 2018. She filled out a load of complicated forms, and in January 2019 was told that her son was on the waiting list and to expect a 20-month delay. In fact, she waited 27 months before he was seen in April last year. At the time of the assessment, the view was formed that he probably did not have autism spectrum disorder but had something more equivalent to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and he was referred to the ADHD team. Again, Melanie was sent a bunch of forms, which she described as “pretty much identical” to the previous ones, and her son was sent back to the bottom of a waiting list. The family have been told to expect a 36-month wait. If that projection is correct, Archie will have been on a waiting list for six years, from the age of six to 12, by the time he receives his first appointment. During this time, Archie’s mum tells me, he has
“expressed a desire not to be alive.”
He has a tendency towards violence, born out of frustration. She says:
“I am sometimes at the receiving end of Archie’s violent outbursts which hurt more as he gets older.”
The Buller family’s young daughter, Daisy, has been waiting more than two years for an autism diagnosis. By the time her mum contacted me last July, her daughter was self-harming and barely attending school, even though she was in the crucial year 10. Her mum wrote to me:
“This is 5 years since we first started struggling and we are no closer to helping my daughter. Simply one question Laura, in today’s age, how is this Ok.”
One headteacher of a primary school described the waiting times as “absolutely awful”, with another saying that the situation has got worse in recent years. Valiant efforts are made by West Berkshire Council to offer support through its Emotional Health Academy, but that is not a substitute for a clear diagnosis. A head at a primary told me that until they get a CAMHS diagnosis,
“The child may be excluded or at risk of exclusion, their anxiety will often worsen and they don’t attend school, the school can try but it cannot put in the support that it is required until there is an Educational Health Care Plan in place and CAMHS diagnoses are critical to this.”
The headteacher of Kennet School in Thatcham said,
“While schools will have an indication of what a pupils needs may be, a diagnosis through CAMHS leads to targeted work and accessing additional services to further support the child and their family. A huge part of a SEND diagnosis is the support”.
It enables the young person to
“understand themselves. Where a diagnosis is not yet given, this delays the essential step for the young person, causing more erratic behaviours and often fall-out at home as well as at school.”
The short point is that a timely CAMHS diagnosis is often crucial for life chances. It hardly needs to be said that a child who is repeatedly excluded can easily end up in a pupil referral unit. People with neurodiverse conditions are significantly over-represented in the prison estate and the youth estate. Their employment opportunities are often compromised, anyway—it is said that only one in five people with autism sustain full-time employment—and in teenagers there is a significant correlation with depression and self-harm. Timely diagnosis and the correct support is crucial for addressing that.
I want to focus on the Government response so that my speech does not sound like a barrage of criticism. I know that the Government attach significant importance to improving outcomes for those who are neurodiverse. The SEND review, to be published soon, is a testament to that, as is the work being done to ensure that children with autism will have a designated key worker within the next year or so. Hundreds of millions of pounds of additional funding was made available for CAMHS in the spending review, and I have to concede that West Berkshire is one of the first 25 areas that will pilot the schools-based mental health support teams.
I said at the start of my speech that Berkshire West CAMHS received significant investment from the Government last year—£1.6 million in April 2021. In fact, when I spoke to the service a few months ago, it said that funding was no longer the problem. The money will enable it to recruit another 27 members of staff that it so badly needs, although so far it has managed to recruit only 12.
Despite a detailed local transformation plan published last September, in which some laudable ambitions were set out, including a goal of reducing waiting times for diagnoses to just a year by next month, when I spoke to Berkshire West CAMHS, it conceded that there is in fact no fixed deadline for reaching that target, so it is not really a target at all; it is nothing more than a general ambition. There is no consequence if the service fails to reduce waiting times. I regret to say that that is not good enough.
The overall impression of Berkshire West’s child and adolescent mental health service is that there is a serious lack of urgency or accountability. Dr James Cave, the well-respected medical director of the Downland Practice in my constituency, wrote to me:
“I think it is important that you understand the depths of despair GPs feel about the local CAMHS service. Remote, unresponsive, closed, uncommunicative sums them up. It feels as if they are always looking for a way NOT to have to see a child. They demand detailed referral forms from us…and then find reasons not to see a child. If they do accept a referral the wait is forever and then often the intervention is a fixed predetermined intervention that does not take”
into account
“the needs of a child.”
I am not seeking to humiliate anyone, but families in West Berkshire are being failed, and it is my role and my responsibility to fight for them.
The Health Secretary has said time and again that the Health and Care Bill currently making its way through the House will deliver better accountability. Speaking in the debate in July, he stated:
“The third theme of the Bill is greater accountability.”—[Official Report, 14 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 430.]
He said that people have the right to expect “clear lines of accountability” for how every priority is delivered. So my plea—a cri de coeur—from the many families in West Berkshire is that the Department demands better accountability from CAMHS in West Berkshire and across the country. We want details of how that £1.6 million will be spent, and firm commitments to reduce waiting lists, with consequences if managers fail to deliver.
The issue is not confined to West Berkshire, but it is stark within it, and I therefore speak today for the families that I represent and all those families across the country who are experiencing the same struggle.
Yvonne Fovargue (in the Chair)
As there is considerable interest in the debate, I will set a formal time limit of four minutes for speeches.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) for securing this important debate. I was not expecting to be called quite so early.
I will focus my remarks on my own personal experience of having ADHD, dyslexia and dyspraxia, none of which were recognised during my schooling. I want to highlight this because it is a journey of things going wrong and children not being fully supported.
By the age of 12, the average child with ADHD has received 20,000 more negative comments about their behaviour than their peers. “Lazy,” “distracted,” “too chatty,” “fidgety,” “failing to meet potential,” “disorganised” and “in disarray”: those were all comments that were levelled at me as a child, and they stick in my brain to this day and make me consider all my actions daily. This has led to huge feelings of anxiety and depression—a feeling that I am always doing something wrong. My ADHD was diagnosed only last year, and I have only just started taking medication, which has been life-changing.
There are two sides to the coin on this issue. When children and young people are supported at home and in school with the love and understanding that they deserve and need, they can flourish, as I feel I have flourished. I thank my family for the support that they showed me throughout my education to enable me to get to where I am today.
However, I meet too many children whose stories are still the same: their needs are not recognised or are not severe enough to merit critical help, and they are stuck in the middle, reaching their potential in some subjects and failing in others. They also feel that they are not listened to, that they cannot access support and that there is something critically wrong with them. They internalise negative comments about themselves, which is really damaging in the long term.
There are also lots of huge positives to being neurodivergent. Neurodivergent people are more likely to be entrepreneurs, and to take the risk of setting up businesses. However, the dark side is that they are more likely to try illicit drugs and to get involved in crime. There really are bright and dark sides. To any young person who is struggling at school, I say: “Don’t worry. There is always something else for you to strive towards. You just need to find what you are good at, and you will relish that opportunity.” No one should be held back because they have a diagnosis of ADHD, autism, dyslexia or dyspraxia. All children should be supported to get the best out of themselves.
However, far too often our education system is one-size-fits-all. I am really proud to chair the all-party parliamentary group for special educational needs and disabilities. It is so important that we change the classroom and home environment for these children, so that their behaviours are understood, and they can fully experience school and get to where they need to be.
So many things have gone wrong during the pandemic. Some children with autism have flourished through online learning, but others have found themselves isolated from their friends, peers, teachers and support. Several organisations are yet to start providing the therapeutic interventions that they are meant to provide under children’s education, health and care plans, and this is causing huge disruption to the ability of those children to thrive. Three quarters of disabled children have seen progress in managing their conditions and overall development regress in the pandemic. This is urgent and critical. Those who receive a diagnosis of dyslexia should also be screened for ADHD or other neurodivergent conditions, because the crossover is huge. We are letting our young people down by not helping them to get the tools they need to understand themselves—first and foremost—and how they fit in with the world.
I hope that the Minister will think more about how we can intervene as early as possible to avoid young people becoming incredibly depressed and anxious about just who they are—because they are round pegs trying to fit into square holes. It is critical that we support young people to thrive and give back to our society and economy by being the great pioneers and entrepreneurs that we all want to see.
I also have the privilege of having someone with autism in my family—
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue, and a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake), who made a powerful speech. Sharing her personal experience in this place is a brave thing to do. It has informed our debate, and I am sure that the Minister will refer to that when she sums up.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) on securing the debate. Like her, I have been contacted by so many distressed parents of children with special educational needs. Their experiences of trying to get support for their children are summed up in exactly the word she used: a battle—it is really a battle. EHCPs are the entry ticket to specialist support, but the whole application and appeal processes seem designed to be difficult and time-consuming. As my hon. Friend said, too many times people have to repeat things that they have already said again and again. We must ensure that we have a tell-it-once approach to such things, however long the waiting list might be—she spoke movingly about that as well.
My constituent Samantha King’s four-year-old, for example, was receiving one-to-one nursery support in Wales before they moved to Newcastle-under-Lyme. She supplied extensive documentary evidence of the child’s need when they moved, yet she described having her child’s application refused on the basis that she had not included the reports that she had in fact submitted. That is all too common—things get lost and people have to fill in almost exactly the same form again or for another authority. It is extremely tedious and it breaks people down, and that is why this is such a battle.
Parents then find that they have to appeal to SENDIST, the special educational needs and disability tribunal, as the main route to access an EHCP. We need to analyse the proportion of successful appeals. If local authorities are turning down applications that are successful on appeal, those at the top of that league table need to think about why that is the case. They need to consider applications more carefully in the first place.
Even when someone gets an EHCP, the battle continues. Parents in my constituency report annual reviews not taking place, or the plans not being updated for months following review, severely impacting on a child’s progress through education. A lot of things go wrong in the transitions between stages of education or into work.
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning transition, because it is there that a condition such as autism or ADHD can turn into a mental health condition. Does he agree that one of the key issues for the Government to consider is the training and availability of clinicians? Funding is now much better than it was, but we still do not have the trained clinicians who could cut through the waiting lists, which are causing so much frustration to far too many families.
Aaron Bell
My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely correct about the availability of clinicians. His intervention also speaks to the point made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam that if these conditions are not treated at school, they can lead to severely negative mental health outcomes later in life.
My constituent Mr Winkle has fought for many years to obtain suitable educational and therapeutic support for his son. Following a tribunal decision last month, he was sent a revised EHCP that still contained a number of inaccuracies, including out-of-date details about his son’s residential placement. I want to talk a little about residential placements, which have not been raised much so far, because the lack of suitable placements causes distress to many families.
One constituent described how the 14-year-old in her care only receives an hour’s at-home tuition a day, because a suitable therapeutic placement with a small and consistent staff team cannot be found. Alternatively, children are given residential educational provision that is unsuitable, which can cause them to regress and even, in one case, to self-harm.
Another common complaint is that social workers change too regularly, so the social worker does not truly know the child. Parents may not be told who the new social worker is and many have described the difficulty they experience when trying to get in touch with professionals, as telephone calls are not returned.
Despite parents being the ones with the most knowledge of the child or young person they are caring for, they struggle to be heard. Should they then complain, they describe encountering a complaints process that is frankly not fit for purpose: timescales are not followed; complaints sometimes seem to be ignored completely; and it is only possible to complain to the ombudsman with a final response, but that often never seems to arrive, and even when they do complain, it will take months for the ombudsman to reply. Furthermore, adults involved in the care of children can become fearful of complaining, in case there are reprisals in the form of their contact with the child being blocked.
Added to that is the struggle to obtain adequate mental health treatment. One constituent of mine was told that the priority waiting list for CAMHS—not the list to which my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury was referring earlier—is 11 months in Staffordshire. That is the priority list. Only this week, a constituent described how she is desperate for respite provision, having accepted a child back into her care on the basis that the local authority would support her.
The local authority has been good at keeping in touch, but its hands have been tied by what it says is a lack of resources. As well as struggling to find an educational placement for the young person, it has only just found an agency to take him on outings twice a week. After five and a half months of caring 24/7, my constituent is exhausted and in the terrible position of considering having to say that she can no longer look after the young man. She has been let down by a breach of implied trust—the local authority told her that it would support her, but it has not been able to.
As Members of Parliament, we inevitably hear the failures, rather than the success stories, but I welcome any support that can be given to improve the experience of so many. As my constituent Mr Winkle said:
“In this journey I have communicated with many regulatory bodies each claiming to have the child’s interests wishes and safety at the forefront of their agenda...but as I have experienced this is certainly not so...my assumption is that it’s a closed circle and these entities do not know how to facilitate or co-ordinate any kind of solution and just want it to ‘Go Away’.”
I am sure that is not the full truth of it, but that is the experience that people are having out there.
I welcome the imminent Green Paper and the additional funding, but too many people have been failed for far too long. I hope the Minister will be able to address that when she responds.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
It is, as always, a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Fovargue. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) on securing the debate. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake). I have a friend who was diagnosed with ADHD in his 50s. He is a very talented musician but he really struggled at school and with the basic things in life. He, too, says that the medication has made a huge difference.
As we have heard, life is a never-ending battle for many parents of children with SEND. They have to deal with their child’s physical and mental health needs, trying to get the right diagnosis and all sorts of things on top of that: hospital appointments, physiotherapy, daily meds, vulnerability to viruses, communication issues, issues with trying to get their child to eat properly, and behavioural problems. They face all those things at home, and then they have to battle with bureaucracy, and they often feel that they are at war with the very people who are meant to be there to help them. They feel that the system is stacked against them and that sometimes people would rather they went away and stopped being such a nuisance—what the hon. Member for Newbury said about CAMHS in that context very much resonated with me.
The first battle that parents often face is to get the right diagnosis for their child. Then there is a battle to get the EHCPs. Then the councils say they do not really have the power to enforce them. If a child develops mental health problems, it is often a battle to get support from CAMHS, and parents of neurodivergent children, in particular, sometimes find that they are being bounced around between CAMHS and SEND provision, with nobody stepping in to help them.
In 2019, it was estimated that 6.8% of children in Bristol had special educational needs or disabilities, and it is true that Bristol City Council has struggled to meet the needs of those children—as we have heard, that seems to be case with many councils. We had a pretty damning Ofsted report in 2019, and the council says it is now absolutely committed to trying to do better with its Belonging strategy and a three-year, £6.1 million education transformation programme. There are concerns about getting schools to buy into that, and some parents have said that a significant number of schools are batting away struggling pupils even though they have a legal duty to meet the needs of SEND children.
Children should never be put in the “too difficult” box, but I have heard many examples of children being out of school without any support or just having part-time schooling or perhaps hospital school tutoring—if a child has to go into hospital because of their underlying physical disabilities or illness, they will have education there, but not when they are at home. Parents complain about schools having a one-size-fits-all approach to dealing with children with additional needs, while there are complaints from schools that they can no longer afford teaching assistants, who are so valuable in providing children with the one-to-one attention they need.
Delay can make a huge difference to children’s wellbeing and future attainment, as we have heard. We know that half of all mental health problems are established by the age of 14. Tragically, in some cases, young lives will be lost if we do not intervene early. In 2017, suicide was the most common cause of death for both boys and girls aged between five and 19.
I would like the Minister to commit to provide mental health support in every school, early interventions so that we can spot the signs—otherwise, problems will increase in severity—and respect for a child’s individuality. I know that that costs more and needs more resources, but the problem with these pathways—the hon. Member for Newbury talked about fixed, predetermined interventions—is that it does not help to refer a child with autism for counselling based on cognitive behavioural therapy, because their minds just do not work like that. Finally, we also need better in-patient services, because sending children hundreds of miles away from home, when they need intensive support, is absolutely unconscionable.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve before you, Ms Fovargue. I commend my constituency neighbour in Berkshire, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris), for securing the debate. I also pass on the best wishes of our right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who regrets that she cannot be here today. She asked me to point out that she fully supports every effort to increase the provision of mental health support for children in Berkshire and beyond. Finally, I want to welcome Dr Priya Singh, who is the new chief executive of the Frimley integrated care system and who I met yesterday to discuss this issue.
Time is short but, in brief, local NHS CCGs spent £12 billion in 2020-21 on mental health support. NHS England spent a further £2 billion, making a total of just over £14 billion. That is great, but I was horrified to learn that CCGs spent 14 times more on adult mental health support than on services for children. We need to invest much more heavily in that area.
East Berkshire, where I reside, has £2.6 million in funding for children’s mental health, including £1.4 million for CAMHS and £200,000 for eating disorders. That is not enough, which is my opening contention to the Minister. The Berkshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, based in Bracknell, does a fantastic job, but the demand for mental health assessment in children has gone up by 60% in the past five years. Since the pandemic, it has gone up by a further 27%. We have a problem. A constituent wrote to me only yesterday to tell me that the current wait for a child to be seen by CAMHS is 30 months; prior to the pandemic it was 18 months. Families are being left unsupported at this time.
As politicians, we spend lots of time admiring the problem, but perhaps not enough time thinking about the solution. What do we need to do? The first thing I would say to the Minister is that the SEND review is still awaited. It was promised last year and has failed to materialise. Will she please ensure that we get it as soon as possible? We also need to invest in our children with SEND as never before. That requires money, patience, determination and a much clearer Government strategy.
Why might that work? By providing the right care in the right settings we can give our children the focus they need to be productive, employable, law-abiding and responsible citizens. Prisons are sadly full of people who have made the wrong decisions or acted impulsively, perhaps because they were not diagnosed at an early age. Let us invest in more specialist educational settings, so that people’s needs can be addressed. Yes, that is expensive and resource-heavy, but the cost of not doing so will always be greater, and this is non-discretionary spending.
I would like to see every local authority in the UK comprehensively reviewing its SEND provision, so that it becomes available in every area. Specialist and dedicated settings are the way forward for those who need them. We need to give our teachers better training with education, health and care plans. Those should not become a magic bullet—a passport for the lucky few—but a rightful passport for every child to get the support they need.
Lastly, CAMHS across the UK need 20,000 volts put straight through them. For families to wait two and a half years for a consultation is not only immoral but frankly inept. The irony will not have escaped anybody here that a GP cannot prescribe medication for ASD, ADHD, oppositional defiant disorder, Asperger’s or any other mental health condition, without a diagnosis from CAMHS. We have to focus on CAMHS right now.
To conclude, let us please get spending, diagnosing and treating, and let us give all our children, not least in Berkshire, the future they deserve.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) on securing this timely debate in Children’s Mental Health Week.
Over the past year—frankly, five years—the number of parents writing to me about their children and the lack of support has grown exponentially. I was a teacher before I was an MP, and I commend the speech made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake), because she is right that this is about allowing young people to be themselves. The word “special” is the right one: just look at the number of Nobel prize winners with neurodiversity in their make-up. When I taught maths and physics, these children were often the brightest, most interesting people in the room. They should never be seen as a burden.
The way the system treats families and children who are neurodiverse makes it so difficult for them that it is understandable how that goes on to affect their mental health. One family contacted me about Poppy—I have changed her name—who is 12. As previously described, there was violent behaviour in the household, and the family was incredibly worried. It took months to even get the GP to refer to CAMHS. The mother said to me:
“Mrs Moran, to be honest, you are my last hope. I am suffering with both my physical and mental health and quite honestly I do not have the energy left to continue fighting the system.”
We are also in a perverse situation where even more professionals are writing to me. I would be curious to know if that is the same for other hon. Members. This is new. GPs are also writing to me, as are educational psychologists, because they all recognise that CAMHS is broken. I had one psychologist write to me saying that he no longer refers to CAMHS. He said that social services and CAMHS are so broken that the only thing he can do is keep children on his books because he worries that if he loses contact with them they will not get anything at all. How is this system not failing our young people? It absolutely is.
My first question to the Minister is on the lack of educational psychologists in this country. My local county council is doing its very best; it is one of the F40 councils and is twelfth-lowest in the country when it comes to the high needs block. I said, “If you had a magic wand and could ask for anything from the Minister, what would it be?” and the council said, “More educational psychologists.” We currently fund only 200 training places in the country. There is only one educational psychologist for every 5,000 young people, which is nowhere near enough. Tackling that issue would go a huge way towards immediately helping to alleviate the backlog.
In the interim, there are amazing third-party groups that are helping. There is Shift, which is an informal parent group in Abingdon, set up by Sally and Andy Foulsham. They run it, provide support and help families navigate the system. There is also The Abingdon Bridge, which is the only wellbeing and mental health charity for young people in Vale of White Horse. It focuses on 18 to 25-year-olds. It is particularly worried about the 16 to 18-year olds that it finds because, if they are referred to CAMHS, the waiting lists are so long that they then drop off that cliff edge. Strangely, the charity cannot access funding from the CCG because of the way that the funding works. Could the Minister help me help The Abingdon Bridge to access more funding?
To conclude where I started, we absolutely must appreciate that these children deserve the best, and deserve more, but the current system is failing them. There is a perverse disincentive in the system, where a school must basically pay the first £6,000 of the funding. We need a national SEND strategy that solves the problem once and for all. Without that, we risk failing our children and our country in the future.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) for bringing forward this important debate.
I do not think we realise the crisis that our children face on mental health. It is hard growing up—we all remember growing up—but our young people face an even more traumatic time following the pandemic. I truly believe that our children and young people have been badly affected by the pandemic and also by social media—we did not have social media, growing up, with that extra, 24/7 pressure.
On educational attainment, I have a 17-year-old daughter going through A-levels and a 15-year-old son going through GCSEs, and I can speak with authority about just how much pressure they are under. However, I cannot imagine how families cope with all the extra pressure when that is compounded by a special educational need.
I want to speak about people’s actual experiences in schools. I recently spoke to the head of a Westminster secondary school, who is a very experienced teacher. She said that she has never, in her 20-plus years as a teacher, known such a crisis in the mental health of young people and particularly teenagers. The pandemic has obviously compounded that, but we are now seeing far more anxiety, self-harming and suicidal thoughts. That is what she explained to me. The pressure that that head and her staff are under—to help and support the young people going through these things—has created even more of a burden for them. They are taking advantage of the Mind counsellors and the extra help that the Government are providing, but it simply is not enough.
There seems to be a disconnect between the Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care, because there is no one Minister taking control, and I ask the Minister to really consider that point. We cannot just leave it to schools to try to navigate special educational needs and support for families. We must make sure that there is one place for teachers to go for that support. There is such pressure on budgets now in schools. The head I spoke to told me how much they were now spending on extra support for pupils, which comes out of the general budget. I plead with the Minister to try to secure more funding for this issue from the Department for Education.
In Children’s Mental Health Week, I pay tribute to the local authorities in my constituency. This week, Westminster launched a trial of a keyring, which will reach 4,000 young people. They simply scan a QR code to take them to a special hub, which will give them the advice and support they need. That is the kind of practical help we need to give our children, but this is also about getting the funding that our schools need, to ensure that our young people have the future they deserve.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Fovargue. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) for calling this important and timely debate. It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken). I agree with everything she said. Our young people are facing a mental health crisis. They need vital support and funding in our schools.
For my Vauxhall residents, the mental health impacts of measures to tackle covid-19 have been some of the hardest of the seismic effect of the pandemic. Since March 2020, people have had severe restrictions on who they can meet and where they can go. We have seen park benches taped up. As a mother of two young children, that was difficult for me as well. People have seen their friendship groups shrink. They have had to deal with being shut at home, not going out and not seeing loved ones. They have missed loved ones for many months. In some cases, they have missed those vital last minutes. That situation has taken a toll on all of us but, most importantly, it has taken a toll on our young people.
Schools develop vital skills in subjects such as maths and English, but for our young people they are also a place to make friends, solve conflicts and develop vital interpersonal skills that help us all to navigate our lives. Those skills are vital in developing mental health resilience in our young people.
The Health and Social Care Committee has found that 1.5 million children and young people under 18 will need new or additional mental health support after the pandemic. That places a tremendous strain on already stretched mental health provision. Although extra funding has been promised, too few children are getting the treatment they need.
Several hon. Members have highlighted the many difficulties that parents, carers and, most importantly, young people face in accessing SEND provision. I am sure the Minister is aware of the data on the disparity and the barriers that black and minority ethnic children and their families face in accessing that provision.
I went to visit Lansdowne School in my constituency last December. Lansdowne is a specialist school for young people with autism, communication difficulties and speech and language delay. On my visit, I spoke to the headteacher about the fantastic work teachers and carers did during lockdown, providing vital support for children with challenging needs. I also spoke to the head boy and head girl and said that, in return for their giving me a tour round their school, I would give them a tour round my workplace, here in Parliament. They had such smiles on their faces; they beamed with joy. I saw a mural that students have worked on with local artists. With the right support and funding, our young people with special educational needs will flourish. We have to believe in them.
For many young people with special educational needs, finding the right support is vital. I am proud that the National Autistic Society decided to open another school in my constituency, on Kennington Road—the Vanguard School. Unfortunately, because of the many lockdowns, we have not been able to have the official opening, which has been postponed three times. I hope that when that opening finally takes place, the Minister will come to visit this excellent school, which provides state-of-the-art services for young people with additional needs.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on knife crime and violence reduction, and through my work on youth violence, I see the effects of youth violence and mental health trauma faced by our young people. If we fail to tackle the mental health crisis among them, we will continue to see them develop lifelong problems and not have access to vital SEN provision. Most importantly, we may see some of those young people taken too soon. I urge the Minister to look at providing vital support in this area now.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) for securing this debate, which, as many hon. Members have identified, is important for all present.
Identifying special educational needs and early diagnosis is a particular problem given the complexities surrounding this issue. Early diagnosis is absolutely key. I have heard from constituents many harrowing stories of people trying every channel and route possible, including schools and local GP services, to identify special educational needs at an early stage.
Children’s mental health and special educational needs are complex. Their conditions can often be misdiagnosed or not even identified at an early stage. The signs of autism, for example, can be put down to a child experiencing a dislike for something such as going to school. Of course, the recent challenges of the pandemic have not made things easier.
Early diagnosis is key, but the process of getting a formal diagnosis is far too inaccessible and long-winded for many of my constituents. One constituent told me that there was no point in even entertaining the process, because they would have to wait three or four years for their child to receive a diagnosis. That is completely unacceptable. Likewise, private companies that offer such services are currently working their way through a huge backlog that accumulated during the pandemic. Too many of my constituents also find themselves priced out of any private offering.
In spite of those difficulties, there are a number of fantastic groups across Keighley and Ilkley that support young people with special educational needs and mental health issues. Take Margaret Nash, Helen Millar and the rest of the team at AWARE—Airedale and Wharfedale Autism Resource—which provides support to families with children and young adults on the autistic spectrum, with no formal diagnosis required. My thanks also go to Lesley Brook and everyone at the Nebula Girls Group, a Keighley-based organisation that helps young girls in Keighley who suffer with special educational needs.
I want to emphasise the issues of appointments and referrals. Battling their way through the bureaucracy and red tape, parents and young children find that the challenges of navigating a complex diagnosis system are not easy at all. As many hon. Members have identified, the transition from primary to secondary school—and then into the job sector—is extremely difficult, whether or not a person has been diagnosed.
That is where I would like more emphasis from the Government. Emphasis should be put on not only funding and providing targeted support, but providing businesses with the support they need to help people with special educational needs beyond the education system and into the work environment.
I appreciate that this issue is not being ducked by the Government, and I recognise that the Department for Education will continue to increase funding for children and young people with the most complex needs. However, we cannot stop there. All hon. Members present have recognised that CAMHS is not fit for purpose—we must ensure that it is. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury, I call on the Minister to make sure that the SEND review is released at the earliest possibility so that we can try to get better mechanisms in place. There are some fantastic efforts being made at a local level, but we cannot rely on voluntary groups to sort this issue out. The Government, local authorities and CAMHS have got to do the utmost to make the whole process fit for purpose.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you, Ms Fovargue. I apologise to the hon. Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) for not being here earlier—I was at the launch of an inquiry that I chair. I spoke to you, Ms Fovargue, to ask for permission and I thank all hon. Members for the opportunity to make a contribution.
Special needs education is a key issue. When the news of lockdown for schools came, my initial concern was for those going through exams. My next train of thought was for those special needs children whose parents simply could not take them on. They were difficult times, as everyone present knows, and the hon. Member for Newbury knows that better than most.
We had parents ringing our diverted phones crying because they literally could not settle their special needs child who was waiting on their school bus and could not understand the concept of lockdown and what it meant. For special needs children, it is important to have a routine and a simplified version of life, so that they can try to cope with it. It is not an exaggeration to say that children with special needs were distraught, and it quickly became clear that the impact on them was large. I was thankful for the Tor Bank School, the special needs school in my area, which kept its doors open for its own pupils and took a small number of students from other schools that were unable to open. Our office referred one pupil whose mother was distraught, and they took the child in until their own school reopened. These schools took special steps to enable things to happen, and we are in debt to them for that.
My thanks go to Peter Weir MLA, the former Education Minister, for allocating specific funding to special needs schools for tailored catch-up programmes and mental health support, as well as to mainstream schools for the wellbeing of pupils. Recognising the impact of isolation on individual children, and on children as class groups, is an essential part of helping them process and deal appropriately with the remnants of isolation. I am thankful that Ministers have rightly acknowledged the difficulty of lockdown for our children and that it is our duty to do our utmost to repair it.
The briefing that I received from Parentkind merely underscored my opinion of the damage done to all schoolchildren, but particularly children with special educational needs. I want to quote from it because it illustrates the problem. I know people say there are lies, damned lies and statistics, but I tell you what: these statistics tell a story. I hope nobody else has stated them already.
Some 55% of children with special educational needs experience homework-related stress, as opposed to 37% of children without SEN. Anxiety affects 55% of children with SEN, as opposed to 34% of ordinary children. Other figures include 46% versus 32% for exam stress; 45% versus 27% for bullying; 34% versus 16% for pressure to constantly engage with social media; 38% versus 11% for depression; 35% versus 11% for cyber-bullying and online abuse; 30% versus 6% for self-harm; 28% versus 5% for eating disorders; 25% versus 4% for sexual harassment; and 23% versus 3% for substance misuse.
Those statistics clearly illustrate the impact on those with special needs. These figures underscore the greater vulnerability and the higher risk facing children from less advantaged backgrounds or with additional needs or disabilities. The data shows that they were more susceptible to mental health impacts and social challenges in their peer group. It is clear, as this debate shows, that there is a problem, and we in this House need to ensure that the solution is available and is long term.
It is good to see the Minister in her place. We have a special friendship, and she does extremely well when it comes to answering these issues. We look to her to address the impact on England. This issue is not her responsibility when it comes to Northern Ireland, but it is always good to bring a Northern Ireland perspective to these debates, as well as to illustrate to the hon. Member for Newbury that we in Northern Ireland have similar pressures.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) for bringing this important issue forward. I hope that Members will forgive me because, based on the contributions that have already been made, I am going to give a completely different speech from the one I had intended to make.
I certainly do not like doing this, but I feel that I have to bring my personal experiences to the debate. My son is on the autistic spectrum.
James Daly
It is fine. My wife and I waited many, many months for a diagnosis. When we had the diagnosis, it was a relief, but when it happened we were told, “Well, nothing changes. Just carry on as normal.” We were not referred to services—we have not been referred to services throughout the whole of my son’s time in education. We have been given a diagnosis and essentially asked to carry on as normal. My son is a beautiful boy, and he is in mainstream schooling. He has challenges, but he does not have the complex needs that other families have, and that was it.
I can tell Members from personal experience that the length of time people have to wait for a diagnosis is a disgrace, but in many cases nothing happens afterwards. To help, aid and support my son, we are reliant on the special educational needs co-ordinator at his school. SENCOs are brilliant people, but they often do not have the expertise we would hope them to have in these situations. If the levelling-up agenda is to mean anything—and I fully believe in our Government’s levelling-up agenda—we have to find ways to ensure that those people with challenges in their lives are able to achieve and maximise their potential. I have not raised the issue of my son for any other reason than this: I do not believe that the support that he has received, and that other children are receiving at this moment in time, allows that to happen.
I was in a debate yesterday with many Members who are in this Chamber today. The issue of funding is a very legitimate concern to raise, but my borough in Bury has spent £40 million over the past financial year on special educational needs and mental health. We have to go beyond just saying, “Give more money”. We have to have local accountability, strategies and bespoke support services for each individual child in our country to allow them to achieve their potential.
I support one of the things that the Labour party said yesterday, and I support what the Government are doing. We have many family hubs, which I support, and they provide fantastic support for this agenda. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), talked yesterday about mental health hubs. We can call them anything we want, but every town in our country needs a bespoke, 24/7 support service that schools, individuals and families can turn to in the knowledge that they are not just a statistic—they are human beings—and so that local services can respond to the individual needs of each individual child, who we must cherish.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
It is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly).
In a few months, I will have been in this place for 12 years, but we are still having the same debate and saying the same things, so I want to give voice to a few constituents who have been in touch with me. One wrote that
“my son (6 in April) is diagnosed autistic…I had to fight to get an appointment with a paediatrician…I cannot express to you how stressful this was and for two years we didn’t get any support…We did find some support once he started school but…I am now paying for this privately…at £70ph…There is no one place to work out what support is out there. It is all piece meal. I’ve learnt far more from speaking to other parents of autistic children about available support than through official channels…if support was given beforehand, so many of these mental health difficulties could be prevented. The majority of parents I know of autistic children are burnt out and stressed—even when they have money to provide private help”.
Another constituent wrote:
“It was apparent at pre-school that he was experiencing difficulties, he was seen briefly by a speech therapist…He transitioned into primary school, where I still remember that fateful day where he just crumbled. Due to a lack of external help we sought the advice of a child psychiatrist…This cost us thousands. Eventually we received, with primary school SENCO help, admittance onto the CAMHS pathway for autism assessment. After many years of waiting we were discharged…We were then dropped from any further care and given a leaflet with web links for information…Any request for help that we have made has been firmly shut down…to navigate the system requires an MSc level of education, legal knowledge, money (we are on benefits!) and time. All at an emotional cost to one’s self.”
Another constituent wrote:
“We only get one childhood and it is proven that it has an impact on the rest of a person's life. I hear so many times of people being turned away from CAMHS and struggling to get support, even when their child is suicidal”,
and another said:
“SEN parents are really stretched to the limit. I cannot begin to tell you what a battle it is and how a more global approach would be of benefit...rather than the fragmented system of try the school, try the GP, try CAMHS etc.”
Another constituent wrote:
“Our experience of CAMHS? Well there isn’t much as we haven’t been able access any treatment for him!…My husband and I referred our son on the CAMHS online referral form in November last year. I wrote on the form that he was using the palm of his hand to slap his forehead out of frustration to get the compulsive thoughts out of his head…We didn’t hear anything so I sent an email asking them to confirm that they had received our referral form. The confirming email asks parents not to inquire about waiting list times...A member of the School Welfare Team phoned me to say that there is a waiting list of 18 months…As a family we are frazzled and I feel like I’m hanging by a thread. Where do we go from here?”
Another one wrote that
“the situation is abysmal. My family have been ripped apart by my daughter’s mental health and she is just SIX years old.”
Finally, another constituent wrote:
“Last night my nine-year-old son said, ‘I would rather have no life than this life’.”
None of those emails makes for easy reading. I have had so many emails, and the key thread I take from them is that, as many have said, early diagnosis is what is missing. As a result, children fall further down. They are helped later, and the help they need is consequently significantly more acute. Covid has been a disaster for children and young people’s mental health, so let us not compound that now by this constant asymptomatic testing.
“Don’t ask us how long the wait is.” I would love the Minister to explain how that message fits with the physical waiting list on My Planned Care, which was launched this week. Where is the parity? I have been really moved by what I have received this week. My constituents do not care about six people being shuffled around the same jobs in Government. They care about the services that they are paying a lot of money for and are not getting. One constituent said to me:
“Childhood is short but it also lasts a lifetime.”
We cannot have this debate for the next 12 years.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue, and to speak in this debate on behalf of the Scottish National party and also as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for disability, a role that I have been proud to champion in my six or seven years of being in Parliament.
We must thank the hon. Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) for realising how vital this debate is and for securing it. She spoke eloquently of her concerns, which were reinforced in just about every speech. Her questionnaire asking constituents about services is a fantastic initiative, getting to the frontline and the heart of what is happening.
When I visit local services in my area, they often give me statistics and tell me how things are improving, but it is not until I speak to people and ask about their experiences that I see whether it has translated into changes for the children who need the services. The hon. Lady emphasised that a timely CAMHS diagnosis is absolutely necessary for someone’s chances in life. That is the key message from today.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) spoke from her heart about her personal experience. That is a very powerful thing to do in this House. She is a real champion for the screening of neurodivergent conditions. Because of her own struggles, she has been a role model for so many. It is important that she uses her voice, as she has done so powerfully today.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) spoke of the battle faced by parents in his constituency and of the lack of staffing. It is not just about money; it is about training and staffing and making sure that there is an appropriate workforce plan. I hope that the Minister will address that point.
The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) eloquently said that the system as it stands is stacked against parents. From what we have heard, I think that is so true. There has to be mental health support in every school, and it has to be at a local level. We cannot expect families and children who are already extremely vulnerable to travel a huge distance for the care that they need.
The hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) said that 14 times more money is spent on adult services than on children’s services. I worked in psychology prior to coming to this House, and children’s services were always seen as a Cinderella service—entirely wrongly, in my opinion. Investing in our children is investing in our society for the future, and we really need to understand that.
The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) described what many of us experience: that people come to us and say that their MP is the last hope for their family. That is how we feel, because that is what people tell us: “You are my last hope; I have tried everything.” It is unacceptable that families have to battle the system to that extent. The Disabled Children’s Partnership contacted me prior to the debate and said that 60% of families with disabled children have sought mental health support for themselves, which shows just how desperate the situation is.
The hon. Lady mentioned another really important issue, which the British Psychological Society has also raised with me: the lack of educational psychologists in the UK. There is only one for every 5,000 young people. That is a really crucial issue that the Minister should take forward. To make a difference, we must have the correct professionals in place to undertake the required diagnoses.
The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) spoke really well about the trauma experienced by children in the pandemic. We must not underestimate that. Their childhood has been different from that of every other generation: the trauma that that cohort has experienced, the loss that many have experienced, the loss of their daily structure and the loss of contact with their loved ones, which was snatched away at a critical time. We need to improve services not just generally but very specifically for the most vulnerable children with special needs.
The hon. Lady also spoke about the impact of social media. I have heard so many negative things about online algorithms and the impact of constant social media use on children and young people’s mental health. That has such a negative impact that we should look at taxing social media companies specifically to raise money to increase mental health support. That must be addressed in the Online Safety Bill.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) spoke about her excellent work helping those from diverse backgrounds in her constituency and the important issue of knife crime. She said that, when people are failed in childhood, they can go on to engage in antisocial behaviours; they are steered down that path because the system has failed them. We must ensure that we avoid that at a much earlier stage.
The hon. Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore) spoke about the importance of early diagnosis and the battle against bureaucracy, and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) about the impact of the pandemic and the lack of structure on children with special needs, which has been severe. In my own constituency, we are still struggling to get services back up and running at the level that they were before the pandemic. Parents are continually contacting me, worried that the pandemic may be used as a rationale to reduce services. That must never happen; we are here to champion those parents and to make sure that that does not happen. The hon. Member for Strangford also underlined all of the very bleak statistics that show the greater impact of the pandemic on children with special needs.
The hon. Member for Bury North (James Daly) spoke emotionally and powerfully about his son. The hon. Gentleman came here to listen, but decided to give us the benefit of his own experience. That is one of the bravest and most important things we can do when we come here to raise our voices for others. That personal experience resonates with everybody more than statistics or anything else that the rest of us have to say.
The hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) said that he has been a Member of Parliament for almost 12 years and has been talking about these issues for 12 years. Clearly, these issues have to be taken forward. What I will say—this is slightly different from the speech that I prepared—is that having worked in the services, it is very clear to me that CAMHS cannot manage diagnosis and assessment for children with special needs, as well as the overwhelming number of children who are there for mental health issues. There has to be a streamlined diagnostic service that is available locally, at local authority level, where children can have that intervention, that assessment, because one year in a child’s life is a huge amount of time. The six years that we heard about is almost one third of their childhood. The developmental milestones that have gone by can never be caught up on, so early diagnosis is crucial. There has to be the development of a streamlined service with specialist practitioners who can do the diagnosis and also, from the diagnosis, provide intervention. Why wait six years for a diagnosis only to be told, “You’ve got your diagnosis, but nothing follows it”? That is totally unacceptable.
The all-party parliamentary group for disability would be keen to engage with the Minister, who I know wants to do her very best on these issues, and the Department to look at, where possible, streamlining services for diagnosis and treatment for those children with special needs who deeply require it—we have all said the same thing today—and to learn from best practice right across the UK. There are things that we are doing well in Scotland, and there are things that we can learn from as well. At the heart of this are children, and we must do our best for those children. I want to work collaboratively to try to ensure that we do, together, across this House.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Fovargue. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) on securing this very important debate during Children’s Mental Health Week. She has been a powerful advocate for her constituents who are struggling to access the support that they need for their children. I thank all the hon. Members who have spoken this morning. We have heard many powerful and distressing examples of the impact that the combination of the pandemic and the underlying gaps in support for disabled children is having on their mental health and the mental health of their families.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) spoke movingly about her own experience and the impact that a lack of access to diagnosis can have, even into adulthood. The hon. Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) and for Keighley (Robbie Moore) spoke about the battles that families in their constituencies face and about the need for a “tell it once” approach when dealing with services. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) made a really important point about the lack of co-ordination among health, education and social care services, which leaves so many families being passed from pillar to post and without the support that they need.
My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) paid tribute to the brilliant work of Lansdowne School, which is also attended by many children in my constituency, who progress to Lansdowne from Turney Primary School in my constituency. Both schools provide a brilliant education for their children.
It was very moving to hear the hon. Member for Bury North (James Daly) speak about his own experience and the battle that his family have faced and continue to face on behalf of his precious son. It is so important that the hon. Member has brought here today the insights into the system as a whole that that personal experience has provided. I do hope that his son is able to access the support that he needs in order to enable him to continue to flourish in the future.
The hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) made a really important point—there is far too much distraction at the top of Government just now. The disgraceful reality of that is illustrated no more powerfully than by the plight of disabled children, up and down the country, who are struggling to access the support that they need.
From listening to those accounts and looking at the evidence on disabled children’s mental health, it is impossible not to draw the conclusion that the most vulnerable children are being profoundly failed by this Government. According to research by the Disabled Children’s Partnership, nine out of 10 disabled children have been socially isolated during the pandemic, with 72% of parents and carers reporting that their child was often unhappy, downhearted or tearful. The impact of the withdrawal of vital support services, both in and out of school, has been devastating. The situation is of course complex, because many disabled children have physical health vulnerabilities that increased their risk in relation to covid-19 and it was important that protections were put in place.
I pay tribute to the staff working in SEND education and support, who adapted their services very quickly to provide online learning and undertake home visits. I recently visited Cherry Garden School in Southwark, a brilliant primary school for children with special educational needs. I heard from staff about the rapid action they took to develop an online curriculum and the learning packs that were delivered to children via home visits. I know that those visits were a lifeline for many families.
Despite the undoubted commitment of professionals, there was no systematic approach. The necessary precautions that were taken to reduce the risk of covid infection were, all too often, not supplemented with any additional support. At the start of the pandemic, 76% of families surveyed by the Disabled Children’s Partnership said that the vital care and support they relied on had stopped altogether, leaving parents and siblings taking on all care responsibilities around the clock. The support has been very slow to come back. As late as June 2021, more than 70% of disabled children were still unable to access pre-pandemic levels of therapies and health services. The pandemic has been challenging for everyone. It has been particularly gruelling and exhausting for far too many families with disabled children.
However, we know that the challenges facing disabled children and their families are not only a consequence of the pandemic. Some 60% of families with disabled children have sought NHS mental health support due to the stresses of fighting for basic services. That is the story, again and again and again. Every Member of this House will know constituents who are battling with a system that simply does not work as it should, with thresholds for support that are getting higher and higher, and have been doing so for a decade. Parents battle for assessment and diagnosis, they battle for EHCPs, they battle for the right support or the right school place, and in many cases they battle for housing that is suitable for their children’s needs.
I have mentioned many times in this House my constituent Matthew Garnett. I am pleased to say that Matthew is now thriving as a young adult in supported housing, pursuing the things he loves, including his project to visit every football ground in the country. Matthew, who has autism and a learning disability, first came to my attention when he was, like far too many children, in a secure hospital, held under the Mental Health Act 1983.
I supported Matthew’s parents in their battle to get him out of hospital. As part of that battle, the then Mental Health Minister commissioned a review of Matthew’s care. The review made devastating reading. It documented, year by year, his parents’ struggle, over more than a decade, to get their son the support he needed. The consequence of the system failure they encountered was that Matthew, like far too many autistic children and children with learning disabilities, ended up in a secure hospital, far away from his loved ones, with his health deteriorating week by week.
According to the Disabled Children’s Partnership, only 4% of parents and carers of disabled children feel they get the right support to care safely for their disabled children; 53% have had to give up work to care for their child; and 40% have experienced relationship breakdown since their child was diagnosed.
The Minister will, I am sure, mention the £30 million of funding for short breaks for families with disabled children. That is very welcome, but short breaks should be genuine respite. They should not be respite from a system of support that breaks people. It is not enough to substitute for a system that is failing in its entirety the promise of access to a short break every now and again.
The SEND review was originally promised in September 2019. It is now shamefully overdue. The pandemic is simply not an adequate excuse for the lack of urgency in that work, given the impact that the pandemic itself has had on disabled children. It sends its own message about the level of priority the Government place on families with disabled children. I hope the Minister will set out today a firm date for its publication. We need the review to set out clearly the gaps in current provision and in resourcing, so that the Government can set out a clear plan for ensuring that every disabled child in the country is able to access the support they need.
The current system is failing far too many families, and the impacts are being felt in devastating consequences for their mental health. This cannot go on, and I hope the Minister will set out a plan for change today.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) for securing this important debate on special educational needs and children’s mental health services. As we can see by the number of Members who have attended the debate, this is clearly a significant issue across many parts of the country. Unfortunately, the Minister for Care and Mental Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan), is unable to be here today because she is self-isolating, so I will do my best to answer hon. Members’ questions. I am sure we can follow up on anything that I am not able to cover in my remarks.
I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) for sharing her personal experience, which illustrates some of the struggles that people face. She outlined the positives and negatives in her remarks. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly) for sharing his son’s experience, which is unfortunately not uncommon.
My own postbag reflects many of the comments that have been made in the debate. Children are often not getting the help and support they need at the early stages, which often leads to more difficult interventions later that could have been avoided if the support was in place. The collaboration locally between health and education is often not where it should be. I am here not to deny any of the remarks made in debate, but to set out what is being done to address these issues, which have been in place for many years. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North that funding is not necessarily the only factor here; it is also about how services are brought together. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury said, it is about accountability for how those services are delivered.
In March last year, we published the covid mental health and wellbeing recovery action plan, which includes £31 million to improve autism and learning disability services. There is £42 million to continue funding projects to support young people and families with special educational needs. There are funding pots available, but we are hearing that they are not making it to the families who need them or to the services being provided. In the short time that I have, I hope to be able to set out how we aim to resolve some of those issues.
The demand for services has increased. There is no doubt that the demand for CAMHS, ADHD assessments, autism assessments and diagnosis has increased over time, but waiting times are also dismally short of where they should be. According to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which provides evidence-based guidance on many of these areas, children and young people who are referred for an autism diagnosis should have a diagnostic assessment within 13 weeks. We have heard from many colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury, that it takes around two years. My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) cited three years. Of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North cited his son’s experience, and the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) also spoke about this issue. We can see that it is a problem across the country.
For ADHD diagnosis, NICE guidelines do not recommend a specific waiting time, but they set out recommendations for how services should support and manage children who need a diagnosis and their families, for how such children should be supported through education, and for general support as well. We want every area of the country to meet NICE guidelines but, sadly, that is not happening in many places. To make sure that we get on top of the situation and reduce the delays, we want to work towards providing an assessment within the recommended 13 weeks in order to deliver a timely diagnosis—not just so that they get a diagnosis, but so that the interventions are there to help and support young people and their families.
There are three key areas where I think we can improve things. The SEND review, which was touched on a couple of times in the debate, is a joint collaboration between the Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care. It is in progress, and we expect its findings to be announced fairly soon—I am talking about weeks, rather than months. Following the recommendations from that, a Green Paper will be published. It will follow a 12-week period in which I encourage all Members to take part in the process and to highlight many of the experiences that we have heard today. We have talked about the funding that is being announced, but often that goes to health and does not get into schools. I met representatives from one of my schools only last week, and the joined-up working locally between education and health just is not happening. That reflects the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury that accountability for who is responsible for doing what, and the joint working, is currently not happening.
Layla Moran
Will the Minister comment on access to funding for third-sector organisations, which are often more expert at offering advice and support that families need?
Maria Caulfield
Absolutely. Services are commissioned locally. Part of the issue is that there is no accountability for when services are not commissioned. The funding that is put forward needs to look at all service providers, and the third sector is often well placed to provide those services.
To touch on long waits, NHS England is working to ensure that CAMHS have embedded diagnostic pathways for autism and ADHD as a core part of their work. A sum of £13 million is going in to improve those pathways and identify those at risk of crisis; £2.5 million of that funding will test different approaches to diagnostic pathways and ensure that they are backed by research and are evidence-based. In addition, NHS England wants to develop a single point of access to ensure that referrals are triaged, and that individuals do not stay on lengthy waiting lists. We have heard today of the difficulties caused by not having a single point of access. I have met families in my constituency. As the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) said, we are the last refuge and point of contact when they cannot get anywhere else.
We know that school settings can provide an invaluable opportunity to identify autistic children early in life. We are investing £600,000 in significantly expanding an autism early diagnosis pilot in Bradford. That will test at least 100 schools over the next three years to assess whether new approaches to achieving a faster diagnosis can be rolled out across the country. The early findings from that pilot are positive. Education staff report that they are better able to identify children and put in place the support they need to thrive in education. Local areas will look to upskill mainstream staff to better identify children’s needs. In Manchester, a project to support early identification and diagnosis in young children involves health visitors identifying those who show signs associated with autism and fast-tracking their assessment, with additional post-diagnostic support for families.
The issue for many years has been the lack of a national strategy, but that is changing. What we want, when pilot studies show good initial results, is to roll them out across the country. In the next year, on top of the £1.5 billion spent in the past two years, we are providing an additional £1 billion of high-needs funding for the education of children with more complex needs. The aim of that funding is to reduce waiting lists and variations in practice, make navigation pathways less complex, and improve the speed and quality of diagnosis.
Those points tackle some of the issues around waiting lists, but accountability was the main thread of the introductory remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury. At the moment, no one is held accountable locally if services are not commissioned. The integrated care system will be put on a statutory footing from 1 July, if the Health and Care Bill goes through on time, and ICS boards will be the accountable bodies for commissioning services. Their chief executive officer will be the accountable officer for the NHS locally and will be responsible for bringing those services together and will be accountable if that is not happening.
Since November 2019, NHS Digital has reported on waiting times for autism assessments, trying to ensure transparency in how services are delivered and highlighting areas where improvements are needed. It is incredible that, up until now, we have not had the data to hold people’s feet to the fire when services are not provided.
Steve Brine
On accountability, can the Minister shed any light on the issue of CAMHS in Hampshire telling parents not to ask how long, or will she take it away? It means that they cannot plan, for instance, decide to sell the car. Those are the choices that people are facing. They cannot plan for what is next. Does that sound right to her, that people have been told not to ask?
Maria Caulfield
No, that does not sound right. That is exactly why we want to bring some accountability to local services, so that when such statements are made, we can look at what the problems and the blocks in the system are to try to overcome them.
Local authorities also need to be held to account for how they support schools, because schools do a huge amount of work, going above and beyond in most cases to support children with special educational needs. That is why we continue to work with Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission to develop a new area of SEND inspections, which will look at how services and support are delivered in practice on the ground. That will hold local areas to account, so that there is no gap in oversight before full implementation of any new reforms resulting from the SEND review. It also recognises the importance of inspections in SEND services by highlighting areas of good practice and areas to improve on.
I reassure colleagues across the Chamber that that is an area of high priority. The SEND review will be published shortly, and the Green Paper will follow swiftly on from that. I encourage all colleagues to share their powerful experiences in that process, as they have today, so that we can improve services for the children and their families who at the moment are not getting the service that they deserve.
Laura Farris
I thank every Member and colleague who spoke in the debate, from five different political parties, revealing the power and privilege of being a Member of Parliament. We can represent the concerns of families at their most acute, with all the detail and desperation in the emails and letters that we have all received.
My time is limited—I am not sure how limited—so if I do not mention every single Member who spoke, they must not think that I am not grateful for what they said. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Bracknell (James Sunderland), for Winchester (Steve Brine) and for Bury North (James Daly), all of whom have children with special educational needs. My hon. Friend for Bury North showed absolutely directly what the emotional effect on the family means and how much that consumes the thoughts and all the deepest concerns of the parents about the outcomes wanted for their child.
I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake). One of the things that she said, which was reflected in so many of the emails that I got, was that when someone has a child considered to have autism, ADHD or something equivalent, often there is a period in the child’s school life when they are being told that they are a failure or disruptive. Headteachers told me that one of the things that happens is that not only is the child sometimes not popular, missing out on sleepovers, play dates out and so on, but the parents are not popular, because the other parents think that they have this difficult child. They cannot do anything about it.
One Member present today shone the light on what I am trying to achieve with the debate, and that was my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland). When he was Justice Secretary, he had a direct interest in neurodiversity, and he was appalled by the correlation between neurodiversity and autism, and the prison estate. We can all agree that it is never the responsibility of the Justice Secretary—from whichever party—to deal with that, but as a society we have failed if that is the end destination of people with autism.
We can draw a few strands together. I think that everyone present agrees that the need for intervention is urgent and that most of the problems could be identified at primary school, but there is much greater need for accountability. Where the Government have commendably made money available to commission locally, those services need to set out what is achievable and then to deliver them, with consequences for not doing so.
The Minister talked about integrating services and about improvement, all of which was music to my ears—joined-up working between education and health services. It must be the case that families in all the constituencies that we represent can have reasonable expectations. When their child is considered possibly to have a learning difficulty, the families should expect a diagnosis in a timely way and that some form of educational support will be made available. Almost—not all, but almost—every family who receives adequate educational support has seen a transformational impact on the life of their child.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered special educational needs and children’s mental health services.
Supported Exempt Accommodation
(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
Yvonne Fovargue (in the Chair)
Before we begin, I remind hon. Members to observe social distancing and to wear masks. I will call Shabana Mahmood to move the motion, and will then call the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates. Members who intend to speak should have asked for permission from the Minister and the Member who secured the debate. I call Shabana Mahmood to move the motion.
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered regulation of supported exempt accommodation.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue. I am pleased to have secured the debate today to discuss something that is a huge problem in my constituency, in my city, and in many other places across the country.
If someone had asked me a few years ago what supported exempt accommodation was, I would not have been able to tell them. I know it confuses people even now. Given my difficulties in dealing with the issue in my own constituency, I have become quite a world expert. I will set out for all exactly what we mean when we talk about supported exempt accommodation.
Supported accommodation is a broad term that describes a range of housing types: group homes, hostels, refuges, sheltered housing, and so on. An offshoot of supported accommodation is referred to as “exempt”. It is basically a resettlement place or accommodation provided by a council, housing association, charity or voluntary organisation, where a person or organisation provides the claimant with—in theory—care, support or supervision. I say “in theory” because too often that is not the case in reality, and that is what I will discuss in detail in my speech.
Exempt accommodation is supported housing that is exempt from housing benefit regulations. If we provide someone with that type of housing, we get access to enhanced housing benefit and can access more money to house this group of mainly vulnerable tenants who are in need of care, support or supervision. We can see why that has happened. The cost of housing vulnerable people—care leavers, women fleeing domestic violence, ex-offenders, people with addiction issues, and so on—is higher. The costs of helping those individuals are higher, so the exemption from housing benefit regulations—the ability to access higher payments to house such people—was designed to allow providers to access adequate sums of money to help individuals as they seek to turn their lives around. Too often, that is very much not what happens in practice.
I stress that there are some good, legitimate providers of this type of housing, who do important work with people in desperate need of housing and help. There are still those who are committed to a social and indeed moral mission to help people to get back on an even keel, recover from addiction, turn their lives around and play a full part in society once again. However, there are too many rogue—I describe them as cowboy—providers who have clocked that this is a lucrative money-spinning opportunity and who take full advantage. They get access to larger sums of money to house housing benefit claimants who need care, support or supervision, and then they do not provide it.
In law, it is the case that all a provider has to do is provide care, support and supervision that is, in legal terms, “more than minimal”. Those three words have plagued me as I have navigated the complex world of supported housing while trying to help my constituents—those who live in such properties and those in communities where there is a proliferation of those types of properties.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
That is the nub of it, is it not? The hugely greater rents and support that landlords can get means that families are priced out of streets, and the problem spreads rapidly down these streets. The behaviour of many of those who get no support makes those streets places where people no longer wish to live. My hon. Friend talks about shady landlords, but is there not a real danger that there is so much money to be made now that organised crime is moving in, in a big way?
Shabana Mahmood
My right hon. Friend is exactly right. I will come to his point about the connection with organised crime, which is becoming a real problem. He is right that the distortion in the housing market in these communities means that working families are being priced out of good, viable family homes. Other social tenants cannot access them either; when a person cannot get enhanced housing benefits, they are subject to the local housing allowance
In fact, this lucrative loophole is causing huge problems not only for the tenants, who often get trapped in unsuitable properties, but for the communities living in those in those areas and those who might wish to live in them, too. It is exactly those nefarious operators moving into the sector who are causing problems in my constituency and across the country.
In practice, “more than minimal” means hardly anything at all. I have heard providers say that installing CCTV in communal areas or having a manager who might visit the property once in a blue moon counts as adequate supervision of vulnerable people. That sort of so-called supervision would certainly pass the “more the minimal” test, but the idea that that is what was meant by the regulations that determine access to larger pots of housing benefit is utterly outrageous.
Cowboy operators know that they can access more money per tenant, and they do not have to spend very much—or indeed anything at all—to demonstrate that they are providing care, support or supervision. So, what is the upshot? Lots of cash is available for those who know how to game the system.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
As my hon. Friend knows, I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill on this matter a couple of years ago because of concerns about a property in my constituency where it took providers two days to discover someone’s body after he died. That is not supervision or support. Councils just do not have powers to deal with this issue. The Charity Commission got involved. Does my hon. Friend agree that we absolutely need better mechanisms by which to intervene when we are worried about a supported housing project?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and her work in this area. I know of the shocking case in her constituency. It really speaks to the problems caused by providers in this sector not doing what they are supposed or intended to do. I will come on to the regulations that I think need to change later in my speech, and I very much hope the Minister will take those on board.
If someone knows how to game the system, the next stage is obtaining properties, which these providers do by leasing them from owners. With that lease-based model, providers do not have to shell out large sums of money to buy property of their own; they do not have to spend lots of money adapting it, either. They simply lease houses, turn them into houses in multiple occupation—or HMOs—and, frankly, watch the money roll in.
This is the other aspect of the exemption in relation to this type of housing: providers are exempt from not only housing benefit regulations but other regulations, such as planning and licensing laws that enable councils in other areas to limit the types and proliferation of HMOs. Those rules do not apply to supported exempt accommodation. Having a so-called article 4 direction in a city or area—as we do in Birmingham—does not stop the proliferation of this type of housing.
In theory, we can see what was being attempted with those rules: to provide more money to cover the additional cost of housing associated with vulnerable tenants, and to allow enough appropriate units to be set up to ensure that an adequate quantity of housing is available. Again, however, that is not how things have worked in practice. The exemption from licensing rules and regulations that applies to other types of HMO does not apply here. Whole streets and communities are becoming saturated with family homes converted into HMOs providing exempt accommodation, housing vulnerable tenants and creating problems for the whole community, while failing the tenants by placing them at risk of very real further harm. It is a system that is failing everyone.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate and for the fantastic work she has done on this matter. As she said, I was alerted by constituents to the rise in crime because of some of these properties, with drug dealing, begging and sex work taking place. I undertook a spot check and saw first hand vulnerable people who were not getting the support they need and living in really substandard, filthy conditions—somewhere none of us would actually choose to live. It was only with West Midlands police, Birmingham City Council and our local residents that we got that place shut down last year. It is the first in the country that we have been able to shut down. Does my hon. Friend agree that the sector is fundamentally in need of reform and that we cannot put this task off any longer?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend has been doing huge amounts of work on this issue in her constituency. Many of my Birmingham colleagues are in this Chamber today. This is a big problem in our city, and I thank my colleagues for their interest in this debate and for the work they are doing in their own constituencies. My hon. Friend is absolutely right about regulation, and I will come to some of the regulations that will be needed.
Some might be thinking that there is surely someone regulating the system and carrying out the very checks to which my hon. Friend just alluded. There is a regulator for social housing, but it simply does not have the powers to deal with rogue operators, because those people know how to game the system. They have set themselves up as small operators, so they are outside of the direct purview of the regulator. They can make lots of money with little to no scrutiny, which is leaving too many people in my patch in utter despair. More than 150,000 households in the country are living in exempt accommodation—this represents a 62% increase in five years—and there are 1,600 such properties in my constituency alone. There has been a massive increase, and we are seeing these problems all over the country.
As I have said, the tenants are too often being let down. Many of my constituents come to me with their problems, and many of my colleagues have raised in the House, and with the city directly, the issues that their constituents face with their properties. It is not unusual to find properties that are in complete disrepair and that we would not consider fit for human habitation in any way. It is not unusual for vulnerable women to be housed with dangerous men in these properties—for them to be at risk of attack or, in fact, to have been attacked.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
I am becoming a broken record. I have brought a case to the Department of a 19-year-old rape victim who is waiting for trial and has been housed, without any regulation, with men who have been released from prison for the exact same crimes that she wishes to put people in prison for.
To respond to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), two women in the last three years have been murdered in “exempt, supported” accommodation. In one case, the key worker did not notice that the woman had been murdered. After visiting the property, she said to the woman’s mother, “Oh, she’s absolutely fine”—but the person she had seen was the person who had murdered the woman. That is the level of support that vulnerable women are getting in this accommodation. It is dangerous, and it must stop.
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She has raised those horror cases in her constituency at regular intervals, directly with the Department and in this House. Those cases of women left at real risk of harm, having truly suffered at the hands of dangerous men who they should have never been housed alongside, are not unique.
It is not unusual, when I have investigated cases in my constituency, to discover that the housing contract that was approved has forged signatures on it. There are multiple layers of subcontractors that get involved with the providers in this sector, and it is not unusual to see faked documents. I have had constituents come to me and say that they are being held to a contract that they have never seen before. It is also not unusual for people to be left without any hot water or electricity.
It is often the case that the tenants, who are desperately in need of care, support or supervision, are left to rot in disgusting properties and at real risk of physical danger. The residents who live alongside them are also being let down: over-concentration in particular areas just loads more need and deprivation into areas that are already struggling. Crime and antisocial behaviour has massively increased. I have had constituents break down, explaining that they are worried that their children are witnessing public drug taking, people collapsing in the street having drunk too much or urinating in their front gardens, all on what were once modest, quiet residential streets that were home to tight-knit communities. That is why so many people in my patch and my city are in utter despair.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
I appreciate the point that my hon. Friend is trying to make. This weekend, a lady came to my constituency surgery to complain of exactly that issue: prisoners on release have been put next door to her and are making her life absolute hell, and she is not able to do anything. Not just that—the environment around the place is becoming filthy. It is creating a huge problem in the environment across the whole of the constituency, and our communities are breaking down because of the under-regulation that is taking place.
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The example he describes is something I see too often in my own advice surgeries. People really are in despair. This situation is attacking the heart of the social spirit we need to help vulnerable people turn their lives around. People generally want to do the right thing by people who are in trouble. They want to have mixed communities where everybody can play a part in uplifting and supporting each other, but when there is an over-saturation of need, without the necessary supporting services, that breaks down the social fabric of our communities and the spirit of social solidarity.
So many times I meet people in complete despair at the change they have seen in their local areas as a result of the proliferation of exempt accommodation units. In many cases, they are desperate to move out and leave the places they have always loved, because they can tolerate the degradation of the living conditions of the whole community no longer.
This is all happening in plain sight. Only the Government have the power to act. I implore the Minister today to commit to taking the necessary action. No more pilots or evidence are needed. We have plenty of evidence; we have been shouting about the evidence for years. It is high time that we see some action.
As others have also said, I have been convinced for some time that some rogue operators in this sector have links to organised crime. I know that the police have raised concerns at a national level. The sector has the advantage of having zero chance of a jail term, so we can see why criminals, previously involved in drugs or whatever, are now concluding that this is a better business to get into. What do the Government need to do? They need to destroy the business model of the rogue operators. Good providers spend the additional money they receive in the ways in which it was always intended, so they will have no difficulty meeting higher legal tests or proving themselves, but that is not the case with rogue operators.
The Department for Work and Pensions needs to tighten up the welfare regulations. We need a proper legal test for access to enhanced housing benefit. The regulations have to be toughened up, and a proper test for what counts as care, support or supervision has to be set out in law. We have to cut off the ease with which this extra cash can be accessed.
From the Minister’s Department, we need tougher regulations and a regulator that has the full range of powers needed to deal with the problem. I want to see a tough “fit and proper persons” test that has to be passed before any provider is allowed anywhere near the sector, no matter how big or small the operator or how many units they have at their disposal. It need to be the law that they should all have to pass such a test.
Local authorities need the power to reject applications for exempt accommodation on grounds of saturation or over-supply in a specific area, and to insist on community impact assessments that have the power to prevent over-saturation. That is the only way we will be able to stop the overloading of high need into already difficult areas.
All tenants in exempt accommodation need to have some sort of local link to the area. Birmingham has become, in the words of some council officials I have spoken to, a dumping ground for people from elsewhere. A local link will not always be appropriate. I fully accept that in cases of domestic violence and occasionally in respect of ex-offenders, a local link needs to be broken to help somebody turn their life around, but we cannot simply allow a system where local authorities or national Government agencies are displacing huge amounts of vulnerability and need into other parts of the country, with no thought whatever for the people left to cope with the changes being made to their communities against their will.
Once a provider has shown that they are fit and proper, and we have prevented over-saturation, we need an inspections regime to keep providers on their toes and a regulator that has full powers of enforcement to clamp down on those who might still flout the system. We need a whole package of regulations to clamp down on the many abuses in the sector.
I know the Minister has been looking into the matter, and the Minister for Welfare Delivery has sent me written assurances that he is considering changes to benefits regulation. They must understand the desperation we are feeling as vast swathes of our communities are changing right before our very eyes, and we have no powers to do anything about it. I hope that in his response today he is able to give us some assurance that this Government will finally take decisive action to turn this absolute horror around.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Eddie Hughes)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue. I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) for securing this important debate. It is a topic that she and I, and a number of familiar faces across the Chamber today, have spoken about.
It goes without saying that problems with supported exempt accommodation are a serious matter that impacts not just the housing benefit bill but hundreds—possibly thousands—of vulnerable individuals across the country. Having previously worked as the deputy chief executive of YMCA Birmingham, I have seen at first hand the challenges that vulnerable people face and the real difference that good-quality support can make. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for mentioning the fact that there are good-quality providers who make a difference. I have a strong personal interest in improving the quality of exempt accommodation, and more importantly the life chances of those people living in it.
As a Government, we are determined to tackle the problems that have dogged the sector for too long, but we also want to do more to support the high-quality supported housing providers that deliver services to some of the most vulnerable people in society. We really need them to continue to operate successfully, so that people who need supported housing receive support and a roof over their head.
As the Minister responsible for homelessness and rough sleeping, I know the key role that good support and the right accommodation play in helping those who have fallen on hard times to get back on their feet and rebuild their lives. As the hon. Lady said, this kind of support is not always given. Right now, there are too many cases of rogue providers benefiting from taxpayers’ money without providing anywhere near the right kind of services for residents. The growth of exempt accommodation concentrated in specific areas of towns or cities is also creating neighbourhood issues, antisocial behaviour and criminal behaviour, as a number of hon. Members highlighted.
The Government are doing everything in their power to tackle rogue providers. Officials in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities have engaged with Birmingham City Council and local charities to build a better understanding of the issues, including the scale of the problem, the drivers of its growth, and its impact on residents and local communities.
Birmingham is obviously not the only city to experience such problems—the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) raised concerns about her area. At a national level, the Government have raised the bar on the standard of exempt accommodation across the board. In 2020, the Department published “Supported housing: national statement of expectations”, setting out the Government’s vision for better ways of working in supported housing and a much higher minimum standard of accommodation. The guidance was critical in showing what good looks like, and highlighted where providers and councils are working in joined-up and innovative ways to drive up quality. Ministers and officials have engaged with councils, housing providers, the regulator of social housing and other regulatory bodies to improve standards and our understanding of the issues.
That effort has been matched with proper Government funding. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood will, of course, be aware of the pilots. We have provided £5.4 million for a year-long pilot in five local authority areas in England. The pilots have been critical in helping us to understand the issues and the differences that we can make. The participants, including Birmingham, bring together teams from across different services, such as housing, revenue and benefits, environmental health, social care and, in some cases, the police and probation services, to address the different issues that residents face. Although I have not yet received the final report from the independent evaluation team, I know that the pilots are delivering real results and acting as models of good practice for councils to adopt.
Birmingham has developed a new charter of rights for residents of supported housing, along with a programme of support reviews and scrutiny of housing benefit claims. In Blackpool, the council has carried out a review of the support provided in accommodation for victims of domestic abuse to ensure that there is sufficient and tailored support.
John Spellar
The problems with exempt accommodation are spreading rapidly because all sorts of crooks are getting in on it. Neighbourhoods are being ruined. Quite frankly, they want action now. When will the Minister bring forward regulations to enable councils to do something about this?
Eddie Hughes
I fully accept the right hon. Gentleman’s point, but part of the purpose of the pilots is to understand not just the scale of the problem, but, more importantly, what type of interventions work most effectively. It is all very well saying, “We know what the problem is. Therefore, we know how to address it.” I am not sure that is completely the case, given that different interventions have had different successes in different pilot areas. It is important, having spent £5.5 million, that we get the full value from the pilots and understand the best-quality interventions to make.
Shabana Mahmood
Would the Minister agree that one of the fastest ways to get action in this area is to destroy the business model of the rogue operators? That will not impact on good operators doing the right thing, because they are using the extra cash to do the right thing. It is the rogue operators that need the scrutiny and the blunt instrument of tougher regulations and a proper test in law.
Eddie Hughes
I understand the hon. Lady’s frustration and the case she is making. Having worked for a good-quality provider, I understand the marginal prices that they work on. It is possible to put good-quality providers out of business through unintended consequences of applying tougher restrictions right across the sector. We need to be careful that we do not throw out the good with the bad when making the suggested changes.
Jess Phillips
I also used to run one of those accommodations, and we had an inspection regime before we were ever entitled to advance with the Department for Work and Pensions. That is not happening today. Every single year that we were given enhanced benefits at Women’s Aid in the Black Country, which serves the Minister’s constituents, there was an inspection. Cuts to councils have ended those inspections. I had to prove what we were doing. I had to show CCTV. That does not happen now. In Birmingham, £100 million a year is being given to rogue providers with no inspection, yet my individual constituents trying to get welfare and disability benefits from the DWP have a greater inspection regime than the people making £100 million.
Eddie Hughes
I understand the hon. Lady’s experience, which we share, but to a degree she proves the point of the pilots; some councils have invested in staff to carry out inspections—as I mentioned when referring to Blackpool—and as a result of carrying out the inspections to which she refers, they have been able to cut their benefit bills. Councils are making the choice as to whether to invest in those staff. I remember such inspections myself. There must be an element of choice, because some councils are making choices.
Eddie Hughes
Time is rapidly running out, but I will give way. Before I do, I just want to say that I completely understand the case that is being made by Opposition Members. I share their frustration and have a genuine, dedicated intention to tackle the issue. This will not be the last opportunity to discuss the matter. I look forward to discussing it outside of this Chamber.
Tahir Ali
I thank the Minister for giving way. Does he agree that councils across the country need regulations so that they can take action against rogue operators? My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) mentioned that she was successful in closing down a rogue operator in her constituency, but that it then opened up in a neighbouring constituency. Councils need the powers and regulations to shut them down permanently.
Eddie Hughes
The best way to conclude would be to say that we certainly will not rule out the use of legislation if that proves to be the most important tool that we could deploy. Hopefully we will learn from the pilots when we have the final report, so that we understand which interventions work best and can develop future models that include them.
Question put and agreed to.
Endometriosis Workplace Support
(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
Geraint Davies (in the Chair)
Before we begin, I remind hon. Members to observe social distancing and wear masks.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of supporting people with endometriosis in the workplace.
What a pleasure it is to have you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Davies.
It would take 20 days, at 24 hours a day, to name every woman in this country who suffers from endometriosis. That is the scale of the problem that we are dealing with. It is bad enough that it takes eight years on average to get a diagnosis, and that there is a lack of settled opinion on the surgery required. It is also bad enough that the blunt truth is that, even in today’s age, the main coverage given to this debilitating disease seems to be when a man stands up and talks about it. I have fantastic support from people such as the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) and other hon. Members, who have supported at every step of the way the debates that I have brought to the House; there is absolute cross-party support for tackling women’s health issues.
Unfortunately, I am often asked, “Why are you doing this, as a man?” I remind people that as Members, we represent everybody in our constituencies, and for most of us, probably over 50% of our constituents are women. It seems bizarre to question why a Member of Parliament would raise issues about the opposite sex; to me, a constituent is a constituent. Endometriosis is such a wide-ranging affliction that affects so many women, and it is so unrecognised.
Today I seek to talk about women’s suffering in the workplace, which mainly comes about through a complete lack of knowledge about this disease. I will start by describing endometriosis. I am grateful to Heather Guidone, board certified patient advocate and surgical programme director at the Centre for Endometriosis Care, for sending me the text entitled “A riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma”, which states:
“Endometriosis is a systemic, inflammatory disease characterized by the presence of endometrial-like tissue found outside the uterus. Endometriosis has significantly negative impact on the physical, emotional, reproductive, and sexual health, financial security, relationships, careers and schooling of those affected. Commonly located in the abdominopelvic region, the disease has also been found in virtually every organ system including the lungs. Mistakenly referred to by some as simply ‘painful periods,’ symptoms are not limited to menstruation and often become chronic over time. It is also entirely possible for those who do not menstruate e.g., adolescents, post-hysterectomy, post-menopause to struggle with endometriosis. This extraordinarily complex illness has body-wide impact, with sustained inflammation, angiogenesis, adhesions, fibrosis, scarring, and local and neuronal infiltration leading to a multitude of systemic issues. Chronic pain, anatomic distortion, adhesions, organ dysfunction, non-menstrual abdominal and pelvic pain, infertility and pregnancy loss, painful sex, bowel and bladder pain and dysfunction, lower back and leg pain, severe bloating, crippling fatigue, debilitating period pain among those who menstruate, even lung collapse and much more are hallmark of endometriosis. Despite the preponderance of systemic symptoms and effects, however, many patient complaints are unfortunately trivialized or outright dismissed at the healthcare level. The disease is also rarely present alone and is commonly associated with multiple comorbidities and secondary pain drivers including various gynepathologies; chronic fatigue; coronary heart disease; rheumatoid arthritis; adverse obstetrical outcomes like loss, preterm birth, spontaneous hemoperitoneum in pregnancy, obstetric bleeding, pregnancy-induced hypertension, preeclampsia and more; painful bladder syndrome; and even an increased risk of certain cancers. Often called a ‘disease of theories,’ definitive causes have been under debate for over a century, yet no single theory yet explains endometriosis in all affected. Most likely, a composite of several mechanisms is involved.”
With millions of sufferers and long-standing recognition of the disease, it is shocking that women suffer such enormous discrimination in the workplace for a common disease. To summarise, I will quote from a paper I was sent by Victoria Williams, a researcher at the Open University, from her PhD thesis, “The experience of endometriosis in the workplace and the influence of menstrual policy: leaning to precarious work to manage a ‘precarious condition’”. She says:
“Endometriosis often hinders the ability to work to the same capacity every hour on every day of a traditional working calendar, and as such participants talked of not being able to hold down full time work, leading to multiple part time roles or precarious work situations, drawn by the flexibility they offered. However, the supposed flexibility is often a double bind with lack of stable contracts, loss of state provisioning and the financial impact of having to take time off for surgery (often multiple surgeries). As such, precarious work may be appealing to people with endometriosis because of the promise of flexibility but they may equally feel and be even less protected.”
I want to expand on that by talking about the sufferers of this terrible disease and the effects it has in the workplace.
We have all been ill. Unfortunately, we have all had a rather nasty stomach upset at some point. We may have been at work when we were suddenly taken short and had to nip out to the bathroom. I do not want to get too graphic—we all know what that feels like. I am sure we have all had a very embarrassing incident at some point in our life. Mr Davies, can you imagine experiencing that fear—and, indeed, that incident—every single day in the workplace?
I have been given examples of that particular situation by women who have been at work, in a meeting, when a sudden bowel movement has given them seconds to get out and get to the right place. Yet one person who gave me such an example told me that her employers tutted and said she was unreliable: “She’s always nipping off to the bathroom.” I do not believe that people are mean or bad. I fundamentally believe that most human beings in society want to do the right thing by people, but if people do not know about the situation, ignorance can have some very nasty consequences. We have to start raising a higher level of awareness of this issue.
National Endometriosis Survivors Support has sent me a catalogue of quotations, with more than 60 patients outlining their experiences. I am going to share about 20 of them with hon. Members.
No.1:
“Having endometriosis has made my career a mine field. I cannot progress how I wish to due to time taken off sick. I have been undermined and people have compared my condition to other conditions with complete ignorance:—suggesting that I was exaggerating my symptoms. Working life is not compatible with suffering from endometriosis—it’s too much and no one understands!”
No. 2:
“I was asked what I was going to do to make things better and stop myself being sick. It’s an incurable disease.’
No. 3:
“I’ve almost lost my job due to discrimination because I couldn’t work as fast when I was in crippling pain.”
No. 4:
“Almost lost my job in a major company despite them saying they’d treat endometriosis occasions of absence separately that wasn’t the case. Also wouldn’t let me home when I was covered in blood to change my clothes and made me go purchase new clothes and told me to use work showers.”
No. 5:
“I was in hospital due to my endo a little over a month ago, I couldn’t walk. Had to call in for work, which I rarely do unless I genuinely can’t help it, they asked if I was being admitted because if I wasn’t they wanted me to ‘make up for it’ by working the next day.”
These are real experiences from real people in the workplace. There is lots of evidence out there.
No. 6:
“Due to the fact that I had two laparoscopies, I had a large gap in my employment record. Despite a very good CV, my applications were rejected because employers saw only the employment gap.”
No. 7:
“I haven’t been able to work for 7 years now and it depressing.”
No. 8:
“Was misdiagnosed as IBS for 4 yrs, my boss said I was exaggerating it, refused to let me do flexi time to help. After surgery, I was signed off for an additional week, and when I called to tell her, she swore and slammed the phone down. Ended up severely depressed. I was suicidal. She brushed it off, and kept calling me Menopausal Mandy.”
I have said it before on the Floor of the House and I will say it again: women are dying. They are killing themselves. They are spending day after day in chronic, crippling pain and do not even have the support of a workplace. That level of destruction of women’s lives is killing women, and it has got to stop. We have to get a better understanding of what millions of women are going through in this country.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
The right hon. Gentleman is making an incredibly powerful speech. The issue is absolutely about conditions like endometriosis, but does he agree that it is also about a basic lack of compassion for women who have periods every month? In January, Dr Rosie Baruah backed the British Medical Association’s call for period products to be provided in all NHS staff toilets. She said the products should be viewed as a basic necessity, not a luxury. The outcry from some men was utterly appalling. The lack of understanding of how challenging it can be for someone when they bleed through their clothes and do not have access to products or toilets was shocking. We need to do much more to get a basic understanding across society and to put policies in place—for endometriosis, but also just for periods.
Alec Shelbrooke
I am so grateful to the hon. Lady, who raises a point that comes up time and again. I do not believe that the majority of people are that unkind, but they just do not know what they are talking about. Her point speaks to a wider issue. People think it is acceptable for there to be an outcry about supporting women in the workplace. That is the problem we face. We have to change societal thinking on these issues.
I will continue sharing the experiences of patients. No. 9:
“I have to use my annual leave after operations in case I get ill during the year and need time off.”
No. 10:
“The problem, they find another way to get you out. They go for competency & make your life hell, picking up on every little point & you don’t have a leg to stand on. I’m so miserable at the moment.”
No. 11:
“This debate couldn’t come at a better time my boss is starting to give me a rough time because I was really rough last week and I even collapsed in work and ended up in hospital and he still expected me to be back in work the following day and this week he gave me a warning letter about my days off and now it’s really worrying me.”
No. 12:
“I was off sick and recently dismissed whilst off sick.”
No. 13:
“I lost my job years ago due to having a few periods off sick for surgeries and some emergency surgeries. All of these were for endometriosis. I worked for the NHS!!! They don’t care whether you have genuine reasons or not, other people take time off for a common cold etc whereas I went to work in severe pain most days; but the hard work I put in was not appreciated.”
What we are dealing with here is constructive dismissal, which is illegal in this country, but is just being swept under the carpet.
No. 14:
“I’ve unfortunately been put on redundancy notice. My Endometriosis sickness has been scored against me as well as my productivity not being the same as everyone else. I have an occupational health report stating to reconsider my targets due to me taking codeine to manage the pain. My question is, is Endometriosis classed as a disability? Is this discrimination?”
No. 15:
“At 18 I was sacked from a nursing home due to having too many days off related to endometriosis flare ups.”
No. 16:
“I was recently dismissed from work whilst off sick because I was off so long so now jobless. I’m 35.”
No. 17:
“I’m 28 currently in full time work but due to the lack of knowledge of this awful disease I’m currently under investigation for fitness to do my job. I work in a nursery. This is all due to having sick days (which I don’t get paid for). With more knowledge and research more women wouldn’t have to try and fight with their management to prove they are sick and can still do their job.”
No. 18:
“At age 21 I was dismissed for having too many sick days due to endo. At age 25 my contract was terminated while I was laid in a hospital bed, after emergency surgery due to endo. At age 28 my job was suspended and then terminated due to them not believing the reasons for absence, i.e. Endometriosis, and I was laid in a hospital bed the day I had my hysterectomy when they emailed me to tell me. I’m 29 now.”
No. 19:
“I was forced to resign from my permanent teaching position while I waited for surgery. The new head didn’t believe how ill I was. I’m much better off mentally being self employed, but not financially.”
I emphasise the examples about teaching and the NHS. When we raise such issues, people sometimes think that we are talking about private employers. We may have a vision of the bad boss who says, “Silly woman!” and that sort of thing, but I am actually giving examples from the public sector. I will be bringing forward debates later this year for the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Education to respond to, but does not the fact that a teacher was dismissed because the headteacher did not understand endometriosis paint an even more worrying picture—that girls are not being told what a healthy period is, and none of them knows what this disease is? How can someone possibly know that they have a disease if they do not know that that disease exists?
The examples are piling up. I had over 60 examples, which I have whittled down to this list. Here is the final quotation on this point:
“Benefits—DWP are not recognising endo as a disease/pushing you to work. When I have completed a work capability assessment they found me suitable for work, have had to push again for a mandatory reconsideration. This goes for UC & PIP as I am currently going through the process of both.”
However, there were some positives. One person said:
“From age 11 I spent the week off school each time my period arrived. I couldn’t move as the pain was too much and so heavy I was changing pads far too often than would be allowed to leave a class to go to the toilet. The school called me and my mum in for a meeting and I was made to go in or face a disciplinary. Quite a few times I bled through which meant taking spare clothes. As a teenager this was mortifying. Now as an adult (32) I have made my employers and colleagues aware and I’m in a job where I can just nip to the toilet. I am also very lucky to have supportive colleagues that help when I am doubled over.”
Here is another one:
“When I was 14 I was sent home from school for being violently sick. Kept being sick continuously until later that day my time of the month started. I work in a pub and over the last 5 years have collapsed in the bathroom, in the back room. I have to have moments in the back room because I’m in so much pain I can’t stand up. Let alone smile at customers. I’ve been sent home a few times when it becomes clear there is no way it is possible for me to stay there. I have to have extra time to sit down and my boss and I have had to put lifting bans in place or by the end of the night, when I start off OK, I can’t walk and I’m in agony from lifting too much and pulling all the organs around. I often have to sleep for hours the day after to try and recover from my shift as it physically takes it out of me and I find it increasingly hard to push through. Thankfully I have a really supportive team or I wouldn’t be able to support myself to live. But I think back to previous bosses and all I can think is how I wouldn’t be there anymore if I still had any of them. Because they wouldn’t have tolerated and accommodated my health.”
In 2020, the all-party parliamentary group on endometriosis published an inquiry, some of which I will read out. This is about the impact of a supportive employer:
“For the last 9 months I have missed almost a week per month, but my work have been very supportive of this as they know I have been undergoing tests. I am very lucky to have an employer who is so understanding”
Another woman said:
“Only one workplace classified me as having a disability which was extremely helpful on days where I was in pain, my boss was fully informed and would have no issue with me saying to her, I have to head home straight away, and I will be back in 2 days.”
Here is another one:
“I have been very lucky that my work have been wonderful. They make adjustments for me working from home when needed and it’s no problem if I can’t work because I’m in too much pain.”
The report also talked about employee rights and employer obligations. The Equality Act 2010 states that a person is disabled if they have a physical or mental impairment that
“has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on…ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.”
When endometriosis is debilitating, due to the symptoms experienced and/or the long-term impact of surgery, it meets the Act’s definition of disability, as with other chronic conditions.
Employees with endometriosis who experience debilitating symptoms have the right to ask their employer for reasonable adjustments at work that would enable the individual to continue working or would reduce the disadvantage suffered due to having a disability, in this case a chronic condition. Reasonable adjustments include, though are not limited to, flexible or reduced working hours; reassigning work or duties; time off for medical appointments; and working from home. Employers must consider requests for reasonable adjustments and cover the cost of adjustments agreed. However, we know of cases where women with endometriosis have requested reasonable adjustments, for example, to work a particular shift pattern or reduce working hours, and have had those requests refused.
The pandemic has had a significant impact. The report on endometriosis and working from home says:
“Both the 2020 APPG inquiry and our 2021 Covid Impact Survey found that those with endometriosis who were able to work from home reported it as a positive development, in particular in relation to better managing symptoms, including…Being able to undertake physical pain management techniques more easily…Being able to take breaks/lie down when needed…Not having to commute to work when experiencing painful symptoms.
Some reported a positive impact on mental health due to enabling better symptom management.
Our 2021 Covid Impact Survey found that 69% of those working entirely from home found it positive, as did 51% of those working partly from home.”
Respondents to the 2020 APPG inquiry made comments about the positive impact of working from home:
“Now have option of working from home, so this helps with not having time sick and then missing pay.”
“I am lucky with my work now I am able to work from home if too unwell to travel.”
“I work from home so I got my hours around the times I feel okay. When my symptoms are bad I am often so tired I just have to sleep for most of the day.”
It is not a completely negative story that I am painting today. There are good employers out there and good examples of where employers have been able to work around it. That brings me on to endometriosis-friendly employers. Endometriosis UK has an endometriosis-friendly employer scheme, which supports organisations to make simple adjustments for those with endometriosis to work effectively while managing a chronic condition. Employers sign up to the endometriosis-friendly employer principles and commit to working to implement them. The principles are: leadership and management support; tackling stigma and cultural change; communications to increase awareness of endometriosis; and promoting the support available for employees with the condition.
We can draw quite a lot of comfort from that, but I put to the Minister that we have got to push that out to employers. I am not going to ask the Minister for new legislation, for new Bills to come forward to the House. I believe that there is plenty of law in place, but it is not being properly used. That is more than likely because employers do not know about this terrible, debilitating disease.
As I draw to a conclusion, I would like to highlight the opportunity to link the issue with the menopause taskforce. The Government press release on Friday stated:
“Minister for Women’s Health and co-chair of the UK Menopause Taskforce Maria Caulfield, said: ‘For too long women have gone unsupported and unheard when it comes to specific women’s health issues. This is especially true when it comes to the understanding of and treatment for the menopause’ It was agreed the taskforce will meet every 2 months, and future meetings will be scheduled by theme which will include…healthcare provision…education and awareness…research evidence and data”,
and “menopause in the workplace”. So we are recognising one condition of women in the workplace—the menopause —but not recognising endometriosis. There is no taskforce out there to do that. I know this matter is not the responsibility of the Minister’s Department. It will have to be something that works across Departments in many different ways.
There are still women at a huge disadvantage in the workplace when they try to start a family, especially those with fertility problems. I am grateful to Dr Larisa Corda for passing me information from an organisation called Fertility Matters at Work, who sent me the following statistics: 72% said that their workplace did not have a fertility policy in place; 83% said that covid-19 had made managing fertility treatment while at work easier; 68% said the treatment had a significant impact on their mental and emotional wellbeing; only 1.7% had a fertility policy that met their needs; and 69.5% took sick leave during the treatment.
Although this debate is primarily focused on supporting sufferers of endometriosis, I urge the Minister to look at the range of women’s barriers in the workplace that still exist today—in the 21st century! Our society should surely have moved beyond the glass ceiling. In fact, it is not so much a glass ceiling as bulletproof glass. There are probably weaker windows in President Biden’s Beast. The glass ceiling is almost impenetrable.
Perhaps today’s debate will start to move the issue forward, because we are going to keep the pressure up. I started this debate in October 2019. Then we had a general election and a pandemic, and we have had to start again. Can it be that nothing happened in two years because we were not raising it here, when we had already raised it in a debate in October 2019? It is important that we do not let this issue go.
I have five asks of the Minister today. First, promote the endometriosis-friendly employer scheme. Secondly, work with other Departments to interact with the menopause taskforce and the shocking lack of support for women with fertility problems. Thirdly, get the Department for Work and Pensions to recognise that endometriosis can be a disability. Fourthly, ensure employers fully understand the Equality Act to protect endometriosis sufferers in the workplace. Fifthly, create a scheme to promote endometriosis-friendly employers.
We are only halfway through this Parliament—I know it seems a lot longer. We have plenty of time to do plenty about the issue in this Parliament, and we have to. The time has come to settle this terrible, debilitating strain on women who are owed so much more. This society—never mind what the Government and Parliament do—is letting them down.
Geraint Davies (in the Chair)
We have five speakers and half an hour before the wind-up speeches, so that is about six minutes each. I call Alex Davies-Jones.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
Diolch. It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I offer hearty congratulations to the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) on securing this debate today and on making a fantastic speech, which I agree with wholeheartedly. I commend him on his vociferous campaigning and support for women experiencing and suffering from endometriosis. It is so important that we have male allies speaking up and talking about the issue. Let us be honest: if the condition affected men, we would not need this debate in the first place. I have spoken passionately about this topic on numerous occasions, so I will try my best to keep my comments brief.
Endometriosis really is an issue that cuts across the political divide, as we have seen today, and I am pleased to see it increasingly receive the attention it deserves, both in this place and on the national and international stages, too. Only a few months ago I spoke, along with colleagues here, in a petitions debate relating to research into endometriosis and polycystic ovary syndrome, and I am sorry to say that, despite the success of both the petition and the debate that followed, little has changed in terms of Government action.
We all know that the number of women living with endometriosis is colossal. Some 1.5 million women are dealing with symptoms ranging from chronic pain and fatigue to infertility, and the research, awareness and support for those suffering from what—as we have heard —can be an extremely debilitating condition is still lagging far behind, and is lacklustre at best. It is clear from speaking to constituents and personal friends of mine who live with endometriosis that there is a lot of work to be done to educate people about the symptoms that can be involved for those suffering.
That is why I am so pleased that today’s debate is focusing on the issues faced in the workplace when living with endometriosis. I genuinely believe that we are making progress in terms of the conversation around gynaecological conditions such as endometriosis. We are seeing a more open approach to topics such as the menopause, period poverty, polycystic ovary syndrome, infertility and many more, and while of course there is always more to be done, I welcome the slow steps that we are taking towards making these perfectly normal conditions part of mainstream dialogue. Sadly, the impact that endometriosis can have on working women is an area that requires more positive change. Coronavirus has shown how quickly working environments can adapt when necessary. From increased working-from-home guidance to flexible hours, small logistical changes can have a huge impact on the quality of life of those suffering with the debilitating pain that endometriosis can often bring.
Part of the issue is the stigma that still remains, which means that in some circumstances, women cannot feel comfortable taking time off or requesting flexible working conditions in order to work around their symptoms. The right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell mentioned fertility; I have spoken openly about my experiences with in vitro fertilisation, and I took sick leave from my employment because I was scared to speak to my employer about what that meant. We were going through a restructure, and I wondered whether if he knew that I was potentially going to have a baby through IVF or would need to take time off, that would jeopardise my chances in the workplace, so I completely understand what so many people are going through. Even more worryingly, I have heard from constituents who have spoken out about the lack of understanding they have received from their employer, from outright dismissal of their condition as simply a woman’s problem to genuine fears over losing their job due to unavoidable absences.
It is not good enough, and I am frustrated because it is clear that education matters. That is the key to supporting people with endometriosis in the workplace, and I am pleased that under a Labour Government in Wales, women’s health, including endometriosis, is taken seriously. Colleagues from across the border may be interested to know that five years ago under a Labour Government, a task and finish group was established to review endometriosis services in Wales, with the aim of improving access to support for women who are affected. When it was published in 2018, that report recommended research in several areas, including the development of an effective symptom awareness tool; evaluation of the follow-up process after surgery; a multidisciplinary approach to symptom management; development of educational resources; and ongoing monitoring of patient outcomes. I am pleased that all of those matters are being taken forward by the Women’s Health Implementation Group and Health and Care Research Wales.
However, we must acknowledge that while progress has been made, we still have room for improvement when it comes to supporting people with endometriosis in the workplace. That is why schemes such as Endometriosis UK’s endometriosis-friendly employer scheme, which encourages organisations to show a commitment to employees who are living with endometriosis, are so important and need Government support. For the 1.5 million people living with endometriosis, workplaces need to be making fair adjustments wherever possible. Given the very valuable contributions that women make to the workplace across so many different sectors, I sincerely hope that the Minister will support this, and outline exactly what the Government are doing to ensure that all those living with endometriosis are able to fulfil their full potential.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I once again congratulate the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) on having raised this issue, and thank him for doing so. Less than a week ago, we were in this Chamber together debating the Cumberlege report and the terrible treatment of women who have suffered from the hormone pregnancy drug Primodos. It feels very much like we are here time and time again discussing how women are being systematically discriminated against in our society, in 2022 and 21 years since endometriosis was first debated in the House of Commons—Members may not know that. I read recently that the people who will lose out most when covid is over are women, who are less likely than men to return to work because of the challenges of childcare. It is always women who seem to lose out: as the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) said, if this were a man’s issue, I suspect we would not even be having this debate. However, we need men in the debate and in the round, discussing with us and pushing ahead, because this issue will affect them, their families, their partners, their children and the people around them.
We all have local endometriosis groups in our constituency, and I pay tribute to those local groups, particularly to Candice and Claire from Endo Warriors West Lothian. They are both sufferers of endometriosis and they fight relentlessly for sufferers in their area. Endo Bonds is another Scottish group I have met with recently, and Endometriosis UK does fantastic work. As the new co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group, along with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), we pay tribute to Sir David Amess and his work on the issue. He was an important and doughty champion for those who suffer from endometriosis.
It feels like endometriosis is to do with policies and legislation, which are dry, dull and boring, but it is the reality for women and endo-sufferers every single day of their lives that they are being discriminated against. That might not be the intention of the employer. I think it sometimes might be accidental, because the legislation and policies in place across the UK do not support, understand or recognise endometriosis as a chronic and debilitating condition that one in 10 women suffer from—so many women. It is a hidden condition and there is little or no awareness of it—although I think the hon. Member for Pontypridd is right that things are changing.
Sceptical and unaccommodating employers in the workplace can have a devastating impact on sufferers. In our APPG inquiry in 2020, we found that 55% of sufferers had taken time off work as a result of their endometriosis; 38% were afraid of losing their jobs due to the condition; and 35% reported reduced income as a result. One sufferer said,
“I left my teaching career due to the exhaustion of endometriosis. I loved education so took a position as a teaching assistant which saw a drop in finance of £18,000/year… I feel pressured not to take any other time off and work through pain frequently.”
The right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell spoke passionately and graphically about the reality of endometriosis. As a woman who has had such bad periods that I have bled through at school, university and work, I know how embarrassing and devastating it can be, and I have what would be classed as relatively normal periods. Endometriosis sufferers are passing out in their workplaces or in the street. They are not able to get to the toilet or be given basic dignity. We are not in a third-world country, but it feels like that. The treatment of those who suffer from endometriosis feels like they are existing in a third-world country. Endometriosis is on the NHS’s list of the top 20 chronic pain conditions, but we would not know it. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about chronic pain and the support for it, and that is incredibly important.
We are robbing women and those who suffer from endometriosis of the ability to maintain and progress in their careers and to provide for their families, and of financial stability and independence. So often, they experience devastating mental health problems. It should not have taken a global pandemic for us to review how we support flexibility in the workplace, but it has. The irony of the situation is that the waiting times for endometriosis are even worse than before the pandemic, but the pandemic has, in some ways, facilitated a rethink and a reimagining of what flexibility people need and should have at the very basic level, because trying to work or just live with endometriosis is debilitating. The Department for Work and Pensions and the Government of the day must recognise that, and employers and educational institutions need to be supportive and be given the information.
Endo Warriors West Lothian has developed the most incredible educational video for young people in schools, and the group worked with Professor Andrew Horne at the University of Edinburgh to develop and fund it. We want to roll it out across Scotland, the UK and the world, and we want to get content, policies and laws that support endometriosis sufferers to make sure they do not have to live in pain and suffer in the way that many of those who we are speaking up for do. I hope the Minister will listen and not just give lip service today but real tangible action.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) on his fantastic opening speech and continued advocacy on this issue. It is so important.
As a member of the APPG on endometriosis and as someone who lives with endometriosis, I am always pleased when it makes it on to the parliamentary agenda. It gives Members an opportunity to discuss the policy changes that need to be introduced. We have heard that the first time it was discussed was 21 years ago, and not enough progress has been made.
During the last debate on endometriosis and polycystic ovary syndrome, I took the time to share my own experience and the difficulties that I and others have daily. I spoke of the general process of going through diagnosis and treatment, because it is not in any way easy. The symptoms go from physical to mental, and it can ruin every single day. Members have been reminded today, and may recall from the last debate, that it takes up to eight years for the average woman to be diagnosed in the UK.
I would like Members to consider what that actually means for people who live with endometriosis every single day. It is eight years, potentially, of living in excruciating pain, waiting for a GP to diagnose the cause of the pain and being gaslighted by the GP and other health professionals while continuously asking about the pain. The pain is so severe that it can prevent someone from carrying out everyday activities, and it can be incredibly disruptive to working.
When I shared my experiences, I did not have the time to talk about how I dealt with my pain at work. When my endometriosis became bad and I was starting to look for a diagnosis, I actually worked here as a parliamentary assistant. Without a diagnosis, people are finding that they have nothing to show their employer to explain why they need time off. When their symptoms are really bad, they have nothing to point to as a legitimate request, in an employer’s eyes, for flexible working.
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, and I congratulate her on the comments she is making. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) for securing today’s debate and for speaking in such a powerful manner.
The hon. Lady speaks from personal experience, and she talks about working in this place and working with an employer who is undoubtedly sympathetic and supportive. To help the Minister address the problems raised in this debate, could she explain what her employer did that made a difference, and what can the Department do to address the problem?
Bell Ribeiro-Addy
I thank the hon. Member for his very well-timed intervention; I was just about to get to that. I was very fortunate in that my employer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), did not even wait for me to request flexible working measures. She thrust them upon me.
I had to go to hospital at one point, and when I explained to my right hon. Friend that they were looking towards an endometriosis diagnosis, she began reading up on it. She sent me links almost every day. She understood, and she allowed me to come into work later, because I was having quite bad evenings. She would shout at me if I was doing too much—the only time she would shout at me, just to let Members know. She gave me an entire month off after my botched laparoscopy, after which she threatened to go to the hospital and tell the doctors about themselves. We are not necessarily asking for people to be that extreme in making flexible working arrangements and allowances for their employees, but there are instances where people can be very good.
After becoming a Member of Parliament, I spoke to our accommodation Whip, my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami). At first, I was told that the way to get a better, more suitable office was to be very nice to him. I spent my time complimenting his ties, and I eventually explained to him what my issue was—not in much detail, but he understood immediately. He did not ask too many questions. He gave me the type of office I needed—one that made it easier for me to get around Parliament. Those are examples of things that employers can do to support women with endometriosis.
We need to urgently bring down waiting times, because going through this can be very difficult. It is not just about waiting times for a diagnosis. It is about follow-up. It is all well and good to diagnose a woman with endometriosis, but if it is not followed up with further treatment after a laparoscopy, it continues. Endometriosis does grow back. Those living with endometriosis need, once they are diagnosed, to be able to understand what they are experiencing and to be able to talk to their employers about their condition, and employers need to take the time to be informed about the condition. But it does not end there. We know that there is no cure for endometriosis, and that treatment at the moment may only be able to ease the pain.
We know just how much endometriosis impacts on people at work. It is worth mentioning again the report of the all-party parliamentary group on endometriosis: 55% of people with the condition having to take time off work is not a small thing, and 27% missing out on promotions because of the condition is not a small thing. Those are issues that women in general already face in the workplace. The report also found that 40% of those with the condition worry that they will lose out in their jobs and further studies, and one in six actually have to give up their work—all because we are not taking care when we need to. We need to support those with endometriosis in the workplace, so that it does not affect their career advancement.
When I was thinking about becoming a Member of Parliament, I had to consider whether I actually could, because I was in so much pain. I had to consider whether I would be able to campaign in the way that we are meant to, and do all the things that we are meant to do. That is not fair for any woman. It is hard enough for women in the House in the first place, and for women in many other workplaces right across the country. For someone to have to think about whether they should continue in a job, or go for a job that they would love, simply because of their condition—simply because that condition does not have the level of importance in policy that it deserves—is not fair at all.
There are several steps that the Government could take. They have to start by clarifying whether endometriosis is covered by the Equality Act 2010. We have to be very clear here. The Equality Act states that a person has a disability if they have a “physical or mental impairment” that
“has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on”
their
“ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.”
If endometriosis prevents an individual from carrying out their day-to-day tasks—and I promise hon. Members that it absolutely does—they should be entitled to the same protection under the Equality Act that those with diabetes currently have. We know that endometriosis affects as many women as diabetes does. Further clarity on that would go a long way to ensuring that those with endometriosis are not discriminated against in the workplace.
I also join campaigners in calling on this Government to adopt an open culture when discussing menstrual health. For far too long, women have been made to feel ashamed or embarrassed when discussing their bodies. For example, when I was at school we had various names for it—people would say their “cousin had come to stay” or that “the red river was flowing,” and people would pass each other sanitary towels under the table. When it comes to our periods, it is all meant to be shame and embarrassment. Further, the Government have to work with the NHS to ensure that people with endometriosis have the right access and support when it comes to time off work.
I know that I am going on longer that I should, but now is a good time to pay tribute to all of the endo warriors: the many different endometriosis organisations and blogs. There are women like me who would not have coped if they had not had all of that information from other women. It should not have to be like that—we are not always medical professionals—but I would not have been able to physically campaign and put myself forward to stand in this House if I had not read all of those things online, most of which were provided by other women. I am so very grateful to them, but the Government really have to step up to the plate.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I thank the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) for securing this important debate, and for his work as an advocate on this important issue.
I have previously spoken about the importance of better supporting everyone living with endometriosis. As a member of the Petitions Committee, I was proud to speak up last year when more than 100,000 people signed a petition calling for endometriosis to be prioritised after years of being overlooked. I have said it before, and I must say it again: endometriosis is a mainstream healthcare issue that we cannot afford to sideline. That, of course, means that it is a workplace issue as well. More than 3 million people live with either endometriosis or PCOS in the UK, and we cannot afford to neglect or ignore them.
Before being elected to Parliament, I worked in the NHS as a pharmacist. I met patients living with endometriosis and saw the pain and difficulty that they face in their day-to-day lives—we have heard many examples of that today. They face chronic pain, difficulties with breathing and, in the worst cases, hospitalisation. As we have heard, endometriosis is a disease that we cannot afford to take lightly, which is why it is so important that everyone living with endometriosis is supported in the workplace with the job security, adjustments, flexibility and protection that they rightly deserve. I know that my party has been very clear about how we would help to achieve that.
A Labour Government would proudly stand alongside our trade unions as they push for better workplace practices and take on rogue employers. A Labour Government would fight for flexible working, with the option for workers to work remotely from home. A Labour Government would end the fire-and-rehire con so that insecure and low-paid work is a thing of the past, and they would campaign to ensure that all workers have full employment protection from day one. That would go some way towards giving everyone with endometriosis the workplace security that they rightly deserve.
I would like to touch on the subject of diagnosing endometriosis and treatment, which many Members have spoken about today. Depressingly, it currently takes an average of eight years for somebody to be diagnosed with endometriosis in England. Although the treatment available for endometriosis is incredibly limited, many women battle with the disease for years without a proper diagnosis, often with very limited information provided by their GPs. Therefore, it is essential that, in the meantime, employers better understand the potential impact of endometriosis, even before diagnosis is eventually made. Employees living with endometriosis may need to take sick leave, work remotely or have adjustments made in the workplace before waiting for a diagnosis, and employers have to be able to accommodate that. The situation at present is not sustainable, and more must be done to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of diagnosis and treatment.
We have heard from many hon. Members that the lack of resources dedicated to diagnosis and treatment means that too many people are working with endometriosis in silence, which is completely unacceptable. Only by cutting the waiting time for diagnosis, and by investing in potential future treatments for endometriosis, can we truly change this for so many patients living with the disease. The Government’s overdue women’s health strategy is a perfect opportunity to set out that change, but their vision for the strategy, which was recently published, made no clear promises to alleviate any of the concerns. This is something that I will be watching closely to see how the Government choose to tackle endometriosis. I urge them to take the issue seriously.
Endometriosis in the workplace needs to be at the front and centre of women’s health. It is currently just a footnote, which means that the Government are failing more than 3 million people living with endometriosis. The Government have the opportunity to make a positive change, and I really hope that they do not waste it, because the women’s health strategy will go a very long way in improving the lives of the more than 3 million women who are currently living with endometriosis.
Geraint Davies (in the Chair)
Last but not least, I call Jim Shannon. Please try to end at 3.28 pm.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I thank the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) for bringing this issue to the House. I can recall speaking, as did others present, in his October 2019 debate on endometriosis and workplace support, so it is great to be back. He highlighted that two years have passed and little or nothing has improved, so the purpose of this debate is to raise the issue again and to seek what we hope will be a positive response from the Minister.
Like the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell), I wish to put on the record that I remember Sir David Amess, who was the chair of the APPG on endometriosis and whom we greatly miss. Like others, I remember his family dearly in my prayers, given the gaping loss in their lives.
I am honoured to work in an office with six girls, so I am outnumbered by six to one. I have a male employee who works in another office, but they are all girls in my office. Two of them suffer from endometriosis. My mother had it; my sister had it. When I married my wife, she also suffered with endometriosis. I remember it well: the doctor at the time probably did not mean to sound the way he did, but he said, “You know, Sandra, if you have a baby, it will sort itself out.” Well, it did not. Three babies later—three young boys later—it still was not sorted. She suffered with that all her life, until a short time ago, so I am well aware of the impact that endometriosis has—although I am not as knowledgeable as the women who have spoken today. They have spoken really well.
Some 1.5 million women and girls in the UK suffer from endometriosis. It often takes eight years for the condition to be diagnosed, as the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell said. One of my staff members has been waiting for more than two years for a consultation for surgery, with no sight of surgery to date. That worries me as well. Endometriosis often leaves women in debilitating pain that paracetamol cannot fix; often, much stronger pain relief is needed.
Some 23,500 women and girls in Northern Ireland are awaiting a consultancy appointment with a gynaecologist. As of April 2021, the number of those awaiting treatment for endometriosis has doubled to 1,236. It is definitely higher than that now. Although this debate is about employers, I need to make the case for a UK-wide provision for those who suffer from endometriosis.
Employers must have the correct guidelines in place to ensure that women feel supported. It is really important for that to be in place. Endometriosis UK has released an employer’s guide to managing endometriosis at work, which provides an in-depth discussion of how to manage sickness pay, flexible working and understanding the impacts of the condition.
When my staff member was going through treatment, it required a high number of doctor’s appointments. It was essential that she had flexibility at work to attend those appointments without worrying about the reaction to asking for time off. I like to think of myself as a fair and honest employer, and I believe I am. Whenever someone presents me with a problem like that, I want to make sure that they have a flexible working situation and the time off and that they feel understood. It probably helps to have ladies in the office—especially if they have had it as well—who can discuss these matters and then they can be dealt with in a constructive and positive way. At the time, it was very difficult for my staff member.
Endometriosis affects women’s health and quality of life. Sufferers should be encouraged to open up to their colleagues and bosses about it. The pain has been described as unbearable, which I honestly believe, based on the experiences of my wife and those in my office.
The condition also impacts on mental health. I want to comment on that in the time I have. It is not just a physical disability—it has a mental impact. It has an impact on families and everyone around, who are often touched by what is happening as well, ever mindful that we are trying to be helpful to the person who is in the centre of it.
I am grateful to all the women across this House who have raised their experiences of endometriosis. We all have a platform to normalise this condition. Employers must provide structured support when required. Endometriosis has been neglected, misunderstood and ignored by employers for too long. That is little wonder, given that even some in the medical profession unfortunately say that they do not get enough specialist support, either. We simply need to do better for the 1.5 million women across the UK.
I conclude by saying that I hope this debate will be recognised by many Departments, but I specifically look to the Minister, who is always responsive on the issues we bring to the attention of the Department for Work and Pensions, to do a full assessment on what further action can be taken to give full support to women who suffer with endometriosis in the workplace, as well as recognition in schools of the difficulties faced by our young ladies who struggle with the early symptoms of endometriosis. As a man, I am happy to add my support; although not in the way the women present do, I understand, in a small way, what happens to them and the support they need.
Geraint Davies (in the Chair)
Now, for the wind-up speeches, I call Marion Fellows. Can hon. Members try to keep it to 10 minutes?
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. We always thank hon. Members for bringing debates to the Floor—it is a format we use all the time—but I really want to thank the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) for bringing this debate and for his knowledgeable, emotional and compelling speech on endometriosis. I want to say that I am even happier because he is a man: it is still true that the fact that a man brought this important debate makes it even more powerful and will probably get it noticed even more. For that, I think we are all grateful.
It has been referred to already, but the 2020 inquiry by the APPG on endometriosis found that those in work had terrible experiences. I will not go over them, because all the hon. Members who have spoken in this debate have already referred to them. They have also referred to their own personal experience—the hon. Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) was one of those who did so—and I think it is always more powerful if we hear about lived experience in any debate and in anything that this House does.
One issue that I want to raise is statutory sick pay. This UK Government must reform statutory sick pay. It disproportionately harms people with disabilities. There has been an argument here today for endometriosis to come under the Equality Act 2010. When people have chronic conditions and have to take time off work, they have to be able to support themselves during that time. The SNP has called continually for statutory sick pay as a minimum to be increased in line with the real living wage, for extending it to 52 weeks instead of 28 and for people to get it from the first day they are sick. This was able to be done during the pandemic; it should be able to be done as we go forward.
We must all continue to raise awareness and fight stigma when discussing menstrual and reproductive conditions, such as endometriosis, in the workplace and in the health sector. I know the difficulties of raising issues in relation to specific illnesses, conditions and diseases—for example, sarcoma, which my husband died of. The issue is getting the medical profession to understand. That is not something that the Government can do directly, but we all can and should raise conditions such as endometriosis frequently, so that information about it gets out there among the general public.
The Scottish Government have a women’s health plan. That aims to take an intersectional approach, recognising that many women and girls in Scotland will face multiple and often overlapping disadvantages and barriers to accessing good healthcare. This UK Government should do something as well. It absolutely is important. I am heartened as an old woman—I am a lot older than I look—when I hear people in the Chamber or here in Westminster Hall discussing the menopause, periods and all these things that were taboo. My late husband was mortified when I was ill and sent him to the chemist to buy me some sanitary towels. This taboo is going, and the further and faster we lose these taboos, the better—especially for women who are suffering.
In Scotland, menstrual health, including endometriosis, is included in the Scottish curriculum, and the Scottish Government have made resources available online for young people, teachers, parents and carers; they are tailored to different age groups. My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) referred to a video. I sincerely hope that that is one of the things being used, because it is education that will help to end taboos and ignorance.
The Scottish Government are also exploring opportunities to partner with Endometriosis UK and sponsor projects that will raise awareness and support the diverse needs of people living with this condition. They have recently funded an Endometriosis UK project, which will help to increase awareness and support for those awaiting diagnosis. Can I ask the UK Government to do something similar? I pay tribute to Endometriosis UK for all its work, for producing its employer’s guide and for its stalwart work in pushing this agenda forward.
Employment law is reserved to the UK Government, but the Scottish Government will continue to use their fair work policy to promote fairer working practices and to press for the full devolution of employment powers, because we want to do more and we are stymied by the fact that an awful lot of this work is reserved. The SNP’s ambition, shared by the Fair Work Convention, is for Scotland to be a leading fair work nation in 2025. That sits at the heart of the Scottish Government’s ambition to move towards a wellbeing economy and it is central to supporting economic recovery and renewal. As the SNP spokesperson on disabilities, I stand up in many of these debates, and we have to take forward the talents and abilities of people with chronic conditions and disabilities, and use them to the benefit of the entire UK. That is vital.
The Scottish Government have also taken steps to close the gender pay gap through the gender pay gap action plan. That is important, because the condition affects women, and we need to ensure that women are not double, triple or quadruple handicapped by having a chronic condition such as this.
I wish to leave lots of time for the Opposition spokesperson and for the Minister, so I will just say that this UK Government must introduce their much-awaited employment Bill and take forward a progressive agenda for workers’ rights, including a day one right to request flexible working, guidance to employers on reasonable adjustments—which we have heard about—and a statutory timescale for those adjustments to be implemented. Such debates as this are important, consensual though they are. We must all push forward and press for better rights for women who have endometriosis and other chronic conditions.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Davies.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) on securing the debate and on the comprehensive and excellent way in which he introduced the subject. He has done much to highlight the condition, raising awareness in this place and across the country. I echo the tribute paid to the late Member for Southend West, who was a tireless campaigner on endometriosis, having chaired the APPG in 2018.
Every hon. Member who spoke today made an excellent speech, all making similar points and stressing the importance of the issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) spoke with great sincerity and passion. She hit the nail on the head about the importance of education on not just this issue, but other women’s health issues. She gave a good example from Wales of how the Welsh Assembly has been working on that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) spoke about her own experiences, as she has on previous occasions. Members who speak from their own experience send an important signal to those suffering out there that they are not alone and that there is help. It was good to hear about the positive experience that she had had with her employer. We should recognise and celebrate it when an employer does the right thing. As Members of Parliament, we should lead the way in ensuring that workplace rights are respected and upheld.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) was absolutely right: I agree that endometriosis is not only a mainstream health issue, but a workplace issue. I was pleased that she quoted extensively from the Labour party green paper on employment rights, which the Minister may have a copy of any time he wants, should he seek inspiration for the employment Bill, which—as has been mentioned—we are still waiting for.
As Members may know, I have spoken in the past about the challenges that my wife has as a fibromyalgia sufferer, with debilitating physical symptoms, unpredictability and delays in getting diagnosis, and the lack of understanding among the public and employers. For me, there are a great many parallels between the two conditions. However, today we are talking about endometriosis.
We know from BBC research in 2019 that many sufferers reported a negative impact on their work, in particular when their symptoms were debilitating, to the extent that some were unable to work on a regular basis, and had no choice but to give up their job and seek benefits such as the employment and support allowance or personal independence payments, which I will come back to later.
As we have heard, the all-party parliamentary group on endometriosis conducted a much-needed inquiry, which found that more than half of women affected had taken time off work as a direct result of their condition, and more than a third were afraid of losing their job due to their condition or reported reduced income as a result. Those are significant numbers, but of course, we are not just talking about numbers: we are talking about real people’s lives and the concerns and anxieties they face on a daily basis.
One respondent to the inquiry said:
“It’s been terrifying worrying about losing my only income. I’ve barely managed to keep my job, but I’ve lost opportunities as a consequence and it’s held my career back. I’ve been too unwell to do any training. Being so unwell has cost me lots financially.”
Another said:
“I feel pressured not to take any other time off and work through pain frequently. It has a negative impact on my mental health and general well-being.”
I am sure Members will agree that those examples, and the many others we have heard about today, are simply unacceptable. People should not be put in the invidious position of having to decide between their work and their health. Much more needs to be done to ensure that workplace support is available for all.
Hannah Bardell
Just on the point about workplace support, one of the things that I did not get a chance to mention is that there are some great examples out there. BBC Scotland has become an endo-friendly workplace, and Fiona Stalker, the journalist and presenter, has done a huge amount of work on this. She is herself a supporter, and she gave evidence to our Scottish evidence session and spoke passionately about the work she was doing. It is important that we recognise that there are some good examples out there, and that those employers can share their experience and what they are doing with others across the UK.
Justin Madders
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention: she did very well to get in that important reference to the good work that is happening up in Scotland. The relevant Government Departments can take a lead from examples such as those.
People have told us that employers lack understanding about this condition. They sometimes do not realise that it is an ongoing condition that requires ongoing treatment and multiple surgeries and, of course, involves debilitating pain. We really should not have to highlight those facts when we are talking about a recognised medical condition that affects 1.5 million people and certainly meets the definition of a disability under the Equality Act 2010. We need to make it easier for employers to feel comfortable talking about this condition with their staff, who will then in turn hopefully feel more supported in opening dialogue. Endometriosis UK provides much-needed support for employers in the form of information and guidance, but it is frustrating that workplace guidance from the Government themselves is still lacking. Given that we have an average diagnosis time of eight years, we could be doing so much more to tackle this problem.
Endometriosis meets the Equality Act’s definition of a disability and, therefore, the reasonable adjustments requirement. There are many ways that that requirement can be met, including through flexible working, reduced hours, reassigned work or duties, and time off for medical appointments. All those things can be done by most employers, but as we have heard, that does not always happen. That is why there is a call for endometriosis to be specifically referred to in the Equality Act as an example of a fluctuating and recurring condition that falls under the definition of a disability. When the Minister responds, I would be grateful if he could indicate whether that is something the Government intend to pursue.
As was mentioned earlier, there are areas in which statutory sick pay can be improved for sufferers of this condition. Outside the pandemic, SSP only applies after four days of sick leave, so somebody needing only two or three days of sick leave would not qualify. Of course, it is also the case that periods of the same cause of sick leave must be eight weeks apart or fewer to count as linked, which can exclude those with fluctuating endometriosis symptoms. It has also been noted that SSP is only available to an employee for a period of sickness for a maximum of three years, which, again, penalises people with chronic long-term conditions such as this. As we have said many times over the past few years, there are millions of people—in particular, many women in low-paid work—who do not qualify for SSP at all. More than two years ago, in the last debate, there was a commitment to engage fully with the APPG’s review, and a promise to improve how we handle benefits. Can the Minister update us on whether there has been any movement in that area, and what plans there are to review SSP for fluctuating conditions such as this?
On access to benefits, which I touched on earlier, respondents to the APPG inquiry reported being assessed by someone who did not understand the condition. Several respondents reported being told by DWP staff or contractors that endometriosis was not even considered a disability, which demonstrates a complete lack of understanding, as well as showing that endometriosis needs some strengthening of protection under the Equality Act 2010.
Those with endometriosis should not be told that they do not qualify for any support and have to appeal many times to get the support they are eligible for. One respondent, who had to go to tribunal to claim PIP, described the situation as “stressful and upsetting”. I am sure we all have constituents who have had to go through that rigmarole many times. Although I know it is not his Department, I wonder whether the Minister can tell us anything about how disability employment advisers are being supported to ensure that the right recognition is given.
As we have touched on already, some employers have not waited for the Government to bring forward guidance and have shown leadership and support by bringing in their own endometriosis-friendly employer schemes, which aim to provide support to organisations to make simple adjustments to help those with endometriosis to work effectively. It is very encouraging to hear that more than 80 employers have joined the scheme so far. They represent a wide range of organisations from financial services companies to medical technology companies, to police forces and NHS organisations.
We want all employers to provide their employees with the right support. There should be no excuse for any Department, or Parliament, not to be part of that scheme. I hope the Minister can tell us whether there have been any attempts to get a standard across the entire public sector. We have had a good debate today, but it is clear that we need to do more to encourage women to feel supported and to deal with this condition in the workplace.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) not only on securing this debate, but on his bravura performance in setting out the case. He gave examples that were difficult to listen to, to help us to understand what women are going through on a day-to-day basis.
I thank hon. Members who have taken part in the debate for their thoughtful and insightful comments. I would just pick out two contributions: the personal experience of the hon. Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) and the example of his wife that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) shared. I thank them both for sharing those examples and what we can learn from them.
A number of Government Departments could have led the response to the debate, because endometriosis sits within a range of wider Government initiatives and strategies. The Department of Health and Social Care is developing the women’s health strategy. The Department for Work and Pensions and DHSC are following through on the “Health is everyone’s business” consultation response. The Government Equalities Office carries out wider work on equalities, and there is of course my Department’s work on labour market questions, such as how to make flexible working the default.
We each talk to businesses and employers on a range of issues. I am pleased to reflect the words of the “Women’s Health—Let’s talk about it” call for evidence. The more we talk about women’s health, the more we tackle the stigma and the taboos. Before I became a Minister, I was a vice-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on women’s health. I am really pleased that this issue is being debated today and that we keep on addressing it and tackling the stigma.
In the interests of time, I will not describe the condition of endometriosis again, but we know that it is a condition that can be especially debilitating for many people. There are some factors, such as time to diagnose, which can exacerbate the situation. Endometriosis has a debilitating impact on a significant number of women across the UK. A respondent to the call for evidence said:
“I have had my endometriosis over looked and just told it was period pain and to deal with it. ‘It’s part of being a woman.’…‘my period is normal and I am exaggerating my pain, it’s all in my head’.”.
That is just plain wrong. No one’s pain and discomfort should be dismissed out of hand and nobody should be told: “It’s just part of being a woman”. We have got to do better.
To understand how best to support people with endometriosis in the workplace, we need to look across the whole system—at educating society at large, at the health sector and at the role of employers, as well as individuals. Only in that way can we start doing the right things for women’s health.
We know that damaging taboos and stigmas remain around many areas of women’s health. They can prevent women from starting conversations in the first place about their health or seeking support for a health issue. When women do speak about their health, too often they are not listened to.
The Government are determined to tackle these issues, which is why we are embarking on the first women’s health strategy. Last year, on 23 December, the Government published “Our Vision for the Women’s Health Strategy for England”, alongside the results of the “Women’s Health—Let’s talk about it” survey. A number of priority areas for action came through that. On women’s voices, more than four out of five women feel, or are perceived to feel, comfortable talking to healthcare professionals about general physical health concerns. That falls to less than three in five women when discussing mental health conditions.
On information and education, as we have heard, my right hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell talked about teachers in schools. If we cannot get it right there, how will we get it right further down the line? Our ambition is for women to have access to high-quality information and education, starting from childhood and continuing right the way through to adulthood, to empower women to make informed decisions.
On access to services, just two in five respondents said that they, or the woman that they had in mind, can conveniently access the services they need in terms of location, and around one in four said the same in terms of timing. On health in the workplace, around one in three respondents said women feel comfortable talking about health issues in their workplace, and one in two said that their current or previous workplace had been supportive with regard to health issues. That clearly leaves a massive gap, which is why we need to go further.
Hannah Bardell
Will the Minister give us an indication of when that women’s health strategy will be implemented, because I know there has been a delay? Will he also make sure that it addresses the profound issues in terms of employment and the DWP? Those matters are not devolved to Scotland, but are still reserved to Westminster, and we will look closely and will want to work with him on those issues.
Paul Scully
I appreciate that, and I will discuss the strategy going forward. Health in the workplace will be a priority area for that strategy. We want to support women and ensure that they feel supported in the workplace, that taboos are broken down through open conversation, and that employers feel well equipped to support women in managing their health in the workplace.
In addition, “Menstrual health and gynaecological conditions” will also be a chapter in the final strategy. It will explore ways to improve awareness and the care and treatment of those suffering with severe symptoms from conditions such as heavy menstrual bleeding, endometriosis, and PCOS. The strategy will set an ambitious and positive new agenda to improve the health and wellbeing of women across England, and it will be published later this year.
We are working to put flesh on the bones of the six priority areas. That will need to be marked by effective co-operation and collaboration across Whitehall. As an illustration of that collaboration and co-operation, the Government also have an active agenda on work and health more widely. We want employers and employees in the round, male and female, to have better interactions on work and health to improve employee retention. It is so important to address these issues from both sides of the lens.
I heard what Members said about the gender pay gap, and we could easily make a business case. Employers invest time and resource in training and developing people’s experiences, so why on earth would they then want to lose someone with a long-term debilitating disease and have to start the entire process again? They should do the right thing.
The Government’s response to the “Health is everyone’s business” consultation was published in July last year. It sets out some of the measures that we will take to protect and maintain the progress made to reduce ill-health-related job losses, and will see 1 million more disabled people in work from 2017 to 2027. The consultation was not specifically on endometriosis, because it did not specify any health conditions. It looked at system-level measures to support employers and employees to manage any health condition or disability in the workplace. We are looking at providing greater clarity around employer and employee rights and responsibilities, with a national digital information and advice service.
We are working with HSE to develop a set of clear and simple principles that employers would be expected to apply. We are increasing access to occupational health, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises that we know are currently underserved. Although the measures are not endometriosis-specific, they are key steps in our effort to change the workplace culture around health and sickness. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy looks at labour market regulation. We are responsible for a policy that has been mentioned and which we know can be helpful for those who suffer from endometriosis: flexible working. I must correct the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell). Flexible working did come out of the pandemic; it started under the previous Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). We have been able to reset our understanding of flexible working in the light of the pandemic.
A respondent to the women’s health strategy call for evidence said:
“Working from home has helped me hugely, as it gives me flexibility to work in ways that are more comfortable for my body. I can work from my bed on a bad day, or have a hot water bottle on my stomach when I have cramps.”
We are taking forward the manifesto commitment to consult on making flexible working the default, unless employers have good reasons not to do so. That consultation contained measures that would increase the availability and the support of the uptake of flexible working arrangements, including whether to extend the right to request flexible working from the first day of employment. By making it easier for everybody to access flexible working, we hope to help those who may need it most, including women suffering from endometriosis.
That consultation closed on 1 December, having received more than 1,600 responses. We are going through those now and will come back in due course. That consultation also introduced plans for a future call for evidence on the subject of ad hoc flexible working, where we want to explore how non-contractual flexibility works in practice. I discussed that with the flexible working taskforce on Monday. We will ensure that the role of ad hoc flexible working, in supporting women with health conditions, is part of its considerations.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell had five questions. We absolutely welcome the work of Endometriosis UK, in particular the employers’ scheme, which we are pleased to see has a high number of participants. Debates such as this will help to fuel more businesses, of all sizes, to join that scheme and share those practices. All that work clearly needs to come under the remit of the women’s health ambassador. I am looking forward to working with that person once appointed.
My right hon. Friend asked about the definition of disability and whether it is included. We have heard the definition: a person is considered disabled if they have a physical or mental impairment that
“has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.”
We have heard examples where that is absolutely the case.
On benefits and how the definition is approached in practice, the work capability assessment determines eligibility for employment and support allowance, and the additional health-related amounts of universal credit. That will indeed be taken into account. It is difficult to have a number of discrete schemes for employers from Government. None the less, big HR departments can take on these things. What we must do is explain to smaller businesses the benefits of tackling these areas.
To conclude, I want to ensure that, through the women’s health strategy, we can get the culture on work and health right. To ensure that the package is as effective as it can be, we need to continue to collaborate. I am looking forward to working with the women’s health ambassador, and I am determined that BEIS should play a full role in driving this agenda forward. I close by thanking everybody for their excellent contributions in this helpful and informative debate.
Alec Shelbrooke
I thank you, Mr Davies, and all hon. Members who have taken part in today’s debate. I thank the Minister for the many positive comments he has made. There is much legislation and work coming forward that we will need to assess.
I will take this opportunity to correct the record. My figures at the start were out of date for some reason. I said that it would 20 days at 24 hours a day to count the number of sufferers with endometriosis. That was based on 1.5 million women; it is actually 3 million women, so that is 40 days. As we go into the season of Lent, perhaps people could reflect, on every day in Lent, on just how many names they might be able to list in the time they are awake during those 24 hours each day.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of supporting people with endometriosis in the workplace.
2002 Gujarat Riots
(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
Geraint Davies (in the Chair)
Before we begin, I remind Members to observe social distancing and wear masks. I will call Kim Leadbeater to move the motion. I would normally then call the Minister to respond, but I think Theresa Villiers wants to make a brief contribution. Any time that is taken will limit the amount of time the Minister has to respond. This is only a 30-minute debate, and there will not be time for the lead Member to respond at the end.
Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the 20th anniversary of the 2002 Gujarat riots.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I am grateful for the opportunity to open this debate, which is my very first Westminster Hall debate.
The riots took place in the days following 27 February 2002 in the Indian state of Gujarat. The precise death toll remains a matter of dispute, even as we approach the 20th anniversary of the events. There is no agreement on the facts of what happened, never mind who was or was not complicit in instigating the violence or allowing it to continue. All we can say with certainty is that, at the very least, 1,000 people lost their lives and that the majority of them were Muslim.
There have been numerous investigations and inquiries, including by the Indian Supreme Court and highly respected organisations, such as the international Human Rights Watch. However, as far as I am aware, none of these has reached conclusions acceptable to all parties, communities and faiths. It is not my role here in the British Parliament—very distant in both time and location from those horrific occurrences—to pass judgment. I would not be able to do so even if I wanted to. What I can do, and what I very much want to do, is consider the legacy of what happened from the point of view of the families of those who lost their lives or were seriously injured. Today is about acknowledging the loss and hopefully providing some comfort, and maybe even some closure, for those families.
Every act of violence has repercussions well beyond those caught up directly in it. Some survivors and relatives will never fully get over the trauma of what happened. For others, while the pain may lessen over time, it will never disappear completely. As hon. Members will know, I have personal experience of this—not just of the loss and the hurt but, crucially, of the desire to never forget our loved ones and to try and learn something from the most horrific of events and so that we do all can to ensure they are not repeated.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing forward her first Westminster Hall debate. I have no doubt that it will be the first of many. Does she not agree that these devastating riots, which led to thousands of deaths, as she mentioned, hold lessons for us, and that we must continue to remember the 2002 Gujarat riots to teach our children the result of intolerance and anger?
Kim Leadbeater
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I agree 100% with what he has said. We have to learn from the past, and far too often events are not acknowledged and the past is rewritten. We have to find a way to make sure that these things are never forgotten, for the future of our children.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I commend my hon. Friend for having secured this important, sensitive and timely debate to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the 2002 Gujarat riots on behalf of bereaved constituents. Does my hon. Friend agree that the death and destruction of those riots displayed the very worst of humanity? It is crucial that we acknowledge the importance of respect for all religions and the importance of living peacefully side by side. Does she also agree that it is imperative that the victims finally receive justice from the authorities?
Kim Leadbeater
I thank my hon. Friend, and I agree absolutely with him. We have to ensure that we find a way, wherever possible, to live peacefully. I will talk about that in more detail shortly.
As I said, many people lost their lives in the riots. I cannot speak for the families of all of them, other than to say that, whatever a person’s background, whatever their faith or religion, and whatever their politics, if they have any, the suffering they feel is no different to anybody else’s. Every family’s story will be different, but I want to talk about one family in particular, as they are constituents of mine in Batley and Spen, and are with us here today in the public gallery, along with relatives and supporters. It is on their behalf that I ask that the anniversary of the Gujarat riots is marked with respect in this parliamentary debate, and that I ask that their belief that justice is yet to be done for what happened is acknowledged.
On 28 February 2002, four tourists were on their way back from visiting the Taj Mahal. It should have been the trip of a lifetime. Their names were Sakil and Saeed Dawood, their 18-year-old nephew Imran, and their childhood friend Mohammed Aswat. Not long after they crossed the state border into Gujarat, their Jeep was stopped at a roadblock. A mob encircled the vehicle, demanding to know their religion. They replied that they were Muslim and that they were British citizens on holiday. In the violence that followed, Sakil, Saeed, Mohammed and their driver were all killed. Miraculously, although Imran Dawood was left for dead, he survived, and is with us today. It is only through his testimony that we know the circumstances of what happened. He remembers Saeed and Sakil pleading for their lives to be spared. It is his fight for justice that brought the international campaign for proper recognition of what happened to my constituency of Batley and Spen.
Nothing that is said or done today can bring Sakil, Saeed or Mohammed back, but that does not mean that nothing can be done to provide some comfort to the Dawood family and, after 20 years, possibly even some sense of being able to move forward with their lives. It causes them enormous hurt that the remains of their three young men have never been returned to them. I ask the Minister to investigate with the Indian authorities whether the repatriation of the remains is possible, and if so, I ask that it should happen as soon as practicable.
The family have also asked about the possibility of an inquest being conducted in this country, a request that I have passed on to the coroner. I have given the Minister notice of my own request that any so-far unpublished report into the rioting carried out on behalf of the British high commission or the Government at the time be made public.
I know how sensitive and emotive this subject is, but at the heart of the debate is a family who are grieving. I know that it means a huge amount to them that we are able to be here today—not just to mark the occasion of the anniversary but to reflect on the issues surrounding it more generally. The Dawood family tell me that recent reports of renewed anti-Muslim violence only make it harder for them to move on with confidence that the terrible events of 2002 could never happen again.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
I sincerely congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate on this issue, which so tragically impacted the Dawood family, some of whom live in my constituency. This is a terrible story of bigotry-motivated violence. I shall continue to work with her to help my constituents to seek the justice that they have long deserved.
Kim Leadbeater
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for meeting me earlier to discuss these events.
Once again, let me make it clear that I am not seeking to make a judgment from afar. Undoubtedly, inter-communal violence is, sadly, not unique to India; tragically, we see it in many parts of the world. I am sure that there is agreement across all parties at Westminster that anything and everything that can be done to prevent such violence should be done.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for the sensitive way in which she has chosen to speak about truly unspeakable events. The burning of the train at Godhra and the chain of violence that erupted saw terrible acts committed and licence given to hatred on both sides of the religious divide. She has focused not on hatred but on healing, not on blame but on balm. I think that the whole House will support her request that everything possible should be done to help her constituents identify the remains of their loved ones, and if possible to return them safely to her constituents here in the UK.
Kim Leadbeater
I thank my hon. Friend for his important intervention, and appreciate his support on this matter.
I have spent recent years since the murder of my own sister making the case for stronger, more united communities where we focus on what we have in common as human beings, not the things that might divide us. I believe that if we work together in that spirit, we all benefit; if we allow our differences to define us, we all pay the price. Even before I became a Member of Parliament, I made the case that political leaders have their part to play too, by doing what they can to heal divisions and not make them deeper. In the words of Barack Obama on a visit to India in 2015,
“every person has the right to practice their faith…free of persecution and fear and discrimination.”
Those powerful words and important principles should guide all nations. They cannot be repeated too often. The deeper they percolate down into the heart of communities, the better chance we have of reducing those tensions that all too easily lead to unspeakable violence.
I will close with a few words to the families of all those who died in the riots. If the best wishes of a humble Back Bencher in a faraway Parliament can bring any comfort, I send you mine. When you are grieving a lost one, all the political arguments, accusations and counter-accusations rarely count for much. Every victim is somebody’s son or daughter, somebody’s brother or sister, somebody’s father or mother, somebody’s friend or neighbour. They are never just a statistic; they are human beings whose lives were brutally cut short when they should not have been, so it is right that we remember them here today. I thank right hon. and hon. Members for joining me in doing just that.
Geraint Davies (in the Chair)
I give my condolences to the family as well. I would normally call the Minister straight away and I will give her about 15 minutes, but Theresa Villiers has indicated that, with the permission of Kim, she will speak. Over to you briefly, Theresa.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
I am deeply grateful to the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Kim Leadbeater) and to you, Mr Davies, for allowing me to speak briefly. As the hon. Member has said, this is an important opportunity to remember all the innocent victims of those terrible events in Gujarat 20 years ago, which of course includes the 59 people who died on the Sabarmati express train. Like the hon. Member, I express my condolences to the families of those people, to the hon. Member’s constituents, and to everyone who lost loved ones in that shocking outbreak of violent rioting.
It is important to acknowledge that there have been extensive investigations into the events of 2002, including a special investigation team appointed in 2009 by the Supreme Court of India. A number of people have been convicted and given long prison sentences, and these matters have, of course, also been the subject of extensive scrutiny and debate in the Indian Parliament. The values of respect for the rule of law, parliamentary democracy and constitutional protection of the rights of religious minorities are at the heart of the Indian political system, and those values have shaped the response to the tragic events in Gujarat. There has been a clear determination to learn from what happened, to do everything possible to stop such riots ever occurring again, and to bring to justice the perpetrators of this completely unacceptable violence and rioting.
The Minister for Asia (Amanda Milling)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Davies. I congratulate the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Kim Leadbeater) on having secured today’s debate, which provides us with an opportunity to pause and remember these tragic events and all those affected by them, including the innocent victims from her constituency: Sakil and Saeed Dawood and Mohammed Aswat. My thoughts go out to their families, some of whom are in the Gallery today. There is a deep connection between the UK and India—one of the world’s oldest democracies, and the world’s largest. I recognise the contributions that all Members have made, both through interventions and through speeches, and will try to respond to the points that have been raised.
The intercommunal violence in Gujarat in 2002 was serious and tragic. It is a sobering reminder of the need to continually work for respect and harmony between religious communities—an issue shared by both our democracies. As we have heard, a nephew of two of the British victims, Imran, was injured, but thankfully survived the horrific attack and was rescued by police. As the hon. Member mentioned, he is in the Gallery today.
We have provided consular support to the families of the British victims since 2002, and we will continue to provide assistance as needed. I acknowledge the hurt the families must feel that the remains of their loved ones have not been returned to them. We have been advised by the family’s legal representatives that an application has to be made to the court in India for the remains to be returned, and we stand ready to support that application once it has been made.
Regarding the coroner’s inquest, we stand ready to engage and provide further consular assistance to the Dawood family if requested. We are not aware of any unpublished reports into the riots carried out by the UK Government at the time. During the riots, many women were raped, and Muslim homes and businesses were destroyed. According to official figures, the violence claimed more than 1,000 lives, although many reports suggest that the true figure is higher. The then Prime Minister, Prime Minister Vajpayee, and the Government of India strongly condemned the violence in the months that followed.
The rights and protections of religious communities around the globe is a priority for this Government. We will continue to condemn any incidents of discrimination because of religion or belief regardless of the country or faith involved. India has a strong tradition of diversity, and we look to it to uphold all freedoms and rights guaranteed in its strong constitution. We have a strong relationship with India. We raise the importance of freedom of religion and belief in India, including the impact of legislative and judicial measures, directly with the Indian authorities at appropriate times.
UK Ministers and diplomats also maintain a dialogue with a range of Indian faith leaders and communities across India. Through our high commission in New Delhi, we support a UK-India interfaith leadership programme, which brings together emerging Indian faith leaders to foster understanding and respect. It is because of our close relationship with the Government of India that we are able to raise important issues where appropriate, including on the rights of minorities.
India is central to the UK’s Indo-Pacific tilt, and both Governments are committed to taking the relationship from strength to strength. Our 2030 road map, which was launched by the Prime Minister and Prime Minister Modi last year, will further advance our comprehensive strategic partnership. It benefits people across both countries, and supports regional and global security and prosperity. The UK’s 1.6 million-strong diaspora community provides a unique living bridge of people, commerce, ideas, institutions and culture. More than one in five of all student visas are issued to Indian nationals.
Indian healthcare professionals are the largest non-British group of staff in our NHS. We recently launched negotiations for a comprehensive UK-India free trade agreement, which would particularly benefit the north of England, Wales, the west midlands and Northern Ireland. India, as the pharmacy of the world, plays a vital role in supporting global equitable access to vaccines. Oxford University, AstraZeneca and the Serum Institute of India are collaborating to develop vaccines at scale. We will work together to uphold democratic standards. We are committed to India becoming a permanent member of a reformed UN Security Council, and will work with India as a strong partner to support its COP26 commitments, including through a $1 billion green guarantee and the British International Investment partnership.
Twenty years after those dark days in Gujarat, it is right that we remember the victims of that violence, their families and all those who died in those tragic events, including those from Batley. It is also right that we reaffirm our commitment to do all we can to foster intercommunal understanding and respect around the world and to prevent such events from happening anywhere. That is why the rights of those from minority groups are an essential part of our dialogue and partnership with India—a country whose constitution protects the rights of citizens of all faiths. It is a partnership and friendship that is very important to us, and which brings immense benefits to a diverse range of people in both our countries.
Question put and agreed to.
Edmonton EcoPark: Proposed Expansion
(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
Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)
I remind Members to observe social distancing and to wear masks when they are not speaking.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the potential environmental and health impacts of the proposed expansion at Edmonton EcoPark.
It is a privilege to serve under your stewardship, Mr Hosie. This debate does not directly have an effect on you, but I hope that you will find something interesting in it that may be applicable elsewhere.
This debate on the proposed expansion at Edmonton EcoPark, with its health and environmental impacts, is critical to those in my area and in my constituency, and I have an apology from the hon. Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor), who is unable to attend. I want to read out a list of those who have signed letters and been involved in campaigning to stop the proposed incinerator, who include myself and the hon. Member for Edmonton; my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell); my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Dame Eleanor Laing), who has expressed her views on this; the hon. Members for Ilford South (Sam Tarry) and for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer); the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who is here; and Assembly Members Emma Best, Joanne McCartney, Siân Berry, Andrew Boff, Caroline Pidgeon, Zack Polanski and Caroline Russell. The AMs obviously could not be here. Some of the Members of Parliament could not be here either, but I thought it would be useful for that list to be read into the record. Those people are all in support of what I am about to say.
The problem is that, for some years, I have been deeply concerned about the way in which the process has been going. The incinerator that was built originally is about to be significantly increased in size. This is a cross-party issue, not one that divides along normal party lines, because it affects ordinary people in the constituencies and areas to which I have referred. They are affected regardless of their political views. I have pretty much never come across a constituent who actually wants this project.
The incinerator sits like an eyesore just below my constituency but, because of the prevailing winds from the south-west, the whole constituency is hit by what comes out of the chimneys. The other day, I happened to visit a shopping centre nearby. It was a cold day and the plume engulfed us as it travelled across my constituency. However, it goes to others as well.
I pay tribute in all of this to the active local campaign group, Stop the Edmonton Incinerator Now, which represents the feelings of many of our constituents. Carina Millstone in particular, and others, have been active on this issue. That is a good sign of how local politics is alive and well and talking about real issues, rather than some of the stuff we sometimes get bound up in in this building.
The project does not represent good value for money, which is the key element of the argument that I am making. In almost everything else we do in the Government or Opposition, we ask whether what we are about to do is good value for money and, further down the road, if costs increase, whether it still represents good value for money. I do not think that the incinerator expansion is a good return for taxpayers in our constituencies. The costs have spiralled, almost doubling from the original £650 million to £1.2 billion now, and nothing has yet been built. The North London Waste Authority has already spent £4.3 million developing plans for the new incinerator. Everywhere, I and other Members have asked for a value for money review of the project, from the Public Accounts Committee right the way through to every single Department and pretty much every single Secretary of State—I do not think I have asked the Defence Secretary, but who knows. The fact is, I have tried to ask everyone.
In normal circumstances, with a budget of £1.2 billion, might someone not want to ask whether a project still represents good value for money? However, nobody seems to say that they will take responsibility for it in Government or local government. It appears that the only body that is capable of reviewing or changing the project is the North London Waste Authority itself. In a way, it sets the exam question and answers it for itself every time. That cannot be right. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will give us some inkling as to whether the Government think that the project carrying on is right.
The high cost is a key reason why we should pause, review and ask fundamental questions about whether this is still the best course of action for our constituents. Let us look at overcapacity. The incinerator is already burning over 320,000 tonnes of waste that could be recycled and composted—just imagine that we are pressing ahead on that basis. Since the plans to expand were originally drawn up, waste generation has actually fallen, because most members of the public are reacting to the drive for recycling and taking greater care in what they do.
The NLWA had a long-standing goal of reaching a 50% recycling and composting rate by 2020, but it is currently still below 30%. If it had got to the 50% marker, there would be even less reason for the incinerator to be there for the local area, and the plan was that it was for the local area—north-west London. I am therefore concerned about the plans because they are no longer about north-west London. To make the project viable, we will now have to drag stuff all the way across London to keep this thing burning. Now we are going to have more traffic on the road, extra fumes and extra environmental damage—just to keep an incinerator going. Why are we so fixed on having this huge thing near my constituency—so much so that we have to drag waste from all over London and clog up the roads just to keep it going? If it does not have enough from the local area as it stands at the moment, what is its purpose?
There are serious health implications for our constituents if the expansion goes ahead. Some 700,000 tonnes of waste will be incinerated every year, releasing what we call ultrafine particulate matter over residential areas. The levels of air pollution over parts of my constituency are already dangerously high. I am informed by Plume Plotter, an independent organisation that plots the plumes of incinerators across the country, that today the plume from the incinerator is blowing right across the whole of my constituency, but particularly the north part, and across the other constituencies I have already named.
We already have many hotspots in my constituency where air pollution is above the World Health Organisation’s air quality guideline levels. Asthma UK and the British Lung Foundation have calculated that 100% of schools, GP surgeries and care homes in my constituency are in areas that are already above the recommended guidelines. Even before any attempts to expand the Edmonton EcoPark, air pollution is having a significant impact on the health of residents across the constituency.
Public Health England has shown that short and long-term exposure to air pollution has significant health risks, including reducing life expectancy and having an impact on lung function, which increases asthma cases and cardiovascular admissions—all extra costs in pure value for money terms, even if we do not think too hard about the terrible health implications.
Seventy NHS GPs from across north London wrote to the Prime Minister last year and said that the plans to expand the incinerator should be pulled. In their letter, they claim that the Prime Minister could save more lives by pulling the expansion than they will save in their entire careers. So here is a big dilemma: the Government tell me that they do not have the power to intervene, but it seems that the waste authority has an unlimited demand for money. Something has gone badly wrong in all this.
The environmental impacts are huge. The issue is that incineration captures only a small amount of carbon from the material it burns. We know that alternative waste disposal methods exist, such as mechanical biological treatment, steam autoclaving and anaerobic digestion. All those things are now being used elsewhere, but not here. Over all the years, we have remained wedded to the idea that we have to burn waste. The methods I have mentioned have all lowered carbon emissions, yet the waste authority continues to push for incineration. Most notable scientific advisers have said exactly the same and questioned the suitability of incineration as a method of waste disposal.
I remind right hon. and hon. Members that the Edmonton EcoPark is right in the middle of a residential area. It is not as though this is some industrial park; it is right in the middle of a very densely occupied residential area, which covers all the constituencies that I named. The chief scientific adviser to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said that the UK should move away from incineration and find better ways to use the value of materials, rather than turning them into carbon dioxide.
This is meant to be a competitive bid, but it is not. It is now down to one bidder. In other words, it is a slam dunk—name your own price. Acciona, the company involved, won the contract with no competitors. The chief executive officer of Acciona acknowledged the other day that the proposed plant is significantly larger than it should be. The man who is building it now does not actually think it should be built. It is bizarre. Every day I look at this project and wonder whether this is a parallel universe. The CEO said at a panel event at COP26:
“The massive oversizing of the [Edmonton] plant is something that is beyond our control. It’s a specific issue of the plant.”
I have raised this issue with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, with Housing, with the Chancellor and even with the Prime Minister. Civil servants have said constantly that it is not feasible to intervene, but the North London Waste Authority, surely, somewhere along the line, needs to be held to account on all the points I have made, which I am sure hon. Members will add to. What more evidence do we need?
Here we have the intransigent, inflexible, arrogant North London Waste Authority—and I mean arrogant, because at hearings it has just swept evidence from doctors and scientists to one side—refusing to budge on a policy that is clearly wrong and that is failing. It is a shameful state of affairs when a public body can no longer be held to account, because it no longer represents what the public want.
When something goes so badly wrong, the Government have to look at it again and ask how it can be that, amidst spiralling costs, health damage and pollution issues, we still plough ahead with a technology that is no longer needed and that will damage people’s lives in my constituency and others. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will be able to answer those questions.
Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)
Before I call the next speaker, I would just say that if the Back-Bench Members could contain their remarks to around eight minutes we will have plenty time for the Front-Bench speeches. I call Jeremy Corbyn.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to be in this debate with you chairing it, Mr Hosie. I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for the energy he has put into obtaining this debate. I also thank the cross-party group that has supported him.
It is essential that we think seriously about where we are going with our environment and our natural world. They are subject to debate all the time, and we have just had COP26. We have to challenge the conventional orthodoxy about waste disposal—that, somehow or other, incineration is a good thing. If we do not, we will continue to damage the lungs of our children and our communities with not just particles but nanoparticles that are very invasive of the human body. The excellent “Pollution from waste incineration” report from the all-party parliamentary group on air pollution, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), describes that issue very well.
I want to say a big thank you to all the local campaigners —those around the incinerator in Edmonton, who my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) represents so well, as well as the people from all over the seven boroughs that make up the North London Waste Authority.
Before I became an MP, I was a councillor in Haringey. I remember well the discussions about developing the incinerator and cross-borough co-operation to get rid of rubbish. Back in the day—we are talking 40-plus years ago—it was seen as an environmental step forward to burn waste in order to generate electricity, rather than to put it into landfill. It was seen as a good thing to do. I do not think many of us on the council in those days thought very much about what would happen beyond that. Incineration saved landfill and was a way of getting rid of waste. It was lamentable. We should not have done it; I know that. Lots of things should not have been done. But now we have a great opportunity to change the dial on whether we go for further incineration or really put pressure on all of us, local authorities included, to develop a much more effective and comprehensive system for recycling our waste. The technology of the 1970s is not appropriate for the 21st century, and we need to move on from it.
The health effects I have mentioned. The emission effects I have mentioned. But as the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green said, who actually suffers as a result of the pollution that comes from incineration? I get that the plant now being considered for development at the Edmonton site is a lot better than the one there now. I get that there are filters and all that. I fully understand all of that. The fundamental problem is that we are piling a lot of waste, including plastic, into an incinerator; it burns and gives off emissions that are gas, which clearly cannot be picked up by a filter, and the nanoparticles, which I mentioned a couple of minutes ago, are very invasive of the human body and particularly damaging to children in schools, out in the streets or playing. We are polluting the next generation.
The opposition around the country to incineration is enormous. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West will be speaking in a few moments. People defeated the idea of an incinerator in Swansea. There is a huge campaign going on now against a proposed incinerator in Wisbech, Cambridgeshire, and there are many other such campaigns around the country. Why? Because people do not want to be polluted, but also because they recognise that it is simply the wrong direction to take and is outwith everything that was agreed at COP26.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
The truth is also that there are now so many new technologies, which others are using, that mean that incineration is no longer necessary. There are other, cleaner ways to get rid of waste.
Jeremy Corbyn
I absolutely concur. If we look at the processes of waste disposal—perhaps we not talk about waste disposal but about recycling as the priority—that are happening in Germany and Scandinavia, we see that they are far in advance of so much of what we are doing in this country. We could do so much more and do it so much better.
The North London Waste Authority area—the seven boroughs—produces about 820,000 tonnes of waste per annum. Much of that goes into the incinerator. Across the whole area, only 30% is recycled. The recycling rates are abysmal, quite frankly. They are abysmal in many other parts of the country as well. Germany recycles 65%. Other countries achieve that. We are nowhere near.
I remember being appointed as chair of Agenda 21 by Islington Council—this was as the local MP—to try to increase recycling rates. We managed to double the rate, up to 30%, after about 10 years of very hard work, including by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) when she was leader of the council. I just felt so disappointed that we could not get so much further. I get it: this is complicated; it is difficult. The collection systems are complicated. But if we want to give our children clean air, if we want to fulfil the obligations that we have signed up to at COP26, we should not be investing more than £1 billion in an incinerator that the CEO of the company says is over capacity anyway. We should instead be looking to a reduction in incineration over 10 years; we should go from where we are now down to somewhere nearer to zero in 10 years’ time. That would certainly concentrate the mind and help us to bring about much higher rates of recycling.
On the decision that has been taken by the North London Waste Authority, I have heard the financial arguments that it has put. I have been asked, “Well, what’s your alternative if you’re opposed to this?” It has been quite a robust debate. I am not accusing the North London Waste Authority members of being anti-environment. They are not. In their individual boroughs, they have done a fantastic job in improving the environment and recycling rates. But we have to go a lot further and a lot faster, and that is why I want to make the case, and support the case that has been made today by others, for some kind of intervention by the Government to prevent this thing from going ahead and to prevent the expenditure of this huge amount of money through “green” bonds—yes, “green” bonds to pay for an incinerator that is, I think, not needed and not necessary.
I will finish with this point. I have had a long discussion with a number of people, who have spent an awful lot of time and are much more knowledgeable on all of this than probably any of us in this Chamber today, about how we can reduce incineration. They point out all the technology that is now available that was not in the past: the separation of metals, paper and glass, and the reduction in plastics. That has to be accompanied by a much tougher campaign on packaging, waste and plastic production. What we will end up with is a massive incinerator without enough rubbish to fill it from the neighbourhood area. We will import rubbish from other parts of London, or from abroad, to burn in that incinerator, because we are locked into a £1 billion contract to build it. Can we pause for a moment, think of what we are doing and the opportunity we now have to turn the corner from incineration to reuse and recycling? That is surely the legacy we want to leave to all our children.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie, and to follow the former leaders of the Conservative and Labour parties in talking about incineration and looking to the future. I speak as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on air pollution. Like previous speakers, my focus is on air quality and climate change. We wish to pause the forward direction of incineration, while the Government’s current plan is to double incineration by 2030. The APPG has published research on the impact of ultrafine particulates, which get through filters and are much smaller than the PM2.5 particulates that we normally talk about.
The World Health Organisation has reduced PM2.5 advisory levels from 10 to 5 micrograms per cubic metre, but latest evidence suggests that if 5 micrograms of PM2.5 are broken up into much smaller particulates of less weight, they actually do more damage to the body, because they penetrate immediately into the bloodstream and vital organs, causing permanent chronic damage.
We are concerned about a new incinerator in Edmonton generating carbon, burning 700,000 tonnes of waste. That quantum in an urban environment, where there are often poorer households, will have significant impact on public health at a time when we have not cracked the air quality problem in Britain. We have wood-burning stoves in urban environments, giving rise to 38% of PM2.5, for example, and we still have a problem with diesel cars. If we add this on, it is a real problem.
There are opportunities, as has been pointed out in the case of Edmonton, where the recycling rate is in the region of 30%. My right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) said it would be difficult to get to that, but in Swansea the recycling rate is 62%. If we can double the rate, we can halve the amount we are burning. That is simple mathematics. The Government must ask themselves how to provide the incentive structure to do that. My right hon. Friend said that when he was a councillor, there was an incentive to avoid landfill tax, and therefore the council moved towards burning.
I appreciate that Treasury representatives are not here, but if we had an incineration tax, there would be more focus on recycling. As has been mentioned, new technologies for chemical and mechanical recycling are available. The risk of this venture is that we will end up with excess capacity, and instead of an incentive for more recycling, there will be one for more burning. It could import burning and produce more waste, which is clearly not what we want.
Some environmental impacts can be far-reaching. Studies in Holland showed that eggshells had dioxins in them from incinerator waste 10 kilometres away. There are issues with heavy metals in children’s toenails, which can give rise to leukaemia. A lot of this science is emerging and not known. The science that predicates this particular planning agreement is basically older technology. Technology is moving quickly, as are medical knowledge and science. There is a case for a moratorium to pause and think. Indeed, there is a moratorium on incineration in Wales.
A pre-action letter for judicial review was written on 28 January. It points out that some of the claims that have been made do not stand up to scrutiny. In particular, it is claimed that the incinerator would produce only 28,000 tonnes of carbon; however, according to the North London Waste Authority’s own figures, it will produce 683,000 tonnes of carbon for something like 700,000 tonnes of waste. It is claimed that the incinerator will be developed to be carbon capture ready, but it will not. Again, that is in breach of the Government advice on energy national policy statement, EN-3.
What has been happening is clearly not in compliance with what the Departments for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy are saying. The Mayor of London predicts that there will be 950,000 tonnes of excess burning capacity in London if this goes ahead alongside other plans. We need a holistic plan. We may want to substitute some of the dirty incinerators for a cleaner incinerator. However, we need to see that in the round with the best technology available.
On that point, this plan does not include a dedicated pre-sorting device for the extraction of plastics and recyclables that should be used again. Those are resources. We need a broader plan of taxing plastic and having fewer types of plastic, so that it is more cost-effective and profitable to extract, reuse and recycle. We need to use less and we should have a fiscal strategy. We hope that that is the benign future. In this case, however, we are simply locking ourselves into old technologies and old science, even though we know that the precautionary principle would make us think, “Actually, let’s step back and not do this.”
The North London Waste Authority is in breach of the advice from the Climate Change Committee on using the expression “low carbon”; energy from waste is not counted as low carbon. There are questions as to whether changes to the national grid and other changes will be compliant with that.
It has been mentioned that the project will be funded by a new type of green bond. However, when speaking about the future for green bonds, the Chancellor has said that the UK would not embark on a generation of tax, as it was called for many years, for sustainable finances that was not up to at least the standards of the EU. Of course, the EU standards for green bonds exclude energy from waste, and the EU taxes plastic at £650 per tonne as opposed to £200 per tonne.
I think this is a moment to pause. If these green bonds go ahead, they might be the source of the next 50 applications. There will end up being financial risks for the bondholders because, as has been said, there will be excess capacity. We will be in the farcical situation of providing incentives to grow incineration, which, ultimately, will mean more pollution in highly urban areas and will affect all our constituents. I very much welcome this debate and it is a great privilege to be part of it.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing the debate and on his outspokenness on this matter, as well as the work he has done on trying to achieve a solution with the Treasury. It is a pleasure to hear from my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who has a record going back to the 1970s as a local councillor in Haringey; he is known for his work in the areas of recycling, cycling and generally standing up for a more sustainable planet.
It is also a pleasure to hear from the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on air pollution, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), who has talked about his outstanding work in Swansea West and beyond, responding to the challenges presented by COP26 and calling for us to be a bit more ambitious and a bit braver on incinerators. This feels like old technology, and that is why I am pleased that Haringey was the only borough that voted to pause and review when it came to the vote on the bid for the scheme.
I want to put on the record our memory of seven-year-old Ella Kissi-Debrah, who tragically died from air pollution poisoning, as was found subsequently. Her mother, Rosamund, who spoke in this House on health and safety day, has spoken powerfully about how she took Ella’s case to the coroner to have the way that she passed away looked at. Ella was the first person to be formally found to have passed away from air pollution in the UK, and that was put on her death certificate posthumously.
I also want to put on the record that we in this House are all aware that air pollution does not affect us all equally. Pregnant women, babies and children, older people, people with lung conditions and those living in the poorest areas and in ethnically diverse communities are particularly at risk. I want to mention my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor), who worked as a health professional before coming into this House, and also my Haringey colleague, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), who has led on a number of issues to do with ethnically diverse communities and their exposure to pollution, as well as the high numbers of our constituents who suffer from lung conditions. We know that 88% of people with a lung condition are affected by air pollution, and 58% of people with asthma have their condition triggered by air pollution. That is the context of today’s debate.
When the plans were first signed off, when the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) was the Mayor of London, the solution might have been okay, but that was a long time ago and things have moved on. It feels as though the project has not had the COP26 test applied to it, and now would be a good time for the Government to look again and challenge whether there is more that can be done. In particular, with the introduction of the green bonds, this might be a good time to explain exactly how they work—there does not seem to be a proper explanation of that—and to see how the project could introduce some best practice around the green agenda.
We are in a climate emergency, and our constituents want change. They want to recycle more and they want our polluted air to be cleaner. They are anxious that the size of the incinerator will mean there is an incentive to produce more waste in order to feed the associated district energy network. They are concerned about the environmental impact of incineration and the emissions that that process creates. They want 21st-century solutions to the management of waste that do not harm the health of residents or our environment.
Our constituents know that it is the poorest areas that pay the heaviest price, and there is real disappointment about the fact that the request for a pause and review was unsuccessful and the contract has now been awarded. It is vital that the design properly recognises the advances that we all expect to see in carbon capture and storage so that it is ready and equipped to take full advantage of them. Haringey’s council leader has urged the North London Waste Authority to bring forward the carbon capture and storage element of the plant so that it is operational as soon as possible to reduce CO2 emissions, and I fully support her in that goal.
It is important to say that it is very difficult for local authorities to be innovative when they have had cuts of up to 50% to their budgets. Collectively, the eight local authorities’ budgets have been cut back enormously since 2010. The Government have failed to fund local authorities properly for the past 11 years and failed to be ambitious in their approach to waste. I urge the Government to work with the North London Waste Authority and our communities to radically increase recycling levels and to meet and beat the Mayor of London’s target of 50% by 2030.
The other measures that the Mayor of London has introduced around expanding the congestion charge and the ULEZ are painful for many of London’s motorists. It seems that the project that we are debating could make a very big difference with one installation, so it is a pity that we have not looked at its impact on making our air cleaner, as we desire to do.
It is vital to recognise the environmental and health impacts of incineration, but also to make sure that we do not simply push the problem out of London by transporting the capital’s waste to other parts of the UK or overseas. As other Members have mentioned, it would be unenviable to see waste from other parts of London coming back to London because there is capacity in this incinerator. Not only would that be bad for the environment, but it would be socially unjust.
I will conclude with this: all of us in this House care deeply about cleaner air, and about the new information we have regarding the impact of air pollution on asthma sufferers and others with lung conditions. I hope that the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), and the Minister will work to ensure that we belatedly get the best possible outcome for our north London constituents.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Chingford and Wood Green—
Dr Whitehead
Sorry, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). My office companion is my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), so that is on my mind all the time, as it should be. I need to get my nomenclature absolutely straight.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green on having secured today’s debate. The debate appears to be about a specific incinerator in a specific place with specific proposals for its extension, but it encapsulates much wider questions: how do we deal with our waste in modern times, and what are the best ways of dealing with it and, indeed, the energy that might come from it? By examining those wider questions, we loop back to the best thing to do with the North London Waste Authority, and the Edmonton incinerator in particular.
The first thing that is important in addressing this modern debate is to recognise—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) has correctly pointed out—that although we have been talking about waste this afternoon, we should not be talking about it in this way, because the vast majority of waste is actually a resource. In the context of the modern circular economy, the idea that we place a material that we have used into a stream, and then it is gone out of the system one way or another—it used to be buried; now it is incinerated—is clearly not appropriate if we regard that waste primarily as a resource. The duty of authorities dealing with waste should be to make sure that as much of that resource as possible can be recovered for use elsewhere, one way or another.
Jeremy Corbyn
I thank my hon. Friend for what he is saying. Does he not think we should be recording the level of composting, as well as recycling? Sadly, a huge amount of food waste and green waste probably ends up in incineration or landfill when it could be efficiently composted and provide compost for local people.
Dr Whitehead
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: that is one of the elements of regarding waste as a resource, because waste—particularly municipal waste—will have a number of elements in it. It will have putrescibles in it, it will have waste from household activities, it may well have wood waste and metal waste and it will certainly have plastic waste. All those types of waste can be reused, recovered and dealt with in different ways. The very last thing that we should do with such products—what we should do only when nothing else can be done with them—is to burn them, even if we think we are recovering energy.
In 1971, when the Edmonton incinerator first came into production, the convention was that we took the rubbish from the bins, put it in a truck, took it smartly down to the local tip and buried it in landfill. That was it. For a long time, we were the worst country in Europe for landfilling our waste. In recent years, that has turned around but, unfortunately, only into the next stage up on the waste hierarchy, which is to incinerate, rather than to bury in the ground. Both the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green and my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North mentioned in their excellent contributions that we have come a long way since that sort of analysis—not just whether we should move waste up the hierarchy more efficiently than we used to, but what is available to work with once we decide what we want to do.
I appreciate that the task for a waste authority, such as the North London Waste Authority, is difficult. It has huge amounts of waste coming in every day, it has to do something with it, the task never ends and, in recent years, the Government have not helped, providing little support for innovative and novel ways of dealing with waste, separating resources out and so on. A little while ago, for example, the Government pulled a number of PFI—private finance initiative—plants that local authorities had in the pipeline for waste. Authorities are pretty much left to their own devices to bring forward innovation.
A waste authority under such pressure might well think, “This is a real problem. Here’s the easiest way to solve it without putting it into landfill.” That seems to be what has happened with the Edmonton incinerator. Not only have we had a large incinerator there for a number of years, but plans are now in place to extend it, which would make the past even more nailed down in the future, with that future being incineration. Believe me—this has happened across the country, including in my own county—once a contract for a large-scale incineration facility such as that is entered into, it is with us for a long time. It freezes the technology in time, at that particular point.
As the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green mentioned, however, that means that, as we begin to go up through the waste hierarchy, we start by taking further fractions out of the waste. It becomes a beast that is more and more hungry to be fed, because of the contracts for the incineration plants. So, waste is pulled in from a wider and wider area and, in the end, it can start to impede efforts to move up the waste hierarchy with all that waste.
Those concerns are over and above the one expressed by hon. Members this afternoon about what comes out of the chimney stack from incineration. We have learnt a lot more these days, than we had in the early ’70s when the arrangements first came into place. Although techniques for dampening emissions such as nitrous oxide, particulates and various other things that come out of the chimney stack have improved, that is still a very real issue, as hon. Members have mentioned, for the health of the neighbourhoods around incineration plants and, indeed, a wider area, as we have seen from studies that have taken place on the subject.
We have a proposal, which I have described on other occasions as a throwback. It tries to take technology from two decades ago into the next decade and land us with it for a long time to come. It should not happen.
There are several other ways, both emerging and in quite widespread practice, of dealing with those waste streams, particularly through fractionalising them out. Another small matter to put at the Government’s door: we still do not have sufficient plastics recycling and reprocessing facilities in this country. We are still in the business, possibly for a long time to come, of exporting plastics waste. We need Government action to make sure that those plastics recycling plants are available so that waste authorities can ensure that their plastics collection is properly dealt with afterwards.
We also know that there are techniques available to gasify waste in general and produce syngas and dimethyl ether for use in vehicles and various other plants. It is a renewable form of gas that could be useful for the future of heating, which is very topical. Those techniques do not produce the sort of emissions that arise from incineration plants. They can deal with massive amounts of waste. Indeed, anaerobic digestion, which is a rather grand way of talking about composting—
Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)
Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is coming close to the end of his remarks. I want to leave time for the Minister.
Dr Whitehead
Indeed, Mr Hosie, I am approaching the end of my remarks and I am guided by your instruction.
There are modern techniques that can deal with waste. My first plea to the North London Waste Authority is to think about those new techniques in a positive way and not simply decide to take the same old tried and tested routes. There are so much better ways of doing it. My second plea is that, if the North London Waste Authority decides to have a review of the matter, the Government will support that. I know that the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green has written on several occasions to request the Government’s support for some of the new measures that can deal with waste and resource in a different way.
We have the low carbon future to think about. We have got to get waste and resource management techniques in place that address that, either through carbon capture and storage or new methods of collection and dealing with waste. I am certain that the current proposal, should it go ahead, will not stand the test of the future. We should have our eyes on that future and together make sure that the waste arrangements for north-west London are fit for it rather than harking back to the past.
The Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change (Greg Hands)
It is pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Hosie. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing this important debate.
The Edmonton incinerator was given development consent in February 2017 after the consideration of relevant issues, including potential environmental and health impacts. The Government have no statutory or financial basis for undertaking a cost review of the Edmonton project. That would be a matter for the local auditors, but I have listened carefully to my right hon. Friend and, having heard what he said today, if I were a council tax payer in his constituency, I would be concerned about whether there is value for money in the project. He reports costs increasing from £650 million to £1.2 billion, which is a huge increase. I am not surprised to learn from him that local people are testing whether the North London Waste Authority has the necessary robust practices in place.
Let me lay out the process. All large energy-from-waste plants in England must comply with strict emission limits and cannot operate without a permit issued by the Environment Agency—in this case, the one granted in 2017. The Environment Agency assesses the emissions from new plants as part of its permitting process and consults the UK Health Security Agency on every application it receives. UKHSA’s position relating to incineration is that modern, well run and regulated municipal waste incinerators are not a significant risk to public health. I will come back in a moment to the arguments about weighing them up versus other means of waste disposal and waste avoidance. The concerns raised by my right hon. Friend’s GPs could usefully be directed towards the UK Health Security Agency, if he thinks that there is evidence that their conclusion does not abide with what is going on locally.
Greg Hands
I want to make some more progress. I am going to describe the policy, and then I will respond to the points raised in the debate and, if I have time, I will take some interventions.
In relation to the Edmonton energy-from-waste plant, the Environment Agency issued a permit for the new plant in 2017. Once the plant becomes operational, the Environment Agency has pledged to perform regular inspections and audits to ensure that the plant is complying with the requirements of its permit.
I will now turn to the debate itself. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green is coming up to 30 years in this House. He has had a wide variety of roles, including six years as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, and has always been an extraordinary champion for his part of London. He is a fellow London MP and has been a brilliant representative on a huge number of fronts, not least this issue, working with local campaign groups. He has raised the issue with the Prime Minister, various Secretaries of State and me. He made some very strong points on value for money and the process.
A number of Members made the point about recycling falling short, and I agree with them. I represent two local authorities, and Hammersmith and Fulham has one of the worst recycling rates in the country, so I have every sympathy with my right hon. Friend and every other Member, including the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), when it comes to recycling.
My right hon. Friend said that there was only one bidder. It is not right for me to comment on the operation of the process, but I think he reported that the winner of the bid said that there was “massive oversizing”. I am not at all surprised that local taxpayers would be concerned to discover those reported comments from the chief executive of the bidding company.
The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) also spoke. Waste incineration with energy recovery should not compete with waste prevention, re-use or recycling. We do not see them as being competing technologies. Notwithstanding new technologies, which he and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green raised, the evidence available shows that it remains the case that the carbon impact of most mixed waste streams is lower if sent to energy-from-waste plants than if sent to landfill. Obviously, that is not a comparison with recycling or waste reduction, but in terms of the strict comparison with landfill—I think that the right hon. Gentleman and I agree on this—energy from waste is better than from landfill. I am not suggesting that he was making an alternative point. I think that his point was that recycling is better. We do not disagree with that at all.
The hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) talked about the doubling of incineration. I am afraid that I do not recognise that figure. That is not our understating of what is in the planning pipeline. In line with the commitment in DEFRA’s resources and waste strategy to monitor residual waste capacity, officials are currently assessing planned incinerator capacity against expected future residual waste arisings, so that we can understand what future incineration capacity may be required following the implementation of key commitments in the RWS. There is, therefore, an assessment of our overall waste capacity vis-à-vis the incinerator capacity. That is being carried out by DEFRA, which is the policy lead on the waste element, while I am the policy lead on the energy element.
The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) rightly drew attention to the tragic case of Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah and her mother Rosamund. We London politicians are all keenly aware of the findings in that case and the reverberations that it has had across London and the country for public policy on air quality and air pollution, which has been improving significantly in London since 2010. However, it is still not satisfactory for any of us as Londoners or London MPs. We still have a way to go, and the tragic case of Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah is a stark reminder of the important work that has to be done.
Carbon capture, utilisation and storage at the incinerator is a matter for local decision making, but the Government have very ambitious targets on CCUS, including 6 megatonnes of CO2 equivalent by 2030, rising to 9 megatonnes by 2035. We have an industrial decarbonisation and hydrogen revenue support scheme to fund our new hydrogen and industrial CCUS business models. The Government take our air quality obligations extremely seriously, and we are already taking significant action to improve air quality. The Government absolutely recognise that there is more to do to protect people and the environment from the effects of air pollution, and that is why we are taking the action set out in our world-leading clean air strategy, which includes proposals to reduce emissions from domestic burning.
Geraint Davies
Does the Minister accept that the doubling of incineration that I mentioned is predicated on the 50 consent orders that have been given by BEIS—his Department—for new incinerators? The 2022 standards of technology and health, rather than those of 2017, should surely be applied to the Edmonton EcoPark incinerator, but the main point is that his Department is giving out development consent orders.
Greg Hands
The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point, and I will go back and check that. My understanding is that that is not consistent with the consent orders that have been granted, but I will write to him on the detail as to whether we have the same set of figures and whether we are arguing at cross-purposes. I am very happy to write to him and give him some more detail.
Our clean air strategy includes proposals to reduce emissions from domestic burning, industry and farming, alongside stronger powers and an improved framework for local government to tackle more localised issues. The legacy of our reliance on landfill is responsible for around 75% of the carbon emissions from the waste sector, so it is not simply a matter of switching back to landfilling any non-recyclable waste. That is why we have been clear in the resources and waste strategy that we wish to reduce the level of municipal waste sent to landfill to 10% or less by 2035, and why we are actively exploring policy options to work towards eliminating all biodegradable waste to landfill by 2030.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green has raised some serious concerns about the North London Waste Authority, the finances of the incinerator at Edmonton EcoPark, and whether it represents value for money. I have listened very carefully, and I am sure local taxpayers will be very concerned at what he reports to the House. I hope the waste authority responds in full, as I have done, to the points that he has raised today. In the meantime, I commend him for securing this important debate, and I hope I have laid out the Government’s views on the overall national policy behind waste and energy.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
It has been a very good debate in the short amount of time available, and the cross-party nature of it is important. Nobody has stood to defend the nature of what is going on with the North London Waste Authority. I take the comments from my right hon. Friend the Minister to suggest that, should things be otherwise and should the Government have the capacity as they see it, they would be concerned about the nature of what is going on at the North London Waste Authority. I therefore say that this has been a very important debate. We have flushed out the idea that an organisation is riding roughshod over the views and concerns of local people, and that there are serious health concerns, economic concerns and environmental concerns raised by the massive increase in the size of the incinerator at Edmonton EcoPark. I call on the North London Waste Authority, which will have heard the debate, to act reasonably, to pause the expansion, to review it, and to try to figure out whether there is a better way to achieve the requirements made by both the Government and the local authorities, in order to achieve a better environment for all of us.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the potential environmental and health impacts of the proposed expansion at Edmonton EcoPark.
Written Statements
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Serious Fraud Office and the Unaoil Case: Independent Review
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Attorney General (Suella Braverman)
I wish to provide details of an independent review I have commissioned into the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) failings identified by the Court of Appeal in the case of R. v. Akle and Anor [2021].
This case, investigated and prosecuted by the SFO between 2016 and 2021, resulted in criticism by the Court of the way in which the SFO engaged with third parties and handled disclosure. On receiving the judgment, it was clear to me that swift action was needed to identify how these issues arose and what changes are needed to ensure they are not repeated.
I have appointed Sir David Calvert-Smith to lead this review. Sir David is a former Director of Public Prosecutions and High Court judge who has led several independent reviews and has significant experience relevant to the issues raised.
Sir David will consider and provide recommendations in relation to the following matters:
What happened in this case and why. In particular, the review should assess the two key failings identified in the judgment:
what occurred as regards SFO contact with third-parties and why; and
why did the SFO disclosure failures identified in the Court of Appeal judgment occur?
What implications, if any, do the failings highlighted by this case have for the policies, practices, procedures and related culture of the SFO?
What changes are necessary to address the failings highlighted by the judgment and any wider issues of SFO policies, practices, procedures or related culture identified by the reviewer?
Sir David will have the support of a small team including the Deputy Chief Inspector of Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate, Anthony Rogers. Sir David will aim to report to me by the end of May 2022 and I will then provide a further update to Parliament on his findings and my response to them.
The Government are determined to make the UK a hostile environment for all forms of economic crime. It is a priority for me to ensure effective sponsorship of the SFO, which includes supporting and holding the Director to account, as well as safeguarding the SFO’s independence to investigate and prosecute crime.
[HCWS602]
Contracts for Difference: Frequency of Allocation Rounds
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)
Since 2014 the contracts for difference scheme has been at the heart of our efforts to diversify and decarbonise our power system. Since 2010 we have increased the percentage of power generated from renewables from 7% to 43%, creating thousands of high-skilled jobs and bringing new industries to our former industrial heartlands.
To date contracts for difference has awarded contracts totalling almost 16GW of new renewable electricity capacity across multiple technologies. Since the first competitive allocation round (AR1), it has contributed to a more than 60% reduction in the per unit price of offshore wind, with substantial benefits for consumers. We opened our latest allocation round (AR4) on 13 December 2021. It is our largest yet, with an ambition to procure more new generating capacity than the last three rounds combined.
We want to further accelerate our low carbon power generation, making the UK less reliant on volatile fossil fuels and creating more home-grown power. This will help us to deliver a fully decarbonised electricity system by 2035.
To do this we set out an ambition to accelerate the deployment of low-cost renewable generation by undertaking a review of the frequency of the contracts for difference allocation rounds. The review of allocation round frequency has now concluded.
I have decided to increase the frequency of the allocation rounds to every year, from around every two years as it is currently. The next allocation round, AR5, will be brought forward to March 2023 and it is our intention that the subsequent allocation rounds will be held every 12 months in the following years.
In parallel, we have recently opened a consultation on changes to make AR5 more effective and forward-looking, particularly on the application process for supply chain plans.
Our review suggests that the move to more frequent contracts for difference allocation rounds is overwhelmingly supported by industry. Increasing the frequency of allocation rounds will help to encourage low carbon electricity generation, which may also encourage investment in supply chains, and benefit the UK in the longer term not least by protecting consumers from potentially volatile global markets.
These more frequent rounds will also support the delivery of those renewable technologies, such as onshore wind, offshore wind, and solar PV, which are key to decarbonising the power sector, creating jobs and bringing even more investment to our former industrial heartlands. This will sit alongside the Government’s commitment to bring forward another large-scale nuclear power plant this Parliament.
The contracts for difference scheme has been successful in deploying low-carbon generation and reducing the cost of capital for renewable technologies. As more renewables are added to the system, we will continue to consider how the scheme could evolve over the longer term to ensure it reflects the impact of renewables on the wider system, including total system costs.
[HCWS600]
Project Gigabit Winter Update
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Media, Data and Digital Infrastructure (Julia Lopez)
Today we have published the fourth Project Gigabit quarterly update. Thanks to the work of industry and our record investment, we are making phenomenal progress delivering the biggest broadband rollout in UK history.
In this Project Gigabit delivery plan winter update, we share the news that over 65% of UK premises now have a gigabit-capable connection—a huge leap forwards from just over one in twenty in January 2019.
This delivery plan update also reports on:
newly launched regional supplier procurements in Cambridgeshire and the north-east of England, as well as local supplier procurements in rural Dorset, north Northumberland and Teesdale;
16 local and devolved authorities which currently have live schemes to top up our voucher projects worth £10.5 million;
details of upcoming procurements in Cornwall, Norfolk, Suffolk, Hampshire and Shropshire; and updates on how we are working closely with the devolved Governments to develop and deliver Project Gigabit plans in some of the hardest-to-reach areas in the UK.
Since the launch of Project Gigabit in April 2021, we have connected over 3,500 public sector building hubs: places like Borrowdale Primary School in Cumbria, which is now able to take full advantage of online learning while also speeding up connections to surrounding homes and businesses. We expect to connect a further 100 hubs over the next quarter.
To support this phenomenal progress, Building Digital UK (BDUK) will become an Executive agency of DCMS. BDUK will be based at a new head office in central Manchester, boosting the city’s credentials as a fast-growing digital tech hub.
This Government are supporting access to the internet of the future—building broadband that is fast, reliable and future-proof, that supports 5G, and that paves the way for new and unexpected developments in commerce, trade and technology.
I will place a copy of the Project Gigabit delivery plan winter update in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS601]
UK Terrorism Threat Level
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
The Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (JTAC) has reduced the UK national terrorism threat level from severe to substantial. This means that a terrorist attack in the UK is likely.
JTAC previously raised the UK national threat level from substantial to severe following two terrorist attacks in the UK in quick succession, in October and November 2021. When the threat level is at severe it means an attack is highly likely.
JTAC judges that, despite these two attacks, the current nature and scale of the UK terrorist threat is consistent with the level of threat seen prior to the attacks. The attacks in October and November 2021 reflect the complex, volatile, and unpredictable nature of the terrorist threat in the UK.
The decision to change the UK terrorism threat level is taken by JTAC independently of Ministers. JTAC keep the threat level under constant review based on the very latest intelligence and analysis of internal and external factors which drive the threat.
Any reduction in the threat level is positive but it must never make us complacent. Terrorism remains one of the most direct and immediate risks to our national security. The public should remain alert, but not alarmed, and report any concerns they may have to the police.
[HCWS603]
Grand Committee
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, Members are encouraged to leave some distance between themselves and others and to wear a face covering when not speaking. If there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bell rings and resume after 10 minutes. We now resume the Subsidy Control Bill. I understand that the Minister was cut off in his prime.
Subsidy Control Bill
Wednesday 9th February 2022
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Subsidy Control Act 2022 View all Subsidy Control Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 84-IV(a) Amendment for Grand Committee (Supplementary to the Fourth Marshalled List) - (8 Feb 2022)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, I trust that it will be acceptable to your Lordships for me to pick up exactly where we were cut off in our prime on Monday, which noble Lords will be gratified to know was where I began speaking to Amendments 55A, 57A, 57B, 60A and 61.
Collectively, these amendments would allow the call-in powers currently provided to the Secretary of State to be exercised by the subsidy advice unit as well. Amendment 61 would create a new concept of a post-award investigation, which would be an extensive review by the SAU of the public authority’s decision-making process before giving a subsidy or making a scheme. I recognise the concerns of noble Lords that this system perhaps gives too great a responsibility to the Secretary of State. However, as I set out in response to the preceding group of amendments on Monday, it is appropriate that the Secretary of State is responsible for making these judgments in the interests of the entirety of the United Kingdom. In that function, they are answerable to this Parliament and to the interests of every citizen in the UK, and ultimately, as I keep stressing, for ensuring that the UK is compliant with its international commitments.
However, I would submit that there is a fundamental difference between a power to be exercised by the Secretary of State as a safety net, and a power to be exercised by a body such as the Competition and Markets Authority. There is very little possibility for the latter to exercise discretion and act only in situations that otherwise come to its attention. To carry out the functions envisaged by these amendments, the SAU would therefore have to scale up considerably. It would need a full market monitoring function to remain apprised of any potential new subsidies, including a public-facing arm to gather information and complaints, and it would need to develop clear criteria and decision-making processes for using these call-in powers.
Of course, ministerial decision-making must also be even-handed and evidence-based, but Ministers can and should have more discretion to make case-by- case judgments and will naturally be more aware of forthcoming distortive subsidies and where our international obligations are more likely to be impacted. The amendments tabled would require a very significant shift in the role of the SAU and would move it far closer to being a regulator of subsidies, which, to address the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, is not the Government’s intention, for the reasons that I have set out. This would of course create costs to the taxpayer, both in setting up this expanded subsidy advice unit and in the legal uncertainty and delays for legitimate subsidies that are placed under review or investigation.
I would also like to address the specific point that a government Minister will be unlikely to call in a subsidy that the Government themselves are giving. As I said in the previous sitting, Ministers will remain open-minded to referring a UK government subsidy to the SAU where it would be beneficial to have additional scrutiny of their own assessment. As with the regulations for automatic mandatory referral, there is no exemption for government subsidies. It is important to recognise that the SAU referral is a mechanism for scrutiny, transparency and advice which will support but not directly form part of the enforcement process, so there is no concern that the Government will be launching a legal challenge against themselves.
In summary, creating a function for the SAU to refer subsidies to itself or to initiate investigations would fundamentally change its role from one of oversight and monitoring to regulation and enforcement—a change which would be welcomed by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, but not by the Government, noble Lords will be shocked to know. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Before the Minister sits down, I have a question, which may pertain to debates on later groups of amendments. Do the Government consider a subsidy scheme to be a regulatory provision within the terms of the internal market Act?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The internal market Act is of course a separate piece of legislation from the Subsidy Control Bill. I will pass on the noble Lord’s question, think about it and respond later or in writing.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I thank the Minister. I ask because my understanding is that a regulatory provision can be a subsidy; it has nothing to do with there being two separate pieces of legislation. As the Minister knows, the internal market Act takes into account any regulatory provision that will have an impact on the operation of the internal market. As the Minister has previously said, subsidy schemes will be considered as part of the operation of the internal market. So, if such a scheme is a regulatory provision under the terms of the internal market Act, any national authority would be empowered under that Act to ask the CMA for its view on whether that provision will distort the internal market. Is my understanding of that correct?
Lord Callanan (Con)
No, my understanding, on advice, is that it does not form a provision under the internal market Act.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
Again, before the Minister sits down, I have a couple of questions. I apologise to him for this, but we have had the benefit of actually seeing his words written down in Hansard. Some of the phrases he came out with were quite dense and intricate, and I was rather puzzled by two points. The first was when he talked about the functions of the SAU. He said that it was intended
“to support public authorities in giving the subsidies that are most likely to be distortive.”—[Official Report, 7/2/22; col. GC 383.]
I am puzzled by the word “support”, and puzzled that we would want to support the ones that are most distortive. I am sure I am misunderstanding it, but I would like the Minister to explain.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I will have to look back at those remarks myself. It is possible that I was misinterpreted at the time, but I will have a look and come back to the noble Lord.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
Let me also read out a second bit that I felt was particularly incomprehensible. If anybody in the Committee can understand it, I will be very impressed. I will read it slowly. The Minister said:
“I do not believe there is a contradiction in saying that a full assessment of compliance is light-touch regulation for the public authority but could prove arduous to replicate for the subsidy advice unit.”—[Official Report, 7/2/22; col. GC 383.]
Lord Callanan (Con)
I think that speaks for itself. I stand by those words.
Lord Fox (LD)
I thank the Minister for giving way. Perhaps that is why we asked him to stop—so that we could start again today. His answer to my noble friend Lord Purvis is intriguing. He seems to be saying that no matter how much a subsidy affects the UK internal market—I will wait for the Minister to finish his conversation—it can never be within the purview of the internal market Act. Is that what he just said?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Yes. Subsidy is not a regulated provision within the scope of the UK provisions. We are debating this in a future grouping, so we will no doubt be able to come back to it, but my advice is that it is not.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all those who spoke in the debate and supported my Amendments 55A, 57A and 57B. I am grateful in particular to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, who made a very powerful speech about the need for an independent evaluation of subsidies. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, pointed out that, if we had an independent assessment, it would increase the possibility of consistency in the whole regime, which I thought was a very important point. The noble Lord, Lord McNicol, made the point that it was completely counterintuitive, after everything that had been said about the control of subsidies, not to have an independent evaluation. So I hope that there is quite a degree of support in the Committee for these amendments.
I do not think that the Minister today really explained why we could not have an independent regulator. He said that it would require a certain scaling up of resources. Well, obviously, it would. He said that it would become more like a regulator, rather than whatever else it is. Well, we want it to be a regulator—that is the whole point—with control of subsidies. But I really did not feel that he had made out a case against. He told us what the SAU does, but he did not explain why it would be wrong for it to do more things or to be scaled up and become a proper regulator.
The reason why I was particularly interested in the two passages that I put to the Minister—he is going to write to explain them to me—is that the more I listened to him, the more it became clear to me that the general line in this Bill is, “Public authorities know what they are doing, so let them, by and large, get on with it. Maybe somebody will object; they have 28 days. Don’t make it any longer because a lot of them might object; just give them 28 days. But by and large public authorities know what they are doing, so we want them just to get on with it”.
The Minister said that the SAU would not carry out its own assessment of compliance. Is that enough? It seems as though what it is going to do is extremely limited: it is just going to examine process. The Minister said:
“The SAU would be acting without the understanding and body of evidence that the public authority will have created in developing the subsidy”.
That is, the public authority will know more than the people who are checking the subsidy. Is that really the right way round? It seems to me a real Alice in Wonderland to call this control of subsidies, when those who have actually invented the subsidy and paid the money know more about it than the people who are regulating them—and this is admitted by the Minister at the same time. The Minister also said:
“There is no intention to build up an extensive monitoring function within my department or the CMA”.—[Official Report, 7/2/2022; cols. GC 383-4.]
Surely, that is exactly what we need. If we are talking about the control of subsidies, how can we have it without monitoring subsidies? That becomes even weaker when you consider what has been referred to again and again in Committee about the 28 days.
It seems to me that the SAU is far too weak for this really to be a Subsidy Control Bill; it ought to be renamed the “Support of Subsidies Bill”, because that is actually what it is. The reality of the Bill is that it is not attempting to control subsidies at all; it is just giving expression to the undertakings that the Government gave on Brexit in the TCA. I see the Minister smiling, although I shall not refer to that again. The Government gave assurances that were embodied in the TCA about not having subsidies that might distort competition with the European Union, so we have to have a control mechanism, and it is this Bill. But there is also a national interest in having proper competition and control of subsidies, and I do not think, frankly, that the Bill does that. It is far too weak. But having made my points and not persuaded the Minister, I look forward very much to the letter he is going to write to me explaining what he said. With that, I withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Blake of Leeds
“(2) The annual report must also contain an assessment by the CMA, on the basis of the reports it has prepared, of the extent to which the subsidy control regime under this Act is meeting its stated policy objectives.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the CMA to opine, in its annual report, on the extent to which the new subsidy control system is meeting its stated policy objectives.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I rise to move to Amendment 62, in the name of my noble friend Lord McNicol. I am also looking forward to discussing Amendment 63, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, which is supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, and my noble friend Lord Whitty.
Following on from the discussion of the purpose of the work of the CMA and the opportunities it will present, I want to express the concern that we could be missing a real opportunity if we do not look more closely at the way it will work. Amendment 62 has been tabled to probe the question of what practical effect the CMA’s work will have, beyond on the making of individual decisions taken in isolation on the basis of its advice. Also, as we have discussed, what powers will it have to investigate or highlight areas of concern which come to light?
On a general note, in many cases the delegation of responsibilities to a regulator or other form of arm’s-length body creates a symbiotic relationship whereby day-to-day work can be carried out independently of the department, but that same department can benefit from the experiences of its agency. We remain concerned that, as I have said, we are missing trick and that the whole process is weakened by the lack of a need to respond annually on what work the CMA is undertaking collectively. It is not clear whether there will be a sense of the overall contribution that the CMA and subsidy control will make to key policy areas. Will its findings have an impact on future policy and statutory guidance, or is its sole purpose simply to state opinion or comment on the individual cases before it?
Amendment 63 will enable us to have a specific debate on the policy objectives around net zero, particularly linking to the outcomes of COP 26, as we have discussed before in Committee, and highlighted by the publication this week of the levelling up White Paper. Where are we going to be able to assess progress? Surely, a section of the CMA’s annual report would be a very good place and opportunity to bring together the sense of purpose of the subsidy regime.
We have talked a great deal about what subsidies are and who they are there to benefit. Surely this presents an opportunity to make sure that there is the transparency, clarity and real sense of forward thinking that will help take strategic objectives forward. As I say, we are concerned that the Bill is fairly silent on these areas, and we would like to hear from the Minister what the contribution of the CMA and its work will be to the progress of strategic priorities going forward. With those comments, I beg to move.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register and apologise for being unable to attend day one in Committee. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, for introducing my amendments on that day, and to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for their support.
Today I am introducing Amendment 63, again with the welcome support of the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. Some of the reasons for this amendment have just been set out. It is linked to my earlier amendments in that it is aimed at ensuring that progress towards achieving our net-zero and environmental goals is reported on and monitored after decisions on subsidies have been made.
Amendment 63 provides that a review of the impact of the subsidy control regime on progress towards achieving net zero and our environmental goals should be included in the annual report prepared by the CMA, as has just been mentioned. The Government have said that the new subsidy regime aims to enable public authorities to deliver
“strategic interventions to support the UK’s economic recovery and deliver government priorities such as … net zero.”
As debated on day one, the framework permits subsidies that support our net-zero goals, but there is very little in the Bill that actually enables subsidies that support or encourage consideration of net-zero and environmental goals in their design and the way they are awarded.
Ultimately, if we do not do this, the Government will not know whether the subsidy regime is delivering on its net-zero and environmental priorities. Tracking underlying progress is absolutely crucial to identifying whether their aims are being met and to understanding what progress or changes we need to further make.
On day one, the Minister said that:
“Net-zero and climate change considerations are not inherent to all subsidies”,
and that placing a principle that considers our climate change and environmental commitments in the Schedule 1 principles
“could lead to public authorities having to do bespoke, possibly onerous, assessments for every single subsidy awarded or subsidy scheme made”.—[Official Report, 31/1/22; col. GC 158.]
The delivery of net zero is one of the key strategic priorities of this Government, but if there is to be no specific principle ensuring that public authorities properly factor this into their decisions, it seems even more important that we put clear monitoring and reporting of these issues in the Bill.
The Bill sets out an overarching monitoring and reporting process, predominantly led by the subsidy advice unit within the CMA, which includes determining
“whether any changes should be made to the regime as a whole or certain aspects of the regime.”
However, absolutely nothing explicitly suggests that this monitoring and reporting process will encompass the impact of the new subsidy regime on achieving the strategic net-zero priority.
With nothing in the Bill that embeds this consideration, it is really difficult, if not impossible, to understand how the Government intend to monitor whether their strategic objectives are being met, or indeed possibly being undermined. The Government have declared a climate emergency, so it seems quite astonishing that we are prepared to put public money towards efforts that could undermine that goal. Indeed, all public money should be put towards anything that makes this goal more available and possible for us all.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 63 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, to which I and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, have added our names.
Before doing so, I want quickly to speak about Amendment 62, which I support. I recognise the less than complete nature of the assessment it advocates, namely the
“assessment by the CMA, on the basis of the reports it has prepared”.
However, those reports are limited to the voluntary or mandatory referrals referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). I also have some reservations about the reference to the legislation meeting its stated objectives; that is living in hope that a stated objective might actually appear in the Bill at some point.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for her comprehensive introduction to Amendment 63; it leaves me with little to say. These subsidies will be used by hundreds of public authorities. According to figures I have seen, some 550 public authorities will be able to give out subsidies under this regime. Can the Minister confirm that figure? It is important that many of them fully grasp the importance of their decisions. The Government have said that meeting the net-zero target and levelling up will be policy objectives, but words are not enough. We need to be able to demonstrate that that is the case. This amendment would ensure that it is the case with respect to the net-zero target and other environmental targets. The amendment will be especially necessary if the Government resist that tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, which would include a new principle to consider net-zero goals.
Clear and detailed monitoring and reporting of climate change risks and opportunities has been successfully implemented in other parts of our economic system—for example, by the FCA and the PRA through amendments to last year’s Financial Services Act, and by the Pensions Regulator through the pensions Act, also of last year. For the first time, the Pensions Regulator has published guidance on governance and the reporting of climate-related risks and opportunities. Such inclusions in those Acts really help to drive climate alignment across these sectors.
This Bill is an opportunity to do the same in relation to our subsidy control regime. Amendment 63 would allow the Government to continue to claim that they are a global leader on climate change.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 63 but I want to say a couple of things about Amendment 62 because, as we proceed through this Committee, it is clear that there is a bit of fuzziness about what exactly the role of the CMA is. Historically, the CMA and its predecessors have reported effectively on the nature of competition across the British economy but, of course, the issue of state intervention has been left to the European level. Some of us were slightly concerned that the CMA would take over that function after Brexit; in the end, I was sort of convinced that it should, rather than creating a whole new body, but it has to do a number of different things. It has to look after our trade obligations not only to the EU but in all the other trade agreements we have reached, in which we agreed that we will not unreasonably subsidise goods that are traded so as to undercut our trading partners. So, we have a big international obligation—one that can lead to retaliation and all sorts of problems arising with the WTO and other international bodies.
We have all that, but we also have the area of subsidies in the UK. This includes the delicate relationship between the UK Government and the Secretary of State acting for England, the devolved authorities and local authorities. It is a very complex area, and all this is to be landed on a new body within the CMA: the SAU. It is not yet clear whether it will have the resources, expertise and personnel to do that. We have gone along with this, but we need to be clearer on, for example, whether it is a regulator or an overseer and reporter on the activities of the public authorities that are giving subsidies and quasi-subsidies. As we debated earlier in the Bill, this involves a range of things—for example, preferential procurement. At the end of my contribution at Second Reading, I asked the Minister whether my county would be able to give preferential treatment to a local firm because it provided local employment, or whether it had to make sure that the neighbouring county of Wiltshire was not thereby being undercut.
Lord Wigley (PC)
Could my noble colleague clarify his thinking with regard to subsidies to the steel industry? Clearly, such subsidies could have far-reaching effects on the environment. To make a judgment on that would require people with an intricate knowledge of the steel industry and the background and significance of subsidies in that sector. At what level should that decision be taken?
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, that is probably a question for the Minister rather than for me, but, clearly, the decision on, for example, the Cumbrian coal mine, which is to feed into the steel industry, is an incredibly complex issue which will not be resolved by the narrow criteria of whether it enhances or undermines competition. The noble Lord is correct in that respect, because it would also have a considerable effect on carbon emissions.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 62 and 63. Amendment 62 seems pretty basic post-legislative scrutiny, so I am not quite sure why it is not in the Bill already. The Government are bringing in this legislation and it makes sense for the Competition and Markets Authority to report on whether the legislation works in practice. That is fairly fundamental, is it not? If it does not, then, obviously, we can improve the legislation; if it does, then the Government can pat themselves on the back. The amendment should have been in the Bill. I am expecting the Minister to say, “Yes, of course, we’ll write it in now.”
On Amendment 63—I wish I had added my name to it; I agree with everything that we have heard so far from noble Lords—I have said before that we should have a provision such as this in every single piece of legislation. As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, just said, it is basic to what the Government claim to care about. The principle should underpin everything that they do. We know that the scale and size of the net-zero problem is huge, and the Government will need a lot of help. They will need a lot of private and public investment, and it will involve a lot of changes to government taxation and spending.
Any aspect of government that thinks that the climate emergency is not part of its remit is not thinking hard enough about it. We need both the whole of government and the whole of society to address the work on the climate and ecological emergencies. Every Bill that comes through here, every tax levied and every pound of government spending should move us towards net zero. There is an environmental saying: doing nothing risks everything. The Minister will say that the Government are doing a lot. I would argue that they are doing bits and pieces, so the saying could be: doing bits and pieces risks everything as well. We need a coherent approach.
I was asked whether I would still like a meeting with the Minister. Yes, I would, and I would like to throw down a little challenge. If the Minister or his team can come up with any issue that is not relevant to our climate emergency, I will be happy to argue how it is relevant. I look forward to that meeting, and I might bring some heavyweights with me.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, each year, the CMA is required by the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 to prepare a report on its activities and performance that year. The report must be sent to the Secretary of State and laid before Parliament.
Clause 66 requires that the CMA include details within its annual report of any subsidies and schemes which have been referred to the subsidy advice unit in that year. This includes referrals made on both a mandatory or voluntary basis, including those made by the Secretary of State, and it is designed to mirror the level of detail required for information on the CMA’s other functions. This information will help to provide transparency as to the number and types of subsidies and schemes referred to the subsidy advice unit. Among other things, it will help both the CMA and Parliament to understand whether the subsidy advice unit is operating as expected and has the appropriate resources to fulfil its functions.
Amendment 62 would add the requirement for the CMA to set out an assessment on the extent to which the regime is meeting its stated policy objectives. On this matter, it is important to draw a clear distinction between the purpose of the CMA’s reporting under this clause, as opposed to the more in-depth review and reporting that it will do under Clause 65. The effect of this amendment will be to combine the purpose of these two distinct categories of report, and in doing so place an unnecessary burden on the CMA in producing its annual report.
In response to the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, on what effect the CMA reports will have, the monitoring reports will already be published for all to see. The Bill contains numerous provisions for amending specific aspects of the regime though secondary legislation. This ensures proper parliamentary scrutiny of any proposed changes to the regime. The purpose of the subsidy advice unit’s regime-level monitoring function is to provide an objective source of information about the functioning of the new system. This feeds into the Government’s objective of monitoring and continuous improvement for the regime, while also providing confidence in the regime to stakeholders and the public across the UK. Requiring more frequent monitoring reports from the CMA, with improved scrutiny and transparency, might indeed seem attractive but in reality, it could cause the opposite effect to that intended by the noble Baroness, resulting in more superficial reports that will be less useful in assessing the overall effectiveness of the subsidy regime.
The information required by Clause 66 is designed to sit within the CMA’s existing reporting requirements. The annual report is a descriptive and limited tool for the CMA to publish key information about its workload and resources and to ensure that it is moving towards achieving its own organisational objectives across all its functions. This report must include summaries of its significant decisions, investigations or other activities carried out during the previous year.
As currently drafted, the requirements under this clause similarly require summary descriptive information in relation to the subsidy advice unit’s functions, which will give an indication of how those functions are being used and whether it has the appropriate resource to fulfil the demand for those functions. This should be placed in contrast to the five-yearly reports specific to the subsidy advice unit under Clause 65, which will provide the CMA with the opportunity to publish a substantive analysis of the operation of the regime and the subsidy advice unit’s role within that regime. Of course, the CMA may include further data or case studies on subsidy control in its annual report if appropriate. Clause 66 is only a minimum list of the information that it will be required to include.
Under the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act, the CMA must also include a survey of developments in relation to all its functions, which may include developments within the subsidy control regime that the CMA deems of significant enough importance to publish, and thereby inform Parliament. The Government’s position is that the five-yearly reporting under Clause 65 is the appropriate place for the CMA to provide an assessment of the regime’s performance. The five-yearly report provides for an appropriate timescale for producing such assessments and the CMA is empowered under Clause 67 to gather information for this purpose. This will provide the CMA with the time and resources necessary for the subsidy advice unit to provide for a considered review of the subsidy control regime.
Amendment 62 also requires that the SAU produce its assessment only
“on the basis of the reports it has prepared”.
It is our view that any assessment of the regime’s performance will need to take a much wider view of the regime than only that part of it to which the SAU has reported that year. That is why the five-yearly reporting requirement in Clause 65 has been drafted to give the CMA the scope and power it needs to consider the matter thoroughly. Supplementing those powers with additional requirements in the annual report may only lead to the production of an assessment that is relatively narrow and partial, and that does not have the benefits of a more extensive review over a longer period.
I support the view that there may be circumstances in which we need more analytical and evaluative information more frequently than every five years. I would like to reassure the Committee that the Secretary of State has the power under Clause 65 to direct the SAU to produce a report for a specified period. It is also worth noting that, under the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act, the Secretary of State already has the power to request a report or advice from the CMA on any matter relating to its functions.
Regarding parliamentary scrutiny, there should be no reason for any committee of this House or the other place to wait for the CMA’s reporting under either Clause 65 or Clause 66 in order to take a close look at the subsidy advice unit’s functions. It is always open to noble Lords and honourable Members of the other place to examine this regime and the SAU through the usual process of parliamentary committee.
Amendment 63 would expand the scope of the CMA’s annual report to include an assessment of the effect that the regime is having on the UK’s ability to achieve its net-zero carbon emissions goal, set out in the Climate Change Act 2008, and the targets set under the Environment Act 2021.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
Given that the UK has committed to a 50% cut by 2030, a review that takes place only every five years does not seem wholly practical, given that we have only eight years.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
It is the Government’s position that five-yearly reports are sufficiently frequent to take a view of how successful this is. They are the appropriate tool to conduct a review of the environment and energy principles. Clause 65 provides an achievable timescale for delivering complex and substantive analysis of this sort. To ask that we prepare something every year would be an unnecessary burden on the whole subsidy control regime and the structures we have put in place to support this.
The CMA will have the ability to gather all the information needed to conduct such an analysis for these five-yearly reports, through Clause 67. These are powers that the CMA will not have in relation to its annual reports. I therefore humbly request that the noble Baroness withdraw the amendment.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
The other day, we discussed the inclusion of agriculture in the Bill, but the Government have made it clear that, basically, the future of all agriculture subsidy will be environmental objectives. The Minister’s reply to my noble friend’s amendment suggests that she agrees that agriculture should not really be covered by this approach, or that it should at least be treated substantially differently. What she has said, effectively, is that we cannot judge the environmental side; we have to approach it in the same way as every other sector.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
On the specific point about agriculture, I do not know whether the letter addressing those points has been issued yet. I can say that 99.5% of subsidies given to the agriculture industry in the UK would not fall within the remit of the subsidy; they are lower. We do not have the data for Scotland or Wales, but it captures only the very largest subsidy given to the very largest farms. That may include some in Scotland with that sort of acreage—
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I hope that that addresses the noble Lord’s concerns.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
Can I ask the Minister about her remarks about the OEP’s remit? I think that she said that it would cover whether the Government are meeting their climate change requirements. However, the OEP’s remit does not cover whether the subsidy control regime is working towards our net-zero targets. What the amendments are trying to say—as we tried to include in the Financial Services Act and the pensions Act, successfully—is that a more granular approach will be needed, which has to be provided by the regulatory authorities within the sectors concerned because, otherwise, we really will not know whether each sector is working towards the net-zero targets that we are all trying to achieve in the timespan that we have.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
One of the noble Baroness’s concerns was that there was no overarching principle for the Government’s drive towards net zero. I think that the Environment Act provides the overarching context for whatever we are doing. As I say, the Office for Environmental Protection will also scrutinise the Government’s progress towards targets annually. I do not know what further level of granularity the noble Baroness wishes to apply.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
There is also the Climate Change Act, as my noble friend has just reminded me.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
I shall not repeat what I have said, but I do not think that the OEP will be able to tell us whether the subsidy control regime is working in the way that subsidies are being allocated in terms of meeting our climate change requirements. There is precedent in this, as I keep saying, with the Financial Services Act and pensions Act, and the actions that the Pensions Regulator took on the back of that Act. They all speak volumes as to how important it is to have each sector being held to account. Those are the points that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, made. Every single sector within the country needs to be shown to be pulling its weight and we need to know where we have to put in greater effort, if it is not working towards the net-zero targets.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I understand the noble Baroness’s concerns, but I am not able to go further than I have done at the Dispatch Box. On the point that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, made about the steel industry, followed up by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, we are directing subsidies towards greening industries like that, so we can invest in electric arc technology, and hydrogen as well. It is part of an overall drive by this Government to be consistent with the environment principles that we have laid out.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
But can the Minister see our point that the climate emergency has to be part of every part of government thinking and at the moment it is not? It just gets dropped out of piece after piece of legislation as if it was not really part of government thinking. It is all right talking about zero carbon, about how we are on our way and all that sort of thing, but if it is not in every single piece of legislation, it will not happen.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
We are just going to have to agree to disagree on this point. I believe that it is part of the overarching principles of this Government that the environment is one of our most important points. I do not believe that it needs to go on to the face of every Bill. I know that it is in the pensions legislation, but I cannot go further than I have already gone at the Dispatch Box in the context of this Bill.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, given how huge this area is in terms of the amount of public money that gets spent and given that the Government have a public commitment to net zero, it seems astonishing that we do not have the legislation blended in to this Bill. We are not talking about minor amounts of money; we are talking about the way in which whole communities live, work and operate.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I remind the noble Baroness that we have a legal commitment to net zero.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her full response to the two amendments before us. In the contributions that have been made both in the debate and in our following up and further probing, there is a sense that we have to go into this more deeply.
Again, we are asking for the same principles that we have talked about with regard to many of these issues around clarity, sense of purpose and benefit. I do not believe that public authorities will find some of this assessment and monitoring onerous, including having to account for the subsidies that they put forward. That is part of established practice and it needs to be formalised in the sense put forward by my noble friend Lord McNicol in Amendment 62, with annual reports as a mechanism for picking it up.
I absolutely agree on the issue of five-yearly reports. We are already in 2022. Are we saying that the first report into progress in these areas around net zero will not be heard until 2027—possibly even 2028, with the way things are going? That cannot be what the Government intend, given the urgency of the situation in front of us in moving towards net zero.
I will not unpick all the excellent points made by noble Lords in this debate because I know that we will come back to this area. I look forward to hearing how we can bring this together and come up with a sensible way forward. As I said in my opening remarks, if we carry on with the Bill in its current form, we will be sitting on a missed opportunity to do something constructive and positive—particularly, in the context of this debate, around net zero but also, looking further afield, in the wider area of levelling up. The climate emergency is a major contributor to the unequal experience of people right across the four nations. Addressing the matters raised in this discussion would be a sensible way forward. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(3A) The Chair of the CMA Board may appoint up to three non-executive members to the Subsidy Advice Unit established under subsection (1) in order to ensure that the Unit includes at least one person with relevant experience in relation to each of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow the CMA Chair to appoint up to three non-executive members to ensure that the Unit includes at least one person with experience in relation to each of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
In moving Amendment 64, I will also speak to Amendment 65. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Bruce, Lord Wigley and Lord German, for adding their names to one or both of the amendments.
Just because it was touched on a minute ago by the Minister, I should say that we have received the letters. The lessons from day 3, on Monday, when the letters were received before the Grand Committee started, may well have been learned. Notwithstanding that, I thank the Minister and his department. I have not read the letters in detail because I was engrossed in the previous debate, but I want to pick up one small point in them. Obviously it is worrying that any subsidy under the level of £315,000 does not have to be entered on the database. What is even more worrying is that that subsidy does not even have to abide by the principles in Schedules 1 and 2. This gives more weight to the arguments for reducing the subsidy level and admittance on to the database, especially if the subsidies do not have to meet the principles in the schedules.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 64, to which I have added my name. I also support Amendment 65, which my noble friend Lord German will address in more detail. Overall, and as has been said, this Bill has worrying implications for the devolution settlements. Just as the United Kingdom Internal Market Act may be used to impact the devolved Administrations unfairly—certainly, that is their concern—reserving the subsidy regime to the UK Parliament and the powers that have been given to the Secretary of State are causing alarm across the devolved Administrations.
The Government like to claim, and the Minister has made this point a few times, that leaving the EU gives the devolved Administrations more power and flexibility. Under the EU, they were constrained by the state aid rules that no longer apply. Now, they can pursue their own. That would be true if the UK Government were not introducing legislation that allows them to override the devolved Administrations, without even a requirement for consultation and with no reciprocal rights to challenge UK Ministers’ decisions as regards not only the UK but England.
Oversight of these two pieces of post-Brexit reserve-power legislation, which I would argue are draconian, has been allocated to the Competition and Markets Authority, which has been asked to acquire skills and experience that it does not yet have. It is important for us to recognise that this is new territory for the CMA.
Thomas Pope of the Institute for Government says that this Bill
“does not yet guarantee a Brexit success story. Gaps in the legislation could deny Parliament”—
I would argue are denying Parliament—
“a proper chance to scrutinise how the new system will work—and point to future rows between the UK government and the devolved administrations.”
He further points out that the regulations have no input from the devolved Administrations. The Minister keeps saying that he is consulting, but the devolved Administrations say it is not consultation at all. Pope argues that
“a successful system needs buy-in from all parts of the UK.”
That is absolutely the case. He went on to say that the Institute for Government’s report
“recommended that any regulations should be made in consultation with the devolved administrations”—
I emphasise the following—
“with the process preferably led by experts in the CMA. The government’s approach risks future clashes”.
These arguments have been further developed by George Peretz QC, who points out, as previous debates in this Committee have highlighted, that granting authorities need to test their subsidies against the effects on competition and investment, without reference to the wider issues—in other words, social and environmental implications, and the other issues we are discussing. It is a very narrow definition, which could lead to broader subsidy intentions being overridden. It is true that the TCA refers to the socioeconomic situation of the disadvantaged area concerned. How could the EU not agree to that, given the CAP and its own state aid rules? But there is no definition of what constitutes a disadvantaged area or what disadvantage is. We have discussed the lack of any area map in previous Committee debates.
Mr Peretz goes on to say that
“nothing in the Bill provides for the devolved governments to have any say in the appointment of CMA panel members who will, as part of the Subsidy Advice Unit, exercise the CMA’s powers under the Bill”,
such as they are, and
“there is no equivalent to the provisions of Schedule 3 to IMA20 that require the Secretary of State to seek the consent of the devolved governments before making appointments to the Office for the Internal Market”.
Why is that the case for the internal market Act but not the Subsidy Control Bill? Surely, consistency, at least, requires that. This amendment seeks to remedy this and, I suggest, for very good reason. As I said, the CMA is moving into new and unfamiliar territory. It is surely essential that it understands the needs of the devolved areas and can balance them across the UK.
The powers that the Secretary of State has, which are not reciprocated for the devolved Administrations, put the CMA in a potentially invidious position. If the Secretary of State seeks to challenge, for example, the livestock support regime of any of the devolved Administrations, he or she can do so—on so far unstated but potentially restricting grounds. If a Minister introduces a subsidy, let us say, for London which the devolved Administrations feel disadvantages them, they have no corresponding right to challenge. I would anticipate the argument of grandfathering current regimes and repeat what I said in the debate on agriculture earlier in the week: that, over time, the regimes may change as circumstances change and, at that point, they will not be grandfathered and may be subject to challenge. That is important to note.
As George Peretz points out, the result looks distinctly unbalanced. For example, if the Welsh Government decide to grant a subsidy to which the Secretary of State objects, perhaps on the basis of its impact on England, the Secretary of State may be able to refer it to the CMA and will have standing to challenge it before the CAT. The Secretary of State may also be able to issue guidance that recommends against types of subsidy that the Welsh Government might have in mind, guidance to which the CMA and the Welsh Government have to have regard. On the other hand, if the Secretary of State grants subsidies to businesses in England or, using his or her powers under Section 50 of the internal market Act, to businesses in Wales to which the Welsh Government have objections, none of those possibilities are open to the Welsh Government. I rest that case, because it is crucial.
The Minister may argue that, as with the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England, members are appointed to the CMA for their expertise rather than their geographical base, but he is ignoring that no such expertise yet exists for the new regime. It is surely imperative that, from the outset, the CMA is fully conversant with the needs of the devolved Administrations and that administering the regime evolves in a way which is sensitive to them. The Minister knows my opposition to separatism and nationalism, but I am a passionate home ruler and believe that the devolution settlements should be upheld and not eroded.
The Minister will assert that these are reserved powers—he has done it several times already during this Committee—and are based on the sovereignty of Westminster and not on a federal system which we do not have, or even a devolved consensus. To disregard the devolved Administrations, regardless of where the legal and constitutional power lies, is reckless. The Government are putting the union at risk in the way they are proceeding with this Bill by using reserved powers and failing to recognise the sensitivities. To say to the devolved Administrations, “You have more freedom than you had under the EU, but we’re having reserved powers that will qualify, test or challenge that freedom” is a two-edged sword that does not stack up. Right now, the mood in the devolved Administrations is that they do not trust the Government’s intentions, not yet knowing what they are.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord and agree with almost all the comments that he made—not entirely, but almost. In particular, I am glad to support Amendments 64 and 65, proposed earlier by the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, and have added my name to both of them.
My feeling—and this is really what the noble Lord was speaking about a moment ago—is that we are building a grit creation machine here. We are creating the grit that will cause difficulties as the wheels of this operation move forward. I do not think that is what the Government really want to do.
I well remember being on a committee chaired by the noble Lord sitting next to me a couple of years ago, when we were questioning the CMA’s role in these matters. We found that the CMA, quite legitimately, had very little experience of dealing with devolved dimensions. This was not a criticism of it; that was not its role. It still does not. We should therefore ensure that we build the necessary talent and experience into the relevant units or committees of the CMA that can at least advise on these matters, but it seems that we want to tie the hands of the CMA. It does not have that background; it has no obligation to work in close proximity to the devolved regimes under the Bill. It should certainly find a way of doing that if it wants the operation to go smoothly, otherwise problems will arise.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I have attached my name to Amendment 65 and want to examine the cash and resources which the Government intend to put into the CMA.
Talking of cash and resources, I was very disappointed to read the Minister’s letter to my noble friend Lord Purvis today, in which he says of a previous debate about money:
“I regret that I am not in a position to confirm the per capita allocation of the UK shared prosperity fund in each nation at this stage. However, I emphasise that the Government is meeting its manifesto commitments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The fund will match previous EU funding in real terms for all these places.”
The letter says that the fund will match previous funding, but it also emphasises that they are meeting their manifesto commitments. How on earth can you say that you are meeting your manifesto commitments when you cannot tell us whether you are giving £780 per head to Wales in the way that it was described, as a per capita allocation? Clearly, having a per capita allocation is how you judge whether you are meeting your manifesto commitments. I am very disappointed that the Government say that they are meeting their commitment but are unable to provide the figures to show that they are doing so. I hope they will rectify this swiftly.
Turning to the CMA and its resources, we were very fortunate some years ago to receive evidence from the CMA on its readiness to take part in the new world we were entering. However, it is very important to separate out the CMA’s need for resource to carry on its traditional functions of mergers, acquisitions and so on. The chair of the CMA said then, regarding the non-subsidy side:
“We will be involved in much bigger and arguably more complex cases than we typically deal with. We will have to deal with mergers. We will also be involved in the enforcement cases. The extra workload, the complexity and the likely litigation that follows such cases ... implies significant expansion in our activities.”
The chief executive then said:
“We expect a 30-50% increase in mergers coming our way. However, these will tend to be bigger and more complex mergers. On the antitrust side we think we will do between five and seven large extra antitrust cases a year. That will mean an increase of at least 50% on our current workload in that area.”
Between the two of its own size, it is clear that the CMA found that cash was very important.
The chair went on:
“The key point on resources … is that we need approval for the extra cash that we need … We need the cash, but then we need the time to attract and recruit the talent and get them up to speed in terms of the work. We need to start having action relatively soon, given the timescales that we are talking about.”
Given that this was a few years ago, the timescales are now upon us because this Bill is where it all happens. On state aid, he said:
“We have no experience in this area … It would add, I would emphasise, to the expansion that we have to undertake anyway”—
that is, on the other side of the CMA’s work—
“and we would have to find the skills … given the lack of experienced people in the UK itself. It would be a challenge”.
The key challenge identified was the recruitment of lawyers. How is that going? As far as I can tell, lawyers do not come cheap and, with respect to my colleagues behind me, good lawyers come even less cheaply. It is a matter for the CMA to have the appropriate lawyers. At one point, the chief executive said that they are difficult to find and that
“we are now thinking about expanding our office in Scotland, to tap into talent there.”
So it will have talent from Scotland but no representation regarding the decision-making powers of the board—but there we are. He went on:
“We want to see where talent is and what we can do to attract people and keep them in the CMA.”
The price of the challenge was that of finding appropriate salary levels.
In replying, can the Minister tell us how much money, in raw terms, has been put into both sides of this equation: into the traditional work of the CMA, which has now fallen upon it because we have left the European Union; and into the subsidies side? How many new lawyers has the CMA been able to attract? At the time, the chair said that there are lawyers working in private practice
“who are well experienced … in dealing with state aid applications”
on the side of the role now needed by the CMA. How many lawyers with this sort of experience have now been recruited, and at what level? Earlier, the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, talked about the need to have experience on the side of the regulator that is greater than the experience of the people operating the subsidies. We will need lawyers who are even more skilled and who have the greatest skill in managing this sort of operation. I repeat: I suspect that they do not come cheap.
In replying, can the Minister outline specifically where and when the recruitment will take place, how much money is on either side of the equation and whether the Government have a deadline for making sure that all the resources are in place? Also, I will continue to pursue my claim: can the Minister tell me when the Government will match the £780 per head that was promised and is now in the letter?
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I want to add to that list of questions. Does the Minister have any information on where the CMA is to be based? It is one thing if it is in London, and quite different if it is in Cardiff, Glasgow, Birmingham or Manchester, for example. One of the concerns is the constant pressure that the devolved Administrations have against the south-east and London-based administrations. If there were some way in which the CMA could locate itself further away from the south-east and closer to other areas, that would at least be to some advantage.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, Clause 68 requires that the CMA establishes a new committee of its board called the subsidy advice unit for the purposes of undertaking the subsidy control functions set out elsewhere in the Bill. I recognise that nothing I can say at the Dispatch Box will completely allay the fears of the DAs that this is a power grab or that we have malevolent intent in all this. All I can say is that the Government are very well aware of these issues. We talk about them constantly and will endeavour to continue the dialogue as we go forward on many fronts.
To return to these amendments, the subsidy advice unit will be a specific committee within the CMA dealing with subsidy control. It will comprise exclusively staff and members of the CMA. In this instance, “members” of the CMA refers to, among others, the chair and individuals who sit on the CMA board, the CMA panel of competition experts and the office for the internal market panel and its chair; “staff” refers to the civil servants employed by the CMA.
Amendment 64 seeks to allow the CMA chair to appoint to the subsidy advice unit non-executive members
“with relevant experience in relation to each of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.”
The CMA was chosen as the home of the subsidy advice unit because of its experience and credibility in acting as a regulator and adviser in matters of competition and consumer law on a UK-wide basis. In carrying out its new functions under the SAU, the CMA will continue to act as it always has successfully, with the whole of the UK in mind.
It is notable that the amendment does not make any mention of “relevant experience” in relation to England, perhaps implying that the CMA already has an excess of England expertise but a deficit in relation to the other parts of the UK. I cannot possibly agree with the noble Lord on that point, if indeed that was the implication.
The amendment is unnecessary because the CMA can and does already recruit to the unit personnel with “relevant experience” in relation to all its functions, various different markets and all parts of the UK. The CMA has an excellent track record of recruitment and retention of staff and members from across the UK, and currently employs staff in Belfast, Cardiff, Edinburgh and London. The CMA has already undertaken external recruitment to a number of posts in the SAU. These were advertised on a location-neutral basis and were open to applicants willing to be based in any of the CMA’s existing offices. It is unnecessary to impose excessive and unhelpful complexity on the CMA’s recruitment process when it has already proved quite capable of finding persons with the “relevant experience” to carry out its functions.
I turn to Amendment 65. Part 4 of the Subsidy Control Bill represents an important pillar of the new domestic regime. The additional flexibility that public authorities will enjoy to design bespoke subsidies and schemes and quickly bring them to fruition to address identified policy problems must be balanced by a proportionate mechanism to provide an appropriate degree of scrutiny. This scrutiny will be crucial for the most potentially distortive subsidies and schemes, which is why the SAU has been given a role in advising public authorities before they award the most potentially distortive subsides or schemes. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, I say that neither the SAU nor the Secretary of State will be able to block a subsidy being awarded.
The CMA will also have the role of monitoring the efficacy of the entire regime through a periodic review and report to Parliament. This will ensure appropriate oversight and scrutiny of the regime by Parliament to confirm that it remains relevant to the needs of the whole of the UK.
Amendment 65 requires that the Secretary of State must undertake an assessment of the CMA’s capacity to fulfil its new functions under Part 4 of the Bill and make a Statement to both Houses on their findings. If the Secretary of State finds that the CMA is not sufficiently resourced, their report to Parliament must also outline the steps the Government intend to take to address this. I appreciate the noble Lord’s intention and that this is a probing amendment to ensure that the CMA is properly prepared to carry out its new statutory functions. I therefore offer the following statement on preparations for the new subsidy advice unit.
The CMA was allocated funding of some £20.3 million at the spending review in 2020 to establish three new functions within the CMA: the subsidy control function, the office for the internal market and the digital markets unit. Following the 2021 spending review, this budget of around £20.3 million will be maintained for the next three years. The CMA will continue to allocate funding in the 2022-23 financial year to reflect the estimate of resources needed to establish the new subsidy advice unit. This estimate reflects both the functions set out in the Bill on introduction, and the estimated number of subsidies and schemes of interest and particular interest that would be referred to the SAU.
The estimated case load of around 20 cases of both categories per year was arrived at using the methodologies set out in the Bill’s impact assessment. There is unavoidable uncertainty in this estimation, since the SAU’s referral functions are new and unprecedented. However, Her Majesty’s Government remain confident that this represents a reasonable estimate based on the best available evidence.
In terms of recruitment, to establish the SAU, the CMA has estimated that approximately 50 new posts will need to be created across all its professions. The CMA has recently undertaken external recruitment to fill several policy and project management posts in the subsidy advice unit, as well as allocating resource internally. The CMA will continue to recruit to its pools of economist, legal and business adviser resource over the coming months. The CMA is looking to recruit staff with a range of skills and experience, which includes building on its core competition expertise, as well ensuring the necessary skills in areas such as stakeholder engagement.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Before the Minister concludes, I listened carefully to her comprehensive reply, for which I thank her. I think I heard her mention an additional 50 posts. The impact assessment indicated an assumed additional headcount of 19. What happened between when the impact assessment was put together and the current commitment was made? Presumably, there is an understanding that the role is much greater than when the impact assessment was put together.
Secondly, given that agriculture and fisheries will be involved, can the Minister assure us that those with a specific understanding of the geographical, agricultural and fisheries market—as opposed to the other sectors, which previously the CMA did not have—have been part of the recruitment process? At the moment there is no indication that they have.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
On the noble Lord’s first point, it has been a year since the Bill was introduced and therefore things have moved on since the impact assessment was done. On his second point, we are looking for a broad range of expertise that will enable the CMA and the SAU to fulfil their functions.
Lord Fox (LD)
Can I ask that in future, all impact assessments be given a time lapse, so we know how many weeks they last for, until such time as they cease to be? Seriously, if one year on the impact assessment for this means that the number of people triples, then it was not necessarily a very accurate impact assessment.
Lord German (LD)
I wonder if, in concluding, the Minister could indicate the deadline for when the 50 extra advertised posts have to be filled? She may have to do so in writing, I understand that. Also, what is the difference between those who will be allocated to the traditional work of the CMA—competition, mergers and anti-trust—and those on the subsidy side of this split? They are distinct areas of work and quite distinct skills are needed. At some stage, could the Minister also tell me how many lawyers have been recruited so far, and how many they are short of. That would be very helpful.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I think the noble Lord might have to declare an interest on that front, but we will let that lie. I will have to write to him with the specifics on this. Obviously, recruitment is an ongoing process that will continue throughout the next year.
Lord Wigley (PC)
Before the Minister sits down, I have what is meant to be a helpful question. Given that there may be a need for expertise in certain areas in the work of the CMA—expertise it does not have in house—could staff be taken on on a secondment basis to overcome the restriction in subsection (4) referred to earlier? This would provide the expertise for the duration necessary in undertaking specialist areas of investigation. I do not expect an immediate answer, but perhaps the Government might consider it.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The noble Lord makes a very interesting point. It does have operational independence, and I am sure that is something it would be able to consider.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her detailed response. When she, the other Minister or the department reply, could the letter be shared between all those who have spoken in this debate?
I have one other question—and I do not expect the Minister to have the answer just now. She talked about a budget of £20.3 million being divided between the SAU, digital and one other body. Could we have the split between the three of them, because they have three distinctive functions, and the one we are concerned about and talking about is the funding of the SAU?
Likewise, I listened in detail but I am not clear whether I missed the point about why Clause 68(4) is so prescriptive and detailed in stating that the SAU will consist
“only of persons who are members of the CMA or its staff”.
If it is that prescriptive, it seems to rule out the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, so maybe it could be opened up a little.
The Minister, in referring to some of the concerns and issues around devolved authorities, said that the department was well aware of them. These amendments are meant to be helpful and to try to create, foster and build a better relationship—as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, has outlined—especially as we move from European state aid to our own authorities being able to create and deliver subsidies. One hopes that there are some things in not just this small group of amendments but other groups that will help to generate and foster that better relationship between central government and the devolved authorities. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
“Prohibition of references to the Office for Internal Market
(1) The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 is amended as follows.(2) In section 32 (Office for the Internal Market panel and task groups) after subsection (1) insert—“(1A) The CMA may not make a reference of a subsidy or subsidy scheme under the Subsidy Control Act 2022 to an Office for the Internal Market task group.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to probe the interaction between this bill and the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 66 I shall speak also to Amendments 72 and 78. In so doing, I thank the Minister for his earlier reply to the brief exchange on the interaction of this Bill with the internal market Act. I wish to probe some of that a little further.
Before I do, I wish to comment, as my noble friend Lord German did, on the letter that I gratefully received from the Minister, which corrected the previous omission of not answering the question in an earlier letter. Of course, one oversight is perfectly acceptable, but the fact that, as the Minister said, the Government are unable to give per capita expenditure on the successor to the structural funds is curious. The Government were very capable of giving per capita expenditure in the spending review period for Scotland on 27 October in their press release, and on 15 December in their press release, but they seem singularly incapable of doing so when it comes to the successor to the structural funds. How are the Government able, on the one hand, to give per capita expenditure from the spending review as a whole, but not when it comes to the structural fund’s component of that? If they are unable to do that on the structural fund’s component, clearly, they are incapable of extrapolating the overall per capita expenditure. There is something rather fishy about that—fisheries, of course, is now part of this Bill—and we will be pursuing that pun further, for the benefit of the noble Lord.
The serious point is that the Government are not honouring their manifesto commitment. They are not matching EU funds and are trying to hide behind this risible “we will rise to” element of the spending review. As my noble friend said, I look forward to getting the per capita, like-for-like figures for Wales, England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Until we get them, we will not be satisfied.
On Amendment 66, as was said earlier, the subsidies and schemes are able to be used under the principles of Schedule 1. Principle A allows a subsidy to be used for
“an equity rationale (such as social difficulties or distributional concerns).”
That is wider than simply identified market failure. Principle F goes on further in that
“Subsidies should be designed to achieve their specific policy objective while minimising any negative effects on competition”.
So they can impact on competition, but they should minimise that. As the Minister well remembers, the United Kingdom Internal Market Act reformed or amended the Scotland Act, the Government of Wales Act and that relating to Northern Ireland to define what distortive or harmful subsidies are, so their definition is already in statute. For example, under Sections 52 and 53 of the internal market Act,
“A subsidy is ‘distortive or harmful’ if it distorts competition between, or otherwise causes harm or injury to, persons supplying goods or services in the course of a business, whether or not those persons are established in the United Kingdom.”
The devolved Administrations have no wiggle room when it comes to their statutory obligations under the internal market Act, as regards distorting competition. The wiggle room comes in under the subsidy element to minimise competition. I want to probe which legislation they must follow when setting subsidy schemes—what will be the subsidy control Act or the internal market Act. The definitions are very clear.
The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, and others asked about the distortive elements. They are defined under the internal market Act. These are not somehow separate processes, because that Act defines what subsidies are. The second element is that Part 4 of Schedule 3 to the internal market Act excludes types of regulatory provisions. The Minister was categorical in saying that no subsidy scheme, regulation, statutory or regulatory provision that establishes a scheme under the Bill would be considered under the internal market Act, but subsidy schemes are not excluded by Part 4 of Schedule 3, which lists the exclusions to the regulatory provisions. The legislation is perfectly clear about what is covered within the internal market Act and defines this in Section 30(8). There is no difference between subsidies or anything else. A regulatory provision
“means a provision … contained in legislation, or … not of a legislative character but made under, and given effect by, legislation.”
There is broad scope as far as that is concerned. It would be helpful to have a much clearer understanding of why the Government believe that a subsidy scheme is not a regulatory provision, statutory or otherwise.
Indeed, the Act goes further with regard to what is considered non-discrimination and what would be directly or indirectly discriminating for goods or services. The Minister knows that we debated this thoroughly on the internal market Act, which says that a statutory provision for goods
“is within the scope of … non-discrimination … if it relates to any … of the following … the circumstances or manner in which goods are sold (such as where, when, by whom, to whom, or the price or other terms on which they may be sold)”.
As we know and have discussed on previous groups, subsidies can have a relationship with the price of goods and services, and that is permitted under the subsidy Bill but absolutely prohibited under the internal market Act.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 72, which I think is linked with this amendment. It refers to the responsibility of the CMA to act in an even-handed manner when carrying out its functions, particularly with regard to the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers and a Northern Ireland department.
I ask the Minister how on earth one can reject the requirement to act on an even-handed basis. It seems common sense that any action by the CMA would have to be on an even-handed basis. If that is the case, what is the problem with including these words in the Bill? If the argument is that the CMA may not sometimes act on an even-handed basis, that needs further exploration, which perhaps we can come to at a later stage; but if the Government are rejecting Amendment 72, I would like the Minister to clarify on what possible basis they can do so.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for tabling these amendments. At Second Reading and over the past three and a half days of Committee, we have repeatedly come back to how the new subsidy regime interacts with the broader provisions contained in the United Kingdom Internal Market Act.
As we know, the Government have clearly classified subsidy control as a reserved matter, but there a number of sectors where local or devolved interests may conflict with the wider interests of the internal market Act. The Government repeatedly come back to the notion that the new regime should facilitate the smooth functioning of the internal market. However, if we return to Monday’s discussions about Northern Ireland’s unique position and the inclusion of agriculture, we have to accept that those issues have raised more questions than answers when it comes to how the new regime will balance competing interests.
It is fair to say that some of the responses that we have had thus far have not been entirely convincing, and some of the answers given by the Minister seem to have highlighted the complexity of the issues that we are discussing and, therefore, the need to raise the matters in these amendments.
The wording “even-handedly”, as raised in Amendment 72 and used in other legislation, is particularly interesting. What is the Minister’s personal interpretation of that? How will it be administered and who will make the judgments, if it is deemed that unfairness is built into some of the decisions that are made?
We are repeatedly told when debating this Bill as well as when discussing whole rafts of government policy in other areas that there is a commitment to devolution and that is the most important thing—but, in the same breath, the Government say that subsidies must not undermine the internal market. How can both those statements be true?
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, this is an interesting debate. I originally set out, as Committee stages are wont to do, to tease out some minor details and things from this legislation, but it is clear that there is a major philosophical point that needs to be established before the minor details can be filled in.
Perhaps the Minister can cast himself back to when he was at school. I am sure that he popped into the odd mathematics lesson. He may well have come across a thing called a Venn diagram. For those who missed that particular week, a Venn diagram is made up of a number of circles. The degree to which they intersect indicates the amount of common area that they have—and perhaps the Minister is beginning to understand the direction of travel.
The issue here is that the Minister is asserting that, when it comes to subsidies, essentially, the internal market Act and this Subsidy Control Bill are discrete circles—that is circles that barely intersect or do not do so at all. We have ministerial assertion, and then we have the words as written in Bills and Acts. My noble friend Lord Purvis carefully and usefully filleted the words from the internal market Act, which seem to indicate that there is a large element of common ground with respect to subsidies between these two circles—these two pieces of legislation. Therefore, it is not possible to unpick the words and aims of the internal market Act when talking about subsidies.
My noble friend set out some of the potential contradictions. I will be simpler, because I am a simpler person. Reading those two pieces of legislation, and looking at words rather than hearing the Minister’s assertions, it seems to me that the Scottish Government could design a subsidies scheme. The CMA and the SAU within it, using this Subsidy Control Bill as their guide, as my noble friend set out, would indicate that this scheme is allowable and that market distortions are only minimal, as the Bill allows. The scheme could therefore be launched. However, the OIM—the Office for the Internal Market—would then analyse that subsidies scheme and detect that there are indeed distortions, albeit minimal ones, in that market. This information would be passed to the Secretary of State, who could, quite properly, then withdraw that scheme or cause it to be withdrawn; that is what the words in that Act and this Bill say. So I am interested to understand from the Minister why this might not be the case.
A separate and slightly smaller issue is that, within the CMA, we have the OIM and the SAU. Will these two organisations be operated discretely? Will there be Chinese walls between them in that they will operate under different Acts? Will they operate off the same data, or will they have to get their data separately? Indeed, coming back to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord German, will they share the same lawyers when push comes to shove?
We seem to have here two things that the Minister is trying to push apart but which the words bring closely together. The purpose of these amendments is to understand how the Minister can assert that these two worlds are separate when the words indicate quite the opposite.
Lord Callanan (Con)
First, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Fox, for their amendments. They seek to probe the interactions between the OIM and the Bill, as well as the functions of the CMA more generally; I will take them together. Seeing as we were all involved in the debate on the then internal market Bill, I am getting flashes of déjà vu with all the different acronyms, such as the OIM and the SAU. Perhaps it is a Venn diagram, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, indicated, but I will set out the position and, hopefully, resolve it.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I have been following the Minister’s line of argument, but I do not think that it comes to the same conclusion. Under UKIM, a provision that is a subsidy scheme is not permitted under the non-discrimination principle, taking into account
“the circumstances or manner in which the goods are sold … by whom, to whom, or the price or other terms on which they may be sold”.
It is prohibited under the market access principles on non-discrimination. The Minister is saying that it is permitted under this Bill, because a measure would absolutely affect the price of the goods under the principles in the schedule. I am just wondering why a subsidy is not considered as a provision under the internal market Act, because they are prohibited under the non-discrimination principles.
Lord Callanan (Con)
The United Kingdom Internal Market Act applies only to certain regulatory provisions, and a subsidy scheme would not meet the necessary conditions required. This is a complicated legal area, and I suspect that the best way in which to advise the noble Lord would be for me to write to him with appropriate details.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
With respect, we are in Committee on a Bill and we are making law, and simply to say that this is a complex legal area is not correct. We are making law—and it is not convincing to say that these schemes would not be under the Act when there is nothing under the Act that says that they are not. You cannot just assert when we are making law, because we also want to make sure that these provisions are protected from challenge. As to anybody who thinks that this is not going to be open to challenge, because it provides assistance for the certain price of certain goods in one area, it will be challenged under the internal market Act, because it is discriminatory. Unless there is clear legislative protection that this is excluded from these measures, I am afraid that it comes back to the fact that this area is absolutely ripe for legal confusion.
Lord Callanan (Con)
The reason why I made that point clear to the noble Lord—and I understand the point that he is making—is to explain to him the legal advice that I have received from the lawyers responsible for this Bill. Clearly, the noble Lord has a different interpretation, but I have set it out in great detail, and the advice that I have received is that UKIM applies only to certain regulatory provision and a subsidy control scheme would not meet those necessary conditions. Clearly, there are differing views, and there are lots of esteemed lawyers in this room; that is the advice that I have received, and I am happy to go away and speak to the lawyers to get the noble Lord more detailed advice, but I can go no further than to give him the advice that we have received on these provisions.
I turn to Amendment 72. I stress to noble Lords, particularly to address the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, that the CMA was chosen as the home of the subsidy advice unit precisely because of both the former’s experience protecting UK competition and its credibility with domestic and international stakeholders. The CMA is independent in its function and will carry out its duties as such, with equal regard and even-handedness towards all four Governments of the United Kingdom. Earlier, my noble friend Lady Bloomfield went into more detail on the different territorial offices of the CMA that already exist and on the way it carries out its functions across all the parts of our nation.
While a similarly drafted clause is included in Section 31(4) of the UKIM Act, I question how appropriate it would be to replicate that provision here. The provision in Section 31(4) reflects the unique relationship between the UK Government and the devolved Governments in ensuring the proper functioning of the internal market and their responsibilities for delivering regulatory provisions for each part of the United Kingdom.
However, a great number of public authorities will be responsible for designing subsidies and schemes that are consistent with the subsidy control principles. Of course, the devolved Administrations have an important constitutional status and a unique role in working with the UK Government on ongoing policy development for subsidy control. But subsidy control is a reserved policy and is not an ongoing legislative architecture for co-ordination between the four parts of the UK. I appreciate the devolved Administrations do not agree with that fact, but it was legislated for under the UKIM Act. I therefore request that the noble Lord withdraws his amendment.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, but I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Fox, the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, for their contributions on this. I am quite happy that we have explored this further. The Minister took the point—I do not think this is legal pedantry—that when it comes to the reality of when subsidies start to be issued, for those seeking to challenge or those aggrieved, this must be watertight. Therefore, I am grateful to the Minister for offering further discussions on this. I understand that his office has been in touch in seeking to organise a meeting, and I am grateful for that. He fully knows now that he will need to be prepared and bring his lawyer along to that meeting to assuage some of the concerns.
I am not entirely convinced that the requirement to act even-handedly goes, because there will be more bodies to act even-handedly towards. I do not think acting even-handedly is a zero-sum thing, given that an even-handed nature is in the internal market Act but not in how it operates as a whole, because that Act and the subsidy control regime are both reserved issues. It jars that, when it comes to the CMA carrying out its functions, it has to act even-handedly in considering the operation of the internal market, but that requirement is absent when it is considering the distortion of competition.
In the meantime, and in looking forward to the meeting with the Minister to reflect on this further, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 66.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd
Member’s explanatory statement
The purpose of the amendment is to give the CMA standing to exercise enforcement powers through the Competition Appeal Tribunal in respect of decisions on subsidies where it has made a report.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I rise to deal with an amendment in relation to what I would call the broad powers of making this Act work. Whether we call it regulation or self-regulation, there has to be a system of compliance. We looked at one, disclosure, and earlier we looked at the CMA’s role. Now it is the CAT’s turn and, before we conclude tonight, we will look at the role of the High Court and the Court of Session on enforcement against the devolved legislatures.
I was going to say something about the Minister’s remarks relating to what he sees as the role of the CMA, but the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, has dealt with this. I think it is only fair to the Minister to allow him to come back and explain what he said, in slightly more detail, about the role of the CMA. Obviously, the role of the CMA relates very closely to the role of the CAT.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
Would the noble and learned Lord make it clear that he envisages, through this mechanism—or route, as he describes it—that the CMA would be allowed to challenge the Government?
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
Yes, indeed; that was my third point. The noble Lord has made it most eloquently in one sentence so I need not make it any further.
My last point on this is simply that the time limit is very short. It will be difficult for private litigants to decide that they want to bring a case. The CMA will be well aware and can act within the time limit. For all those reasons, I beg to move that this amendment be inserted into the Bill.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment, which was so powerfully and eloquently moved. Its purpose is to give the CMA standing to exercise enforcement powers through the CAT.
To some extent, this amendment overlaps with the amendment I moved earlier. I strongly agree with what was said about the limitations of relying on people who are affected by subsidy decisions to challenge them within the tight time limits that we have debated. I have already said, probably at too great length, that there needs to be much more independent enforcement.
I do not want to go over all the points I made earlier but, just in case some of the Committee thought I was overegging or inventing it, I want to refer to what the Financial Times said about this Bill. It carried an article on 2 July headed:
“The UK carves a risky new path on state aid.”
It went on to acknowledge what the Government have claimed as the great advantage of the new system—that it is speedier and more flexible—but commented:
“On the altar of speed, it”—
the Government—
“has sacrificed scrutiny. This is worrying from a government that has shied away from accountability and spent lavishly on contracts.”
It went on:
“The government envisages public bodies largely having a free hand in deciding whether subsidies comply with broad principles.”
I mentioned this point earlier: really, the regime seemed to amount to allowing public authorities to do whatever they wanted, and the assumption was that public authorities knew the law and would therefore observe it.
Finally, the FT said:
“The combination of a light-touch system and an interventionist government willing to spend lavishly on special projects creates dangers of a distortive spending spree—and of ministers becoming vulnerable to lobbying by vested interests.”
That is one of the problems. I am not in any way questioning the integrity or motives of the Government, but it is so easy for vested interests to have an undue influence on these decisions and it is a slippery road down to the politicisation of subsidies. I very much think that we need to move one way or another, whether it is by the route that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, so eloquently laid down or the one that I referred to earlier. We need to move to more arm’s-length, independent and effective enforcement.
When he spoke in reply to my earlier amendment, the Minister said the Government will not refer themselves to the CMA, as though that were perfectly obvious. It may be perfectly obvious that no one would do that, but in a sense they ought to. There ought to be a mechanism by which a Government are referred to the CMA.
When I first got into the House of Commons, I used to come and listen to debates here. People always gave Latin tags. I am sure that if Lord Boyd-Carpenter or Derek Walker-Smith, Lord Broxbourne, were examining this Bill today, their Latin tag would be “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”—who will guard the guards? I am sure everybody knew that already. That is the principle. Who is going to contain and limit the Government?
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 71 in my name. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, for their support. I acknowledge that anything I say is unlikely to carry the weight of those two authoritative Peers, so your Lordships will be pleased to hear that I will be brief.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, raised the issue of private enforcement. It is intriguing to me that the Government should choose private enforcement to police something as important as a subsidy regime. They do not use private enforcement to police their income tax regime or all manner of important economic activity, yet they have chosen this route. They have explicitly decided to eliminate the devolved authorities, councils and LEPs from the process of enforcement and have added a 28-day deadline to that private enforcement process, which makes it almost impossible for private individuals to enforce in a timely manner. One would think that enforcement was perhaps not at the forefront of the Government’s objectives when looking at the Bill, and nothing so far has convinced me that the Government are interested in enforcing.
At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, let out the cri de cœur: who will enforce the Bill? The answer is clear: no one. There is an informal system of bringing to book that will ensure that very little enforcement goes on. Yet if we look somewhere else in the CMA, the Digital Markets Unit is pre-emptively calling the big techs in and dealing with issues under its orbit. It is not that the CMA cannot do it; it is that the Government have decided not to let it do it.
Both these amendments—the one in my name and the other—seek to give a role for the Competition Appeal Tribunal to pre-emptively deal with transgressions. What are the Government frightened of in this? I do not think that the Minister has so far articulated a valid reason as to what is wrong with enforcing the Bill. If the Government think it is important to have the Bill, why not enforce it?
I used one example: the CMA’s own digital markets unit. It is clear that regulators all over are acting pre-emptively. Look at the Pensions Regulator. It can proactively go in and do things, so it is not as if we do not do it in this country. Generally, the regulator can act pre-emptively, except in this case. It is not clear to me what is behind the Government’s decision to do that. My key objective for Amendment 71 is for the Minister to very clearly articulate to the Committee why this subsidy regime should not be policed.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, one problem that legislators always face is the inability to look with complete clarity into the future. Trying to predict with any degree of accuracy how this system will work is almost impossible. The advantage of the proposal that my noble and learned friend Lord Thomas is advancing is that if cases go to the CAT, gradually there will be a build-up of decisions that will begin to add extra guidance that we cannot provide in the legislation. This is the way the law works in many fields.
It is that aspect that appeals to me. Gradually, through a series of decisions in various situations, the CAT will be able to add an extra dimension to the way in which this system has tended to work. There is a value in this. I think the word “enforcement” is perhaps rather pointing in the wrong direction. It is more like building up decisions, a category or a case law that would act as guidance for further cases, so that one does not constantly have exactly the same problem being advanced. We would be able to say that there is a decision by the CAT that tells us the answer in that particular situation. Decisions of that kind can be helpful, and I hope very much that the Minister will see value in what my noble and learned friend Lord Thomas is proposing.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
We welcome the tabling of these two amendments, which move us on from the composition and core investigatory powers of the CMA towards enforcement or, to use the word of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, “guidance” of subsidy decisions, via the Competition Appeal Tribunal. The two amendments in this group aim to achieve similar things but by different means.
In relation to Amendment 67 from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, the CMA would have the option to refer matters to the CAT. That is a sensible proposition, and we are more than happy to support it. It seems counterintuitive to have a body tasked with investigating or looking at whether due process was followed when the subsidy was awarded, only for a separate person or entity to be left to initiate enforcement proceedings. Even if an interested party were to use the SAU’s output as a basis for referring the matter to the CAT, how much weight does the Minister think such a report would carry? As an entirely separate entity, would it be reasonable for the CAT to disregard or override any of the SAU’s findings?
Amendment 71 from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, takes a slightly different approach. It gives the CAT the powers to pre-emptively investigate subsidies if it believes that an award is not consistent with the principles of the Bill. I am more than happy to support this amendment. Whichever approach is taken, it is clear that all involved need greater clarity on how disputes will play out. I will not repeat the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, but independent enforcement will bring clearer and better oversight to the Bill.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and my noble friend Lord Lamont for tabling Amendment 67. I also thank them and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for Amendment 71. Before addressing the two amendments in turn, I will offer some context. We have discussed at length the conception of the new domestic control regime as envisaged by the Government. We have heard criticism to the effect that the regime is, in the view of the protagonists, lacking in robust enforcement.
Of course, international comparisons are somewhat beside the point for our UK-specific approach. It is worth while bearing in mind, though, that the mere fact of establishing a coherent regime for the purposes of subsidy control would place the UK somewhere near the top of the list of the most comprehensive subsidy control regimes. Outside the European Union, no other international partner or competitor will enjoy such a comprehensive and transparent approach to the regulation of subsidies.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
Is the reason for that not that the EU insisted on it, and that is why the Bill is being brought forward—not to be effective but to strike agreement with the EU?
Lord Callanan (Con)
This legislation was predicated in the TCA, as my noble friend points out. We are of course meeting our obligations. One of the purposes of this legislation is to meet our international obligations, not just under the TCA but with other trade agreements that we might strike as well.
In our view, an interventionist regulatory role is not necessary for the effective scrutiny of subsidies and would be detrimental to the smooth development and deployment of subsidies where they are needed. I have confidence that public authorities will take their statutory obligations under this regime very seriously and, in fulfilling those obligations, public authorities will be supported by comprehensive guidance. As a result, I do not anticipate that breaches will be by any means a common occurrence. My noble friend referred to the EU state aid regime, which is a different system, but it is revealing of public authorities’ attitudes to their obligations that since 1999, the European Commission has ordered UK public authorities to recover aid on only four occasions.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
That is because those systems are fundamentally different. The EU state aid system was a pre-authorisation, not a post-investigation or oversight. It is not comparing apples with apples, because of how the systems operate.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I said that it was a different regime but was pointing out the number of times that subsidy has been recovered since 1999. My point is that it is not a frequent occurrence. I totally accept that it is a different system and that they are different regimes, but it served as an example of the behaviour of UK public authorities.
In the event of such breaches occurring, a private person asking the court to review the legality of a public authority’s action is a well-established route for ensuring that those authorities do not exceed their powers or act irrationally, and for preserving the rights of the individual against the state. Indeed, it is the normal way for challenging the actions of public authorities, and that is why we have broadly replicated the judicial review process in this Bill, with some subsidy-specific adjustments and additions. I know that noble Lords sitting at the back will be much more familiar with that regime than I am.
Today and in other Committee sessions, your Lordships have asked, in the absence of an enforcer—I will not attempt to repeat my noble friend Lord Lamont’s Latin experience—who will challenge subsidies and how a potential interested party will know about a subsidy that may affect their interests.
The subsidy control requirements are not a regulatory abstraction; they are there to prevent unnecessary distortions of competition. Where a public authority has failed to assess a subsidy against the principles, there is likely to be harm. Anyone whose interests may be affected by the subsidy, be they individuals, businesses or other public authorities, including the devolved Administrations, they have standing to challenge it. The people best placed to decide whether to bring a challenge are those who are actually operating in the relevant sector and area.
Transparency declarations will provide enough information for people to assess whether their interests may be affected by a subsidy. I once again underline that every subsidy or scheme that is in scope of the main subsidy control requirements and that may be challenged in the Competition Appeal Tribunal is also subject to the subsidy control transparency requirements, with the exception of certain SPEI subsidies, as we debated the other day. For those subsidies that present a greater risk to the market, or where the public authority is less sure of its assessment, the CMA reports will provide further information still.
On the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, about the costs of pursuing a challenge, in practice an interested party is likely to take legal advice before deciding to ask for a review of a subsidy, and of course that will incur costs. However, as with other kinds of legal proceedings, the CAT can award costs to whichever party is successful. The pre-action information request process will be an important opportunity for a potential interested party to find out more about a subsidy and make a decision about whether to proceed with a challenge, and then to make a decision informed by the likelihood of success, most likely following advice.
I turn to Amendment 67 from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, and I return to some of the arguments that I made in respect of the grouping we finished at the beginning of this afternoon’s session. The subsidy advice unit is an advisory body; it is intended to advise public authorities on the most potentially distortive subsidies and, by doing so, to provide a measure of additional scrutiny and transparency to the benefit of interested parties and, ultimately, the public at large. Ultimately, the SAU will shine a light on the underlying assumptions that have led to the development of a subsidy or scheme. It is for the public authority to exercise its own judgment with respect to that information. I have confidence that public authorities will take their responsibilities under this regime seriously and, where the CMA has issued a report, the public authority will give appropriate weight to the CMA’s conclusions.
In response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, about the purpose of SAU reports, they will provide a public indication of the quality of a public authority’s assessment. It is in a public authority’s best interests to demonstrate that they have properly considered the potential distortive impacts of a proposed subsidy or scheme, and that offering such a measure is justified and proportionate to the policy problem that they are trying to address. Should a public authority fail to take proper account of the CMA’s conclusions, the report means there will be a significant amount of information about the subsidy in the public domain, beyond what would already have been required by the transparency database. Interested parties will therefore be all the more able to assess whether the subsidy may affect their interests, and of course to mount a challenge if they so wish. There may be a difference of opinion on this, but I am afraid that I just do not agree that there should be a role for the CMA in this.
In response to the Latin question of the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, about who will guard the guards themselves, I repeat that, assisted by guidance, which will help public authorities to understand their obligation—I have cited the example of a number of repayments previously—I think we can expect a high level of compliance with the regime. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, observed, the Competition Appeal Tribunal will build up a body of case law which will then be an important additional source of guidance for public authorities.
As I said to the Committee on Monday, of course I hope that no UK government subsidies would require referral, but Ministers intend to be open-minded to calling in a UK government subsidy for SAU scrutiny where that is requested by another public authority or considered desirable for other reasons. Furthermore, where necessary, the Secretary of State has the ability to refer subsidies to the Competition Appeal Tribunal. However, I would be surprised and disappointed if he or she had to challenge a subsidy made by a UK government department, but he or she could certainly do so if they felt that a subsidy risked competition and investment within the UK or compliance with the UK’s international obligations.
I turn now to Amendment 71, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Lamont, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas. This would have the Competition Appeal Tribunal refer specific subsidies to itself for decision. I would submit that that is highly unusual and would potentially compromise the CAT’s neutrality. Of course, there are practical objections to this amendment as well. As with all courts, the tribunal’s expertise, resourcing and premises are equipped for hearing cases, not for gumshoe investigatory work. I do not think that the noble Lords are really suggesting that this should be the case.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
I have one question for the Minister on the hard economics of recovery of damages. Will there be recovery of damages against authorities that give subsidies wrongly? Secondly, has any estimate been made about the likely recoveries?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Yes, of course, they would be able to recover damages if a party had suffered a loss. I do not think that we have any estimates of likely figures at this stage but, if we have them, I shall certainly share them with the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who has taken part in this debate. If we are embarking on a new regime, we must make certain that it is effective—not because of whatever the EU says but for the good of our own nation and economy. Without an effective regime, this will not work.
We have taken different approaches—and I am extremely grateful to all who supported this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, took the point of principle: who is going to look after those who make the decisions, particularly the Government? Who is going to refer them? Litigating against a Government, who have a bottomless pit, is very difficult—and, of course, there are political considerations against doing so.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked what sort of regime this was, and whether there was a regulator. Whatever the Minister might say, the CMA is a kind of regulator in the market—unless the Minister is to say that there is no regulation at all. But this is law, so someone must have to enforce it.
Then there is the problem that I have referred to, of hard economic reality. Is it realistic to accept private enforcements? The benefits have been shown by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope: that we really need a body of case law to strengthen the regime, and the importance of that will become apparent later.
For all those reasons, I am afraid that I am one of those whom the Minister has not managed to persuade, but I do not think that he thought he had. But I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd
Member’s explanatory statement
The purpose of this amendment is to remove any doubts about the position of the devolved governments being interested parties.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
I am going to be very brief about this. The point emerged in the earlier remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, and deals with the question of standing. I want to deal only with the technical point. It is obvious that where the Minister, qua his responsibility as the Minister for England, grants a subsidy, the position of the devolved Government should be exactly the same as if the Minister in England were able to challenge a decision of the devolved Government. There should be parity. We have talked a lot about equity, which I shall return to, but it seems that there is no equity.
The short point of this amendment is to try to ensure there is no dispute about standing. Standing sometimes causes very serious difficulties. If, however, the Welsh or Scottish Government felt that the action of the Secretary of State or some authority in England was disadvantaging people or a particular enterprise in Wales or Scotland, they should surely have the standing to bring that to the CAT. If, for the reasons I have already adumbrated, private enforcement is not successful—and the Minister has said nothing to persuade me that it will be—this is even more reason to have more custodians of the public interest looking to ensure that our noble and other Ministers in London actually stick to the principles of the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I will be equally brief. The omission of Ministers of the devolved Governments at this stage of the Bill is stark and astonishing. It immediately begs the question why, because the devolved Governments are specifically mentioned elsewhere in the Bill, although they are not given equality of treatment. Here, they are simply omitted. As indicated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, we need clarity here.
We particularly need clarity because there is equality of treatment on issues such as common frameworks. There could well be a conflict between what has been agreed by the UK Government in that context and what is in the Bill. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 79, which neatly follows the questions of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, about standing.
On 13 January, the following fanfare was announced from Downing Street:
“Prime Minister to chair new council with devolved governments”.
The No. 10 press release described this as a
“Landmark agreement on how UK government and devolved governments will continue to work together”,
and how an agreement on this “has been reached”. It promised “new ways of working”, “Reaffirmed principles” of
“mutual respect, maintaining trust and positive working”
and formalised a “council”, led by the Prime Minister, “overseeing strengthened working”.
I am going to come to the document that lies behind the press release in a moment. Of the five things the Government say this is going to achieve, they end with the principle about conflict resolution:
“Resolving disputes according to a clear and agreed process”.
I am trying to seek consistency in this Bill, which has been severely criticised for the relationships it is trying to and has to build with the devolved Administrations. At the same time, we have another document, setting up more machinery of government, which will look at resolving disputes. I understand that resolution of disputes is in the common frameworks procedure, but there is very little in the Bill about how the devolved Administrations can resolve disputes. I suspect—I am pretty certain—that there will be a lot of criticism over the coming months and years from the devolved Administrations.
In the document which lies behind the Prime Minister’s announcement, about the review of intergovernmental relations, there is a two-page section in which the first paragraph states:
“No Secretariat”—
it is an independent secretariat managing the council—
“or government”—
and that is all Governments in the United Kingdom—
“can reject the decision of a government”—
again, that is any Government—
“to raise a dispute.”
So this is a dispute mechanism which has clearly been put in place by the Government to provide an opportunity for the Administrations to raise their disputes. I do understand that if it is enshrined in law, if the legislation is there, it makes it trickier, but as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, asked, what happens when somebody wants or objects to an interpretation, particularly that of the Secretary of State, and this process escalates?
The Bill contains a lot of procedures which could well lead to a dialogue between the devolved Administrations and the Secretary of State. There is also a huge amount of what is called “guidance”—which we shall come to later—and a number of documents are going to emerge which will perhaps put flesh on the bones of some of the things we have been talking about in the Bill.
My question is this: will this arrangement announced by the council and by the Prime Minister, no matter what this Bill comes to and no matter what the processes described in it are, allow, as the intergovernmental relations document states, any Government to bring a dispute before all the other Governments? There are 30 or 40 lines and another page about how that dispute has to be resolved and the use of an independent secretariat.
If the right relationships as described in the document from the Prime Minister were built into this Bill, I would rather hope that it would minimise the necessity for such a dispute mechanism to arise. My test of this is to ask the Minister the following question. Given the announcement, and given the availability of this procedure, is there anything that he can see apart from the legislation before us that a devolved Administration could not refer to this council? If that is so, there is a strong case for making it easier for the devolved Administrations to engage through the mechanisms of this Bill without having to go through all the processes which would lead to the dispute mechanism outlined by the Prime Minister. I am asking for consistency, and I hope that the Minister can provide it.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I am delighted to support the amendment put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and agree strongly with the points that he made in opening this short debate. The devolved regimes must surely be in a position in which they can be regarded as interested parties. It stands to reason that that must be the case in certain circumstances, and there must be provision within legislation for those certain circumstances to be looked after in the context of this Bill.
I was delighted to have the opportunity to add my name to Amendment 79 put forward by my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord German. I support the points he made in regard to it. The need for some indication to the devolved regimes that they are partners has surely come out of the debates we have had in the last three or four sittings of this Committee. It is time that the Government found some way of indicating that they are prepared to work on a partnership basis. These two amendments pave the way for that, and I hope the Government can respond positively.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I put my name to Amendment 69 as well, and I support exactly what my noble and learned friend Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd said about it.
It is worth noting that the definition of “interested party” has to be read together with Clause 70(1). The point is that to apply to the Competition Appeal Tribunal you have to be two things: an “interested party” and “aggrieved”. The definition takes you part of the way there. I am thinking in particular of the Secretary of State, who is an interested party but in order to apply has to demonstrate that in some respect he or she is aggrieved by the making of the subsidy decision.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
I have very little to add; it has been covered comprehensively. I was happy and pleased to add my name to Amendment 69.
We have talked a lot about equity and balance, and the final group of amendments probably has even more of the issues raised in it so, rather than repeat everything that has been said, I am more than happy to endorse it. We will then pick up the final issues around engagement and involvement with the devolved authorities and central government in the final group.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, before I speak to the detail of these amendments, this is perhaps a good opportunity to update the Committee on our progress in seeking legislative consent for the Bill, as we promised in our first Committee session on 31 January.
These amendments, and a number of others we have debated, touch on the UK-wide and devolved aspects of the Bill. As we have discussed on numerous occasions, subsidy control is reserved, but there are clauses in the Bill that alter the executive competence of the devolved Administrations. From the very beginning, the UK Government, at both ministerial and official level, have worked closely and extensively with the devolved Administrations in designing the new subsidy control regime. We have worked to secure their support for LCMs for the Bill. I pay tribute to my officials and those in the devolved Administrations for their ongoing efforts in this space.
Our strong preference remains to secure legislative consent, and we will keep all avenues open to achieve this and to remedy the significant concerns of the devolved Administrations. Of course, we also want to ensure the operability of the new regime. Negotiations are still in progress, but I assure noble Lords that I will keep the House updated at the earliest opportunity, without prejudicing the content of those negotiations. I also assure the Committee that, should any amendments be necessary to reflect the outcome of those negotiations, we will table them as soon as possible prior to Report to enable your Lordships’ House to consider and scrutinise them with sufficient time.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful for that “no progress” update from the Minister. With regard to the current situation in Northern Ireland, including the suspension of the Assembly and the resignation of the FM/DFM, can the Minister state whether any of this legislation will be implemented in Northern Ireland during this suspension?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The legislation is UK-wide so it will apply in Northern Ireland but, clearly, the absence of the Assembly will make it extremely challenging to get the Executive’s consent. However, we certainly will continue to engage with officials.
I want to give some context on all the engagement we have done. Since July 2020, BEIS Ministers and officials have had 75 meetings in total with their counterparts in the devolved Administrations. These are not just talking shops, as has been implied, but sessions of meaningful engagement. For example, our engagement has included sharing draft objectives and building-blocks for the new subsidy control regime; sharing both the Government’s consultation and the consultation response ahead of publication; and sharing our illustrative guidance and regulations in advance of publication, as well as continued engagement as this Bill passes through Parliament. This engagement will need to continue as the regime is implemented. In fact, at this very moment, officials are working with their counterparts on a memorandum of understanding that formally sets out a mutually agreed process for engagement on the crucial next phase of policy development and implementation.
Moving back to the detail of the amendments before us, I will start with Amendment 69. Again, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, for moving the amendment, which is supported by a number of noble Lords. It would give the devolved Administrations the ability to challenge any subsidy in the Competition Appeal Tribunal, whether their interests have been affected or not. As was confirmed at the Dispatch Box in the other place, the devolved Administrations—or, indeed, any other public authority —will generally be able to apply to the CAT to review a subsidy decision where the interests of people in the areas in which they exercise their responsibilities may be affected by that subsidy. This would be a good opportunity to correct what I said on Monday: this is not exactly the same position as the Secretary of State.
The fact that the devolved Administrations are not named in this clause is by no means intended to exclude them or any other party whose interests may genuinely be affected by the granting of a subsidy. Clearly there will be limits, and the interests of the devolved Administration or local authority in a particular subsidy cannot be totally tenuous. However, the broad definition in the Bill gives the CAT maximum discretion so that, whatever the facts of the case might be, it can deem the right people as interested parties.
The reason why the Secretary of State has universal standing to challenge a subsidy, in contrast to the devolved Administrations and local authorities, is that he or she—whoever occupies that office—is responsible for the overall operation of the subsidy control regime and, as I keep saying, for the UK’s compliance with our international agreements in this reserved policy area. Neither of those reasons apply to the devolved Administrations or local authorities. It is wrong to suggest, as some noble Lords have suggested previously, that simply because the devolved Administrations exist, the Secretary of State’s horizons and duty of care are limited only to England.
It is also worth mentioning that the Government expect that the Secretary of State would use this ability only in exceptional circumstances where, in his or her view, a subsidy threatens the whole integrity of the subsidy control framework or our compliance with international agreements. It would be inappropriate to legislate that the devolved Administrations are an interested party in all cases, implying that the Secretary of State does not carry out his or her role as the responsible Minister for the subsidy control regime for everyone in all parts of the United Kingdom.
I turn now to Amendment 79, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord German and Lord Wigley. I am glad that the noble Lords referred to the recommendations of the Review of Intergovernmental Relations through the amendment. The UK Government take these co-operation mechanisms with the devolved Administrations, as set out under this review, very seriously, and we are always open to ways of strengthening these relationships. We are open to using the intergovernmental relations structures to resolve any disputes, in accordance with the IGR principles. That said, this amendment would in effect bypass a number of earlier stages in the dispute resolution process, which has already been agreed between the UK Government and all devolved Administrations. Escalation to the Council is the last resort. As I mentioned on Monday, we are also working closely with the DAs to establish a formal process for raising case-specific concerns with the department once the regime is up and running.
Let me also stress that there is no need to incorporate this provision into the Bill for disputes to be able to come under the IGR structures. Moreover, I do not anticipate that there will be any great need to refer matters of interpretation to those structures. It is important to bear in mind that there is of course a distinction between case-specific dispute, which is a matter of legality, and a public authority’s compliance with its legal obligations, for which the proper place to resolve such disputes is ultimately the CAT and a dispute or discussion between Governments on their roles and responsibilities.
There is little scope for that type of confusion over the roles and responsibilities of the UK Government on one hand and the devolved Administrations on the other in this regime. The Secretary of State for Business has responsibility for the overall operation of the regime and the UK’s compliance with its international agreements. The UK Government may also create streamlined routes to encourage subsidies that further their strategic priorities. In all other respects, UK government departments and the Secretary of State himself are in the same position as the devolved Administrations. They are public authorities within the scope of the Bill. UK government departments are treated in exactly the same way as any other public authority. All public authorities are similarly subject to the Bill and empowered by it.
As I said earlier, my officials continue to have a regular set of meetings with their DA counterparts on all subsidy control matters; these will continue, along with regular ministerial engagement. Where there is a need for dispute resolution, that dispute will come into the ambit of the agreed intergovernmental relations process.
I recognise the strength of feeling in relation to Amendment 69 in the name of the noble and learned, Lord Thomas, but I simply do not agree that either that amendment or the other would be a necessary or useful addition to the Bill. Therefore, with respect, I urge the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate; I do not want to lengthen it with a long reply. I will say only one thing. The Minister has not really answered my noble and learned friend Lord Hope’s question as to the meaning of “aggrieved”. It seems to me that one area in which the devolved Administration may wish to get involved is where a decision is made that does not directly affect their interests but they feel that the decision is wrong in principle and may set a bad precedent. It is that reason—their interest as Governments in upholding the rule of law and the operation of this—that I do not believe was answered by the Minister’s statement, but I will read it carefully. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would extend the time limit for applications to the tribunal under Clause 70 from one month to three.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 70 in the name of my noble friend Lord McNicol. I am sure that we can be brief on this matter and that, given the complexity of the other amendments we have been discussing, it is one that the Minister will be able to consider with a good outcome.
We are looking to extend the time limit for applications to the tribunal under Clause 70 from one month to three months. Of course, we have touched on this area several times through our many discussions over the last three sessions and, indeed, today. There is a real concern that the Bill does not provide enough oversight for the new subsidy regime; we have heard different elements of this through the amendments that have been put forward. As noble Lords have observed, there is a significant disparity between the time given to authorities to publicly disclose their subsidy decisions and that given to interested parties to refer matters to the Competition Appeal Tribunal. Only interested parties and the Secretary of State can legally challenge subsidies, and must do within one month of the new subsidy being published. Our contention is that this is unreasonable.
Viscount Chandos (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord McNicol, spoken by my noble friend Lady Blake. It is one of the most important amendments that the Committee has considered. In my speech at Second Reading, I made the point that the combination of transparency and comprehensiveness of the data that is provided and the time period allowed to interested parties to appeal it lies at the core of the effectiveness of any new regime. As my noble friend Lady Blake pointed out, there is asymmetry between the length of time given to public authorities to put data into the public domain and the very short time period proposed for interested parties to appeal it. Can the Minister name any instance where the Government are subject to a one-month deadline for a significant decision that they have to make?
I do not even think that the one-month deadline is particularly helpful in reducing the workload that may come to the tribunal because, the shorter the deadline, the more an interested party may feel that it has to submit an appeal without having had the time to do the work fully to assess the position. So I urge even more strongly than my noble friend Lady Blake that the Minister considers the case for a change to three months, and I ask him to say, if he is not willing, why he thinks that the one-month deadline is fair and effective.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I am pleased to speak in support of this modest amendment. As the noble Baroness said, the issue has been raised before, and one month is a totally unrealistic timescale. To my mind, it indicates a clear governmental preference to reduce scrutiny of decisions on subsidies that are made in general.
It is especially an issue because this also involves agricultural subsidies and agriculture is, in large part, based on small businesses. I shall give you a picture: farmers in Wales are not commonly monitoring the decisions taken by local authorities in, for instance, eastern England, which might cause them to feel aggrieved. It might take them some time to get up to speed on the implications of those decisions. It might surprise some people, sitting in the centre of London, to know that wi-fi in the centre of Wales is not wonderful. Many communities still rely on the postal service and weekly newsletters, for example from the farming unions. There can be lots of reasons why information that would worry small businesses affected by a subsidy decision would take some time to filter through.
In general, I can think of a host of reasons why one might miss this deadline—for example, summer or Christmas holidays provide an interruption of several weeks to ordinary business. I join the noble Viscount in his point that it could simply be counterproductive. People may think that, if in doubt, they should lob in an appeal to the tribunal because, in reality, they would not be able to find all the information required in the timescale this Bill provides. On a previous group of amendments, the Minister referred to the pre-action information request process. I believe that process will find itself exceptionally heavily used, if the Government do not see that this timescale is far too tight to be practical.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
I rise briefly to add my support to the concerns expressed by other noble Lords that a one-month timeframe, especially for smaller companies, is not only challenging but potentially unachievable and could cause significant detriment to our promising smaller companies. They may be harmed by a subsidy, possibly unintentionally, and this could deny them the opportunity to appeal against that which could be harmful to their business. I urge my noble friend to consider the reasonableness of this amendment. If he is not able to accept it now, could he explain to the Committee how, in practice, this one-month timeframe is reasonable and could reasonably be met by those potentially affected?
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
I intervene briefly to strongly support my noble friend’s amendment and other noble Lords’ comments. One solution that the Minister might be tempted to suggest is to allow them to get it in within a month but add more documentation later. That would be easy.
I refer the Committee to the proposed new rule 98A(7) of the Competition Appeal Tribunal Rules:
“The Tribunal may not extend the time limits provided for in this rule unless it is satisfied that the circumstances are exceptional.”
Probably none of the things that noble Lords mentioned would be classed as exceptional, which confirms that one month is hopelessly short. I very much support three months or even longer, if anyone has a better idea.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble lord, Lord McNicol for this amendment, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, for speaking to it. I also thank the contributions of other noble Lords—and the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Lamont, reflected on this issue during the Monday’s session.
An interested party, which is anyone whose interests are affected by the subsidy, may apply to the Competition Appeal Tribunal for a review of the subsidy within one month of the subsidy’s upload to the transparency database, if there has been a post-award referral to the CMA within one month of that report, or if a pre-action information request has been made within one month of the response to this request. The limit has been set at one month so that we can give legal certainty to public authorities and subsidy beneficiaries as swiftly as possible. It is important to avoid creating such prolonged uncertainty that it acts as a brake on legitimate subsidies.
We must also ensure that interested parties have sufficient time to consider a subsidy before asking the CAT to review it. That is just what this Bill does. An interested party, perhaps a competitor who is thinking of approaching the CAT to review a subsidy, can make a pre-action information request to a public authority. The limitation period is then extended until one month after the public authority has responded. Since the pre-action information request gives the public authority up to 28 days to respond, in practice, the limitation period can run for two or three months after the publication of the subsidy or scheme on this database.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
If the argument is that we are only giving one month to raise a complaint or to look into this, why are the uploading timeframes six months and/or one year? If the Government want to create legal certainty for the organisation that is giving the subsidy, surely, as the noble Lord, Lord Lamont said on Monday, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If they want that legal certainly, deliver that within the one month in terms of the upload to the database. Then there is parity and legal certainty.
Lord Callanan (Con)
As the noble Lord, Lord McNicol suggested, we explored this point fully last week. There are good reasons for it. If it is a tax subsidy, the full amount might not be clear. It might be variable, based on a number of different reasons, and the fact of giving a subsidy may well be published in other transparency obligations that local authorities or the devolved Administrations already have. However, I understand the noble Lord’s point.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, Clause 71 also makes it clear that in exceptional circumstances, the tribunal may extend the time limits for bringing a challenge. This amendment would extend the general window for bringing a challenge from one month to three months, which is too long. It is longer than the challenge periods available in other areas where business decisions are dependent on the decisions of public bodies, such as procurement and planning decisions, where the limitation periods are 30 days and six weeks, respectively. In those areas, the harmful effects of prolonged uncertainty have been recognised through the shorter challenge periods available. The same reasoning applies in the subsidy control context. If the general limitation period for challenging subsidy decisions was extended to three months, as this amendment proposes, public authorities and subsidy beneficiaries could in practice have to wait as long as five months before having reasonable legal certainty about a subsidy that they have granted.
There is a risk that this could have a chilling effect, not only on the giving of subsidies but on the timely use of them by beneficiaries. For example, a subsidy could take the form of a loan guarantee for a capital investment, such as buying new machinery. Your Lordships will appreciate that some beneficiaries may be reluctant to go ahead with purchasing that machinery for as long as there is a possibility that the subsidy decision could be quashed and a recovery order made.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blake, and the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, asked how the Government can justify giving public authorities six months to fulfil their transparency obligations but providing interested parties only one month to challenge a subsidy. I recognise the strength of feeling on the length of time on the transparency deadline and how this compares with the limitation period. During Monday’s Committee, I set out the reasons why the deadline is set at six months: it allows for better-quality data where subsidies are based on an estimate, and it gives public authorities greater ability to upload their subsidies in bulk, and therefore to reduce administrative burden.
Lord Fox (LD)
I am interested in this concept of a chilling effect. What evidence is there for that, and what consultation has there been? There may or may not be a chilling effect. It seems like more of an idea than a practical reality. I have a suggestion that might help. The Bill could start out with a longer reporting time—perhaps 60 days, or something along those lines—and the evidence, or otherwise, of a chilling effect could be gathered. If necessary, and if the reality of a chilling effect actually emerges, the Government could come back and reduce that period by statutory instrument.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I think that is the first time the Liberal Democrats have proposed giving the Government more secondary legislation powers, but I understand the noble Lord’s point. As I said, I have heard the strength of opinion on both sides of the Committee and will reflect further on this matter.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I thank the Minister for those final comments, which I think are a measure of the contributions we have heard tonight and the strength of feeling on this issue around the Room. My noble friend Lord Chandos really put his finger on it. He is absolutely right that the unreasonableness of this time limit will lead to people putting in appeals just in case more information comes to light. That is a very real proposition.
The case against the one-month limit has been very well made. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for her insight into rural areas and the aspect of holidays, and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, for highlighting the real aspect of it being challenging and unachievable. There are so many elements in this that need to be taken away. I thank noble Lords for listening to the arguments that have been made with this amendment today and over a period of time. With those comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Callanan
(2) Nothing in this Act applies to the giving of any such assistance, or to the making of any such schemes, except so far as provided for by that Schedule.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that the subsidy control requirements under the Bill apply in the case of financial assistance provided directly by primary legislation only so far as provided for by Schedule 3 to the Bill.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to two amendments that have a relationship I shall endeavour to explain as rapidly as possible, bearing in mind the hour. Amendment 73A relates to Schedule 3 and deals with the very extraordinary powers in this Bill, giving the High Court the power to overrule primary legislation of the devolved legislatures. This is a very real problem. I shall speak largely from the point of view of the judiciary and what we are intending to do.
Before I turn to that, I would say that, if we look at agriculture or anything else where there is an attempt by the four Governments of the UK to agree something that deals with the support of subsidies, it is extraordinary that anything that is legislated for in England is exempt, but what is legislated for elsewhere is not. There is a constitutional reason for that, and I know what the Minister will say, but it is not a matter of practical reality or public perception. It is important that we consider this.
The first extraordinary part of this is that power is given not to the Competition Appeal Tribunal but to the High Court or the Court of Session in Scotland. To my mind, it is worrying that you give to a first-instance court the power to overrule a decision and an Act of a democratically elected primary legislature. Normally, these matters would go to the Supreme Court. Secondly, and much more importantly, is it right that we should put our judges in a position to make decisions about what are effectively the principles in the Bill? People may remember something called the Human Rights Act and the very broad powers it is said to give judges to make decisions. That has had a degree of criticism. Why do we want to do this in a piece of legislation where the phrases are so ill defined? I shall come to that in the second amendment I intend to speak to. We should exercise the greatest degree of care in giving judges the right to overrule the legislature. I am not certain about the extent to which there has been widespread consultation with the judiciary about this, or with others, but this is the first and very significant step.
There is an extraordinary constitutional provision that has to deal with whose rationale is looked at. I do not want to go into the details of that, because that is more a subsidiary point, and I bear in mind the time—but there is an extraordinary constitutional innovation in the clauses in this part of the schedule.
Of course, it might be said of these principles—and I think this is possibly the Minister’s line—that all of this is very vague and there are not going to be many challenges, so do not worry. However, I am afraid people have left provisions in legislation on that basis and it has come back to bite them. What would worry me about this is if something enshrined in the decisions of the Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish Parliaments or Assemblies, is challenged by someone. What about it happening in the field of agriculture? Someone who is importing goods would have the right to initiate this sort of action, with its very serious constitutional consequences, whereby a judge would have to make a decision, quite often, I imagine, in relation to the principles that are so ill defined.
That takes me neatly to my second series of amendments, which deal with the definitions and status of guidance. I will leave the noble Lord, Lord German, to deal with the question of whether the guidance is binding. It seems unarguable to me that it is not binding.
What I am much more interested in—this highlights the difficulties caused by Schedule 3 and the construction of the Bill as a whole—is the Minister’s power to give guidance as to the meaning. Ordinarily, it is Parliament that decides what something means and, if it does not, it leaves it to the judges. Sometimes, it is put in secondary legislation. However—this is extraordinary—here we are putting the meaning of the wording into guidance.
There are two fundamental problems with that. First, we have visited the word “equity” on a number of occasions—I might call it a word for all seasons—but, even at this late hour, I feel that I ought to refer to John Selden’s famous note about equity. He said:
“Equity is a roguish thing: for law we have a measure, know what to trust to; equity is according to the conscience of him that is Chancellor, and as that is larger or narrower, so is equity. ‘Tis all one as if they should make the standard for the measure we call a foot, a Chancellor’s foot; what an uncertain measure would this be? One Chancellor has a long foot, another a short foot, a third an indifferent foot: ‘tis the same thing in a Chancellor’s conscience.”
I refer to that because it is the essence of the problem with the word “equity”. With the utmost respect, I believe that this Committee ought not to shirk its responsibilities in defining what is meant by this and how it applies in certain circumstances. It might be said, “Well, we are constrained by the fact that these are taken directly from the TCA”, but is that in fact a constraint—or do we hanker for the way in which these vague principles were left to the judges in Luxembourg? Do we want to give our judges that pleasure as well? I doubt it, but I am not sure that it has been fully thought through.
It therefore seems to me that we ought to look at this very carefully. There is the constitutional principle in relation to the Minister being able to give guidance on meaning; it plainly is not binding but he should not be giving such guidance because that is a matter for the courts or Parliament. Parliament should not shirk its responsibility to define what some of these things mean. We should not leave it to judges—unless, of course, there is a hankering for, as they do in Europe, leaving things to the judiciary in Luxembourg. This time, however, it would be the judiciary in Westminster, Edinburgh or possibly Belfast—but not possibly in Cardiff.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to talk after the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, who manages to enlighten us all with observations that might have passed us by if we had not had the wonder of his words.
In Amendment 74 in my name, which would amend Clause 79, I treat “non-binding” as a sine qua non. The reason I put it in was to allow us to have a discussion and debate about the whole extraordinary clause on guidance. All I seek, of course, is for the Minister to agree that it is non-binding. I am sure that he will do so because all the facts speak for themselves, but there is a high head of steam building up in this Committee about the way in which guidance is being used. I will come back to the spearheading on that and how it has moved on but, basically, this Bill has what we call—Parliament also uses this phrase—“have regard to” guidance. This is a problem because it places an expectation that the guidance will be followed unless there are cogent reasons for not doing so.
Subsections (5) and (6) of Clause 79 give the game away a bit. Clause 79(5) says
“the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate”
before making the guidance. What is appropriate is not specified. Clause 79(6) says:
“A public authority must have regard to guidance issued under this section.”
“Must” is very important in this respect.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I was delighted to hear the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, who raised matters of considerable importance to which we will undoubtedly have to return on Report. I support the comments made by my friend, the noble Lord, Lord German.
I shall not speak at length. We have been over and over, time after time, the question of the relationships with the devolved institutions, so I ask the Minister this simple question: will the Secretary of State give an assurance that, in every instance where guidance may have an implication for the Welsh, Scottish or Northern Ireland Governments, he will actively consult them prior to issuing the guidance?
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak briefly to my Amendment 80, which is a probing amendment. It is grouped with this lot of amendments, but it is a different subject, and I will try to be as quick as I can.
It relates to Clause 85, headed “Crown application”, which provides that the Act will apply to the Crown, but excluding Her Majesty in her private capacity, Her Majesty in right of the Duchy of Lancaster, and the Duke of Cornwall. I am afraid that this continues the debate about the uncertainty of the role of the Duke of Cornwall and the Duchy. It is one little hobby-horse that I have been pursuing for many years, and I apologise for that. I refer noble Lords who want to get into the detail to the Second Reading of my Private Member’s Bill, the Duchy of Cornwall Bill, on 26 October 2018, which seems a long time ago.
Since the Duchy of Cornwall says that it is in the private sector—I am assuming that the Duke and Duchy are synonymous—why should the Duke of Cornwall or the Duchy be given special treatment in this Bill? No other big landowner or property owner is allowed special treatment. I understand why Her Majesty in her private capacity and the Duchy of Lancaster are, but the Duchy of Cornwall says on its website:
“The Duchy of Cornwall is a … private estate … established by Edward III in 1337.”
This was confirmed in the second-tier tribunal in 2016, after a Mr Michael Bruton had claimed that the Duchy was in the public sector and therefore needed to do an environmental study on putting Japanese oysters into the Helford river in Cornwall, which it owned. In the First-tier Tribunal, Mr Bruton had won, largely because the Duchy’s representative said, “To all intents and purposes, we believe we are above the law”, which is quite an interesting statement. Of course, the Duchy then appealed to the next-tier tribunal and, not surprisingly, with all the free legal advice it gets from the Government, it won. The tribunal’s decision was:
“The Duchy of Cornwall is not a public authority for the purposes of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.”
Why should the Duchy of Cornwall be treated differently from anyone else—any of us—to whom this Act will apply? If the Minister is not able to answer that question today, perhaps he could write to me. He might want to contact the Duchy itself. I warn him that the last time I raised this, in the leasehold reform Bill debates about three or six months ago, the Minister agreed to write to the Duchy of Cornwall, the Duchy of Lancaster and the Crown Estates about the leasehold reform Bill. We got good responses from the Duchy of Lancaster and the Crown Estates but, as far as I know, no response from the Duchy of Cornwall.
I do not think that right, because the Duchy of Cornwall must have given views on this Bill and I would like to know what it said. Did it send a letter? Did the Minister have correspondence? If so, can he put it in the Library? If he did not, how was this decision made? I think it very unfair that the Duchy of Cornwall—probably uniquely among big estates in this country, whatever their rights and wrongs—should be given this special treatment, for it means an exemption to the Bill.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, I think we have a hard stop in 20 minutes, so I will be very brief. I am grateful to noble Lords who put down amendments in this group, including the Minister; I hope there will be lots more to come from the Minister. My Amendment 75 has been signed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and the noble Lords, Lord German and Lord Wigley, and I appreciate their support on this, as well as in the debates on many other devolution-focused amendments.
I was going to say, judging by the previous responses on the devolved authority amendments, that I did not think we would hear much change, but actually the Minister’s response to the last debate was heartening, so hopefully this amendment regarding the devolved authorities will receive the same response. I will leave it there. As we finish Committee, I note that the comments made in the DPRRC report were very telling, and I look forward to discussions with the Minister and officials between now and Report. I hope that we can address some of the DPRRC’s concerns.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to say that we are now on the final group of amendments. I have made it through thanks to the supply of copious quantities of cough lozenges, so I thank Ruth for those.
I first thank the noble Lord, Lord German, for tabling Amendment 74, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd—
Lord Callanan (Con)
I have had some expert advice from the Whips here. I thank the noble Lords for Amendments 73A, 74A and 74B, the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, for Amendment 75, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for his fascinating Amendment 80, which I will come to.
Amendment 73 is my amendment, the government amendment to Clause 78. This is a minor and technical amendment that will provide greater clarity in the Bill as drafted. It clarifies that the provisions in Schedule 3 to the Bill are to apply to subsidies in devolved primary legislation and primary legislation made by this Parliament. This is because the word “subsidy” is defined as something given by a public authority excluding a legislature. Nothing else is added into scope by this amendment; it simply makes absolutely clear how the provisions in Schedule 3 apply, for the avoidance of any doubt.
Secondly, the amendment makes it clear that it is only the provisions in Schedule 3 that apply to primary legislation made by this Parliament and devolved legislation, and not other provisions of the Bill. Again, this does not make any amendments to the substance of the Bill but just provides clarification.
Amendment 73A was tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, who wishes to probe the purposes of Schedule 3 with regard to the devolved Administrations. Clause 78 applies the provisions in the Bill to subsidies made by means of primary legislation, as set out in Schedule 3. Because of the specific nature of these subsidies, the obligations on those responsible for them need to be set out separately. To respond to the concerns of the noble and learned Lord, I will set out my belief that Schedule 3 as a whole ensures that the subsidy control regime will be comprehensive and robust, while at the same time taking into account the UK’s fairly unique constitutional make-up.
Lord Callanan (Con)
It’s interesting stuff, this. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is not going to get an invitation to an investiture.
Anyway, the ownership of the Duchy of Cornwall is a private matter. Where the Duchy operates on a commercial basis, depending on the specific facts at hand, it may meet the definition of an enterprise in Clause 7; lawyers have had fun drafting this. None the less, and importantly, the Duke’s relationship with the Duchy as its owner is not the exercise of functions of a public nature. It therefore falls outside the scope of the Bill.
To close, I hope that, with the explanations I have been able to provide, noble Lords will feel able not to move their amendments and to accept my Amendments 73 and 76. As we have now reached the end of the final grouping of amendments, marking the end of Committee, I express my sincere thanks to all noble Lords who have taken an interest for their thoughtful, insightful and probing discussions on this important Bill. Lastly, I thank the team of officials who have supported us in so doing. I can give an assurance that my department and I will of course reflect closely on all the points made by noble Lords, and I look forward to further engagement in advance of Report.
Lord Callanan
“(7) The requirement in subsection (5) may be met by consultation carried out before this section comes into force.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the requirement in Clause 79(5) to consult on the guidance issued under Clause 79 may be met by consultation on the guidance carried out before the Act comes into force.
Lord Callanan
“(e) provision in regulations or schemes made under this Act.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that regulations made under Clause 82 may make provision about how the gross cash amount and the gross cash equivalent amount are to be determined for the purposes of regulations or schemes made under the Act.
House of Lords
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill
Wednesday 9th February 2022
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Advanced Research and Invention Agency Act 2022 View all Advanced Research and Invention Agency Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 105-I Motion for Consideration of Commons reason - (8 Feb 2022)
Lord Callanan
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1A.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, before turning to the substance of the amendment, I thought it would be a good time to address briefly the other major milestone in the creation of ARIA that we have reached since the Bill was last before this House. On 1 February, Dr Peter Highnam was announced as ARIA’s first CEO. I know that Peers had significant interest in this appointment during our previous debate on the Bill, given the critical role the CEO will play in leading the formation of the agency and directing its initial funding.
I hope noble Lords are reassured by Dr Highnam’s wealth of experience, as he joins from DARPA where he has served as deputy director since February 2018. I hope noble Lords will agree that he is uniquely capable of stepping into what will be a very important role at such a critical stage of its development. He will take up his post in May, starting discussions with stakeholders in the UK R&D system across academia, business, government and, of course, here in Parliament.
Amendment 1 deals with the conditions that ARIA may attach to its financial support, in response to the considerable concerns that have been so carefully and expertly championed by the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton. In his concluding remarks on Report, the noble Lord set out his desire, following more informal discussions, to hear my colleague, the Minster for Science, Research and Innovation, outline the Government’s position on this issue in the House of Commons. I certainly hope that, having heard the Minister’s remarks last Monday, he will have been pleased to hear him go slightly further than I was able to go when we last discussed the Bill in this House.
The Minister gave further assurances on two aspects, which I will quickly repeat here. The first is the seriousness with which he is taking the security of our academic and research communities, and new activities to identify and address risks from overseas collaborations while supporting institutional independence. He confirmed that obligations would be placed on ARIA to work closely with our national security apparatus, to maintain internal expertise to advise ARIA’s board and programme managers, and to work with the recipients of ARIA’s funding in universities and businesses on research-specific security issues. This will ensure that ARIA’s research and innovation is protected from hostile actors, and, most importantly, connected to the Government’s wider agenda on strategic technological advantage.
Secondly, and more broadly, the Minister addressed the benefits created by ARIA and our approach to maximising and retaining them. Specific businesses, often in important and emerging areas of technology, have been mentioned many times during our debate on this amendment, and the lack of consistent guiding principles behind the engagement and support that they have received from government has been held up for particular criticism. On this, I hope that noble Lords noted the Science Minister’s identification of the serious new machinery of government coming together to drive the agenda of strategic industrial advantage of UK science and technology as a fundamental priority for the Government and for him personally.
The office for science and technology strategy, the national technology adviser and national science and technology council together represent a new and significant architecture to support a new strategic government approach. Clearly, some patience will be needed while this beds in, but the ambition which the Science Minister outlined behind this change should go at least some way towards addressing the concerns that have been raised previously by the noble Lord, Lord Browne.
Similarly, questions have been raised in both Houses about ARIA’s obligations to create wider public benefit, and I should reiterate that public investment in research and development, including through ARIA, must drive long-term socioeconomic benefit and deliver value to UK taxpayers. This obligation will be felt by ARIA on several levels: first, through the Bill and ARIA’s statutory duty in Clause 2(6) to consider economic growth or economic benefit to the UK, among other considerations. This is the right degree of specificity for primary legislation. Secondly, mechanisms for assessing how effectively ARIA carries out its functions, including this duty towards UK benefit, will be detailed in ARIA’s framework document. This was the other set of commitments which the Science Minister provided in the House of Commons.
These mechanisms will enable the action that ARIA takes to respond to its statutory duty towards UK benefit to be evaluated. As the Minister set out, this will include obligations for ARIA to put in place a programme evaluation framework, considering its strategic objectives as well as detailing the contents of its reporting, which the Government and Parliament will use to hold ARIA to account for the value it provides in all the usual ways. Again, it is right that these more specific obligations are included in the framework document, as they must reflect the structure of ARIA’s programmes and require greater flexibility. These obligations will be set as ARIA’s overall governance and evaluation framework is finalised over the coming months, but I should like to echo the Science Minister’s comments that we will take seriously the concerns raised in the context of this amendment when doing so, as we share many of them.
The third and final aspect concerns the ways in which ARIA implements the obligations imposed on it—the statutory duty in the Bill and the obligations within the framework agreement that will help to give effect to it. As I have stated previously, we might expect ARIA to do so through its contracting and granting arrangements by requiring financial support to be repaid if recipients do not make an effort to exploit the outcomes within the UK—or, in some cases, by taking equity or retaining IP rights and seeking to maximise the value of these assets within the public sector. The Bill enables ARIA to do these things, but it is an arm’s-length body; we have placed a premium on its operational independence, and government should not intervene in its decision-making on these issues.
The questions for us here should be these. Does ARIA have all the powers and tools it needs to choose independently from a full suite of ways in which to deliver these obligations? I would submit that it does. Have we got the balance right in the first place with the obligations to produce and evidence benefit placed on ARIA through the Bill and in the framework document, which we then use to hold it to account? On the second point, I recognise that noble Lords have been pressing for us to go further, and I should reflect that in response to the questions posed in this House, and by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, in particular, we have now made concrete commitments to Parliament about the obligations on ARIA and greatly refined our thinking on the work that it is still to do.
I hope the Science Minister’s assurances were useful in demonstrating the seriousness with which these concerns are being taken and our commitment to reflecting a mindset focused on public benefit in ARIA’s governance framework, as that document is finalised. I therefore strongly hope that noble Lords will be content with the progress that has been made on this issue and I look forward to reaching further milestones in the creation of this important new public body. I beg to move.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his opening remarks and his comprehensive repetition of what George Freeman, the Minister, said in the other place. To a degree, I am reassured. My concern is how I will know that the Government live up to the undertakings implied in the words of the Minister. I will come back to him in a moment. I intend to be brief.
I particularly thank the Minister for his generous remarks about me, but they ought to be shared by a significant number of Members in all parts of the House who contributed to the debate we had on the amendment. That the House was minded to support the amendment had more to do with Members’ combined advocacy than the way in which I introduced it. I also thank the Minister and his office for earlier this week drawing my attention to the Government’s recent announcement that Dr Peter Highnam has been appointed as ARIA’s first CEO. This man seems uniquely qualified to do this job; I suppose DARPA is the only place that he could have got the experience. He is also uniquely equipped to negotiate the framework agreement with the Government, which will be important to how ARIA works.
I accept that the Commons reason is not challengeable, and I do not intend to debate that or to divide the House on the noble Lord’s Motion. However, as the Minister and his office helpfully reminded me a week ago, while speaking to my amendment on Report, I set out my wish to hear the Science Minister address at the Dispatch Box the issues that prompted the amendment in the first place. At least I should address what he said, and I will do that for a few minutes, with the leave of the House.
In the other place, George Freeman acknowledged the importance of ARIA having a duty to the taxpayer to ensure that the intellectual property generated by its investment in R&D is commercialised to the advantage of the UK economy primarily, and to ensure that it is not
“haemorrhaging intellectual property of value to the UK.”—[Official Report, Commons, 31/1/22; col. 86.]
That reflects what he said to a number of noble Lords who met him before Report. To paraphrase another member of the Government, he gets it and clearly seems to understand the issue. The question is whether the Government have a plan to address this issue and will be able to share the development of the plan with Parliament properly. That is what I want to concentrate on now.
Turning to what the Science Minister said, he first referred to the terms of the amendment and argued that, as drafted, it added only examples of the conditions that ARIA may attach to financial support and, as it already has a general power to do just that, it represented a drafting change that cannot be accepted. There is no merit in this argument. The fact is that the Bill, as already drafted by the Government, already has examples of conditions that ARIA may attach to financial support in Clause 2. They are almost certainly there because the Government want to highlight those powers, not because those examples need to be there to give those powers to ARIA. Our amendment simply adds to their existing list and has a similar motivation—to emphasise and highlight the importance of this power.
On the specific issue of predatory overseas acquisition of IP through foreign takeover of UK businesses where there has been substantial public investment in R&D—there are many past examples of this, to the detriment of the UK economy—the Minister reassured the other place that the National Security and Investment Act 2021, which fully commenced in January, already provides a relevant and sufficient framework for the Government to scrutinise acquisitions on national security grounds. The Minister also referred to a broader strand of work that is under way to enhance that statutory framework, including other unspecified complementary measures designed to help the Government strengthen our protections. Perhaps the Minister can expand on that. He made some general references to it, but I am not clear as to what work is going on. I think the House would benefit if there was further specification. It may not be appropriate to do it now, but maybe it could be spelled out more clearly at some time in the future.
The Minister reassured the House that the Bill already provides the Secretary of State with a broader power of direction over ARIA on issues of national security, but the amendment was never intended to intervene in the Secretary of State’s powers. This is of limited comfort, as my honourable friend Chi Onwurah pointed out, national security in the relevant legislation, the NSI 2021, is narrowly defined, and it does not include economic security, despite attempts by Labour to expand the definition in that Act so that it would include this. It therefore does not address the issue of intellectual property and its economic value.
The Minister then pointed out that the because of the terms of Clause 2(6), ARIA must have regard to economic growth or economic benefit in the UK, and the mechanism for scrutiny by government and Parliament will be in what the Minister refers to as the framework document. This is a weapon which the Government deploy regularly to see off amendments to the Bill. On Report, the Minister used the potential of the framework agreement, and what it could include, five times in debates. The problem is that none of us has seen the outline of the framework document, or even the Government’s bid for the negotiations of what the framework document will include. Until we see that, there is no way that any of us can judge its merit as a mechanism for dealing with the issues that we have raised.
Perhaps during the negotiations that can at least now commence after May, when there is a CEO, the Government will undertake to make regular statements, or at least one statement, to the House about their negotiating position, so that we get some sense of whether the many concerns about this Bill that the House has shared with the Minister can be allayed by the framework agreement or document. There is now a CEO and these negotiations can begin.
Finally, in the debate that took place in the other place, at col. 87, the Minister turned to the question of how ARIA responds to the UK’s strategic interests in science and technology more generally, where these may not fall under national security. I think he played his ace there: drawing attention first to the integrated review, which he did not expand on, and then to the role of the new Office for Science and Technology Strategy and the national science and technology council, and the Government’s ambition to ensure that there is a serious, strategic machinery of government showing a commitment to the strategic industrial advantage of UK science and technology. The Government’s argument is strong: we should be persuaded that this will deal with these issues because the Government have a core to their infrastructure that will drive these ambitions. There is a fundamental difficulty with this, however: it is impossible to find, in any government documents, any information about either the Office for Science and Technology Strategy, or the national science and technology council, which is a sub-committee of the Cabinet, other than that they exist and a very broad outline of the first organisation, which is designed to service the second one. I do not know how we are supposed to evaluate the strategic machinery of government, unless we know what they do.
There is something worrying happening to the accountability in our Government at the moment. There is a proliferation of sub-committees of the Cabinet. We have gone from having about six to having 20 in a matter of months. Almost every area of important public policy now has one or more such sub-committees to deal with it. The pattern appears to be—it certainly is with climate change—a strategic sub-committee and an implementation sub-committee. You can find out nothing about what any of these committees do.
So that we know what the relationship between Parliament and these committees now is, I will quote for the benefit of the House what Alok Sharma, the COP president, said to your Lordships’ Environment and Climate Change Committee in answer to a very reasonable question, in a questionnaire sent by the committee, about these two key pieces of machinery for climate change. The committee asked him:
“Are the two relevant Cabinet Committees”—
that is, the strategy committee and the implementation committee, which he chairs—
“expected to continue in the long-term, and what plans does the Government have to increase transparency around their proceedings?”
The answer to this is in a letter, which is on the committee’s website. I will read it in short, because in the first part Alok Sharma gave the impression that they are intended to continue, but he said:
“With respect to Committee frequency and transparency, it is a long-established precedent that information about the discussions that have taken place in Cabinet and its Committees, and how often they have met, is not normally shared publicly”.
So that is it.
If that is to be it for this infrastructure, which sits at the heart of the development of science and technology and ARIA, we will not find out anything. I honestly have no way of knowing whether I should be reassured by what the Minister said in the other place, if that was his ace card. To paraphrase my honourable friend Chi Onwurah in the other place, the Minister has set out that he shares our concerns, but I am afraid that I cannot really assess whether he has a plan to address them, because there is a whole part of what he intends to do that I will never be allowed to know.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I very much appreciate what my noble friend on the Front Bench has said by way of response to the several debates that we had on the Bill about the centrality of intellectual property, and its protection and exploitation by ARIA. Often in your Lordships’ House, we send amendments to the other place, and occasionally—perhaps often—we find that they are not given the weight of debate at the other end that we think they deserve. On this occasion, it did, and I was much reassured by the Science Minister’s response, and by the appointment of Dr Highnam to the chief executive post.
I want to raise one question. In the midst of the many reassuring things that were said, including that the powers exist for ARIA, or through the NS&I Act, the framework document remains. I raised one issue on that in an amendment, which was whether under the framework document ARIA would be able to retain and reinvest the exploitation of intellectual property arising from its investments so as to create a growing activity in support of its mission of disruptive innovation. I hope that will be incorporated in the framework document. It was not referred to, so I hope that my noble friend will take note of it and that the Treasury will allow this to happen.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I will not detain the House for long, not least because many of the points I wanted to make have been ably made by my noble friend Lord Browne. I welcome much of the Minister’s speech and the appointment of the chief executive-designate. Considering his background, I venture to suggest that by the time he leaves the post he is about to fill, the name of the agency may have changed from ARIA to DARIA. That would reflect his personal background and possibly the way in which developments may move.
I also welcome what was said in another place by the Minister for Science, who the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, referred to. I have a high regard for the Minister for Science and thought that he addressed seriously some of the concerns raised in our debates. However, to echo my noble friend, I point out that the National Security and Investment Act still provides too narrow a basis for protecting what really matters about ARIA, which is the intellectual property that it is going to generate. It is a strange position to be in, but I think that the definition of national security, which does not take into account the economic security of this country and the intellectual property attached to that, would be a mistake and possibly a loophole. I regret the fact that the framework document to which the Minister referred has not yet been seen by anybody, and I hope that in the months and years ahead we will be able to debate that framework and the new scientific architecture, which the Minister rightly referred to, because we are moving into a new era.
It is not often that Governments anywhere launch a new agency with so little idea about what it will do and how it will do it. Nevertheless, I wish it well, and I hope that in the months and years ahead when we come back to discuss ARIA and its development we will be able to see the progress it has made, which I for one hope it will.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, it came as no surprise that the Government used their majority to negate the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Browne. The noble Lord has, in his tenacious way, set out why he regrets that, and I agree with him. It is not to be—it will not go to a vote—but I hope that the ARIA leadership will be more careful when they write the contracts for the money that they will give than perhaps the Government seem to be with enshrining this in law.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, that the Science Minister’s comments were very helpful. They were more than we would usually get in these games of ping-pong, and that is to his credit.
As the Minister set out, since we sent this Bill to the other place, the name of the ARIA CEO has been announced. It is nice to see the Minister looking so pleased about things. He often looks quite downcast, so it is quite good for him to arrive with something that he can be pleased about. We wish Dr Highnam all speed and wish him well in what is a very important task.
Others have suggested that we look forward to the framework document emerging. In answer to the previous speaker, I do not think that the Minister has not shared with us something that he is sitting on; the Minister has not seen the framework agreement yet either, because it has not been written. However, we look forward to seeing it as soon as it has.
The Government have also had some important things to say about their focus for future research funding—I am talking here about the UKRI numbers. In their levelling-up White Paper, they announced the intention to increase the percentage of funding from what is rather dismissively called the golden triangle to other institutions, often but not exclusively further north. I should remind your Lordships that I am an alumnus of Imperial College.
Very briefly, I wanted to relate this to ARIA and, more importantly, to the commercialisation of innovation. There is a disparity between universities that are better at commercialising their innovation and thereby having another income stream, and those that are less good at that. I hope that ARIA is able to lead some excellence in that and spread the effective commercialisation of knowledge and innovation better. That would contribute to the Government’s levelling-up agenda at the same time.
I also recently met with the UK Innovation & Science Seed Fund—known as UKI2S—which, as the Minister will know, acts as a bridge between public sector research and private capital. I would be interested to know from the Minister how this organisation can fit with ARIA and improve our overall commercialisation. I am sure the Minister will admit that the UK’s record on commercialisation has been patchy in the past and could definitely improve. I would suggest that UKI2S is one of the models that ought to be taken into account. I hope that the Minister might meet with me and that organisation to discuss this and how it might play into this space with its track record in order to deliver on the promise of ARIA. I think we all share the Government’s desire to—in the Minister’s words—drive the agenda for strategic, industrial advantage. With that, we hope that in 10 years’ time, ARIA will be seen to have played an important part in achieving that objective.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, we accept the reason given by the other place for rejecting Amendment 1, but we continue to disagree on the substance. I place on record my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, for his work on this amendment. His sparkling curiosity and polymath tendencies, combined with his government experience, make him ideally suited to this issue. He has been incredibly generous with his time and knowledge, and I am grateful to him for that.
The noble Lord, Lord Browne, suggested a sensible amendment to protect benefits arising from the UK’s creativity and ingenuity in ensuring that the taxpayer—the investor—retains the benefit of it. The majority of noble Lords agreed with my noble friend when we tested the will of the House. In the absence of any measures enabling sufficient scrutiny of ARIA’s activities, we felt we needed this amendment. We are clear that the benefits of ARIA’s investments must be felt in the UK. Lords Amendment 1 would have assisted in this; it would have given ARIA the option to treat its financial support to a business as convertible into an equity interest in the business, and thus to benefit from intellectual property created with ARIA’s support.
It would also have enabled ARIA to require consent during the 10 years following financial or resource support if the business intended to transfer intellectual property abroad or transfer a controlling interest to a business not resident in the UK. As my honourable friend Chi Onwurah said in the other place, we have to acknowledge that currently
“the UK does not provide a sufficiently supportive environment for innovation start-ups to thrive. That is why we have already lost so many of them.”—[Official Report, Commons, 31/2/21; col. 89.]
It is welcome that Ministers have said they agree with our concerns. It is just unfortunate that the Government did not want to take this opportunity to act on our shared concerns and seemed to lack the resolve to do anything about it on this occasion. Finally, I wish the new leadership of ARIA and the agency itself well. We look forward to the innovations and inventions that it is able to bring us.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Browne, in particular, and all noble Lords who participated in this brief debate. I do not think there is a huge disagreement between us on this. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, wanted us to be more specific; our point is that ARIA already has the power and ability to do all the things he mentioned, but we want it to retain its operational independence and flexibility.
I will address a number of the points the noble Lord raised. He will have carefully noted, and from his ministerial experience will know, that in the National Security and Investment Act we deliberately did not define what national security is, following the practice of all previous Governments, to give ourselves the flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances.
The noble Lord also asked for further details on what the Science Minister said in the other place. We have published guidance to the sector on trusted research and supported it in publishing that guidance. We have broadened the scope of the academic technology access scheme and defined the rules on export controls as they apply to research activity. The terms and conditions for government research grants were also amended last September to require due diligence and checks for any overseas collaboration.
As expected, a number of noble Lords raised the framework document. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, is right: I have not seen a final version of the framework document precisely because it has not been finished yet. It will be negotiated between BEIS and ARIA’s leadership team, including the new chief executive and chairman when he or she is appointed, for which we are currently recruiting. I assure the House that as soon as it has been agreed, we will share it with the House as soon as possible.
My noble friend Lord Lansley asked a very good question about the retention of any possible revenues within ARIA. He will know from his government experience that the Treasury will wish to negotiate these matters directly with the agency, so I will not step on the Chancellor’s toes and get myself into trouble by overcommitting him on that. I am sure that ARIA and the Treasury will want to have a full and frank discussion on these matters.
On the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I assure him that we expect ARIA to work with all partners across the research and development landscape, including on the commercialisation of products. He asked for a meeting with me. I suggest that I am not the right person to meet on that issue; it would be more appropriate for him to meet the Science Minister, who has responsibility for pursuing this support for the agency, and I will certainly put that question to him.
The ARIA team has met UKRI and its sponsors. We are learning lessons from this and other mindsets and models for how ARIA can ensure the successful translation and commercialisation of its technologies. I hope that that provides the appropriate assurances for the noble Lord, Lord Fox.
I think I have dealt with all the questions that were asked. With that, I beg to move.
Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill
Wednesday 9th February 2022
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill 2021-22 View all Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill 2021-22 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 51-R-I Marshalled list for Report - (7 Feb 2022)
13:04 - Division on Amendment 1 - Ayes: 200 / Noes: 160 - Amendment 1 agreed.
14:33 - Division on Amendment 5 - Ayes: 120 / Noes: 230 - Amendment 5 disagreed.
Lord Judge
“(1A) The powers referred to in subsection (1) shall not be exercised unless the House of Commons passes a motion in the form set out in subsection (1B).(1B) The form of motion for the purposes of subsection (1A) is “that this present Parliament will be dissolved.””
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, in the recent Committee debate I undertook to reread Hansard because I particularly wanted to address the views expressed by those who disagreed with this amendment. I have done so. I continue to respect those views but I do not share them. I am going to urge the House that understandable reasons should give way to compelling ones.
The arguments focused largely on the merits or demerits of the amendment, but in a sense what we were discussing does not really matter because, as I hope I made clear in my reply to the debate, it is obviously not for this House to decide the issue; it is for the other place to do so. It is a decision for the elected Chamber, and we are not elected.
The purpose of the amendment is simple: the objective is to offer the other place an opportunity to reflect again on this hugely important constitutional Bill and see whether it may have second thoughts. If the second thoughts lead the other place to the same view, so be it: that will be its view, and we must accept the view of the elected Chamber. However, I intend to abide by whatever decision is made by it after what I hope may be a fuller consideration of the merits or demerits of the arguments both ways—much fuller than it was, given the somewhat peremptory way in which this entire Bill was dealt with.
We have become habituated—have we not?—to the steady, apparently unstoppable accumulation of power in No. 10 Downing Street, and we have done so while simultaneously the authority and weight of Parliament itself, and the House of Commons in particular, have been diminishing. It is astonishing to think that we are now proposing to resurrect the medieval concept of the prerogative, the concept on which the divine right of kings was based. King James, and King Charles just across the road, will be laughing as they turn in their graves. The king lost his head in part because he kept dissolving Parliament.
I wonder whether any noble Lords heard Oliver Cromwell thinking of stepping off his plinth outside; I thought I heard a movement or two, but he has gone back. Cromwell, having been a great parliamentarian, decided that Parliament was not doing what he wanted, so Parliament was “purged”—an interesting thought and an interesting use of words. At that stage in our history, Parliament had obtained, through the Long Parliament, the right to dissolve Parliament. Cromwell did not dissolve it because he did not have the power to do so; he simply purged it. What are we doing resurrecting an ancient power in the 21st century?
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I have signed once more on Report this amendment, along with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and I entirely agree with what he just said to the House. That is partly in the light of the debate in Committee, which compellingly reinforced the need to send this issue back to the other place to be reconsidered, and for it to make the final decision, as the noble and learned Lord says.
I say to colleagues, not least on this side of the House, that the Conservative Party’s manifesto in 2019, which we are implementing, said:
“We will get rid of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act.”
This legislation, including Amendment 1, will do that. So the Conservative manifesto commitment will be met. The question, of course, is what we put in its place.
My noble friend on the Front Bench will have his chance to say so, but he has said that the purpose of the Bill is to restore the prerogative power, or the status quo ante. I have to say that it still feels like generals fighting the last war—they are fixed on the events of the autumn of 2019, and, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, has amply illustrated, we are not in the situation of the end of 2019 and we may never be again. If one looks at the events of the autumn of 2019, one sees that three times the Prime Minister sought a general election and failed to secure a two-thirds majority but in each case secured a simple majority. The proposition, which seems to be at the heart of the Government’s approach, is that this Bill prevents gridlock, but in my view a simple majority of the House of Commons would, in almost all circumstances, also prevent such gridlock.
More to the point, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said, is the question that the other place has to answer: should this once again be an executive decision of the Prime Minister of the day, regardless of the view of the House of Commons? I will not go on at length, but I repeat my view that the Prime Minister exercises the responsibility to request a Dissolution by virtue of the fact that he or she commands a majority in the House of Commons. If a Prime Minister loses the confidence of the House of Commons, by what right do they go to the palace and seek a Dissolution? In the circumstances in which a Prime Minister loses the confidence of his or her own party, and of the House of Commons by extension, there may be, and often has been in the past, an opportunity for a new Administration to be formed who enjoy the command of a majority in the House of Commons. Under those circumstances, it seems to me that it would not be right to seek a Dissolution.
The noble and learned Lord referred to what Mr Rees-Mogg said. I am a former Leader of the House of Commons and I believe that the job of the Leader of the House of Commons is to explain the Government’s thinking to the House and explain the House’s thinking to the Government. On this occasion, the latter did not happen. The House was not in a mind to have a Dissolution and an election and I do not think that the Leader of the House was reflecting any view in the House of Commons to that effect. It was, therefore, a threat—an unconstitutional threat, since the Fixed-term Parliaments Act currently applies and such a threat could not be given effect unless and until this legislation passes into law.
My point is that we should give an opportunity not to restore the prerogative in the form in which it existed in the past but to qualify it by reference to what is the reality of our constitution—that sovereignty rests in the sovereign in Parliament, that that must be reflected by a majority in the House of Commons and that therefore a request for an election should be backed by a simple majority in the House of Commons. Anything other than those circumstances would be an illegitimate request and contrary to the view of Parliament.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, I mentioned in Committee and I mention again to the House now that I have always been a strong critic of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act and I was pleased when the Government decided to do away with it. But I find myself in a strange position now of being pleased that they have introduced the Bill but disappointed with it, because it is a messy and—for the reasons that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said—counterintuitive solution, in that it is moving power back to the monarch. It is a messy solution to a problem that was particular, in most respects, to the 2017-19 Parliament and which, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said, we are now trying to repair or prevent from happening again.
My message is simply that the shenanigans of the 2017-19 Parliament were a result, more than anything else, of the 2011 Fixed-term Parliaments Act, which this Bill will repeal. We need not worry about that kind of problem again because it is incredibly unlikely—impossible, I would say—that we will see those sets of circumstances recurring. Of course, the main reason why the Government could not get a majority for a general election—a facility that I strongly believe should be available to a Government—was the requirement for a two-thirds majority. On each occasion when Boris Johnson went to Parliament and asked for a majority, it gave him one, but not a two-thirds majority.
The solution being offered by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, is beautiful in its simplicity. It solves all the problems with one mighty bound. The main problems of this Bill—or rather, the problems that it does not resolve—are the possible interference by the judiciary, the possible politicisation of the role of the monarch and the argument that we can all have about what the Dissolution principles should be, which a lot of the debate in the Joint Committee was about. With one mighty bound we are free, if we say that you need a majority in the House of Commons. It prevents—for ever—any possibility of the monarch again being involved in this most political of decisions and of saying to a democratically elected Prime Minister, “No, sorry, I’m the monarch; you think you should go to the people, but I’m telling you that you can’t.” It is inconceivable that that could happen and, if it did, it would be a constitutional crisis of a magnitude that we have not so far seen. You get rid of all that area of debate and problem. You also get rid of this ugly ouster clause, to which we will come in a moment. The courts are kept out of it because no court is going to challenge a majority verdict of the House of Commons. With a simple majority in the House of Commons, it is job done. The courts and the monarch are out of it.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
My Lords, I apologise that I was not present during the Committee stage. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, knows that I have great respect for him. We enjoyed working together in opposition to the Government’s Internal Market Bill. He was courteous enough to ask me my opinion of his amendment before he put it down. I told him that I would be unable to support it. The reason is the answer to the question that he posed during his remarks, to which my noble friend Lord Lansley purported, but failed, to give an answer, which is: what happens if there is, as there could be—and no one in your Lordships’ House can suggest that there could never be—a revival of the circumstances in the House of Commons between 2017 and 2019? The position was that the Government could not properly govern because they did not have a majority for many of the things that they wanted to do. The House of Commons did not want them to govern and so was content with that stalemate position and that hobbled Government, which did no good whatever to Parliament or the country.
I do not understand why this is referred to as a messy Bill. It is a perfectly straightforward Bill, which seeks to restore the position as it was before the Fixed- term Parliaments Act. The Act was necessary for the course of the coalition Government, but it should never have been made permanent. I very much regret that I did not vote for an amendment in your Lordships’ House that would have made it temporary.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
Would the noble Lord acknowledge, as my noble friend has proved, that, in the circumstances about which he is talking, the Government had a majority for an election? Therefore, this amendment would not have created the difficulties that he is suggesting.
Lord Howard of Lympne
The noble Baroness and her friends cannot possibly give an assurance that a circumstance will not arise not precisely the same as that which occurred between 2017 and 2019 but in which a simple majority could not be obtained for an election, because a majority of the House of Commons was content to stymie and hobble the Government and keep them in place in that paralysed state, which was what we saw in that unhappy time.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
The noble Lord seems to be missing the fundamental fact that the problems to which he referred took place under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, which required a two-thirds majority. This Bill gets rid of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. The circumstances that occurred in 2017-19, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, pointed out, cannot recur in absence of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
With respect to the noble Lord—he knows I have great respect for him—I do not think that he was listening to what I have just said in answer to his noble friend. All this Bill does is to replace the bar of the two-thirds majority which the Fixed-term Parliaments Act provided with a slightly lower bar, but there is still a bar and it is perfectly conceivable that we could have a House of Commons in which the Government did not have a majority.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am listening to the noble Lord with care and I think that there is a fundamental flaw in his argument. On that basis, does he not accept that a simple majority is used for every piece of legislation in the House of Commons? Why should calling a general election be any different? A simple majority is a sensible bar and a sensible test of whether the country should have an election.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
The answer to the noble Baroness is this: if legislation is put before the House of Commons and it fails because there is no simple majority for it, there is a simple answer—the legislation fails. You do not have a situation that could go on for years in which a Government remain in office in a state of paralysis because that is what a majority of the House of Commons wants. That is the mischief that would arise in relation to this Bill.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
But why should a Prime Minister who cannot get a majority of the House of Commons for an election be entitled to a Dissolution?
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
Because our Government need decision. If you have a situation in which you have paralysis in the House of Commons, it is in the national interest that this should be resolved. The way in which it has traditionally been resolved and would now be resolved again if this Bill were passed would be by the Prime Minister asking Her Majesty, the monarch, to exercise the prerogative to provide a general election, which would resolve that paralysis.
I will say one more thing on Clause 3, because I do not want to trouble your Lordships again. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said that the ouster clause was completely unnecessary because no court would ever challenge the decision of a majority of the House of Commons. Had the noble Lord been present on Monday, he would have heard your Lordships’ House debate a number of occasions in which the courts had challenged legislation passed by a majority of the House of Commons. I am afraid that the noble Lord’s reliance on the reticence of the courts in these matters is considerably misplaced, particularly having regard to their decision on Prorogation. For that reason, Clause 3 is absolutely essential.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
We are talking about a resolution of the House of Commons. Can he give any circumstance —we are not talking about legislation; we are talking about resolution—where a resolution of the Commons was overturned by the courts or was even regarded as being justiciable by the courts?
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
The noble Lord talks about a resolution, but what he previously said was that the courts could not be imagined challenging any decision that obtained a majority in the House of Commons. It was to that observation that I replied. There are many examples and I refer him to the Hansard of Monday’s debate.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support my noble friend’s amendment, but with reservations. My reservation is that which has been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Howard. It is not inconceivable that a Government could be hamstrung by failing to get a majority in the House of Commons and could not get their programme through. I believe that there should be restraints on the improper use of the power to dissolve. We are all agreed that it should not be the sovereign and there are dangers in it being a resolution of the House of Commons. That is why I will argue for the removal of Clause 3 so that in the last resort there can be resort to the courts.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, the removal of Clause 3 would be the second-best option. The noble Lord, Lord Butler, knows that I was sympathetic when he raised this point at Second Reading. Like my noble friend Lord Howard, with whom I frequently agree but not today, I apologise for not being here in Committee. I was attending a farewell dinner for a friend who had given some 20 years’ service in his post and I felt that, as I had spoken at Second Reading, I could reserve what I wanted to say for Report. I strongly support what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said, in his balanced, measured and eminently sensible speech.
To give unfettered power to any individual is a very serious thing indeed. I believe that it is important that this House today gives the other place an opportunity—an opportunity that it did not take when the Bill was with it. It is important because things have moved along quite a lot, not least with the intemperate, frankly bullying and certainly unconstitutional threat of Mr Rees- Mogg, which was one of the worst utterances that I have heard in my 50 years in Parliament from any leader or indeed any senior Minister of the Crown.
We know—I know from personal experience—that you do not need a general election if there is a change of Prime Minister. Harold Wilson resigned in 1976 and was replaced by Jim Callaghan. The election in which Mrs Thatcher had her triumph came three years later. Mrs Thatcher retired—or left—and was replaced by John Major without a general election. David Cameron, contrary to his promise to carry on, a few hours after the referendum result indicated that he was going and was replaced by Mrs May without either a general election or a party election for a leader. Those are historic facts. I believe that it is very important that the House of Commons should have a say in this.
I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said about the Fixed-term Parliaments Act and I bid it farewell without any sadness. Although my noble friend Lord Howard is right in a theoretical sense that of course anything can happen—we can all think of extreme things happening—I honestly do not believe that it is at all likely that you would not get a majority in the House of Commons, perhaps a slender one, one way or the other.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Howard, raised a concern that there might be a Prime Minister who is unable to govern and to secure a majority for a Dissolution. There is a constitutional solution to any such problem, should it occur—that such a Prime Minister should resign and let someone take over who is able to command a majority in the House of Commons.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, the House does not need or want a history lesson, but over hundreds of years power has been reclaimed from monarchs by Parliament and the necessary transfer of power from Prime Ministers to Parliament. There is an imbalance in the balance of power between the legislature and the Executive, but it turns out that repealing the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, which I think everyone in this House agrees should go, is more difficult than was imagined. We are an unelected House, but I can think of no better use of my vote today than to vote for Amendment 1 and allow the House of Commons to consider the matter properly and to reach its view, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said. People disagree as to the nature of future constitutional circumstances but I am very proud of the fact that I have a vote that can send this amendment to the House of Commons and I, for one, will be content with whatever the House of Commons decides it wishes to do.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, I oppose this amendment. How beguilingly it is put. What could be more tempting than simply to say, “Vote in favour and all you are doing is giving the House of Commons another opportunity to discuss it”? We really ought to consider whether the case in favour is sufficiently powerful to take that unusual step, tempting as it may be. It is certainly not every day of the week that I find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Howard, and I agree, too, with my noble friend Lord Butler that this solution to the problems that have been identified today is not a good one.
I respectfully remind the House that although the matter took only a little time in the House of Commons, the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act Joint Committee pointed out in paragraph 86 of its careful and thorough report that there was only a minority in favour of giving the House of Commons by Motion a veto over a proposed Dissolution, as this amendment would do. It ended:
“The majority considers it a change which would only have a practical effect in a gridlocked Parliament, which could mean denying an election to a Government which was unable to function effectively, and which might therefore be counter to the public interest.”
Of course I recognise that, under this proposed amendment, a two-thirds majority would drop to 51%. However, as the noble Lords, Lord Howard and Lord Butler, pointed out, a hung Parliament could well reproduce the sort of stasis and chaos at which we arrived back in the summer of 2019.
I do not pretend to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Butler, on the next amendment, but this is a different point entirely. Given that, there should be a guardian against the sort of abuse that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, suggested could occur in the way of the prime ministerial prerogative of Dissolution; I suggest Brenda of Bristol.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I am not quite sure I know how to follow that last remark. I have put my name to this amendment for the reasons so eloquently given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. Like him, I carefully read the considered and lengthy response of the noble Lord, Lord True, to the equivalent debate in Committee. The noble Lord set out to make our flesh creep about the consequences of this amendment. I shall deal with three of his arguments, one of which has already been dealt with today.
First, the noble Lord said that, if this amendment were passed, the chance of zombie Parliaments would remain high. As we have already heard, the last Parliament was a zombie Parliament to the extent that the Fixed-Term Parliament Act requires a two-thirds majority. Without that, it would not have been. The noble Lord, Lord Howard, said, “Ah yes, but there will be other circumstances in which such a zombie Parliament could obtain”. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has explained the first next step if a Prime Minister were unable to win a majority. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Howard, is asking us to entertain as plausible the possibility that, if nobody could form a Government, Parliament would decide that it wished to continue in existence without there being a credible Government. This is completely implausible to me. I cannot foresee circumstances in which such a situation would obtain for more than a very short period—a day or two at most. The noble Lord did not set such circumstances out. I do not believe that this amendment makes zombie Parliaments more likely.
Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord True, said that the amendment is “dangerously silent” on the status and practice of the conventions associated with confidence. Of course it is silent on the convention because conventions are not law. In the case of a Motion of no confidence having been passed, it seems blindingly obvious that, at that very minute, there would be a vote under the Act, as it would then be, to call an election. I cannot see circumstances in which that would not happen. The fact that conventions are not mentioned in this Bill is impossible and largely irrelevant.
Thirdly—and most extraordinarily—the noble Lord, Lord True, argued that this amendment, if passed, would deny or “overturn” the votes of millions. What on earth does that possibly mean? When millions vote, they do so in the expectation that there will be a full term of Parliament. During the course of a Parliament, they may or may not at any particular time wish that there were another election. As it happens, today, I suspect that most people would be rather glad to have an election, but that is not the way the constitution works. Parliament is elected for a period. If that period is to be truncated, the authority for truncating it rests with Parliament. The people have no say in whether to have an early election under our constitution, and the Government are certainly not proposing that, so the argument that, somehow, the amendment would frustrate the votes of millions is completely misplaced.
It comes down to a simple question: where should the ultimate source of power in our constitution rest? This was the question which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, posed. We contend that it should be with Parliament and not the Executive. We contend that the steady accretion of power to No. 10—which, to a limited extent, has been further added to by the decision of the Prime Minister to set up a prime ministerial department— is not good for democracy. The amendment is one small way of reversing that trend.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I apologise that I was not present during Committee.
When I was a student, a young person doing A-levels in Uganda, there was a question: “How are the people of the United Kingdom governed?” The book said, “The people of the United Kingdom are governed by the Queen in Parliament under God”, and went on, “and the sovereign is Parliament.” If Parliament is the ultimate authority, to deny it the possibility of agreeing to the Dissolution of Parliament seems bizarre. If it is not, who has the ultimate authority? The noble Lord, Lord Howard, said that the Government could be paralysed and could not govern, but governance can happen only if those in the Executive are accountable and transparent to Parliament. If they are not, we are creating a body of people who think they are not answerable for their decisions to Parliament—that they are the ones who give it legitimacy. They may find themselves paralysed because, for whatever reason, they cannot obtain a majority. We heard that lady in Bristol when the election was announced in 2017. She said, “Not another election!” People are fed up with ad hoc solutions that often do not help.
I support the noble Lord, the Convenor of my group, who has provided a simple solution. If the Government cannot obtain a simple majority for Parliament to be dissolved, so be it. As for the calling of elections regardless because you are not getting your legislation through, well, if Parliament is objecting and it is sovereign, it requires a bit of humility to say, “We did not get it this time; maybe next year.” I plead for this simple amendment, which would resolve all the problems that the noble Lord, Lord Howard, talked about—of the power of the sovereign and the power of the courts. Of course, the courts will intervene if something illegal has been done. Do noble Lords remember the Brexit question, when there was a desire that it should be done through the royal prerogative, the old King Henry VIII powers? The court said, “No. The act to enter into these negotiations was an Act of Parliament, and if you want to do away with it, it is Parliament that must consent for that to be done.” That was when the courts intervened, by the way.
I, for one, support this simple way to resolve the problem that the Fixed-term Parliaments Act created, but we surely cannot go back to the power of the Prime Minister as if Prime Ministers are not accountable to Parliament: they are.
Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)
My Lords, first, I apologise that I was not able to speak in Committee. I did, however, read the very interesting debate, and I am extremely sorry to say that I find myself at odds with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. I think he and I wholeheartedly share a concern about the creeping, stealthy growth in the size of the state and of the Executive. I have spoken on this before and I will always stand up with him to oppose it.
Also, I fear that I am taking on my former boss, my noble friend Lord Lansley, on this matter. Listening to them, I feel, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, said, that they are making some very beguiling arguments. As we have just heard, what is being suggested in the amendment sounds very simple. We could be in The Jungle Book, facing Kaa and his big eyes: it is a simple, big thought that we can just introduce this amendment and all will be well.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise for not having attended previous debate on the Bill, but I want to make just two simple points. First, it is not true that the problems of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act were not foreseen. They were foreseen and explicitly raised by many Members on this side of the House. Secondly, however, the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, has encapsulated the difference between the two sides of this argument. In particular, I ask him to reflect seriously on his statement that we want power flowing from the ballot box to the Executive. That is completely contrary to the constitution of this country. Indeed, not only is it contrary to that, but it is enormously dangerous, because any system—
Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)
What I want is a system where, if the Prime Minister wishes to call a general election, that election happens and we get to the situation in which we can trust the people. That is where I wish to see the power flowing.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
Out of courtesy to the noble Lord, I will check the record, but my distinct recollection was that he said that we want a system where power flows from the ballot box to the Executive. Not only is that contrary to everything we believe, by omitting Parliament in the middle of it, but it is the basis of every bad dictatorship that Europe has produced—referendums and power flowing from the ballot box to the Executive. That is the extreme case or course, but it is, in essence, precisely the difference between the arguments on the two sides today, in which we believe that on major issues, which now in the British Parliament include the declaration of war, the people who should make the decision at the end of the day are those in Parliament, not the Executive. All the power that the Executive receives is because they can control or, rather, call on a majority in Parliament. Should the Executive cease to have the confidence of Parliament, whether on policy, war, peace or the Dissolution of Parliament, the Executive cannot proceed unless they can change the mind of Parliament. That is a simple argument that applies to the most important things that Parliament can decide. I would argue that the Dissolution of Parliament is one of those issues.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, this is the third time in your Lordships’ House that we have had a debate focused on this issue. At Second Reading, it was a key issue, as it was in Committee. It comes down to a fundamental point.
In the other place and, indeed, in your Lordships’ House, Ministers asserted from the beginning that bringing in this piece of legislation takes us back in some kind of parliamentary TARDIS to the status quo ante whereby we return to exactly the position that we were in before the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. However, in Clause 3, that argument is completely undermined by saying, “But just in case we haven’t got it right, we are going to have a clause that avoids any legal action”, and the so-called ouster clausem Clause 3. So the Government are not confident that the Bill without the ouster clause returns us to the position that we were in before.
The fundamental point, also made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is that there is a choice. Do we accept on the calling of an election executive authority or parliamentary democracy? The huge flaw in the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Howard, is that he seems prepared to trust Parliament on every issue—matters of life and death, legislation and whether we go to war—but not on whether there can be a general election.
I heard the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, in exactly the same way as my noble friend Lord Reid. I wrote them down. He seemed to want to make a major constitutional change where power flowed from the ballot box to the Executive. The fundamental basis of our democracy is that power flows from the ballot box to the elected Chamber of Parliament, the House of Commons, and that the Government derive their authority from that House and are responsible to it.
On the point made by the noble Lord about denying the people a vote—that somehow, if the House of Commons were to vote not to have an election, we would be denying the public an opportunity to have their say—he is not correct, but is right on one point. In effect, there is a fixed or maximum term, in which it is not open to the House of Commons, the Prime Minister, or anyone else to never have an election. There is an end term to any Parliament, by which time an election must be held. It is not simply fixed in time. The argument is that previously the Prime Minister would be expected to go to the monarch. I doubt any of us wish to return to the situation where one puts the monarch in such controversy. We are all scarred by the unlawful Prorogation and how the Government behaved on that. It comes back to this point: do we have executive authority or parliamentary democracy in calling an election? There is nothing more basic for the House of Commons than that objective. Offering the other place an opportunity to vote on this issue avoids the need for Clause 3. The idea that the courts would involve themselves in a decision of Parliament to hold a general election is fanciful. This is an elegant and correct solution of this issue.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, referred to the issue of the former Leader of the House of Commons, Jacob Rees-Mogg, threatening MPs that if they failed to support the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister could call an election. If we are talking about hypothetical circumstances or crises that could occur again, that is certainly one, and should be guarded against at all costs, by not placing the power in the hands of just one person. We should not be surprised by such threats; noble Lords may recall that the current Leader of the House, early on in his parliamentary life, threatened your Lordships’ House with 1,000 extra peers if we failed to pass a piece of legislation he supported. Perhaps threats come quite easily to him.
We had a lengthy debate on this, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, summed up well at the beginning. When this was debated in the House of Commons, there was no lengthy debate, and there is an opportunity for them to reconsider this. When we debated it in Committee previously, my noble friend Lady Taylor said that she was surprised that the House of Commons gave away that power so easily. It may be because it did not discuss it in any great depth or with consideration. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, said, the Joint Committee was divided on the issue of whether it was appropriate or not. It is entirely appropriate that the House of Commons is given the opportunity to consider this again.
I come to one final point, which is that the noble Lord, Lord True, said at both Second Reading and in Committee that the Commons had not amended the Bill, so your Lordships’ House should not do so either. Last night, this House sat beyond 3 am, which is unusual. Today, to facilitate business, we are sitting at 11 am, on a much longer day. If it is not the duty of this House to pass amendments that the other end can consider, then what is the point? The amendment has our full support and I urge noble Lords to vote for it.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the request for a dissolution is perhaps the ultimate act of humility by an Executive. It is placing all that has been lent, first by the electorate, and then by Parliament, in the hands of the British people. That is the underlying thought behind what my noble friend Lord Bridges of Headley said, in what was a significant and important speech, as was the speech of my noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
I am sure the Minister is aware that the House of Commons spent less than two hours in Committee, on Report and on the final stages of this Bill—so to say that it gave it considerable attention would I think be a slight exaggeration.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, your Lordships are required to deal with the Bills that are sent to us by the other place, and the other place has sent us a Bill with no such provision. Members of your Lordships’ House under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord McLoughlin on the Joint Committee, which reflected at length on these matters, did not propose such an amendment. None of those who have scrutinised the legislation formally have proposed what the noble and learned Lord has suggested.
The noble and learned Lord said that we could not return to an ancient system. There is perhaps a faint irony in advancing that argument in an unelected House with a tradition that dates back centuries. He said that we had to be 21st century. Well, we tried “21st century” in 2011 and, frankly, I rather prefer the experience of many decades in the long past which I believe served us well, and the proposition before your Lordships, supported by my party and the party opposite at the general election, was that we should do away with the failed 21st-century experiment.
We do not have to talk the talk about the problems that a Commons vote might cause. There has been a lot of speculation, to and fro, on this, but we lived it in 2017 to 2019; that Parliament refused three times to be dissolved and to meet the verdict of the people.
The repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act was in our manifesto and that of the party opposite. I found it fascinating to hear the throaty roar of approval from the Benches opposite when any noble Lord, starting with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said that we must not go back to the situation before the Act was passed. I remind the party opposite, as did my noble friend, of the Labour Party’s promise to the people:
“A Labour government will repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, which has stifled democracy and propped up weak governments”.
They wish to maintain an essential part of that Act in the form of a Commons vote.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
Can the Minister give one example of a spokesman from this side saying that we wish to retain the Fixed-term Parliaments Act?
Lord True (Con)
I fear I must say to the noble Lord, who I greatly respect and admire, that I simply stated a feature of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act that the party opposite wishes to retain: that there should be a Commons veto on Dissolution. That is what I said, and that is a fact. If the party opposite votes for this amendment, it will be voting for a House of Commons veto potentially on its own Dissolution—it is written there in the book.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
If the Minister is going to give us a history lesson on how people have acted and voted, could he remind us how he and his colleagues voted on the Fixed-term Parliaments Act?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I promised I would look up my personal record on that Bill. I have not done so, but I would be surprised if my name featured very heavily. Anyway, it is being done away with now, and I think the noble Lord and I agree that it should be done away with, whatever follows.
A vote in the House of Commons has created paralysis in a number of contexts and could create paralysis in many contexts. Some noble Lords have spoken on this, including my noble friends Lord Bridges and Lord Howard of Lympne, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown. There could be minority Governments or situations where parties, Parliament or the nation have divided.
The kernel of the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, and others is that their approach offers simplicity. In fact, it adds a complication to a Bill which is simple. Without going over the same ground, we saw that painfully in 2019, when the Labour Party was three times presented with the opportunity to force an election, and Mr Corbyn thrice denied the election to the Prime Minister and the British people by sitting on his hands. So do not tell me that there cannot be circumstances in which an Opposition would seek to prevent a general election. We have lived that system and I believe that my noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, were absolutely right to warn that these circumstances could recur.
In Committee, I set out the negative consequences for the fundamental conventions on confidence. Simply put, the privilege to request that the sovereign exercise the Dissolution prerogative is an executive function enjoyed by virtue of the ability of the Government to command the confidence of the Commons. Our contention is that this simple process should not be unduly constrained by the type of process that the noble and learned Lord puts before us; it could be disruptive and unhelpful at times when expediency is essential.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He is talking about the use of executive powers. Is he concerned—I assume he is, because of Clause 3—that the courts might get involved in this and that that could cause serious constitutional conflict? Surely if the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, was accepted, that would reduce the need for the ouster clause in Clause 3?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I do not think it is an either/or question. If I may use a phrase that was once popular on the Benches opposite, there is third way, which is to have neither of those amendments and to return to the simple and proven practice of the past.
When we send an amendment to the other place, we are always adjured to be careful what we send and to show how we reflect and are thoughtful. I would like to consider some of the practical working of the proposition that the noble and learned Lord puts before us. There is little about that, despite its immense significance potentially for our constitution, and indeed its reversal of the Government’s manifesto commitment to repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act.
For example, the noble and learned Lord proposes that there should be a Motion that
“this present Parliament will be dissolved.”
How would this parliamentary process be sequenced and when would it apply? How would it relate to confidence? Would it also apply following a loss of confidence? Would a Prime Minister have to go for a further Motion? Could anyone put before the House of Commons the Motion proposed by the noble and learned Lord, or would it be only the Prime Minister and the Treasury Bench? If the Motion is passed, is the Prime Minister bound to seek a Dissolution—for example, a sudden tactical alliance could trigger a general election—or could he seek to retain the confidence of the House of Commons? Even if there were such a Motion as the noble and learned Lord has proposed, when would the Prime Minister have to dissolve Parliament?
In even more extraordinary circumstances, given such an amendment, could a Government procure such a Motion on the first day after the end of the debate on the gracious Speech? Could they pass such a Motion
“that this present Parliament will be dissolved”,
and then wait for the rest of the Parliament? After all, it says “will”; it does not say “when”.
These questions are practical and unanswered. I submit that it is not a responsible role for a revising Chamber to send this amendment down to the elected Chamber with none of those issues worked through. They were carefully considered by the Joint Committee, which arrived at a conclusion. This is constitution-making on the hoof.
Lord True (Con)
It is the launching of a ship of uncertainty in which many questions are unanswered.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I find the noble Lord’s comments quite offensive. He is suggesting that it is inappropriate for your Lordships’ House, having debated this issue for significantly longer than the other place, to suggest an alternative. That is perfectly reasonable and normal. The arrangements that he says should be in place are in the Bill. They are also untested, because it does not return us to the situation as before. I ask him to be a bit more careful in his choice of words and his attitude to the House discussing such issues.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I reject those remarks—in a friendly manner, of course. I do not think it is in any way offensive for a Minister at the Dispatch Box, or any other Member of your Lordships’ House, to put to noble Lords that there may be practical difficulties and things that are lacking in amendments proposed before the House.
We are often told that we should proceed with the utmost care in constitutional change; I agree profoundly. “Further and mature reflection” was the phrase I noted from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge; I agree. The Bill had extensive pre-legislative scrutiny. This option was not recommended. The majority of the Joint Committee, on which your Lordships are represented, considered that it would be, as was quoted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, contrary to the public interest. With that advice, and with the utmost respect, I do not think that hasty ping-pong between the two Houses qualifies as utmost care for making a substantial constitutional provision, against what the Joint Committee recommended. I submit that that is not a prudent approach. For that reason, I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and others will reflect on the wisdom and practicality of the amendment.
There is a final fundamental point. The creation of statutory constraints would cut against and under- mine the flexibility that characterises the pre-FTPA arrangements that the Government want to reinstate, as they have promised. Generations of proven practice underlie those arrangements, but they were junked for what we all know was a short-term political expedient in 2011. I do not share the attitude of some to past experience—that we cannot return to the past and apply its wisdom again. Again, I submit that we can.
For all those reasons, I urge noble Lords not to press the amendment. It is defective in practice, leaves a host of very hard practical questions unanswered, and risks recreating the conditions of the very paralysis we all lived through so recently, about which we all told ourselves we would never want to see again. We should not risk returning to that. We should reflect on the wisdom of ages and take pride in our constitutional practice over generations before 2011, and reject the noble and learned Lord’s amendment.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, we have probably talked too long already, but I find it wonderful to think that my arguments have been described as “beguiling”—that was my old friend, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. He has reminded me of the days—our boy days—when we used to go round the county courts. He would always do it, every time: he would get up and say to the judge, “Mr Judge has made a very powerful argument,” or “a very remarkable piece of advocacy” or whatever it might be, and then he would punch me straight between the eyes and say, “But he is wrong”. Beguiling arguments have their strengths. They are beguiling because they are soundly based.
And then, I have just heard the noble Lord the Minister create a whole series of fences. It is like Becher’s Brook every time as we go around the course. The point of this amendment is for the issue to go to the other place and for the other place to consider it and decide whether those hurdles are ones that can be overcome or not—to decide which way it should go.
Lord True (Con)
Does the noble and learned Lord set at naught the recommendation of the Joint Committee of your Lordships and the other place which considered this proposition, rejected it, and cited it as contrary to the public interest?
Lord Judge (CB)
There was a majority in favour of the proposition that the noble Lord the Minister has put forward. I happen to think that the minority was right. I am inviting us to let the House of Commons have another look and make its own mind up. They will take into account the decisions, recommendations and all the papers that they are given, I hope, and come to their own conclusion.
What I did find slightly startling about the noble Lord the Minister’s response was the idea that when a Prime Minister seeks a general election, that is an act of deep humility. It is not. It is an act by an individual in power who is seeking the best possible way of retaining power. Elections are not sought in the public interest; they are sought for the advantage of the party in government. Humility has nothing whatever to do with it.
Finally, I want to raise a serious point. I find the idea—it has been espoused by a number of noble Lords—that we should stop any risk of the elected House acting as zombies. What an insult that is being paid to the elected Chamber by this House. Of course, the House will get things wrong—every House, every institution, gets things wrong. But the idea that we are going to suddenly be frozen in a situation which is incapable of movement and the Government will be paralysed and things will not work and the electricity will be turned off, all because the Commons has decided to reject a Prime Minister’s desire for a dissolution is, with great respect, bunkum. I do not propose to withdraw this amendment. I seek the opinion of the House.
Lord Norton of Louth
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the ouster provision in clause 3 will not apply to the purported exercise of the powers to dissolve Parliament contained in clause 2.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, on the assumption that the Government invite the Commons to disagree with the amendment we have just passed, I move Amendment 2 and speak to my other two amendments in this group. I pursued these in Committee and believe their importance is such as to merit returning to them on Report.
As I argued in Committee, the provisions of Clause 3 that are covered by my amendments conflict with the Government’s aim to restore the constitutional position to that which existed prior to the enactment of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. They are also objectionable in principle. It is this point I wish to pursue.
In Committee, the Minister, my noble friend Lord True, sought to justify both the use of “purported” and the inclusion of paragraph (c). He advanced a “thin edge of the wedge” argument: the clause is necessary because
“the direction of travel in the case law makes a clear and explicit statement of non-justiciability necessary.”—[Official Report, 25/1/22; col. 233.]
The courts are viewed by the Government as having encroached in certain cases on the exercise of the prerogative where vested in Ministers. Because the courts have gone beyond what the Executive wished, they wish to prevent them straying further in respect of the Dissolution of Parliament. As my noble friend emphasised, the use of “purported” is to make it plain that it is not for the courts to examine a Dissolution and calling of Parliament against our administrative law framework.
My contention is that the fear underpinning the provision is unfounded. The cases cited by my noble friend are not sufficient to show that the courts would ever go near the exercise of the prerogative where the Dissolution and calling of Parliament are concerned. As my noble friend reminded us in Committee, Lord Roskill said, in 1985 in the GCHQ case, that the Dissolution of Parliament was
“not susceptible to judicial review”.
Indeed, Lord Roskill identified what he referred to as “excluded categories”, comprising prerogative powers that by their “nature and subject matter” were
“such as not to be amenable to the judicial process.”
These included
“the dissolution of Parliament and the appointment of ministers”.
I regard the powers not exercised on advice as the ultimate excluded categories.
In Committee, I moved an amendment to put on the face of the Bill that the prerogative power to dissolve Parliament and call an election was a personal prerogative power of the monarch, not exercised on the advice of Ministers. There would therefore be no advice for the courts to consider. The prerogative powers not exercised on advice are such as to put them in a class of their own as there would be no purported exercise or purported decision. If the personal prerogative is revived, the use of “purported” has no relevance. This is not addressed in the letter from my noble friend Lord True to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon.
If the argument is that the prerogative is now a statutory power and that is the route through which a challenge may be mounted, the problem with the use of “purported” is that it enables Ministers to go beyond their powers. Let us be clear as to the meaning of “purported”: it means that something has been stated to be true or to have happened, even though that may not be the case. My noble friend Lord True argued that the use of the word would not constitute a precedent—we have seen evidence already this week of its use in another measure—but I am not persuaded that it is desirable in principle to embody such a provision in statute. As he said, it may be a bespoke solution, but it is a bespoke solution in plain sight. It is constitutionally objectionable, as potentially it conflicts with the rule of law. That should concern us all. It should certainly concern everyone on this side of the House. It is a fundamental tenet of Conservative belief that institutions are subject to the rule of law, which regulates definitively the relations between citizens and applies equally to the governors and the governed. A stable social order is dependent on the maintenance of the rule of law.
Furthermore, there is nothing to suggest that the courts would ever wish to entertain interfering in the process given the repercussions that my noble friend Lord True outlined in Committee. Those scenarios would be as unpalatable to the courts as they are to your Lordships. As he recognised in Committee, there are political checks and balances at work, and, where there are, the courts stay clear. That was apparent in respect of the so-called Sewel convention, when the Supreme Court declared that
“policing the scope and manner of its operation does not lie within the constitutional remit of the judiciary.”
The provisions before us are unprecedented. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, said in Committee, the objection is to the use of “purported” and the words in paragraph (c). As he made clear, there is no objection to say that the court or tribunal may not question the powers referred to in Clause 2.
As I said in responding to the debate in Committee, when my noble friend Lord Faulks argued that the clause was necessary to keep the courts out of politics, I take the view that the clause, or rather the words that I seek to delete, are designed to keep the courts out of the law. Take out “purported” and paragraph (c) and the problem is solved. One is then keeping within, and indeed promoting, the rule of law.
The provisions of the clause cover a situation that is so unlikely to ever occur for the reasons I have given—indeed, if it is a personal prerogative power of the monarch, it cannot occur—that it does not justify conferring powers that are so objectionable. The remoteness of it ever occurring is such that it would be better to wait and deal with it at the time. The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty is not in doubt. As the late Lord Bingham argued, it is immanent in our constitution. As one of the measures being repealed by this Bill—the Early Parliamentary General Election Act 2019—demonstrates, Parliament can move with some speed to achieve the outcome it wishes. That is beyond doubt. There are precedents for Parliament enacting within 24 hours a Bill to overturn a court judgment.
Parliament by the very doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty is entitled to enact the provisions of this clause. What it can do is not necessarily what it should do. Retaining the purported exercise of powers and any purported decision within the clause, along with paragraph (c), is either redundant or it clashes with a basic tenet of the constitution. If the latter, it is objectionable in principle and unnecessary in practice. I would hope that a Conservative Government would take the high road and accept these amendments.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 5, to exclude Clause 3 entirely from the Bill, which has been grouped with the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Norton. I do not need to take much of your Lordships’ time. We have just passed an amendment that would provide a restraint on the Executive in calling an election, so for that reason Clause 3 becomes unnecessary. It may be thought, therefore, that I should not move to have it excluded, but I will, because I anticipate that the House of Commons may remove the clause that we have just inserted in the Bill, and at ping-pong I would still like the opportunity to come back to get rid of the ouster clause, which I regard as objectionable.
My first contention is that it is unnecessary. In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, who I am glad to see in her place, did not agree with me on all aspects of the matter, but she said that she could not imagine any circumstances in which the courts could be involved in a petition to dissolve Parliament. Her phrase was that this clause is
“legislating against shadows, against figments of the imagination.”—[Official Report, 25/1/22; col. 227.]
I agree. So why is the clause there? We all know why: it is because of government pique that the courts were involved in the application to prorogue the last Parliament, and the courts ruled against the Government. That is why the Government have thought it necessary to put this clause in the Bill. This is a Government who do not like restraints on their freedom of action and, in that respect, I suppose they are like all Governments, but, in a democracy, restraints on executive power are necessary.
If, in real life, it is unthinkable that this clause could have any practical effect, does its inclusion in the Bill matter? I think it does, and I will explain why. My submission is that it is wrong in principle for the Government to take an important constitutional power and to say that they will not allow any challenge to its use. This was a point that we debated in a debate on the previous amendment.
We all recognise that there are three possible sources of restraint: the courts, the House of Commons and the Queen. We are all agreed that it is undesirable to put the sovereign in the position in which she has to make a highly political decision to refuse a Dissolution, so either Parliament or the courts must exercise control. We have just passed an amendment that gives Parliament the power to exercise that control, but at the same time we have recognised that there are some dangers in that. The danger is the situation in which the Government are hamstrung, unable to govern and unable to seek a fresh mandate. The amendment we have just passed is a solution, but it is a second-best solution, in my submission.
I anticipate that the Minister will say that there is one more source of restraint—the electorate, who will punish a Government who call for an improper or unjustified Dissolution. That may well be correct, but with great respect that is not the point. What we are discussing is the power to dissolve Parliament. By the time the electorate have a say, the power will have been used, so it amounts to trying to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted. It is like giving an irresponsible person a gun and saying that it does not matter because that person will be punished if the gun is used. The person needs to be restrained before that situation arises.
This is my case: in practice, this clause is unnecessary. To go back to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, it is legislation “against shadows”, but, at the same time, it is wrong in principle, and it is a bad precedent. It should be omitted from the Bill.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I supported these amendments in Committee and I should like to do so again today. I cannot help feeling that there is just a hint—as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, put it earlier—of the generals fighting the last war, because it is very obvious why Clause 3 is there: it is to head off what was seen to be a trend at least in the decision in Miller 2.
I will make two points, if I may. First, following my noble friend Lord Butler of Brockwell, I agree that the clause is unnecessary. One of the things that was said by the Supreme Court at the beginning of Miller 2 was to distinguish the Prorogation issue with which it was concerned and Dissolution. It was made quite clear in a very few words at the start of that decision that decisions about Dissolution were nothing to do with the courts. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, made that point very clearly when he said that this is the most political of decisions that could be taken. That is a very clear warning to the courts that it is nothing to do with them. It is unnecessary, because I cannot see the courts engaging with a Dissolution issue in addition to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Norton.
The second point that I would like to say a little more about is the unwise precedent. The problem here is that the language of paragraph (c) in Clause 3 removes entirely from the courts the possibility of determining the limit or extent of the powers. The reverse of the coin is that it is the Executive who are the determination and who decide the limit or extent of their own powers. Earlier today, the noble Lord, Lord Reid of Cardowan, said that this was the basis for a dictatorship. My noble friend Lord Butler referred in Committee to a number of examples not very far away from us in Europe, where there is perhaps a trend moving towards that. We have to be extremely careful not to give a signal to a Government that they can get away with an exclusion clause of this kind. The question is how far the clause should go, and it is paragraph (c) of Clause 3 that is completely objectionable, leaving it to the Executive to determine the extent and limits of their own powers.
The question of precedent is worth dwelling on. I admire greatly the skills of the parliamentary draftsmen. They have their own skills and traditions, one of which is that they are very determined to follow precedent in the way in which they engage with legislation. This has great value, because it means that there is constancy in the way in which issues are expressed in our legislation, which is of a very high standard. My concern is that, whatever may be said today about this not setting a precedent, it will nevertheless be there in the books, and the draftsmen will, some years ahead, say, “That is what was done in 2022. It is an example that we can follow.” That is danger that I fear in this clause, which is unnecessary. It is unnecessary, so we should not risk the creation of a precedent that, in future years, we may deeply regret.
Lord Trevethin and Oaksey (CB)
My Lords, I respectfully agree with much of what the noble and learned Lord said about the drafting of this clause and agree that it should not be treated as a precedent in the future for other ouster clauses. The drafting is unprecedented, because the decision of the Supreme Court in Miller 2 was itself unprecedented. I do not agree with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and I will briefly explain why.
I regard with horror, and I suggest that your Lordships should regard with horror, the prospect of what one might notionally call Miller 3: namely, a piece of litigation challenging the propriety or legal effectiveness of a Dissolution. In Miller 1, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reed, now President of the Supreme Court, warned against the legalisation of political issues and observed that it was fraught with danger, not least for the judiciary. There is a danger that, because the Supreme Court in Miller 2 found itself able to determine that case against the Government without getting involved in the underlying political issues, one might suppose that a similar exercise could be undertaken in relation to litigation about Dissolution without the judges having to address political questions in an objectionable way. That reasoning would be fallacious.
It is necessary to bear in mind what happened in Miller 2 in relation to the evidence. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who is about to rise, will be able to help us with that if need be. The government evidence in Miller 2 could politely be described as sparse. It consisted of a handful of partially redacted memos and there was no witness statement, as far as I understand it, which dealt substantively with the reasons for—that is, the justification for—the Prorogation. Why that was, I have no idea. It might have been pressure of time. It might have been—though I doubt it—some kind of Machiavellian strategy on the part of the Government, who were unafraid to lose the case. It might have been because no one was prepared to make a witness statement. It might have been for the legitimate reason that the legal position was being argued for that justiciability had to be taken as a preliminary issue, as the Divisional Court held that it should be, prior to any consideration of evidence. Never mind; there was no good evidence from the Government.
That enabled the Supreme Court, when it came to apply its test as to reasonable justification, to say in robust terms that there was no evidence before the court that would begin to support the contention that there was reasonable justification for the Prorogation. In that way, the Supreme Court avoided the need to tackle a question that might have arisen if the Government had given their evidence in a different way. The Prime Minister might have said: “Look, Parliament has made Brexit very difficult. I am engaged in an immensely important negotiation with foreign counterparties, which is going to affect the future of this country for many years. I regard it as desirable to convey the message to my negotiating counterparties that I mean business. That is why I intend to prorogue for an unusually long period of time.” The Prime Minister might have said that and that might have been true—I do not know. If that had been the evidence before the court, it is inconceivable that the Supreme Court justices would have felt able to enter on to that terrain, because it was nakedly political. That is the way that it might have gone.
That indicates that allowing even the faintest possibility of litigation about the legal effectiveness of a Dissolution is a grave error. It should be unthinkable that the judges should be forced to engage with that type of issue. I respectfully agree with what I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and others, have indicated—that it is very unlikely that the judges would entertain litigation of this nature. They would wisely be reluctant to do so.
But we should recognise the risk of litigation of this nature being initiated for collateral reasons. We are contemplating a period leading up to a general election. All the politicians will be on manoeuvres. There are potentially collateral advantages to litigating points of this nature, so Miller 3, or something like it, is conceivable. It should not happen. That is why, even though the drafting causes me concern, the ouster clause is good and this amendment should not be agreed to.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, this is a new threat. We have heard of the threat of an election being called to the detriment of Back-Bench Members whose support is being sought, but the threat of Miller 3 is not one that has been produced before. I found it an unpersuasive line of argument, particularly that the Prime Minister could go to the courts and say, “In order that I should have a stronger position in dealing with foreign counterparties, I must suspend Parliament to make sure that nobody can attend Parliament and say anything in the course of its proceedings while I am engaged in these negotiations.” I cannot see any basis for that, as opposed to the contention that has come into the debate of a Prime Minister adducing in evidence, “I wish to have a Dissolution and I have a majority in Parliament supporting me in this desire”, which would be the case under the amendment that we passed previously. We would be in an absolutely clear position and the courts would have no basis for intervening.
In the preceding debate, the noble Lord, Lord True, said that the simple and proven practice of the past is what we should follow. But the simple and proven practice of the past did not include an ouster clause of this nature. The Representation of the People Acts do not contain ouster clauses of this nature, nor does most other legislation. That is a situation that might change, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, pointed out, if this is taken as a precedent. I will come back to that in a moment.
It is necessary to be clear, first, that in the event of the other place agreeing to the amendment that we passed a moment ago, this ouster clause is particularly unnecessary because no court would interfere with so clear a decision of Parliament. There are other reasons why the request to the monarch to dissolve would be protected from the actions of the courts. One is that it is, as the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, pointed out in moving his amendment, a personal prerogative power. It is not a matter of advice which might be challenged, as it was in the Prorogation case. It is a personal prerogative power, which results from a request from the Prime Minister. I do not believe that the courts would be in any way inclined to interfere with the exercise of that personal prerogative by the monarch.
I strongly assert that the comparison with Prorogation is quite wrong. The effect of Prorogation is that Parliament cannot meet; it cannot sit or discuss and it cannot challenge the Executive. That is quite different from the Dissolution of Parliament and the calling of an election. Indeed, it has been adduced from the quarters of those who support the Government’s position that the calling of an election, referring the matter to the people, is so clearly the right outcome in so many circumstances that it should not be interrupted in any way. In my view, the courts would certainly not want to be seen to be preventing a general election from taking place. I find that inconceivable.
My primary worry about this ouster clause is not that it has some practical effect or that it changes what would be the clear reluctance of the courts to become involved in arguments about the calling of an election. It is that the Government have form on ouster clauses; we saw that earlier this week when debating the Judicial Review and Courts Bill, which has its own ouster clause. In that case, the Government have declared that it is their intention to use the wording in that Bill as a precedent for ouster clauses in other, unspecified Bills in future. That was clearly stated in a government press release.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, made the point that parliamentary draftsmen like to act on precedent. When they have found a form of words that suits their purpose in one case, they like to use it again in another, if possible. We are creating precedents for issues around, for example, purported powers that will be very unhelpful in future as we seek to defend the ability of the citizen to challenge abuse of power, which is what judicial review is about. We are doing so because of fears that are not justified and dangers that do not exist, because the likelihood of courts preventing a general election from taking place is clearly vanishingly small, to the point of non-existence, for the reasons that I and others in this debate have adduced. We would be better off without the ouster clause provision. We do not need it and therefore we support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, and the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Butler, is right to pursue his amendment because it seems quite possible that the House of Commons will decline the invitation to accept the amendment that your Lordships’ House so recently voted in favour of. I will address a number of questions briefly, because I did have the pleasure of being here in Committee.
First, is this really an ouster clause at all? I accept that it is not easy to imagine circumstances in which a Dissolution is challenged in the courts, but the noble Lord, Lord Butler, wants at least to keep open that possibility—apart from anything else, as I understand it, to save potential embarrassment to the sovereign. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, does not want this ouster clause, if it is so described, to act as a precedent, and the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, does not like the word “purported”.
It is probably not, strictly speaking, an ouster clause at all. During the deliberations of the Independent Review of Administrative Law, which I had the privilege of chairing, we looked at this clause. We thought that there was a distinction between Parliament creating a power and, at the same time, including a provision that limits or absolutely prevents the courts’ powers from challenging that.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I suppose I should declare a professional interest in the possibility of Miller 3.
I support the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Norton and Lord Butler. I do not suggest that the courts would today never entertain a judicial review in relation to Dissolution. The noble Lord, Lord Norton, mentioned the words of Lord Roskill in the GCHQ case in 1984—the law has moved on a long way in the nearly 40 years since then. Like other noble Lords, I find it very difficult to envisage a case in which the courts would entertain a challenge to the Dissolution of Parliament and the calling of a general election. However, I support the amendments because I think it would be wise, in this context, to proceed on the basis of never say never.
One of the vices of a provision such as Clause 3 is that it seeks to remove the possibility of the court exercising jurisdiction, however exceptional the circumstances may be or however grave the abuse of power by a future Prime Minister. I would much prefer to leave it to the judgment of a future Supreme Court whether the circumstances then existing justify exceptional judicial involvement and whether there is an abuse of power, rather than confirm a blanket immunity from legal challenge whatever the circumstances.
I also agree with the noble Lords, Lord Butler and Lord Norton, that there is a point of principle here: the Prime Minister would be exercising a very important power. It is wrong in principle that there should be an immunity from the rule of law—it is a very basic principle. That principle does not depend on whether the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, is correct in saying that, as a matter of description, this is or is not an ouster clause. What it purports to do is prevent the court saying, “What you have done is unlawful”. We should not be allowing the exercise of public powers to enjoy such immunity as a matter of principle.
We then have the argument the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, deployed, and which was raised in Committee, that the mere existence of this possible jurisdiction to entertain a judicial review may cause delay, expense or inconvenience. That seems to me to be entirely unrealistic. I looked to see whether there have been any cases analogous to the possible cases we are talking about. There is one. The Press Association reported on 8 April 1992, the day before the 1992 general election— won by John Major—that on 7 April, the day before, Mr Justice Macpherson had considered and rejected a judicial review application which was made by a Mr George Barnes, who was seeking to stop the 1992 general election going ahead. Mr Barnes was aggrieved by the manner, as he put it, in which the main political parties had chosen their candidates.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord in the middle of his flow, but I think his point was that the law has moved on greatly since Lord Roskill. So does not citing a decision from 1992 rather defeat his own argument?
Lord Pannick (CB)
No, because my point is that hopeless or frivolous applications will be dealt with speedily by the courts. This was plainly an application with no merit whatever, and my noble friend’s point, as I understood him, was that the mere existence of the jurisdiction could cause delay. I am giving an example of how the courts then, and today, would deal with a frivolous application.
The judge decided, unsurprisingly, that this was not a matter for the courts and that there was no basis for the application. The general election went ahead and it was entirely untroubled by the litigation. There was no delay, expense or inconvenience. The court dismissed a hopeless application speedily and effectively, as it usually does. For all these reasons, if my noble friend Lord Butler wishes to test the opinion of the House, he will have my support.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, I too attempted to darn this Bill in Committee and, indeed, spoke at Second Reading, and I too am opposed to this group of amendments. My core concern here is to safeguard my successors on the Bench and to avoid the risk of constitutional crisis, which would arise were there to be some future attempted legal challenge not as frivolous as that just indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, but something dressed up as an altogether more coherent attack on a Dissolution, such as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, himself would be adept at managing.
Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Howard, but in common with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and the noble Lord, Lord Beith, I do not think for an instant that the courts would ever actually reach the point of upholding such a challenge, even though, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, also says, things have undoubtedly moved on since the CCSU case. That, as it happens, was my very last case at the Bar, decades ago. Although it is very unlikely that such a challenge would succeed, it is very important to put in the Bill a provision that would provide the greatest possible discouragement to any mischievous person, instructing whosoever it may be, contemplating a challenge.
Clause 3 seems to me to be admirable for that purpose; it enables the courts to say, as Mr Justice Macpherson—a very old friend of mine, with whom I shared a room in chambers for decades—said in that case, “Chuck it out without more ado.” That is really the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Trevethin and Oaksey. That is the practical effect of Clause 3. It is not there, I would suggest, as revenge for Miller 2; nor does it—and this is the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks—create a risk that this will be a template or precedent for the future. Its relevance here is purely in the context and to underline the fact that Dissolution is essentially a prerogative act, preserved even since CCSU. We should leave it there, discourage prospective litigants and reinforce the courts in a robust rejection of any attempt that would delay and disrupt, to some degree, a Dissolution process. Leave it there.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, was kind enough to quote me from when I spoke in Committee on this. I want to underline that what I said was:
“I cannot conceive of any circumstances in which the involvement of the courts could ever be justified”.—[Official Report, 25/1/22; col. 227.]
That is the important point. What Clause 3 is trying to do is to put this question beyond doubt.
Without Clause 3, we potentially do not rule out the courts trying to get themselves involved in challenging the use of the royal prerogative, doubtless with the help of very clever lawyers such as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. Indeed, in the noble Lord’s remarks just now, he rather wanted to keep the door open for noble Lords such as himself to encourage the courts to get involved in cases such as the use of the royal prerogative.
Our understanding before the introduction of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act was that the courts would not get involved in the use of the royal prerogative. Since then, there have been some surprising judgments—perhaps not surprising to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—such as Miller 2, which have made many people doubtful about whether or not the settled understanding of where the courts would go was indeed that settled. That is what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has underlined for us today.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, as a layman and an unashamed politician, I want to make a couple of layman’s/politician’s observations in what has been a largely legal argument.
Much of this discussion—in fact, the whole of this Report stage—has been considered with the ghost of the 2017-19 Parliament at its back; the cloud over us, one could say. It was a very unfortunate Parliament—in the past I have called it poisonous—and we need to be careful about drawing all sorts of long-term constitutional conclusions from that period. This relates to my observation on the debate about the ouster clause: it is, as others have said, trying to solve the problem of Miller 2.
To me, as a layman, Miller 2 did present some problems. One is unarguable—and I am cautious about saying that—in that it did massively involve the courts in an intensely political situation. I know it tried to give disclaimers in its judgment, and all the rest of it, but I can tell you, as a politician, it is hard to imagine a more intense, political, biting debate than the one that existed in relation to Britain’s membership of the European Union, and the courts went slam dunk right into the middle of that debate. In my view this is not a good precedent.
I would also say—and I am sure I will be stopped if I trespass here—that it involved the courts in arguments which I know are legal arguments, doubtless very good legal arguments, but they do not make much sense to the layman. Part of the Miller 2 judgment was to say that the Prorogation had not happened. Although I understand the lawyers’ argument for saying so, it does not make much common sense to an observer. It is like saying that the sun comes up in the morning, and it is up there now, but the law says that the sun has not risen. I say, “Look, it is up there now,” but the law says it is still where it was before. That kind of ugly language and reasoning is—at least to me—something that we do not want to see employed too often. It is employed in the Bill itself; it is as though the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 had never happened, but both those things—the Act and, unfortunately, the Prorogation —had happened.
I simply make the following observation. If I am right that we want to make things intelligible to both lawyers and non-lawyers, if I am right that 2017-19 was a really bad patch, and if I am right in saying that we really do not want the courts—however exceptional it might be—telling the people when they can and cannot have a general election, then I have offered a solution. I am sorry I keep coming back—actually I am not going to apologise at all, because it is right—to the amendment by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. If only the House of Commons would apply its mind to the arguments that have been deployed in this House during the consideration of previous amendments, that would solve all the problems. If there were a resolution of Parliament then the courts would not intervene, the monarch would not have decisions to make and there would be no need for the ouster clause.
Let us lift up our eyes and hope that the Commons weighs the merits of the amendment that we have sent back to them, recognises those merits, votes not on a purely partisan basis but on the basis of the strength of the arguments, and retains the change that we have already made to the Bill.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
My Lords, I must also apologise for not being here in Committee, although I have followed your Lordships’ arguments with great interest.
One point is abundantly clear to me: the idea of not using the royal prerogative to call for an election is, at its very best, curious. The concept that a Government should limp on without the confidence of the Commons, when that Government no longer have the wish, or possibly the ability, to conduct the affairs of the nation, can do only harm to the well-being of this country. I have listened to a lot of erudite and hypothetical—indeed very hypothetical—arguments today. We cannot get away from the fact that, if a Government feel that they no longer wish to govern, then it is not only pointless to keep them in place but potentially very damaging.
In line with what my noble friend Lord Bridges said, restricting people from voting is anti-democratic. There should be no impediment to the freedom to allow the electorate to express their opinion at any time at the ballot box. Allowing the courts to interfere with that and to have a say may have unknown effects and cause serious harm, as the noble Lord, Lord Trevethin and Oaksey, and others have pointed out. After all, the courts can produce some very weird results.
My only other thought, standing here among so many noble and learned Lords, is that I wonder what the collective noun for lawyers is. Do your Lordships think it is “a bear pit” of lawyers?
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, asks whether the sun has risen. Yes, it is still up there, but for those who lived in the Mexican desert during the testing of the atomic bomb, the sky was so full of light that nearby farmers woke up and started working, but three hours later the light had gone. Of course, at the usual time of 6 am, the sun rose. They said, “We saw the sun rise twice”, but it had not. Physical things may help us, but also they may not.
For myself, I find phrases such as
“A court or tribunal may not question”
very difficult. Putting that in statute sets a bad precedent. The courts are restrained in the way that they approach many things; they would never simply say out of hand, “We are not going to look at this”. That is why my friend Sir William MacPherson, when someone did not want the election to take place in 1992, looked at that and then dismissed it. Now there is the idea that he should not have done so. I have always had great admiration for the British Parliament and for the Civil Service and the way that it works, which is just really lovely—some of your Lordships who were born here and live here may not appreciate it, but I do—but this measure worries me.
I was in the judiciary when we questioned Mr Amin for expelling Uganda citizens who happened to be Asian. There were two kinds: those who were Ugandan Asian citizens and Asians living in Uganda who were British. We questioned whether he had the right to do this. He did not like it. What did he do? He passed a decree that no court in the land could question the expulsion of Asians. That caused me a lot of problems. This measure sounds almost like that.
There should be no Act of any sort which is not subject to the possibility of challenge in the courts, because they are the custodians of the rule of law. We cannot say by statute, “You should not challenge this particular prerogative”; if it is not done according to the rule of law, they should be able to look at it. I have a lot of confidence in judges, lawyers and the people, because they are the guardians of the rule of law. If they do not guard that, the likes of Mr Amin will have a field day. I support the intention the noble Lord, Lord Butler, that the clause should be deleted.
Lord Fairfax of Cameron (Con)
My Lords, very briefly, I would like to respectfully adopt the arguments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, and others, including the noble Lord, Lord Trevethin and Oaksey, and my noble friend Lord Faulks, in this matter.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said, I think, that he could not see the courts getting involved in a Dissolution case, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said similarly. But, as my noble friend Lord Faulks has said, very many people, including many lawyers, could not see the courts getting involved in a Prorogation matter because, until the Supreme Court and Miller, that was considered to have been unarguably a political matter. But in a paradigm example of judicial activism, the Supreme Court in Miller did get involved, despite the unanimous decision—which some people find curious—of a strong divisional court below. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, referred later to the rule of law. My point is that, until the Supreme Court and Miller, as held by the divisional court, Prorogation was considered to be a political matter.
Lord Pannick (CB)
Does the noble Lord allow for the possibility that the reason why there was no precedent prior to Miller 2 was because no Prime Minister prior to that had abused, in the view of the court, the power to prorogue Parliament in order to frustrate his views in relation to Brexit?
Lord Fairfax of Cameron (Con)
The use of the word “abuse” is somewhat tendentious. As I was saying on the question of the rule of law, and as held by the divisional court, until the Supreme Court decision on Miller, Prorogation was thought to be an entirely political matter and therefore not subject to the jurisdiction of the courts. I suggest that the risk remains, and pray in aid the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in this regard, because he jokingly referred to his possible involvement in Miller 3.
I rest my case. The Government are entitled for these reasons to insist on Clause 3.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I will start where I started in the previous debate, with the parliamentary TARDIS: the Government say that we can set things back to where they were before. Ministers in the other House and in your Lordships House said that this Bill brings clarity, but it is clear that it does not bring clarity. That is why the Government have insisted on Clause 3.
The elephant in the room, as has been mentioned, is Prorogation, but Prorogation is different from Dissolution. The unlawful Prorogation has had an impact on many people—I still think of it. I agree with the assessment of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that that was an abuse of power, but I would not extend that in the same way to a Dissolution.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords again for an interesting debate and their many contributions. Like others who have never been called to the high profession of the law, I bow to the expertise of so many of your Lordships in this matter. However, as a lay man, I notice the diverse opinions put forward by those eminent enough to have the title of noble and learned, and other learned speakers versed in the law.
The underlying point here is what a pleasure it is for me, after the previous debate, to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, and others who said a similar thing. There is an underlying political point here, and a point, which I will come to, regarding the degree to which the public would simply not understand what would happen if there were interventions by the courts—a point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown. It could not redound in any way to the credit of the courts for there to be an intervention.
I submit to your Lordships that the concerns of those who have them are misplaced. We believe that this clause is proportionate and required, considering the direction of case law—a point underlined by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, when he talked of the way in which the law had moved on. That is a matter that people in another place will want to notice when they consider the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Butler, should your Lordships, to my regret, approve it. The Government are seeking to confirm the long-standing position that the Dissolution of Parliament should remain non-justiciable.
I explained the Government’s rationale behind the drafting of the clause in detail in a lengthy speech in Committee, which I promise not to repeat at length. However, I said to the Committee that I wanted to put the legal position on the record. I commented further in a letter, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, opposite for her interest in and reference to that. The letter has been laid in the Library and I hope it will be of assistance to your Lordships. I shall not repeat all the arguments but in the Government’s view, which I hope most noble Lords will agree with, it would be highly undesirable for the courts to be permitted to intervene in the Dissolution and calling of Parliament. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, and my noble friend Lord Faulks made devastating interventions on this in Committee. We heard similar arguments repeated today.
Just imagine the scenario. A Prime Minister requests a Dissolution, which is granted. The BBC news starts—“dong, dong, dong”; I do not know what music it has these days, but it fades away to a dramatic headline: “There will be a general election on 7 July”. Up in Telford, workers in the Labour constituency office start the printing presses. The orange tabards come out wherever the Lib Dems are congregating. The poster sites are booked, the canvassers are out, the expenses begin to accumulate and the statutory election clock begins to run. Then the news flashes across social media. Two days later, the BBC headline is “The general election on 7 July may not now go ahead because of an application to the courts.”
Such a situation would be absolutely incredible to 70 million people in this country, even if it might be understandable to a couple of people trying to get a court case going. We really must avoid any risk of this happening in the interests of the country, of politics and of the courts. It would be inappropriate for them to become embroiled in what many have said is the inherently political matter of when an election is called. We must avoid the practical risk of the uncertainty concerning the general election that would follow. Even the possibility of such a court case would be disruptive, drag our judges into the political fray and frustrate the democratic process.
There are checks and balances, to which I referred in Committee. Ultimately, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, has said more than once, the check on any alleged abuse—whatever that might be—of calling an election is the decision of the people. The noble and learned Lord referred again today to Brenda from Bristol.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Non-Afl)
I understand everything that the noble Lord has said, but is there not a contradiction there? One wants to say that the matter should not be taken to court but, in that case, where is the confidence that something could not go badly wrong with the process? Scenarios ought to be spelled out. Is there not a scenario in which this could go badly wrong? People would say, “Well, it was not conducted in the right way.”
Lord True (Con)
Once the general election genie is out of the bottle, it should stay out of the bottle. The decision lies with the electorate. There is no question of a dodgy scenario. It is then down to the electorate. The ultimate political reprimand is available to them, as my party discovered in 2017. You can go backwards, as well as forward.
I cannot accept the amendments of by my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth for the reasons I explained at length in Committee. He argued that this clause conflicted with the rule of law. The Independent Review of Administrative Law, chaired by my noble friend Lord Faulks, said that it was ultimately for Parliament to decide what the law on non-justiciability should be and for the courts to interpret what Parliament has said. The majority of the Joint Committee agreed that a non-justiciability clause was compatible with the rule of law in a case such as this, where the power is to enable the electorate to make a decision. As my noble friend Lord Faulks said in Committee, unless you reject the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, there is nothing constitutionally objectionable to the clause.
The Government see a strong argument for its principled and pragmatic case that the courts do not have a role to play in the issue of dissolution. That our sovereign Parliament should be able to make provision for this is entirely consistent with the rule of law. For the reasons I gave at length in Committee—and will not repeat here—we believe that the entire wording of Clause 3 is necessary to secure against the risk of an intervention by the courts.
On precedent, I am happy to repeat the reassurance I gave in Committee that we do not see this as setting a wider precedent. Speaking at this Dispatch Box, I repeat that this clause is very specific and has been drafted with a particular purpose in mind, namely, to confirm a widely shared view of the nature of the prerogative powers to dissolve and call Parliament. In this case, it is seeking to ensure the non-justiciability of the prerogative powers for the Dissolution and calling of Parliament, which traditionally the courts have had no role in reviewing—nothing more. It is a bespoke exclusion to address this precise task. I stress again that we are asking Parliament to consider these arguments and endorse this clause in this Bill—nothing more.
In conclusion, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, whom I consider my noble friend, that he cannot have his cake and eat it. He tells us that there is no chance that the courts would intervene, but then puts before us an amendment that would enable them to do so. I am not sure which is his argument. My noble friend Lord Norton of Louth made the same argument: that it is unlikely that the courts would intervene. In that case, why are we having this argument, with this point put forward?
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, told us explicitly that such a challenge might come. So the purported, or in fact actual, intention of this amendment, were it to be passed, would be to procure the circumstances that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, envisaged: namely, that the courts might one day intervene on a Dissolution. That is what I assume the noble Lord, Lord Butler, is wanting: that the courts should have that opportunity—although at the start he said he did not really envisage or like the idea.
I agree very much with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Trevethin and Oaksey: it is vital that we maintain this clause. Deleting or altering it, as proposed by my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, would be, in my submission, like building a fence around a field only to leave the gate open—or having an umbrella with holes in it. It would not be completely effective in the light of past judgments by the courts. Desiring to avoid the involvement of the courts and to secure absolute certainty on this point, and on the basis that this does not provide a precedent for the future, I sincerely hope that noble Lords will withdraw or not move their amendments and join with the other place in supporting this clause.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have spoken. This has been a very valuable debate which indeed shows the value of the House of Lords. I am especially grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, as well as the noble Lords, Lord Beith and Lord Pannick, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, for their comments.
My noble friend Lord True will not be surprised to hear that he has not persuaded me. For the reasons I have given, I regard the amendment as necessary to remove the words that are either redundant or constitutionally objectionable. This is not about keeping the courts out but about the use of certain constitutionally objectionable words within the clause. My noble friend did not address adequately—indeed, did not address at all—the point that, if we are dealing with a personal prerogative power of the monarch, there is no advice to challenge. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and my noble friend Lady Noakes did not pick up on the distinction between the prerogative powers that are exercised on advice and those that are exercised not on advice. That is the fundamental distinction that has not been recognised or addressed.
I normally agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, but on this occasion I think he is totally wrong. He argued that he was seeking to protect future members of the Supreme Court. I regard it the other way round and consider that we would be protecting future members by removing the provisions in this clause because, although my noble friend Lord True said that this was not intended to set a precedent, the point is that it will be on the statute book. It will be available to parliamentary draftsmen in the future when other measures come along and they will think, “Oh, let’s keep the courts out. There’s a remote chance they might get involved”. Therefore, there are dangers in this.
Lord Butler of Brockwell
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, I too am very grateful to those who have taken part in this debate.
This for me is a matter of principle. It is wrong, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, the noble and right reverend Lord and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said, that there can be no protection from the courts against the improper use of executive power. My hackles rise when I hear the Minister use the phrase “The courts are not permitted”—“This legislation is to ensure that the courts are not permitted to look at this matter”. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, this is not an issue of the courts preventing the people having a say in an election. It is about the courts preventing the illegitimate or illegal use of executive power. That is what the issue is.
I believe it is vanishingly unlikely that the courts would become involved in this matter—I am now just answering the point made by the noble Lord, Lord True. I would be prepared to have a lifelong bet with him that this situation will not arise in his or my lifetime. However, the courts can look after themselves. They do not need the protection of legislation in this matter; it is indeed for the courts to decide the merits of issues and not for the Government to legislate in advance to prevent them doing so.
Therefore, because this for me is a matter of principle, and because I would like, in case the amendment we previously passed is overturned by the House of Commons, the opportunity to return to this on ping-pong, I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
“(3) This Act comes into force when a Cabinet Manual revised in relation to the dissolution and calling of Parliament has been laid before Parliament.(3A) Prior to revising the Cabinet Manual the Minister must consult the relevant select committees in the House of Commons and the House of Lords.”Member’s explanatory statement
The current Cabinet Manual references the Fixed-term Parliaments Act and has not been revised for 10 years. As a consequence of the repeal of that Act under this Bill, the Cabinet Manual should be revised in relation to the dissolution and calling of Parliament.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I tabled this amendment last week and received a letter on Monday evening from the Minister that answers a number of my points. Therefore, I mainly wish to stress the usefulness of the Cabinet Manual and to encourage the Minister to repeat what he said in my letter on the Floor of the House.
Paragraph 227 of the Joint Committee report points out that:
“legislation—by definition—does not create or restore conventions … If the old conventions on dissolving and summoning Parliaments are to be restored, or indeed if they are to be replaced by new ones, there needs to be a political process to identify, and to articulate, what those conventions are.”
I have heard the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, make two speeches in different debates over the last two weeks about the importance of due process and the political process and of not just rushing things through or allowing Prime Ministers to decide them. The Constitution Committee report on the revision of the Cabinet Manual stresses not only the importance and usefulness of that manual, but the need for there to be consultation with Parliament about the revision of the manual, because it relates to the relationship between the Executive and Parliament.
The Minister’s letter, which I thank him for, stresses that conventions
“can only operate effectively when they are commonly understood and where there is tacit agreement that they should be respected, irrespective of the particular political challenges and circumstances of the day”.
This has not been entirely true of our current Prime Minister over the last two years. We need to get back to that. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I remind the Minister that there was a Constitution Committee report on the Cabinet Manual and I think the Government have yet to respond. Could he give an update on when a response is likely to be? As it would cover these issues, it would be helpful when we have the opportunity for a longer debate in your Lordships’ House, given that we do not have the time today.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, for his thoughts on the Cabinet Manual. It is important. I am pleased to say that, of course, the Government agree on the fundamental importance of the Cabinet Manual, and I can confirm to the House, as I have indicated privately to the noble Lord, that the Government intend to publish an updated version of the Cabinet Manual within this Parliament. In response to the noble Baroness opposite, I can also add that I have written to the newly appointed chair of the Constitution Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, to set out the Government’s intentions on this topic.
There have been a number of developments that render the current version out of date, not least—if we ever get to the end of it—this legislation going through now, which will have to be taken into account. As a result, this amendment, which would prevent the Bill coming into force until after a revised version of the Cabinet Manual has been published, is not needed and would be unhelpful. It would delay the commencement of legislation, which, one would infer, our Parliament will pass shortly, and we would be left carrying on under the terms of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. I hope, for that technical reason, but also on the basis of the assurance that I have given the House, that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
I thank the Minister for repeating that statement. I stress that the revision of the manual should ideally come well before the timing of the next election, and I strongly support the opposition suggestion that there should be a debate, ideally in both Houses, on the conventions that will have been restated. On that basis, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Introduction: The Lord Bishop of Guildford
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Knife Crime
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Laming
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to reduce the incidence of knife crime involving young people.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, we have made £130.5 million available this year to tackle serious violence. This includes funding for violence reduction units, which draw key partners together to address the root causes of violence, and targeted police action to deter and disrupt knife crime. We are also investing £20 million in prevention and early intervention to prevent young people being drawn into violence in the first place.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I know she shares the House’s concern about these young people who have died on the streets of this country. Last year was the worst year on record. It is a terrible waste of young lives. Is the Minister willing to look at a scheme initiated by the police in Hertfordshire, where they have established a specialist team of officers to link with the other key services to identify those young people who are in danger of being drawn into criminality, so that they can prevent, I hope, terrible things from happening to them and other young people? This scheme, though in its infancy, seems to be producing very encouraging results.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I was pleased to be able to read about the scheme and to see the multiagency approach it is taking, trying to intervene before young people get involved in criminality. I am always pleased to hear examples and share good practice with other agencies.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, the Prime Minister and Home Secretary have been rebuked by the statistics watchdog for using misleading figures, claiming a falling crime rate under their leadership. Who is right: the Government or the statistics authority? Some communities suffer much more than others from knife crime. Could we have a zero-tolerance policy and, in order to tackle the problem, a breakdown of the figures for the age, sex and race of the offenders?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, the Home Secretary did state, in her evidence to HASC on 2 February, that while some aspects of crime are going down, not all aspects are. The Home Office press release on 27 January stated that the figure used to show the reduction in crime excludes fraud and computer misuse. Of course, data is crucial when we are thinking about interventions in whatever crime it is.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, can my noble friend tell me how many knife crimes are drug related?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
As my noble friend will know, the picture of knife crime is not a simple one. Many factors drive the use of knives, both as regards victims and perpetrators, but there is no doubt that county lines drug-running does increase their usage.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I ask the Minister whether the Government are helping youth clubs.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I am sure that the noble and learned Baroness knows about some of the youth interventions we are putting in place, including in youth opportunities. We are investing £200 million in a youth endowment fund to ensure that those most at risk are given the opportunity to turn their lives away from violence and lead positive lives.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My lords, two police forces so far, South Yorkshire and Thames Valley, have decided to stop showing images of knives that they have found. My colleague at the London Assembly, Caroline Russell, has asked the Mayor of London whether he will encourage the Met to stop sharing those images, because it probably encourages knife crime rather than diminishes it. Is that something the Home Office might support?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
If police forces decide to do such things as stop showing pictures of knives, that is entirely a matter for them. Of course, we support whatever works—sometimes showing pictures of knives increases the fear factor in getting involved in things such as knife crime—but it is down to local police forces.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
We share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, about knife crime and the devastating effects it can have on young people in particular. The Minister mentioned violence reduction units, which bring together local partners to tackle violent crime by understanding its underlying causes, and by bringing additional funding. Violence reduction units have been introduced in 18 police force areas. When are they going to be extended to the remaining 25 police areas to support local multiagency work to tackle youth crime?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I agree with the noble Lord that VRUs are a very valuable tool in early intervention. We have provided £35.5 million this year to fund them. They are commissioning a range of youth interventions, and I will keep the House updated as they become more widespread.
Lord Macdonald of River Glaven (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister say something about interventions in schools to discourage young people from becoming involved in gangs, which seem to be a very rich source of knife crime on our streets?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely right in what he says, and we know that engaging in education is one of the strongest protective factors against violence. That is why we have invested over £45 million in both mainstream and alternative provision schools in serious violence hotspots, to support young people at risk of involvement in serious violence to re-engage in education. Since November last year, in 22 areas across England alternative provision specialist task forces have been working directly with young people.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, many troubled young people find themselves excluded from education and drawn into violent crime through financial incentives. What are the Government doing to promote work and apprenticeships to young people excluded from school?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
Apprenticeships are a very good way of diverting people away from violence and into meaningful activity, and on to a working life. I have just answered the previous question about what we are doing in terms of education. Moving on from that, our £3.3 million Creating Opportunities Forum is providing meaningful employment-related opportunities to and raising the aspirations of young people at risk of serious violence over the next two years. More widely, we have invested £237 million to provide extra traineeship places between September 2020 and July this year, with further investment through to the end of the 2024-25 academic year. Traineeships are a short and flexible combination of learning and work experience, and they give young people who lack them the knowledge and skills to get an apprenticeship or a job.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister recall the meetings which I have had with her about the use of data and focusing on data to identify the locations in neighbourhoods which need extra resources in trying to prevent crime? In particular, does she recall the conversation she had with Professor Shepherd from the University of Cardiff, and the work he has done there, which has been spread to other parts of the country? Could she update the House on how that is being used?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I very much remember that meeting and the professor’s very forensic detailing of exactly where crime hotspots were occurring. Of course, local forces will determine the risks in their local areas and the correct interventions to be put in place. Although I support what the professor is doing, it is, as I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, up to local forces to decide.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
Will the Minister explain what is being done for people who have not returned to school, who are not excluded from school, but, following Covid, have decided to self-exclude, who I believe are very severely at risk?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
That should be a worry for us all, not only in terms of the risk of getting involved in knife crime, but also the risk to their education getting far behind—perhaps safeguarding risks too. The noble Baroness raises a multifactorial and worrying trend that the Home Office has been concerned about right through the pandemic.
Gambling Act 2005
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Foster of Bath
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they will publish their response to the Review of the Gambling Act 2005.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and draw attention to my interest as the chairman of Peers for Gambling Reform.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, as the Gambling Minister made clear in his speech at the GambleAware annual conference in December, our review is looking at a very wide range of issues and our call for evidence received 16,000 submissions, which we are considering carefully. We will publish a White Paper setting out our vision for the sector in the coming months.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
I thank the Minister for that reply, but with more than one gambling-relating suicide every day, delaying reforming our outdated gambling regulations is putting lives at risk. We do not have to wait for the White Paper to make changes, as we have seen, for example, in banning the use of credit cards for gambling. Given that strict stake and prize limits apply to land-based gambling but bizarrely not to online gambling, will the Government fix this harmful omission now and commit to a regular review of limits in years to come? Frankly, chaos in Downing Street should not be an excuse for delay in protecting lives.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
As the noble Lord rightly notes, we have made significant progress in recent years to make online gambling safer, including a ban on gambling with credit cards as well as new rules to reduce the intensity of online slot games. But we recognise that more can be done to protect people who gamble online. Our review is looking closely at the case for greater protections for online gamblers, including protections on products and for individuals. We called for evidence on protections including the pros and cons of stake limits as part of our review, and of course, we are considering all the evidence carefully.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, the Government have had the House of Lords report, which is an excellent report, led by the noble Lord, Lord Grade, that made strong recommendations on a system that would protect the vulnerable as well as give some certainty to the industry. Given that unlicensed sites have now grown, according to PricewaterhouseCoopers, from £1.4 billion to £2.8 billion, when are the Government going to do something to safeguard the vulnerable and give some certainty to the racing and sporting industries?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord is right; it is an excellent report. I had the pleasure of serving on that committee before joining Her Majesty’s Government. The recommendations and evidence contained in it, as well as the 16,000 submissions we have had to our call for evidence, are all forming part of our careful review of the Gambling Act. We will come back with our proposals in due course.
Lord Grade of Yarmouth (Con)
More ships!
I thank my noble friend the Minister for that response. One of the lessons of the implications of the outdated nature of the 2005 Gambling Act, which the Government are addressing, is that there was a serious lack of accountability on the Gambling Commission. It had many powers to stop many of the abuses that have led to such tragedies as we have heard and as we read about in the newspapers almost every day. We are very interested to know what the Government can do to increase the accountability of the regulator in this sector.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The Gambling Act review is looking at the Gambling Commission’s powers and resources, and how it uses them. The Commission has a new chairman and chief executive, who will be working closely with DCMS as they implement their vision for the organisation, but between April 2020 and March 2021 the commission imposed more than £30 million in financial penalties for breaches of its licensing conditions.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I declare my interests as a member of Peers for Gambling Reform. The British Medical Journal said:
“We do not allow tobacco companies to design tobacco control policies, yet the gambling industry, through the organisations it funds, shapes our responses to … harms”.
Does the Minister agree that the system of voluntary levies is part of the problem, because the industry is controlling the messaging, and that what we need are statutory, smart levies to give total independence to research, treatment and education if we are really to tackle gambling-related harms?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The Government have always been clear that they will look at the case for alternative funding mechanisms if there is a funding gap. All options remain on the table, including a statutory levy such as the right reverend Prelate suggests. The Department for Health and Social Care is working to improve care and treatment pathways to support the 15 clinics that were committed to in the NHS long-term plan. NHS England has also worked with GambleAware to design effective treatment.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the campaign by GambleAware, which highlights that up to 1 million women are at risk of harm through gambling, while stigma and shame prevents two in five women experiencing such harm seeking help. What help is being given to spot the early warning signs of harmful gambling, focusing on women aged 25 to 55 who gamble online? Can the Minister confirm that the review and the ensuing White Paper will consider and refer to the impact of gambling on women, as well as those who are close to them?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Baroness makes an important point. We have seen already, through the evidence gathered by Public Health England, the way that there are differential impacts on certain groups of people, whether by geography, sex or age. We want to improve the evidence base in the research so that we can ensure our policies are based on good and concrete evidence. That is part of the review of the Act that we are undertaking.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, in the speech to the GambleAware conference to which the Minister referred, the Gambling Minister recognised that affordability checks were key to reducing gambling harm. Are the Government aware of the research by the Social Market Foundation showing that £100 spent per month was the right threshold above which gambling operators should be obliged to make affordability checks?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
That research by the Social Market Foundation was, I know, noted in the letter sent to my honourable friend the Gambling Minister. We see a clear role for considering an individual’s financial circumstances to help stop devastating losses, but to be workable and to prevent harm, checks need to be proportionate and done in a way that is acceptable to customers, too. We continue to work with the Gambling Commission on this issue in the run-up to our White Paper.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, further to the answer the Minister gave to the right reverend Prelate, can he give a categoric undertaking that the gambling industry will have no influence whatever in how the levy is allocated to research, harm prevention, education and the treatment of those affected by gambling addiction?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The Government have always been clear, as I said, that we will look at the case for alternative funding mechanisms and all options remain on the table. Of course, we are taking views from industry, as we are from everybody with an interest in this area. We will take all those views into account as we prepare the White Paper.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I declare my position as a member of Peers for Gambling Reform. In Washwood Heath Road in Ward End, Birmingham, there are three bookmakers next to each other and another a few metres away. It is known to the locals as the bookie belt. We know from studies last year that bookmakers are 10 times more likely to be in the poorest areas of the country than the richest. This takes away choice in food and other essential shops. Should not the Government’s levelling-up White Paper have dealt with this issue of place-based gambling dominance?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, it is also important to remember that a great number of people gamble legally and enjoy doing so without harm. We want to strike the right balance to make sure that people can conduct this legal activity, while addressing questions of regional disparities. That is why we have put out our call for evidence. We are glad to have received so many submissions and are considering them carefully.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, when does the Minister expect the Government to respond to the review of the Gambling Act 2005? We all dislike the involvement of children in gambling, and bringing that to an end is well overdue.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
As my honourable friend the Minister with responsibility for gambling has made clear, we will respond to the review in the coming months. My noble friend makes an important point about the role of children. We have looked at the impact of gambling on children as part of our review, and protections are already in place—for instance, to limit children’s exposure to advertising—so we are not waiting for the review to take action where it is needed.
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
My Lords, gambling addiction can lead to poverty and homelessness. Does the Minister agree that local councils should ensure that front-line staff are provided with training on harmful gambling so that they can recognise potential cases and are given the opportunity to help those in the greatest need?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Yes, there is an important part for local authorities to play, just as there is for the NHS. It is right that the industry contributes to treatment costs, and the largest operators have committed to provide £100 million for treatment over four years. As I say, these are all areas that we are considering as part of the review of the Act.
Parliamentary Estate: Electric Vehicle Charging Points
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
To ask the Senior Deputy Speaker what progress has been made with enabling electric vehicles to be charged on the Parliamentary Estate; and how many electric vehicle charging points are available to members of the House of Lords.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, despite what the Order Paper says, clearly, I am not the Senior Deputy Speaker. The noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, has asked me to reply as chair of the Services Committee— lucky me.
The Services Committee has considered proposals for electric vehicle charging points to be installed in the House of Lords’ part of the estate. Unfortunately, the scheme we considered did not offer value for money and, regrettably, there are currently no charging points for Members in the House of Lords’ part of the estate. However, we are totally committed to finding a solution and will continue to look at how to provide Members with access to charging facilities.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, who has the unfortunate task of answering for a bureaucracy straight out of “Yes Minister”. I may have the answer: many of us in this House have been arguing for this for four years, during which time the costs have risen by 700%. Noble Lords can imagine how surprised I was to discover that, at Christmas, eight charging points were put in Speaker’s Court for ministerial cars. I was even more surprised to find that the government car service will not allow them to use them, as of yet. Would it not be possible for your Lordships’ House to use these, and for the ban on our using the underground car park to be lifted, which I understand is in force to allow equipment for restoration of the House to be stored on two floors?
Lord Touhig (Lab)
I think the noble Lord is ready to organise a raiding party. He raises an important point. The director of facilities contacted the Speaker’s Office about the charging points in Speaker’s Court, and it responded by saying, “There are four charging posts providing charging for eight cars. Access to the points is currently managed by Mr Speaker’s Office. The points are intended for use by Mr Speaker, ministerial cars and visiting dignitaries.” I say to the noble Lord that I intend to raise this more formally and seek a full dialogue with the Speaker’s Office. If we can find a way forward to help noble Lords in this House to access that facility, we will certainly do so.
Lord Cunningham of Felling (Lab)
My Lords, is it not a poor example to the country as a whole that here at Westminster we do not have the facility to charge electric vehicles? We are encouraging the whole country to buy electric vehicles and setting targets for the reduction of carbon, yet here at Westminster we have no facilities, other than for those my noble friend mentioned. I apologise for asking him a difficult question, since he is a good colleague and friend—which I cannot say about many Ministers—but, here of all places, where we should be setting an example, we are signally failing to do so.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
I could not agree more with the noble Lord. We passed the legislation; we should be setting an example. However, in this case of the scheme we recently looked at, we must consider value for money. We could not justify going ahead with the scheme at that time because we could not justify the cost of it to this House or to the wider public whose money we are spending. That was the scheme we recently turned down. We will continue to look at opportunities and ways of finding provision for your Lordships to charge their cars on this site. It is a priority. We have to be seen to be doing what we are asking others to do.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, referred to the two EV charging points in the underground car park. I must declare an interest as I have used them on several occasions. We can no longer use them. Can the noble Lord explain whether he has had any conversations with the authorities of the other House about us being allowed to use those in future in the same way that Members of that House are able to?
Lord Touhig (Lab)
Following discussions with Black Rod, representations were made to the Serjeant at Arms about the facilities at the other end, which the noble Baroness mentions. This has been given active consideration and we were given to understand that this would be looked at on a case-by-case basis. I say to the noble Baroness that I am hopeful that we might see some progress on that matter before too long but, as it stands, we are not able to use those chargers.
Lord Geddes (Con)
My Lords, I have intervened on this subject on previous occasions. May I ask the noble Lord to enlarge slightly on “value for money”? I totally support the noble Lord, Lord Cunningham. Surely, we must set an example in the House and have these charging points so that we can use all-electric cars?
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, it is difficult because the Services Committee agreed that it wished to proceed with a plan for EVCs. In April last year, it was decided that a business case had to be made. That is the proper way to consider these matters. In July last year, the design authority revised the scheme it was submitting for the business case, having identified, hitherto, construction problems when it put in the EVCs in Speaker’s Court. By September, the committee was advised that the original estimate of £53,000 had increased by 700% and was now £370,000. For that reason, it was decided in November that we could not go ahead. Those are the reasons that the last plan was scrapped but we continue to try to find an option now to progress. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, who just asked this question, is on the edge of getting an all-electric car and I hope that by the time he gets it we will have somewhere for him to charge it.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
May I invite the noble Lord to come down to Chancellor’s Court with me? He will find four 13-amp charging points similar to what one might have on the side of one’s house, but they are weatherproof. Who can use those and could not a similar design be used for other courts? They may not look that good but an electric power lead outside the office next door and an external socket would surely be a very good start.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for his earlier comments about these matters and the discussions we have had. Yes, we have looked at Chancellor’s Court. The standard office electrical circuits like the one in Chancellor’s Court are not designed to provide the level of power continually that we need for EVCs. Chancellor’s Court is also used, of course, for building projects and storing project cabins and machinery. I can tell the noble Lord that in the continuing review we are not going to look at Chancellor’s Court as a long-term alternative; rather we will look at the Peers’ car park and Royal Court.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Touhig and Lord Borwick, and two of the staff were kind enough to take a walk around with me to look at various options that had not been considered. I am saddened that, for example, Chancellor’s Court has been excluded, apparently because it would be inconvenient for contractors who might need to reconfigure some future plans they have for some temporary cabins. We found many a location where this could be done appropriately and cheaply to bring in the facility in that £50,000 range. May I just say that the contractors do not run this House? The issues of net zero are far more significant and I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, could take that back to the staff and ask them to approach the problem as a way to enable us to have the facility and not to think through what every obstruction might be, even if hypothetical.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
At the outset, I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, for walking the estate with me and our technical people, looking at their ideas and trying to find solutions. I am pleased that one of the solutions that we had been discounting, about plugging into lamp posts, now has proper, active consideration as a result of their efforts. Chancellor’s Court concerns me, because it is the access through which school parties come to visit. It is not the best access for vehicles. Royal Court, on the other hand, has sufficient electricity supply; it is easy to access and it has plenty of parking space. I will not discount what the noble Baroness says. I will have another look at it, but I think that we perhaps have better options and I hope that the Committee will consider them as well.
Lord Borwick (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the recent discovery of an electrical duct directly in the middle of the Peers’ car park actually gives great hope that this problem can be solved quickly and easily?
Lord Touhig (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, as I said, and the noble Baroness, for coming round with me and coming up with these ideas. I have seen the exchange of emails that the noble Lord has had with the principal electrical engineer. I do not want to raise hopes too high at this stage, but while there is no doubt that the ducts in their current state could not be used, I can tell the noble Lord that the complete survey that we are carrying out now will be presented to the Services Committee as a possible option, depending on the results. That is down to his efforts. I pay tribute to him, as a former member of the Services Committee, as hugely hard-working and diligent, and for the refreshing ideas that he and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, have managed to give to this whole enterprise.
Covid-19: Lockdowns
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Robathan
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the paper A Literature Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Lockdowns on COVID-19 Mortality, published in January; and in particular, the conclusions that (1) lockdown measures during the pandemic reduced COVID-19 mortality by 0.2 per cent on average, and (2) the public health benefits of such measures were outweighed by their economic and social costs.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
The paper has yet to be peer-reviewed and there are important methodological issues that we would expect the reviewers to address. For example, the figure of 0.2% reduction in Covid-19 mortality from lockdown comes mainly from one of the 34 studies reviewed, while other studies report a reduction in mortality of up to 35%. To examine the trade-off between the public health benefits of lockdown and the economic and social costs requires a wider examination of the evidence.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reasoned Answer. I have absolutely no idea whether these conclusions are correct, but does my noble friend think that the formulation of government medical policy should be influenced by a wider range of scientific advice, such as that from the authors of this paper, rather than by the narrow focus of SAGE? This is epitomised by the discredited Neil Ferguson. Is he an ex-member? I cannot quite remember. He is still dragged out by the BBC to spread inaccurate gloom and doom. Can my noble friend also confirm that the Chief Medical Officer, at the Cabinet meeting on 8 December, predicted that without further lockdown by new year London would be like Lombardy was in March 2020?
Lord Kamall (Con)
Before I answer any further questions, I should draw Members’ attention to my registered interests and more specifically to the fact that, when I was the academic research director of a think tank, I invited one of the authors of the paper to speak at an academic webinar. In fact, he did not speak on this issue; he spoke on Lebanese currency—quite different issues, as noble Lords can imagine.
I say in response to my noble friend that what is important is that we look not only at the epidemiological evidence and the medical evidence but, in considering government policy, at the wider range of social, economic and other factors. For example, even within clinical decisions, there were some asking for lockdown in order to prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed, but that was counterbalanced by mental health experts who were very concerned about the impact on mental health. As my noble friend will know, there are also trade-offs with the economy and other issues.
Lord Patel (CB)
Would the Minister agree that smoking causes cancer, that the earth is round and that, in a pandemic caused by a respiratory virus, asking people to stay at home at the height of the pandemic reduces transmission of infection? Furthermore, would he agree that meta-analysis is the right way to look at randomised control trials and how they perform but not the ideal method to look at observational studies, as referred to in the Question?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The noble Lord makes important points. If we look at the history of the debate about the world being round, at one time scientists believed that the world was flat. Because of scepticism and contestability in science, we have been able to come to the conclusion that the world is round. That shows the importance of science being contestable and of having an open debate.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
On the issue of Covid and mortality, does the Minister have a view about the allegations made in the BBC2 documentary last night that there were hundreds of thousands of excess deaths because of the business and political attacks on the AstraZeneca vaccine in the early days? The fact is that its non-profit system did not suit the drug industry’s business plan. The massive allegation that, because of this failure, hundreds of thousands of extra people died, clearly ought to be investigated.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I apologise to the noble Lord. I did not see the programme last night. I was swatting up for the Health and Social Care Bill debate today and for this Question. The noble Lord refers to an important point. We should not forget not only the contribution that the research community made towards those vaccines, but also that AstraZeneca was prepared to supply, commercialise and distribute them on a not-for-profit basis. Sadly, it was attacked for doing so, not just for commercial reasons, but also by other countries that engaged in vaccine nationalism and disparaged the efficacy of the vaccine. Unfortunately, people in other countries have lost out. I hope that we do not see this in future.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has indicated her wish to speak. This may be a convenient moment.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, this paper’s economist authors admit that it reflects their opinions. Extraordinarily, they chose to exclude the most recognised epidemiological research on excess deaths. It is not even peer-reviewed. The conclusions are contradictory to the established annual excess death protocols, published for years by the ONS and other national statistical agencies around the world. Which data should scientists advising the Government and Ministers rely on when making decisions about lockdown?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The noble Baroness makes some important points about the meta-analysis in the paper. Undue attention has been given to one paper out of 34 studies. While I am answering the noble Baroness, I will refer to an earlier question. In academia there is a huge debate about meta-analysis in all sorts of fields. The question is what other research should be analysed with meta-analysis. This continues to be an issue of debate among academics in many disciplines.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, I want to follow on from what the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said. The World Health Organization’s authoritative and in-depth research shows the effectiveness of large-scale social distancing measures and movement restrictions—ie lockdown—in slowing down Covid-19 transmissions because they limit contacts between people. Is it not far better to work on the basis of this evidence, as well as our own much-respected evidence from the CMO and his team, rather than a non-peer-reviewed paper from an American think tank?
Lord Kamall (Con)
Once again, the noble Baroness makes the point that this paper has not been peer-reviewed. That is an important consideration. The Government were quite clear that they introduced measures including lockdown—in the face of some opposition, but with the support of the Benches opposite—because, on the balance of epidemiological and other evidence, it was important to prevent and reduce the risk of transmission of the disease.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, many decisions taken during this pandemic led to unintended consequences across the board. Apart from the devastating economic impact on business and industry, the children of the United Kingdom were most badly affected. Mental health problems escalated, particularly due to lockdowns. I hope that I never live to see another lockdown in this country. Can the Minister tell the House exactly what the NHS is doing to address this particular issue?
Lord Kamall (Con)
My noble friend raises an important issue about the trade-offs that had to be considered when the Government announced the lockdown and plan A measures. They also announced measures to restrict the transmission of the disease. Costs and benefits had to be weighed up. It was often a nuanced decision. We are clear about the backlog in tackling mental health issues. In debates on the Health and Social Care Bill, many noble Lords across the House have expressed the importance of tackling mental health issues in this country. We hope to put that at the forefront of future health policy.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, all papers with modelled counterfactuals are excluded from the report mentioned in the noble Lord’s Question. As this is the most common method used in infectious disease assessments, does the Minister agree that this has the practical effect of excluding most epidemiological research from the review?
Lord Kamall (Con)
Had I still been in academia and was asked to referee this paper for a journal, I would have pointed out a number of issues, including the focus and bias on one particular study, for example, and the studies that were excluded without justifying why.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I understand that the rules on replying to Questions mean that there is not enough time for the Minister to explain everything which is wrong with this particular paper. Does he agree that it would be useful to draw your Lordships’ attention to the work of the Science Media Centre, which has provided a comprehensive explanation of its deficiencies?
Lord Kamall (Con)
If the noble Lord would like to write to me with details of that paper, I would be happy to share it with other noble Lords.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, 54 health professionals have urged the Commons Public Administration Committee to conduct an inquiry into government use of covert psychological strategies, particularly in Covid messaging, which raise significant ethical issues, including the need to obtain consent. What is the Government’s response to growing evidence of fear inflation and social division due to the equating of compliance with virtue and use of peer pressure to ensure conformity with lockdown and other Covid restrictions?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank my noble friend for giving me advance warning of his question. The British Psychological Society’s ethics committee has been approached on this topic and has provided a response that has been published in online articles by the authors of the recent letter. Overall, the BPS concludes that it believes that the contribution of psychologists in response to the pandemic was entirely consistent with the BPS code of ethics and conduct, demonstrating social responsibility and the competent and responsible employment of psychological experience.
Hereditary Peers By-election
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Grocott (Lab)
I thank the returning officer for announcing the result of another exciting by-election. It was a minimalist announcement; over the years I have tried to get more detail into the formal announcement. It is available in the Printed Paper Office, but members of the public who may be watching and interested in this subject—I assume there are one or two somewhere—cannot go to the Printed Paper Office.
I note, by the way, that the only reference to this on today’s Order Paper is in the smallest possible type, so that hopefully we will not notice. Well, I did notice. The Clerk, of course, was quite right to say that a Conservative won the election. There may be people watching who take an interest in these things who will be pleased about that, because Governments go through sticky patches and this Government are having one. A Conservative victory is terrific in a by-election.
I have to give the facts. The winning candidate was a Conservative, the second candidate was a Conservative, the third on the list was a Conservative, and the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth and 10th were Conservatives—there were 10 candidates and they were all Conservatives. It was pretty locked down in terms of what might happen. Added to that is the fact that you needed to be a Conservative in order to vote—I know when I am beaten; that is game, set, match and tournament.
On the question of the electorate—again, this perhaps needs explaining to people outside—it consisted of 45 people. I noticed that only 36 voted, so the turnout is slipping. Forty-five people could have voted, and they are a very privileged group. Since these by-elections resumed last June, there have been eight of them—we have by-elections more frequently than they do in the Commons—and these 45 electors have elected three Peers in June last year, and another one now. So 45 people have elected four Members of Parliament. I am fairly confident in saying that, in the history of parliamentary democracy, never have so many been elected by so few.
My final comment is that it is traditional in by-elections in this country—there is one pending in Birmingham Erdington—as has been the case for over 100 years, that women play a full part, both as candidates and as voters. As the House knows, in the case of by-elections for hereditary Peers, we do not operate that system, and all the candidates were men. Indeed, all the candidates in all the by-elections held since last June have been men, and in this case all the electorate are men. Again, it is something of a slam dunk.
I would like to end on a bit of good news for the House: I understand that there is another by-election pending, following the retirement of Lord Rotherwick. It will be similar to the present one. I am wary of making political predictions, but my guess is that it will be won by a Conservative, it will be a hereditary Peer, and it will be a man—there is a tip if any of you are going to the bookmaker’s.
Dormant Assets Bill [HL]
Wednesday 9th February 2022
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Dormant Assets Act 2022 View all Dormant Assets Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 31 January 2022 - (31 Jan 2022)
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 1 to 4.
“(4A) The reference in subsection (4)(b) to money that could be transferred as mentioned in section 8(1)(a) includes money held by an investment institution that is not within the definition in section 8(3) which—
(a) is proceeds of the conversion by the investment institution of a collective scheme investment into a right to payment of an amount, and
(b) could, if it were held by an investment institution falling within section 8(3), be transferred as mentioned in section 8(1)(a).”
“(6A) In carrying out the first public consultation under subsection (3)(a) the Secretary of State must invite views as to whether the permitted distributions should be, or include, any one or more of the following—
(a) distributions for the purpose of the provision of services, facilities or opportunities to meet the needs of young people;
(b) distributions for the purpose of the development of individuals’ ability to manage their finances or the improvement of access to personal financial services;
(c) distributions to social investment wholesalers (within the meaning of section 18);
(d) distributions to community wealth funds.
(6B) For the purposes of subsection (3A) “community wealth fund” means a fund which gives long term financial support (whether directly or indirectly) for the provision of local amenities or other social infrastructure.”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 1 to 4. In doing so, I will briefly summarise the changes which have been made to the Bill since last it was before your Lordships’ House. All of the amendments which have been made were brought forward by Her Majesty’s Government and garnered support across all parties in another place. Commons Amendment 1 is minor and technical, responding to a drafting issue that was helpfully highlighted by the Investment Association in its written evidence to the Public Bill Committee. Amendments 2 and 3 respond to the lengthy debates on how dormant assets money should best be spent, and specifically the calls to establish a community wealth fund. Amendment 4 is wholly procedural and removes the privilege amendment made in your Lordships’ House, as is the procedure in these cases.
First, I will speak to Amendment 1. This is a minor and technical government amendment which is required to uphold the key principle of full restitution: to ensure that people can reclaim the amount owed had the transfer to the scheme not happened. This amendment clarifies that money derived from collective scheme investments cannot be transferred into the scheme as client money. This is in response to feedback we received from the Investment Association during the passage of the Bill, and we thank it for its helpful feedback on this issue.
Without this amendment, there would be an unintended loophole where ISA fund managers and investment platforms that hold collective scheme investments, and are able to convert them to cash, would be able to transfer this money into the dormant assets scheme under client money clauses. The investment and wealth management clauses of the Bill recognise the fluctuating market value of investments by entitling owners of dormant collective scheme investments to reclaim the value of the share or unit at the point of reclaim. In contrast, the right to reclaim under client money clauses does not account for the market value, as the asset is already held in cash. We believe that this applies to a small number of cases. However, if relevant institutions have the contractual cover to sell the asset on behalf of its owner and transfer the funds to the scheme as client money, this would mean that the owner would be treated differently from if their dormant asset had been transferred under the investment and wealth management clauses. Remedying this discrepancy protects the vital principle of the scheme: full restitution. It ensures that the collective scheme investments are excluded from the client money clauses, so that the owners of these dormant assets will not be treated differently depending on which type of investment institution happened to hold it for them. Unfortunately, this will have the effect of excluding collective scheme investments held by investment platforms and ISA fund managers from the scheme at this time. Bringing them into scope would require complex technical work, and we are working with the industry to understand if and how this can be accomplished in future under the power to extend the scheme through regulations. We thank our industry partners again for their thoughtful and very helpful feedback on this issue.
I now turn to Amendments 2 and 3. As noble Lords know, a key topic of debate throughout the passage of the Bill has been the proposal to use dormant assets funding to establish community wealth funds in England. We have heard, both here and in the other place, the merits of considering this model, not least from the former Bishop of Newcastle before she left your Lordships’ House. This is a model whereby left-behind communities are empowered to make their own decisions on how best to develop vital social infrastructure in their local areas. This kind of devolved and very local decision-making is, of course, a key tenet of the Government’s levelling-up White Paper, which was published last week. We agree that this important proposal warrants careful consideration—not only by the Government, but by the public and voluntary industry participants that underpin the scheme’s success. In Committee in the other place, the Government made a formal commitment to include community wealth funds as an explicit option in the first consultation launched on the purposes of the English portion.
My honourable friend the Minister for Sport, Tourism, Heritage and Civil Society met Her Majesty’s Opposition and the co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for “Left Behind” Neighbourhoods to discuss this commitment. With their support, the Government brought forward Amendment 3 to place this commitment in legislation. This responds to calls heard in both Houses to refer to community wealth funds on the face of the Bill—making a clear statement that the Government are considering this model and are supportive of its underlying principles, while protecting the integrity of the consultation process. We maintain that an open and fair consultation, without predetermining its outcomes, is essential to securing the expanded scheme’s impact.
The Government are clear that Amendment 3 is the furthest that the legislation is able to go in this area, and that is why Amendment 2 removes community wealth funds from being pre-emptively named as a possible option in a future order, in favour of Amendment 3.
I thank noble Lords on all sides of the House for the constructive debate that we have had on this issue. I am very grateful for the spirit of positive collaboration shown throughout the passage of the Bill. It is in this spirit that the Government brought forward their amendments. I am also grateful for the scrutiny it has received in the other place, and I believe that this has presented your Lordships’ House with a strengthened Bill. I hope that noble Lords will, therefore, support the Government in these amendments, as was the case in the other place. Sending this Bill on its way to the statute book will enable the Government to shift our focus more swiftly to the implementation of the scheme expansion, including launching the consultation and unlocking hundreds of millions of pounds more across the UK. I beg to move.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of these amendments. It was most helpful, particularly about Amendment 1, which is very technical. Since it has come from the industry and the whole thrust behind the Bill came from the financial sector, which wishes to see many more assets unlocked in this way, we should accept his explanation and stand behind that.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I express the gratitude of the Labour Benches to the Government for the progress made on the Bill and the valuable update that the Minister has given us this afternoon. I am particularly pleased that the Government have brought back an amendment covering the dormant assets scheme, although I rather agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, that it is a shame that it was watered down, particularly regarding community wealth funds.
When the Bill was in your Lordships’ House we were able to reach agreement over periodic reviews of the dormant assets scheme and subsequent reporting to Parliament, which will keep us abreast of how much has been raised and how those funds have been put to good use, which is valuable information for us. During its passage through the Commons, the Government outlined some of the options to be explored in the forthcoming consultation that the Minister referred to, including making a specific reference to community wealth funds. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, I would have liked to have seen work beginning on that, but at least we have got it into the consultative framework.
For our part, we continue to believe that community wealth funds should have significant value in communities across the country, particularly in those areas underserved by other government schemes and/or third-sector organisations. I remain grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Barker, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ely, who spoke in favour of the community wealth fund amendment on Report, as well as to the former Bishop of Newcastle, who I hope is now enjoying the first fruits of the early stages of her retirement.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
Is this an appropriate moment to reflect on the roots of where we are today on dormant assets, and to put on record again the part played by Frank Field—the noble Lord, Lord Field—all those years ago in pressing to get this off the ground and to get the original legislation that we are now updating?
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for his support on that point.
We on our Benches look forward to the consultation in due course and hope that the department will continue to engage with proponents of community wealth funds. Such funds could play an interesting and, we think, valuable role in levelling up and empowering local communities seeking their own solutions to local problems, a feature of the White Paper that we very much endorse.
May I use this occasion to ask the Minister what the Government intend to do to ensure that we continue to widen the potential scope for unlocking other dormant assets? Here I am thinking of Oyster cards, proceeds from crime funds, unclaimed pensions and unused insurance. It is worth reminding ourselves that the independent commission report identified some £715 million from investments and wealth management, £550 million from the pensions and insurance sectors, £150 million from securities, and £140 million from banks and building societies. Unlocking that sort of wealth unlocks a lot of power and gives great potential for social benefit. These are not inconsiderable sums of money, and if put in the right place and adapted, used and adopted for levelling up, they could leverage in bigger sums still for the hard-pressed communities that we want to see levelled up in the next few years.
We are again grateful to the Government for what they have done in improving the Bill. Your Lordships’ House played a valuable and valid part in that process. We are slightly underwhelmed by what has come back, but we are extremely grateful.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their remarks, which reflect the cross-party work that has improved this Bill throughout its passage and the interest that it has garnered from all corners for the benefits that it will bring. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, for reminding the House of the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Field of Birkenhead, and indeed many others who have played close attention to this issue for a long time.
To respond to the questions and points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, we recognise that the provisions that were inserted on Report in your Lordships’ House were permissive, but the Government contend that Amendment 3 is preferable in three main ways. First and foremost, it fulfils our commitment to consult openly; we have emphasised throughout the passage of the Bill that the consultation must be fair and transparent, and we remain mindful of the need to bring industry along with us alongside civil society and the general public. We cannot therefore agree to any amendment that would suggest that the process would be undercut.
Secondly, it recognises the widespread support and positive impact that the current causes of youth, financial inclusion and social investment have had. I am sure that noble Lords did not intend to imply that those would be disregarded, but the provisions that were inserted on Report in your Lordships’ House were silent on those and thereby afforded community wealth funds more legislative attention than those initiatives.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, who is intended to select the investment managers for these funds?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My noble friend asks a good question, on which I will have to write to give him the answer and the full list, if he will forgive me for doing so.
I was just coming to the third reason why Amendment 3 is our preferred way of proceeding. The provisions inserted in this House would not achieve their objective of speeding up the pace of delivery. We must reiterate that releasing this money will not be immediate; indeed, we anticipate it taking several years for the £880 million to be released, and we do not expect any funds to be available for some time. Undercutting the consultation process would not materially affect the pace of that funding release. The Government have committed to launching the first public consultation on the purposes of the expanded English portion as soon as possible after Royal Assent. We anticipate that it could be live as soon as this summer and will be open for at least 12 weeks.
I repeat my commitment to write to my noble friend with the answer to his question, and I beg to move.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, does he agree that, especially in current circumstances, it would be wholly inappropriate to transfer funds from the TfL balance sheet by way of seizing what are alleged to be surplus Oyster assets, many of which are there because people, often from abroad, choose to leave assets on their Oyster card for when they visit London, which may be only once every few years?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My noble friend raises an interesting point that has not been made hitherto during the passage of the Bill, but I know that he speaks with considerable experience from his time working with TfL. If he allows me, I will write to him with further information about the implications for Oyster cards, which is a matter that has not been covered. It may have been covered in another place, but I have not seen whether that is the case.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
I remind the noble Lord that he did not answer my last question regarding reviewing the future of other dormant assets. If he is unable to do so at this point, I am happy to receive correspondence on the topic.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, for not responding to his question. We share the view that it is important to consider how dormant assets funding can be used most effectively. We are keen to get a wide range of views to help shape our position from Parliament through the Select Committees in both Houses. I will certainly write to him with further details if I am able to provide them.
I can tell my noble friend Lord Moylan that Oyster cards are not in scope of the Bill, which is why the point has not been raised hitherto. I will, however, take it back, and if there is any further information to furnish him with, I will do so. I repeat my thanks to noble Lords for the cross-party working on the Bill.
Health and Care Bill
Wednesday 9th February 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-IX Ninth marshalled list for Committee - (7 Feb 2022)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
My Lords, I should like to update the House on a matter that has generated significant concern. I have noted the strength of feeling in the House on the issue of, and draft guidance on, elected councillors being appointed to integrated care boards. I discussed this matter with NHS England and can confirm that it will revise its draft guidance to remove the proposed blanket exclusion of local authority members sitting on integrated care boards. I am informed that, although ICB members from local authorities are normally likely to be officials, local councillors will not be disqualified for selection and appointment to an integrated care board.
I welcome this development and hope that it demonstrates that the department and NHS England are actively listening and responding to scrutiny and debate in this House. I have also informed the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and asked for a meeting between the Labour Front Bench and NHS England on its preparations.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
I thank the noble Lord for that information. Before we continue with the Committee on the Bill, I wanted to raise my concerns on the Floor of the House as to the importance of always treating each other with respect and courtesy. It is not the fault of anyone in this House that despite a majority of 80 in the other place, the Government have taken longer than expected to present several Bills to this House for our consideration. Although backed by the other place—I fully accept that—the Bills are very controversial in nature and quite properly attract considerable attention.
On a few occasions when considering the Nationality and Borders Bill last night and into the early hours of the morning, our standards slipped. We have another long day ahead of us today and another tomorrow before we all have a well-deserved break in the Recess. I hope that Members on all sides of the House, no matter what position they hold, will respect and pay proper attention to the advice and guidance as set out in the Companion. Committee is a conversation, different from both Question Time and Report. Shouting “question, question, question” from a sedentary position is unacceptable in Committee. Chapter 4 on the conduct of the House and Chapter 8 on Public Bills in the Companion are helpful and informative. I respectfully suggest that all Members regard it as essential reading.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I add the voice of these Benches to the protest by the Opposition Chief Whip in the strongest possible terms. I regret that the Government Chief Whip and the Leader of the House were not here to hear it. I hope that they will read Hansard, because I have some questions to put.
Do the Chief Whip and the Leader of the House accept that Members of this House have a right to be treated with courtesy and not bullied by members of the Government, that they are able to speak when they have a right to do so under Standing Orders, and that they have a right to have their health and welfare considered appropriately? None of that was respected last night when the House sat until 3.20 am.
I emphasise that my comments are not aimed at the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, who has always been most courteous. I ask the Leader and the Government Chief Whip: do they agree that this is a self-governing House; that the Government, like all Governments, are temporary and cannot override the rights of noble Lords appointed independently of this Government; and that opposition parties have no duty to help the Government get controversial legislation through this House? On the contrary, we have a duty to scrutinise it. This House has built its reputation on intelligent, careful and courteous consideration of issues laid before it. Long may that continue.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, the Green group would like to throw its considerable weight behind the two noble Lords who have just spoken. What we saw last night was disgraceful, and I hope we never see it again.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, in the absence of my noble friends the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip, I will respond very briefly to the noble Lords who have spoken by saying that I shall ensure that the comments and questions do reach the Leader, and are treated with appropriate seriousness. We have all heard propositions from both noble Lords on the Front Benches opposite with which there would be wide agreement in the House as to the way we should conduct ourselves. In a spirit of sympathy with many of the comments made, I hope noble Lords will agree that it is appropriate that we discuss this in the usual channels.
Amendment 284
Baroness Cumberlege
“Industry reporting
Companies involved in the production, buying or selling of pharmaceutical products or medical devices must publish any payments made to—(a) teaching hospitals,(b) research institutions, or(c) individual clinicians.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires companies involved in the production, buying or selling of pharmaceutical products or medical devices to publish any payments made to teaching hospitals, research institutions, or individual clinicians.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 284 would implement one of the major recommendations of the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review. I will say from the start that I so welcome the government amendments. I thank the Minister and the civil servants for crafting them in such a thorough way.
There is one glitch, however, about which I have given the Minister forewarning. All the government amendments say that the Secretary of State “may”—and of course that is a very sneaky word. What we want to see is a more robust word: the Secretary of State “shall.”
However, I do not want to detract in any way from the burden of my amendment, which is that relationships between the pharmaceutical and the medical device industries on the one hand, and the hospitals, medical research institutes and individual clinicians on the other, can be a huge force for good. Industry collaborating with doctors, researchers and scientists working in the NHS, academia or elsewhere has led to great breakthroughs and great treatments that we have been able to introduce. No one should want to stop that happening—but we do have a right to see where the money goes. Despite all the undoubted good that collaboration between industry and the rest of healthcare brings, we know that there are long-standing concerns about undue influence.
We need transparency so that trust can be rebuilt where it has been undermined in the past. Voluntary arrangements are all well and good, but they have a drawback: they are voluntary; they are not a requirement; they carry no teeth. So I am encouraged to see that the ABPI, which represents many pharmaceutical companies in the UK, agrees. It is supportive of moving to mandatory disclosure.
Amendment 284 would make it a requirement for payment by the industry to teaching hospitals, research bodies and individual clinicians to be published by the companies themselves. Such legislation exists and works very effectively in the United States. It is called the Physician Payments Sunshine Act, and it has been in existence since 2010. All the information is held on a public website. Americans can see at a glance which pharmaceutical or device companies have made payments to physicians or others: when, why and how much. It is not just the US which benefits from this level of transparency; various European countries have similar legislation in place, and we should not be the poorer cousin.
I of course welcome the Government’s own amendments that are grouped with mine and very much look forward to what the Minister has to say about them. I hope we can all agree that transparency, trust and good, safe care go hand in hand. That is why the amendments are so important.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
My Lords, I invite the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, to speak remotely now.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, this amendment is a companion piece to the previous amendment on declarations of interest that we believe should be made by doctors and other regulated healthcare staff, and ensures that any companies involved in the production, buying or selling of pharmaceutical products or medical devices must publish any payments made to teaching hospitals, research institutions or individual clinicians. Whether someone wants to know about a doctor working with a pharma company, or the other way around, we need a system that provides a golden thread of transparency and accountability.
Reporting payments or benefits in kind by the relevant organisations and individuals receiving them ensures that the links between donors, recipients and their respective interests are always visible. Although it is, we hope, rare, this is more than just transparency. As in any walk of life, occasionally there is malpractice and fraud, which needs to be prevented. A register such as this helps to remind all those concerned of the rules.
I echo the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, that “may” is not strong enough: “shall” is important here. The noble Baroness also referred to the USA Sunshine register; and, as I said on the last group of amendments, we definitely need the disinfection of sunlight. Can the Minister say whether any such regulations on industry reporting might be published and brought into force?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
My Lords, I invite the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, to speak remotely now.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for tabling Amendment 284. If we are to avoid the risk of corruption and maintain full public confidence, it is vital that there should be full disclosure of payments by commercial interests to hospitals—I would have thought to all hospitals, not just teaching hospitals—research institutions and clinicians. It is a good maxim to follow the money and to be able to do so.
In regard to research, there has long been public concern about business interests suborning researchers whose judgments and pronouncements influence public understanding, sometimes with important implications for public health. Corrupt scientists certified that DDT and pesticides used in agriculture were not harmful to public health. Exposure of that by Rachel Carson in her book Silent Spring did not end the mischief. Bogus research evidence was paid for for decades by the tobacco industry in a rearguard action to persuade Governments and the public that tobacco was not harmful to human health.
Today, firms in the food industry deploy spurious evidence and arguments about the damage certain foods do to human health. They have lobbied Government with considerable success to the terrible detriment of human health—it is good that the Bill limits the advertising of unhealthy foods. Scientists, paid by energy firms, have abetted those who deny that climate change is manmade.
Disclosure payments in regard to research will help, but more is needed. The noble Baroness might have considered—and may yet consider—tabling another amendment needed to underpin research ethics. The data on which research conclusions are based should be held independently. The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council rightly now requires researchers to deposit data connected to the research they have funded.
There is huge pressure, in a competitive environment, on scientists to publish research, and there have been notorious instances of fake science—scientific discoveries announced that were made up and whose results could not be replicated by other researchers. A paper entitled Fake Science and the Knowledge Crisis published by the Royal Society said,
“it is especially important that the scientific world as a whole upholds the highest standards of ethical behaviour, honesty and transparency, aiming to sustain the gold standards of research integrity and validated information.”
However, the authors go on:
“Sadly, a range of forces are working counter to this aspiration.”
It is good that the pharmaceutical industry in the United Kingdom supports the transparency that the amendment calls for. We should certainly match the best standards and practice in the USA and Europe.
The NHS holds huge budgets for drugs, medical equipment and hospital building; big commercial interests are at stake. There is scope for corruption if the system is weakly regulated. The scandal of PPE contracts has led to widespread anxieties about the integrity of procurement. The public want to believe that the NHS is free of corruption, and I am sure it mainly is, but reassurance is needed. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, reminded us. in the old saying, sunlight is the best disinfectant. We need the transparency that the amendment would secure.
The government amendments are, certainly at first blush, welcome. But, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, noted there is a conspicuous difference in language between her amendment, which says that companies “must” publish payments, and the Minister’s amendments, which say that the Secretary of State “may” require or regulate. That slide of language is liable to weaken public confidence. I hope the Minister will explain why he has used the word “may” and not “shall” or “must”.
The government amendments are as elaborate as the noble Baroness’s is simple, and they prompt some questions. In the Government’s Amendment 312B, subsection (6)(b) states:
“The regulations may … create exceptions from requirements to publish or provide information.”
What would those exceptions be? Subsection (8) states that the Secretary of State may,
“grant an exception … in a particular case.”
What sort of case? Earlier in Amendment 312B, subsection (1)(a) refers to “payments or other benefits”. I ask the Minister whether the disclosure requirements he envisages cover benefits in kind, including donations to political parties. whether made by big pharma or small local donors.
I do not want to be cynical. How can the Minister reassure those who are?
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I shall try to be brief, otherwise we will be here until 3 am, and I am sure none of us want that. I join the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, in the comments she has made, and I support her amendment and the government amendments. I also agree that the system should be mandatory— not “may” but “shall”— and aligned with the similar system in the United States which I was used to many years ago.
To try to explore this further with the industry, I have been in correspondence with the ABPI to test how committed it is to agreeing to this being mandatory and that they “shall report” in all aspects. I will read what it sent me:
“ABPI are supportive of the intention to move to a mandatory model of disclosure for payments made between industry and relevant individuals including Health Professionals, and”
all healthcare organisations and research institutions. It continues:
“We believe proposals to introduce a legislative mandate are an opportunity to further strengthen the pharmaceutical sector’s existing transparency mechanism for branded medicines”—
that was the point I made to it, that its system needs to be transparent, mandatory and easily accessible by patients and the public. It goes on:
“Our briefing outlines a number of considerations and learnings based on ABPI’s experience running Disclosure UK, which since 2016 has supported transparency around transfers of value made by the innovative pharmaceutical industry to relevant individuals including Health Professionals … and Healthcare Organisations”.
I asked for a similar comment from industries that market medical devices, and I understand that a similar commitment is made by those companies too.
I therefore support the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and support the Government’s amendment. However, I hope that the Minister can confirm that the loose word “may” is not intentional and they intend to make this mandatory.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise very briefly, rather enjoying this reunion from our debates during the passage of the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill of a group of people who taught me a great deal about dealing with legislation. We also looked at an amendment that was very like this. There is a phrase I use often: “Campaigning works”. I should make that “Campaigning by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, works particularly well”. We are seeing real progress here, although, as many noble Lords have already said, we need to make sure that this is mandatory and not some kind of voluntary extra.
When I was working on the then Medicines and Medical Devices Bill, I spoke to a number of people from the industry. They were very much concerned about the fact that they wanted tight rules that apply to everybody, otherwise those who cut corners and push the envelope have a competitive advantage against people who doing the right thing, being absolutely open and not flinging money around. Many parts of the sector are keen on tight rules.
It is interesting that it has taken us so long to get to this point when the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, presented ways of doing this back in the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill. We have not heard the Government using their favourite phrasing “world-leading” or “world-beating” very often in this area. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, we are very much trailing behind other countries in our transparency here.
I will make one final comment. We have a huge problem with public trust—we see this on the street outside your Lordships’ House quite often. Absolute transparency and openness is crucial and, as we heard in Oral Questions earlier, the fact that some companies have been able to profiteer hugely from the pandemic causes more damage to public trust. We need to tackle that with as much of the sunlight of transparency and openness as possible.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
Briefly, I also support these amendments, including the Government’s comprehensive amendment, but I was spurred into action by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. It is worth saying that when it comes to public trust, a survey of 28 countries conducted at the end of last year found that British doctors were more trusted by people in this country than doctors in any of the other 27, so we start from a well-founded position of high trust. However, trust in a profession is of course founded on the basis that people will act in a way that puts the interests of the person they are looking after first, and these amendments help to deliver that.
I want to use the opportunity to try to draw the Minister out slightly on a couple of questions supplementary to those which my noble friend Lord Patel raised. Sunlight may indeed be the best disinfectant. but we have two types of shade going on at the moment. The first is that, through the voluntary register which the ABPI established in 2017, we have just under a third of eligible doctors who are not reporting. Therefore, obviously to the extent that the Government commence these amendments on a mandatory basis, that will deal with that aspect of shade; the 68% will become 100%, which will be most welcome.
The second type of shade relates to the scope of the payments that have to be declared. Here, I think the Government’s amendment is potentially very suitably broad. However, it would be wonderful to hear the Minister confirm that it will cover payments to all NHS bodies, not just to trusts or indeed teaching hospitals; that primary care will be in scope; that it will cover the independent sector as well as the NHS; that it will cover payments made to patients’ organisations; and whether, in time, the Government will consider extending it to payments made to health professionals other than doctors. I conclude by simply reporting that when you ask people in this country which profession they most trust, the answer is actually not doctors; it is nurses.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I have my name on this amendment. I will not repeat all the points made by other people so far, but I point out that using the words “shall” or “must” avoids any argument over threshold. The problem with having a word that is not definitive is that there would be arguments over what would and would not have to be declared.
To put a slightly positive note on the whole situation, I say from clinical experience that patients want to go into trials and to contribute to the level of knowledge. Very often, people who are seriously ill will say, “I know that I won’t benefit from it, but I hope that other people will by me going into this trial”. But they want to know that the trial is properly conducted, that everything is open, that nobody is profiteering from their generosity and that they are genuinely contributing to the body of knowledge across the country. When people who I know socially contact me because they have been given a potentially devastating diagnosis and have been referred to somebody, the question is always, “Are they the best in the field?”, which is often followed up with, “Are they doing research in the field?” and “Are they completely up to date?” So often, when people realise that they are deteriorating, they will ask whether there is a trial that they can be entered into.
This goes much further than just being sunlight. This amendment would support future endeavours and innovation in the country and would encourage people to enter into studies.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, very briefly, we welcome the Government’s proposals on mandatory disclosure of payments, a companion piece to the previous debate that we had, as has been pointed out.
As noble Lords have always stressed, greater transparency is highly desirable and a very good thing. I am grateful to the Minister for listening to the voices of stakeholders and parliamentarians on this. Indeed, nine out of 10 medical professional bodies think that patients have a right to know if their doctor has financial or other links with pharmaceutical or medical device companies and they support stronger reporting arrangements, as contained in the amendments. I am grateful for the briefing I have received from the ABPI, which, as we have heard, also supports mandatory disclosure.
I also note that Amendment 312D refers specifically to the consultation with the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and to obtaining the
“consent of the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers or the Department of Health in Northern Ireland … before making provision within devolved legislative competence in regulations relating to information about payments etc to persons in the health care sector.”
We would welcome the Minister reassuring us that full consultation is under way and setting out the timescales involved.
On Amendment 284, the non-government amendment leading this group, the intention of the amendment and the arguments put forward by noble Lords are extremely persuasive. The requirement for companies involved in the production, buying or selling of pharmaceutical products or medical devices to publish any payments made to teaching hospitals, research institutions or individual clinicians is a sensible measure that would complement the Government’s package, and I await the Minister’s thoughts on it, including on the one glitch underlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, on moving from “may” to “shall”.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who took part in this debate, especially my noble friend Lady Cumberlege for her work on the independent review of medicines and medical devices, and other noble Lords who were involved in that. I know that she worked tirelessly to make sure that patients and their families have been heard and I pay tribute to her and her team. I also thank her for her lobbying—or reminding—me of the pledge that I made when I first became a Minister on championing the patient.
I welcome my noble friend’s amendment to increase transparency and promote public confidence in the healthcare system. The Government fully support the intention behind the amendment. That is why I will be moving Amendments 312B, 312C, 312D, 313B, 313C and 314ZB in my name. Before I do so, let me answer some of the questions.
All these amendments relate to the transparency of payments made to the healthcare sector. The Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review led by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege listened to the brave testimony of over 700 people to understand where improvements needed to be made to make the healthcare system safer for all patients, especially women. The Government have given the review deep consideration and accepted the majority of its nine strategic recommendations and 50 actions for improvement.
To improve transparency, the review recommended that
“there should be mandatory reporting for pharmaceutical and medical device industries of payments made to teaching hospitals, research institutions and individual clinicians”.
The amendments deliver on this recommendation by enabling the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring companies to publish or report information about their payments to the healthcare sector. The clause covers any person performing healthcare as part of their duties, benefiting patients and building on initiatives by regulators and industry. I hope that partly answers the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens.
The amendment also allows for the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring that the information be made public and make further provision about when and how the information must be published. This could include requiring self-publication or publication in a central database. That ensures that we can adapt the system to improve reporting as necessary. To ensure that companies fulfil the obligation, requirements introduced by the regulations can be enforced using civil penalties.
There are benefits to this duty applying UK-wide, aligning with the approach taken by the pharmaceutical industry with its Disclosure UK system. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, referred to, the clause contains a statutory consent requirement, so we will work closely with the devolved Governments to develop regulations following the passage of the Bill. We will also work with patients, industry and healthcare providers to create a system that enhances patient confidence while maintaining a collaborative, world-leading UK life sciences sector.
A question was raised about the issue of “shall” versus “may”. The Government have not tabled these amendments in bad faith; we would not have tabled these amendments if we did not intend to work with them. It is the intention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations under the clause to make sure that there is transparency. If that is not reassuring enough, perhaps between this stage and Report there can be some conversations to make sure that noble Lords are assured. It is for these reasons that I ask your Lordships’ Committee to support these amendments.
Lord Patel (CB)
Can the Minister confirm what he just said: that it is the intention to bring regulations? How strong is that intention? The “may” creates a problem.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, can I add a question about timeframes to that? When can we expect the regulations?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I have two points to make to the noble Lord. First, I have been advised that this is standard wording. Secondly, I have made the assurance at the Dispatch Box. It is here; it is on public record that the Government intend to bring forward regulations. On the timeframe, I will either write to noble Lords or arrange a follow-up meeting. I will make sure that there is some communication to bridge that gap.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con)
My Lords, I thank everybody who has taken part in this debate, particularly my noble friend the Minister for the work he and his officials have done to bring this into the Government’s remit. That is so important, because I learned through the passage of the Medicines and Medical Devices Act that we could incorporate the patient safety commissioner and some of the other things we wanted to achieve only through government amendments. My heart leaped when I saw these amendments and I thank the Minister.
I still think these amendments could be improved and it is important that we get the word “shall” in, or “might” or whatever others have said, rather than “may”. I was looking at the Oxford English Dictionary. My father-in-law was the publisher to the Oxford University Press, so the dictionary is very close to my heart. The dictionary says that the verb “shall” relates to the right or sensible thing to do, whereas the verb “may” is defined as a possibility.
“Dispute resolution in children’s palliative care
(1) This section applies where there is a difference of opinion between a parent of a child with a life-limiting illness and a doctor responsible for the child’s treatment about—(a) the nature (or extent) of specialist palliative care that should be made available for the child, or(b) the extent to which palliative care provided to the child should be accompanied by one or more disease- modifying treatments.(2) Where the authorities responsible for a health service hospital become aware of the difference of opinion they must take all reasonable steps—(a) to ensure that the views of the parent, and of anyone else concerned with the welfare of the child, are listened to and taken into account;(b) to make available to the parent any medical data relating to the child reasonably required to obtain evidence in support of the parent’s proposals for the child’s treatment (including obtaining an additional medical opinion); and(c) where the authorities consider that the difference of opinion is unlikely to be resolved entirely informally, to provide for a mediation process, acceptable to both parties, between the parent and the doctor.(3) In the application of subsection (2) the hospital authorities—(a) must involve the child’s specialist palliative care team so far as possible; and(b) may refuse to make medical data available if the High Court grants an application to that effect on the grounds that disclosure might put the child’s safety at risk having regard to special circumstances.(4) Where the difference of opinion between the parent and the doctor arises in proceedings before a court—(a) the child’s parents are entitled to legal aid, within the meaning of section 1 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Lord Chancellor’s functions) in respect of the proceedings; and the Lord Chancellor must make any necessary regulations under that Act to give effect to this paragraph; and(b) the court may not make any order that would prevent or obstruct the parent from pursuing proposals for obtaining disease-modifying treatment for the child (whether in the UK or elsewhere) unless the court is satisfied that the proposals—(i) involve a medical institution that is not generally regarded within the medical community as a responsible and reliable institution, or(ii) pose a disproportionate risk of significant harm to the child.(5) Nothing in subsection (4) requires, or may be relied upon so as to require, the provision of any specific treatment by a doctor or institution; in particular, nothing in subsection (4) —(a) requires the provision of resources for any particular course of treatment; or(b) requires a doctor to provide treatment that the doctor considers likely to be futile or harmful, or otherwise not in the best interests of the child.(6) In this section—“child” means an individual under the age of 18; “health service hospital” has the meaning given by section 275 of the National Health Service Act 2006 (interpretation);“parent” means a person with parental responsibility for a child within the meaning of the Children Act 1989.(7) Nothing in this section affects the law about the appropriate clinical practice to be followed as to—(a) having regard to the child’s own views, where they can be expressed; and(b) having regard to the views of anyone interested in the welfare of the child, whether or not a person concerned within the welfare of the child within the meaning of this section.”
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, this amendment has been several years in gestation. It dates back to the case of Charlie Gard in 2017. There have also been other cases that suggested we must do better than rush to the courts, with all the anguish that causes to parents and clinicians alike, let alone the expense to the NHS and others. That is why I am proposing that there should be independent mediation where there is a serious disagreement between loving parents and the clinical team caring for a child who is not Gillick-competent.
Difficulties arise when the child’s prognosis seems hopeless to clinicians but the parents do not share that view and want to know that they have tried everything. The clinicians may feel that the best interests of the child would be for the child to be allowed to die, but the parents can perceive this as life being ended, even though the child would have already died without all the care and interventions that had been put in place. In other words, when death occurs, the child dies of their underlying condition. The clinicians have not euthanised the child. However, pressures in the media towards doctors administering lethal drugs and euthanasia have portrayed death as a solution, and there is a perception that our overwhelmed NHS is desperate to clear beds, save money and, sadly, even cover up shortcomings.
However, no one has interests when they are dead; they are a corpse. By contrast, the parents feel that any improvement is worth having, and that it is in the best interests of the child to continue to experience their love and affection and to try a novel therapy that seems, on balance, possibly to do more good than harm—that is, it does not cause significant harm to the child—and, if there is no improvement, it is easier for them to accept the natural death of their child.
In Charlie’s case, a novel treatment seemed to offer hope, a nucleoside powder to be added to feeds of mitochondrial depletion syndrome. This did not involve invasive procedures and was estimated by New York-Presbyterian Hospital and Columbia University Irving Medical Center’s Dr Hirano to have a 56% chance of success. That is important because it is over 50%. In 13 out of 18 children with TK2 mitochondrial depletion it had appeared to be beneficial but it had not been tried in RRM2B, the variant that Charlie had. This was not a distressing invasive treatment from a dubious medical centre, and the parents would gladly have had Charlie as part of an N of 1 trial, accepting failure but knowing that they had done everything.
The total cost of a three-month trial of nucleoside powder would have been about £3,000. Contrast that with the costs of over £250,000, made up of £205,225 costs to Great Ormond Street Hospital, almost £35,000 that his parents had to fundraise for, and £32,500 spent by Cafcass. That seems to be the norm. Cafcass also reported that in 2016 it was involved in 18 parent-doctor disputes that ended up in court. If these costs are indicative, that suggests around £4.5 million from the NHS each year.
No one should underestimate the intense emotional anguish of these parents in such cases, nor the stress and difficulty for the clinical team. The requirement that the parents can seek a second opinion means that they can do so swiftly, with full access to their child’s clinical record. This recognises the speed with which children can deteriorate when very ill.
Currently a second opinion may be sought only by a clinician. This part of the amendment would put the parents on an equal footing to ensure that they could seek one too. If there is a dispute between those with parental responsibility then, as now, the court would have to be involved. It is for the courts to veto inappropriate demands, and no clinician would ever be forced to administer a treatment that they did not view as being in the best interests of the child.
Rather than clinicians and parents being pitted against each other, with press interest and the risk of campaigning groups further polarising views, the amendment proposes that independent mediation must be offered. It needs to be independent to remove the suspicion that the mediator is entering the discussion biased towards the clinical establishment and away from the parents. Mediation is different from arbitration; it must be voluntarily entered into, using mediation processes designed to avoid legal disputes. It may help the parents to realise that the clinicians’ decisions are right after all and in the best interests of the child. Indeed, such realisation is evident in some of the very sensitive judgments given by the court.
The amendment would focus on the balance of probabilities. There is no absolute line because each case is different. If the dispute remained intractable, the case would proceed to the court, where the court would have to take into account all the evidence and consider whether the risk was significant. “Significant” is not a precise medical term; it would leave it to the court to decide whether the risk of harm involved in the parents’ proposal was sufficiently significant to interject across their parental responsibility and prohibit the proposed treatment. It would create the legal test of “disproportionate risk of significant harm” to assess the balance of factors, replicating the legal test already used by social services under the Children Act 1989 to consider whether to remove the child from their parents’ care. This legal test would sit before, rather than replace, the current “best interests” test, which is very broad and can be subject to different interpretations.
Contrary to the misleading briefing that some Peers may have received, the legal test in the amendment would not allow a person with parental responsibility to force any intervention. The court must always be, and would remain, free to objectively judge the issues. In the rare cases where disputes still reach litigation, access to legal aid would ensure families can access justice without being forced to rely on outside interest groups to fund the case.
The aim of this amendment is to solve some major problems for the Government. It would ensure resolution of some distressing prolonged disputes between loving parents and clinicians, disputes that benefit no one, and would reduce the likelihood of cases escalating to the courts and the millions of pounds in litigation costs. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
I advise the Committee that the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Masham of Ilton, have indicated that they wish to take part remotely. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I am sorry, I thought it was in alphabetical order. I shall therefore call first the noble Baroness, Lady Masham.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB) [V]
My Lords, in supporting Amendment 287 I cannot think of a better person to have moved it than my noble friend Lady Finlay of Llandaff, professor of palliative care. If there is a dispute, a difference of opinion, between a parent and a child with a life-limiting illness and a doctor responsible for the child’s treatment, it can be heartbreaking. The stress and anxiety the parents can be put under can be unbearable if the doctor in charge is invincible. It is important to ensure that the views of the parents and anyone else concerned with the welfare of the child are listened to and considered.
The amendment would put mechanisms in place and highlight benefits that Charlie’s law can provide for both parents and doctors when a major difference of opinion arises. Most parents will do anything for their children in a critical situation if there is a slight hope that the treatment might work and benefit their child. Sometimes the treatment is abroad and not available in the UK. This happened to Ashya King, a young boy who had extensive surgery for an aggressive brain tumour. His parents wanted to take him to the Proton Therapy Center in Prague for treatment, but there was a dispute with Southampton hospital. At that time, there was no proton treatment in the UK. His parents took him from the hospital to Spain via France, landing up in prison in Spain and making a court appearance. This traumatic struggle hit the headlines and, in the end, young Ashya did go to the Czech Republic for treatment. How much better it would have been if there had been an agreement to save a humiliating situation for everyone.
A great deal of work and care has gone into this amendment. I thank my noble friend for all she has done, and I hope the Government will accept the amendment.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I will be very brief, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has comprehensively explained why her amendment, Amendment 287, which seeks to create a dispute resolution mechanism in children’s palliative care, is important. There is no doubt of the challenges experienced by parents who are facing the dreadful news of their child’s deteriorating health and likely end of life, and who are trapped in a process that makes them feel as if their requests for new, different or more treatment are being refused by the hospital, not least if they feel that the hospital is acting as prosecutor, jury and judge against their wishes.
However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has outlined, one must also sympathise with doctors and other healthcare professionals who believe that they are doing the best for the child in these distressing circumstances. For these cases to end up going through the courts is not a good dispute resolution process. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has also outlined the extreme costs to the NHS and to the parents of the child. We now need a system, even if rarely used, which parents can feel is independent but medically expert to help to resolve and mediate the dispute when the relationship between them and the hospital has broken down.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 287, and I thank my noble friend for tabling Charlie’s law. Charlie Gard’s case was painful for all involved, including his parents and the doctors at the hospital where he was receiving treatment. Protracted disagreements can have far-reaching effects, particularly when they are played out in public, as has happened in a small number of cases. For the child, it can mean a delay in a decision about their care and treatment. For the parents and family of the child, there can be enormous distress, feelings of loss of control, and financial strain. Healthcare staff can also experience stress and anxiety, and they might be subjected to intimidation.
The parents of Charlie Gard, Alta Fixler, Alfie Evans, Tafida Raqeeb, and many others, wanted to do what any parent would do to try to improve their child’s condition and alleviate their child’s suffering. However, it is evident that the parents in such cases do not feel adequately heard and listen to when discussing options about their child’s treatment. This results in the devastating conflicts that lead to litigation. With this amendment, parents would be given the chance to discuss their views openly with the clinicians and hear the views of those clinicians, too.
Too often in my career, I have heard distressed parents described as “difficult” and “impossible to work with—nobody can work with them”. These are grieving parents who are looking for someone they can trust to help them. Mediation can sometimes help parents, and professionals to acknowledge that the consequence of conflict has been to shift focus away from the needs and welfare of the child. An independent mediation process can help to facilitate less confrontational conversation while supporting both parties. Thus, it provides support for both. Mediation across England is inconsistent. It needs to be available in every NHS hospital where conflict emerges, and at an early stage, so that the lives of very sick children such as Charlie are less likely to escalate to court.
In the rare event that a child’s case escalates to court, the amendment seeks to provide access to legal aid to ensure that families are not burdened with the financial strain of legal representation. Currently, families in this position are effectively punished, both financially and emotionally, through litigation for simply doing what they strongly believe is in their child’s best interest. Although this amendment makes provision for legal aid, the main purpose is to keep cases such as Charlie’s out of court, rather than arming everyone to be prepared to enter into long-winded and expensive legal disputes. Parents would not automatically win the right for their children to be given novel treatment, but the amendment would rebalance the dialogue towards resolution, rather than towards costly and distressing legal battles that do nothing to help the parents’ grief.
I also strongly support the introduction of the significant harm test. This legal test would focus on whether an alternative credible medical treatment could cause a child “disproportionate risk of significant harm” when deciding whether a parent can seek that treatment for their child. A key point here is that no medical professional would ever be required to give care or treatment that they did not view as in the best interests of the child. The legal test is already widely used under the Children Act 1989 and should be applied to cases such as Charlie’s in the future. I am strongly in support of this amendment and commend it. It is a just and necessary package to support parents and doctors, and I hope the Minister will be in a position to welcome it.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I have also put my name to this amendment. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, on bringing it forward.
We need a broad debate on the balance of responsibility for children as between parents and the various arms of the state. Sadly, these have come to include the medical profession. Today is not the day for that debate, but this amendment does something to give a voice to parents who find themselves in dispute with doctors, often unaided, unsupported and dependent on voluntary contributions, so that they have at least a voice and a status in decisions about their sick child. I very much hope that the Government will be able to support this.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I do not very often become involved in health matters, so I hope that your Lordships will indulge me on this occasion.
Five years ago, when Charlie Gard’s parents were doing everything they could to fight for his life, I, like everyone else, was moved by their determination. Even so, my instincts were to accept what the Great Ormond Street hospital doctors were advising and what the judge decided was in Charlie’s best interests. I fall into the camp which believes that, in such an unimaginable, heartbreaking situation, the objective and dispassionate professionals are best placed to make a decision that no parent would ever want to have to make for themselves. When Charlie sadly died, I was moved by his parents’ dignity in coping with their heartbreak in the midst of a legal battle and in the full glare of publicity. Probably like many others who felt so sorry for their loss, I soon moved on and thought little more about this tragic case.
Then, just over a year ago, during the Christmas lockdown, when I was out on my daily walk, I heard an interview that Charlie’s mother, Connie Yates, gave to Andy Coulson on his podcast, “Crisis What Crisis?” For well over an hour, I listened to Connie tell her story. She spoke clearly, intelligently and reasonably about their experience as a family during the year in which Charlie lived, and about all that she and her partner, Chris, went through in their fight to be heard and taken seriously by doctors and lawyers. From listening to Connie, I learned that their expectations were well-informed and reasonable but that as the dispute continued, the situation became increasingly fraught and distressing —to the point where their efforts to be heard as parents made them feel that others believed they were guilty of not wanting the best for their baby. Even so, she was at pains to praise all the medical staff who had cared for Charlie at Great Ormond Street.
Towards the end of the interview, Connie told Andy Coulson that a Private Member’s Bill was being sponsored by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, that would bring to life what she called “Charlie’s law”. The noble Baroness has described this law. When Connie talked about it, I was struck by how modest and reasonable it is to create a legal framework to allow for resolution, without the added stress and trauma that they had faced during the time when they were fighting for Charlie. It also struck me very powerfully that, in developing this framework, Connie had taken the time to contact and listen to the doctors who had opposed her, so that she could better understand them and their position. That is worth emphasising again: this young woman is so reasonable that she wanted to create a law that would work for the benefit of the medical profession, not just parents.
As I finished listening to Connie, I vowed that I would support that Bill whenever it appeared. But as we know, Amendment 287 is here in lieu of that Private Member’s Bill, and arguably is a better way to introduce this measure, rather than having to battle with the usual procedural risks that are associated with private Members’ legislation. I am delighted to lend my support to this amendment. I am sure there are technical matters within the amendment which might require discussion between the noble Baroness and the Minister, but I urge my noble friend to take this seriously.
Given the ordeal that Charlie’s family faced a few years ago, when no one in authority listened to them, I am sure it would bring them a huge amount of comfort to know that they are being heard now. That is my main point and motivation today. Of all the things we must do if we are to level up this country, listening and taking seriously people who feel ignored or misunderstood is the most important aspect of that agenda, and in this context it costs us nothing.
I also say to Connie Yates, should she be listening today or read the record subsequently, that she is one impressive woman. When I heard her speak, and listened to what she had to say, she changed my mind and made me realise I had been wrong not to listen more carefully a few years ago.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the amendment put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and will make what have been described as technical points. While I think this is a very good base, there are some things that I think need looking at.
I trained as a commercial mediator some years ago, and practiced for a couple of years, before I was signed up by David Cameron to do a different job. The first point I make is that there is a difference between commercial and family mediation. It is important to realise that. I notice that the amendment says
“where the authorities consider that the difference of opinion is unlikely to be resolved entirely informally”.
I suggest that it cannot be the authorities that decide; it has to be offered equally to both sides. That is why it will not be appropriate for the authorities to provide the mediation service. There are a couple of good, independent mediation services, including the Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution and the Alternative Dispute Resolution Services, but if it is to be a system which has the confidence of both sides, it must be independent of the authorities.
The next point I would like to make is this. There is a big difference between family and commercial mediation, and the difference is fundamental. Commercial mediation produces a legal, enforceable result; family mediation produces an agreement which has no legal force. One of the points which must be addressed if this is to be brought to fruition is what is to be the status of the mediation agreement. That is fundamental.
I was a commercial meditator and in East Anglia, where I was, we had a practice of commercial mediators going out also with family mediators to get an experience of the full area. One of the most distressing points about family mediation was the way in which families would bicker, eventually reach some sort of compromise, and, before you were through the door, decide they were not going through with it. If mediation is to work, it will have to have some sort of resolution at the end where the medical profession and the family can say, “This is settled”—not where one side can say, “Well, I don’t really like the outcome”. This could be the case, particularly in a complex medical situation, where you have a number of doctors involved and maybe two or three of them are part of the mediation but there is then someone further up the line who says, “No, I just don’t accept this”. There has to be a dispute resolution which has a legality about it.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, there is considerable merit in an independent dispute resolution service. I will be very brief, because I believe that at the heart of this is the following: for over two decades, this country has been a signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which recognises that a child has its own rights, independent of its parents. So I was very pleased to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, refer to the best interests of the child, which will be based on their rights under the convention.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for this amendment and other noble Lords who have contributed to this highly emotional and compelling debate about the welfare, care and medical treatment of critically ill children. I also thank Emma Hardy MP for ensuring that this key issue was debated in the course of the Bill’s passage through the Commons and the work that she, other MPs and noble Lords have undertaken with parents and medical staff to help build and develop the framework that is set out in the amendment where care and treatment are disputed: Charlie’s law, in memory of Charlie Gard.
The amendment seeks to mitigate conflicts at the earliest stages, provide advice and support, and improve early access to independent mediation services to prevent the traumatic and bitter legal disputes that we have all seen all too often. Noble Lords have highlighted these, as well as the benefits that the step-by-step processes set out in the amendment would provide for parents and doctors, which are of course central to the consideration of the child’s welfare and best interests. In particular, providing families with access to legal aid if court action takes place would, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, pointed out, ensure that they do not have to rely on raising funds themselves, or on the financial support of outside interests.
Today’s debate has been powerful but has also demonstrated the difficulties with trying to address and resolve such deeply complex issues within the context of an already overloaded and skeletal Bill. Like other noble Lords, I have received the excellent briefing from the Together for Short Lives charity, which does such remarkable work on children’s palliative care to support and empower families caring for terminally ill children. While supportive of much of the amendment, the charity has what it terms “significant reservations” about proposed new subsection (4) on the issue of amending the court’s powers in relation to parents pursuing proposals for disease-modifying treatment for their child after the final court decision.
So, while there is obviously considerable support for the measures set out in the amendment, as we have heard today, the reservations about this and other provisions in the amendment, from Together for Brief Lives and other organisations, emphasise the need for the continued dialogue and discussion that we are not able to have today but which noble Lords have made clear is needed. This has been an excellent debate and I hope the Minister will be able to find supportive ways of taking this vital issue forward.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has brought a vital and sensitive debate before the Committee, for which I for one am very grateful. At the heart of each of these difficult cases is, as she said, the well-being of a child, and that principle has to remain uppermost in everyone’s mind. While the views of parents and guardians are routinely considered in everyday care, occasionally difficult disputes will arise. When they do, we should carefully consider how best to protect the interests of the child. I will start by saying that I fully agree with the noble Baroness that any failure to listen to the concerns of parents or a guardian would be bad practice.
However, I have a concern about the practical impact of this amendment. In cases of the care of children with life-limiting illnesses, the amendment would place the views of parents and guardians above those of clinicians and—let us be clear—the courts, which have a statutory obligation to act in the best interests of the child. Establishing a default presumption in favour of the parents’ views would fundamentally change the current balance. It would move away from the impartial assessment of the individual child’s best interests being paramount based on all the evidence in each specific case.
I understand the view that parents know what is best for their child and their wishes should be paramount. Sadly, though, I am afraid that I cannot fully agree with the proposition advanced in the amendment. It is sometimes the case that desperate parents in these tremendously difficult circumstances are subject to the flattering voice of hope and, as a result, are not acting in a way that is necessarily in the best interests of their child.
To protect the child, it is right that when every effort at resolution has been unsuccessful there is recourse to a judicial process that can impartially assess all the evidence as to what treatment is best for the child. I also fear that it would be difficult for a clinician to determine, in the wording of the amendment, “anyone else” who has an interest in a child’s care. In considering the provisions of the amendment, I note that a child’s medical data can already be provided to parents following a subject access request, so we do not feel that legislation here is necessary. I absolutely agree that specialist palliative care teams should be part of the multidisciplinary team for any child or adult with a complex life-limiting illness; their involvement is an integral part of good practice, and I would expect referrals in such situations. However, I do not agree that it is necessary to put that into law.
Let me say something about mediation. I listened with care to my noble friend Lord Balfe. We know that mediation can and often does play a vital role in facilitating better communications and creating a space where voices on both sides of a dispute can be heard in a non-adversarial way. Unfortunately, that does not provide a solution in every dispute. The Government are supportive of the many excellent mediation schemes already available, including through charities and the private sector. We agree that parents and clinicians should be able to access such schemes where they wish to do so. However, we are not convinced that legislation is the answer to these thankfully rare but nevertheless tragic cases.
The current lack of statutory prescription means that mediation can be tailored specifically to meet the individual needs of families and their children, clinicians and hospitals, reflecting the unique circumstances of each case. There is currently a wide range of work and research into avoiding such protracted disputes and improving the approach to managing conflicts, with the aim of promoting good, collaborative relationships between parents and healthcare professionals to seek resolution without lengthy and costly legal battles. Furthermore, on those rare occasions where disputes are heard before a court, the amendment seeks to extend legal aid. Legal aid is already available for best interests cases, albeit subject to a means and merits test.
I understand the strong views on the amendment across the Committee. I understand that these issues are ethically charged and I take them seriously. However, I also believe that the current approach properly balances the views of parents and guardians with those of clinicians and, above all, with the paramount importance of the best interests of the child in question. The sensitivities around this subject are acute but I hope that what I have said has clarified why I do not feel able to accept what I know is a well-intentioned amendment.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I cannot hide my deep disappointment at the response from the Government, because I think this situation will only get worse unless we recognise the difficulty of decision-making when you are faced with a child whose prognosis is poor, who has a very rare condition, where nobody has a test to predict what will happen, and where the parents feel that they are not being listened to.
Currently in the NHS we have clinical teams that change rapidly. The one person—often—who has continuity and has seen the child day after day is the mother; sometimes it is the father who is with the child all the time. But you get different clinical teams, and you may have a gap of five days between one doctor visiting and coming back, and they may say: “Oh my goodness, what a change.” But when you have a handover, you do not get a complete picture.
Baroness Greengross
“Social prescribing
The Secretary of State must seek to ensure that health professionals are aware of any benefits of practising social prescribing of music and the arts for dementia, in particular for patients at the onset of symptoms so as to preserve their brain health and resilience in the community.”
Baroness Greengross (CB)
My Lords, I wholeheartedly support Amendment 297A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, and Amendment 291D in the name of noble Lord, Lord Hunt, but I will speak only to Amendments 290 and 291 in my name in this group. Amendment 291 calls on the Secretary of State to
“publish a plan for dementia care”
which recognises
“the different types of dementias and the specific care needs of each type”.
It also places a duty on local authorities and the
“NHS integrated care system to implement this plan for their own areas”.
Some 70% of care home residents and 60% of home care recipients in the UK have some form of dementia. When we talk about the crisis in social care and the urgent need for social care reform, one of the major drivers of this crisis is the growing number of people living with dementia, with one in 14 people over 65, and one in six people over 80, living with some form of dementia. By 2040, the number of people living with dementia is expected to have grown to 1.5 million. Globally, the World Health Organization reports that over 55 million people are currently living with dementia; by 2050, this number will have grown to 153 million.
It is easy to get caught up in the numbers, but we need to remember that these are usually people with family and loved ones who often become carers, even once the person with dementia ceases to recognise their loved ones, and in many cases spend prolonged periods of time in a state of distress and even anguish. It is not just unpaid carers who struggle to help those with dementia: Skills for Care has recorded that only 44% of care staff have any form of training in dementia. Social care staff should have tier 2 training in the dementia training standards framework to support the delivery of more personalised care for people with dementia.
As co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Dementia, I work closely with the Alzheimer’s Society. This organisation has been working with the small team at the Department of Health and Social Care that has been trying to develop a new national dementia strategy. With no co-ordinated strategy for dementia since 2020, and with the conditions of people living with dementia deteriorating during the pandemic, the strategy needs to be published promptly. There also needs to be dedicated funding to deliver it.
There are over 100 types of dementia. We know that the most common are Alzheimer’s disease, which accounts for over 50% of dementia cases; vascular dementia, which accounts for roughly 20% of cases; Lewy body dementia, which accounts for just over 10%; and frontotemporal dementia—FTD—which affects 2%. Each type of dementia has its own symptoms and has different care needs. Also, some forms of dementia can develop tragically at a younger age, and some may cause deterioration of memory and cognitive function for many years.
Dementia is a condition that uniquely cuts across social care and healthcare, because it has no disease-modifying treatment, meaning that the main support someone receives is through the social care system. As I said on Amendment 235 on the social care cap, there is a clear inequity where, if someone is diagnosed with cancer the NHS will cover the full treatment cost, whereas if someone is diagnosed with dementia they may require many years of care, which will cost them and their families thousands of pounds, as this is not covered. That is made much worse by the fact that, despite best intentions, the care being delivered may not even be suitable for the type of dementia the person needs care for. That brings me to my next amendment.
Amendment 290 requires the Secretary of State to ensure that health professionals are aware of the benefits of the social prescribing of music and art for those with dementia, especially at the onset of symptoms to preserve brain health, and protect against cognitive decline, loneliness and fear in the months and years leading to diagnosis. Over 200,000 people are expected to be diagnosed each year. A third more do not even have a diagnosis, so the arts have a vital part to play for them. When I spoke in support of the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, on social prescribing, I and others who spoke on that group outlined the many benefits of social prescribing for the social exercise of arts activity, which empowers patients to preserve their brain health. This amendment specifically outlines the importance of this for those affected by dementia as part of an overall care plan, so links to Amendment 291.
If we look at the four main types of dementia I spoke of earlier, we can see how different forms of art can play an important role. The charity Arts 4 Dementia has found that, for those with Alzheimer’s disease and vascular dementia, participating in music, dance, visual arts, poetry and drama, and trying new techniques and art forms, stimulates interest and joy, relieves anxiety, preserves confidence and improves cognitive functioning. Some musicians continue to play for years, artists to paint and dancers to dance. People with frontotemporal dementia are better able to read words and music and are more interested in dialogue around pictures and the mechanics than creating art. Musicians and artists with frontotemporal dementia can often continue to enjoy singing, playing and painting for years after diagnosis. Researchers have found that those with Lewy body dementia are happier to be involved in social arts programmes, poetry and dressing up than physical drawing, or going to arts events, galleries, concerts or the theatre rather than performing. For those with Parkinson’s-related dementia, dance can be helpful.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, is taking part remotely. I invite her to speak.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 297D is very important. Unacceptable practices of bullying and intimidation of the most vulnerable people must not take place. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for bringing this amendment to the Committee. I support it.
I congratulate “Panorama” and those who worked undercover to expose these unacceptable wrongdoings in the past in care homes, nursing homes and hospitals for residents who are very vulnerable. The programme showed one girl who was a resident and had asked to be looked after by female staff only. This did not happen, and the film showed men taunting her and seeing her get upset, as they carried on with their bullying and tormenting. All sorts of abuse has been exposed in some of the homes, which were spread across the country, such as Whorlton Hall in Barnard Castle, Winterbourne View near Bristol, Ashbourne House in Rochdale, and many, many others. This is not easy work and staff need to be well trained and suitable candidates, with patience and dedication.
During Covid-19, this situation has been a great risk. Many of the residents are a long way from home and they are very isolated. There should be independent inspections and spot checks; there should not be closed doors. There should be regular safeguarding in the regulations.
I hope that the Government will take this seriously. There should be a duty of candour so that whistleblowers are not victimised when reporting what they think is bad practice. I look forward to the Government’s reply, and I hope it will be helpful.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, is also taking part remotely. I invite the noble Lord to speak.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. No one has done more than she has to champion the elderly and the frail. I support all the amendments in this group but will speak only in support of Amendment 290.
There is much evidence of the benefits of creative activity to dementia. Some of this was set forth in the Creative Health report, and more recently in the document A.R.T.S for Brain Health, edited by Veronica Franklin Gould, the founder and now president of Arts 4 Dementia. I pay tribute to her passionate and indefatigable work.
As noble Lords, we have the opportunity to exercise our aging brains in trying to understand amendments to the Health and Care Bill. Others at our time of life take even greater pleasure and benefit to their health through music, painting, poetry, dance, drama and other art forms. Of course, that range of cultural opportunities is there for us too—the cultural scope of Peers is not limited to “Iolanthe”.
Veronica Franklin Gould has very well said:
“music-making provides a tool for a total brain workout”.
The mental activity of learning poetry, performing drama and creating painting or craft opens new neural pathways and connections. Research shows that creativity benefits the plasticity of the cortex, enhances cognitive abilities—perception, motor function and memory—and improves cardiovascular strength. In more humane language, engagement with the arts allows creative self-expression, offers sociability, reduces stress and increases resilience—all leading to joy and achievement. These are profound and measurable benefits. Arts 4 Dementia offers programmes in creative arts venues for people, from the onset of early symptoms of dementia. I draw the attention of the House to the very important work of Manchester Camerata, in partnership with the University of Manchester, in its Music in Mind dementia programme.
There can be years between the appearance of early symptoms and the moment at which someone receives a memory assessment and a diagnosis. This can be a lonely and fearful time, during which the arts can be particularly sustaining. Creative activity slows the deterioration of the brain. The benefits of engagement with creative activity continue for a long time.
Professor Martin Marshall, chair of the Royal College of General Practitioners, has recognised this. He said:
“The shift for us in general practice is not just engaging with the medical activities which are core, but to engage with social activities, and make sure the two are aligned.”
Will the Minister accept amendments to this legislation to ensure that the structures and requirements that it creates encourage, facilitate and drive the shift of which Professor Marshall speaks, and bring the crucial support of the arts and other forms of social prescribing to people with dementia and others? If he does not believe that the legislation needs amendment, will he explain how, as presently drafted, it will drive that change?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is also taking part remotely. I invite the noble Baroness to speak.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, and others for the amendments in this group, which would help transform some of the long-standing problems in social care, as well as improve the quality of life of patients and their families, especially those who care for them. I will speak to Amendment 297D, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, which seeks the establishment of a review into institutional abuses in care settings within six months of the passing of this Act.
Amendment 297D talks about the effects of restrictive visiting and eviction notices
“on the emotional, psychological, social and physical health of service users, and on the well-being of service users”
and their families. Obviously, “restrictions on visiting” has taken on a whole new meaning throughout the Covid-19 pandemic. I note that the Rights for Residents campaign group has secured more than 270,000 signatures on a petition for a law that ensures that
“every resident has the legally enforced right to the support of an essential visitor”.
Currently, homes are meant to support an essential caregiver for all residents—but this is advisory and some homes are still imposing blanket bans on visits. That may be because they have some Covid infections inside the home, but that is not universally true.
There is still no clear picture of how visits are going on in care settings. These could be difficult for residents with dementia, for example, if there is only a very small window for visiting—and perhaps it is just not the right time or the right day for them.
Unlock Care Homes is also doing work on this, including highlighting good practice. It is important to remember that most care homes are not just doing their best, they are doing really well with looking after their residents, despite the constraints of the pandemic, staff shortages and burnout.
Time and again, investigative journalists are uncovering practices going on in care settings that are inhuman, breach vulnerable residents’ human rights and damage patients’ mental, physical and psychological well-being. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, referred to a long list, and that list is indeed shameful.
A series of scandals led to a CQC report into restraint, seclusion and segregation for autistic people and people with a learning disability being commissioned in 2018. It was published in October 2020. The report said:
“We found too many examples of undignified and inhumane care in hospital and care settings where people were seen not as individuals but as a condition or a collection of negative behaviours … We also found that a lack of training and support for staff meant that they are not always able to care for people in a way that meets those individuals’ specific needs. This increases the risk of people being restrained, secluded or segregated.”
However, the Government have not yet commissioned a review of the entire sector, to understand and learn from the causes and poor practices that have resulted in those institutions failing their residents. Commissioning such a review would demonstrate that the Government really want to bring a halt to these practices.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 297A is in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith and Lady Cumberlege, but I am also supportive of the other amendments in this group.
With people living ever longer, looking after older people so that they can stay healthier for longer is critical, as is ensuring that they receive the care they need and have a dignified and secure old age. Amendment 297A seeks to introduce a new clause that will not only lower, from 75 to 65, the age at which every patient is assigned a named GP but sets out to ensure that named GPs will actually have to meet and have some knowledge of each patient they are responsible for, and will communicate directly with them and the family.
We need to encourage everyone to take responsibility for their health. Having good and regular health checks is an essential part of the prevention of ill health, as well as leading to earlier identification of conditions and earlier interventions. I am sure that other noble Lords who are doctors will put me right, but I was once told that 65 is an age where things can start to go wrong. Therefore, it is important to start monitoring people’s health and being able to identify changes from this age. This will deliver better outcomes and may also enable people to stay at home and lead a fuller life for longer. The role of the GP in all this is absolutely critical.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, in speaking to my Amendment 297D, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Masham and Lady Brinton, for their support. However, I also express my general support to the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, for their amendments. The common theme of this collection of amendments is the question of how we support vulnerable people.
My amendment is about the experience of many of us who have seen the harm caused to our loved ones in care homes during Covid when visits were not allowed for so long. Even now, it can be difficult to visit in some homes because of the Covid restrictions that continue or where a member of staff or visitor has Covid and then 14-day long impositions are imposed. It is a bit rich when one hears in the media that all restrictions are being lifted, because for many of us, in practice those restrictions have not been lifted at all.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights in its report on care home blanket bans and other excessive restrictions recommended that regulations for care and treatment should include a requirement to ensure face-to-face contact wherever possible between residents and the people most significant to them. I do not underestimate the difficulties faced by care homes in the past two years. They have faced huge challenges. My personal experience is that many of them have risen to the challenge and provide high-quality care. But even before the pandemic, serious concerns were growing about the use of care home visitor bans to punish relatives for complaining about standards of care. Indeed, as far back as 2016, the “Victoria Derbyshire” programme reported that hundreds of care homes were guilty of this method of what it described as institutional abuse. In 2019, the Relatives & Residents Association was coming across at least one case per week and warned the problem was increasing.
One woman found her mother dressed in other people’s clothes, left in her own urine and with her hair unwashed for weeks. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman upheld the daughter’s complaint, reporting that after raising her concerns with the care home, she and a doctor were prevented from seeing her mother when they tried to visit. The care home later told the ombudsman the ban was because of a previous incident reported to the police of the daughter and her partner’s behaviour, but could not provide any evidence that an incident had occurred or was reported to the police.
As visiting restrictions are, hopefully, going to be relaxed in the weeks ahead, I am afraid we have the prospect of seeing more residents’ families being victimised in this way. Helen Wildbore, director of the Relatives & Residents Association, has found from its helpline calls that relatives and friends play a vital role in spotting potential human rights violations, particularly around abuse and neglect. When they are locked out by bans, people in care lose crucial support: their advocate and confidante—they might be the only person they tell about their concerns. Sometimes residents are even threatened with eviction or actually evicted in reprisal for complaints about their care. The Joint Committee on Human Rights was told about a family whose mother was threatened with eviction after they merely asked to discuss concerns with the head office of a care home.
These are the kinds of abuses my amendment seeks to tackle and get over the problem that regulations are not sufficient. These regulations may specify the standards of care against which care providers are regulated by the CQC through its inspection process, but the CQC is not going to pick up individual complaints, so there is a gap. There is a strong case for a statutory duty of care sitting alongside CQC regulations to require care providers to facilitate such contact with families as is reasonably practical and to prohibit evictions where non-vexatious and non-repetitive complaints are in progress. In my amendment, I am not proposing that. All I am asking for is a review; an independent review charged with examining these options. I hope that the Government will agree that there needs to be some reflection on what has happened and how we can prevent this kind of abuse in the future.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con)
My Lords, I should like to speak to the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lady Hodgson.
From the age of five, I was a child of general practice; it was my world. I accompanied my father on home visits, patients came to our house and the telephone rang constantly—my mother was the secretary and took all calls. My father loved his patients and they loved him. He knew them inside and out, and their families as well. He attended road traffic accidents, of which I have to say there were plenty, and he delivered babies at home—he never lost one. I remember him telling me one day when he came back from a birth that it had been a very difficult birth, but the mother praised my father for having helped her to produce a very healthy little boy. “Doctor”, she said, “we will call the baby after you. What is your name?” My father replied, “Lambert”. “Right”, said the father, “we will call our son Tom.” I mention this only because maternity has been the love of my life, and in this area relationships are critical to a safe and good experience. In my youth, maternity was part of general practice.
After being appointed much more recently to chair the maternity review for England by Simon Stevens—as he was then; now, of course. the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham—I was determined to introduce relationship care, sometimes called “continuity of carer”, where the final “R” stands for relationship. We have much respected and credible research from the Cochrane Collaboration in Oxford which shows that women who receive relationship care are less likely to have a preterm birth, less likely to lose their baby before 24 weeks and less likely to lose their baby overall.
We now have in the NHS 371 relationship teams with 2,355 midwives in place where the midwife provides all three elements of midwifery care: prenatal, birth and postnatal care, which is sometimes called follow-up care. In the James Paget Hospital, 90% of maternity care is provided through continuity and it has a waiting list for midwives to join the hospital. Through this initiative, we are transforming maternity care. The women and their families value hugely the relationship with their known midwife, and the midwives who are providing this care absolutely know that what they are doing is the right way to work. They would leave their hospital and go to one that provided such care if their hospital gave it up.
Listening to my noble friend Lady Hodgson, is not this what she seeks for general medical practice? Her amendment is well drafted and reflects an interesting report produced by the Royal College of General Practitioners, entitled The Power of Relationships: What is Relationship-based Care and Why is it Important? and published in June last year. In his foreword, Professor Martin Marshall, chair of the college, writes:
“COVID-19 has radically changed the face of general practice. We have moved from a predominantly face-to-face service to one in which most consultations are delivered remotely, either by telephone or video call … Remote consultations are certainly here to stay. For many patients, they enable quicker and more convenient access to a GP appointment, which of course is hugely important.”
But then he asks the following questions:
“But should speed and ease of access be our primary measures of effectiveness? They are certainly easier to quantify. But what about the quality of care? What about the relationship between doctor and patients which, to me, is the essence of general practice?”
He goes on to say that
“The evidence for the benefits of a trusting relationship is compelling—better patient experience; better adherence to medical advice, fewer prescriptions, better health outcomes, better job satisfaction for doctors and even fewer deaths.”
Indeed, he says that the relationship between the patient and their GP is as important as the scalpel is to a surgeon:
“If relationships were a drug, NICE would mandate their use.”
Baroness Cumberlege (Con)
I understand that I have overrun so I will say to my noble friends on the Front Bench that we should value general practice. We should build with the best. We should learn from the best. I know that there are hundreds of general practices; it is up to us to applaud them and cherish them and ensure that we see another era of general practice which is different but which values patients and relationship care.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendment 297A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, to which I have added my name. I shall speak briefly, given that that I am only an irregular participant on this Bill. This amendment is particularly important. I come to an understanding of general practice from a very different perspective from the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, as somebody who has only either received the care of a doctor or seen my parents receive or not receive that care.
When I was a young baby, I was extremely ill. I realise in these days where people talk about conspiracy theories about vaccines that this might be something that should not go into Hansard, but I had a reaction to the smallpox vaccine and my mother went to the public telephone box and called the doctor. The family doctor who came was equally concerned and brought a consultant from the local children’s hospital to our home to see me. That would be the sort of gold standard that we could only dream of now. However, it is the sort of care that we need to be looking to in terms of having a family doctor or a doctor in the community who actually knows individuals. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, said, this is particularly so for the over-65s, when a range of issues might be beginning to affect them.
The situation today is so very different. The Minister in answer to an Oral Question a few weeks ago repeatedly said that everyone has the right to see a doctor in person and the doctor must give a clinical reason for refusing to have an in-person consultation. I assure him that this very rarely happens, because ordinary patients cannot simply ring up and speak to the doctor and say, “I need to see you”. They will get to a receptionist who will triage them and decide whether they feel that it is appropriate for this person to see the doctor, or to have a telephone conversation or maybe some other virtual consultation.
There is a real need, particularly for older people, to have the opportunity to know that there is a doctor who understands their medical situation and can join up the dots. Somebody who seems now to have low blood pressure might have that because of the previous set of medication that another doctor has prescribed for them. If somebody rings up and gets a telephone consultation or is sent a prescription without proper assessment, the danger is that the whole picture is lost and individuals’ lives can be blighted because they are not getting the medical care they need.
This is not the fault of any individual practice or of any individual general practitioner. However, we have ended up with a system where that traditional idea of a family doctor who knows their patients has disappeared, and somehow we need to get an element of that back. The other three amendments in this group in many ways fit as part of a suite because, if your GP knows that maybe you have early onset dementia or another sort of dementia and you need different types of therapies, they will know what to recommend.
Furthermore, if your GP knows that you have gone into a care home, visits you and thinks, “That person has lost a stone and a half in weight in the last six weeks”, a GP who knows the individual will be able to respond. Somebody who randomly sees a patient will not. I strongly support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, and the other amendments in this group.
Finally, I note that the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, comes immediately after the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean. If anyone were minded to support assisted dying, they should certainly support the following Amendment 297A, because how on earth could any doctor reasonably say that we can sign somebody off when they have no idea who that individual is?
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, I would like to use one example to illustrate the importance of Amendment 291 in the name of my noble friend Lady Greengross, and her call for a dementia care plan. It relates to the second point: that the plan must recognise the different types of dementia and their specific care. It is also true that it needs to recognise the different groups of patients affected by dementia and their needs.
I am thinking from personal experience of people with Down’s syndrome. Noble Lords may know that something like 50% of people with Down’s syndrome who reach the age of 60 also have Alzheimer’s; there is some genetic connection between the two. However, the field of dementia has not really caught up with this yet. This is a developing field. The real importance of the plan that my noble friend advocates is that it constantly develops as knowledge develops about particular groups of patients and how they are affected.
The truth today is that patients such as the person I am thinking of are too often let down by the system, because too few clinicians understand the links between the two diseases and the particular needs of people with Down’s syndrome who also have Alzheimer’s.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I support the majority of these amendments, but I want to reflect on something that my noble friend Lady Greengross said about the lack of treatment for people with dementia. In fact, there are emerging treatments, and having had the benefit more than 40 years ago of working at a second referral unit at the Maudsley Hospital, I know that people who present with dementia so often also have quite severe depression at the beginning of recognising that they are losing some of their cognitive function. That can be treated very effectively and people can be enabled to live much happier lives for the first part of their care.
I want to give one other example. As a clinical nurse, I was called to help a unit that had severe problems. I do not think there was any maltreatment, but there was certainly a lack of competence in care in the place that I visited. There was a gentleman who was tall and extremely thin who, they told me, had two people with him all the time because he was so agitated. They could not get him to sit down to eat and his relatives did not want him to have any medication.
I am pleased to tell noble Lords that I got involved and we got a consultant psychiatrist in. The family were persuaded that a small amount of anti-psychotic medication might improve the quality of this man’s life. It did; his agitation significantly reduced and he was able to sit to eat. He lived for only another nine months, but those nine months were much happier than they would have been without that medication.
Although I firmly believe in all the social prescribing that we are talking about, we do not necessarily need a dementia care plan; we need a dementia care and treatment plan with an associated workforce development plan. Will the Minister seriously consider those issues?
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendments 297A and 297D. I will be brief, because we have already had a very lengthy and wide-ranging debate. The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, is important, and she has set out the case for a named GP very well. As people become older, they tend to develop a more complicated and interrelated set of healthcare needs, and a GP who has that overview and can liaise with the family is extremely important.
I will add two quick points that have not come up in the debate so far. First, it might sound like a statement of the blindingly obvious, but for this very desirable amendment to happen, there need to be enough GPs in the system. Frankly, I am concerned that, despite commitments from the Government to increase the number of GPs by 6,000 by 2025, there is no current plan for how this will be achieved. The number of qualified full-time equivalent GPs is smaller today than it was in 2015.
Secondly, in relation to health inequalities, it is matter of real concern that GP practices serving more deprived populations receive less funding and often serve much larger numbers of patients than GPs in more affluent areas. I looked at the figures, which I will not repeat, and there are huge disparities in the size of the lists that they serve. I feel that passing an amendment of this sort on continuity of care would most likely benefit patients in the most deprived areas. With this debate, and if this amendment were accepted, I hope that there would be more pressure on the system to relieve that very unhelpful trend.
Amendment 297D is an extremely important amendment, and I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for raising it. I do not want to repeat what he said, save to say that I would see this review as a first step towards strengthening the rights of care home residents and their relatives to visit, to keep in touch and to spot the signs of abuse. We all understand how hard the pandemic has been. Most care homes have done their level best, despite a lack of access to PPE and testing in the early days. None the less, many of the visiting restrictions that have been imposed have far too often been blanket restrictions, rather than restrictions that took individual cases and individual needs into account.
We had the repeat Statement from the Minister last week on vaccinations, and we were told that there is now no limit on the number of visitors allowed in care homes. I can tell noble Lords that I have not been able to visit my mother inside her care home since before Christmas, because there have been continuous outbreaks of Covid. Often it affects only two people, but that is enough to shut the care home down. This is why there needs to be a more proportionate and individually judged approach to these things.
Finally, if we had a review of this sort and could strengthen rights, I would hope that we could also strengthen the human rights of care home residents, including self-funded residents who currently have no recourse to the Human Rights Act, which is fundamentally unfair.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I attached my name to Amendment 290 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, but I support all these amendments. The comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, on Amendment 291 were particularly important as an improvement, but it is still crucial that this is all looked at holistically.
I will confine my remarks to Amendment 290, which is about social prescribing for dementia, focusing in particular on music and the arts. We have discussed social prescribing extensively and I will not go back over that ground. However, I will note how much the Alzheimer’s Society website stresses the importance of music and the arts for the quality of life and care of Alzheimer’s patients, and dementia patients more broadly.
I want to join up a couple of dots. The amendment talks about ensuring that health professionals are aware of the benefits, but I would like to word it much more strongly to ensure that this is regarded as an essential part of care, not a luxury add-on extra—“If we can find the money we’ll do this nice thing”—which all too often is how it is regarded. On that point, I link back to my Amendments 237 to 239, which were debated in a previous Committee session, on ownership of care homes and the flow of funds into care homes, and the fact that 16% to 20% of money in the average care bed is going into financial instruments. If we took two-thirds of that money and put it into more traditional medical, social-type care, and put in some more money for carers to be paid a little better, we would still have some money left for this kind of social prescribing. If we look at that in this context, we see how we join all this up. We really need to stress that social prescribing is an essential part of care, not some luxury add-on extra.
In one more effort to join up the dots, I will make the point that often in your Lordships’ House different people work on different areas and things are not joined up. We have some noble Lords, particularly on the Cross Benches, who do a lot of work in the creative industries, which, financially, are suffering enormously through the Covid pandemic. There is something to be done here in joining up with government-funded projects that help people in the creative sector do some training and get some skills, to enable them to take their skills, knowledge, enthusiasm and energy into social care—thereby spreading economic prosperity and improving people’s quality of life. Let us try to join these things up a bit more and not look at them in silos.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, I am very reluctant to intervene in this long debate, but I have travelled down from Manchester specifically for this group of amendments. I have not been involved with this Bill previously, partly because of my own ill health, and also because of my teaching outside London, but I will make a short intervention here.
My noble friend Lord Hunt has raised the very important issue of the nature of interaction between human beings, which is absolutely essential in considering some of the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, and others. I am not going to advocate music therapy, dance therapy, exercise therapy or art therapy here, because, speaking as an academic, one of the problems here is that we simply do not understand the truth of the interaction that makes these things work. One of the big problems is that really good randomised controlled trials are still very much lacking.
I am reminded, for example, of a very good randomised controlled trial, by Dr Nair in Australia, of quite a large number of demented people in a care home to whom he played music. From his results, there was no question but that the music, which was extremely tranquil baroque music from sixteen different composers, actually made them more disturbed, more sleepless, more angry, less able to eat their food and more likely to come into conflict with the nursing staff.
So it is very unclear what is actually happening in the brain. During the debate today we have heard claims made about changes in brain structure, but the truth is that we have not done sufficient research to really be clear about this. The research is very expensive, and one of the problems is that it involves very complex things such as time on scanning machines, for example—functional MRI. There is simply not enough research going on into the dementias—whatever they are—to fully understand the nature of what we are talking about.
I am not suggesting that we do not do music therapy but, speaking with my interest as an ex-chairman of the Royal College of Music, I say that we have seen that some of the things we do simply do not work or, if they do, it is not understood how. One of the things with music therapy, for example, is that you see individual patients interacting with somebody else, and it may be that the interaction is more important than the actual music. For example, watching musicians play in person may be better than watching them on a screen or just listening to music. There is a lot of work that needs to be done here before we can make big claims.
These are important amendments that are well made and well put, but we need to be really clear in debating this legislation that, until we understand the mechanisms—the phenotype—of what we are discussing, we have to recognise also that much more money is required for research into the dementias. That is really critical and there is a risk here of making legislation that will not fundamentally change the real problem that we are facing.
Lord Desai (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I rise to say that Amendment 297A is obviously very desirable. But, as an economist, I have to say: if we implement this, who will be deprived? GPs’ time is limited and GPs’ numbers are limited, as we all know. Through much of my life in the NHS, all that the GP did for me was prescribe what I needed. It took about five minutes, and the GP did not even have to talk to me; they could look at the computer to find out who I was and what I was doing. It is, quite rightly, only people over 65 who need a caring GP, so we have to devise a system for those who do not need extensive consultation and familiarity with the GP but can be dealt with in a summary fashion. Perhaps we could have junior and senior GPs, so that we could release the senior GPs for this sort of work and have other people for prescriptions and simple tasks.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I was going to speak for two minutes but now I am going to speak for only half a minute. I have one question for the Minister. I know that his department has a small team developing the National Dementia Strategy. Can he can tell us whether any additional capacity is being planned to add to that small team doing this important work? Frankly, without a national strategy, the new ICSs will not be able to measure their performance in their dementia care plans against a national standard. The matter is urgent, because the position of people living with dementia has worsened during the Covid-19 pandemic and, while we are trying to tackle the backlog of treatments for patients with physical health needs, we must not forget those with dementia.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, for tabling her amendments, which ensure that we consider dementia care in respect of this Bill and return to recognising the impact that the social prescribing of music and arts can make to dementia sufferers, particularly for patients at the onset of symptoms—although I also heard what my noble friend Lord Winston said about the research needed on this issue. Noble Lords have on many occasions stressed their strong support for Music for Dementia and Singing for the Brain, and it would be good to hear from the Minister what progress is being made. We have also had extensive debates on the importance of social prescribing, and of the arts across health and social care settings, so, again, I think we do not need to repeat what has been said.
On Amendment 291, the key thing is the call for the duty to be placed on each local authority and integrated care system to implement the National Dementia Strategy for their own areas. It is a timely reminder of the need for the promised National Dementia Strategy: can the Minister provide a publication date for it, and update the House on its progress and on the increased funding that the Government have promised will be provided for the implementation of the dementia care plan?
My noble friend Lord Hunt’s Amendment 297D is a stark reminder of the Joint Committee on Human Rights’ concerns over the visiting bans operated in some care homes before the pandemic, following relatives’ complaints about their loved ones’ treatment and standards of care. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, stressed, we know that during the pandemic itself the ban on outside visits of relatives and friends caused huge anxiety and suffering among residents and their families alike, and it is very welcome that visiting rules have now been eased, although the need for maintaining PPE, testing and infection control routines and constant vigilance continues.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, this has been a long debate but it has touched on a number of different and important subjects. I join noble Lords in paying tribute to the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, and her work.
I turn first to Amendments 290 and 291. I reassure noble Lords that the Government are absolutely committed to the rollout of social prescribing across the NHS. We exceeded the targets in our manifesto and the NHS Long Term Plan of 1,000 new link workers by 2020-21 and are aiming for at least 900,000 people to be referred to social prescribing by 2023-24.
NHS England, the National Academy for Social Prescribing and Music for Dementia have produced guidance for social prescribing link workers to expand music prescriptions for those with dementia. The department has also published two resource guides for social workers on embedding music in personalised social care plans for people living with dementia and their carers.
While the Government are committed to promoting the benefits of social prescribing of music and arts for people living with dementia, it would be inappropriate to focus in the Bill on one form of therapy. Instead, we rightly provide scope in the Bill for the NHS to undertake a range of social prescribing.
Turning to Amendment 291 and the need for a dementia strategy, I reassure the noble Baroness and others that the Government are committed to publishing a new strategy this year. As part of this, we will be looking at arts and music-based interventions. More broadly, the strategy will focus on the specific health and care needs of people living with dementia and their carers, including looking at dementia diagnosis, risk reduction and prevention, and—importantly, as noble Lords have mentioned—research. Our priority is for the strategy to be credible and shaped by a range of experts, including people living with dementia and their carers. At the end of last year, we established a stakeholder-led task and finish group to help develop the strategy and deliver it in a timely way.
Moving on to Amendment 297D, we fully agree that visits from loved ones are of vital importance to care home residents’ health and well-being. DHSC guidance emphasises that visits to care homes should be facilitated, based on individualised risk assessments. Care home residents should also be supported to nominate an essential caregiver, who may visit in most circumstances, including if the care home has been closed to visiting for any reason.
There is an existing process in place if a resident or their family are concerned that guidance is not being followed. We encourage anyone with concerns to raise them. That can be done both with the care home, which has a legal obligation to operate a complaints procedure, and with the CQC. The CQC will follow up on concerns and take regulatory action if needed. It has provided mechanisms for people to feed back on concerns over care. The CQC responds to all concerns passed to it, and can receive concerns anonymously via representative groups, such as Rights for Residents. Where those concerns have named the provider or service in question, the CQC has followed up the cases. Some 54 concerns regarding care home visiting arrangements have been raised during the pandemic. The CQC gained reassurance in all cases that visiting is now in line with guidance. In 12 cases the CQC secured this assurance by inspecting the service.
My department has not seen any data or reports on evictions of residents following complaints against care homes. If a care home were taking such action, it would be in breach of guidance. A complaint should not lead to a resident being asked to move to a different home, and the terms of evictions and processes followed should comply with consumer law, as per the CMA guidance. People should feel confident that complaining will not cause problems for them.
I recognise this has been a difficult time for care home residents. However, the existing powers in legislation are robust and give protection to those who need it. We therefore do not feel at this time that an independent review is necessary.
I turn to Amendment 297A. Continuity and oversight of care is crucial in meeting the needs of all patients, including those aged over 65. That is why, since 2015, all practices have been required to assign their registered patients a named, accountable GP. This GP must lead in ensuring that any GP services that they are contracted to provide, and are necessary to meet the patient’s needs, are co-ordinated and delivered to that patient. Practices must take reasonable efforts to accommodate patients’ requests to be assigned a particular accountable GP and must endeavour to comply with all reasonable requests to see a particular practitioner. Practices are also required to take steps each year to identify any registered patient over 65 who is living with moderate to severe frailty. The practice must undertake a clinical review of any such patient and provide them with any other clinically appropriate interventions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, is right that delivering on this is linked to the number of GPs in the system. I assure her and others that the Government remain committed to growing the number of doctors. There were 1,841 more full-time equivalent doctors in general practice in September 2021 compared to September 2019. In 2021-22, a record-breaking number of doctors started training as GPs. I therefore consider that existing regulations already address the welcome intention of my noble friend Lady Hodgson, and I regret that the Government cannot accept the amendment for that reason.
I hope I have given noble Lords and noble Baronesses some reassurance on the amendments in this group and that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Greengross (CB)
My Lords, I have listened to an extraordinary range of speeches and addresses. People have spoken from the bottom of their hearts. I am very moved myself by what I have heard. I thank all colleagues and Ministers who have spoken today. I will look very carefully at the record of today and come back, but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Chakrabarti
“Public health condition for investment in research into vaccines and other health technologies
(1) Any relevant research or development funded or part-funded by public finances is subject to the public health condition.(2) The Secretary of State, UK Research and Innovation, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, the Intellectual Property Office and all public authorities must ensure that the public health condition is fulfilled in respect of such research or development and any material benefit derived from it.(3) The public health condition is that—(a) a proportionate share of any intellectual property resulting from the public funding (including intellectual property in all research, pre-clinical and clinical data, safety and efficacy information and manufacturing capability) is subject to Crown ownership and openly licensed,(b) a proportionate share of any private profit resulting from the public funding is re-invested in further public health-related research, and(c) any proportion of public funding is published and taken into account in relation to the setting of reasonable prices for the public procurement of medicines domestically and internationally.(4) In addition, the Secretary of State must utilise, and actively support other countries to utilise, the full range of flexibilities within the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (“TRIPS”) for the purposes of public health. (5) In the event of the World Health Organization declaring a pandemic, the Secretary of State must immediately—(a) waive UK-registered patents, industrial designs, other intellectual property rights, and protections relating to undisclosed information relating to—(i) vaccines,(ii) medicines,(iii) diagnostics and their associated technologies, and(iv) materials,necessary for combatting a pandemic internationally, (b) issue relevant emergency compulsory directions to enable the domestic manufacturing of generic and biosimilar products, and(c) support and implement any proposal to temporarily waive elements of the TRIPS Agreement at the World Trade Organization to assist wider global manufacturing of and access to health technologies.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause ensures public benefits in exchange for public financing of research and development. It would require the Secretary of State to support public health flexibilities under the TRIPS Agreement and, in the event of a pandemic, domestic and international knowledge-sharing to combat the emergency.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 292 is in my name and that of my noble friends Lady Lawrence of Clarendon and Lord Boateng, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. I thank noble Lords from across the Committee and the People’s Vaccine Alliance—Saoirse Fitzpatrick of STOPAIDS, in particular—for their advice.
Last year, the Prime Minister lauded the successes of the UK’s vaccination programme as a result of “greed and capitalism”, but the virus-busting vaccines, treatments and tests were in no small part funded by taxpayers, supporting the work of scientists at universities, research institutions and small-scale biotech companies across the world. Over €93 billion of public money has gone into developing vaccines and therapeutics. The AstraZeneca vaccine developed at Oxford University was over 97% publicly funded.
Public investment at the beginning of the research process assumes the biggest risk at the point when there is no certainty that a product will be successful. It is only when effectiveness is clearer that big pharma swoops in and uses exclusive intellectual property rights to hold a monopoly over that product in the market. The risk is socialised but rewards are privatised and, crucially, monopolised. The NHS is paying twice for medicines: once for research and again through procurement.
Some estimates show the public paying for up to two-thirds of drug development, including research and clinical trials. Drugs are getting only more expensive, with estimates that the NHS procurement bill increased by nearly 10% over the last couple of years, to £20.9 billion. Yet there is still no guarantee of production at the volumes required to meet demand or that patients will be able to access health technologies at affordable prices, nor that scientists will be able to make use of the data, knowledge and technologies generated in the research process to develop improved follow-on products. Due to the opaqueness of the pharmaceutical industry, it is very difficult to track public funding. The terms of agreement, actual costs and prices charged—all these are kept behind closed doors.
The amendment seeks to change that for health technologies developed with public funding, as well as to define emergency procedures to expedite a sharing of research, data and intellectual property in the case of a pandemic. By adhering to the “public health condition”, the Secretary of State and all public authorities would ensure that
“a proportionate share of any intellectual property resulting from the public funding … is subject to Crown ownership and openly licensed … a proportionate share of any private profit from public funding is re-invested in further public health-related research, and … public funding is published and taken into account in … the setting of reasonable prices for the public procurement of medicines domestically and internationally.”
Open licensing would allow production in a competitive generic market, bringing down the price of medicines. A study published in the BMJ showed how the price of oncology drugs could decrease by between 75% and 90%. We saw this with ARVs for HIV/AIDS, and how crucial that was in fighting that pandemic by reducing costs from over $10,000 per person per year to under $100. Reinvesting a proportion of profits could ensure that they go towards health priorities rather than financialised practices or the development of me-too drugs—sufficiently different to obtain patent protection but without added therapeutic value, compared with existing products.
There is recent precedent for more transparency and conditionality around public funding in Italy and France, while the European Union is looking at how to track public funding and measure societal impact. Even our Government are beginning to think about public interest conditions for future pandemic tools to ensure access in low- and middle-income countries. This is a recommendation of the UK’s pandemic preparedness partnership’s 100 Days Mission report, published during the UK’s G7 presidency.
There are also circumstances where there has been no public funding but the price or volume restrictions of a product are preventing widespread access. In that case, the amendment calls for a recommitment to the use of pre-existing public health safeguards within the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights—TRIPS—Agreement. These flexibilities include the use of compulsory licences when intellectual property monopolies prevent access to a medicine. They enable a Government to license another manufacturer to produce a generic or biosimilar version of a patented health technology at a much lower price. These can be used at any time by any WTO member; they have already been implemented more than 100 times between 2011 and 2016.
The need to use flexibilities has never been greater, with ever more drugs coming to market with a price tag of over £1 million per dose. For example, the NHS is currently paying a list price of £1.795 million for a single dose of Zolgensma to treat spinal muscular atrophy—SMA. It is the most expensive drug in the world, despite public and philanthropic funding. A Crown-use licence would permit the Government to allow a third-party manufacturer to make a biosimilar version at a discounted price.
We must also stand with other countries in the face of huge and unconscionable pressure from big pharma when TRIPS flexibilities are used. In 2007, we supported the Thai Government when they applied for a compulsory licence to produce a more affordable antiretroviral drug to treat HIV and were met with a threat from the pharmaceutical company AbbVie that they would lose access to all its other products. We could show leadership and solidarity again. Multinational corporations, whether tech, pharma or other corporations that noble Lords have considered in your Lordships’ House in recent times, warrant international democratic governance, regulation and restraint. Hence the last part of the amendment.
In future pandemics, we must not remake the continuing mistakes of this one. Monopolies which profiteer from poverty and sickness are bad enough at the best of times. But in a global emergency, when so many ordinary citizens, health workers and ethical businesses have sacrificed so much by way of livelihoods, liberties and lives, such conduct is totally amoral. Pharmaceutical companies’ refusal to share manufacturing know-how has led to grotesque vaccine inequity. Only 10% of people in low-income countries have received a single jab. So the amendment stipulates immediate action as soon as the World Health Organization declares a pandemic. The temporary—I stress, temporary —waiver of UK registered patents, industrial designs and other intellectual property rights relating to undisclosed information necessary for combating a pandemic, and emergency compulsory directions to enable domestic manufacturing, would mean that any company within the UK with the capacity could be making these products. It would allow products to be shipped internationally and allow companies across the world access to the critical data and rights to produce pandemic tools at scale for their own people.
The Indian and South African proposal to temporarily waive the TRIPS agreement is supported by more than 100 countries. It is only opposed by the European Union, Switzerland and our own Government. The waiver could allow the 100-plus potential mRNA producers across Latin America, Asia and Africa access to critical clinical data and manufacturing know-how required to make mRNA vaccines, without fear of litigation in the worldwide race to beat variants of the virus.
New treatments are in high demand, and high-income countries have already brought up the lion’s share. We will be facing a treatment apartheid on top of a vaccine one if the United Kingdom and others do not shift their position urgently. Just last week, it was reported that the director-general of the WTO, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, was hopeful of a breakthrough in the long-standing waiver discussions. However, it is incredibly important that any compromise is not overly restrictive geographically or in terms of products or types of intellectual property.
The UK Government must stop saying that a waiver will take too long to implement while simultaneously blocking its agreement. They should end their group hug with the EU, Switzerland and big pharma and start embracing and empowering the global south and wider world. The line that temporarily waiving TRIPS will stifle future innovation ignores the public money that funded the riskiest parts of developing vaccines and treatments, and how innovation works. Sharing research data and clinical trials results with great minds around the world creates the conditions for competitive collaboration, vying to have the best results but also sharing lessons learned and supporting each other. This is how we have made great leaps in the past, as with the human genome project, where public funding supported a global collaboration which has changed modern science.
This is about improving access to affordable, life-saving health technologies for our NHS and the world to combat pandemics and improve health. It is about ensuring that we get the best from our biomedical innovation, especially when we are investing so much money and expertise and putting human beings through clinical trials. In a global health emergency, not sharing life-saving knowledge is as wicked as blocking access to emergency exits from a crowded building in a raging fire. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
My Lords, I call the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, who is taking part remotely.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am a former trustee of UNICEF UK and, before that, Christian Blind Mission, a global disability charity. I have seen first hand the two-tier system of access to global vaccines and medications. It is a pleasure to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, set out how, through her Amendment 292, the UK can fulfil its global public health responsibilities for investment in research into vaccines and other health technologies and how, in an emergency, companies developing these goods would also be required to help. She has introduced it in her usual effective and persuasive way. I suspect I am not alone in valuing her contributions to your Lordships’ House.
Throughout this pandemic, the Government have rightly congratulated themselves on their investment in research on the range of vaccines developed in rapid time and also the extensive, rapid clinical trials assuring their safety prior to approval. However, less satisfactory has been the UK Government’s view about their international moral responsibilities as a member of the OECD and one of the high-income countries with access to much-respected vaccination and pharmaceutical research. The World Health Organization has said right from the start of the pandemic that no country is safe until all are safe, but low and middle-income countries have not just not had the advantage we have; we have reneged on our promises to them over the last two years.
The UK Government repeatedly tell us that they have donated cash to Gavi and COVAX, but the reality is that we need to help those countries now to become able to manufacture their own medicines and vaccines in the light of emergencies such as future pandemics. The old adage of “Give a child a fish, feed them for a day. Teach a child to fish, feed him for ever” is so true. Here, the fishing rod is the skills to manufacture and sell medications in a future pandemic.
The TRIPS waiver, or intellectual property waiver, is supported by the World Health Organization and many large charities and countries, including the USA and others. However, as we have heard, the EU, the UK and Switzerland are not in that bracket. Its intention is to increase vaccine production in developing countries by sharing intellectual property for vaccines publicly for the period of that pandemic. It is needed because the data for November 2021, nearly a year from the first vaccine being delivered, showed that just 4.2% of people in low-income countries had received their first Covid vaccine. Across Africa, 6.3% are now fully vaccinated. COVAX has shipped just one-third of what it had expected would be available by the end of October—those expectations were based on promises from high-income countries. Export bans, manufacturing delays and bets on vaccines that have not received regulatory approval have also held up deliveries. Worse, we know that in this country we have thrown away vaccines rather than redirect them if we chose not to use them at a particular time.
It is time that the UK took a leading role in fulfilling the World Health Organization’s call. Now is the time to make all countries safe, not just for Covid but in preparation for whatever future pandemics may occur, and make sure every country is safe in the future.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I want to speak narrowly to subsection (5) of Amendment 292, where it refers to the waiving of intellectual property rights and the protection of undisclosed information, and also where it refers to the waiving of agreements, all in an effort to assist global manufacturing. It provides a peg for me on which to hang the holy question of inadequate vaccine supply arrangements for third-world countries and, in particular, the need for greater manufacturing capacity, which would be assisted under a system of global waivers.
Two weeks ago, there was an interesting contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone of Boscobel, where, in reply to my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, he said,
“there is no evidence that waiving intellectual property protections would advance these objectives,”
those objectives being
“help with vaccine production and distribution.”—[Official Report, 24/1/22; col. 8.]
I simply do not understand the Minister’s logic. As I see it, it is perfectly possible to manage such manufacturing requirements under directly monitored, subcontracted, licensee production arrangements.
In the same exchange, my noble friend and I went on to call for the 100 potential manufacturers in Africa—indeed, my noble friend has done it again today—identified by a number of charitable organisations to be encouraged to produce a Covid vaccine in approved plants under the subcontracting arrangements I have referred to. The Minister in reply, quite rightly, appeared preoccupied by ensuring companies were able to continue with “innovation.” I totally agree on that. That is a laudable objective that we all support. However, what evidence is there to suggest that in an entrepreneurial world, production under the carefully constructed management arrangements I have suggested deters innovation?
My suggestion in my original contribution was that it is perfectly possible to produce a vaccine and its subsequent product variants in dedicated production areas in approved plants and specialist facilities under the quality control of personnel seconded from advanced-nation producers. That is what I am asking for in the questions I have been asking repeatedly. What is the problem? How can that possibly destroy innovation as Ministers are suggesting? On the contrary, it raises greater challenges. It is a spur to increased innovation and, additionally, profit-taking, which I recognise is an important factor in funding research and development.
With less than 10% of the population in the world’s poorest countries being vaccinated under current vaccination production arrangements, we are prolonging the pandemic by leaving the door open to new variants. New variants will inevitably appear in under-vaccinated populations or, more specifically, in under-vaccinated ethnic groups which, often through a lack of available, detailed knowledge and under peer pressure, remain unconvinced of the need for vaccination.
I simply cannot understand the commercial, political or moral logic behind a failure to sponsor vaccination production under the arrangements I have outlined. We in the UK could be leading the world through this crisis if my suggestion was followed. We have spent billions on support schemes, much of it, sadly, wasted and lost in fraud. We could have spent much of that on vaccine initiatives. I think we are missing a trick, but it is not too late, as these pandemics are here to stay in one form or another. I appeal to the Minister to free up the market and pursue the strategy that I, and others far more significant than I, have been suggesting in this debate.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, is also taking part remotely. I invite the noble Lord to speak.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this amendment raises major issues which warrant full debate outside the confines of the Health and Care Bill, but I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti for providing us with this opportunity to consider them. I support the principle of the public health condition, as articulated in the amendment and as she described it.
The inflexible application of the intellectual property regime during the pandemic has been unconscionable. Huge numbers of people have died unnecessarily in low-income countries. Rich countries not only pre-empted and hoarded supplies beyond their reasonable needs but refused to relax the intellectual property regime to enable free manufacture of vaccines in low-income countries. South Africa and India led the appeal, on behalf of low-income countries, to the World Trade Organization to waive IP protections—patents, copyright, trade secrets. That appeal was rejected contemptuously and cruelly. The UK is among the culprits; the US and France support the waiver, but we do not.
The statement by the United Kingdom Government to the TRIPS council on 16 October 2020 is a piece of Mandarin cant: amoral, inhuman and disconnected from the realities of life and death for billions of people. Let me quote from it:
“Beyond hypotheticals, we have not identified clear ways in which IP has acted as a barrier to accessing vaccines, treatments, or technologies in the global response to COVID-19.”
The Covid crisis is not hypothetical. The refusal to support the free production of vaccines in low-income countries has had catastrophic consequences, yet still government Ministers repeat this theme.
The Government also said in their statement:
“A waiver to the IP rights set out in the TRIPS Agreement is an extreme measure to address an unproven problem.”
The pandemic is an extreme situation and the problem is staring at us—howling at us. At least 350 million cases of Covid have been confirmed globally, and estimates of the number of deaths from Covid range from 5.75 million to much higher figures.
The Government stated that:
“Multiple factors need to be considered … These include increasing manufacturing and distribution capacity”.
Indeed. But the response to this challenge by our Government was to cut aid funding massively, from 0.7% of GDP to 0.5% of a declining GDP.
The Government then said:
“The world urgently needs access for all to … vaccines … which is why a strong and robust … IP system … is vital.”
That is a non sequitur to end all non sequiturs.
The last quote I will give from the Government’s statement to the TRIPS council is this:
“The UK has played a leading role in … ensuring no-one is left behind”.
Do the Government really believe that? It seems to me to be beyond satire.
If we refer to Our World in Data, a website from the University of Oxford, for up-to-date figures, we find that in low-income countries 10% of people have had at least one dose of vaccine, while in high-income countries the figure is 78%. Africa has been most wretchedly left behind: on the continent of Africa 15.2% of people have had one dose and only 28% are fully vaccinated, whereas in the United Kingdom 78% of people have had one dose and 73% are fully vaccinated. It is not surprising that African leaders have complained bitterly of vaccine apartheid. How does the Minister refute that charge?
I feel profound shame at the behaviour of our Government; not only have they been morally purblind but they have been recklessly imprudent. Consider the economic consequences. The IMF has downgraded African economic prospects. Do we gain from the impoverishment of Africa? Think only of the implications for migration. Consider the diplomatic consequences. Africa has turned to China. How does our vaccine nationalism assist post-Brexit Britain to develop relationships around the world? Consider the health and economic consequences for ourselves. If we do not tackle Covid globally, we risk continuing damage to our economy, and our physical and mental health, as we reel in and out of lockdowns and restrictions. Consider the consequences for the world. Professor Sarah Gilbert has warned that the biggest threat is Covid spreading and mutating uninhibited in unvaccinated countries. No one is safe until we are all safe. Dr Hans Kluge, the World Health Organization regional director for Europe, last week demanded a drastic and uncompromising increase in vaccine sharing across borders. He stated:
“We cannot accept vaccine inequity for one more day—vaccines must be for everyone”.
The United Kingdom has not paid its fair share of funding to the WHO accelerator programme. The UK committed to donating 100 million doses through COVAX, but what we have actually done falls far short of that; at the end of 2021, the figure was 30 million doses. Does the Minister accept that our Government have acted appallingly? Will he accept Amendment 292 and will the Government incorporate its principles, wherever relevant, in policy and legislation?
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 292 and specifically proposed new subsection (5)(c) on the TRIPS waiver.
I was going to make a few points of context but the last two speeches—indeed all the speeches so far—have set the context extraordinarily well. As the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, has just said, Our World in Data tells us that, as of an hour ago, 66% of the world overall has had one dose but only 10% of those are in low-income countries.
When this discussion has been raised before—for example, during Questions on Monday in your Lordships’ House—the Government responded that there were practical problems with the proposal. Indeed, there are practical problems and it is not a magic bullet, but it is a first-class starting point. It is also a point that we then need to follow up with political will. I do not understand why the UK and Europe—with the exception of France, which has just said no to the proposal—have not put forward a counterproposal starting from this point. Why have they not done what some other noble Lords have talked about—something similar to what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, has suggested? Why not use this proposal as a starting point to do something for three big reasons?
The first of those reasons is the end game here. The end game is not about intellectual property but about dealing with the next pandemic, and the one after that. It is about having the ability to manufacture and make vaccines available around the world, quickly and rapidly, whenever there is a need for that to happen. That is what we are looking at.
Secondly, the point has already been made that the UK could play a much bigger role here and in the direct interests of the UK population. We are a global power in biomedical science and technology. We have produced some help; I note, for example, during our G7 presidency, the ability to offer some scope to other countries for sequencing variants. However, much more that is being done in this country could be expanded on. I think, for example, of the global pathological analytical service being developed in Oxford, which is basically a database for the sequencing of variants around the world, and is making the data accessible to everyone, free of charge; anyone in the world can send their data to it for analysis to be provided. So there are many things that the UK could be doing and offering as part of the development of a sensible plan for the future that responds to what low and middle-income countries are asking us to do.
The other big point here is that if the UK does not respond, others will. We have already seen the process of vaccine diplomacy during the pandemic, and the positioning of China and Russia in how they have been seeking to make friends and influence people through the use of vaccines. We can also see that countries will start helping themselves, and they in turn will break away from the consensus.
I am reminded of the very different epidemic of HIV/AIDS, more than 20 years ago. It is a very different disease, and the circumstances were very different. However, some of the responses were the same. To quote Dr Peter Mugyenyi, who was head of the HIV/AIDS response in Uganda in 2000,
“despite opposition by branded drugs manufacturers, and threats of punitive reaction, we took a decision to import and use low-cost generic ARVs from … India to save the lives of our patients”.
In a way, that says it all. Countries have that responsibility to their people, and they will go and do things.
Dr Mugyenyi goes on to say in the same article that at that point, the drugs were relatively expensive for Africa, but USAID, the US development agency, would not support their use in Africa because, it said, there was no ability to provide them to the population without the necessary supply chains. In an extraordinarily insulting and racist statement, the head of USAID said in 2001 that Africans could not use ARVs because they told the time by the sun. Two years later, President Bush moved that on, and President Clinton also intervened, with the result that antiretrovirals became cheaper. There is a process that will take place, whether we are a part of it or not. We do not know where this will end, but other countries will take their action.
The really important thing here is that the UK properly engages with this proposal, and puts in the counterproposal, whatever it is. It must be about working together, something along the lines of what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, talked about: licensing it, working with people, learning from each other and building that infrastructure around the world, which, frankly, we need for the people of the UK as well as the people of the world.
I hope that in responding to this the Minister will talk about how he sees that development happening in the longer term and how the UK will have an impact on what we all see as a shameful position where we in our richer countries have been vaccinated if we have chosen to be, but in low-income countries people have not had that opportunity.
Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon (Lab)
My Lords, I have added my name to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. It has been mentioned in your Lordships’ House numerous times that no one is safe until we all are safe. We have heard it many times in today’s debate.
I have voiced my concerns many times about the monopolies upheld by high-income countries that have chosen to retain scientific innovation and expansion by withholding the IP of the Covid vaccine. Low-income countries are in the position where they can manufacture their own vaccines, as there are more than 100 potential mRNA manufacturers across these countries ready to develop a vaccine, if they had access to the IP and the manufacturing know-how.
Too often the agendas of pharmaceutical companies are not aligned with positive public health outcomes. The public health condition aspect of Amendment 292 will help guide the Government to tighter stewardship around public funding to ensure that at the end of the development process, health treatments are both affordable and accessible to all concerned. I stand by the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, for this very reason, as its primary objective is to address the barriers that prevent poorer nations having adequate access to medicines at an affordable rate. We have heard many of your Lordships in the Committee today seeking to make the Government understand what is happening in lower-income countries and to support them and to ensure that action is taken when we say that no one is safe until all of us are safe.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow everyone who has spoken in this group. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, for so powerfully and clearly introducing this amendment, to which I was pleased to attach my name. The case has been overwhelmingly made, so I will not go over the same ground but will add a couple of points and draw some things together.
It is interesting that we started the day with the ARIA Bill. Concern was expressed from several quarters of your Lordships’ House about public money going into ARIA and whether we would see public returns from that money. As the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said, what we have seen so often is the socialisation of costs and the privatisation of profits in so many areas of research and knowledge.
I draw to the attention of any noble Lord who has not seen it a very useful briefing on this amendment prepared jointly by Just Treatment, STOPAIDS, Global Justice Now and Universities Allied for Essential Medicines. That brings out two points, and it is worth looking at the national and the international. We have tended to focus on the international. Nationally there are some fascinating figures. The NHS pays more than £1 billion a year for medicines, but two-thirds of the upfront costs of producing those medicines come from public funding.
That is the national side. Looking at the international side, we have talked about and focused very much on Covid, but we really need to think about the fact that we are now in the age of shocks, in a world that is environmentally extremely disturbed. That is certainly a factor in the appearance of Covid; we have seen SARS and MERS, and there is Ebola out there. We need to build resilience into our world. We are talking about changing so many different things, and whether it is supply chains, medical supply chains specifically, or anything else, we really need to think about preparing for that different world, with the focus on resilience, rather than on private profits as it has been.
The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, asked an interesting question: why do we see the UK, the EU and Switzerland lining up against the rest of the world? The answer is there in profits, in an ideology that says, “We have to organise everything for private profits and somehow the benefits will trickle down.” It is interesting that today Michael Gove has gone on the record as saying that trickle-down has not worked; it is a failed ideology. Of course, there is also the impact of those profits being fed into our political system and the influence that that money and that lobbying have.
I will finish with this final thought. The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said—and I think this reflects what other noble Lords, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence, and the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, said—that we have been utterly wicked in our behaviour towards the global south in the Covid pandemic in failing to ensure that it has crucial vaccines. We have also, as has become obvious with omicron, spectacularly shot ourselves in the foot. I say to those who will not accept moral arguments for this amendment: please look at the practical self-interest. No one is safe until everyone is safe.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti for raising the crucial matter of countries and peoples left behind in terms of the opportunity to have a necessary vaccination programme available to them. My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours spoke of the importance of supporting innovation, which is one of the ways in which we can ensure that, while my noble friend Lord Howarth rightly said that the subject requires exploration outside of the Health and Care Bill—something also commented on by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, who emphasised, as do I, the need for the political will to make progress.
There is no doubt, as we have heard today, about the gravity of the issues at stake and the need to resolve them. It is the case that where public funding is provided there must be conditionality, although of course that may be complex to refine into legislation. There are of course additional issues when funding is also coming from the private sector along with a need to ensure a balance of interests. It would certainly be helpful to have a stipulation that avoided placing undue bureaucracy and restraint on smaller developments and small-scale research. We do not want to see the pace of research slowed down with researchers tied up in lengthy proposal writing, contract negotiations and legal agreements.
As my noble friend Lady Lawrence has said, we know that the pandemic is not over until it is over everywhere, so the amendment raises the opportunity to explore whether the immediate waiver of intellectual property rights would mean an end to the pandemic everywhere. It is relevant to assess what contribution or otherwise intellectual property rights make to the promotion of technological innovation and the transfer and dissemination of technology. There is an advantage for producers and users of technological knowledge and the consideration of rights and obligations, and that needs to be considered in the round.
In respect of the response and actions to a pandemic declared by the World Health Organization, while I understand the intention behind the amendment, in order to be consistent I would comment with some caution about the Secretary of State being compelled to immediately take actions, particularly without any form of oversight—something that we will return to later in Committee.
However, I hope that today we can obtain some reassurances from the Minister about the Government’s intentions and plans in order that we can find a way forward so that low-income countries and their peoples have access to vaccines both now and in future.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, for bringing this debate before the Committee today and for the heartfelt speech that she gave. The noble Baroness will be aware of the view of this Government following her recent Question in the House on the subject of patient waivers. As my noble friend Lord Grimstone set out, the Government remain open to all initiatives that would have a demonstrably positive impact on vaccine production and distribution. However, we believe that waiving intellectual property rights would have the opposite effect. Doing so would dismantle the very framework that helped to develop and produce Covid-19 vaccines at the pace and scale now seen. It would risk undermining the continued innovation in vaccines and technological health products that is required to tackle a virus, especially as it mutates and evolves, so we believe that doing so would be a mistake.
Instead, the success of the Covid-19 vaccine rollout vindicates the value of public and private co-operation. While university research departments are great at research, large-scale manufacturing and global distribution are not their function, so we recognise the importance of their working with partners with expertise in this area.
The intellectual property framework is key to those efforts. It has incentivised the research and development that has led to the development of Covid-19 vaccines. It has given innovators the confidence to form more than 300 partnerships, an unprecedented number, and has contributed to the production and dissemination of vaccines and other health products and technologies across the world, with global Covid vaccine production now at nearly 1.5 billion doses per month.
I share the noble Baroness’s intention that research funded through taxpayer finances should benefit the taxpayer, but we do not consider that that is best achieved through particular constraints in primary legislation. Research contracts afford greater flexibility and more powerful levers than the amendment, through provisions such as those requiring the dissemination of intellectual property for patient benefit, revenue sharing with the Government of commercialised intellectual property, and requirements around access to medicines in the developing world. Contractual protection mechanisms in funding arrangements can also ensure that intellectual property funded by taxpayers results in the creation of taxpayer benefit.