House of Commons
(2 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(2 years, 7 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, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Iain Stewart)
All parts of Scotland have a growth deal in implementation or negotiation, with the UK Government committing more than £1.5 billion. These agreements are stimulating local economies to build back better after the pandemic, delivering thousands of jobs across Scotland and enriching communities.
Andy Carter
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his answer. Does he agree that growth deals are an excellent example of the UK Government and the Scottish Government working together to extend opportunities and deliver jobs right across Scotland?
Iain Stewart
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that growth deals show what can be achieved when Scotland’s two Governments work together. That is what people want. They are just one part of the UK Government’s hugely ambitious levelling-up agenda, which last year saw the announcement of more than £191 million in investment projects in Scotland, supported by the levelling-up fund, the community renewal fund and the community ownership fund. In February, the levelling-up White Paper saw further good news for Scotland with the Glasgow innovation accelerator, which will create jobs and boost the regional economy. I very much hope that the Scottish Government will work with us on the levelling-up agenda, which covers a number of vital devolved areas and has the potential to transform the lives of people in Scotland.
John Stevenson
The Borderlands growth deal has been very well received on both sides of the border. It demonstrates the benefits of a close working relationship between councils, MPs and Government. Given that success, would the Minister envisage a further opportunity for a Borderlands mark 2?
Iain Stewart
I strongly agree with my hon. Friend that the Borderlands growth deal is a great demonstration of what can be achieved when we work together. I recently visited Innerleithen in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) and saw some of the great work that is happening there. What is really important about these growth deals is that they develop strong local partnerships that can form the basis for longer-term economic plans. My hon. Friend was a fantastic champion of the Borderlands growth deal, and I know that he will be at the forefront of developing these future plans.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)
The Westminster Parliament can and does legislate for all of the UK, and we have always sought to do so with the consent of the relevant devolved Parliament when we legislate in areas of devolved competence. The Scottish Parliament has passed legislative consent motions for seven Bills in this Session where the legislative consent motion process has been engaged. However, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the SNP Scottish Government made it quite clear that they would not grant LCMs for Brexit-related Bills. We understand their position even if we do not agree with it, but following Brexit, it is this Government’s duty to legislate sensibly for the whole of the United Kingdom, which has involved legislating without consent on a small number of occasions and may well mean doing so again in the future.
Patrick Grady
That small number of occasions includes the Elections Bill, the Professional Qualifications Bill, the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 and the withdrawal agreement itself. All were rejected by Scotland’s Parliament but are taking effect anyway because this Tory Government never really believed in devolution in the first place. So is this actually the end of the Sewel convention, and is ignoring the Scottish Parliament the new normal?
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
This morning, as ever, we have heard a lot from the SNP about respecting the Scottish Parliament and ignoring the Scottish Parliament. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is the height of disrespect for the permanent secretary of the Scottish Government, who remains accountable to the UK Cabinet Secretary and draws a six-figure salary, to refuse to appear in front of a Committee of the Scottish Parliament without giving a reasonable excuse as to why?
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
I am sure that the Secretary of State would like to join me in welcoming Dr Riches, who is watching our proceedings today. She is from the Royal Society and she is shadowing me as part of a pairing scheme. She is very welcome.
Holyrood unanimously approved a legislative consent motion for the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill, which included an amendment from my Labour colleague Michael Marra urging the UK Government to remove a provision that would require ownership of land only from 2014 to be registered in Scotland registered, when the requirement is from 2004 in England. So if someone has laundered Putin’s dirty money in Scotland before 2014, they are in the clear. For example, Perthshire’s Aberuchill castle was bought by the Russian steel magnate Vladimir Lisin for over £5 million in 2005. He has been on the Treasury’s watchlist since 2008, but he is not covered. Vladimir Romanov, who bought Heart of Midlothian football club along with swathes of central Edinburgh, is allegedly hiding in Moscow under the protection of Putin. He would not be covered either, but both of them would be covered in England. Does the Secretary of State think that is right? What is he doing to implement the LCM amendment to sort this smugglers’ cove in Scotland?
Mr Jack
I join the hon. Gentleman in welcoming the Royal Society pairs who are in London. I also thank the Labour party for its support for the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill—it is hugely appreciated.
On the registration of property, England and Wales changed the rules for transparency of ownership in 1999, but in Scotland they were changed in 2014. The problem we have is that, if we go back before 2014, there is a risk that third parties who did not know they were engaging with an overseas entity that was non-compliant could be hurt. That hurt would be for something they were engaged in unwillingly, and we must protect those third parties. That is the reason why we have not gone back before 2014, and the Joint Committee on the Draft Registration of Overseas Entities Bill, which reviewed the draft legislation, agreed with that, but I have every sympathy with the points the hon. Gentleman makes.
Ian Murray
I am sure that anomaly could be sorted to ensure that we do not hurt unsuspecting third parties. One of the most important ways to clamp down on illicit Russian money and influence in the UK is through the reform of Companies House. Despite Labour’s attempts, the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 does not contain such reforms, but they are important, because Scottish limited partnerships, which were set up for Scottish farmers in the 19th century, remain an outdated and opaque vehicle of ownership that is used in the 21st century to obscure beneficial ownership. There is widespread support for that change, but the Government refused to act. Will the Secretary of State commit now to reforming Scottish limited partnerships and wider company law so that we can see who actually owns the companies and shut down those laundering loopholes?
Mr Jack
The hon. Gentleman will also know that the UK Government clamped down on the abuse of Scottish limited partnerships in 2018, but we want to do more, and early in the next Session of Parliament there will be an updated economic crime Bill and further measures will be taken. He is absolutely right that those partnerships were being used by foreign individuals and companies to launder money. We know that. The reforms in 2018 increased transparency and put more stringent checks on the individuals forming those companies, but, hopefully with the support of the Labour party, we will tackle them in the next Session of Parliament.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
The Scottish National party likes to present itself as the defender of devolution, but does my right hon. Friend agree that there is an inherent contradiction between that position and its desire to rip our United Kingdom completely apart? Does he also agree that it is the UK Government who are promoting devolution, including the transfer of powers regained from the European Union?
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
Is it not the truth that Scotland has never experienced such sustained attacks on our democracy and our democratic institutions? As we have heard, legislative consent is now almost dead and buried, a feature of history, with Westminster now legislating in devolved areas. What is next in the Secretary of State’s sights?
Mr Jack
There are various Bills that come through that are Brexit related: the Professional Qualifications Bill, which is linked to trade Bills, a reserved matter, would be one of them, and the Subsidy Control Bill would be another where we will not get an LCM. We know that, but we need to bring in subsidy controls, because state aid has reverted to the United Kingdom from the EU and it is a UK matter.
Pete Wishart
The Secretary of State does not get an LCM because Scotland’s directly elected representatives do not agree with it and do not want it. That is why LCMs are withheld. Everybody can see what is going on, and everybody can see his attempts to undermine our democracy. Is it not the case that his muscular Unionism has been a disaster for Scottish democracy? In fact, it has even been a disaster for the Scottish Conservatives, who may or may not now have confidence in their Prime Minister. Is it not also the case that the Scottish people have no confidence in this Government to defend our parliamentary institutions?
Mr Jack
Absolutely not. We do the right things for Scotland. On the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, we brought the Bill forward without an LCM to protect Scotland’s trade with the rest of the United Kingdom. The two principles that underpin it are mutual recognition and non-discrimination. That is because 60% of Scotland’s trade is with the rest of the UK and a lot of jobs rely on it.
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)
The Government’s net zero strategy outlines a comprehensive set of measures to transition to a green and sustainable future. This will support hundreds of thousands of well-paid jobs and leverage up to £90 billion of private investment by 2030 across the entire United Kingdom, including Scotland. All previously licensed fields, such as Cambo, are accounted for in projected production and estimated emissions. We are confident that they can be developed, even as we seek to achieve our commitment to net zero by 2050.
Dean Russell
Yesterday, I met my “Dean’s Green Team” in Watford to talk about initiatives around making sure that the economy is greener and having a better environment. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the net zero strategy is even more important for energy security and that we are stronger as a Union when we work together on that?
Mr Jack
I agree with my hon. Friend. I know he is a great champion of net zero policies. As the Prime Minister set out earlier this week, now more than ever what the UK needs is a balanced approach to energy. Both the North sea and renewables can help guarantee a secure energy supply for households and businesses without relying on foreign imports, and it is greatly to be regretted that we cannot agree a UK-wide position on these issues, because by opposing the development of new oil and gas fields, the Scottish National party and the Greens risk driving jobs and investment elsewhere. However, I say to those working in the industry that fortunately for them, oil and gas is a matter reserved to the Westminster Government.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Our journey to net zero is critical not only to saving the planet, but to weaning us off any reliance on Russian gas. ScotWind, the largest offshore wind project in the world, has huge potential, but we must also live up to our values and ensure that Scotland’s wind is not being used to power Putin’s war. Will the Secretary of State ask Scottish Ministers to conduct an audit of ScotWind to guarantee that no ill-gotten Russian money is part of its financing and ensure that all successful contracts for difference are free of Russian involvement?
Mr Jack
As the hon. Lady will know—she makes a fair point—ScotWind is a matter for the Scottish Government, but I am sure they will be doing all they can to ensure that no Russian money is financing any of the successful contracts. On contracts for difference, the UK Government are working to ensure that no Russian money is underpinning UK infrastructure.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
You have to admire the brass neck of the Secretary of State, because it is his Government who have failed to deliver carbon capture and underground storage in Scotland, it is his Government who have failed to match fund the Scottish Government’s just transition fund, and it is his Government who oversee Scotland paying the highest electricity transmission charges in the entirety of Europe. When will he stop doffing his cap to Westminster and stand up for Scotland’s renewable future?
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Iain Stewart)
I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues on improving Union connectivity and recently met Baroness Vere to discuss the final report of the Union connectivity review. I look forward to meeting the new Scottish Government Transport Minister, Jenny Gilruth, in the near future to discuss shared transport priorities.
Dr Hudson
As a Borderlands MP, I am strongly supportive of the extension of the Borders railway from Tweedbank through Longtown in my constituency and on to Carlisle. It would improve connectivity, benefit local communities and be a massive economic boost to our region, but the proposals have been under consideration for a long time now, and it is vital that we move forward with this project. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential that the UK and Scottish Governments work together and with local authorities to prioritise the delivery of this project, which would benefit local residents and businesses and strengthen our precious Union?
Iain Stewart
I completely agree with my hon. Friend that we need to work together on this project, which will be of benefit to his constituents and the whole country. I regret that the project has not had the priority we would like to see in the Scottish Government’s strategic transport projects review 2, but we will continue to work with the Scottish Government and see how we can best support it. We have committed to the next stage of the project, and I hope the Scottish Government do, too.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
On strengthening Union connectivity, can the Minister advise the House on what happened to the impossible bridge across Beaufort’s Dyke? What kind of money was spent on something that never happened and did not connect the Union?
Iain Stewart
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that it is right that we look at all possible transport links. [Interruption.] He mocks, but if he looks at what the Scottish Government are proposing, they are looking at fixed tunnels linking parts of Scotland together. In the Union connectivity review, we are looking at strengthening—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Docherty-Hughes, just because you have put your mask on does not disguise the fact that you are shouting. In fact, the best thing is that the mask moves as well.
Iain Stewart
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we are prioritising upgrades to roads such as the A75 through Dumfries and Galloway, which will be one of the key transport routes connecting Northern Ireland, Scotland and England.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Iain Stewart)
The benefits of the transformative levelling-up agenda have already been realised following round 1 of the levelling-up fund. Eight Scottish projects are receiving a share of £171 million, which will help to create jobs, boost training and grow productivity. Round 2 of the fund will open in spring in addition to another major funding mechanism, the UK shared prosperity fund.
Duncan Baker
What levelling-up plans are there specifically for the rural areas of Scotland, so that from the Outer Hebrides to Orkney, the highlands to the lowlands, the whole of Scotland can benefit?
Iain Stewart
All parts of Scotland will receive a share of the UK shared prosperity fund, which will provide £2.6 billion of new funding by March 2025 through an allocation rather than a competition. Additionally, the levelling-up White Paper includes the creation of a new islands forum, which will bring together local leaders from island communities across the UK to share challenges and experiences directly with the UK Government.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
A former European regional development fund recipient described to me the distribution of levelling-up funding as akin to the random sprinkling of confetti, because it is random and wide open to the sort of pork-barrelling that we saw in the stronger towns fund. Why will the Government not work directly with devolved Governments so that the funding dovetails with all the knowledge, experience and workstreams that already exist to ensure outcomes that can be measured against some recognisable targets?
Iain Stewart
I am rather surprised that the hon. Lady seeks to criticise levelling up as pork barrel politics when her constituency is benefiting from a multimillion-pound investment in the regeneration of Granton. I would have thought that she would be pleased with that.
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Iain Stewart)
The UK Government have committed £50 million to the islands growth deal, which has resulted in islands communities benefiting from the highest per capita deal in Scotland. As I just mentioned, the levelling-up White Paper announced the development of an islands forum, and I have recently had discussions with local partners on how to progress that important work.
Simon Jupp
The new islands forum announced in the levelling-up White Paper is a welcome step. It will connect island communities from Scotland to the south-west with key decision makers. What progress is being made on the proposal?
Iain Stewart
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. On Monday, I had a useful conversation with the leader and chief executive of Orkney Islands Council. We are inviting local partners to discuss with us how best the forum can operate and deliver what we want to achieve in the islands.
Jerome Mayhew
The best support that any Government can give to an island community is access to a reliable and frequent ferry service. On that, the SNP has failed miserably and has managed to achieve the impossible double of sinking hundreds of thousands of pounds into ferries that will never float while the real service has had increased breakdowns and become worse and worse. Does my hon. Friend agree that the SNP has let down island communities across Scotland?
Iain Stewart
My hon. Friend raises an important point. It is of great concern to island communities that they cannot rely on ferry services, as has been the case for several years. I welcome the proposals in Transport Scotland’s strategic plan for the renewal and replacement of the Clyde and Hebrides ferry services and the northern isles ferry services, but its record thus far does not fill me with confidence that they will be delivered.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Farmers and crofters in all Scotland’s islands communities are facing the perfect storm of massive increases in the cost of fuel and fertilisers and increased competition on price from imports. Does the Minister agree that this would be a good time to revisit the work of the Groceries Code Adjudicator to ensure that farmers and crofters can get a fair price for their produce? Would he meet me and a delegation from the National Farmers Union of Scotland to discuss that?
Iain Stewart
I am delighted to say that I have made two very pleasurable visits to the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency, and I have heard these concerns first hand. Of course I would be delighted to meet him and a delegation from NFU Scotland to take forward their concerns.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)
I have regular discussions with my Cabinet colleagues on all relevant UK Government policies that support economic growth in Scotland. The landmark agreement between Scotland’s two Governments to establish two new UK freeports will support the regeneration of communities in Scotland.
Dr Luke Evans
Freeports are a real opportunity to bolster the UK’s economy. In the east midlands we have a freeport that is bringing 60,000 jobs and green investment. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that will be the case if two freeports go ahead in Scotland? Does that not demonstrate levelling up across the UK and our Union?
Mr Jack
Everyone who cares about Scotland’s prosperity will welcome the additional UK Government investment of up to £52 million, on top of the massive tax and customs benefits to the Scottish economy, drawing in more private sector investment. I would have thought that all parties in Scotland would have welcomed the opportunities and jobs that will flow from the new freeports in Scotland. However, sadly the Scottish Greens, the SNP Government’s coalition partners, oppose them, which shows how irresponsible it was for Mrs Sturgeon to invite a party so opposed to economic growth to join her in government.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Freeports around the world have long had an association with tax dodging and economic crime. In light of the Government’s responsibility to bring forward an economic crime Bill No. 2, will they review their freeports policy?
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)
The UK Government remain committed to our domestic offshore oil and gas sector, which continues to keep us warm, fuel our vehicles and strengthen our security of supply. At present, 75% of the UK’s primary energy demand comes from oil and gas and it is therefore an essential part of our energy mix.
Jacob Young
The oil and gas industry in Scotland, in Teesside and around the country provides thousands of people with good quality, well-paid jobs, while keeping the lights on and keeping Britain moving. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that it is vital that we encourage North sea oil and gas exploration to ensure we have energy security and independence in this time of uncertainty, and that these sectors will help us to decarbonise in the long run and achieve our net zero goals through projects such as Net Zero Teesside?
Mr Jack
I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of our domestic oil and gas sector. The North sea transition deal is a global exemplar of how a Government can work with the offshore oil and gas industry to achieve a managed energy transition that leaves no one behind. This Government support oil and gas, and the 100,000 jobs linked to that industry in Scotland, but we also support the transition, rather than the extinction, of that industry.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Iain Stewart)
I regularly discuss issues of importance to Scotland with Ministers, including support for Scotland’s renewable energy sector. The Government recently announced that their flagship renewable electricity support scheme, contracts for difference, will run more frequently. Scotland has benefited significantly from this scheme with 34% of all projects awarded to date located in Scotland.
Bill Esterson
Promoting renewable energy generation in Scotland is critical to supporting jobs in Scotland, but without action from the Government, it is not inevitable that Scotland’s renewable potential will lead to job creation at home. In fact, we have seen ScotWind sold off to foreign owners. Can the Minister tell me what discussions he is having with Scottish Ministers about the creation of jobs in Scotland in renewable energy?
Iain Stewart
I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that we are negotiating with and discussing with the Scottish Government, and I can point to a number of schemes in the city and regional growth deals that are promoting renewable energy, such as the CoRE—community renewable energy—project in East Ayrshire, Orion in Shetland and European Marine Energy Centre research in Orkney.
Mr Speaker
Before we come to Deputy Prime Minister’s questions, I would like to point out that the British Sign Language interpretation of proceedings is available to watch on parliamentlive.tv.
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister (Dominic Raab)
Mr Speaker, I have been asked to reply on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. As the House will know, he is travelling in the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia to discuss energy security, diplomatic action on Russia in Ukraine and regional issues, including Iran.
Mr Speaker, with your forbearance, may I also say that I understand that four Members of the Ukrainian Parliament are here with us in the Gallery today? I am sure I speak for the whole House in saying that we stand in total solidarity with them. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
Dean Russell
Camelot is one of the largest employers in Watford and for Watford, and its employees have worked tirelessly to run the national lottery successfully for decades, playing an important role in communities across the UK with many local projects and good causes, including in my constituency. I obviously declare an interest in the Gambling Commission’s decision yesterday not to appoint the licence to Camelot, but given the current situation in Ukraine, does my right hon. Friend consider it appropriate that the next licensee of the operator of the national lottery is known to have a joint venture with Gazprom?
The Deputy Prime Minister
Can I thank my hon. Friend, and just say what an incredible job the national lottery has done delivering £45 billion to good causes? He is right that the fourth licence will ensure operator profits are better aligned with returns to good causes. I would also say, on the specific points he makes, that I understand that Allwyn’s owner, Mr Komárek, who has long criticised the Putin regime, is in discussions with the Czech Republic Government regarding the joint venture with Gazprom and removing its involvement.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
I also welcome the Ukrainian MPs to this House today.
Can I start by wholeheartedly welcoming the positive steps towards returning Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and Anoosheh Ashoori to the UK? I am sure Members across the House want to show their support for their families and them. I know the Deputy Prime Minister would agree that this devastating situation must never be repeated, and other British nationals still trapped in Iran need to be brought home. So will he commit to a review of these cases to understand what more could have been done by the British Government to secure releases and whether the lazy comments of the Prime Minister worsened the situation?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I should first say that I cannot yet confirm the reports we have seen in the media, but of course it feels like positive signs. No one wants more than me—although I am sure all Members of the House want this—to see Nazanin and all the arbitrarily detained nationals reunited with their loved ones. I can tell the right hon. Lady, having worked for two years with the concerted diplomatic effort led by the Prime Minister, that we have done absolutely everything that we can. She should not give succour to the despotic regime that detained our nationals in Iran, or those around the world, by suggesting it is anyone else’s responsibility other than theirs.
Angela Rayner
It is exactly for that reason that I asked for the review. It is important to learn from our mistakes so that other innocent families do not face this ordeal again. I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister will consider my comments.
I would like to thank all the people who have been working tirelessly to bring British nationals home from Iran, our diplomatic staff and our world-leading British intelligence agencies. The role of British intelligence today is critical in the face of Putin’s aggression. The Deputy Prime Minister oversaw our foreign intelligence services as Foreign Secretary, so can he confirm if at any time he overruled or ignored direct advice from the British security services?
The Deputy Prime Minister
What the right hon. Lady suggests is nonsense. She is talking about the House of Lords Appointments Commission, and it has a vetting process. I have never overruled intelligence advice, and I would not comment on the details of it. I do agree with her on the strength and agility of the British diplomatic service, who time and time again are the unsung heroes in returning British nationals, often in less celebrated cases. Now is a great opportunity to recognise the heroic work that they do.
Angela Rayner
I agree with the Deputy Prime Minister’s comments on the diplomatic service’s heroic work. He was Foreign Secretary on 17 March 2020 when British intelligence reportedly warned against granting a peerage to the Prime Minister’s close friend who is now Lord Lebedev of Hampton and Siberia. Forty-eight hours later, the Prime Minister visited Lebedev at his home in London. Details of that meeting have never been released. In July 2020, Lebedev’s appointment as a peer was announced. Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House what changed between the security warning and the appointment?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As the right hon. Lady knows full well, all individuals are nominated for a peerage in recognition of their contribution to society. I should say that that includes those of Russian origin who contribute brilliantly to our nation—many of whom in this country are critics of the Putin regime. Life peerages are vetted by the House of Lords Appointments Commission for matters of probity. Frankly, she should know better.
Angela Rayner
What I do know better is that a central duty of any Government is to keep the British people safe. There are now widespread reports that the Prime Minister did not accept warnings from our own intelligence services about granting a Russian oligarch—the son and business partner of a KGB spy—a seat here in this Parliament. It should not matter if such a warning was about a close personal friend of the Prime Minister. It should not matter if he gave the Prime Minister thousands of pounds of gifts. It should not matter how much champagne and caviar he serves. There are no ifs or buts when it comes to the safety of the British people. So I ask the Deputy Prime Minister: can he guarantee that the Prime Minister never asked anyone to urge the security services to revise, reconsider or withdraw their assessment of Lord Lebedev of Hampton and Siberia?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The suggestion that the right hon. Lady is making is sheer nonsense. But if she wants to talk about national security, I remind her that not so long ago she and her shadow Cabinet colleagues wanted the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) to be Prime Minister—a man who wanted and talked about abolishing the Army and pulling out of Trident. She voted for that. Has there ever been a more ridiculous, reckless, naive moment to call for unilateral nuclear disarmament and to pull out of NATO? A Labour Government would put at risk our security. We are doing everything that we can to protect it.
Angela Rayner
Labour Governments increased support for our Army. Labour is committed to NATO. I remind the Deputy Prime Minister that it was his Prime Minister who said in 2015 that he was not sure if it was morally irresponsible to work with Putin. I do not think the Deputy Prime Minister is on safe ground there.
Last week, my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition said that Britain should never again be at the mercy of a foreign dictatorship for our energy and fuel security. This week, the Prime Minister has gone cap in hand from one dictator to another, on a begging mission for the Saudi prince to bail him out. The Government have had 12 years to end their reliance on foreign oil and to invest in home-grown energy to secure our supplies. Their failure has left us all vulnerable, reliant on another murderous dictator to keep the lights on and the pumps open. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I am going to hear this question. If some people do not want—[Interruption.] If someone wants a little argument, I am more than happy to argue outside the Chamber, but for the moment I need to get on and I want to hear the question.
Angela Rayner
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Government Benches have a choice. They could accept Labour’s plan to save working families hundreds of pounds on bills, funded with a one-off levy on the soaring profits of big energy companies. So I ask the Deputy Prime Minister, is their only plan to keep on begging?
The Deputy Prime Minister
Can I just gently say to the right hon. Lady that when she was campaigning, as the rest of them were, to make the right hon. Member for Islington North Prime Minister, this Prime Minister was the Foreign Secretary leading the response to the nerve agent attack.
Mr Speaker
Order. I hate to say it, but the Deputy Prime Minister cannot keep going back 12 years as a defensive mechanism. What we want to do—[Interruption.] I will decide, thank you. What I want you to do, Deputy Prime Minister, please, is to try to stick to the general rules without talking about history. I have a lot of people ahead of me who are desperate to get in. How far we want to go back, in passing, is one thing.
Mr Speaker
Order. Sir Desmond, the Deputy Prime Minister is not responsible for the Opposition’s policies. This is about the Government and questions to the Deputy Prime Minister. I will decide which questions are right.
Dominic Raab
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wanted just to point out, and I hope it is not ancient history, that the Prime Minister was, as Foreign Secretary, galvanising the response to the nerve agent attack in Salisbury at the time when the right hon. Member for Islington North, the former leader of the Labour party, was siding with Putin against the UK. What did the right hon. Lady have to say on Sky News? That he was a very strong leader and she could not wait for him to become Prime Minister. [Hon. Members: “More!”]
Angela Rayner
There is a war in Europe. There is a fuel energy crisis in Britain. Democracy is at risk. We must support the courageous efforts of President Zelensky and the Ukrainian people. These uncertain times require leadership with integrity, a leader who works with the security services, can be trusted to say the right thing for British diplomacy, and provides security for the British people. Instead, we have this sorry excuse of a Government sat before us. They hike tax on 27 million working people, while the super-rich increase their wealth. They watch energy prices rise by over 50% while companies enjoy profits they did not even expect. They cavort with Russian oligarchs in luxury villas while neglecting the security of the British people. Remember, they partied while the country was in lockdown and unable to see their dying loved ones. Can the Deputy Prime Minister look the British people in the eye and really say that this Government are doing their best in their interests?
The Deputy Prime Minister
Mr Speaker, I will tell you what this Government and this Prime Minister have done: 1,000 Russian individuals sanctioned with a combined wealth of $45 billion; the impact of the sanctions and the diplomatic effort that this Foreign Secretary and this Prime Minister have led; the rouble plummeting; the Russian stock market record lows; and interest rates doubled. We have also shown the big-hearted spirit of this Government, and indeed this nation, with 5,500 visas granted to Ukrainians to come here, and the humanitarian route, which has now got 100,000 sponsors applying to take Ukrainian families into their homes. While the right hon. Lady is in her social media echo chamber, that is what this Government are doing.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is bang on. The Assembly of States Parties is looking at the arrears. I was in The Hague on Monday speaking to the Prosecutor and the President of the Court. We will be coming forward with a voluntary package of financial and technical support because now, as it looks at the situation in Ukraine, we want—and I think the whole House would want—Putin and his commanders to know that if they continue with war crimes in Ukraine, they will end up not just in the dock of a court, but behind bars.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
May I welcome our four colleagues from the Parliament of Ukraine who are with us today? We all stand with them.
I have spent much of the past week trying to help the Scottish charity Dnipro Kids, which was established by fans of Hibernian football club. It has evacuated 48 children from orphanages in Ukraine and is desperately attempting to provide them with temporary sanctuary in Scotland. There is a plane ready and waiting in Poland to bring these orphans to the UK on Friday, but that flight will leave empty without the necessary paperwork from the Home Office.
The Polish authorities, Edinburgh City Council, the Scottish Government and the orphans’ guardians are all working to bring these children to safety. I have worked with UK Government Ministers to try to make that happen—I commend Lord Harrington in particular for his efforts—but a week on, the Home Office is still proving to be the only obstacle in the way, and it risks leaving these children stranded. I am pleading with the Deputy Prime Minister to remove these obstructions before it is too late. Will he work with me and the Ukrainian authorities to guarantee that these 48 Ukrainian orphans will get on that plane this Friday?
The Deputy Prime Minister
May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for all he is doing? This is a heart-rending situation; we want to do everything we can. Of course, there are a range of issues in this case, including the wishes of the Ukrainian Government on where orphan children should go and should be living, and whether any necessary permissions have been sought from the Ukrainian and/or the Polish Government. This is not actually about bureaucracy—it is about genuine safeguarding issues—but I certainly want to work with the right hon. Gentleman in the best interests of those children.
Ian Blackford
I am asking the Government to do just exactly that, because we have been working with the Ukrainian and Polish authorities and we have their support. We need the Home Office to give us the paperwork that will make it happen.
This one case goes to the heart of the failure in the UK Government’s response to the biggest refugee crisis in Europe since world war two. It is deeply concerning that it has taken the intervention of several Ministers of State, letters to multiple European ambassadors and the fear of the case being exposed in the Chamber to try to force movement in this urgent case involving almost 50 vulnerable children. Even where there is the will, it seems that there is simply no way the Home Office can get involved. I should not have been sending letters to the authorities in Ukraine and Poland; the Home Office should have been doing it.
If all these powerful people cannot make it happen, what hope have all the other children fleeing this awful war of finding sanctuary in the UK? The United Nations now estimates that almost one child a second is becoming a refugee from the war in Ukraine. These 48 children will not be the last who need sanctuary and safety. Surely the Deputy Prime Minister agrees that it should not have taken this level of intervention and pressure for the Home Office to do the right thing by these children.
The Deputy Prime Minister
May I just say to the right hon. Gentleman that it is very important that the proper international practices on safeguarding are followed? I know he appreciates that. We are keen to find out whether family reunion options with Ukrainian family in the region have been considered. We also know—[Interruption.] Could he just listen for a second, because this is important? We also know that many children in state care in Ukraine have family members in the region for the safeguarding and wellbeing of the children. That must also be considered.
More broadly, the right hon. Gentleman raises the issue of refugees and children. On top of the measures that I have already mentioned, we are making plans for the arrival of 100,000 Ukrainian children in our schools, through the Secretary of State for Education, and I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care for bringing Ukrainian children suffering from cancer over to this country to receive the vital treatment that they need.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right to pay tribute to the professionalism, dedication and sacrifices made by our servicemen and women every day to defend this country. As she will know, recognition for all military operations is kept under continuous review, and I know that the Defence Secretary will have heard her compelling suggestions.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
May I first wish you, Mr Speaker, and the entire House an early happy St Patrick’s Day?
The Government set a 3.1% increase in universal credit and other benefits last September, but inflation is now pushing 7%. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the Trussell Trust and many other organisations have highlighted the real jeopardy that millions of people now face from a real-terms cut in the level of benefits, for which other measures from the Government simply do not compensate. Surely it is not tenable for the Government to stick so rigorously to a decision made six months ago, given that circumstances have changed so radically since then.
The Deputy Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is right about the cost of living challenges, not least given the war in Ukraine. The Government and the Chancellor have already provided a £20 billion package across this year, £9 billion to help with energy bills and the rest to deal with the wider cost of living issues. That includes raising the national living wage. As for universal credit, we are giving nearly 2 million families an extra £1,000 a year. We have introduced the kickstart scheme, and have increased the personal tax threshold by more than 50% since 2010. We are doing everything we can, and of course we will keep those cost of living issues under constant and regular review.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister
I join my hon. Friend in thanking all those businesses, but I also thank all the charities and individual families up and down the country who have shown the traditional big-heartedness that makes this country so great. My hon. Friend will, of course, be aware of the new sponsorship scheme, for which 100,000 people have applied. Working with businesses is particularly valuable, not just in allowing those who come here to gain access to work but in helping them to integrate into society as confident members of our community.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister
I was not quite sure where the hon. Gentleman was going at the beginning of his question, but I can tell him that the Prime Minister is not just a very social individual—[Laughter.] He also wants this country to be open and outward-looking to the world. We were the Government—he was the Prime Minister and I was the Foreign Secretary—who introduced the Sergei Magnitsky sanctions, which include human rights sanctions, asset-freezing and visa bans. Those have been applied not just to Russians when we have evidence of wrongdoing, but to the murderers of Khashoggi, the persecutors of the Myanmar minority, and many others. It was this Government who did that, not the Labour party.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We will keep the focus on Afghanistan and the many other conflicts around the world that need our support. That particular conference will provide specific support for girls to access education, which is a long-standing priority of the Prime Minister. We have doubled our humanitarian aid to Afghanistan for the financial year to £286 million.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Deputy Prime Minister
The Prime Minister did that on Monday evening, and it is now Wednesday. Yes, he is out in Saudi Arabia to close a £1 billion investment deal that will create 700 jobs in the north in renewable energy. I think the Lib Dems need to keep up.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He knows we have a £20 billion package this year to deal with the cost of living, and £9 billion of it is focused on energy prices. His comments on the issues for his constituents, and for constituents across the country, are very well made, and I know the Chancellor will have heard his suggestions.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister
I went to Riyadh twice when I was Foreign Secretary, and I know the Prime Minister will be raising these issues again. We talked about women’s rights defenders. The hon. Gentleman says we have been ineffective, but they have all been released. We talked about Raif Badawi, the author and critic, and he was recently released.
The hon. Gentleman mentions Jamal Khashoggi, and we were one of the first to apply asset freezes and visa bans to those responsible for his murder. We are an international country, and this is Britain’s role in the 21st century, but we will never allow our moral red lines to be blurred.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I pay tribute to not only his constituents, but the Polish community in particular for their big-hearted support for the people of Ukraine. As a leading donor—I believe the second largest donor to Ukraine—we have committed a further £174 million in aid, bringing our total to £400 million. But that will also support those countries in close proximity to Ukraine—its neighbours—and first and foremost will be Poland.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is talking total nonsense and I do not have anything to add to what I have already said.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
In addition to having concerns for Ukraine, my constituents are also concerned about planning policy. I wrote to the Prime Minister in October 2019 about the threat to the Goring gap. It is against Government policy and against the public interest for every green field that is a strategic gap to be built on. An inspector has made a decision that would wipe away the planning powers of every local council in the country. May I ask whether the Prime Minister will see me and whether the Government will revoke this inspector’s mistaken decision?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for that. As someone with a massive proportion of green belt in my constituency, I empathise with the frustrations that Members from across the House feel with some planning decisions that are made. However, once a planning decision is final, it cannot be challenged unless it is successfully challenged in the courts.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister
We have put a huge amount into both mental health and the wider NHS budget, not just on covid, but to respond to the wider issues. On the specific issue the hon. Lady raises, I will certainly make sure that an appropriate health Minister will see her.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Are any oligarchs with UK passports on our sanctions list?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I thank the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee for that. I think I will have to let the Foreign Secretary and the Foreign Office check carefully and respond to him in due course.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister
Of course we listen carefully to Sir David Norgrove, but what I would say to the right hon. Gentleman is that he points to the data yesterday and it showed that unemployment has fallen below 4%, is back at pre-pandemic levels and is being termed a remarkable success by everyone, including the Resolution Foundation. He talks about the truth and there is one golden truth: whenever there has been a Labour Government in the past, unemployment has always been higher when they left office than when they started. That is the jobs guarantee you get with Labour.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
We have now provided more than 3,000 anti-tank weapons, training and other military support to Ukraine, alongside crushing financial sanctions on Russia and more bilateral assistance, humanitarian assistance and aid than any other country. But can my right hon. Friend confirm that we will continue to deliver further military aid and support, and that we will supply the Starstreak anti-aircraft missiles necessary to destroy Russian jets?
The Deputy Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right to say that we have delivered more than 3,600 anti-tank weapons. We will also be sending a consignment of the Javelin anti-tank missiles and we are indeed, as he says, exploring the donation of Starstreak anti-aircraft missiles.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is right that we have a strong tradition, as we have shown: we have stepped up to the plate with the Hong Kong British national overseas citizens, and with Operation Pitting which brought 17,000 back from Afghanistan, and we will go further and beyond the normal rules when there is a crisis, as we have seen in Ukraine. He is absolutely right about the current scheme: those Ukrainians coming here can live, work and access benefits, and can stay for three years with leave to remain. I am proud, and the whole House should be proud, not just of the big-hearted approach of this Government, but the 100,000 British sponsors who have come forward and said they will open their homes to those refugees.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
As the brilliant Ukrainian people fight and die on a daily basis for their rights of freedom and democracy, it is important that we make something very clear and I ask my right hon. Friend to do so. They have asked for membership of NATO for a significant period of time, and NATO has chosen not to give it to them. My concern now is, no matter what they decide, it remains their absolute right as a free nation and a free people to make such an application in the future, and, noticing that Finland is talking about becoming a member, we treat them in exactly the same way we would an application from Finland.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend and he will have heard what President Zelensky has said overnight in relation to this, but the Government have always been crystal clear that if there is a diplomatic off-ramp—although I have to say we have a heavy measure of scepticism about whether Putin could ever fulfil such a deal—it has to be done with the will and volition of the Ukrainian President and people.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
The Deputy Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that case. It sounds very sensitive and I will make sure a Home Office Minister looks at it as a matter of urgency.
Points of Order
(2 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Have you had any notification from the Home Secretary, the Minister for Crime and Policing or the safeguarding Minister, the hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), that they intend to respond to the independent safeguarding report published yesterday outlining the deeply disturbing circumstances in which a child was strip-searched in the most degrading way by police in her school with profound and distressing consequences for the child involved? The report is clear that this should not have been allowed to happen; it is extremely distressing that it did. The report raises very serious questions about safeguarding, policing, training, guidance, racism and protection for children, and it has recommendations for both the Home Office and the Department for Education. Given these very troubling circumstances, have you, Mr Speaker, had any notification that any Minister is planning to respond to this report?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for giving me notice of the point of order. The issue she has raised is a very serious one, and I am sure she is correct that all Members will be concerned by it, as I am. I have not had notice of a statement; however, as the right hon. Member is aware, there are various ways in which the issue can be raised and I am sure that she and other Members will pursue the issue. I recognise that those on the Government Benches will have heard the point of order. It is quite right that we need an update to the House.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) is right. It seems that neither the parents nor the teachers were involved. I share her concern, as do others, to ensure that what has happened in this case does not happen in any other police forces across the United Kingdom. I again endorse what the right hon. Lady said. May I ask, through you, Mr Speaker, whether the parents and the teachers were notified? It seems that they were not.
Mr Speaker
Unfortunately, I am not answerable for that question. It is a very important question but I do not have that information. I assure the hon. Member that if I had had it, I would have answered the question.
Healthcare (Delayed Discharges)
Wednesday 16th March 2022
(2 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Healthcare (Delayed Discharges) Bill 2021-22 View all Healthcare (Delayed Discharges) 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
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about expediting the transfer of patients who are medically fit for discharge from acute hospitals to homely settings in the community.
I declare my interest as a doctor.
Twenty years ago, I asked that leave be given
“to bring in a Bill to provide an upper limit on the time that a person who is ready in all respects for discharge must wait before leaving an acute hospital.”—[Official Report, 12 February 2002; Vol. 380, c. 76.]
The context in 2002, as now, was severe congestion in health and social care. Bed blocking is a provocative term that I use to draw attention to the harm caused to patients and the burden on our national health service. At that time, on any given day around 6,000 beds were occupied by people who should not have been in them. Indeed, Tony Blair told the House that
“bed blocking is probably the most urgent problem that we face in the national health service.”—[Official Report, 4 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 259.]
In November, my mother-in-law died in Salisbury’s renowned spinal unit, but Selma did not have a spinal problem. She had the general frailty and multiple comorbidities of advanced old age. Her overall management was good, in parts, but modern district general hospitals are not configured for the long-term care of the elderly or for terminal care, so a good and gentle person spent her final days in acute medicine’s bewildering freneticism, noise and clamour. It was very far from ideal. She deserved much better. I have seen much better, notably in community hospitals and intermediate care—settings that have, foolishly in my view, been deprioritised under successive Governments.
An acute hospital is no place for an elderly person who is no longer receiving active medical management. I would go further and say that our frantically busy acute units, operating in the white heat of high-tech, cutting-edge medicine, can be unsafe for them. They are in constant danger of the serious iatrogenic consequences of unnecessarily prolonged stays, including hospital-acquired infections, thrombosis, skin breakdown, mental illness and psychological distress. The care pathway must lead frail elderly people to homely settings in the community that are appropriate to their needs, without delay. That long-held conviction, and my recent family experience, has driven me, 20 years after my original Bill, to have another go.
Bed blocking is everybody’s business, because our relatively efficient health system is always running hot, with bed occupancy rates far higher than those in most comparable healthcare economies. The cost to healthcare is enormous: the cost per day of an acute medical bed far outstrips the cost of homely settings in the community, supported living at home, community hospitals or nursing homes. The charity, Marie Curie, puts the annual cost at £1.5 billion. This zero-sum gain is stoked up by an institutional conspiracy of inaction, and that is because there is a baked-in perverse incentive for cash-strapped local authorities to drag their feet when getting people out of hospitals and onto their books. Hospitals save because beds, once freed up, fill up with people requiring treatment and procedures, the costs of which are, of course, front loaded.
In February 2020, an average of 5,370 people per day were bed blocking. We do not know what has happened since as data collection was suspended. Up till then, delays attributed to the NHS were hovering at about 60%. Delays attributable to social care—that is to say local authorities—were consistent at about 30%. The remaining 10% were attributed to failures by both NHS and social care. It would be good to compare and contrast trust performance, but the data are no longer available.
Back in 2002, the main roadblock in the care pathway was different. Speaking to my Bill then, I said that
“insufficient community care and support is the greatest single impediment to timely discharge. The Bill would facilitate a model based on the Swedish approach to delayed discharges. That hugely successful innovation provides for cash transfers and penalties between agencies to achieve bed blocking targets.”—[Official Report, 12 February 2002; Vol. 380, c. 77.]
Indeed, the Blair Government went on to bring in legislation based on the Swedish model a year later in what became the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Act 2003. The Act permitted NHS trusts to charge local authorities £100 a day from 48 hours after patients were judged fit to leave hospital. A compensating £100 million three-year cash transfer from NHS to social services created a virtuous money circle.
Bed blocking was actually falling before those measures were introduced. However, evidence of the policy’s success came in the wake of the Care Act 2014. The 2014 Act amended the 2003 Act from a local authority “must make a payment” to one in which an NHS body “may” require the authority to pay up, and bed blocking started to climb once again. The number of delayed discharge days in the NHS increased from an average of 114,000 a month in 2012 to more than 200,000 in October 2016.
Covid catalysed the discharge to assess—D2A—and home-first models, first trialled in 2016. The Coronavirus Act 2020 brought a relaxation of the duties around NHS continuing healthcare. This meant the assessment and organising of ongoing care taking place when people were back at home. The immediate utility of D2A became clear in spring 2020: 30,000 acute beds were freed up immediately. Although the longer-term benefit is more difficult to measure in the absence of publicly available data, anecdotally, Marie Curie and other organisations in the field report success.
There are grounds for optimism, too, in the anticipated shift to a more joined-up system of health and social care. Since I introduced my Bill 20 years ago, the main cause of delayed discharge appears to have shifted from local authorities to the NHS, but, wherever the block lies, the new ecosystem encourages collaboration through integrated care partnerships, with more accountability upwards where there has been very little in recent times.
Drawing all this together, my Bill, first, requires lead hospital clinicians to certify daily which of their patients are fit for discharge. Secondly, it defines delayed discharges as a delay of more than 48 hours beyond the date of the lead clinician’s certificate. Thirdly, it establishes delayed discharge as a patient safety issue and includes it under the definition of a qualified incident for investigation by the health service’s safety investigation body, established under health and care legislation. Fourthly, it requires local authorities to transfer to relevant NHS trusts the daily rate it pays for nursing home care for each delayed discharge day attributed by the health service’s safety investigation body to a failure of social care at the point of the move. Fifthly, it transfers the aggregated delayed discharge levies back to social care centrally in a virtuous money circle. Sixthly, it requires delayed discharge data to be published in a league table of NHS trusts and integrated care partnerships every three months. Seventhly, it requires the Care Quality Commission to investigate the worst-performing decile in the league tables within three months of publication to specify the deadline for itemised remedial action, to identify the body or bodies on which actions are placed, and to report to the Secretary of State. Eighthly, the Bill would require integrated care partnerships to include delayed discharges as a standing agenda item.
Finally, Selma’s Bill would have a special category of asterisked delayed discharge for those judged by lead clinicians to be entering their final days. People in this category, which will be reported on as a subset, will be subject to fast-tracking, so that we can speed the transfer of the most vulnerable from inappropriate acute settings to more appropriate, homey settings in the community.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Dr Andrew Murrison, Tracey Crouch, Nick Gibb, Steve Brine, Dr Luke Evans and Dr Caroline Johnson present the Bill.
Dr Andrew Murrison accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 May, and to be printed (Bill 283).
Opposition Day
(2 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Refugees from Ukraine
(2 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House once more condemns President Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine and the war crimes being perpetrated by the Russian state there; reiterates the House’s solidarity with Ukrainians in their resistance to Russia’s invasion of their sovereign state; recognises that Europe is now seeing the largest movement of refugees since the second world war, for whom the UK shares responsibility; warmly welcomes the significant and widespread offers of support for those fleeing the invasion from people and organisations across the UK; supports expansion of the family visa scheme and Homes for Ukraine scheme; and calls on the Government to go further and faster in its response, including waiving requirements for Ukrainians to apply for visas in advance of their arrival in the UK so as to facilitate speedy access to international protection here, working with international partners to ensure vulnerable people can be resettled here and providing full and sustained funding and safeguarding to support people to rebuild their lives.
It is a pleasure to move the motion, which is in my name and the name of my hon. Friends. President Putin’s atrocities in Ukraine continue to shock and appal: there have been maternity wards and nurseries bombed; apartment blocks and underground shelters destroyed; civilians targeted; journalists killed; and vacuum bombs deployed. On the other hand, the courage and bravery of the Ukrainians—from President Zelensky to the young volunteers putting their life on the line for their people—never ceases to amaze.
We Scottish National party Members have supported, and continue to support, the work that the Government have done to assist Ukraine with its self-defence. We have supported—with constructive criticism—work on sanctions, and we look forward very much to the day when Putin faces the consequences of his outrageous aggression at the International Criminal Court in The Hague. However, today’s debate focuses our attention on the victims of the invasion who have fled Putin’s atrocities and are seeking sanctuary elsewhere. We are witnessing the largest movement of refugees in Europe since the second world war, and we share responsibility for sheltering them with our European allies.
Across the nations of the UK, people have opened their heart and are volunteering to open their home to these refugees. Over 120,000 people have already signed up for the Homes for Ukraine scheme. That is extraordinary, but not a surprise; public opinion is massively behind our meeting our responsibilities and welcoming those who are fleeing Putin’s atrocities. Regrettably, we have been, and remain, disappointed and frustrated by the response from the Home Office, which we continue to regard as slow, piecemeal and too limited. While the public have opened their hearts and their homes, the Home Office has failed to open the door fast enough and wide enough to those fleeing Ukraine.
We hear talk of a humanitarian response, but in reality the Home Office is offering a managed migration response to the biggest refugee challenge this continent has faced for 80 years. The Home Office talks about unlimited numbers, but there are limits, not least because of the bureaucracy, which will make access impossible for many. It made something like nine changes to its family scheme in the scheme’s first 10 days. That does not seem like a Department that has been planning its response for months, in the light of intelligence that invasion was almost certain. Regret, frustration and anger has been evident right across the House, and in pretty much all corners of the media and beyond.
Of course, it is only right to acknowledge that there has been progress in recent days. We welcome the extensions to the family visa scheme; the announcement of the sponsorship scheme, though all sorts of questions around funding and safeguarding arise; and the work with the Welsh and Scottish Governments to enable them to act as super-sponsors. We hope that the move to online visa applications will help some.
This debate offers us a chance to probe further on the details of the schemes, and to suggest improvements. Most fundamentally, we urge the Government to think again about why they alone in Europe must ask those fleeing bombs and brutality to jump through the hoops and bureaucracy of gaining a visa before they can secure sanctuary here. None of our European neighbours requires Ukrainians to do that—neither those in the Schengen area nor our common travel area neighbours in Ireland. We Scottish National party Members support following their example, not only because we believe that that approach has huge public support, but because that is the right thing to do, and because we have been asked to do it by our Ukrainian friends.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I fully support the hon. Gentleman’s motion and the way in which he is speaking to it. Obviously, I totally condemn the Russian actions in Ukraine; huge numbers of people are now forced to flee. Does he recognise, though, that many people from other parts of the world—Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Eritrea and elsewhere—are also seeking asylum or a place of safety, and should absolutely be treated the same as anybody else seeking refuge in this country? There should not be a rule that applies only to Ukraine, and not to people coming from other war-torn countries—wars that, in some cases, we are associated with, through our supply of arms to Saudi Arabia.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question. What we have seen in Ukraine, and the response to it, raises all kinds of questions about the Government’s approach to refugees more generally, and about the fact that this country can be, and wants to be, much more welcoming. It certainly poses questions about the Nationality and Borders Bill, which we will debate next week, and which I shall come to shortly.
As we have heard in numerous Question Times and debates, the requirement to seek a visa is causing distress, upset and fury among those caught up in these processes. I have no doubt that we will hear that again today, from Members from across the House.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is making a very good and useful speech. One of the people facing frustrations is my constituent Valentyna, who has been a British citizen for 17 years. She wants to bring her family to safety in Glasgow, but she feels as though her family are going round in circles in Poland and not getting anywhere with regard to visas, and they have nowhere to stay. Does my hon. Friend agree that this delay is causing much distress to people in Poland, Ukraine and Scotland?
Stuart C. McDonald
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Every Member of this House will almost certainly have constituents who have faced similar battles. Newspapers report people speaking of “A humiliating process”; of being
“tied up by Home Office red tape”;
and of the
“trauma of UK visa processing”.
Moving the process online will hopefully make things easier for some, as I say, but “online” is not necessarily “straightforward” or “fast”. The Government are still telling the women and children who are fleeing bombs and brutality to use a smartphone to: complete a complicated online form in English; upload documents that prove that they were resident in Ukraine before the invasion, and that prove a family relationship; and wait for a decision. Meanwhile, the sparse and subcontracted visa application centres are not set up to cope with the many who still need their services. Hours are too limited and the centres are spread too far apart. There is talk of surging staff, and many staff are no doubt working hard, but they have been handed an impossible task.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join me in asking the Minister when exactly the application system will allow applications to be made in Ukrainian, as we were promised a week or so ago would be possible.
Stuart C. McDonald
That is a very good question, and one that we touched on in the Home Affairs Committee this morning, but it would be useful to hear again from the Minister, from the Dispatch Box, about the work being taken forward.
Staff in visa centres face an impossible task. Worse still, there are persistent reports of some subcontractors charging fees for appointments outside business hours, or for uploading documents. The Government knew that was a problem; the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration recently reported that subcontractors’
“sole focus is income generation. The human aspect is not at all valued”.
The pantomime about processes in France was also an absolute farce. At the rate we are going, it will be months until we play our part properly.
We are three weeks on from Putin’s first escalation of the conflict in Ukraine, and around a fortnight on from the launch of the family scheme, and as I understand it, 5,500 visas have been granted, but that is in the region of 0.18% of the number of people who have fled Ukraine—and the UK’s population is 15% of that of the EU.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving voice to our many constituents who want a compassionate and expansive humanitarian response. Certainly, in Northern Ireland, many people see that just a few miles south, the Republic of Ireland is offering a broad-based welcome. People in Northern Ireland are dismayed that they are unable to give practical support. They see efforts to achieve the society that we want being thwarted again by the UK Government’s policy. The hon. Gentleman mentions processing issues; does he agree that those issues highlight the culture of “no” that exists in the Home Office? That culture has prevented people around the world who are fleeing conflicts from making a new life here—from being able to work, and from receiving the sanctuary that most of our constituents want them to receive.
Stuart C. McDonald
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I think that a lot of this is tied up with Home Office culture. She is right to raise the Irish example, which I will come to in a moment.
At this rate of progress, it will be many months before we get even close to the 100,000 that the Prime Minister first spoke about, never mind the subsequent 200,000 that he has referred to. This is an acute crisis that is happening now, and we need to be meeting our responsibilities now, not a few months down the line. On the Irish example, Ireland has taken almost 7,000 already. I am not saying that because this is some sort of competition to see who can take in the most Ukrainians. I am pointing it out because it illustrates precisely the impact that visa restrictions are having. The United Kingdom is 13 times bigger than Ireland and has a Ukrainian diaspora that is larger by a similar magnitude, but three weeks in, we have granted refuge to and welcomed a smaller number. The difference is that we require visas and the Irish do not.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Just to be clear, is the hon. Gentleman saying that there should not be any checks at all? Does he not share the concern that some people in this country might on the face of it look very welcoming but would actually do harm to people coming over here? Would he just consider that he might be the first to object if that eventuality were to occur?
Stuart C. McDonald
Nobody on these Benches is suggesting that no checks should be required. I will come to that later in my speech. The Irish carry out checks on people coming in, although I do not have the details of how they arrange the accommodation thereafter. Nobody is suggesting that this should be a check-free or security-free process.
Iryna Terlecky of the Association of Ukrainians in Great Britain told the Home Affairs Committee that
“it is quite an indictment of the system and how it is working that everybody needs an immigration lawyer, and this is just for family members coming over”.
That is why we believe that the requirement for a visa should be waived. We simply do not have the infrastructure to process them fast enough. The Ukrainian ambassador, whom we recently welcomed into this Chamber with a well-deserved standing ovation, said to the Home Affairs Committee on lifting visa requirements:
“We will be happy if all the barriers are dropped for some period of time when we can get the maximum of people. Then we will deal with that, and my embassy is here to help: to organise for those people”.
These calls are supported by the Governments of Scotland and Wales, as well as by numerous organisations here including the Refugee Council, the Scottish Refugee Council, the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, the Red Cross and many more. They also have public support, with one recent poll showing 60% in favour of, and just 15% opposed to scrapping the visa requirements.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) pointed out during Monday night’s petition debate on a similar subject, not requiring an advance visa for someone travelling here is far from a novel idea. Many thousands of people arrive in the UK each and every day without having obtained a visa in advance. Around 90 countries operate this system, from Brazil to Botswana and Malaysia to Mexico, as well as the whole European Union. Many people will have biometric passports and many will not, but the border functions smoothly enough. That does not mean there are no security checks. We run checks on advance passenger information provided by the companies bringing people in on ferries, trains and planes, and there are checks at the border. Biometrics can still be taken, by using apps for those who can, by reusing biometrics for people who have been here before, or by doing the biometrics at the border on or after arrival. And as the ambassador said, we will have the assistance of the Ukrainian Government in doing the checks.
Salisbury has been invoked in this Chamber, but while that illustrates what Putin is capable of, it has nothing to do with visas. Neither in that outrageous attack nor in the murder of Alexander Litvinenko was there any requirement for the murderers to use anything other than a Russian passport with a false identity and to seek a visa for the UK directly. The security concerns that we have heard about are hard to pin down. In the reports of the Home Secretary’s embarrassing representations to Ireland, reference was made to briefings about gangs. Here, Minsters have spoken about “false documents”. Other briefings have blamed No. 10 for blocking Home Office proposals to simply waive visa requirements. If that is so, the Home Office was clearly not overly concerned about the security challenges that have repeatedly been referenced. None of these concerns can be ignored, but in the grand scheme of things the Home Office has done nothing to persuade me or my colleagues—or, I suspect, Members right across the House—that security justifies keeping those fleeing persecution at arm’s length, potentially for months on end.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
As usual, my hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Is he aware of the views of Lord Peter Ricketts, the former national security adviser, who has said that because the majority of refugees coming to this country are women and children, we should take
“a much more humane and open approach…and should not be requiring visas”
and that we should do the security checks after they get here? Is my hon. Friend anxious, as I am, to hear from those on the Government Front Bench why they think Lord Peter Ricketts is wrong?
Stuart C. McDonald
I agree with my hon. and learned Friend. I know that she made a similar point in Monday night’s debate, and that she is still waiting for a response to those concerns. We expect to hear that response today.
At the end of the day, we are not the ones asking the Government to do anything wild or outlandish. It is the Government who are asking us to go along with a policy that is totally out of kilter with that of our neighbours and with public opinion and that does not meet the urgent humanitarian challenge that we face today. I very much fear that we will regret it if we do not waive these visa requirements, and we should encourage the Government today to take action on that.
As the motion states, we welcome the further extension to the family scheme and the launch of the sponsorship scheme. I know that hon. Members will have a million questions to ask about them, some of which we were helpfully able to put directly to the Minister this morning. I will briefly touch on just a couple. As I argued this morning, I see no reason why many thousands of Ukrainians who are here on time-limited visas should be excluded from bringing relatives in on the family scheme, whether they are students, workers or visitors. There will be particular issues for seasonal agricultural workers in accessing even the sponsorship scheme, given the accommodation that they are generally provided with. I welcome the fact that Lord Harrington told the Committee this morning that he would give that matter his consideration, because we could be talking about 10% to 20% of the Ukrainian diaspora here being in that very situation and still struggling to be joined by any family at all. It is important that we resolve that.
We must also resolve the issues around people’s leave to remain here as early as possible, preferably matching it to the leave to remain that people coming in are being offered, rather than giving them just a few months until the end of the year. There are other questions about the nature of the leave to remain that people are being offered and about what happens at the end of the three years. There are questions about the safeguarding and protection of vulnerable people entering on the sponsored route. What happens if a sponsorship breaks down? What happens at the end of the six months? Colleagues will speak in much more detail about these points, but we offer our questions and criticisms constructively, because we all want to see these schemes work.
As I have said, our fundamental disagreements with the Government are over their stance that visas should still be required at all. Our other fundamental disagreement is about the Nationality and Borders Bill, which will come back to this House next week when we will debate the Lords amendments to it. That legislation is predicated on a totally misguided belief that refugees must always seek asylum in the first safe country, and that those who do not must be criminalised, offshored and stripped of their rights to family life and public funds. This last month illustrates as never before in the starkest terms the importance and relevance of the refugee convention, 70 years on, and also how the anti-refugee Bill is simply not fit for purpose. We will be constructive critics wherever we can, but on those two fundamental points we are absolutely clear: scrap visas for Ukrainians, and scrap the anti-refugee Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tom Pursglove)
I welcome this debate and the opportunity it provides for a constructive and pragmatic discussion in the House this afternoon. Russia’s attack on Ukraine is both monstrous and unjustified. We are united across this House in horror at the unfolding situation, and the entire country stands with the brave people of Ukraine. They are an inspiration to us all. This Government recognise that Europe is now seeing the largest movement of refugees since the second world war. We recognise the urgency of what is a rapidly evolving situation, and in response we have doubled down on our resolve to help those Ukrainians who want to come to the UK to escape the conflict in their homeland.
We are taking comprehensive action, including opening two new visa routes and adapting existing processes, making it easier and safer to bring Ukrainians swiftly and securely to the United Kingdom. We are creating safe and legal routes for Ukrainian nationals coming to the UK. Earlier this month, we announced our bespoke Ukraine family scheme, which significantly expanded the ability of British nationals and Ukrainian nationals settled in the UK to enable family members to join them in this country. The scheme went live on 4 March and, as of 4 pm on 15 March, has already seen 39,000 applications started and 20,000 being submitted, resulting in 5,500 visas being issued at this point.
As well as immediate family members, we have extended eligibility for this scheme to adult parents, grandparents, children over 18, siblings, aunts and uncles, nephews, nieces, cousins and in-laws, as well as all their immediate family members.
Alison Thewliss
The Minister has set out the number of applications that have been made, completed and processed. Can he tell me the timescale for the completion of all those that have not yet been processed?
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I would expect to see a real surge in the numbers of applications being granted. That is something we all very much want to see. I think that is likely to happen within the space of the next week or so. We are working tirelessly on this, and I place on record my thanks, gratitude and appreciation for Home Office staff and the case working teams who are working day and night to do this work with the urgency that it rightly warrants, and that we as Members of this House and our constituents across the country expect.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
A couple of weeks ago I, again through the Home Office and others, helped a family to arrive in Northwich in my constituency—Hannah, her daughter Viktoria and her six-year-old daughter Annastasia. They would say to Ministers, as they certainly said to me, that the process for visas is far too cumbersome. They are 50-page forms. I know the Minister will have heard this from Members right across the House, but we certainly need to move forward on that.
Tom Pursglove
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the work he has been doing as a constituency MP in aiding his constituents to come across to the United Kingdom. I hope I can give him a little bit of reassurance by saying that we are working tirelessly to simplify those processes. I know the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) asked specifically about translation; on the translation of those web forms, I can tell her that work is going on at pace to provide translation of the appropriate guidance to help people to complete those forms in both Russian and Ukrainian. I hope that answers her point.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
Given that the United Nations is reporting that some 3 million people have fled Ukraine over the past number of weeks, half of them children, is 5,500 really something to crow about? Why can the Government not get a move on with this, allow people to get to safety, do the security checks when they are here and speed up the process so that more people are brought to a safe place out of the horrendous crisis they face?
Tom Pursglove
The hon. Gentleman speaks with great passion about these matters. I have set out some detail about the work that is going on to speed up those processes, and I will come on to greater detail about that in my remarks. One point that it is important to place firmly on the record is that, in relation to children, particularly unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, there are sensitivities involved. It is obviously very important that all the right safeguarding checks and processes are in place.
I also recognise that there are issues here where we need the agreement of the Ukrainian Government, to ensure that we are working in lockstep with them to get this right. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will recognise why that is crucial.
Drew Hendry
I am grateful to the Minister for taking a further intervention on this point. He talks correctly about safeguarding. Nobody is suggesting there should not be safeguarding for children; it is absolutely critical that children are safe—but children must be safe. Cannot the children be safe first, and then we do the safeguarding? Can we not speed up the process so that the checks are done when children are in a safe place—as opposed to an unsafe place, which many are in at the moment?
Tom Pursglove
To illustrate the point I was making for the hon. Gentleman’s benefit, I repeat that it is important that we have agreement with Ukraine on how those matters are approached. It would not be right, for example, for us to remove unaccompanied children from Poland without that agreement in place. Of course, as he would rightly expect, and because it is something that we as Ministers are very mindful of, we will continue to work constructively with the Ukrainian and Polish authorities to ensure that we get it right and that we do our bit on this.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
On that point, surely if there is an unaccompanied child in Poland, say, we would want that child looked after safely in Poland so that it can reunite with its parents when they are free to escape Ukraine. What are the Government doing to support bordering countries with humanitarian aid for that purpose?
Tom Pursglove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that particular perspective on this issue, and I will happily have a further discussion with him outside the Chamber about the constructive work we are doing with the Polish authorities in particular. It is important, where possible, that we help to provide appropriate humanitarian assistance in the region. Of course, as he rightly says, wherever possible we want to see families reunited as quickly as possible, and there is an argument that having those children cared for closer to home makes it easier to facilitate that, but we will keep that under constant review to ensure that we are doing everything we can as a country to support those unaccompanied children and see that they are properly cared for. That is something people in our country would rightly expect.
Returning to the Ukraine family scheme, we have ensured that the scheme is easily accessible and fee free, and that it will not include any salary or language requirements. People who successfully apply to the scheme will have three years’ leave to remain and can work and access public services during that time. We will ensure that there will be avenues for people to stay if they are unable to return. We will never seek to return those to whom we give shelter if the situation in Ukraine remains as dangerous as it is today.
Liz Saville Roberts
One thing drawn to my attention by my constituent Gareth Roberts, who is presently travelling with his wife Nataliia and her daughter and granddaughter, Angelina and Albina, is whether the Government will consider onward travel funding for Ukrainian refugees arriving in the United Kingdom, as has been provided by other nations in the EU.
Tom Pursglove
I will gladly take that point away and raise it with the noble Lord Harrington, who, as the right hon. Lady will recognise, has assumed his new role in the past few days. I am sure he will be looking at the package of support we are providing in the round and will want to make a judgment on whether that would be an appropriate form of support that we could offer. I am keen to do that and, if she would like to write with further details, I will gladly ensure that that letter reaches him.
On biometrics, we are ensuring that the process of applying to the scheme is as straightforward as possible. To further support the Ukrainian people, holders of valid Ukrainian passports who are outside the UK and making applications under the Ukraine family scheme will no longer be required to provide their biometric information at a visa application centre before they travel. Instead, they will be able to make the application entirely online.
The Ukraine family scheme applications will continue to be assessed as a priority. Once applications have been processed, individuals will receive a permission letter enabling them to travel to the UK and will not be required to collect a vignette in their passport. Applicants who hold identity cards and do not have a valid passport will still need to attend a visa application centre in person and provide their biometric information.
As the House is aware, the Home Secretary has also announced plans for a new sponsored route for Ukrainians with no ties to the UK to come here, and the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities will set out further details as soon as he is able. The scheme is the latest in a package of humanitarian support to help the Ukrainian people and has been brought forward following extensive discussion with the Ukrainian leaders and other countries in the region. This uncapped route allows individuals and organisations, including businesses, charities and NGOs, to welcome Ukrainians to the UK. As our Homes for Ukraine webpage sets out, if someone has a residential spare room or separate self-contained accommodation that is unoccupied, please come forward.
Jeremy Corbyn
I am pleased to hear that we are going to make these efforts to ensure that any Ukrainian who wants to come here to live safely can get here. Will there also be a package of support for local authorities to provide the necessary back-up services? Clearly educational and mental health support will be needed, as well as all kinds of community support, and local authorities are best placed to deliver that.
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the spirit in which he comes at this issue. I can provide him with reassurance that there will be £10,500 of support for local authorities per individual refugee supported, to provide exactly the sorts of services that he has identified as being so important—school places and support for health provision and mental health provision—recognising the huge trauma that many of these individuals will have been through in recent days and weeks. We want to help ensure we do as much as we can in communities, properly supporting people to address those needs and challenges.
Huw Merriman
I apologise to the Minister, because this is specific. He mentioned individuals who have a spare room and the Homes for Ukraine scheme. In my constituency, a GP is looking to sponsor a lady and her 12-year-old child. In such a situation, does that require two rooms, or will one room suffice? I know that is specific, but if the Minister knows the answer, I would love to hear it and take it back to the GP.
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point in some detail. It is probably best for me to take that point away as a pragmatic illustration of the sorts of challenges that we will have to address in the coming weeks in delivering this scheme. That is exactly the sort of issue we want to ensure is picked up as part of the announcements that I have alluded to and that I expect to be made in relatively short order. A proper answer to that will then hopefully help to unlock opportunities to provide support and sanctuary for someone in his community. I am very grateful to his constituents for their keen engagement in these matters.
Alison Thewliss
The Minister is being very generous in giving way. We have many questions that are often best asked directly to him, so I thank him for that. In a circumstance where someone in Glasgow perhaps knows someone in Ukraine and wants to host them, how do they go about that process to make sure that they can say to the system that exists, “I have a room. I know a person”? How does that person then get to Glasgow to take up that room and that offer of generous support?
Tom Pursglove
From Friday, individuals will be able to come forward and where they have that existing relationship or an individual they particularly want to support, they will be able to provide that information to aid with the matching process. There are huge advantages to using those existing relationships and synergies, and that system will go live on Friday. I hope that answers the question and provides the reassurance that the hon. Lady is looking for. I thank the constituent she has in mind for the work they are willing to do and the support they are keen to provide to those individuals, which I know will be of huge value and will be massively appreciated by all concerned.
The accommodation must be available for at least six months, be fit for people to live in and be suitable for the number of people to be accommodated. The response of the British public has been overwhelming. More than 100,000 people have expressed interest in sponsoring, and that number is going up all the time. We are engaging with local authorities on the development of the scheme to ensure that those expressing an interest in sponsoring an individual or family understand the process and our expectations.
We will ensure that those who want to sponsor an individual or family can volunteer and be matched quickly with Ukrainians in need, working closely with local authorities across the country. We know that charities, faith groups, universities and other organisations have already reached out to those leaving Ukraine. We will be working closely with them to ensure that people who want to help are matched to Ukrainians in need. We will also work closely with international partners to ensure that displaced Ukrainians forced to flee their homes are supported to apply.
Phase 1 of the scheme will open on Friday 18 March for visa applications from Ukrainians who have named people willing to sponsor them. People or organisations wanting to be sponsors who do not personally know anyone fleeing Ukraine can now record their interest. They will then be kept updated as the scheme develops. We believe that for those eligible, our offer is comparable in generosity to that proposed under the EU’s temporary protection directive.
Mike Amesbury
I just have a quick practical question about the matching process. How will that be done for this scheme?
Tom Pursglove
There has been a little commentary around this matter, including at the Home Affairs Committee session this morning. It is fair to say that one important strand of work in getting this right is working intensively with NGOs to develop the system in the most appropriate and streamlined way. We have touched on the safeguarding issues in the course of this debate, and we will want to get those right as this is rolled out, but it is fair to say that further, imminent announcements will provide more detail on the specific point the hon. Gentleman raises. I think he will welcome the work going on with NGOs, which have real expertise and experience with these issues, to develop this scheme so that it is the very best it can be from the very start.
We hear the offers from the devolved Administrations. Our colleagues at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities will be working with them to ensure that individuals and organisations that want to sponsor an individual or family can volunteer to do so. Local authorities will play a crucial role in the delivery of the Homes for Ukraine scheme and in support for Ukrainian beneficiaries, including on integration, English language support, health, education, employment and housing.
Alongside the generous offer of accommodation that sponsors will be making, we are providing a substantial level of funding to local authorities to enable them to provide wider support to families to rebuild their lives and fully integrate into our communities. For those arriving via the Homes for Ukraine scheme, we will provide a substantial level of funding, at a rate of £10,500 a person, to local authorities, as I touched on earlier. There will be an additional top-up for child education to enable them to provide much wider support for families to rebuild their lives and fully integrate into our communities. Further details will be shared shortly.
As stated by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary, we will not be issuing blanket visa waivers in response to this crisis. The visa process is vital, not only to keeping British citizens safe, but to ensuring that we are helping those in genuine need. We are already seeing people presenting false documents, claiming to be Ukrainians. Because of that, security and biometrics checks remain a fundamental part of our visa process, and that is consistent with our approach to the evacuation of Afghanistan.
Stuart C. McDonald
What I do not understand is why this is any different for the many thousands of peoples who come into this country every single day without a visa. People will try to present false documents for those nationalities, too, but we have border guards for that very purpose. What is the specific risk? It seems incredibly difficult to pin down.
Tom Pursglove
I know that the hon. Gentleman feels passionately about this particular point. In response, I cannot say too much on the Floor of the House, for obvious reasons, but people would rightly expect the Government to act in accordance with the security advice we receive at any given point in time and to do so responsibly. I also make the point, touching again on a point that we have been discussing this afternoon, that there is a safeguarding issue in relation to travel to this country. We will obviously want to know who vulnerable children and adults are travelling with and ensure that they are kept safe, because that is an absolute imperative. That is the position of this Government.
Joanna Cherry
On the security issue, the Minister will have heard my intervention earlier, citing the views of Lord Peter Ricketts, a former National Security Adviser, that visa-free access could be safely afforded and that the biometric and security checks could be done largely once women and children Ukrainian refugees arrive here. Why is Lord Ricketts wrong? I tried to get an answer on that from the Minister’s colleague, the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), on Monday without success. I need one today, please.
Tom Pursglove
I never like to disappoint the hon. and learned Lady in my answers, but clearly, we have to act in accordance with the latest up-to-date advice that we receive, which is precisely what we are doing. Of course we have been looking at, and will continue to look at, how those processes can be expedited as far as possible. We have been consistently clear about the position in relation to visa waivers and the checks. That is the position as it stands at this point.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
Is the Minister saying that the UK is receiving different security advice from all those European countries and our near neighbours Ireland, or is he saying that they are putting their people at risk?
Tom Pursglove
Again, I make the point that we have to act in accordance with the advice that we receive. I am simply not in a position to pass meaningful comment on the advice that other Governments may or may not be receiving. Of course there are marked differences between the United Kingdom and many of our European friends, in the sense that we are not part of Schengen and they are. That is a considerable difference that is materially relevant when we discuss these matters.
Huw Merriman
Perhaps I can pass on some advice that I received from a constituent who is Ukrainian. She made it clear to me that if her former partner, who domestically abused her, ended up in this country because we did not do any checks, she would hold me personally accountable. Does the Minister not think that she also deserves respect? We absolutely have to look after people. We cannot just talk about domestic abuse in this place and then ignore it when there is a greater cause—that is wrong.
Tom Pursglove
It is fair to say that Ministers in government have at the forefront of their minds, as my hon. Friend does, all our safeguarding responsibilities, of which the British people would rightly expect us to be conscious and mindful, and to act in accordance with them.
Tom Pursglove
I have been very generous, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman one last time.
Stuart C. McDonald
I apologise to the Minister, because in a sense I am making a point to the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) rather than to the Minister. We do checks on thousands of people who come in every day from countries that do not require a visa—from the whole European Union and all the countries that I listed earlier. We do criminal record checks on the advance passenger information that we get; we do not need a visa to do those checks. We are not saying, “Let in any old person from Ukraine.” We should do the check at the border with the advance passenger information; we do not need a visa process to do that.
Tom Pursglove
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. The fact is that I would like to think that we all recognise the lengths to which the Kremlin regime is willing to go, as we saw vividly in relation to Salisbury. We are incredibly mindful of that. We are simply not willing to take chances with the UK’s national security and we are acting in accordance with the advice.
I suspect that if that sort of issue were to be repeated in this country—it is unthinkable—the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues would understandably ask us why we had allowed that to happen needlessly. We simply cannot take that chance. I add that nothing that we are doing is inconsistent with the approach that Canada and the United States—our Five Eyes colleagues—are taking. They are adopting similar arrangements on biometrics and security checks.
We believe that we are offering a substantial package that will enable the British public and the Ukrainian diaspora to play their part in supporting displaced Ukrainians into the United Kingdom. We keep our support under constant review and our new routes will continue to respond, develop and keep pace with the rapidly shifting situation on the ground. I certainly welcome hearing further contributions from right hon. and hon. Members during the debate and I will of course reflect on the suggestions and ideas that are put forward.
I am hugely proud of the big-hearted and generous reaction that we have seen from the British people in response to the crisis. In response, as a Government, we have developed a comprehensive package to mobilise those offers in reality. This is a whole United Kingdom effort with Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and England coming together in solidarity to show our support for the Ukrainian people. We are not just talking about it; our actions will match our words. Together, I know that we will deliver.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
There are turning points in history when the constant struggle between freedom and tyranny comes down to one fight in one place. In 1940, that fight took place in the skies above Britain. Today, 82 years later, it is taking place in the forests, fields and war-torn towns and cities of Ukraine. Today we pay tribute to President Zelensky, who has stood strong and resolute in these dark times in the face of Vladimir Putin’s senseless war of choice.
Volodymyr Zelensky is without doubt the leader of the free world, and the bravery, dignity and defiance of the Ukrainian people will never be forgotten. They have not yet won this war, but let us make no mistake: they will eventually triumph over the forces of darkness that have invaded their country. When they do, the United Kingdom and every other democracy across the world will be forever in debt to the heroes of the Ukrainian resistance.
The courage and fortitude of the Ukrainian people stands in stark contrast to the mean-spirited and inept way in which the Home Secretary has responded to the crisis. We should not be surprised by that, however, as the utter shambles of the last few weeks is simply part of a pattern of behaviour. From the Windrush scandal to the small boats crisis, and from the Nationality and Borders Bill to the response to Putin’s barbaric assault on Ukraine, we are witnessing a Government Department whose approach is defined by a toxic combination of incompetence and indifference.
We have had to endure the embarrassing spectacle of the Home Secretary contradicting her own Department’s announcement on the number of visas granted, and then compounding the confusion by claiming that an application centre for Ukrainians had been opened in Calais when that was patently not the case. While I commend the Immigration Minister for deleting the tweet in which he suggested that Ukrainians fleeing the horrors of war should apply for fruit picker visas, I nevertheless repeat my request that he apologise for that tweet, as it is clear that such an apology would go a long way to reassuring the public that the Government have grasped the horrific reality of the situation.
A Government who fail to plan are a Government who plan to fail. Vladimir Putin has been showing the world for years that he is a war-mongering gangster who will stop at nothing in his relentless campaign to crush democracy and the rule of law. From the assassination of Alexander Litvinenko to the invasion of Georgia, and from butchery in Syria to the illegal annexation of Crimea and the state-sponsored hit on the Skripals, Mr Putin’s track record of murder and mayhem since he came to power is not exactly a state secret.
Putin has been massing his troops on the Ukrainian border since October last year. That is five months that the Home Secretary could have used to put plans in place for every possible scenario, so that if an exodus were to be triggered by an invasion, we would have had a well-organised and effective response ready to roll out. Instead, we have seen the Government scrambling, making policy on the hoof and constantly being on the back foot.
As a consequence of that basic failure to plan and prepare, we have witnessed the Government having to perform U-turns on an almost-daily basis. First, the Home Secretary said that the family reunion scheme would be open only to dependants, thus preventing Ukrainians in this country from bringing in their elderly parents, grandparents or extended family. We on the Opposition Benches protested, and the Home Office grudgingly extended it to parents and adult children. We protested again, and the Government finally relented, so thankfully all extended family members are now included in the scope of the family reunion route.
Then the Home Secretary was insisting on Ukrainians with passports and family in the UK having to wait for days in visa application centres rather than applying online and doing the biometric checks here in the UK. Again we protested and again the Home Secretary was forced to U-turn. It took weeks of pressure to force the Government to set up a scheme for Ukrainians who do not have family connections in the UK.
While I am on the subject of the Homes for Ukraine scheme, the fact that the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has been given responsibility for it speaks volumes, because it is a clear signal that the Prime Minister has completely lost confidence in the Home Secretary.
Tom Pursglove
Would the hon. Gentleman not find it odd if the Department responsible for housing were not responsible for trying to provide housing for vulnerable people?
Stephen Kinnock
The vast majority of the issues that need to be resolved around bringing Ukrainians into this country are clearly to do with immigration. The fact that this brief has been shifted is a clear indication that the Prime Minister has lost confidence in the Home Secretary.
Liz Saville Roberts
Does the hon. Gentleman share my confusion about that comment by the Minister, given that the Home Secretary was responsible for putting refugees in deeply unsuitable circumstances in Penally camp in Pembrokeshire, which has since had to be closed?
Stephen Kinnock
The right hon. Lady is absolutely right. Operation Warm Welcome, the scheme for Afghans, has completely stalled and thousands of Afghans are stuck in hotels. That was completely on the watch of this Home Secretary, so I will take no lectures on that from the Government Members.
Mr Bone
I say to the shadow Minister that the SNP has moved the motion sensibly, criticising the Government in a constructive way. The shadow Minister’s remarks are in danger of turning into a more party political attack. May I suggest that that is not what the House wants at the moment?
Stephen Kinnock
I remind the hon. Gentleman that what is going on in Ukraine is a fight for democracy. In this House we act on the basis of democracy; it is the Opposition’s duty to hold the Government to account and to scrutinise them. If I were saying these things in Russia right now, I would be carted out and sent to the gulag, so I will take no lectures from him on the purpose of this debate and on our purpose, as Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition, in a democracy. This House has lost confidence in the Home Secretary and, frankly, the entire country has too.
I turn now to the day-to-day misery and chaos that Ukrainians seeking sanctuary in our country are experiencing. We are still hearing stories from Ukrainians who have made it to Poland, Hungary and other bordering countries that they are having to wait for days on end to be granted a UK visa. Given that we know that it takes only 10 minutes for a biometric test to be completed and only a matter of minutes to print a visa, why on earth are people having to wait for so long? As one Ukrainian refugee on the Polish border said, “It was hell”. Another called it “a humiliating process”.
This incompetence is leaving a stain on our international reputation. Have these poor people not dealt with enough stress already? We have also heard that the visa centre in northern France was originally supposed to be in Calais, then Lille, and that now it will be in Arras, another 30 miles from Lille. If the Home Office cannot even decide where the visa centre will be, how on earth will the people on the ground know where to go?
Let us not forget that the Home Secretary cited security concerns as the explanation for her refusal to set up a visa centre in Calais, while we have a Prime Minister who repeatedly overruled the advice of our security services in awarding a peerage to the son of a KGB agent. That tells us all we need to know about the priorities of this Government.
I turn to the Homes for Ukraine scheme that was announced on Monday. As I mentioned earlier in my remarks, Labour managed to shame the Government into introducing a sponsorship scheme to allow those without family to come to our country. It is a matter of profound regret that the Government have not heeded our calls for a simple emergency visa scheme that would have avoided the huge amount of bureaucracy, uncertainty and red tape that they have chosen to introduce. Nevertheless, this scheme is better than nothing.
However, on Monday the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities stood at the Dispatch Box and bellowed at the top of his voice about being fed up with people saying that the British people are not generous. His histrionics were yet another example of the deeply disingenuous behaviour of Conservative Ministers who come to this Chamber and deliberately misrepresent the Opposition’s criticisms of their dismal performance. Nobody is criticising the public for lack of generosity; our criticisms are levelled directly at this Government who have utterly failed the Ukrainians who are fleeing the horrors of war. If Ministers were to spend half as much time actually getting on with their jobs as they do desperately deploying smoke and mirrors to conceal their failings, then we might all be in a better place.
Mike Amesbury
Is the visa application not still a fundamental flaw in the Homes for Ukraine scheme? The considerable bureaucracy of a 50-page form will still be required. That really needs to be dealt with, and soon.
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The bureaucracy of a 50-page form could so easily be cut through if the Government were to heed our calls for an emergency visa scheme. The bureaucracy being imposed on these poor people who are feeling the horrors of war should shame us all.
Arguably, the most serious design fault in the Homes for Ukraine scheme is that people who wish to support Ukrainians must track them down themselves. My hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities rightly described this as a “DIY asylum scheme” that risks leaving refugees without refuge. Are the Government seriously suggesting that Ukrainians fleeing the horrors of war should advertise themselves on social media or that Brits who are happy to offer their spare rooms should be searching on Instagram for Ukrainian families to sponsor? Will the Minister commit today to the Government’s implementing a pairing system to help sponsors find Ukrainian refugees who wish to come here?
We can only speculate on why the Home Secretary has chosen to burden those fleeing the horrors of war with the confusion and chaos that we have seen. Is she simply incompetent or is she being driven by the hostile-environment ideology that has propelled her to the upper echelons of the Conservative party? Only the Home Secretary can answer that question, but whatever her motivations the shambolic consequences are plain to see.
I began my speech by saying that there are moments in history when the great struggle between freedom and tyranny comes down to one fight, and I say today, without an iota of doubt, that freedom will win the day. Until that victory comes, we must do all we can to offer safe sanctuary to those Ukrainians who have made the perilous journey from their war-torn homeland.
As we have all seen, the Ukrainians are a passionately patriotic people and they will be utterly focused on returning home to rebuild their lives and their country as soon as the enemy has been defeated and expelled. In the meantime, they need to be treated with dignity and respect, but instead the Home Secretary’s response has been mean spirited, short sighted and shambolic.
Stuart C. McDonald
I agree with much of what the shadow Minister has said, but can he be clear that Labour’s position is not to waive visa requirements altogether? How can he be so certain that the emergency visa he describes will resolve waiting times and bureaucracy? Why does he not join the SNP in calling for waiving visa requirements altogether?
Stephen Kinnock
The hon. Gentleman is right that we are not suggesting that security checks be waived. We are making it clear that those security checks should take place in the United Kingdom when people have got here. The emergency visa has a rapid application process. On that basis, people would come into the UK and the biometric checks would take place here.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is saying that Labour would have the checks in the UK. What would happen if somebody failed the checks when they were already in the UK? Would they be deported? How would they be dealt with if they failed those checks?
Stephen Kinnock
That is a matter for Border Force. They would take the action that they take with any individual who enters this country and does not pass the security checks. It would be exactly the same as any other person who fails security checks; it is very simple and not rocket science.
Stephen Kinnock
Traumatised people, whose lives have been turned upside down, are being pushed from pillar to post and having the door to our country slammed in their faces by this Home Secretary. This is a profoundly unserious Government who are led by profoundly unserious people; what a contrast with the bravery of the Ukrainians and the warmth and generosity of the British people. The British people have stepped up and now it is time for the Government to catch up.
The Minister, hon. Members and right hon. Members from across this House are today calling on the Government to put people before paperwork. The British people are urging the Government to get a grip so that we can once again be confident in our proud record as a nation of sanctuary.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
It is traditional to thank the previous speaker for their remarks, but regrettably I can find little on which I agree with the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), and I fear his tone was wrong.
Richard Graham
The point I wanted to make to the shadow Minister is that the reason the Government Benches are not as highly populated as many people, including in the media, might expect for a debate on refugees from Ukraine is that over 150 colleagues are currently in Committee Room 14 listening to and engaging with four female MPs from Ukraine. I have to say that all four of them have paid considerable tribute to the enormous support that this country and our Government have given their country, which is wonderful to hear, and I sometimes wonder whether we are living in a slightly different parallel world down here compared with up there.
Mr Bone
I thank my hon. Friend for a very important intervention. I would not criticise the Opposition for not having Members on their Benches because, for various reasons, a number of things relating to Ukraine are going on today.
I have a great deal of respect for the shadow Minister, but I just think he got it wrong on this occasion, and I absolutely think that the deputy leader of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), got it wrong at Prime Minister’s questions. She lost the House, and she was making party political points. In contrast, the SNP parliamentary leader made a very constructive point, and the way SNP Members have introduced this debate is wholly constructive. They disagree with the Government on the level of support and the way refugees are handled, but they have done it constructively, and I could fully support most of the motion they have tabled. I have to say that I have said that before I hear what the Back-Bench SNP Members say, but I do think they have chosen this subject and put down a motion that is reasonable and constructive, even if I do not agree with absolutely all of it.
I want to congratulate the Prime Minister on his leadership across Europe on the Ukrainian crisis Europe. I think people recognise that he has put in a lot of energy and has galvanised support for sanctions. Our military support to Ukraine has been huge, and our humanitarian support to the countries bordering Ukraine is probably the most in Europe. I think that is important testimony to how well this Government have done.
I think there is a very important point about looking after refugees, mainly women and children, who are fleeing Ukraine and getting out of Ukraine to the bordering countries, and who will want to be looked after there until the Russians can be defeated in Ukraine and they can then go back to their loved ones in Ukraine. I think we should do everything we can to help those countries, and I congratulate all the countries bordering Ukraine on the support they have given people who have either come from a warzone, with all the trauma they are facing there, or are fleeing in advance of the war coming towards them. I think we should give great credit to our European neighbours for that, and the fact that we are giving massive humanitarian aid is very important.
I want to deal in particular with the issue of human trafficking. I chaired the all-party group on human trafficking for a number of years, and these evil gangs—“evil gangs” does not do justice to how awful these people are—have moved into the areas to which refugees are coming in those countries. What human traffickers, and by the way these are not the same as smugglers, do is take young women and children and offer them, they say, a safe route to this country or that country, perhaps even to the United Kingdom, but what they actually do is put them into modern-day slavery, prostitution or forced labour. This is happening at the moment in the countries surrounding Ukraine, as the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), brought up in the debate yesterday.
My particular concern is about Moldova, which is a small country bordering Ukraine, but not in the EU. That very small country has taken in 100,000 refugees, but Moldova was already known for human trafficking. It is an area rife with those telling people that they can get them jobs and prosperity elsewhere, because it is a poor country. There was always a problem with human trafficking gangs there, and they are now operating to a greater degree. It is not an area where we would naturally have a lot of Home Office or Foreign Office support, because it is not in the EU and it is not a country we would deal with at high level.
I would like the Minister to consider putting extra resources into those countries to fight the human traffickers. We have led the fight against human trafficking in Europe, and we need to have people on the ground at the border to stop the trafficking gangs getting hold of these people and forcing them into a most evil situation.
Tom Pursglove
It is fair to say that my hon. Friend has been a tireless advocate on these issues for many years, and he speaks with great authority about them. I hope I can provide him with some reassurance in saying that I absolutely take away the point he raises. It is fair to say that our law enforcement agencies are looking at this very closely and identifying what more we can do to work in this area. I should add that there is a very strong link through Europol, which is ensuring that we are working with our neighbours to clamp down on this in a co-ordinated way.
Mr Bone
I am very grateful for the Minister’s intervention, and we have of course worked tirelessly with Europol, but I do think that the sophistication of these evil gangs cannot be overestimated and urgent action is required in that area, particularly in Moldova, but also in other countries such as Poland.
Alexander Stafford
My hon. Friend is making an incredibly point about human trafficking. Does he agree that the UK should spend some of the money in our foreign development budget on tackling human trafficking, because it is a huge issue that we know is going to get worse with this crisis? We must protect those women and girls—the children especially—as it is a ginormous issue coming down the line.
Mr Bone
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. The problem is, or has been, that when we use that sort of aid, it does not count towards this mythical zero point whatever it is per cent., but we should still do it because it is the right thing to do. We and the whole House are after protecting women and children, and we do not want to lose these people at the very point when they have fled from a most awful situation. I do hope that that is one thing the Government could look at.
I want to say something briefly about Homes for Ukraine. A number of my constituents have been very keen to help in Wellingborough—for instance, I know that the Methodist church has a number of people who want to take refugees from Ukraine—which is absolutely great, and I really appreciate what my constituents are offering. It is important, and I am glad to hear what the Minister has said, that we have wraparound support for everyone who comes here. We cannot just bring someone over, pop them in a house, and that is it, and the local authorities need to be on board. North Northamptonshire Council has been very keen on this, and Councillor Helen Harrison has played the leading role when dealing with Afghans who have come here, so I am really pleased that councils are going to be offered £10,500 per person.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
This is one of my concerns in that just getting accommodation by signing up to the website is not going to solve this, both because people will need all sorts of support to integrate and because they will be traumatised. Would it not be better for local councils to create lists of people with accommodation? The idea that this can be handled from here across the UK is not going to work; it should be as localised as possible.
Mr Bone
The hon. Lady raises a very interesting point. I have a lot of time for what she has to say, which has merit. One problem with getting Afghan refugees settled was the extra time that it took to go from the Home Office down to the local authority. North Northamptonshire Council has the ability to deal with this, and to do so quickly—and I am not a fan of centralised systems that are based on a computer that is liable to break down—so that is certainly worth looking at.
On the wraparound support that local authorities will provide, I think the Minister said there might be some extra help with education. In winding up, will he expand on that?
In summary, what my constituents have said about getting refugees over here is that, first, we should be looking after them as they come across the border. We are doing that with money. They also think that the Government have now got it right with the schemes—a little slow, I think they would say, but they are getting there. It is right that there are checks and that we do not just let any people in. On the human trafficking front, the easier we make it for traffickers to bring people in, the more people will come in and be forced into prostitution or forced labour. The Government are getting it right, and I congratulate them on what they are doing. I just wonder whether they could look at one or two points on how education will be dealt with, and whether we can speed up the process and get vulnerable women and children to local authorities quickly, rather than having to go through a more bureaucratic system.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
As the House knows, we have an important statement at 3.30 pm. It would be expedient and good management if we finished this debate at 3.29 pm. There is not too much pressure. If everybody makes a speech of between seven and eight minutes, which is quite a long time, we will achieve that, and it would be courteous to the House if that were to happen.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone). I do not know why he is surprised about the reasonableness of the Scottish National party Members—I believe we are the epitome of reasonableness. One could not pay a higher tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), who stands on the shoulders of those who are reasonable in the House. Perhaps the hon. Member for Wellingborough should have listened to my speech before coming to that conclusion, but we shall leave him to determine that.
I think the one thing that unites the whole of the UK just now is that we all stand by Ukraine. We all want to do everything possible to assist the efforts to find safe places for the millions of refugees who are now fleeing Russian aggression. We stand in awe of their passionate defence of their country in the face of what must be terrifying situations and we want to do everything possible to ensure that those who attempt to flee will be met with all the hospitality this nation can summon.
Like every Member, my mailbox has been flooded with constituents willing to offer accommodation as part of the scheme set up by the Government; and if not accommodation, they want to help with resources, materials and cash donations. As every Member also finds, my whole constituency seems to be engaged in making collections for Ukraine. I pay particular tribute to the Polish community in my constituency—the largest Polish community in Scotland, owing to the world war two fighter pilots it hosted and who settled in the city of Perth. The effort has been simply magnificent: 10,000 people per hour signing up to the accommodation scheme, with 89,000 people signing up on the first day, leading the portal to crash. If Putin counted on the people of these islands being indifferent to a conflict at the other end of Europe, he will have been very quickly disabused of that notion. I am sure he will have observed the sheer compassion our constituents have demonstrated for the victims of his aggression.
What our constituents want—it is quite a simple request, really—is for the Government to match their passion to do something about the current situation. They want the Government to be fully engaged and to act to match the energy we are seeing across the whole of the UK. Our constituents have helped to ensure that there has at least been some sort of movement by the Government, by applying pressure and writing to their Members of Parliament. I hope that effort continues over the next critical weeks. They should not have to shame the Government into action. We should expect the Government to lead that effort without any cajoling from our constituents.
Perhaps I am being a little unfair. I actually want to congratulate the Government on their efforts so far. We are impressed by some of the measures we have seen brought forward, which seem to be making a practical difference. The Minister rolled off the impact that the measures are having on the Russian economy and the oligarchs. They are being felt across the whole of Russia. They are not enough, however. The Minister— I think I heard him correctly, but he can correct me if I have got it wrong—said that there are currently 5,500 refugees in the UK. I think that was the figure he gave, but the number of refugees is about to reach the 3 million mark, so 5,500 seems to me—I do not know about you, Madam Deputy Speaker—a very small figure to be proud of, particularly when 1.8 million have gone to Poland, 263,000 to Hungary, 230,000 to Slovakia, 453,000 to Romania, and 337,000 to Moldova, doubling its population. Fair enough, those nations border Ukraine, but Germany has taken in 147,000 and Ireland, which has a tenth of the population of the UK, has taken in some 6,646. The Minister tells us there are no problems or issues with Home Office procedures and there is no difficulty with bureaucracy, but why are we still at 5,500 people? I look to him to tell us that there will be a rush or a surge of people who are going to get here. We are waiting to see that surge happen, and we have to see it in the next day or two to be convinced that the Government are doing everything possible to act as if this is some sort of emergency.
We hear all the stuff about security concerns and the latest security advice. I am sure that to the Minister it sounds very convincing and I am pretty sure that is the sort of advice he is getting, but the questions that have been put to him are legitimate. Surely all our European allies and friends are getting the same advice, so are the Government unique in acting responsibly while the rest of the European nations are acting irresponsibly on the advice they are receiving from their security services? How on earth are they able to do more and get the numbers in that, for instance, Germany has, while the UK can get only 5,500? The suspicion remains—I hope it will be quelled—that the smokescreen of security advice is just another UK effort to slow, to deter, to frustrate and to do everything possible to make sure that people do not attempt to come to the UK. The Minister has to convince us in his summing up that that is not the case and that the Government will be doing everything they can.
I know this is difficult for the Conservatives. I get it. I know what it is like for some Conservatives. I have been observing them for the past 20 years and I shadowed home affairs for five years. I know their profound ideological beliefs when it comes to issues around immigration and people coming to the UK. I acknowledge the fact that they are deeply conflicted just now. I almost feel sorry for them, because they are obviously seeing all the images that we are seeing and I believe that they really want to do something for the refugees they observe in such difficulty. They want to make sure they are doing everything possible, but that conflicts with their inherent obsession of seeing the UK’s doors remain all but closed. I know they want to offer refuge to people in crisis, but that is weighed down by practically everything that informs them about immigration, refugees and anybody seeking to come to our shores. For years, they have fomented a deep, deep antipathy to everything to do with immigration and entry to the UK. Wanting to do the right thing, they cannot help being pulled back and constrained by their very essence and political nature.
We can almost see that tension play out before our eyes in real time. There is the usual do-nothing, indifferent initial approach. Then there are inflammatory comments from the Minister about letting people pick fruit. That is the bad side, but then there is talk of 100,000 or 200,000 refugee places being available. Then there are another couple of weeks of the Government doing nothing, to see whether they have got away with it. Then there are U-turns and offers of accommodation schemes, but they are always counterbalanced by failing to meet Europe in offering visa-free access. It is a wee bit like watching the very point at which Dr Jekyll is fighting Mr Hyde for control of the body.
Part of me thinks that we should be grateful that the Government are even doing any schemes whatever, given their inherent disposition. Let us remember that this is a Government whose major political programme of the past few years has been delivering a Brexit that had immigration, taking control and stopping people coming to the UK as its cold, beating heart. This is a Government who designed the hostile environment with the most careful attention to detail—a Government who sent hate vans to the streets of London that showed handcuffs and told illegal immigrants:
“Go home or face arrest”.
Dr Whitford
My hon. Friend is giving praise for the fact there has been movement. I am sure that all of us who have repeatedly been in this Chamber for statements and urgent questions to try to get movement and get people here feel the same, but the problem is that it has been so slow that my constituent who is trying to get her mother from Mariupol missed the window of opportunity to get her here. She has had no contact with her mother for almost a week. There will be people trapped in eastern Ukraine who have no chance of getting here because they did not set off, because they did not have somewhere to go. That slowness will have had a direct impact on people’s outcomes and on people who die in eastern Ukraine.
Pete Wishart
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that case. We have heard all week about such cases, in which the inaction and initial slowness to respond have led to real and profound difficulties for our constituents. She is absolutely right to highlight that case.
Given their background, maybe it is too much to expect a Government who can dream up all the horrors from hate vans to hostile environments to be a friend to refugees all of a sudden. I know that they want to do the right thing, but everything they know—everything that informs the deep-seated ideology that runs through the whole party of government—is getting in the way.
It will be up to the British people to resolve the tension and the balance, and to fortify the Dr Jekyll part of the Government’s split personality. It is as if every time the Government reach for the apple of righteousness, they feel the creaking branch below, breaking their fall as they descend back into their pit of bedevilment around immigration. The people of these islands will have to keep the Government focused on doing the right thing and not let them give in to the temptations of their dark side.
Let me give the Minister an example of where he can start. The failure to get the Dnipro orphans out of Poland and home is now simply a disgrace, and it must be fixed right now. The orphans are still in Poland waiting for the UK to resolve its almost idiotic bureaucracy and get them to Scotland, where accommodation and support await them.
Pete Wishart
I see the Minister getting to his feet. I hope he will tell me that it is now resolved and that they will be on that flight on Friday. He is smiling, so I am waiting in anticipation—I am actually quite excited. I am sure he is not going to let us down.
Kevin Foster
I am grateful for the opportunity to intervene briefly from the Dispatch Box. We were approached earlier this week. For a child who is Ukrainian to be removed from Poland unaccompanied requires the consent of the Polish and Ukrainian authorities. That has not been given. However, we have indicated that if it were, we would facilitate their travel.
Pete Wishart
I am happy to accept that challenge; I heard the Deputy Prime Minister raise it at Prime Minister’s questions, too. All the necessary safeguarding has been done and put in place.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Eddie Hughes)
No, it hasn’t. It clearly hasn’t.
Pete Wishart
It has been done and put in place. Here is my challenge to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster): if everything comes through to him this afternoon—I believe it has already been sent—will he be satisfied? Will he allow those children to get on that plane to the accommodation waiting for them, the support in place, and those ready to look after them?
Kevin Foster
As I pointed out, these Ukrainian children are in Poland. For them to be moved unaccompanied requires the consent of the Ukrainian Government and the Polish authorities. If that is given, we would look to facilitate it; it has not.
Pete Wishart
Right. We will make sure that, once again, the information is given to the Minister. I hear him say that there is going to be movement—
Pete Wishart
We will make sure that it is given. I think that the Minister is reasonably genuine about wanting to resolve it and get it fixed. Let us remember that these are children who have left without passports and have no information to support them. If that is what is required, that is what will be given, and we will make sure that they get on the plane.
I pay tribute to the Dnipro Kids appeal. A bunch of Hibs fans went to Dnipro 17 years ago for a UEFA cup tie against the team there—I cannot remember its name, but I am sure it has one of these fancy names like the Dynamos or whatever—and have kept the association and relationship for all that time. They have worked selflessly to make sure that orphans in Ukraine, even at times of peace, are looked after. Here they are, sitting in Poland, wanting to get these kids home. [Interruption.] I hear the Minister. Let us now work together, and we will get that fixed. A plane is going from Heathrow to Poland on Thursday with medical supplies, resources and facilities. That plane should be taking these children right back to Heathrow, where there is a train waiting for them to get to Scotland, where they will meet up with all their colleagues at the Hibernian football club on Easter Road and the children will be placed in accommodation across Scotland.
Pete Wishart
I am sure that the Minister will tell me the same thing, but we are working together and we will ensure that we get the information through. I see him holding a letter; if he wants to intervene again, I give way.
Kevin Foster
I will very briefly state that the letter from the Ukrainian ambassador to the UK Government makes it clear that no Ukrainian child can be placed in the care of foreigners without the consent of Ukraine. I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman’s points, and I note the comments that were made in this House earlier, but the point is that the Ukrainian Government need to consent to their children—their citizens—being moved from Poland. That consent has not been given. This is not a Home Office issue.
Pete Wishart
That consent will be communicated to the Minister.
I do not know why I have been blessed by this organisation within my constituency—Steve Carr, who has organised Dnipro Kids, is a Perth resident—but my constituent Gavin Price, who just so happens to be the boss of Elgin City football club and who owns the Schiehallion hotel and the Fountain bar in Aberfeldy, has a database of 20 businesses in highland Perthshire that could offer sponsorship and places of employment to about 100 refugees. Some 40 homes in that wonderful part of Scotland, highland Perthshire—not a place high in density of population—are prepared to play their part and accommodate those refugees if they can be offered those positions and can get across to Scotland.
Gavin has applied to the usual schemes and has not heard a thing. I raised his case in the House two weeks ago and have not even been given the courtesy of a reply to tell me exactly what is going to happen. The initiative would not only find accommodation places for refugees, but help tourism businesses in a fragile rural area that can no longer get their staff because of Brexit—they just cannot get people to work in those places. They are finding employment opportunities for refugees, who could work under the scheme for three years. These are people that those businesses need and require, which would help them out during the crisis created thanks to this Government and their crazy Brexit policy. Maybe the resistance to the idea is something to do with that—I really hope not.
These are community organisations in constituencies getting together and solving a problem on behalf of this Government. They are not asking the Government to do any work or do anything in particular; all they are asking is that the Government say, “Yes, you can come in.” We understand that even the flights are going to be paid for, so that is not even an issue for the Government. Communities around the country are organising, like Gavin and others in Aberfeldy and highland Perthshire—please let them.
I want the Government to get over their Brexit demons—their anti-immigration, “stop people coming through” demons. I want them to do the right thing and match the efforts of our constituents. The parable of Jekyll and Hyde is that they were both finished off by not being able to keep their split personality in balance. It is up to the Government to get us back into balance and do the right thing by these refugees.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We are not doing very well on the seven to eight minutes, so let us try a little bit harder—for around seven minutes. I call Huw Merriman.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
You say “seven minutes”, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) has just spoken for 17 minutes. Members have talked of graciousness and reasonableness; perhaps they should also consider the time afforded to everyone else.
What is most important is that we provide a warm welcome, as a country that really wants to help and to stand up for refugees. Our country has a proud record in that regard. Here are two separate schemes that are uncapped, and will allow people to come here for three years and gain access to benefits, education, welfare support and training. This must surely be fair; given that there has been some criticism on the basis that we do not offer the same terms to other refugees, it cannot be that bad.
Let me say to all Members that they should not stand up and denigrate this system, trying to suggest that these desperate people are not welcome here, and then ask why so few are coming. If I were one of those people and had listened to the speech from the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire, I would not want to come here either. The simple fact is that we are a generous country, this is a scheme that will work, and we should be judged by our results.
Huw Merriman
The hon. Gentleman yells a number at me. Let me give some more numbers. Between 2015 and 2020, the UK resettled 24,700 refugees—and resettling refugees is what this is all about. The next best country in Europe was Sweden, which resettled 20,900. We should be judged on what we actually do rather than the rhetoric from others about what they think we will do, because it is markedly different.
Huw Merriman
I will not, because I am respectful to the Chair. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could learn from that.
What it is right for us to do is condemn the actions of President Putin, who has caused what will be the largest refugee crisis in Europe. We must do everything we can to ensure that he is brought down, so that those Ukrainians can go back to the country that they love, which is their own country.
Let me now, again in a spirit of positivity, hail and thank the Home Office officials who signed off a visa to allow a constituent of mine to bring her pregnant sister and her disabled mother to this country. I visited the pop-up casework centre in Parliament, which has done fantastic work, and I went through the whole case. The visas had indeed been processed. Those people are working really hard, but they cannot be expected to work better if they are constantly denigrated and knocked. That does their morale no good at all. Perhaps a thank you to them would not go amiss. It is possible to scrutinise policy without using insults.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Huw Merriman
I will not give way, for the reason that I have already mentioned. I want to stick to the time that you specified, Madam Deputy Speaker.
It is right that we scrutinise the programme, and I want to ask a few questions about how it will ultimately work. I firmly believe that the process must work for the numbers to be maximised—and we want to take as many people as we can.
First, I want to ask about the system of sponsorship. I note that we are focusing more on individuals than on organisations. Will there have to be an existing contact in the system, or will a contact made over the last week be sufficient to identify the necessary link? May I also ask about safeguarding? Who will check sponsor suitability? We must ensure that the homes are safe and welcoming, and also that they meet the accommodation needs of the people who are coming here. As we have heard, they will have great needs and there will be great challenges.
I agree with what was said by, I think, the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford). Surely it is better for a list to be made locally, because local authorities are better placed to do this, than for us to ask people to go into a system and be matched—an arrangement that strikes me as less structured and organised, and therefore perhaps less safe, than a localised system. I was somewhat surprised that individuals rather than organisations were to be first in this movement, but obviously I will be convinced if a better reason for that can be given.
What will be the role of local authorities in assessing the suitability of sponsors? When will they receive guidance about that role? Will they be fully funded? The allocation of £10,500 per person sounds generous, but we could be talking about three years of people in great need—great “wraparound” need—and local authorities will be expected to fund that. I know that education will be an addition, but I fear that if local authorities are not fully funded, they will face challenges that will have an impact on local community support.
Finally, may I ask when the Ukrainian refugees will be allowed to arrive? That is relevant to my previous point, because if local authorities are not ready because they do not have the guidance, there may well be a delay in the arrival of the refugees, which of course we do not want.
I have made those points in six minutes, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think it important that we scrutinise the policy, and I hope I have done so with some of my questions about how it will work in practice. But in this context, rhetoric is important. We must ensure that we make this work, and show that we support it and are positive about it, because that will give confidence to all the desperate people whom we want to come over here in large numbers so we can help them. I fear that if we send the wrong message from this place they will not come, and that would be a disaster.
Ukrainian refugees are welcome in Bexhill and Battle. We will do everything we can to host them, to support them, to make them feel that this is their home, and to show them the solidarity and love that they need and deserve.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
I truly wish that it were a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman). May I ask him to look at Hansard? I have already congratulated the staff in the Home Office hub, and in fact I took them on a tour last night because I thought they needed a break.
I think we all stand with Ukraine, and the one thing that we all want is for more Ukrainian people who are fleeing from the terrible atrocities and war in their country to be able to come here. The Home Office system is designed to keep people out; it cannot suddenly swing round and let lots of people in. It could if it chose to waive visas, but I do not think that that is going to happen.
I am sure that the Immigration Minister will welcome yet another update from me on the case that we have been working on together. My constituent is still in Warsaw, waiting for his visa to be printed and waiting to be told to go and collect it. His sister-in-law has now arrived there from Lviv. Because she applied later than him—he began his application on 12 February—he thinks that she will probably arrive here before him; or rather not before him, because he is a UK national, but before his wife and her daughters.
I am now going to speak for a few moments in my capacity as the Westminster Scottish National party spokesperson on disabilities. I have written to the Foreign Secretary asking for her help. The European Disability Forum has estimated that 2.7 million disabled people currently live in Ukraine, and they are disproportionately impacted by war and emergencies. They find it hard to gain access to medication, accessible transport and infrastructure, care, equipment and mobility aids, which creates barriers for them.
The regional governor in Kyiv, Oleksiy Kuleba, has raised concerns about the evacuation of people from hospitals, particularly those who have additional needs or require essential access to medication. I know that the admission of children with cancer to this country has been expedited, but there are many more folk who need help. As I have said before, in Westminster Hall, it is vital for the UK to take cognisance of article 11 of the United Nations convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) talked about aid for foreign countries; we need to target aid more specifically at those with disabilities, and I hope that the Minister will say something about that today.
More generally, the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales wrote a joint letter to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to agree that their countries will take part in the UK-wide scheme and to ask that folk be moved further and faster. They want to be super-sponsors, but I do not believe they have yet had an answer to their letter. I urge Ministers to provide a response.
I am conscious of time, so I will not speak for too much longer. The Refugee Council has said that the UK is not as welcoming to Ukrainian refugees as the EU countries are—the UK has to waive the visa requirement. The British Red Cross agrees that the quickest way of fixing the problems in the system would be to remove the requirement for a visa, which has been done elsewhere. According to the Disasters Emergency Committee, the most recent arrivals to countries surrounding Ukraine have few family ties, have nowhere to go and are deeply traumatised.
The number of lone children crossing the border is rising. I do not think anyone in this House disagrees with the need to safeguard children but, as a simple woman from Wishaw, I would say the best way to safeguard children is to get them here, and to get them here as quickly as possible.
I know that the Scottish Minister with responsibility for refugees, Neil Gray MSP, has been talking to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster). The people who stayed in Ukraine, in the hope of remaining in their own area, are now left with no alternative but to flee with very little.
I spoke at length in Westminster Hall about the bureaucracy and difficulty of applying for a visa. How can anyone fleeing for their life be expected to apply online for entry into the UK? I strongly appeal to both Ministers to get something done that actually improves the UK’s figures. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle said that Sweden has taken fewer folk than the UK, but Sweden is a country of 10 million people and, at the last count, the UK has more than 60 million people. [Interruption.] I am sorry if I have that wrong, but I will not get into a battle on this. I am just asking the Ministers, please review your systems. I know Home Office staff are working hard, and I appreciate how hard they are working, but they are working against a system that is designed to keep people out. Do something about that. Waiving visas is easiest, so think about it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I know the hon. Lady did not mean to address the Ministers directly, so we will just pretend that she did it correctly.
An unusual thing has happened: two Members who had indicated that they wanted to speak are not here and are not going to speak. We can therefore go back to around eight to nine minutes. I am sorry to the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), both of whom were very brief, but such brevity is now not absolutely required.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
It is tempting to construct my whole speech around correcting inaccuracies in the speech of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) but, because I do not have the time, I will not do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) will put him right on the per capita, or per head, share of refugees taken by countries across Europe. Per capita is what matters.
Joanna Cherry
The hon. Gentleman has had his turn. Looking at the per capita share across Europe, the United Kingdom falls in the middle of the table rather than at the top, as he would like to suggest.
Huw Merriman
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The record will be checked, but I related the figures on resettled refugees and listed the numbers. It is on BBC Reality Check, and nothing is incorrect. If there is, BBC Reality Check is incorrect.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
There is clearly a disagreement here, which is why we are having a debate. Debates are about disagreement. This has been a polite debate so far, so let us keep it that way.
This is obviously not a point of order for the Chair, but the hon. Gentleman has put his point of view on the record. The hon. and learned Lady has done so, too, and I have a feeling she will do so again. If there is a disagreement, I hope she might take an intervention because it is not a matter for the Chair.
Joanna Cherry
If the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle had taken interventions during his speech, we could have clarified it then. The key words are “per capita,” which mean “per head.” As I said, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East will set out those figures in her speech.
The single biggest thing the UK Government could do to ensure the efficient evacuation and resettlement of Ukrainian refugees would be to permit visa-free access to the United Kingdom, in the same way that our near neighbours such as Ireland and, indeed, all the member states of the European Union are doing. It seems to me that there are two reasons for the refusal to do this, and neither is tenable. The first is alleged concerns about security, and the second is dogma, by which I mean this Government are thrawnly clinging to their anti-refugee and anti-asylum seeker policies despite all the evidence that they are untenable because of the new order in Europe ushered in by Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine.
We debated these matters in Westminster Hall on Monday afternoon, and I put it to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), that the Government’s security concerns are unfounded according to such a distinguished expert as Lord Peter Ricketts. Sadly, the Minister failed to address my point and instead resorted to a cheap and unfounded attack on the record of City of Edinburgh Council, and indeed my constituents, in rehousing people fleeing other war zones, particularly Syria and Afghanistan.
Fortunately, today’s debate will give the Minister the opportunity to set the record straight and, if he is able, to explain why his Government are pleading security risks against free access, despite expert evidence that such risks as might exist are small and can be managed safely without visas.
I pray in aid Lord Peter Ricketts, who is of course a former National Security Adviser. He spoke about these matters in the other place last week, and he was interviewed by Mark D’Arcy for “Today in Parliament.” He said:
“Security is always a matter of risk management—there is never zero risk.”
However, as these refugees are mainly women and children, they do not, in his opinion, pose a security risk. The UK Government therefore should not require visas, and they should do the security checks once the women and children are here. We have heard other speakers, and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), explain how that could be done.
Lord Peter Ricketts thinks we can do it, the European Union can do it and Ireland can do it, why cannot the United Kingdom? The Minister did not answer that question in Westminster Hall on Monday. He tried to deflect attention from his failure to answer that crucial question by attacking the record of local authorities in Scotland, including City of Edinburgh Council, which covers my constituency of Edinburgh South West. As so often with him, his attacks were unfounded in fact.
Let me take this opportunity to put the Minister right. The people of Scotland and our capital city of Edinburgh stand ready to welcome refugees from Ukraine, as we have always done. We have already heard about the generous offer from the Scottish Government. Since 2015, City of Edinburgh Council has resettled 585 Syrian refugees, the majority by the council but two households by Refugee Sponsorship Edinburgh, including a number of my constituents with whom I worked to get that sponsorship scheme off the ground. Those refugees have been supported by local partners such as the Welcoming Association in my constituency.
Since the fiasco of the UK’s withdrawal from Afghanistan last August, City of Edinburgh Council has accepted more than 200 Afghan refugees. City of Edinburgh Council has produced a plan to increase the number of refugees it takes each year. In fact, looking again at per capita, which means per head—
Joanna Cherry
Not at this moment.
On the resettlement of refugees, Scotland has taken more per head of population for 14 of the last 16 quarters since 2017. On average, Scotland has taken 5.4% above its population share, which is more than Wales and Northern Ireland have. Meanwhile, England has taken 12.8% below its population share, for which the Home Office has full responsibility. On section 95 asylum support, we know that Glasgow City Council has located in Scotland a percentage higher than Scotland’s per population share and higher than that of any council in the UK. As the Minister was reminded in Monday’s debate, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has said that it would be willing to take more asylum seekers if the British Government give it the support it needs to do so. Rather than trying to score petty and ill-informed points against the people of Edinburgh, my constituents, their council and the people of Scotland, the Minister should be getting the Home Secretary to ensure that asylum support is properly funded.
We could do with a little more humility from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Torbay after his Twitter gaff on fruit picking, but unfortunately his attitude continues to exemplify a callous and hubristic approach in his Department. Just yesterday, in The Times, the chief executive of the Red Cross argued that the Government must make the
“Nationality and Borders Bill more humane”
They could do that when it comes back to this House next week; they would have a chance to change course. The other place has removed some of the most egregious parts of the Bill, including the criminalisation of asylum seekers and plans for offshore processing. The Lords have also lifted the ban on asylum seekers working, which is a huge victory for campaigners from the Scottish charity the Maryhill Integration Network, which my colleagues and I have been proud to support. At the very least, the Government should preserve those changes to the Bill when it comes back to the House on Tuesday, because it would surely be horrifying if, in the midst of the current crisis, this House was to pass legislation that would criminalise Ukrainians who arrive at our borders seeking asylum outside the limited schemes announced so far. Let us hear from the Minister that there will be a change of tack on that Bill. Let us hear from him why Lord Peter Ricketts, the former national security adviser, is wrong about security and why the British Government, alone of our neighbours in Europe, cannot manage security without visas. Let us also hear a fact-based acknowledgement of the contribution made by my constituents, the City of Edinburgh Council, local authorities in Scotland and the Scottish Government to welcoming refugees, which, as I have explained, based on the data, is the most generous in the UK.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) talking about a warm welcome. Of course, a warm welcome entails more than just our mouthing the words; by its very nature, it needs actions, in relation to shelter and safety, in order for people to feel welcomed. Plaid Cymru has long called for a compassionate and generous response to everyone—every human being fleeing persecution and wars. We firmly reject the notion that our support is given only to a certain few. Believing in our common humanity, we believe that everybody deserves shelter, safety and the opportunity for a flourishing life.
The public outpouring of support for the Homes for Ukraine schemes is unprecedented, yet it is also frustrating to see that the support offered so far for refugees from Ukraine falls short of that ambition. As many have said thoroughly, this is especially pronounced when we make the comparison with how other countries have responded. I do not want to go into all the detail, and many other countries have been listed already, but I just wish to refer to Ireland. That nation has a population of 5 million. Obviously, it is a country that we in Wales compare ourselves with; its capital city is my nearest one. Crucially, it is a sea-girt nation in almost every respect. How many people are received is not a matter of geography—Ireland, with its population of 5 million, has received more than 6,600 refugees—but a matter of attitude. It is unfortunate to see attitude at work here. None the less, I welcome the fact that the Government are now listening and finally providing some pathways for refugees from Ukraine to enter the UK.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
The right hon. Lady has made an important point about the action that has been taken by Ireland, which has not only taken the numbers it has with the population it has—the UK Government should reflect on that—but supplied every one of those Ukrainian refugees with a personal identification number to access services. That means that when they land in Ireland, they have support. People are fleeing their houses, and they have left their possessions and sometimes they have left their loved ones behind. They are tired and hungry, and they need support. What a difference in attitude we see here; what a missed opportunity for a Government who want to portray themselves as a world power to gain soft power, as Ireland has done. Is this not a lesson for this Government? Should they not look at what is happening elsewhere and institute some of that compassion themselves?
Liz Saville Roberts
I agree entirely on that. In the spirit of wishing to see this work and to support our constituents in their heartfelt desire to help people, primarily those fleeing Ukraine, I say that we need the detail. Our local authorities are crying out for the detail. It is the detail and the actions that we need to see. We compare ourselves with Ireland, and we would like to see this Government follow suit. It is approaching a month since the invasion of Ukraine—it did not happen last week—and we have been asking for this over and over again.
Wales has shown in the recent past that we can offer a welcome embrace to refugees, as was the case with families fleeing Afghanistan. I wish to highlight a particular example, that of Urdd Gobaith Cymru, which is Wales’s largest youth organisation. It provided sanctuary and support for more than 100 Afghan refugees—I believe the exact figure was 103—throughout their first five months in Cardiff. That welcome included an offer of food and bridging accommodation; access to social spaces; a schedule of daily sports and activities; a programme of varied workshops; careers advice; nursery recreational sessions; and visits to national sporting events. This is recognised as being a leading example of how to help refugees integrate into Welsh communities and one of the best practices of resettlement in the UK. It was possible only with the full engagement of councils, the Welsh Government, the Urdd and other charities. In a response to a question from my friend Delyth Jewell, Aelod Senedd, yesterday, the First Minister Mark Drakeford confirmed that the Welsh Government will be considering a similar scheme for Ukrainian refugees. It is vital that the UK Government recognise the lessons of that success for refugees from Ukraine.
Plaid Cymru councils also have a particularly good track record on resettlement, including of families from Syria and from Afghanistan. Plaid Cymru-led local authorities in general have an above average resettlement rate compared to that for the UK as a whole, with Ceredigion having the highest resettlement rate in Wales, at 10 people per 10,000 of population, and Carmarthenshire having resettled the highest number of people in Wales, at 172. That is exceptional, especially given the rural nature of those local authorities.
How are we looking for Ukrainian national support networks to operate beyond the south-east and beyond London? If we are resettling people throughout the UK, it is essential that they have that national support and that it is extended beyond the south-east.
Plaid Cymru councils will, of course, play their part in the new sponsorship pathway. My council, Cyngor Gwynedd, wrote to the Prime Minister yesterday to express its willingness and that of the people in Gwynedd to provide sanctuary for refugees as soon as possible and urged for the sponsorship pathway to replicate the arrangements that exist in Ireland. As we have heard, refugees in Ireland are welcomed on arrival to comfortable processing centres where they have access to basic essentials and children have access to a safe play area.
I seek a further response about something I mentioned in an earlier question, which is onward travel. Will people be able to afford to get to where they need to get to? We have a number of suitable places in Wales to act as welcome centres, including the Urdd sites, community centres, church and chapel properties, and university and college accommodation. Those sites would ensure that people are given an opportunity to rest and to be paired with appropriate support, and to ensure they are not left isolated once arriving in Wales. Do the UK Government intend to work with us in Wales to implement that approach? We were talking earlier about the super-sponsor scheme in Scotland, and I would really like to hear from the Government and the Minister how they can work to make sure that this operates effectively. In this case, what extra resources are going to be made available not just for local authorities—we know about the £10,500—but for non-governmental organisations and charities, and for the super-sponsorship scheme? What actual money will be available to make this as effective as possible?
Sadly, the sponsorship scheme leaves a list of unanswered questions. My own council, Gwynedd, asked me to ask when it will have a regional contact from the Home Office, as it previously had under the Afghan and Syria schemes. It needs that to be able to move ahead. What role will it have? What will be the funding and safeguarding arrangements? How will the scheme work with housing, welfare and other support services?
Despite these many gaps, very many people in Wales have already registered for the sponsorship scheme because they want to help; it has touched their hearts. While it is fantastic to see such public good will and generosity of spirit, we cannot ignore the fact that visa sponsorship will inevitably lock out the most vulnerable refugees who fall through the cracks. To ensure that we are helping as many people as possible, we should be cutting the bureaucracy and delay by waiving visa requirements, as EU countries did weeks ago. If the UK Government still insist on maintaining visa restrictions, then they should at least allow Wales to be given super-sponsor status so that we will be able to take in large numbers directly and manage them ourselves. Again, I ask for an update on how this will operate. In general, the delayed and inconsistent UK response to Ukrainian refugees is not in keeping with Wales’s stated ambition to be a nation of sanctuary.
With the number of displaced people set to increase due to climate change, we need a modern, compassionate system that is fit for purpose not just for this present awful emergency but for the future. The creation of bespoke schemes is the wrong approach, as it creates arbitrary distinctions between those people who are deserving of our help and those people who are, in effect, undeserving of it. That is exactly why we have the refugee convention, which does away with such distinctions. This Government are hellbent on ripping up that convention through the Nationality and Borders Bill, which the UN has described as not respecting obligations under international human rights and refugee law. The convention acknowledges the reality that people who have fled dangerous situations cannot be expected to wait for help. We must reimagine our whole approach, create a new, compassionate refugee and asylum system, and support all those who need our help—people from Ukraine and from the rest of the world, be that Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, or wherever they may be in future.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
Allow me, at the outset of my remarks, to salute the courage of the people of Ukraine, who are being brutalised by a kleptocratic murderer who seeks to deny them the rights that all free people wish for—the rights simply to be able to live in peace with their neighbours in prosperity and to be able to choose the manner in which they are governed and who they are governed by. We should be clear that the only person responsible for the situation that we are discussing right now—the only person responsible for the tide of humanity and misery that we are seeing exit Ukraine—is Vladimir Putin himself.
But while we are not responsible, that does not mean that we are without responsibilities. I commend the UK Government for the military aid and the long-term approach taken to military training. We are seeing the effectiveness of that in defending the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. I commend the humanitarian response that there has been from all quarters. A small example from my own constituency is the work of Mark Allan, a part-time firefighter who, together with the Scottish Emergency Rescue Association, has been working with my constituency office to get the necessary paperwork from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency in order to be able to take fire engines to Ukraine to assist with the humanitarian effort.
What concerns me is what we are doing, or more often not doing, with regard to sanctuary. The Home Office is clearly a Department that, for some time, has not had its troubles to seek, whether in terms of its organisational capacity, its institutional culture or aspects of its political leadership. I do not say that to be critical of the thousands of dedicated people within that organisation who are working night and day to achieve the best outcomes that they possibly can in the most unprecedented and distressing of circumstances, but equally that should not hinder us from saying that more needs to be done when that is true, because let us be quite clear about this: we are seeing the biggest enforced mass movement of people, unparalleled in scale, since world war two.
I have been working, as I am sure we all have, with constituents who have their own stories to tell—who are either fleeing with family members who are Ukrainian nationals or trying to bring over a sister, a brother, a cousin or somebody else who is dear and special to them. The thread that runs through this is that they have all reported the same traumatic story not just of conflict, death and injury, but of the obstacles and time delays of the visa application system that they have encountered. While I welcome the changes and flexibilities that came into place yesterday that allow Ukrainian nationals to do their biometrics in the UK, that has not changed the essential nature of the unnecessary suffering for many refugees trying to flee the most desperate and dangerous of circumstances to seek safety in the UK.
To give an example, one of my constituents, whose case became known in the press, is Kenneth Stewart, who tried to leave with his family before the attacks from the Russian state began, when the advice from the UK Government was to leave on commercial flights, but was unable to leave with his wife, who is a Ukrainian national. They have two young children, the youngest of whom was born only two weeks previously. They fled initially to Poland to seek sanctuary there, and arrived in the UK only last week, as soon as they were permitted to enter as a family. Along the way, quite apart from the dangers that they encountered as the attacks were under way, they had to wait in a 40-hour queue at the Polish border in sub-zero temperatures—and this, remember, with a two-week child in the back. That is absolutely unimaginable for all of us. While I am glad that they are here and they are safe, and that their circumstances are moving on, we should understand that we are still potentially placing many others in similar situations as they seek to come to safety.
Another constituent, Lyudmyla Wilson, has faced numerous obstacles in trying to bring her daughter and grandchildren safely through the visa process. She has had difficulty accessing information through the helplines, and that has only added to the anxiety and fears for her daughter’s and grandchildren’s safety. She was advised to wait for the results of her biometrics, which she did on Saturday. My office is still following up on that, but unfortunately, as far as I am aware, in the time since I took to my feet, she is still waiting for a decision that we are told is in progress. I could go on.
Last week, in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), the Prime Minister boasted:
“We have done more to resettle vulnerable people than any other European country since 2015.”—[Official Report, 9 March 2022; Vol. 710, c. 318.]
Let us examine and unpack that claim a little bit. In the past two weeks, some 2.8 million Ukrainian refugees have already fled the horrors of war, and, as we have heard, that number is rising rapidly. Of the upwards of 260,000 who have made their way to countries that do not directly border Ukraine, only a fraction have so far been able to come to the UK. While the UK has issued about 4,000 family visas, many thousands more are currently stuck in the application process, and many, many thousands beyond that, I am certain, have not even entered the process yet.
I am sorry to say that the contrast at this point, whatever the good intentions, could not be clearer. Across Europe, our neighbours are stepping up to meet this challenge, waiving bureaucratic requirements and placing refuge and sanctuary first with bureaucracy coming second, where it ought to be. EU guidelines approved on 3 March on the temporary protection directive demonstrate how a high level of security and assurance can be maintained while removing the bureaucratic barriers for those in need. The directive offers temporary protection in the EU, giving individuals fleeing war residence permits and access to education and the labour market. In the midst of a conflict, it is neither reasonable nor morally acceptable to expect individuals to have to overcome those hurdles. We can bring them to safety now at no detriment to our own safety while allowing them then to complete the processes that we would wish them to.
It is not just the SNP that is saying this. The Refugee Council has said the UK has not been as welcoming for Ukrainian refugees as our EU counterparts, saying that the response to date “falls short” and
“will inevitably be restricted to those who are known to people in the UK”.
The British Red Cross, which I would hope we could take as an unimpeachable authority on this, has said that the quickest way of fixing problems in the system would be to remove the requirements for a visa, as has been done in other countries.
I firmly believe that the UK Government must go further and faster to help refugees by supporting the Scottish and Welsh Government super sponsors bid.
In a joint letter from the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales to the UK Minister for Housing, they have agreed to take part in the UK-wide scheme, which is absolutely right, but they call for the scheme to go further and faster with less bureaucracy, and propose becoming super sponsors to speed up the process. The newly appointed Scottish refugee Minister, Neil Gray, who is well known to this House from the time that he served as the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts, has said:
“By acting as ‘super sponsor’ rather than waiting for the UK government’s matching process, we can provide safety and sanctuary to people immediately and welcome significant numbers of refugees from Ukraine to Scotland”,
including by providing support mechanisms for refugees such as temporary accommodation and wraparound support while longer-term arrangements are put in place.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am acutely aware of your strictures on time, so I will draw my remarks to a close by saying that I am sure that people across these islands are ready to open their doors and their hearts to these refugees, and it is time to waive visa requirements and put people, rather than processes, first.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
I want to acknowledge two things at the outset. First, the UK is not doing nothing and what the UK has done so far will have made a massive difference for some to whom we have given protection. Some may end up as MPs in this place one day, talking about how they came to the UK as refugees in 2022. There is no doubt that we will have saved and shaped lives, and have enabled some simply to have a life. This Government are not doing nothing and it would be wrong to claim otherwise, which is why nobody has claimed that today.
I also want to acknowledge that none of this is the fault of anyone other than Vladimir Putin and his regime, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) said. It is not the fault of a European Government, of the people of these islands or of the Russian people, and it certainly is not the fault of the Ukrainian people, but our lack of culpability is irrelevant to our duty, both legal and moral.
As an immigration spokesperson and someone who has a very significant immigration case load in my constituency, and as someone who sat on the Nationality and Borders Bill Committee, scrutinising every line along with my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), I am always concerned when this UK Tory Government is required to fulfil that legal and moral duty, because I do not think they think there is a legal duty, and judging by the way they continually invite pats on the head and talk of how generous they are, I do not think they believe they have a moral duty either. They would not bring forward a Bill such as the Nationality and Borders Bill—which, ironically, returns from the Lords next week—if they had any desire, or believed they had any duty, to protect people fleeing war, violence and terror. The Nationality and Borders Bill, widely known as the anti-refugee Bill, is clearly trying to send a signal that benevolent Britain is no more: “Do not come here, because you will not be welcome.”
As I said, the Government are not doing nothing to help Ukrainian refugees, but they must understand that our duty, not just as Opposition MPs but as Members of this Parliament, of whatever party, is to speak up when we think the Government have got it wrong and to say where we believe the Government need to go on this issue. Otherwise we might as well just go home, take the salary and do nothing for it. I will list some of my concerns, many of which have been raised by colleagues but which I want to reinforce.
The response to refugees has been chaotic. I do not believe the Government have got it right yet, but they have had to be dragged, kicking and screaming even to get to the stage they have currently reached. Those of us who regularly have contact with the Home Office know that its modus operandi is to change the rules regularly and blindside people. Immigration lawyers can hardly keep up, MPs and caseworkers cannot keep up, refugees cannot keep up; that is the Home Office MO, and it is deliberate. It is adopted to deny people their rights, and the chaotic way in which the current situation was handled is that MO in microcosm. Anybody would think the Home Office did not want people to come here! From 24 February to 14 March it updated the guidance 11 separate times.
I want to say something about the children we were talking about earlier, and which my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) raised in Prime Minister’s questions, and the chaotic way in which that has been dealt with. We are failing in our duty to those children, and—[Interruption.] If the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove) will let me finish, I want to say this. His colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), who is no longer in his place, said that the Ukrainian Government have to give permission. That is right—we agree with that—and there is a Ukrainian Government Minister at the child processing centre right now who can give permission, yet the Westminster leader of the SNP must arrange it, because somehow it is not the Home Office Ministers’ job. Well, it is their job. [Interruption.] The Minister is shaking his head; so surely after this debate he will get that sorted so that those children will be brought to safety.
That aside, progress is being made, but why does it have to be so chaotic? Why do we have to make it so hard for people, and why are we still not offering anything comparable to what EU countries are offering? I know the Government do not like it when we compare what is happening here with EU countries, but we are not doing that because they are European; we are doing it because they have comparable economies and population size and we do not compare favourably, no matter what others think. I will come on to that shortly.
Nevertheless, we are slowly getting there, and one method is the Homes for Ukraine scheme. That cannot replace our legal duty, but I am delighted that so many people—120,000—have registered so far, opening their hearts and their homes to others. However, safeguarding remains a concern, and I know that it is a shared concern. Most of those using that scheme will be traumatised women and children and those men who are too vulnerable to be able to stay and fight, and we must ensure that they have the knowledge and means to reach out if it goes wrong; we must ensure they have the confidence to tell somebody if the placement is not working. They need to know who they can go to, and they also need to know they can approach them for any reason. They might just not feel comfortable, for instance. Perhaps a woman on her own with children is staying with a male who makes them feel a little uncomfortable and they might not be able to put their finger on why—perhaps it is just an inability to communicate with their hosts. I am sure most of those offering to share their homes do so from a place of compassion and would agree that we need to be careful in our vetting and follow-on, so that we do not end up inadvertently helping to traffic people into the sex trade who are then terrorised by their captors into not reporting it. That is what often happens now, and we must be very clear that they will be protected if they report such things. I know the Government have said that they will take that on board.
Mr Bone
The hon. Lady is making a crucial point about the way traffickers will bring people into this country, but they also coach people in this country, and they will threaten people so they do not report that. That is why vetting, checking and wraparound support from local councils is so important. The hon. Lady has touched on an extremely important point that we all must be aware of.
Anne McLaughlin
The hon. Gentleman has done so much in this respect for victims of trafficking.
I want to repeat that Positive Action in Housing based in Glasgow has a rooms-for-refugees scheme; it is not a paid scheme, but none the less over 20 years there have been 4,000 successful placements. It has great experience in this field and the Government could usefully speak to it and other organisations about their experiences.
I raised the issue of visas and asked a number of pertinent questions on Monday, but the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Torbay chose to ignore them, so I tried to intervene, and he refused to engage at all. He continued with the pretence that what we on the Opposition Benches, and many on the Government Benches, are asking for is unusual. Yet thousands of people enter the UK every day without visas: anyone from Australia can come here without a visa; anyone from Mexico can come without a visa; and anyone from Costa Rica can come without a visa. Thousands every week, too, from Canada, from Japan, from Namibia, from South Korea, and from the US, arrive here without a visa.
The Government say that to allow Ukrainians to do so in their moment of need would somehow pose a threat to our safety. As if having a visa is in itself a safeguard: as my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East mentioned, the two Russian military intelligence officers who entered the UK and made their way to Salisbury to carry out a revenge attack on a former MI6 spy, which resulted in the death of local woman Dawn Sturgess, applied for and got their visas before they arrived. A visa is no safeguard.
In Monday’s debate, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) raised the fact, as she has again today, that Lord Ricketts, who I am willing to bet has much more experience than any of us in this House—
Anne McLaughlin
The Minister does not know what I am going to say—he should wait till I say it. Lord Ricketts has said he is not concerned that we are going to bring in security threats. On Monday, my hon. and learned Friend asked questions and I repeated her question. She tried to intervene when the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Torbay was speaking, but he refused to give way. I tried to intervene. If the Minister present can tell us why Lord Ricketts is wrong, why all the people who come from the aforementioned countries can come here without a visa and pose no threat, and why Ukrainians are so much more of a danger to us, I will perhaps reach a conclusion different from the one I have reached today.
Tom Pursglove
I think the hon. Lady will recognise the unique threat that the Russian state presents. We are currently seeing terrible atrocities in Ukraine, which shows the Russian state’s barbarity and the lengths to which it is willing to go. The hon. Lady has cited various comparisons; what does she make of the counter-argument that we are taking a stance similar to that of the United States and Canada—another Five Eyes country—which take a view akin to ours?
Anne McLaughlin
We are far more comparable to European countries, and particularly to Ireland. I ask the question that I asked earlier: is the Minister saying that all the European countries, including Ireland, are simply not cognisant of any security threat, or that they do not care and are putting their people in danger? I do not think they are; I think they know what they are doing. Many of the things that the Government said in this place they could not do they have subsequently done, through some of the 11 changes to the guidance that I mentioned. For example, the Government could not allow family members who did not fit the narrow criteria, but now they can. I do not want to be in a situation, in six, four or two weeks’ time, in which we say, “Okay, we’ll waive the need for a visa.” The Government could do that now. Just do it: put Ukraine on the list of countries whose people do not require a visa to come here—a list much lengthier than the one I read out—as other European countries have done, and people will get here. Let me tell Members what will happen. Those who are fighting—
Anne McLaughlin
No. I am not giving way to somebody who has not even been interested enough to sit through the debate—as long as the hon. Gentleman is somebody who was not interested enough. [Interruption.] Yes, he is. I thought I had better check.
Let us think how much more the minds of those brave Ukrainian men and women who are currently fighting for their lives and their country will be put at rest, so that they can focus on saving Ukraine, if we make it easier for their family members to come here and live in peace.
The Government love to talk about how generous, marvellous and munificent they are, but their claims just do not stack up. At Prime Minister’s questions, the Deputy Prime Minister referred to this “big-hearted” Government. They really do need to be patted on the back, don’t they? It is about the rights of refugees and our moral duty. We have heard the comparisons for the numbers of Ukrainian refugees we are taking in and also that it is not a competition. We have been slow on the uptake and our numbers are low. As others have mentioned, the Prime Minister said at last week’s Prime Minister’s questions that the UK had
“done more to resettle vulnerable people than any other European country since 2015.”—[Official Report, 9 March 2022; Vol. 710, c. 318.]
That is not true.
Let us look at the numbers per head of population, because that is the only way to make a fair comparison. For every 100,000 people, Sweden takes in 1,619; Germany takes in 1,274; Austria takes in 1,134; and Switzerland takes in 955. For every 100,000 people, we take in 121. That makes the UK 17th—sometimes 18th—in the rankings in Europe. But no European country can top the list, because in terms of displaced people globally, more than 80% of the world’s refugees are in developing countries, which are the countries with the least money. The Government really do need to stop saying things that can be proven not to be the case.
Anne McLaughlin
Madam Deputy Speaker, do I have time to take an intervention?
Anne McLaughlin
Do you know what? I think I won’t—I’ll just carry on. [Laughter.] Thanks for that.
I want to come to my final concern. Having served on the Nationality and Borders Bill Committee, I am well aware of this Government’s attitude to refugees. I am well aware that, as I said, they are being dragged kicking and screaming. Look at the warm words we heard for the Afghans who were fleeing; eight months later, most of them are still in those hotel rooms. Let us imagine the Ukrainians who come now being stuck in hotel rooms. We may think, “Fine, we know it’s not going to happen, because they’ve said it’s not going to happen,” but why is it happening to the Afghans? What about the people who are hiding in Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iran who we promised to help? There are 102 people in touch with my office and I have nothing to tell them. And what of all the other countries?
In the 1940s, my grandmother, Sadie Purdie, lived with my granda, Stuart, and, at the time, three children, in a flat in Greenock. They had one bedroom, one kitchen living room and one dovecot. There were five of them squeezed in, along with three pet rabbits. Her brother, his wife and their five children were sleeping in an unheated wartime Nissan hut, along with many other homeless families, and life was unbearable, so my granny insisted that they move in with her. So there were four adults, eight children and three rabbits in a two-room flat with a dovecot and an outside toilet. It is unimaginable, is it not? But do you know why she did that, Madam Deputy Speaker? It was because she needed to—because they needed her. The way she saw it, they could simply budge up. Why can we not do that? As we have heard, Wales and Scotland want to become super sponsors. Let us budge up and create room. We are a wealthy country and people need our help wherever they are coming from—and they need it soon, before something worse happens to them.
Let me finish by saying to the people who are opening their homes that it is wonderful that they are doing that but I want them to read up on the Nationality and Borders Bill. When they invite someone into their home, they will be emotionally invested in that person, whose trauma they will witness close-up. I want them to imagine that person, or someone just like them, arriving here after the Nationality and Borders Bill is enacted—if this Government get their way—and what being subjected to that law means. It means being offshored. It means being jailed. It means never being reunited with their husbands who are currently fighting for their country. I say to those people: rise up, protest and tell this Government, “Not in our name.”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Eddie Hughes)
I fully appreciate the fact that we are in very dark times. War in Europe is something we should never have expected to see again. However, it is my natural disposition to accentuate the positive. I am naturally somebody who is going to say that I am proud of the things this great country has done and of the constituent contributions from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Let me start at the end, unusually. The hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) said that the Government “are not doing nothing”. I think that is called damning with faint praise. Like it or not, SNP Members are part of the United Kingdom and this is a collective effort on our part. We have focused on refugees in this debate, but the United Kingdom has provided a total of £400 million in emergency aid for Ukraine so far. It is about not just what we are doing to help people to come to this country but helping people in the country they are in now.
Eddie Hughes
I will give way in a few minutes. Just give me a chance to build up.
We have also supplied lethal weapons; Ukraine is at war. We are providing the weaponry that it needs to sustain its position. We have introduced financial sanctions to ensure that we are putting a squeeze on Russia, as it is important that there is a military and a financial aspect to this war. I am very proud that we have 1,000 troops on standby in neighbouring countries, helping those people who are fleeing.
Eddie Hughes
If the hon. Lady will bear with me, I need to courteously give way to my hon. Friend on the left.
John Howell
I thank the Minister very much for giving way. May I add some other good news to his portfolio of good news? This country led the way yesterday in the Council of Europe unanimously to expel Russia, and it did so at the Committee of Ministers meeting this morning, and the Russian flag has now been pulled down.
Eddie Hughes
That is fantastic news. I particularly thank my hon. Friend for his contribution to that effort.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you normally have the peroration at the end of the speech, so I am sorry for starting with it, but this is the final point of my opening remarks. Tens of thousands of people have already signed up to our Homes for Ukraine scheme. I am delighted to say that 7,000 of them have come from Scotland—these are not official figures, but the ones that I managed to squeeze out of the Department earlier.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North East also said that the Government needed a pat on the head when they feel that they are being generous. This is not the generosity of the Government—this is not our money. This is the generosity of the British people. This is the generosity of Scottish households. Seven thousand of them have come forward to open up their homes, and we should welcome and embrace that idea.
The hon. Lady also said, as did several other Scottish contributors, that the Government needed to be dragged kicking and screaming to this, and that it is against our better judgment, which is kind of weird when we have introduced an uncapped scheme. We are not putting any limits on the number of people who are coming here despite what Members might think from what they have heard from the SNP Benches so far.
I will now get back to my actual speech. I start by saying a huge thank you to everyone who has gathered and contributed to the debate today. The contributions, which I will come on to, possibly in detail—time allowing—later, show the strength of feeling that exists in this House and the importance that we all place on getting this right and doing the right thing by Ukrainian refugees.
As we meet today, thousands of Ukrainians are at the border of their country, trying to escape the horrors of war. They are overwhelmingly women, children, and the elderly—mothers, daughters, wives, and grandmothers. They are people left with no choice but to leave the country that they love. They are exhausted, distraught and desperate. Some have queued in traffic jams for 20 miles—the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) referred to a case of someone who queued for 40 miles. Others have boarded trains that are packed to the rafters. Many have watched in horror as their homes and cities have been destroyed by Putin’s bloody invasion. This unprovoked invasion is bringing about a humanitarian crisis on a scale that we have not seen in Europe since the end of world war two, with the United Nations estimating that some 4 million people could end up fleeing their country.
Members across this House are determined that we, as a country, should open our arms to these people, and this determination has been on full display today. The scenes of devastation and human misery inflicted by President Putin’s barbarous assault on what he calls “Russia’s cousins” in Ukraine have unleashed a tidal wave of solidarity and generosity across the country. British people always step forward and step up in these moments, and since the first tanks rolled into Ukraine, they have come forward in droves with offers of help: community centres have been flooded with critical supplies; the Association of Ukrainians in Great Britain has received millions in donations; and charities such as the Red Cross have been overwhelmed with people giving whatever they can. The outpouring of public support has been nothing short of remarkable.
While this Government, and this whole House, have risen to the occasion with our offer of support to Ukrainians fleeing war, our lethal aid and our stranglehold on economic sanctions on Russia have clearly shown that we will keep upping the ante to ensure that Putin fails. As Members have argued today, it has been abundantly clear in recent days that we can and must do more. It is exactly right, therefore, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities set out on Monday the new and uncapped sponsorship scheme, Homes for Ukraine. It is a scheme to allow Ukrainians with no family ties to the UK to be sponsored by individuals or organisations that can offer them a home. It is a scheme that draws not only on the exceptional good will and generosity of the British people, but one that gives them the opportunity to help make a difference.
As Members across the House have recognised today, the answer to that call has been truly emphatic. It sparked a Glastonbury-style rush to register to help, which did, temporarily, crash the website. Since Monday, more than 130,000 have stepped forward to offer an empty room or an empty home.
I appreciate that people are gathering for the statement, but I just want to briefly touch on the comments of some Members. My hon. Friends the Members for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) talked about support for local councils. Obviously we will provide £10,500 per person, plus additional funding for education. Clearly, there are roundtable discussions ongoing with local councils and local resilience forums to ensure that they are well prepared for the arrival of these people. They will be responsible for going out and checking that the accommodation is of an appropriate standard and helping with those vital safeguarding concerns.
The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) and the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) would clearly like to see visas scrapped, but, in the meantime, they will be delighted to know that the Government have stepped up efforts to provide extra support to ensure that we can handle 13,000 appointments per week, which will dramatically surge the number of people that we are processing, as the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove), mentioned.
The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) asked us to work with the devolved Assemblies. Now, I mentioned the figure for Scotland, but I also understand that the number of applications from Wales for the Homes for Ukraine scheme is 9,000 so far, so we need to ensure that the system works and that those people can serve the purpose for which they have signed up. We will be working closely with charities to ensure that the support is provided right across the country.
Finally, one Member also raised concerns about those people who are coming with disabilities. As the disability champion for our Department, this is clearly something that I am particularly concerned about. We will work with local councils to ensure that the provision that is necessary—the support that needs to be provided for those people with disabilities—is available when they come to this country.
I wish to conclude, in this dark time, on a very optimistic note. At a time when the British public were needed to come forward and to open their hearts and their homes, they have done so emphatically—more than 130,000 homes have been offered so far. These are exciting times in terms of the contribution that we can make as a country to support the people of Ukraine at their time of greatest need. Slava Ukraini.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House once more condemns President Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine and the war crimes being perpetrated by the Russian state there; reiterates the House’s solidarity with Ukrainians in their resistance to Russia’s invasion of their sovereign state; recognises that Europe is now seeing the largest movement of refugees since the second world war, for whom the UK shares responsibility; warmly welcomes the significant and widespread offers of support for those fleeing the invasion from people and organisations across the UK; supports expansion of the family visa scheme and Homes for Ukraine scheme; and calls on the Government to go further and faster in its response, including waiving requirements for Ukrainians to apply for visas in advance of their arrival in the UK so as to facilitate speedy access to international protection here, working with international partners to ensure vulnerable people can be resettled here and providing full and sustained funding and safeguarding to support people to rebuild their lives.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This will take one minute and 30 seconds. It is important that the public realise that sometimes, when the House is not packed, it is not because it is not interested in what is happening. Today, there are Ukrainian MPs in the Palace, and hundreds of MPs have gone to see them. The last debate was very important and well attended, and those speaking in it made their constructive points in a very sensible way. We should, though, make the public aware that there were other things going on in the House at the same time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I am happy to give him a direct answer. First, I agree with him entirely. It was noted earlier this afternoon that although we were having an extremely important and topical debate about Ukrainian refugees, the Benches were sparsely occupied. It is important to note—the hon. Gentleman put this very well—that in another room at that very moment, there were four Ukrainian Members of Parliament, who are most welcome here. Many colleagues, rather than being in the Chamber, had gone to that meeting, which I gather was extremely fruitful.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I will not take any further points of order, as it is 3.30 pm. I hand the Chamber to Mr Speaker.
Iran Detainees
(2 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Elizabeth Truss)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on the release of British nationals from detention in Iran—and, in parallel, on the repayment of the International Military Services debt. After years of unfair and unjust detention by the Government of Iran, Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and Anoosheh Ashoori have, this afternoon, finally been allowed to board a plane and leave the country. They are on their way home. They will land in the UK later today and will be reunited with their families. Morad Tahbaz has also been released from prison on furlough. I know that the whole House and the whole country will rejoice at this news, and share in the relief that their horrendous ordeal is over.
Nazanin was held in Iran for almost six years, and Anoosheh almost five. Morad has been in prison for four. Their release is the result of years of tenacious British diplomacy. I want to thank our Omani friends and Minister Badr for their help in bringing our nationals home. I pay tribute to the efforts of many in this House, particularly the hon. Members for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), and for Lewisham East (Janet Daby). I pay tribute, as well, to my predecessors, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who have all worked hard to resolve this issue. Most of all, I want to express my admiration for the incredible resolve and determination shown by Nazanin, Anoosheh, Morad and their families. I have been in contact with them throughout, as have our specialist consular teams. Their suffering has moved us all, and so does the prospect of their being reunited with their loved ones once again, after this long and cruel separation.
We secured the release, and Morad’s furlough, through intense diplomatic and political engagement at every level. We stepped up these efforts over the last six months. On becoming Foreign Secretary in September, I made resolving the issues of the continued detention of British nationals and the IMS debt personal priorities. In my first week, I spoke to the families of the detainees and met my Iranian counterpart, Minister Amir-Abdollahian. This was the first in-person meeting of a UK and Iranian Foreign Minister in three years. We agreed to work together to resolve the two issues in parallel. I dispatched a team of Foreign Office negotiators to hold intensive discussions with senior Iranian officials, in order to secure the release of our detainees. Officials travelled to Tehran for negotiations in October and November. A final round of negotiations took place in Muscat in February, resulting in this agreement.
Our ambassador in Tehran, Simon Shercliff, has also been in constant talks with Iranian Ministers and seniors officials. I spoke to Minister Amir-Abdollahian in October to progress the talks. In December, I met Minister Badr and secured Oman’s assistance in this important work. In February, I held discussions with Minister Amir-Abdollahian again, to drive the talks to a final conclusion. We will continue to push, with partners, to secure Morad’s permanent release and return home, which is long overdue. We will continue to support other British nationals in Iran who have asked for our help. We will work closely with our international partners to urge Iran to end its practice of unfair detention. It remains, and always has been, within Iran’s gift to release any British national who has been unfairly detained. The agonies endured by Nazanin, Anoosheh, Morad and their families must never happen again.
Our efforts to settle the IMS debt have also reached their conclusion. After highly complex and exhaustive negotiations, the more than 40-year-old debt between International Military Services and the Ministry of Defence of Iran has now been settled. As the House is aware, this debt relates to contracts signed with the Iranian Ministry of Defence in the 1970s. Following the revolution of 1979, those contracts could not be fulfilled. I pushed officials to be as creative as possible in finding a way to resolve the situation, and they have worked round the clock to find a viable payment route. We have considered and exhausted many options in the process. I can tell the House that we have found a way to make the payment in full compliance with UK and international sanctions and with global counter-terrorism financing and anti-money laundering regulations. A sum of £393.8 million has now been paid, which will be available only for humanitarian purposes. The terms remain confidential to both parties. We have long said that we would find a solution to the IMS debt. Now, thanks to the tireless work of our officials, we have found a way to do so.
The repayment of the debt, in parallel with the release of our nationals, reflects steps taken by both the UK and Iran to resolve issues of serious disagreement between our two countries. We will continue to stand up for our interests, for the freedom and security of our nationals wherever they are, and for an end to arbitrary detention. But for now, to Nazanin and Anoosheh, I am pleased that in just a few hours’ time we will be able to say: welcome home. I commend this statement to the House.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for giving me advance sight of the statement. For too long, the Iranian Government have been depriving British nationals of their liberty to use them as political bargaining chips. Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe has been detained in Iran for almost six years. Anoosheh Ashoori has faced the same fate for almost five years. The suffering they have endured during those years is unimaginable. The moments of laughter, joy and hope that they and their families have lost are irretrievable The Iranian Government are entirely to blame for these acts of cruelty. The whole House will be overjoyed that their detention has now come to an end, and that Nazanin and Anoosheh can return to British soil to be reunited with their families and take the breath of freedom once again. We must pay tribute to their tireless families, who have shown extraordinary strength, resilience and courage in the face of an unimaginable ordeal.
I also give credit to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for all her efforts over so many years, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) for continuing to raise these issues. I give them credit for their tireless work in campaigning to secure the freedom of their constituents. We join the Government in thanking the Government of Oman for their help. I also give credit to the tireless work of British officials, as well as to the Foreign Secretary for her role in securing justice. She has shown more skills in diplomacy than her bungling boss, who appeared to do more damage than help while he held her current post.
Serious lessons need to be learned from this appalling episode. We need stronger international measures to combat the use of arbitrary detention as a political tool and to end hostage diplomacy. We also need a review of these cases. We need to understand what could have been done by the British Government to secure these releases sooner. I note that the Foreign Secretary said that she had
“stepped up these efforts over the last six months.”
I give her credit for that and welcome it, but I want to ask her what efforts were not taken by her predecessors that could have been. A review must also consider whether comments made by Ministers contributed to the extended detention. It is also good news that Morad Tahbaz has been released on furlough. Can the Foreign Secretary elaborate on the next steps to support his case? We note that other British nationals are still in detention and seeking help from the British Government. Can she update the House on the latest number and on what efforts are in place to help them?
We welcome the Government’s parallel announcement that the IMS debt has been repaid. We have long called for the Government to find a way to pay back that internationally recognised legitimate debt. What guarantees have the Government been given that this sum of money will be used only for humanitarian purposes? Today, though, let us focus on the main point of this statement. The whole House and the whole country can share in the triumph of welcoming Nazanin and Anoosheh home.
Elizabeth Truss
There have been years of effort and some fantastic people in the Foreign Office, including the leaders of the Foreign Office and the Foreign Office team, have worked tirelessly. What has changed in the past six months is that we have a new Government in Iran. I was able, when I went to New York in September and met Minister Amir-Abdollahian, to reset the relationship and be clear that we were serious about resolving the outstanding issues that Iran had, and the Iranians were clear that they were serious about resolving the outstanding issues we had.
I pay tribute to the fantastic Foreign Office officials, who have been tenacious in travelling to Tehran and getting this done in what are very difficult circumstances. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, paying money to Iran is not easy with the intensive sanctions regime in place, even though this is very clearly a legitimate debt. I can assure him that we have humanitarian guarantees. What I cannot do is go into the details, because that is confidential between the parties, but I have had this thoroughly checked out across Government to ensure that we have those guarantees that the money will be used for humanitarian purposes.
On the subject of Morad Tahbaz, who I spoke to at the end of last year when he was in prison, we have secured his release on furlough. He is now at home. That was an important point that we pressed with the Iranian Government. I know from speaking to him that the conditions in prison were abhorrent and appalling, so he is now in better conditions, but of course we will continue to get him home, as well as other detainees who do not want their names released in public. The other point to make about Mr Tahbaz is that he is a tri-national with the United States, so we need to work with our US partners on this issue and we are talking to him.
In the spirit of what the right hon. Gentleman said about welcoming the detainees home, that should be our focus today. They have been through an appalling ordeal; I could not imagine what it would be like to be without my family or my mother for so long. We must give the families the privacy they deserve, and thank them for their tenacity through this appalling ordeal that should never happen to anyone.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
I am hugely grateful for the extraordinarily welcome news that my right hon. Friend has brought to the House this afternoon. It is the most wonderful moment for many of us who have been campaigning. In particular, I pay huge tribute to not only the two hon. Members for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) and for Lewisham East (Janet Daby), but our friend Ann Clwyd, who spent an awful lot of time campaigning for this as well when she was in this House.
May I ask whether the Government have looked at some of the implications of the last time a ransom payment was made to the Iranian Government? That ransom payment was made by the US Government a number of years ago. About six months after they were paid, the Iranian Government took another six American dual nationals hostage and merely started the whole process again. Furthermore, sadly, the money paid was then spent on murdering hundreds of thousands of Sunni Muslims in Syria. Can my right hon. Friend assure us that that will not happen this time, that British citizens will be carefully warned of the dangers they face in visiting Iran, and that none of the payment will end up in weapons and ammunition to kill Syrians?
Elizabeth Truss
First, it is important to note that these are two parallel issues in our bilateral relationship, namely settling the IMS debt—a legitimate debt that the UK Government were due to pay—and settling the issue of the detainees. I am very clear that we need to work with our international partners to end the practice of arbitrary detention. In fact, we are joining a group with the Canadians and others to do just that, so we have a strong international response to countries using the practice of arbitrary detention to get their own way. I completely agree with my hon. Friend that we must end the practice, but we need to do so working with partners. That is a key point that we are discussing as part of the G7 Foreign Ministers track.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for sight of her statement. Goodness, in a week when we could all be doing with a bit of good news, I was very glad to read it. The SNP shares the happiness at the release of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, Anoosheh Ashoori and Morad Tahbaz. We also pay tribute to them, their friends and their families for putting up with an intolerable situation. This has been a long time coming, and there are lessons to learn, but the Foreign Secretary, her Ministers and officials deserve their moment on this. This has been a great achievement, and I am very glad to see it happen.
We have the news that the historical debt will be paid as humanitarian aid, and, as I proposed that in this place on 16 November 2021, I can hardly quibble that it has happened, and I am glad of the assurances that it will go to humanitarian purposes. I will take that on trust, which we are all entitled to do. I have two questions. First, how many dual nationals are in Iran in this situation? We are aware that there are some, but we do not know how many specifically there are. What wider assessment is there of other dual nationals in this position elsewhere?
I echo the concerns of the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), that there is a risk of moral hazard. I think we are all agreed that this is historical debt that needed to be repaid, but others could take other lessons. What assessment has been made of the risk of moral hazard to British citizens going to Iran, but also in other places of risk? Perhaps the Foreign Office guidance needs to be updated in those situations. I would be grateful for an update on that, too, but congratulations.
Elizabeth Truss
On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, I am afraid I cannot comment on individual cases, even to the extent of talking about the number of individual cases; I am afraid I cannot do that. He is right that we need to work against arbitrary detention. The best way to do that is as part of an international compact. That is why we are addressing this issue at the G7, and that is why I welcome the Canadians’ leadership on the issue. I have met my Canadian counterpart on several occasions and talked about how we move this forward to change the incentives. We need to fundamentally change the incentives for Governments, so that there is not an incentive to behave in this way.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
I salute the leadership of the Foreign Secretary on this issue. As I know from my own experience, this is a fearsomely difficult diplomatic challenge, and it would not have been solved without sustained, personal interest right from the top, and she deserves great credit for that. Most of all, I commend the efforts of Richard Ratcliffe, Nazanin’s husband. His quiet courage, his humility and his total determination never wavered throughout six years of hell, and he really was the bravest person I met during my time as Foreign Secretary. He is an inspiration to many people. Is the Foreign Secretary inspired by the united western response to the crisis in Ukraine, and is there something we can learn from that to unite as democratic countries to stamp out the vile practice of hostage taking?
Elizabeth Truss
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about Richard Ratcliffe and the families of the detainees, and the courage they have shown in the face of appalling adversity, as well as those detained themselves, who have gone through incredible hardship, difficulty and just not knowing what the future would look like.
I pay tribute to the work that my right hon. Friend did when he was Foreign Secretary and the leadership he has shown on this issue in his current role. He is completely right, and that is why we are working with allies, such as the Canadians, on unfair detention, because we need to take a common stance. The way that we have worked together on Ukraine—on sanctions and on supplying defensive aid—shows that we can do this in other areas, standing up for freedom, democracy and the rules-based international order, and changing the fundamental incentives that such regimes have in terms of the way they behave.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
This is really a day of celebration for Anoosheh’s family. They will be so relieved when the plane hits the ground and Nazanin and Anoosheh are walking again on British soil. As Anoosheh’s Member of Parliament, I am thrilled beyond belief at his release, and for Nazanin. I am incredibly happy for Anoosheh’s wife, Sherry, and his children, Elika and Aryan, as well as their families and friends. I spoke to Sherry today—indeed, I spoke to her yesterday as well—and she told me that she has had several years of heartache and separation, all of which could have been avoided.
It is right that the issue of the long-standing debt of approximately £400 million was addressed and returned by the British Government to secure the freedom of our British citizens. I salute and thank the Foreign Secretary for making the IMS debt her priority. I also say, however, that it has been more than 1,650 days since Anoosheh was detained—days of his life that cannot be returned to him. I therefore ask her why it has taken the Government so long to secure Nazanin and Anoosheh’s release.
Elizabeth Truss
I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for her tireless campaigning on the issue. I share her sense of anxiety. There were some very anxious moments this afternoon as we waited for wheels up in Tehran. As the plane departed, we knew that, finally, our detainees—Nazanin and Anoosheh—would be returning to the United Kingdom. We are very much looking forward to welcoming them later today. I, too, have spoken to the family and to Sherry. I know how hard it has been for the families and the courage that they have shown over these very difficult years.
What I will say about the process of securing the release of our detainees is that Foreign Secretaries, the Prime Minister and Foreign Office officials have worked tirelessly on it. There is a very dedicated team at the Foreign Office. Last summer, we saw a new Government in place in Iran, which gave us an opportunity to start afresh on some of the issues and to look at new ways we could do things in terms of paying the IMS debt, and we have been able to deliver on that.
We have to remember, however, that fundamentally it was the Iranian Government who put those people in detention. Ultimately, what we need to do, as many hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, is change the incentives for Governments so that taking detainees unfairly is not seen as a proposition in the modern world. I pay tribute to Foreign Office officials who have worked tirelessly for years to make it happen.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
The daughter of Morad Tahbaz is my constituent. I pay tribute to the Foreign Secretary and her team for all their efforts. Can she assure me that she and her team will continue to work with the US to ensure that he may leave Iran? Can she tell me what being on furlough from prison practically entails?
Elizabeth Truss
The Tahbaz family and I have spoken today. It is a very difficult situation. Morad Tahbaz is of course a tri-national—US, UK and Iranian—and the Iranian Government treat him as being a US national as well as a UK national. We pushed very hard to get Morad out of prison. I spoke to him when he was in prison and he was in appalling conditions. I am pleased to say that I have been in touch today and he is now back at his house—with security in place—with his family in Tehran. We will continue to work to get him back home. We will be working with our allies, including the United States, to make that happen. I am pleased, however, that we have been able to secure his release from prison and his return home in Tehran.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I think we have all been quite emotional today. Tears of joy will, I hope, be cried this evening. To think that Richard Ratcliffe will be able to welcome Nazanin and that she might even put Gabriella to bed or take her to school tomorrow for the first time—what a thought.
We were told for a long time that the £400 million that has been paid as a legitimate debt was not linked. I am glad that it has been paid and that, in any way, it has led to the detainees’ release. That is not an insignificant sum in terms of official development assistance spend, so can the Foreign Secretary assure me that it will not count towards our ODA spend and that it comes on top of other planned spending?
Elizabeth Truss
I can assure the hon. Lady that this comes from the Ministry of Defence. It had a long-standing debt that it has paid, in accordance with the international rules, including ensuring that this money is going to be spent on humanitarian purposes. I am pleased that Richard and Gabriella, who are in the Gallery today, will be able to see Nazanin again this evening. I pay tribute to Richard and Gabriella for their fortitude in such appalling circumstances.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
At a time when we are every day reminded of the amazing resilience of a country, this is a great moment to be reminded of the resilience of individuals and families—in particular the families of the detainees who are coming back this evening. What an amazing achievement by everybody involved! It would be fair also to thank the new Iranian Government for their role in this as well.
Will my right hon. Friend confirm whether there are any lessons that we need to learn about dual nationals and advice given to them in travelling, not just to Iran but to other countries? Will she confirm whether the agreement that she has reached with her Iranian counterpart provides some form of pathway for other British detainees in Iran eventually to return, too?
Elizabeth Truss
Of course we will look, as we always do, to make sure that our travel advice is as good as possible. When I met my Iranian counterpart in September, I was clear that there were key bilateral issues that we needed to resolve, namely the detainee issue and also the IMS issue. Of course, we do not agree with Iran on many topics and we are not naive about the situation in Iran, but we need to absolutely make sure that we are protecting our British nationals. That is my top priority and that is what I will continue to work to do.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
After six years, I can mention Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe in the Chamber and not beg for her release. After eight urgent questions and countless debates, it is a pleasure to finally be standing here and talking about her. This would not have happened without the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for Europe and North America, the right hon. Member for Braintree (James Cleverly). Can I say thank you from the bottom of my heart? Thank you also to all the FCO officials, who I know worked tirelessly to make this happen.
I also want to thank Redress, Gibson Dunn, change.org, Amnesty International and the other organisations and individuals who worked so hard to release Nazanin. On behalf of Richard Ratcliffe, who texted me just before I stood up, I thank all the MPs across the Chamber because, whichever side of the House they are on, everyone worked hard to make sure that Nazanin was released. Whichever party and whichever constituency you represent, thank you—and thank you from Richard Ratcliffe as well. That includes all the MPs who visited Richard when he was on both his hunger strikes. I thank the community—especially in west Hampstead, where Nazanin’s home is—for always coming and supporting us.
Most importantly, I want to pay tribute to my constituent, Richard Ratcliffe, for his relentless campaigning. I also think that he has really set the bar high for all husbands. I say to Nazanin: welcome home, after six long years! I say to Gabriella that, this time, Mummy really is coming home.
I finish by asking the Foreign Secretary—I say once again how very grateful I am to her—whether she can update us a bit more on why Morad Tahbaz was not allowed to leave Iran. He actually lived in my constituency as well when he was in the UK, so I would like to hear an update on that.
Elizabeth Truss
I thank the hon. Lady for her tireless campaigning, and also for her patience in the last 24 hours. She and I have had a number of conversations, and it was only when we heard that the wheels were up in Tehran that we really knew it was happening. I was just extremely concerned to make sure that Nazanin and Anoosheh had really been able to leave Iran, and I am so delighted that we are going to be able to welcome them home today and that the families are going to be able to welcome them home today.
The hon. Lady is absolutely right about Richard and Gabriella, and about the other families who have campaigned so tirelessly, and it has been an incredibly difficult time. She is also right to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe—he is now the Minister for the middle east, Europe and Russia, because he is so talented and gets so much done—who has held countless meetings to make sure this happens, and it has not been an easy process.
On the subject of Morad Tahbaz, the real issue is that he is a tri-national, and that is seen in Iranian eyes as meaning that the US is also involved. We are working very closely with the US, and we have secured his release from prison. Of course, we want to see him come home, and we will continue to work to achieve that with our US partners.
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend, all the team at the Foreign Office and the legal team who I know will have worked extremely hard, and I thank everybody, including hon. Members, for their tireless work. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that, in our adherence to the international rules-based system by paying the debt that it was adjudged we owed to Iran, we shall not waver in our belief that the arbitrary detention of nationals of whatever country is wrong and that we must redouble our efforts if we are to defend effectively the international rules-based system that she and I know is under unprecedented attack?
Elizabeth Truss
My right hon. and learned Friend is right that arbitrary detention is completely wrong. We are stepping up our efforts, together with our G7 colleagues, to work more closely together to challenge that type of behaviour internationally. Over the Ukraine crisis and the abhorrent invasion of Ukraine by Russia, we have seen the international community step up and democratic nations work together. We are determined to address all of those issues, including the issue of arbitrary detention.
Mr Speaker
I now call the person who mentioned this every Thursday, Valerie Vaz.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I start by thanking the Foreign Secretary for all her work and her Minister, who answered all the urgent questions, as well as all the officials at the FCDO throughout the six years? I know my hon. Friends the Members for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) and for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) are delighted to get their constituents back, but there will be none more delighted than the Ratcliffe family—we all met the wider Ratcliffe family during Richard’s hunger strike—and Anoosheh’s family. The birth certificate of Morad Tahbaz, which I have seen, shows that he was born in Hammersmith, so I hope we can make extra efforts for him, but I would also like to ask the Foreign Secretary if she will ensure that Mehran Raoof, even though he may not have asked for help, is not forgotten. Mr Speaker, this was House business, and the House is delighted that Nazanin and Anoosheh are back in the loving arms of their families.
Elizabeth Truss
I thank the right hon. Lady, and I can assure her that every single British national who is unfairly detained overseas is on our minds, and we are working to see them released.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary has rightly received many plaudits for the work that she and her team have done. The people of South Ribble have been writing to me since I was first elected in 2019 urging her and her team to strain every sinew in difficult circumstances. It is not often that they can all go home from work putting such a smile on that little girl’s face. Will the Foreign Secretary join me in saying thank you from South Ribble for their efforts?
Elizabeth Truss
This has been a team effort, and as we have said, we have seen incredible fortitude and stoicism from the families and those detained in Iran themselves, and all of our constituents have of course been so deeply concerned about the terrible plight that Nazanin and her family have faced.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I add my congratulations to the Foreign Secretary for her tenacity and determination in resolving these issues. I hope she shows the same tenacity and determination in her negotiations to resolve the issues affecting Northern Ireland as well. I did not know the families, but I met Nazanin’s husband once outside the Foreign Office when he was conducting his hunger strike. He told me of the ups and downs, with hopes being raised and dashed continually. I am sure that the work done by the Foreign Secretary and her officials has given great help to those families who now have their loved ones released and hope to those still looking forward to having their family members released. I know that she had to link the payment of money to the release of these hostages, but has she any concerns that linking those two things together might send out the wrong signal to criminal regimes across the world who have no hesitation in using humans in this way?
Elizabeth Truss
On the right hon. Gentleman’s first point, I assure him that I will not give up until I have fixed the Northern Ireland protocol. These long-standing issues with Iran have been treated in parallel. I have been clear, and the Government have been clear, that this is legitimate debt that the UK Government should pay. That is right, and that is what we have done. We found a way of doing that despite the various sanctions regimes in place, and we have made sure that it is spent on humanitarian support.
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
It is excellent news that three British nationals have been released from Iranian prisons today. I met Richard Ratcliffe, Nazanin’s husband, several years ago at a reception hosted by you, Mr Speaker, in this place to hear directly of her plight and detention, so I am delighted that she has finally been released and is on her way home. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on all her work. Will she confirm that her Department will continue to support other British nationals in Iran who have asked for our help?
Elizabeth Truss
We will continue to support British nationals in Iran. All the families have been provided with consular support and support from our officials, and I am proud of the support that they have offered. Of course, we will continue to work to ensure that those unfairly detained can return home.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
This is brilliant, excellent news. I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement and congratulate the hon. Members for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) and for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) on the work that they put in. Can she give us any indication of when she expects Morad Tahbaz to be released? Being on furlough is not a satisfactory situation, and he obviously has the right to return to this country, as do others.
The Foreign Secretary mentioned that she cannot name all the dual nationals or British nationals being held. I understand that, but one in particular—Mehran Raoof, a labour rights activist—has been publicly named by Amnesty International and by Redress, and he is apparently on a long-term prison sentence. What efforts are being made to secure his release? In the changed relationship that we now have with Iran—that is welcome—will there be a robust human rights dialogue? Detention of foreign nationals is appalling, but many other human rights issues deserve to be and must be raised with Iran. I hope that this will be the start of a serious dialogue, which hopefully will improve the human rights of everybody.
Elizabeth Truss
On the individual whom the right hon. Gentleman named, I must respect the individual’s request of whether their case should be raised in public. That is why we mention publicly only those individuals who have asked to be named. Of course, we continue to supply support to all British nationals who have been unfairly detained. As I said, there are many issues over which we do not have agreement with Iran, but I will continue to talk to the Iranian Foreign Minister and work with him to ensure that we do resolve issues between us that pertain to the British national interest.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
This news is like sunshine on a rainy day. Congratulations to all involved. Does the Foreign Secretary agree with me that particular tribute needs to be paid to Sayyid Badr and the Omani Government, who are establishing themselves as interlocuters and mediators par excellence in the region? Will she say what assurances she has got that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps will simply not replace Nazanin, Anoosheh and Morad with other dual nationals? Will she reiterate her warnings to dual nationals who may fall within the Iranian jurisdiction that they should tread very carefully indeed?
Elizabeth Truss
Minister Badr and the Omani Government have been incredibly helpful in assisting us with this issue and I want to pay tribute. They flew the detainees out to Muscat. I have been in regular touch with Minister Badr since I first met him in December last year and they have been instrumental in making this happen. They are true friends of the United Kingdom. My right hon. Friend is right in what he says about dual nationals, but fundamentally we need to change the incentives on the system so people can travel freely without fear of unfair detainment.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
May I join other Members in thanking the Foreign Secretary, her officials, my two hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) and for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), and everyone who has brought this wonderful day to pass, made all the sweeter by the smiles we see looking down on us from the Gallery? The Foreign Secretary said that the debt was paid in parallel, but we all know that for the Government of Iran it was always sequential. Given what she said about the work she is doing with other G7 members, including Canada, to try to deal with this, what practical steps is she hoping to secure through that to ensure that in future it is much, much more difficult for Governments to engage in hostage-taking for political purposes?
Elizabeth Truss
The right hon. Gentleman is right that we need to change the practice of countries detaining other countries’ nationals unfairly. That is precisely what we are working on with our Canadian counterparts and others, but we need to act in concert to change the system and change the reactions we give overall. I cannot say more at this stage, but I hope to be able to say more soon.
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
This is a day of great joy and relief, not just for those flying home today but for their families, some of whom it is wonderful to be joined by today, and their wider families, including members of the Zaghari-Ratcliffe family who live in my constituency. I pay huge tribute to all involved, including, of course, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Opposition Members who have done such a tremendous job on behalf of their constituents. There will be many lessons wrongly drawn from this sad episode. Can I suggest to my right hon. Friend that there is one lesson that could be correctly drawn? The fact that these people were imprisoned in Iran is the fault of the Iranian regime. The difficulties that the UK Government have faced repaying the IMS loan are also the fault of the Iranian regime, because they largely relate to sanctions imposed upon the Iranian regime. Is this a lesson of wider application in the world today that if you find yourself subject to international sanctions, you will find that there are long and expensive consequences?
Elizabeth Truss
My right hon. and learned Friend makes a very effective point about sanctions. What we are seeing today in Russia—the fact that the Government of Russia are struggling to finance their appalling war in Ukraine, the fact that people are struggling to secure the goods and services that they have become used to, and that the country is being returned to something akin to the Soviet era—shows that sanctions do work and are effective.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
The joy and relief will be felt by all our constituents who have been fully behind Richard Ratcliffe and the families getting their loved ones home. Given that there has been a solution in plain sight which the Foreign Secretary has been able to use today, does she agree that it should never again take two hunger strikes, the terms of three Prime Ministers, five Foreign Secretaries and five Ministers for the middle east to get a solution for people in this situation in future?
Elizabeth Truss
This is an issue that the Foreign Office has been working on tirelessly for many years. Given that there was a new Government in Tehran last summer, there was an opportunity to reset the relationship and start working on the issues afresh. We took that opportunity, but we were able to do so only because of the tireless work of Foreign Office officials. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright) pointed out, it was not easy to pay the IMS debt in the current scenario. We found a way to do it, and I am very pleased that we have done so.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The plaudits that my right hon. Friend is receiving today are richly deserved, and she and the other Ministers and officials deserve the warm applause of the House. She says that she cannot go into all the details of the humanitarian aid, but can she assure us that it will be humanitarian aid that Iran will spend in-country? The definition of humanitarian aid will change; we know that Mr Putin is calling for allies in the middle east to help him in his “humanitarian” work in Ukraine, and we need to make very certain that these sums are not deployed in that arena.
While I have my right hon. Friend’s attention, as she has a magic wand to solve very long-standing problems, will she now turn her attention to Libya, and to redress for the victims of IRA terrorism in Libyan-sponsored atrocities?
Elizabeth Truss
I can assure my hon. Friend that the definition of humanitarian aid in the agreement is certainly not the definition of humanitarian aid to which Vladimir Putin would subscribe.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
I know the joy that my constituents in Lewisham West and Penge will be feeling at today’s news. I thank the Foreign Secretary for her work.
I had the privilege of meeting Richard Ratcliffe when he was on hunger strike last winter. His dignity, courage and resolve were humbling, but I recall his frustration over delay after delay after delay. A mother and their child should never be separated for all these years. The Foreign Secretary must ensure that lessons are learned so that, as she says, it never happens again. I would be grateful for her comments as to how she intends that to happen.
Elizabeth Truss
We are all very pleased that the families are able to be reunited. In dealing with the issue, on which I have been working since I became Foreign Secretary in September, there are a lot of complexities. There are difficulties in working, given the sanctions regime and given the process that needs to be gone through. Hours and hours have been put into the meetings, the phone calls and getting this right. Right up until the last minute, which came at 1 o’clock this afternoon, it has been touch and go. There is an incredible amount of complexity lying underneath what we have to do and what our counterpart Governments have to do to effect these types of change, but I am very clear that we have some excellent officials who have really done the business on the ground in Tehran.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe and North America on their work in delivering this in short order after such a long period of frustration, as well as those colleagues who have been campaigning for it. Richard Ratcliffe must feel unalloyed joy today that the love that he has shown to his wife has allowed him to campaign through adversity to deliver this day. I therefore pay tribute to him completely.
As people are dying in Ukraine to fight for freedom, we are learning a lesson that surely has application here: when states behave beyond the rule of law, we need to act swiftly and immediately isolate them with sanctions. If the unlawful taking of prisoners in a case like this ever happens again, the west must unite—the whole world must unite—in immediately bringing sanctions against those countries such that the pain they feel outweighs any gain they think they may receive.
Elizabeth Truss
My right hon. Friend is entirely correct. That is why it is so important that the west and the wider free world have stepped up in the Ukraine crisis. For too many years we did not do enough, and blind eyes were turned to some egregious practices. For that reason, as well as working together to impose sanctions on Russia for its appalling actions in Ukraine, we are working together on the issue of unfair detention to ensure that we protect the rules-based system and defend freedom and democracy around the world.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
This is very good news, but it is not the end of the matter. Even if the Foreign Secretary will not discuss individual cases, she will be aware that a number of UK citizens and dual nationals are still being held in Iran, some of whom, for good reasons, will not be as well known as Nazanin. Will she meet the relevant Members of Parliament and the families whose relatives are still detained in Iran, and what leverage does she think she will have now that the debt has been paid?
Elizabeth Truss
Of course I will continue to meet the families of detained individuals, and I will continue to work to get those people released from unfair detention.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary is to be commended for achieving this joyous outcome, but will she join me in commending the thousands of ordinary people across the United Kingdom who do not know Nazanin or Richard or Anoosheh personally but have stood firmly with them throughout all these years, and have kept us MPs honest by pursuing us relentlessly, urging us to raise the issue in Parliament and engage with Richard in his hunger strikes and other efforts? Does that not show that it is always worthwhile for members of the public to engage with an issue, however complex that issue may be?
Elizabeth Truss
This issue has touched the hearts of the British public, as we all know from what we have received in our postbags. Who could fail to be moved by the courage and tenacity shown by the families, but also by the suffering that has been undergone by those who have been unfairly detained and those who have been separated from them for so many years? It is clear from the offers of homes for Ukrainian refugees that the British public are big-hearted, and want to see our citizens thrive and to see these families reunited.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
May I add my congratulations and thanks to the Foreign Secretary and her team, and in particular to my hon. Friends for their tireless campaign and to Mr Ratcliffe, whom I have met on several occasions in difficult circumstances?
We know that Iran is a difficult and multi-layered country with which to have dealings. Moving beyond today’s announcements, may I ask whether there is any hope that it might progress towards a more accommodating arrangement with the rest of the world, and that we might be able perhaps not to normalise but slightly to improve relations in the long run?
Elizabeth Truss
In resolving the issue of the IMS debt and resolving the issue of these particular unfairly detained people, we have dealt with two of the major issues facing the UK and Iran. Of course we have very large concerns about the possibility of Iran’s acquiring a nuclear weapon, and we are currently working with partners to prevent that from happening, because we know where it can lead when a nuclear state poses a danger to the world. That is our focus: working with partners, and, of course, engaging directly with the Iranian Government, as I have done.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
May I, too, thank the Foreign Secretary, and also her predecessors, who have been badgered for many years, and particularly for the last six? I am so pleased that she made this one of her priorities. May I also pay tribute to the families of Anoosheh and Nazanin, especially Richard Ratcliffe and the family, whom I met outside the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office during the hunger strike?
Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking the British negotiating team in Tehran, who have been working so hard to get the three British citizens released, and may I ask whether she thinks that this is the beginning of a new relationship with Iran for the long term?
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is right to pay tribute to the family, to Richard Ratcliffe for all his campaigning work and to our negotiating team, who have worked day in, day out, including in Tehran and Muscat, to get this done—that has been really important.
The future of Iran is a choice for the Iranian Government. We do not want to see Iran acquire a nuclear weapon; we want to see a world in which Iran plays a more positive role. Of course, we will work to encourage a more positive trajectory.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for her welcome words on arbitrary detention, which go to the heart of it. Of course, arbitrary detention is not the sole preserve of Iran. It is also a common practice in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, where it is reported that there were a further three executions today while the Prime Minister was in the country. Can the Foreign Secretary give me some assurance that we will pursue the issue of arbitrary detention and other human rights abuses with equal vigour wherever we find them?
Elizabeth Truss
We approach our relations with all countries without fear or favour. We are prepared to be honest with countries about human rights practices, which is exactly what the Prime Minister has been doing on his visit. It is important that we engage with Saudi Arabia. We have a major issue, as everyone in this House knows, with a very aggressive Russia threatening European and, indeed, global security, and we need to work with other countries to find alternative sources of oil and gas. It is important that we deal with everybody.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
Today is a day of celebration, albeit tempered by the recollection of the suffering endured by Nazanin, Anoosheh, Morad and their families over a long period. Some people may be concerned about the parallel payment of almost £400 million, so will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that this money was legitimately owed to Iran and that nobody should be under any misapprehension that this Government would pay ransoms for people who are illegally detained anywhere in the world?
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is right. We have always been clear that this is legitimately owed money that the UK should pay. Due to the complexities, this has been a difficult issue. We have been challenging in looking at ways to pay the money, ensuring of course that it is spent on humanitarian purposes—that has been critical. We have found a solution to resolve that issue.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Like other hon. Members, I am truly delighted at the release of Anoosheh and Nazanin. I pay tribute to Richard, who has been a tower of strength in this whole unfortunate saga. I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on her role, and I congratulate her creative civil servants who found a way to repay this historical loan.
As we often say, where there is a will there is a way. That has certainly proved to be the case, but may I ask about the role of the Government of Oman? I understand from the Foreign Secretary that the Government of Oman played a very positive role, but has the role been such that the money was transferred to Iran via Oman’s central bank?
Elizabeth Truss
Our Omani friends have been extremely helpful in working with us to help transport the detainees between Tehran and the United Kingdom, and in working with us on some of the practical arrangements. We have, of course, also had direct contact with the Iranian Government, but the partnership with Oman has been truly successful in helping this to happen.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on her work to secure the safe release and return of Nazanin. Iran’s malign influence remains a threat to British interests in the middle east and to the interests of our allies, most notably Israel. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that any new agreement on Iran’s nuclear weapons programme prevents it from acquiring nuclear weapons?
Elizabeth Truss
It is correct that we have very strong concerns about Iran’s ability to acquire a nuclear weapon. That is why we have been working so closely with our allies, through the joint comprehensive plan of action, to get a new deal to stop that acquisition. That is vital. We want Iran to take a different path—a better path. That comes through a combination of being absolutely clear what the penalties are—the sanctions—and having a positive choice that Iran can make about its future.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I warmly commend the Foreign Secretary and all her team, both ministerial and her officials, on this result. Apricity means the feeling of the sun on one’s face in winter, and I am sure that for Gabriella and for Richard today is a day of apricity, with sun on their faces in a time of winter. However, authoritarian regimes such as those of Iran and Russia do two things very similarly; arbitrary detention, which the Foreign Secretary has already spoken about; and pumping their propaganda around the world, through state-funded broadcasters. In Iran’s case, that is Press TV—thank goodness it has not got a licence here any longer. Anyone who has taken money from Press TV should be giving it back. Should exactly the same not apply to Russia Today? Is it not time RT was closed down, so that we stopped hearing the propaganda from Russia about Ukraine? Shouldn’t everyone who has taken money from RT give it back or give it to Ukrainian refugee support?
Elizabeth Truss
The hon. Gentleman is right about state-funded propaganda and the fact that we do not see a free media in many parts of the world. In some cases, social media is breaking that up; we have seen some of that in Russia, although it is now being cracked down upon. That is one reason why the Government have established the information unit: to help give the Russian people the truth about what is happening in their own country. I know that my right hon. Friend the Culture Secretary is looking at precisely the issue he talks about and I am sure she will be listening carefully to his question today.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
This is the most joyous of days for this House and the country, and for a family who have missed Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, a wife, a mum, a daughter and a sister-in-law. In Newport West, this case is personal, because Richard Ratcliffe’s sister, Rebecca Jones, is a constituent of mine, and I have watched in awe as she fought to get Nazanin home, alongside the rest of the family. I say to the Minister that for all the joy today, a case like this must never happen again. So will she ensure that lessons are learned so that no other family has to go through such a dreadful separation from a loved one in the future?
Elizabeth Truss
I congratulate the hon. Lady’s constituent on the work she has done to campaign for Nazanin’s release. The hon. Lady is right: we cannot let this happen again. This needs to be about what we do as the United Kingdom and how we work with our international allies to make sure that there are not incentives in place for these regimes to carry out arbitrary detention.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
It is right and proper that the House congratulates the Foreign Secretary and the ministerial team on delivering on real diplomatic action—it is great to see. We congratulate the hon. Members for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) and for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) on a job well done as parliamentary representatives; it is a great honour to sit in any Parliament and that is the job of an MP. We also congratulate the families, who are watching. I was interested to hear the Foreign Secretary talk about arbitrary detention and how we can work with other countries to ensure that not only dual nationals or tri nationals, but full UK nationals are not arbitrarily detained, no matter our friendships with countries. Further to the point raised, I believe, by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), who is no longer in their place, the Foreign Secretary said that they would be meeting families who are detained. In that spirit of collaboration and working together, will the Foreign Secretary consider meeting me and the family of Jagtar Singh Johal to understand the issue of arbitrary detention for other states? It would be a most welcome deliberation for the future.
Elizabeth Truss
As I said, I have raised this specific case, but I would be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss it further.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
The American academic Margaret Mead famously said:
“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.”
So well done to the Foreign Secretary, her Ministers and her Department, and to my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) and for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), whose work on this has been indefatigable. I do not want to strike a discordant note, but in relation to what the shadow Foreign Secretary, the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) have said about this deal, I think all of us in Parliament would be happier if there had been some briefing and scrutiny, even on Privy Council terms.
Elizabeth Truss
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. We do have an arrangement, and it was part of the very careful negotiations that have taken place over the past six months that this deal would be kept confidential. We have the humanitarian assurances on the IMF front and I will see what I can do within the bounds of that. However, the United Kingdom is a country that keeps its word and we have given our word to keep this confidential.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
This is a good day. The release of Nazanin and Anoosheh is extremely welcome news, and I thank the Foreign Secretary and her officials. I pay tribute to the families for their bravery, courage and resilience. I did not want to have to see Richard go on a third hunger strike. Given the length of time they were detained, and the fact that other dual nationals continue to be detained in Iran, how will the Foreign Secretary ensure that the Government learn lessons from these cases, including in relation to the provision of consular services for UK nationals and their families more generally?
Elizabeth Truss
We have seen some very good consular services in these and other cases. The lesson to be learned is the broader lesson about arbitrary detention and how we work with our allies and partners to stop it. I will update the House on the progress of the arbitrary detention work that we are undertaking with the Canadians. We first discussed this back in November at the NATO Foreign Ministers summit, we discussed it again at the G7 meeting, and we are making some real progress, so I would be happy to have further discussions in due course.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier today, I asked the Deputy Prime Minister whether the Prime Minister had ever asked anyone to urge the security services to revise, reconsider or withdraw their assessment of Lord Lebedev of Hampton and Siberia. He replied that the suggestion was “sheer nonsense”. But this afternoon the Prime Minister’s former chief adviser has stated in writing that the Prime Minister was told that the intelligence services had “serious reservations” but “cut a deal” to provide the Commission with a “sanitised” version of the advice. The ministerial code requires Ministers to correct the record if they inadvertently mislead the House, as the former Downing Street chief of staff has alleged. So can you tell me, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether you have had any notice from the Deputy Prime Minister that he intends to come to the House to correct the record, and if not, can you advise me about how the House can get to the truth of this very serious issue?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her point of order and for giving me notice of it. As she will know, the Speaker is not responsible for ministerial answers. She is quite correct that the ministerial code requires Ministers to correct any inadvertent errors. Those on the Government Front Bench—I am looking to the Whip and to the Ministers—will have heard her comments, and if an error has been made in this instance, I hope that it will be corrected speedily. Of course the Minister concerned may take the view that there is no inaccuracy. I am quite certain that the right hon. Lady will find ways to pursue the matter in any event.
Cost of Living Increases
(2 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House warns that households will soon be suffering the worst income squeeze since the 1970s; notes The Institute for Fiscal Studies analysis that households are on course to be £800 worse off; calls on the Government to scrap VAT on energy bills, implement a windfall tax on companies which are benefitting from significantly increased profits as a result of impacts associated with the covid-19 pandemic or the current international situation, and to scrap the energy bill rebate scheme and introduce immediate emergency cash payments for households.
A phrase said to me many years ago has stuck with me, and I believe it is true for this debate on the cost of living crisis: “Poverty is a punishment for a crime you didn’t commit.” For so many people now—in Aberdeen, Scotland and across the United Kingdom—there is a real feeling of helplessness, hopelessness and powerlessness at the situation before them. Their food, fuel and energy prices are soaring, as is the price of their children’s clothes; no matter which way they turn they cannot escape the grim reality of the situation before them.
This issue cuts across all sectors of society. Just yesterday at the Dispatch Box the Chancellor was extolling the virtues of the employment figures going up. That is of course good—everyone irrespective of political party would welcome it—but he did not address the fact that for those in work, energy prices will be some 14 times what their pay rise might be; he did not even acknowledge that that was a fact. Furthermore, he did not address, let alone reflect on or apologise for, the fact that, just a matter of months ago, he took some £20 of universal credit out of the pockets of those who are not in work and are reliant on the state for social security to get by day to day.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
On deductions by the state, it is not just the £20 uplift but the fact that hundreds of thousands of people across these islands have £60 taken off them every month in Department for Work and Pensions deductions, some of them advances and some of them so-called tax credit overpayments.
Stephen Flynn
Absolutely; my hon. Friend is a doughty champion on these causes and makes his point extremely well, and it would be remiss of the Government not to listen to him. He is right to touch on that, as we all are right to touch on the cost of living crisis, because it is a crisis: it is a crisis for households up and down the country.
What we need from the Government in a time of crisis is a response. We need them to take action to improve people’s lives—to protect them, and to insulate them from what is coming down the road—but, sadly, they have been completely lacking in that regard. I am sure that in their hearts of hearts many Conservative Back Benchers—although just a few are present today—recognise that the Government can and must go further, because all we have seen at this stage, despite the exponential increase in the price cap, which could well reach about £3,000 a year by the autumn, is £150 towards a council tax rebate.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the price cap, but even before that consumers across the country are facing massive increases in the standing charges, something for which there should be no link to the cost of energy. It is reported that this is because we are having to fund the supplier of last resort as a consequence of the failure of the small energy companies; does the hon. Gentleman share my sense that it is wrong to expect consumers to pick up the tab for what is essentially a regulatory failure?
Stephen Flynn
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention and he is absolutely right. The Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change is present and I am sure he will address those remarks if he comes to the Dispatch Box later, as I see that he will.
It is not just the money towards the council tax rebate that the Government have put forward, of course, because they have gone so much further: they have given people a buy-back loan for their energy bills—buy now, pay later. That is the best they can do in this time of crisis, and of course that was predicated on the basis that energy prices would reduce over time but the situation has changed and many experts and analysts now suggest that is not going to happen. So the Government need to get real on this matter.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is making a point about energy price increases, which will be devastating for many families, but people who live in off-gas-grid areas will be crucified by the price increases, because they rely on bottled gas, oil or wood, all of which are going up in price, and they are of course currently using more of that expensive energy. Does my hon. Friend agree that this Government need to take action now to adopt regulation for people who live off the gas grid, so that they are treated more fairly and before there is a crisis for rural communities?
Stephen Flynn
Absolutely—I could not agree more wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend on that. He makes an extremely important point, which he has been making for many months, and it is time the Government listened and took action in that regard.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Would the spokesman and his party now agree that we need to get a lot more gas and oil out of the North sea, which would generate tax revenue that the Treasury could use to ease the squeeze, instead of paying huge sums of money to Qatar and Russia for liquefied natural gas?
Stephen Flynn
The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. Of course, he will be cognisant of the fact that when the oil and gas comes out of the ground it goes into the hands of multinational countries. Do we want to be in a situation in which that gas benefits us here, rather than those abroad? Absolutely. Should we be importing from Russia? Absolutely not, and the Government have been right to take action on that. Nevertheless, what I want to see from his Government, which he should want too, is a turbocharging of investment in renewables. When are they going to come forward with their energy security strategy? I have heard talk about it in the paper, but there has been no clarity whatsoever. I shall come back to that later in my speech.
John Redwood
Most of my constituents still have gas boilers. Renewables will work one day, but the immediate crisis is that we are short of gas. Do we have our own or do we have foreign gas? If we have our own, we get tax revenue.
Stephen Flynn
It is interesting to hear that we are short of gas when I regularly hear the opposite from the Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change. That is the important point: Government Members can try to disagree with their own Government on these matters, but in real terms we are self-sufficient. Scotland is self-sufficient when it comes to oil and gas, but we can and must go so much further on renewables. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to hang around, he will hear me speak about that in due course.
Drew Hendry
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for generously giving way again. Is it not the case that Scotland, which is a net exporter of energy—I think we produce around 153% of our needs over the course of a year—would have been able to do much, much more had this Government not stood in the face of more cheap, reliable and green renewable energy by standing for many years against allowing solar and onshore wind power when it came to the contracts for difference? We could have been much further ahead. Is it not now this Government’s responsibility to help people with the cost of living crisis, which they and the energy price increase have caused?
Stephen Flynn
Yes, absolutely. The reason why we are in the current situation is that the Government have not planned ahead. They have chosen to sit on their seat when they should have been looking to where we could go in future. I hope the Minister will address that point when he sums up the debate.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
As my hon. Friend knows, when the price of oil goes up, the tax yield to the UK Exchequer is increased; when the price of a gallon of petrol goes up, there is extra duty for the UK Exchequer; and when the price of domestic bills goes up across the board, there is additional VAT for the UK Exchequer. Does he not find it passing strange that Tory Back Benchers are not calling for the additional tax yield that the UK Government already have to be used to reduce the cost of domestic bills?
Stephen Flynn
Absolutely. As I understand it, the Treasury currently believes it is going to take in excess of £3 billion in relation to oil and gas in particular. Every single pound and penny of that £3 billion should be directed towards the provision of support for families up and down the country.
It is on that support that I wish to briefly reflect. We know the Government have gone nowhere near far enough in terms of their support for households up and down the country. What can they do? What should they be doing? We know that they should be scrapping VAT on energy bills. We know that they should be reversing the national insurance price hike—a tax that will impact not just households, but businesses, too. We know that they need to turn those loans that they have forced on people into grants, and we know that they need to overturn that £20 cut to those on universal credit. People need help, and they need help now. The Chancellor cannot continue to stand still as if nothing at all is happening.
When we discuss these things, the Conservatives often say, “Well, what are you doing? What are the Scottish Government doing?” Without getting into the technicalities of who has powers over law and where resources lie, because, of course, we know that those are the responsibility of the UK Government, it is worthwhile reflecting on what we in Scotland are doing differently to what this UK Government are doing.
We are, of course, in the middle of a fuel crisis, but an older or younger person living in Scotland can hop on the bus for free. A person in Scotland who is struggling with their health can rest assured that they will continue to get free prescriptions. A family worried about how they will feed their wee bairn will know that there are funded hours in nurseries where they will be fed, and that when they go to primary school, they will receive free school meals. With the limited welfare powers that the Scottish Parliament has, the Scottish Government not only introduced the game-changing £10 Scottish child payment, but are doubling it in a matter of weeks to £20 a week. Those are huge differences in policy objectives and intentions, and they are designed to assist people. Yet, at the very same time, we still have the dead hand of Westminster above us, forcing us to spend some £600 million each and every year just to mitigate its policies, such as the bedroom tax. We can and should be able to do so much more, but we are held back by this UK Government and their complete intransigence.
Another question that this Government rightly ask is: “You have quite a wish list there, how do you fund it?” That question is justifiable, which is why we have come forward today not just with problems—problems that we are all aware of irrespective of party—but with solutions, too. Is it right that Serco, Amazon, Netflix and Asos are able to benefit from the pandemic to the tune of billions of pounds because of the way that people’s habits have changed and because of the contracts that they have received from the Government while our constituents are struggling? Absolutely not; it is not right at all. That is why we are calling for a broad windfall tax—one that takes into account the changing landscape in the UK and globally so that we can respond to it to provide people with the support that they so badly need, and which is so badly overdue.
I accept—I think everyone in this Chamber accepts—that, ultimately, such a mechanism is for today; it is not necessarily for tomorrow. What do we do next year? What do we do the year after that? That takes me back to the point that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) stumbled into earlier in relation to renewables. We are very much in this mess not just because of Brexit, not just because of the pandemic, but because of the energy policies, over decades, of this UK Government. What they need to do is come forward with a clear and concise plan as to how they intend to turbocharge renewables: hydrogen; hydro pump energy storage; onshore wind; offshore wind; solar; and tidal. Scotland has the resources. Scotland has the ability to deliver that energy security not just for people living in Scotland, not just for people living in the rest of the UK, but for our friends and allies in Europe who need that energy security now more than ever. We need the Government to come forward with that plan and to do so now.
Finally, as I said earlier, food prices and fuel prices are soaring. When will the UK Chancellor finally set down his silver spoon, pick up his cheque book, and deliver the support and security that people so badly need?
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Helen Whately)
It is an honour to take part in this debate on behalf of the Government. Let me begin by reassuring the House that we in Government recognise the challenges that many households, including of course in Scotland, face with the cost of living. That is one reason why we have provided support worth over £20 billion across this financial year and next; why we are cutting the universal credit taper rate and increasing work allowances to make sure that work pays; why we are freezing fuel and alcohol duties to keep costs down; and why, last month, we announced a £9.1 billion package to help households with rising energy bills.
Given the many steps that we have taken to protect jobs and livelihoods over the last two years, no one can reasonably accuse this Government of failing to act. There was £400 billion of direct support to the economy during the pandemic, including for the furlough scheme, which protected literally millions of jobs. As our focus turns to the economic recovery, we are allocating £600 billion to gross public sector investment over this Parliament, growing the economy, and improving the lives of people up and down the country. That, as much as anything, is the story here. We have supported people, we are supporting people, and we will continue to support people. We are also determined to create the conditions, Union-wide, for them to thrive.
As the global economy has reopened following the disruption of the pandemic, inflation has risen around the world. Global energy prices have increased as factories have scaled production back up, and there is increasing demand, while supply has been disrupted. There has been a further sharp rise in global energy prices following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Goods prices have also risen, with global supply chains struggling to meet demand as the world economy recovers. These global factors are the main drivers of higher inflation in the UK.
In that context, we understand that some households, particularly those that are vulnerable, need support with the cost of energy. We have introduced measures to provide exactly that. For instance, the winter fuel payment provides older people with £200 towards their energy bills; it is £300 for those over 80. There are also cold weather payments. Together, those measures provided almost £2.5 billion in support to households last winter. This year, we are increasing the generosity of the warm home discount, and expanding its reach to 3 million households.
The motion mentions VAT on energy bills. Domestic fuels such as gas and electricity are already subject to a reduced VAT rate of 5%, but as the Chancellor told the House in February, a further cut to VAT on energy would disproportionately benefit wealthier households. There would also be no guarantee that suppliers would pass on any reduction to all customers, and the cut would become a permanent subsidy, worth £2.5 billion every year, at a time when we are trying to rebuild the public finances.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
The Minister talks about helping people. How would she categorise the increase to national insurance contributions?
Helen Whately
I just mentioned the importance of rebuilding the public finances. We know that the NHS is the No. 1 priority for the general public; it is vital that we reduce the backlogs that sadly built up during the pandemic, and that needs to be paid for.
To come back to the motion, last month we announced an additional package of support to help households with rising energy bills, worth £9.1 billion—a package that, according to the motion, the Scottish National party wants to scrap. Our package to help people includes a £200 reduction in household energy bills this autumn that will be paid back automatically over the next five years, and a £150 non-repayable council tax rebate payment for all households in council tax bands A to D in England, plus £144 million of discretionary funding for local authorities in England to support households who need support but are not eligible for that council tax rebate. As we cannot apply these council tax measures across the whole of the UK, the devolved Administrations are receiving almost £600 million through the Barnett formula. This overall approach is fiscally responsible while helping customers to manage the unprecedented increase in energy bills and helping to spread the increased cost of global prices over time.
Stewart Hosie
The Minister mentioned global prices and I was rather struck that she sounded like Gordon Brown saying that it was always someone else’s fault. It is absolutely true to say that there are global pressures causing inflation, but while some countries are capping their electricity price increases at 5%, we are allowing 50%-plus increases in domestic energy prices. For all the big numbers that she has read out, does she not understand that people cannot afford to heat their homes?
Helen Whately
We have the price cap in this country, which means that customers have been protected from the volatility in global energy prices over recent months. At the moment there is further volatility following the impact on those prices of Russia invading Ukraine, but that is not going to hit the vast majority of households’ energy bills over the coming months. We will have to get to October to see the implications of that. What we have done—as I have just mentioned; I am sorry if the right hon. Gentleman was not listening—is put in place a support package worth £9.1 billion particularly to help those who will find it more challenging to pay their bills.
John Redwood
Over the last year, the economy has grown a lot faster because the Treasury did not hike tax rates but instead went for growth. That was a great policy, so why reverse it? Is there not a danger that these tax rises and massive increases in energy prices will slow the economy down too much? If that happens, the Government will have a revenue problem.
Helen Whately
If my right hon. Friend will give me a little time, I will come on to the importance of growth to our economy, which is the right answer for the longer term in ensuring that we improve people’s standard of living.
Pressures on household finances are not generally the consequence of one single price rise; they are typically affected by an amalgam of different factors. Remedying the pressure on households therefore requires taking action on a range of fronts, not just on energy bills. Again and again, that is what this Government have done and are doing. We are acting in dozens of ways to support working families. For instance, over the winter, the £500 million household support fund has helped vulnerable households with the cost of essentials such as food, clothing and utilities. Local authorities in England have allocated the lion’s share of that funding to ensuring that it reached those who needed it most, with 50% ring-fenced for households with children. Additional funding was allocated to the devolved Administrations, including the Scottish Government, in the usual way.
We have also reduced the universal credit taper rate and increased universal credit work allowances by £500 to ensure that work pays. This is essentially a £2 billion tax cut for the lowest paid in society. It is helping around 2 million households to keep an average of an extra £1,000 per annum in their pocket. Next month, the national living wage is increasing by 6.6% to £9.50 an hour, again benefiting more than 2 million workers and meaning an increase of over £1,000 in the annual earnings of a full-time worker on the national living wage. And we are committed to going further, so the national living wage will reach two thirds of median earnings for those over 21 by 2024, provided that economic conditions allow. We have supported working families in other ways too: doubling free childcare for eligible parents, which is worth around £5,000 per child every year, and introducing tax-free childcare, which will provide working parents with 20% support on childcare costs up to £10,000.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for what she is saying, and I welcome the £400 million that is going to Northern Ireland under the Barnett consequentials. The Republic of Ireland has suspended VAT on fuel in the short term to try to address the issue now. Can I ask the Minister whether any discussions have taken place with the Chancellor to see whether that could be done for us here in this great United Kingdom?
Helen Whately
I am not sure I heard exactly the specifics of the hon. Gentleman’s question, but in general there is already a lower VAT rate on fuel. Overall, however, if the question is whether we should have no VAT on fuel, the Chancellor has spoken about how that would in fact disproportionately benefit wealthier households, so it simply cannot be the right thing to do when it is the less wealthy households who face the greatest challenges in paying their energy bills.
The list of what we are doing in many different ways to help households goes on and on. Increasing fuel prices are indeed a global issue, not unique to the UK. The price of crude oil has increased sharply over the past year, increasing the price consumers pay at the pump. That is why we have taken action by freezing fuel duty; drivers are being protected by the 12th consecutive year of fuel duty freezes, with the average car driver paying around £15 less fuel duty per tank, saving them a cumulative £1,900 since 2011 compared with the pre-2010 fuel escalator.
On housing, the Government are maintaining the increase to local housing allowance rates for private renters on universal credit and housing benefit in cash terms. That increase was worth an extra £600 on average in 2020-21 for more than 1.5 million households. An additional £140 million has been provided this year for discretionary housing payments for those eligible for housing support who need extra help. All that is on top of existing support for families through the welfare system, which this year will add up to £240 billion of support, including £41 billion on universal credit and £105 billion through the state pension.
Turning specifically to Scotland, on top of our energy bill support scheme, which applies there, the council tax measure in England means the Scottish Government are receiving almost £300 million more than would otherwise be the case, which they can use towards cost of living interventions.
This Government will always do what we can to help those in need, and our actions speak for themselves, but we are also determined to help people to help themselves. The Government’s plan for jobs is helping people into work and giving them the skills they need to progress and earn more, which is the best approach to raising living standards. The Government are building on the success of the plan for jobs with a total of £6 billion on labour market support for the three years to 2024-25, providing targeted additional support to help at-risk groups find work, including younger and older age groups, the long-term unemployed and people with disabilities.
Why are we doing that? Because we know that work is the best way for people to get on, to improve their lives and support their families, and because households on universal credit are at least £6,000 a year better off in full-time work than out of work.
Stephen Flynn
I mentioned earlier, and indeed the Minister will be aware, that energy prices for households are rising 14 times faster than any pay rise they may receive if they happen to be in work. What does she say to that? How is that a good thing for consumers?
Helen Whately
As I was outlining—I do hope the hon. Gentleman was listening—we have put multiple interventions in place to support people with the rising cost of living. Specifically on energy prices, on the one hand we have the price cap and on the other, the package of £9 billion in support announced literally last month, which his motion says he would like to scrap.
On top of everything we are doing to help people with the cost of living, we are helping people to help themselves through our plan for jobs, and that plan is working. The UK was the fastest-growing economy in the G7 last year, and the International Monetary Fund forecast, produced before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, was for us to be the fastest-growing major advanced economy again this year. Unemployment has now fallen to 3.9%, below its pre-pandemic rate, and payrolled employees are at a record high.
Helen Whately
I will give way, because I am about to move on to talk about energy.
Matt Rodda
The Minister is obviously covering a range of issues, both employment and the cost of living for households. As the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) mentioned, is now perhaps the right time to look again at the national insurance rise, given the pressure on families and the stalling rate of growth?
Helen Whately
The Chancellor has already been asked about this, and the fact is that we have taken the difficult, fiscally responsible decision to ensure that there is a long-term funding stream, both to support the NHS to tackle backlogs and to fund the cost of social care reform. That has to be the right thing to do, going hand in hand with our determination to invest in growth in this country, which I will come to in a moment.
I will just talk for a moment more about energy. We have talked about the support for people’s energy bills, but the best way to support people with the cost of energy is to tackle the problem at source and reduce the overall cost of energy in the UK, as well as reducing demand for energy, and we have already taken steps to do that. Our investment in renewables in recent years has already reduced our dependency on gas, meaning overall that bills are now materially lower than they would have been.
Looking ahead, now is the time for us to go full steam ahead with our transition to renewables. We are investing in nuclear. We are accelerating our progress on renewables, in which Scotland plays an important part, and we are boosting energy efficiency, investing more than £6 billion in energy efficiency measures over this Parliament, including £3 billion to install energy efficiency measures in low-income homes. That will save low-income households hundreds of pounds a year off their energy bill, as well as being a fabulous growth opportunity for our economy.
The motion we are debating today specifically mentions implementing a windfall tax
“on companies which are benefitting from significantly increased profits as a result of impacts associated with the covid-19 pandemic or the current international situation”.
I am sure that SNP Members are talking about a windfall tax on North sea oil and gas. I say to them, and in particular the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), that North sea oil and gas are important to our energy transition.
The UK Government place additional taxes on the extraction of oil and gas, with companies engaged in the production of oil and gas on the UK continental shelf subject to headline tax rates on their profits that are currently more than double those paid by other businesses. To date, the sector has paid more than £375 billion in production taxes. Those of us on the Government side of the House support the North sea oil and gas sector and its role in our energy security and our energy transition.
This Government have consistently acted whenever and however necessary to support families and businesses. It is our responsibility on their behalf to protect the public finances. Our level of debt means we are and have been vulnerable to shocks, including changes in interest rates and inflation. A sustained one percentage point increase in interest rates and inflation would cost more than £22 billion by 2026-27. Events in Ukraine are a clear reminder that there will always be the risk of further economic bumps in the road, and we must be ready. To that end, as we come out of the pandemic, we must focus even more on boosting productivity, growth and investment across the whole UK.
We are focused specifically on the three priorities that the Chancellor outlined in his recent Mais lecture: capital, people and ideas. That will help us foster a new culture of enterprise and drive growth. The Government continue to support business through the temporary super deduction to encourage firms to invest in productivity-enhancing plant and machinery assets. We are committing to unprecedented levels of investment in ideas: increasing investment in research and development to £22 billion a year, reforming and improving our tax credit system, improving access to finance, and helping small businesses through our flagship Help to Grow programme. The £4.8 billion levelling up fund will invest in infrastructure that improves everyday life across the UK, while the £2.6 billion shared prosperity fund will support our wider commitment to level up all parts of the UK. In these cases, we have public investment crowding in private sector investment, which is what will drive the growth of our economy. The spending review also confirmed a total of £100 billion of investment in economic infrastructure over the spending review period. Together, that adds up to an extraordinary, and extraordinarily ambitious, programme of investment in the UK.
The Government understand that this is a challenging time for British households, including in Scotland. That is exactly why we have acted in dozens of ways on multiple fronts for the entire United Kingdom, but it is also why we are looking to the future, focusing on our economic recovery, on growth and on skills—elements that together will raise the living standards of millions of people all across the Union.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
I am pleased that we are debating this important topic and I thank the SNP for bringing it to the Chamber again. Opposition parties have held a number of debates on the cost of living, which is critical for every part of the country.
The cost of living crisis really matters because millions of families across the UK face the hardship of not knowing whether they will be able to pay their bills. That worry plagued many when we spoke at the Dispatch Box on the topic in January, but in the interim, the Government have done close to zero to help. Listening to the Minister, everything in the country seems to be okay, but all her words will be no consolation to those who have to make the difficult decision about whether to heat or eat. That is the biggest single indictment of the Government to date.
In the intervening period, we have of course seen the most awful, barbaric and illegal invasion of Ukraine, which has not helped and has led to higher prices in many areas as a consequence. Yesterday, the Office for National Statistics revealed that average earnings fell 1% in the three months to January, which is the biggest fall in earnings in a decade. It is against that backdrop that working people face this crisis.
Although the Government may seek to convince people that the crisis is entirely the result of the war in Europe, the reality is that it long predates the Russian invasion. Let us be crystal clear with the public: the cost of living crisis for my constituents and every constituent across the country was with us in spades before Ukraine. One of my constituents described the crisis as “everything going up” but his wages; energy bills are due to skyrocket next month with the lifting of the energy price cap and there might be much more to come later this year.
Matt Rodda
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point that a lot of the pressure on families predates the current crisis by some months. There are an enormous number of food banks across the whole of the UK—in Scotland and England—and my experience of working with constituents and those hard-working charities is that there is an enormous need out there that predates the crisis in Ukraine. I hope that the Government will listen to that point.
Ian Murray
My hon. Friend raises a critical point and we have to keep dragging the Government back to their responsibilities as a result of being in power. Much of the crisis in our public services, including the NHS and social care, also predates covid but the Government keep telling us that perhaps that is not the case.
Inflation hit 5.5% in January and is expected to rise even further. Scots are facing the prospect of council tax, water bills and train fares rising while wages, as I have said, are falling in real terms. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Conservative party failed to back the fully costed plans of the shadow Chancellor, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), to tax the oil and gas companies’ excess profits to reduce people’s energy bills. Instead, the Chancellor’s response to the crisis has been to make matters worse, not better. We have already heard about the buy now, pay later scheme using taxpayers’ money to lend money back to taxpayers via the energy companies that they will have to pay back on future bills. That is not helping; that is deferring the problem.
The Government have refused to exempt VAT on skyrocketing energy bills, which was supposed to be one of the much-vaunted Brexit dividends.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
When the Minister winds up the debate, I wonder whether he will address the point that, as the hon. Gentleman rightly alludes to, part of the energy cost is pre-Ukraine. We left the European Union and its single energy market, which is detrimental to the rest of the UK.
Ian Murray
Those are some of the consequences that we start to see when the chickens come home to roost.
When the Minister responds, perhaps he can also clarify the Government’s policy on VAT on energy bills, because VAT is one of the most regressive taxes. By removing VAT on energy bills, the Government would remove a regressive tax that affects the poorest the most. I understand that if they remove the VAT, they help everyone, but perhaps it could be done temporarily and perhaps the £2.5 billion-plus, and increasing, that is taken from VAT on energy bills could be diverted to those who are required to pay higher energy costs.
There will be the largest tax burden since the 1950s, which is astonishing for a Conservative Government, and a more than 10% increase in national insurance, not just for working people but for businesses. We have a Conservative Chancellor who is high tax and the highest-taxing Chancellor in more than 70 years.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Do I understand rightly that Labour’s fully costed windfall tax on the energy companies is opposed by both governing parties in Scotland?
Ian Murray
It certainly is. To correct the Minister—I hope it is not the third time already; I am on only the second page of my speech—she assumed that the SNP motion backed a windfall tax on oil and gas, but it is actually the opposite. The motion is not to back a windfall tax on oil and gas, but to back a windfall tax on everything but oil and gas—maybe the SNP can clarify that later.
This Chancellor is also presiding over the largest hit to disposable income since the second world war. How are any of those policies helping, alongside, as we have already heard, the largest ever overnight reduction in support for the poorest households through the reduction in universal credit and the scrapping of the triple lock for pensioners? They are making people poorer and taking more money out of their pockets at a time when everything is going up—a cocktail of Government decisions that mean the discussions around the dinner table for many families are about the worry of paying the rent, the mortgage or the energy bill or for the weekly shop or to fill the car they need for work.
Families face a perfect storm of the Government’s own making: rising taxes, rising bills and rising inflation, and lower wages in real terms. This is all the result of over a decade of Conservative mismanagement of the economy. They like to think they have been in government only since 2019, but they have now been in place for 12 years. The policies of a succession of Tory Chancellors have created a low-wage, low-growth insecure economy.
I want to talk for a minute or two about the Scottish Government’s role in this. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) rightly said when he moved the motion, the Scottish Government have a stake in this and I am grateful that the SNP has brought this debate to the House. The SNP is correct to point out the lack of action by the UK Government in trying to tackle this, as we have all discussed, but it is not an observer in this crisis as it is in government and can also help.
Scots are facing the prospect of higher council tax bills, because for over a decade the Scottish Government have decimated local government funding and spent 15 years promising to scrap the council tax—a promise that they continue to break at every election.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
I find it particularly useful that the hon. Gentleman mentions council tax, given that the Labour administration in Midlothian proposed a 4.7% increase in council tax. Thankfully, the SNP amendment to that ridiculous proposal was accepted and that amount was reduced.
Ian Murray
We do not want to see council tax bills rising anywhere across the country, but my own council, the City of Edinburgh Council, has had £1 billion ripped out of its budget over the last 10 years by decisions to take Conversative austerity, times it by four and pass it on to local authorities. [Interruption.] I hear the cries of “What?” behind me, but these figures can all be checked. The 3% of Conversative austerity is multiplied by four and passed on to our local authorities who are delivering these services. Councils are forced to make decisions that they do not want to make. [Interruption.] All those figures can be checked, Madam Deputy Speaker, despite the SNP Members chuntering from the back.
The Chancellor’s measly council tax rebate scheme, while welcome at £150, will distribute more money to the Scottish Government, but the SNP response is just to reflect that entire policy. The Minister mentioned this. To put that into context, there will be £150 off council tax in bands A to D in Scotland, which means I will get £150 off my council tax. How is that fair? Of course, I will be donating it to local charities, but that policy is money wasted that should be directed to those who need it the most.
What of this one-off windfall tax on the unexpected cash bonanza for the oil and gas sector? The SNP group here in Westminster has been more interested in standing up for Shell than standing up for Scottish taxpayers. [Interruption.] Again, Hansard has all of this documented. When my colleagues and I put down a motion in this House for a vote on a windfall tax on the enormous excess profits of the oil and gas companies, the SNP sided with the Conservatives and failed to back it. In fact, the SNP BEIS spokesperson, the hon. Member for Aberdeen South, who is sitting not yards from me and who moved this motion, defended that position vociferously in this House. The deputy leader of the SNP did not back our motion on BBC “Politics Scotland”, live on television, and the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) said:
“I am sorry to say that I have not heard anything to persuade me why a one-off smash and grab on the North sea industry is the best way to deal with this crisis.”—[Official Report, 1 February 2022; Vol. 708, c. 239.]
Let us see what this crisis is doing. Shell’s profits have quadrupled, in what its CEO has described as a “momentous” year, to an unexpected $19 billion. That is $600 a second in profit, driven primarily by the huge increases in energy prices. While Scottish families face the heartbreaking choice between eating and heating, the CEO of BP is describing the energy sector as a “cash machine” for his business. Under our proposals, he would be popping his corporate credit card in the cash machine, and giving a little bit of that money back to struggling families. Before both Governments—the Scottish Government and the UK Government—trot out the usual defence of harming investment, most of that unexpected profit is going to additional bonuses for shareholders in dividends and buybacks of shares, so such businesses will not be using that money for investment.
Now we see that the SNP, after weeks of defending not backing a one-off windfall tax to help Scottish people pay their bills, has its own proposal with one line in the motion about
“a windfall tax on companies which are benefitting from…impacts associated with the…pandemic or the…international situation”.
Surely that means oil and gas. Does it mean oil and gas? Does the BEIS spokesperson want to intervene and tell us if it means oil and gas? [Interruption.] Nobody on the SNP Benches is saying it means oil and gas, so what on earth does it include? Will it not affect investment, if that is the defence for oil and gas, in other industries? Do they have any detail on how much that would raise, how it would be implemented or who would be impacted?
Does this include every business that has turned a profit during covid? What about small businesses such as the micro-breweries that turned their hand to making hand sanitiser during the pandemic—should they pay? What about Pets at Home, because of the boom in people buying pets during the pandemic? The critical argument is that these businesses’ profits are not driven by the increases in energy costs that are hitting family finances directly. It is the oil and gas companies’ profits that are driven by the crisis, and it is they that should pay a little more. It is their additional, excess and unforeseen profits that are directly linked to the rise in bills paid by millions of families, and I have yet to receive an intervention to find out whether the SNP motion includes oil and gas—nothing. Quite obviously, we can come to our own conclusion that it wants to tax Irn-Bru, but not tax oil and gas.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
Not that I am going to make a habit of trying to defend SNP Members, but one of the reasons why they may not include oil and gas in their windfall tax plans is perhaps that they watched the Treasury Committee hearing with a panel of independent experts specifically on the windfall tax, who said that it would be ineffective and would damage investment. It would be ineffective because BP and other oil companies actually make their profits elsewhere, not in the North sea, and as a result, the costings the hon. Member describes are not up to scrutiny or robust. Could he explain to the House how he has got to the figures he is putting forward as fully costed?
Ian Murray
Yes, if we increase the additional rate on the oil and gas sector from 40% to 50%—10 percentage points extra—that will generate the money towards our fully costed plan for raising energy prices, but very well done for defending the Scottish National party, and both the Conservatives and the SNP knocked back the oil and gas sector’s windfall tax when it was brought to this House.
To go back to the central question of this debate on the cost of living crisis, many families are worried about the email dropping into their inbox telling them that a direct debit will treble, or the bill landing on the mat saying their energy bill will become unaffordable, yet both Governments refuse to ask the companies making the money, directly driven by the energy crisis and the energy prices that are generating those extra direct debits or those extra bills, to put a little bit more into the pot to help. With the SNP’s current policy in the motion, and SNP Members still will not tell us if it includes the oil and gas companies, AG Barr, a successful Scottish business that made more profit last year than pre-pandemic, would pay a windfall tax, but the oil and gas companies would not—taxing ginger, not taxing gas.
Matt Rodda
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point because surely the point is that, with the super-profits for these very wealthy companies, senior leaders of a number of them have been quoted as saying that they see their own business as a cash machine. If we contrast that with the day-to-day struggles of people of this country, surely he is putting forward the right policy.
Ian Murray
Those with the broadest shoulders should pay the most, but I just say to everyone in the country watching this who is worried about their bills that we have two Governments who could do something about this, but they are defending the profits of the oil and gas companies rather than trying to help them with their bills. We could achieve so much more if all put our shoulders to the wheel and helped with this energy crisis.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The hon. Member makes an excellent point. Does he share my curiosity about whether the SNP’s problem is that it spent so much time saying that Cambo should not be developed and attacking the oil industry that it finds itself in a quandary and, as always, its main priority is what is the best argument for independence rather than what is best for the people of Scotland?
Ian Murray
If the SNP has an argument for not taxing the oil and gas companies, it can have the floor to tell us. I am happy to take an intervention. I am also happy to take an intervention that clarifies what their motion means. Does the line that says “a windfall tax” include the oil and gas companies? Not one SNP Member, including the BEIS spokesperson, will intervene and tell me that that is what it intends. That tells us all we need to know. The SNP is sitting on the fence, hoping that the Government get the wrong idea, and putting out the press release to say that the Government are attacking it.
Stewart Hosie
This is a serious debate affecting some tens of millions of families in the UK, so the sooner he stops wittering on about Irn-Bru and Pets at Home and makes a substantive point, the better for the viewing public.
Ian Murray
I make this substantive point. Your motion, which you brought to the House to debate today, says that you are happy to tax Irn-Bru and Pets at Home, but you are not willing to tell me whether you will tax the oil and gas companies. Am I correct? I am correct. Excellent.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Please do not use the word “your”, because that is referring to me, and I am not doing anything.
Ian Murray
Apart from chairing the debate wonderfully, of course.
Let us make the serious point. We are debating the motion in front of us and we cannot get clarity from its mover about whether it includes a windfall tax on the oil and gas companies that would give every single household in Scotland £200 off their bills and the poorest 815,000 households £600 off their bills. That is what we are talking about. That is the substantive point that I am making.
Children will be going to bed cold or hungry—or both—and the best that the Chancellor can do is put up their parents’ taxes and lend them their own money to take a tiny amount off their energy bills. It is simply not good enough. The Trussell Trust says that two out of five people on universal credit are forced into a spiral of uncontrolled debt. Labour’s plan to tackle the cost of living crisis would put money in the pockets of Scottish families, helping them to make ends meet, and take worry out of receiving that unaffordable direct debit increase from their energy supplier. Across the UK—I repeat this again, because the right hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) wants a substantive point—we would introduce a fully costed, worked out plan for a windfall tax on oil and gas companies through which every single household in Scotland would get £200 off their bills and the 815,000 hardest hit households would get £600.
In Scotland, the Scottish National party has the power in its hands to do more than just bring Opposition day motions; it can change lives, too. That is what Labour would do. We would use the Barnett consequentials that the SNP has spent on replicating the Chancellor’s unfair policies to give a Scottish fuel payment of £400 to nearly 600,000 households facing the brunt of the crisis. We would top up the Scottish welfare fund so that local authorities could use their discretionary offer further to support households.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
I am interested to hear about the shadow Secretary of State’s proposals for Scotland. Has he had an opportunity to raise them with his colleagues in the Welsh Government, who have done exactly the same as the Scottish Government, whom he has criticised so heavily?
Ian Murray
The bottom line is that I should not be getting £150 off my council tax bill. That seems fair, and I think that we agree on that. We need much more imagination in how to get money into the pockets of the poorest who require it. The best way is to ask those with the broadest shoulders to put a little more into the pot. It is certainly not the whole host of Ponzi schemes reeled off by the Minister whereby people are lent their own money and will have to pay it back later. We need to implement long-term solutions to keep bills low such as improving the energy efficiency of Scottish homes and, as was mentioned, dealing with off-grid, which is a huge issue in Scotland.
That is a proper plan to tackle the cost of living crisis, unlike this back-of-a-cigarette-packet plan designed to help solve a political problem for the Scottish nationalists—who do not want to back a windfall tax on oil and gas but will not even tell us in public if that is what their motion is intended to do—or the Chancellor who is not only doing little to help but is costing people much, much more and making it worse. That is the difference Labour can and would make in power. We do not want just to oppose the Government in Opposition day debates; we want to replace them altogether, which the Scottish National party can never do.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I think Rosie Winterton, when she was last in the Chair, suggested between six and seven minutes, and then everybody can get in. We will try to do that without putting a time limit on.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I think all parties in this House are very concerned about the cost of living for all our constituents.
First, may I tackle the situation of very high energy prices? I commend our Government on the amount we have put into green energy, offshore wind energy and solar farms. We have many solar farms in my constituency. In fact, my constituents often say there are too many, but they contribute hugely to energy.
Christine Jardine
On that point, subsidies for renewable energy have been cut. Today, we are having to go to Saudi Arabia for oil and gas because the Government did not invest in renewable energy in this country sufficiently quickly. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is now time for the Government to step up to the plate and start doing a better job in that area?
Neil Parish
What happened with renewable energy, especially solar and wind, is that the price came down and we achieved a great deal of solar and wind energy without having to pump as much public money into it. That is very much a good thing and I commend the Government for what they are doing. The last Labour Government did nothing on nuclear power. The major nuclear power station at Hinkley Point, with two very big reactors, will produce 8% of our national need. That is the sort of thing that will solve our energy crisis and, in the long run, bring prices down. I also want tidal power at Swansea Bay and Bridgewater Bay to be reconsidered. I believe we are missing a trick there. We can produce very good energy from the second-highest rising tide in the world, so let us get going.
We have to recognise that at the moment energy prices are governed by oil and gas. What I would say to Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition, as they wax lyrical about having a windfall tax on oil companies, is that we need our oil companies, including those off Scotland, to produce more oil and gas. Who is making the murderous intervention in Ukraine? It is the Putin regime. What does the Putin regime rely on? It relies on the money from energy from both oil and gas. Therefore, it is time for us to produce as much oil and gas as we can. I very much support renewables and the environment, but we have to wake up to the fact that we need to pump oil and gas out of the ground. Putting a windfall tax on those companies would reduce their ability to invest. I urge the Chancellor to look at taxing those companies more if they do not invest, and less if they do. Let us get that going.
I want energy costs to come down. The increase in the cost of energy, both gas and oil, for my constituents has been huge. I have a meat wholesaler in Axminster whose energy bills have gone up from £90,000 to over £300,000, so it is not just individuals who are affected, but businesses. That means the cost of food goes up. It all has a knock-on effect on the cost of living for all our constituents. Many of my rural constituents have to buy heating oil. One constituent has been given a price of 186p per litre. However much the price of crude oil has gone up, there is no justification for such prices. We need to look not only at the tax on fuel, but at what individual companies are doing and whether they can justify such huge increases in the price of fuel. The Chancellor could also look at VAT on heating fuel: it is only 5%, but if the price doubles from £1 to £2 per litre, that will mean 10p in VAT, so getting some of that back would help at least.
I turn to fuel duty. Petrol hit a new high of 163p on Monday, with diesel at a record 173p. The RAC says that filling a family car’s 55-litre tank with petrol now costs more than £90 for the first time. Fuel duty is set at 58p per litre for petrol and diesel; VAT is 20%, which means 35p per litre of diesel and 33p per litre of petrol. The Chancellor will therefore have some leeway in his statement. There is no doubt that fuel and diesel costs hit everybody in this country, but they hit the rural population hardest, because the distances we travel to go to work or carry food around are all much greater. I very much support what the Chancellor and other Conservative Chancellors have done to keep duty down, but these are extraordinary times. None of us thought that we would see fuel rising to nearly £2 per litre.
Let me move on briefly to issues with the costs of farming and the costs to farmers. Some farmers have reported paying as much as 120p per litre for red diesel, compared with 73p a fortnight ago. I do not think that that 65% rise is justified, so please can we look at it very carefully? White diesel—derv—has risen by only 15% in the same timeframe. At 47p per litre, duty is lower for red than white diesel, while VAT is lower at 5%, so surely there is a case to be made that some suppliers are profiteering.
Nitrate fertiliser is now more than £1,000 a tonne, compared with £647 in January this year and £245 in January 2021, and the cost of urea, phosphate and potash is going up, so I hope that the Chancellor can see ways of helping food production. One of the issues in the terrible situation in Ukraine is that it is very much the breadbasket of the world, especially for the export of wheat. Wheat prices in this country are now at some £300 a tonne. To poultry and pig farmers, feed is an enormous cost, so those price rises will add to the cost of living and we will need to take them very seriously in the forthcoming Budget.
I commend the Government for their work to help those who are struggling to pay their bills. The cost of living crisis—and it is a cost of living crisis—is the one thing that hon. Members on both sides of the House know we need to face up to, and I believe that the Government are facing up to it. I look forward to the Minister’s winding-up speech.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
As the motion makes clear,
“households will soon be suffering the worst income squeeze since the 1970s”.
The Bank of England has said that inflation could reach more than 7% in April. Households’ average energy bills are forecast to rise by 54%—almost £700 on average—and there is a very real fear that energy costs could rocket again by a comparable amount in October.
Let me put that in context. One in seven people in Scotland are already finding household energy bills unaffordable. That is 640,000 people, and equates to 7 million people across the UK. Whether the cause of these difficulties is simply inflation, the massive hikes in energy costs themselves, low pay or underemployment, the fact that 68% of working-age adults in the UK who are in poverty live in households where at least one adult is in work—the highest figure on record —speaks volumes about the Government’s failure even to understand, let alone take seriously, poverty and what it means in this country. What else could explain their hiking national insurance contributions, removing the universal credit uplift, and allowing energy companies to impose brutal increases on people many of whom were already having to choose between heating and eating? According to the Resolution Foundation, those ill-conceived policies could lead to a fall in real household income of £1,000 per year for working-age households.
Of course, what successive UK Governments have not done simply makes the situation worse. We have all seen—and have just heard about—petrol and diesel approaching £2 per litre, and in some cases it already costs more than that. That is £9 or £10 a gallon, which essentially means that it costs over £100 to fill up an average saloon car tank. That is prohibitively expensive for someone on modest wages who simply wants to fill up the car in order to get to work. Yet every Tory Government I can recall has set their face against a “fuel duty regulator”, which would at least have moderated some of these obscene increases. May I just respond to something that was said by the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray)? Let us remind ourselves that Shell alone made £4.7 billion of profit in the final quarter of 2021, and £14 billion in the entire year. So someone is doing very nicely out of these rising costs.
I now wish to turn to a slightly different energy-related matter. Yesterday I received an email from my constituent Elisabeth Walton. She wrote:
“I am writing to you as, being my representative in the House of Commons, I am hoping you will be able to seek an answer for people like me who have been unable to heat their homes as a result of rising prices. I live in an electric-only home, and chose so in an effort to reduce my reliance on fossil fuels.
While I have done everything in my power to reduce the amount I spend on heating (switching from a prepay meter, insulating windows, draught excluders, blankets and hot water bottles), as a single income household with a disabled partner I simply cannot turn on my storage heaters due to the sheer cost.
Could you please explain to me why, with such investment in renewable energy, that my electric standing charge could have more than doubled despite the only price rises affecting oil and gas...
Why is VAT not being cut? Presumably this is one of the actual benefits Brexit could offer us? What is the government doing besides forcing repayable loans onto us?
Why are energy business profits not being controlled to avoid the exploitation of powerless people?
Is there anything I can do to apply pressure to these companies and ease this hardship?
I have gone to my employer to plead for a raise or increased responsibility to meet this increase in living expenses, particularly as I continue to work from home, but this has been flatly denied.”
This is someone who has already done everything she can, and yet is being hammered with energy price rises.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
Many of my constituents have written to me expressing the same concerns. Furthermore, the majority are members of single-parent families, particularly women, who have already borne the brunt of austerity and the worst effects of the changes in universal credit. They will not now benefit from the £20 uplift that the Government have removed from so many families who needed it. Does my right hon. Friend agree that more needs to be done to support those families?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I remind hon. Members who intervene to face forward so that you are addressing the House and are properly picked up by the microphones.
Stewart Hosie
My hon. Friend the Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) is right that more must be done across the board. So far, women have particularly borne the brunt of the universal credit reduction, and people on modest incomes will bear the brunt of the national insurance increase. Of course, we must take more action across the board.
On the narrow point about the increase in standing charges, what possible reason can there be for energy standing charges doubling other than blatant price gouging and profiteering? The UK Government could act to stop this today if they had the will. This House was prepared to expedite sanctions on Russian oligarchs—in fact, we all said they should have happened already—and, given that we are facing the worst inflation since the 1970s, I am pretty confident this House would be prepared to expedite legislation to outlaw the daylight robbery of people through this obscene profiteering.
I am conscious of time, so I will not take much longer. I am struck by the stark public warnings about the rise in the cost of living. Martin Lewis has said that people were already at risk of “starving or freezing,” and the anti-poverty campaigner Jack Monroe has said that the cost of living crisis will have “fatal” consequences. The Government need to listen not to us or even to high-profile campaigners but to the millions out there who I fear will soon be cold and hungry, and take urgent and immediate steps before this crisis spirals out of control.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate on an incredibly important issue for many families in Blackpool. My constituency is among the most deprived in England, with the numbers of households in poverty, in receipt of benefits and looking for work being far higher than the national average. Indeed, eight of the 10 most deprived neighbourhoods in England are in Blackpool. Some commentators have said we are on the cusp of a cost of living crisis, but the sad reality is that many of my constituents have been struggling to manage their household budgets for a very long time.
Let us be clear that to frame this debate, as the socialists and Scottish nationalists have, as a “Tory cost of living crisis” is completely ridiculous and ignorant of the facts. The unavoidable truth is that the inflationary pressures created by economies emerging from the pandemic, the increases in wholesale gas prices and Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine have caused, and will continue to cause, a huge strain on household budgets for the immediate future, so we need to be honest with people about the causes of inflation and the fact that higher energy bills, food prices and prices at the pumps are not going away any time soon.
We also have to be honest with people that there is only so much that Governments can do to mitigate these higher costs. Governments cannot eliminate every single price rise in a free market, and we should not pretend otherwise. This Government are already providing a £20 billion package of support to help families with the huge increases in the cost of living. More families are in receipt of universal credit in Blackpool than anywhere else in this nation, and many of them will be benefiting from an effective £1,000 tax cut through our changes to the universal credit taper rate.
People in Blackpool will also disproportionally benefit from the significant rise in the national living wage to £9.50 per hour. Of course, those are not the only measures through which this Government are supporting families. The Chancellor has already announced the £350 package of household support for energy bills and council tax, which is worth some £9 billion, and we are providing more discretionary funding to local authorities to help those in need, as well as increasing the warm home discount to £150 and extending its eligibility. This Government have a good record in supporting families, but these are unprecedented times. We can do more and we must look to do more. Whether by looking to temporarily reduce fuel duty to protect motorists from the surge in prices or looking again at the national insurance increase, the upcoming Budget presents an opportunity to demonstrate that we understand the pressures that families are facing.
On energy, Governments of all colours, for decades, have failed to ensure a supply of affordable and domestically produced energy, and the successive failures are now coming home to roost. The drop of UK nuclear output to its lowest level since the 1980s is particularly concerning, and previous Governments, of both parties, have dithered on nuclear for far too long. I have some sympathy with the Opposition’s call to cut VAT on energy bills, and I have spoken about that on several occasions, but my understanding is that the cut would not apply to Northern Ireland, due to the Northern Ireland protocol, and of course the money to fund public services has to come from somewhere—I am afraid there are no easy options here. I also believe that there is a strong case to remove the cost of so-called “green levies” from energy bills, which could save households about £150 to £200 per year, on average. Many of my constituents would be shocked to find out that these levies cost them so much, and that some of the schemes they subsidise are not particularly green. However, once again, if they are taken away from bills, they will no doubt end up in the Exchequer’s lap and fall on general taxation, so we have to be careful what we wish for.
In the longer term, the Government must ensure that more nuclear power plants are brought online, and I welcome the new finance model for nuclear, which encourages a wider range of private investment into new nuclear projects. I also welcome the Government’s support for and investment in the small modular reactors currently being pioneered, which would reduce the cost of nuclear in the long term, letting it work alongside renewable sources.
Neil Parish
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his speech so far. Rolls-Royce can produce a lot of these smaller nuclear reactors, and we probably need to be able to boost Rolls-Royce to get those reactors out.
Scott Benton
I thank my hon. Friend and he makes a good point. I know that he shares my ambition for the Government to expand their capabilities on nuclear.
We also need to consider further investment in North sea oil and gas, in order to ensure a smooth transition to green and nuclear. Of course, these measures would not necessarily protect households against rising bills today, but they would provide security of supply in the longer term, reduce our dependency on foreign powers and help to reduce bills to consumers in the longer term.
In closing, it would be remiss of me not to point out that the state can only do so much. Work pays, and so getting people into employment so that they can provide for themselves and their family ultimately gives them the best opportunity. This Government have presided over a jobs miracle, and it is remarkable to think that there are more people in work now than before the pandemic, with the number of employees on payroll at a record high. However, again, there is more we can do. Blackpool has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country and there are more than 2,000 people out of work in my constituency alone. Yet there are hundreds of job vacancies locally, with employers telling me that they advertise for new posts and that time and time again people either do not apply for them or, on some occasions, turn up at an interview and seemingly go out of their way not to get the job. I know that the Department for Work and Pensions has taken steps to incentivise people into work, and that work needs to continue. If there are jobs out there, people need to take them.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
It is interesting to follow the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton). It was nice to hear that he believes his Government are not doing well enough. We on the SNP Benches certainly agree with that, if not with everything in his speech.
Modelling carried out by the fuel poverty campaigners Energy Action Scotland on the impact of energy price rises in April suggests that 41% of households in West Dunbartonshire will be living in fuel poverty following the increases. Indeed, the front page of the Lennox Herald in my constituency has had the headline, “Families are turning down food because they can’t afford to cook”. This was a quote from the local food bank in Dumbarton, Food For Thought, which revealed that people in need are actually turning away meals because they cannot afford the energy required to heat them. At the beginning of the century, food banks were a rarity in our communities, but after years of the austerity-driven agenda from the Conservative Government that caused great hardship to vulnerable households while letting big business cronies and foreign owners off scot-free, they have become life rafts in a sea of inequality.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) alluded to the 1970s, which some of us are old enough to remember, as well as growing up in the 1980s. It is woeful in this day and age that anyone should consider that people now turn off their washing machines and wash their clothes and bedlinen in cold water, or would use a brush and a pail rather than a Hoover. It seems absolutely ridiculous. I remember a single-parent family who had to do the exact same thing. They were lucky that they had family who could help them with that impact of the aggressive politics of the British Conservative party. How my father, as a single parent of four kids—one of them profoundly disabled; he never made to adult life—got through it, I have no idea. But all is not lost for the Government. They need to take urgent, real action before the irreparable damage that was done in the ’80s is foisted yet again on households such as those in West Dunbartonshire—indeed, across the whole of the UK. Introducing immediate emergency cash payments would make a difference for many households and save many from falling into hardship. It is the right thing to do from a moral point of view but also from an economical point of view.
While much attention is quite rightly focused on rising energy costs, there are other factors impacting on the cost of living that need to be addressed. Colleagues have alluded to them and will continue to do so, so I will raise just two factors and how they are affecting my own constituency caseload. My office has been inundated by families who, despite working, rely on universal credit to help make ends meet but who are now desperately calling for further help. The Government’s callous £1,040 cut for millions claiming UC in the middle of a cost of living crisis has had a devasting impact on these families, and the further price increases are leaving them vulnerable, scared and, indeed, impoverished. The Chancellor’s autumn Budget announcements barely tinkered around the edges and will not come close to compensating for the cuts to universal credit.
The UK has one of the lowest sick pay rates in the OECD. The current rate of £96.35 per week is wholly inadequate, and one in five workers is not eligible for it. The specific groups most likely at risk are women and those in insecure work. The UK Government must surely believe that increasing statutory sick pay in line with the real living wage, and removing the threshold and extending it to 52 weeks instead of 28, is long overdue given the traumas of so many during the pandemic.
If the Chancellor needs any pointers on how to tackle this issue, we need only cast our eyes to the Scottish Parliament and its Government, and the priorities that they are setting with the limited powers of devolution. In many areas where the Scottish Parliament has devolved powers, Scotland enjoys lower than average costs compared with those in England and Wales, be that average household water charges, council tax bills or rail fares. The Scottish Government are delivering their game-changing child payment, one of five family social security benefits, and unique in the UK. I say “social security” because it is not a hand-out: we pay for it; it is what socially progressive Governments do. That will double in value in April, impacting immediately on 110,000 children in Scotland. The Scottish Government are also committing more than £3.9 billion for social security expenditure in 2022-23, providing support to more than 1 million people; that is £360 million above the level of funding to be received from the UK Government. It will help low-income families with their living costs, including heating, and enable disabled people to live full and independent lives; it will pay for the new adult disability payment.
Those are just some of the actions taken by the Scottish Government, who care for the people they govern: a Government who are serious about tackling the inequalities that exist in our country—systemic inequalities founded in the traumas of the ’70s and ’80s —and who want to create a fair and better country for all.
The Scottish Government can only do so much at the moment with the limitations of devolution, but with the full powers of national self-determination delivering independence they can deviate from both the previous courses of British Governments and the present Government, who have never worked for the people of Scotland, as well as the people of England, Wales and indeed Northern Ireland.
As I have said, serious times call for serious measures and I, like my constituents, have no faith that the UK Government are able to, or capable of, delivering them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. The wind-ups will start at 6.40 pm.
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton) said, these are unprecedented times and families are facing unprecedented cost of living pressures, but it is important that we set the scene. The covid-19 pandemic has created an immeasurable strain on global supply chains, leading to increasing inflation and rising prices of food and everyday household items. We have seen wholesale fuel and energy prices rise due to increased global demand for gas as economies around the world recover from the pandemic, and that has been compounded by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which has pushed oil and gas prices up even further. We may only import 4% of our gas from Russia but, as the world’s largest exporter of natural gas, Russia’s actions have driven wholesale gas prices up worldwide. So a global pandemic on a scale not seen since the Spanish flu and an act of naked Russian aggression that is reminiscent of a bygone age equal unprecedented factors that have come together to create a perfect storm of pressure on families and households who are struggling with the cost of living.
We must be honest: the Government cannot control these global factors that have caused a strain on families and households, but they can shield people from the impact of some of these pressures, and they have done.
Getting more people into work is the single most important way the Government can support people with the rising cost of living. I recently hosted a business breakfast club in Stourbridge and was encouraged by how many firms are hiring and expanding, including by way of apprenticeships. However, filling these job vacancies and addressing skills shortages were raised as two major challenges for local businesses. That is why I am pleased that the Government’s plan for jobs is geared to tackle those problems.
The £2.9 billion restart scheme and a new £200 million scheme to improve job search advice are helping unemployed people find work. There is also £2.3 billion in funding to double the number of work coaches to provide bespoke support for jobseekers. From speaking to work coaches at Stourbridge jobcentre in my constituency I know of the positive impact they can have, and in Stourbridge it is showing results, with a fall of nearly 30% in unemployment since this time last year, equating to nearly 50% for young people. That is a significant drop.
The lifetime skills guarantee is another important Government programme that will equip people with the skills they need to fill the record number of job vacancies. I know that this programme will be appreciated by local business leaders in Stourbridge. Ensuring that work pays and making sure that people earn decent wages are vital in supporting families and households with the rising cost of living, and we should not forget that the historic vaccine programme and the plan for jobs have together helped deliver the fastest economic growth in the G7.
That is, however, not the only avenue of support this Government are providing. They are implementing a wide-ranging package of targeted and immediate support for households facing rising energy bills and fuel costs, from a £200 rebate on energy bills for all households to a £150 council tax rebate for over 86% of homes in the west midlands and a fuel duty freeze for the twelfth year in a row. The Government are stepping up to support working people.
That Government support will help to alleviate the shock of energy prices in the short term, but it is important that we ensure an affordable and secure energy supply for families and households in the long term. On the continent we see only too well the problems that dependence on fossil fuels and Russian oil and gas are causing for our European neighbours. It is imperative that we reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and transition to renewable energy sources. The Government have already made significant progress over the past decade and have increased the UK’s renewable energy capacity by 500% since 2010. However, we must do more, which is why I am pleased that the Government have announced a plan to phase out British imports of Russian gas by the end of this year, along with £380 million to support the UK’s world-leading offshore wind sector.
To transition away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy is the goal that we are and should be aiming for. Again, we should be honest: gas will remain a critical part of the UK’s energy supply for the years to come. The transition away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy will not happen overnight. That is why it is important that we continue to support the North sea oil and gas industry and import from reliable countries such as Norway, to boost the supply of domestic gas and lower energy bills for hard-working families.
To conclude, I know that people face rising living costs—they face them in Stourbridge—but I also know that the Government are doing and will continue to do all they can to help alleviate the pressures for working families and households in my constituency.
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Suzanne Webb).
My constituents in Airdrie and Shotts are feeling the cost of living acutely and my inbox is full of their concerns. The reality is that the burden of poverty so often falls on children, with 24.8% of children in North Lanarkshire living in poverty, compared with the national average of 23%. Twenty-one per cent. of children live in households that experience both a low income and material deprivation. Those families are bearing the brunt of this Government’s inaction.
This crisis will have other consequences. It is estimated that around 20,000 people across North Lanarkshire already use short-term, high-cost credit annually. Loan sharks and money lenders have already stepped up their operations throughout the four nations, with Trading Standards Scotland reporting an increase in illegal money lending as people try to deal with increasing energy costs, rising food prices and cuts to universal credit.
The Tories should be listening and taking action to support my Airdrie and Shotts constituents, because they are experiencing the squeeze imposed by the Government when, for example, they cut universal credit last year. We have already seen action from the SNP Scottish Government, who are choosing to expand fuel poverty schemes, but they continue to tackle the crisis with one hand tied behind their back by Westminster.
The matter of fuel costs has been raised throughout this debate. The cost of living crisis is taking place while energy markets are already stretched. It is now predicted that the Russia-Ukraine crisis threatens to exacerbate already-high energy prices and impact industry supply chains as well. Even before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, economists had predicted more hardship to come in April, when household energy prices and bills were set to soar.
It is really important to note that Money Saving Expert’s Martin Lewis has warned against a deliberate attempt by UK Government Ministers to pin the UK’s financial issues on the Ukraine war. He told BBC Radio 4:
“I’m slightly worried we are seeing what may be potentially a deliberate narrative shift that effectively says the entire cost of living crisis is due to Ukraine, and therefore we all need to make sacrifices, and that is not correct.”
There is simply no excuse for inaction from the Chancellor. This crisis has been a decade in the making, with rising costs compounded by damaging decisions at Westminster—including Tory austerity cuts and Brexit—that have resulted in squeezed household incomes and rising poverty across the UK.
This UK Government must take urgent action and introduce an emergency financial package to support the most vulnerable. I have raised this matter previously in the Chamber because it affects so many of my Airdrie and Shotts constituents. Let us take, for example, the UK Government’s buy now, pay later £200 loan. It is woefully inadequate and does nothing to help families. Even the Scottish Trades Union Congress has stated that this buy now, pay later loan
“comes nowhere near tackling the problem”
and that
“it is nothing short of shameful that people are being forced to choose between food and heat.”
The SNP is calling for the loan to be turned into a grant, and for a more meaningful financial package to be introduced to protect household incomes in the face of Tory cuts and tax hikes. The cost of living squeeze is happening now and it will only get worse once the bills rise in April and when the Tory regressive national insurance tax hike takes effect.
The UK Government have consistently ignored our calls for an emergency budget to tackle the cost of living crisis. I will repeat something that I have already said in this Chamber in the hope that the Minister will listen, rather than play on his phone. To provide certainty and reassurance, the UK Government must immediately announce a comprehensive financial package to help struggling families. As a minimum, the SNP proposes the following measures: a £200 buy now, pay later loan that must be turned into a more generous grant; the regressive national insurance tax hike must be scrapped; cuts to universal credit must be reversed; the child payment must be matched UK-wide; and, really importantly, wages must be increased, and there must be a real living wage. There can be no more delays from this Tory Government. The energy crisis is hitting the UK’s most vulnerable right now, including my constituents in Airdrie and Shotts. It is the UK Government’s duty to provide and deliver a substantial financial package.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Ms Qaisar), who is a good friend and comrade. When she talked about loan sharks, it reminded me of the misleading adverts that we see on social media from debt companies, which I do regard as loan sharks, as they force people into trust deeds and other such things. I know the Minister used to be in the Treasury, so he will be familiar with some of these arguments. Certainly this is a matter that I will be taking up with the Government in future, because it must be tackled. If we are in a cost of living crisis and people see these misleading adverts on Facebook and other social media outlets, their lives could be made even worse.
I am told that repetition is not a vice. I was in a Westminster Hall debate this afternoon on in-work poverty, which was led by the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris). It is worth reminding people that in-work poverty is at its highest ever level, disproportionately affecting lone parents, disabled people and carers. As the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has told us, 68% of working age adults in poverty are in a household where at least one adult is in work. Those are the highest figures ever recorded since 1996, when figures were first gathered on these issues.
I ask the Government to look specifically at in-work poverty. Far too many people in low-paid jobs do not have any opportunities to progress to better work and to better wages. Moreover, far too many of our fellow citizens are working in insecure jobs with unpredictable hours and unpredictable incomes.
I have a real concern about minimum wage rates, which some of my colleagues have also mentioned. A recent article on The Ferret website—the story was also covered by The Herald newspaper—outlined that an alarming number of the 10,000 jobs advertised on the Department for Work and Pensions website offered less than the national minimum wage. Burger King was advertising a post with a wage of £6 an hour; PizzaExpress, a wage of £6.56 an hour; and Farmfoods, a wage of £6.66 an hour. These companies made profits in the past couple of years—good profits, at that. I will be asking for an inquiry on why the DWP website is advertising jobs that pay less than the national minimum wage. It really is a scandal. Perhaps the DWP will refer itself to the national minimum wage compliance unit; it should, given that it is advertising jobs with these rates of pay. I hope that the Minister will respond to that point.
A number of Members on both sides of the Chamber have raised concerns about universal credit. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton) is no longer in his place, but while he was speaking about universal credit, I looked at a parliamentary answer that I received from the Department for Work and Pensions, and it shows that 55% of Blackpool South constituents on universal credit have an average of £63 a month deducted from their benefit. In Stourbridge, 39% of people receiving tax credits get an average of £61 deducted as a result of tax credit overpayment.
Deductions from benefits really have to stop. Universal credit is supposed to be a subsistence-level benefit; it is supposed to be the amount of money that people require to eat, heat their home, and live a good life. If we deduct from universal credit, it leads to the spiral of debt that many hon. Members have spoken about.
The Government need to do a couple of things. This scandal of advances has to stop; there really should be an up-front grant. The all-party Select Committee on Work and Pensions unanimously agreed that there should be a starter payment two weeks after a claim. That is perfectly reasonable. It would stop the cycle of advances and debts.
Also, why are the Government pursuing tax credit debts that are over six years old? If the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) wanted to sue me in the Scottish courts for a debt that was over six years old, the sheriff would immediately knock the case out, because it would be absurd; likewise if I were to sue the hon. Gentleman. So why are the Government pursuing tax credit overpayments that are decades old? It seems complete nonsense. I hope that the Government will sort that out.
The Minister is from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy; one thing that he and his Department can do to sort out in-work poverty is introduce an employment Bill that ends insecure work, for example by seeking to eliminate zero-hours contracts, and that stops nonsensical practices. For example, employers are texting four individuals and telling them, “The first person who arrives gets the shift.” Employees then have to pay for transport to get to work, but they might not get the shift because someone else arrived two minutes before them. I hope that there will be an employment Bill, because we have been promised one since 2017. Five years on, it is still not here. Where is this mystical employment Bill? If the Government do not introduce it, perhaps they should support many of us who have brought forward employment legislation to address the plight of workers.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I was a bit reluctant to interrupt my hon. Friend, because he is making a fantastic speech, but may I give him an example that shows where the Government’s priorities lie? One group of employees who are traditionally low paid and in very insecure work are catering and cleaning staff. Does he recall that in the last Budget, the Chancellor claimed to have no choice but to impose a tax hike on people who are paid low wages to clean floors and dishes in casinos, but was at the same time able to announce a tax pay-back for the lucky people who own casinos? Is that not an example of where this Government’s true loyalties lie?
Chris Stephens
That is exactly where the Government’s priorities lie. Let us not forget that in-work poverty disproportionately affects carers as well, and that has to change.
I am conscious of time, but I hope the Government will respond positively to the points I have made. This is their crisis—the things I am pointing out are not to do with Ukraine or anything else. These things have been going on for 12 years, and the Government can immediately solve them.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
There are 15 minutes left and three of you want to speak. Doing the maths, it is five minutes each and then you can all have equal time.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Many of the issues around the cost of living that we have heard about in the debate are underpinned by food security, which is what I will focus on. Before I expand on that, however, I reiterate that the people of Ukraine are at the forefront of our thoughts and discussions at this time. Their lives have been devastated by the horrors of war and they must remain uppermost in our minds as we reflect on any potential impact of the conflict on daily life here.
Hon. Members have previously touched on the anticipated consequences of the war on the global economy, including on food prices. Russia and Ukraine are the world’s largest and fifth largest wheat exporters respectively, and the two countries are major suppliers of critical fertiliser components. We must realise that the consequences of that hit to the supply chain are likely to be felt severely in sub-Saharan Africa and places already struggling with hunger such as Afghanistan, Syria and Yemen. We must be ready to help those regions of the world most affected by a potential global food emergency.
Those global shortages will lead to rising food prices in the UK too. The EU is moving quickly on measures to support farming and businesses, and there is concern in agriculture that the UK will not replicate or work in parallel with that. Of course, millions of households across the UK were already seeing their food bills escalate long before the crisis in Ukraine. Shop price inflation leapt between January and February this year to the highest inflation rate recorded since November 2011.
The Resolution Foundation has warned that rising food and energy prices could cause a “second peak” in inflation of above 8% in the autumn. It is our most vulnerable constituents who will be hardest hit, experiencing an inflation rate of as much as 10% due to their spending a higher proportion of their household budget on food and fuel.
The agricultural industry forecasts difficult conditions in the global fertiliser market, where the UK is a much smaller player with less leverage after Brexit. If, as looks almost certain, the resultant higher costs mean that yields are reduced, that too will have an impact on food security and take a further toll on the cost of living. Farmers are facing a perfect storm, with prices for fertiliser, fuel, energy and feed rocketing. The sector in Scotland has raised the alarm about the far-reaching implications for markets, processors and abattoirs, and ultimately rising prices in supermarkets for consumers. A post-Brexit shortage of both permanent and seasonal workers, combined with a lack of haulage drivers and processing staff, has put serious strain on agriculture and food and drink businesses across Scotland. Meanwhile, the UK Government have reneged on promises to replace fully our former EU funding.
On top of all that, the Scottish and UK farming sector is being exposed to real, lasting harm by the UK Government’s hurried and poorly conceived trade deals. The Department for International Trade’s own analysis of the deal with New Zealand euphemistically described an expected loss of £150 million to fishing, agriculture and food-related sectors as just a “process of economic adjustment”. Organisations such as the National Farmers Union of Scotland have consistently warned about food security issues in relation to that—indeed, it issued a press release on that very subject today—but have been repeatedly ignored or dismissed by the UK Government.
At Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions last week, the Secretary of State and the Minister for Farming, Fisheries and Food claimed that the UK is largely self-sufficient in its food production. However, the Government’s own analysis of food security shows that, by economic value, the UK produces only about 60% of food consumed domestically, and actual consumption of UK-produced food is closer to 54%, as a part of it is exported. In terms of historical, long-term trends, there is a concerning drop in the domestic supply ratio of fresh vegetables, from 76% in 1990 to 54% in 2020.
We need to ramp up domestic food production, but the planting window to do that is narrowing. The UK can do more to service the domestic market in cereals and spring barley, for example, but there is a risk of missing out if the EU acts faster and much of that services Europe instead. If offers come in from France or Germany to service spring cropping, businesses will take them.
We must keep things in perspective and do everything possible to assist with the humanitarian crisis in Ukraine, where there are reports of farmers being unable to go out into their fields for fear of bombardment, but the UK Government clearly need to take food security here much more seriously and take action now to address the immediate risks to domestic food production. We remain vulnerable if we are too reliant on imports, and it is people on the lowest incomes who will suffer the most.
Some of the people I am angriest with are the Brexiteers. The snake oil salespeople blithely assured all of us who warned them about the problems of over-dependence on imported foods—we said this Government were making it impossible for many farmers and others in our food industries—that all would be well in the golden land of Brexitania. They are now truly reaping what they have sown, are they not? The trouble is that all the other countries around the world who have also been relying on Ukraine—that golden breadbasket of the world—and Russia to supply their needs are out there alongside us, hunting on the trade markets for deals on the rice, wheat, maize, nuts, fruits and oils that we have all been receiving up to now. When goods are in short supply, prices go up. We must recognise and face with clear eyes the food security problems that there will be for the most vulnerable among us on these isles.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock). While we cannot completely swerve the growing crisis around the globe, a sensible emergency package of financial measures could soften the blow, and it is incumbent on the Government to take decisive action now.
I speak on behalf of the people of Midlothian who, like the rest of the UK, are about to face the worst income squeeze for a generation. As a former coalmining community, my constituency unfortunately has first-hand experience of Tory Government policies leaving people high and dry and struggling with hardship. We are a resilient bunch though. It should not be too much to expect a little support from the Government rather than their hindering our efforts to tackle poverty and build back opportunities after the pandemic, but there is little evidence of that from this Administration.
It does not help the economy to take more money out of people’s pockets and risk more people entering a spiral of debt and despair. Let us not soft soap this. As anti-poverty campaigner Jack Monroe warned the Work and Pensions Committee, this crisis will have fatal consequences for some families. It is not an exaggeration to say that more people will be forced to skip meals and face ill health, hunger and cold. This is 21st-century Britain; inequality is on the rise. Yes, there are global issues—I have not heard anyone try to deny that today—but they have simply compounded the crisis that we were already facing after years of Tory austerity. The ideology imposed by the Government, which we have had to endure, has left public services running on empty. We have seen drastic cuts to benefits, which hurt the most vulnerable, along with the refusal to protect pay and conditions to make sure workers earn enough to get by, the betrayal of pensioners, the absolute wrecking ball of Brexit and the half-hearted commitment to green energy investment.
As things stand, poor decisions and self-inflicted damage over a decade have left the UK without the resilience to cope when external factors such as covid or the war in Ukraine take their toll. We have had a poverty problem in the UK for years, yet more and more families on modest earnings are finding that they are being pushed into poverty. The New Economics Foundation warned that by April, half of children will be in families who cannot afford the cost of living. It should be a matter of shame for this Government that food banks have become an accepted thing in our towns. I pay huge tribute to the Trussell Trust and Midlothian Foodbank, Food Facts Friends in Penicuik and all the volunteers involved with them, but they should not be necessary. We need Government action, and we need to reduce the size of the storm that households are about to face.
The £200 loan announcement from the Chancellor is put into perspective by what is actually needed. We do not need loans that people have to pay back. The SNP has suggested a range of measures, but the Government simply will not listen. My constituency of Midlothian is not only poorly served by this Tory Government but has a cloth-eared Labour administration in the council that simply does not listen to the communities that it is there to represent. It is sluggish and poor to listen and drags its heels on bringing forward proposals from the Scottish Government that are designed to help ease the financial burden on households. Only a few weeks ago, the Labour administration proposed a whopping 4.7% increase in council tax, backed by some of their Tory chums. Thankfully, the SNP’s alternative proposal to the budget was accepted, yet the council administration continues to implement what is now an SNP budget. Hon. Members can make of that what they will. It is time for action to be taken and we need it now.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
To resume his seat no later than 6.40 pm, I call Ben Lake.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr, Mr Deputy Speaker. I shall endeavour to ensure that I am seated again in just under five minutes.
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson). In the interests of time, I will say that I agree with every point that he made. Indeed, many points have been made this afternoon with which I would like to associate myself. We have heard a lot about the various pressures that are combining to fuel the cost of living crisis and those points have been well made.
We have heard about the rising cost of heating homes. I very much associate myself with the comments of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), who drew attention to the fact that for many people in rural areas, the cost of heating their home has been further exacerbated by many premises being off-grid. With the price of heating oil and liquid gas rising, I have heard accounts from constituents whose heating costs have trebled in the few months since September last year. That is a pressing issue that is hitting rural areas.
Another driving force of the crisis in rural areas is the rising cost of fuel at the pump. Unfortunately, Wales has the highest car dependency in the UK with nearly 80% of commutes done by private car. Nearly half our businesses are located in rural areas where, sadly, people would be lucky to have multiple bus services a day. Of course I wholeheartedly support the rapid decarbonisation of our transport system to meet our net zero commitments, but many of my communities are devoid of the public transport infrastructure that would make that a reality. Sadly, they depend on private car use for essential journeys, whether going to work or going shopping.
With the RAC calculating that, on current rates, the Treasury will take an additional £2.9 billion from fuel prices, my party is calling on the Chancellor to urgently implement two measures. First, he should reform the rural fuel duty relief to extend it to more rural areas in Wales and improve its eligibility criteria to account for local transport provision. That would bring immediate relief at the pump for rural areas and would target areas with below UK average investment in public transport infrastructure, which would hopefully incentivise the longer-term solution that is represented by better public transport links.
Secondly, I urge the Chancellor to support the Road Haulage Association’s call for an essential user category to be developed to reduce petrol prices for key services, such as logistics, and essential professions with high mileage, such as carers. Indeed, I have been told by constituents who are carers and who typically travel upwards of 50 miles a day that they are recompensed by only 30p a mile. At current fuel prices, that is simply unsustainable.
I draw attention to the impact that the rise in national insurance contributions will have on families, a point that has been well made today, and on businesses. It is effectively a tax on employment, which is why Plaid Cymru supports the proposal to increase the employment allowance from £4,000 to £5,000 a year, as advocated by the Federation of Small Businesses.
An expanded relief to allow eligible employers to reduce their national insurance liabilities would achieve several key objectives. First, it would make widespread and welcome pay rises more financially sustainable for businesses. Secondly, it would reduce the risk of higher costs being passed on as higher prices to consumers. Thirdly, it would help to protect businesses’ ability to invest, which would boost our economy’s productivity and economic growth at such a crucial time.
In sum—with time to spare, Mr Deputy Speaker—I urge the Chancellor to make use of the slightly improved picture of public finances and take the opportunity next week to introduce measures to help families and businesses and to avoid the energy crisis turning into a shock that stalls the economy.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
The message from both Opposition day debates is clear: when times are tough for ordinary people, the Conservative party drags its heels, erects barriers and rolls out excuses for being unable to help. It feels like the UK Government are devoid of a plan about this issue and are resorting to piecemeal measures that do not address the actual problem but give the appearance of action. Unfortunately, many of their actions actually make the situation worse.
The cost of living crisis has not just happened. It is not only a result of war in Ukraine but a foreseen consequence of the UK Government’s policy failure, as my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) has just set out. That includes Brexit, as we have heard, which Scotland did not vote for—that is further compounding the cost of living crisis, leaving households and businesses all the more vulnerable.
Bodies such as the Joseph Rowntree Foundation have warned that the UK Government should not withdraw pandemic support in the face of rising and sustained inflation. The UK Government’s failure to heed this kind of warning has contributed to the crisis that households across the UK face today. Indeed, a recent YouGov poll shows that 84% of Scots said they were worried about the Tory cost of living crisis and 43% said they were very worried, and no wonder.
Family budgets are under pressure from all sides, with real terms cuts in wages, the £1,040 a year cut to universal credit and significant rises in the cost of basic foodstuffs and energy that will hit low-income households hardest. People are deeply concerned about how on earth they are going to manage; they are not managing right now, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) described. Next month the Chancellor plans to raise national insurance, which will hit low and middle-income households hardest.
The effect of the Tory Government’s policies is that many families are already unable to buy the essentials, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) eloquently explained. According to the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, when the increase in NI takes effect as many as 1 million UK households could be facing destitution and the spectre of spiralling debt, just as interest rates are on the rise.
As Victoria Benson, the chief executive of Gingerbread, has put it, budgets have already been cut back as much as possible, so the stark reality is that there is nowhere else to go other than into debt or poverty. The Chancellor needs to do something to put money into the pockets of low and middle-income households as quickly as possible, to help them address the inflation that has already taken place and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) indicated, the worst that is yet to come.
Universal credit is a driver of poverty, including among working people, although the UK Government seem to forget that all too often. The withdrawal of the £20 a week uplift hits people very hard. Many households on universal credit are already worse off than they were in 2019 and many now fear for the future. The uplift must be reinstated. The UK Government should also reconsider their position on uprating given the forecast inflation rate in 2022 of 6%; the Scottish Government have just announced that they will increase six Scottish social security benefits by 6% from 1 April, helping low-income households and carers in light of the Tory cost of living crisis. That is the kind of swift and decisive action that matters so much now.
With energy bills for millions rising by £693 from April, Energy UK warning of further rises by October, which will make people significantly worse off, and concerns about the impact of the war in Ukraine on energy prices, this issue needs to be looked at very seriously. The way to do that is not, as the Chancellor has suggested, through a kiddy-on loan of £200; that is not an adequate response and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) pointed out, that is being forced on people.
As the Scottish Trades Union Congress says, this “buy now, pay later” loan comes nowhere near tackling the problem. As the SNP points out, it must be converted to a grant as part of a proper support package. The Chancellor must listen to the widespread calls to scrap VAT on energy bills and fuel, and consider a fuel duty regulator to feed back to consumers the additional income he receives through price increases.
We have heard that Jack Monroe has very sensibly highlighted the real effect of the cut in income for the poorest households and, focusing attention on the inflation premium facing low-income families with children, concludes that the impact of the cost of living crisis will be “fatal” in some cases. That must be a wake-up call for the Chancellor and the UK Government.
Maternity Action has highlighted concerns, pointing out the challenges facing new parents as the basic rate of statutory maternity, paternity and parental pay has fallen behind wages. From April, the basic rate of these vital payments will be just 47% of the already inadequate national living wage. So it is even more pressing that the UK Government should join the Scottish Government in backing a real living wage, including for younger workers. Someone’s age should not determine how much they are paid. The UK Government should also reverse the decline in support for expectant and new parents and, as we have heard, reform statutory sick pay.
Pensioners face a grim future after the Chancellor’s triple lock betrayal, reneging on clear commitments in his party’s manifesto. UK pensioners already get the lowest state pension in north-west Europe and now will be among the hardest hit by the cost of living crisis, losing £520 this year and £2,500-plus over the next five years, just as they face massive increases in energy and other costs. I spoke to a constituent in Neilston on Saturday, who wanted to know why she was being abandoned on the cost of living by the UK Government. She is a WASPI woman, and let me say yet again that it is high time the UK Government settled the claim by WASPI women.
As the SNP Scottish Government are demonstrating, with the limited levers at their disposal, it does not have to be this way. With the full powers of independence, we could do so much more with Scotland’s resources. Already, the Scottish Government are using their limited powers to support low-income households and to mitigate the Tory cost of living crisis. Nearly £70 million is going in direct financial support to households through the pandemic support payment, and discretionary housing payments of over £80 million are protecting more than 70,000 households, most of it going to mitigate the UK bedroom tax.
My hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Ms Qaisar) mentioned the £20 million fuel insecurity fund, helping households at risk of self-disconnection. There is a £290 million cost of living support package, which supports council tax reduction. Spending on devolved benefits will already be about £4 billion in 2022-23, which is 10% above the funding from the UK block grant. The Scottish child payment will double in April, immediately helping 110,000 children. The Child Poverty Action Group estimates that, once that is doubled and the planned expansion of free school meals is in place, the net cost of bringing up a child in Scotland will be nearly £24,000 lower for low-income families than elsewhere in the UK.
Rolling out similar child-friendly policies across the UK would make a real difference, because a decade of Tory mismanagement has led the UK into this cost of living crisis. I am very keen to hear from the Minister about the missing employment Bill, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) highlighted, could also deliver real change.
The Chancellor has an opportunity in his Budget to begin to fix this. He could start by applying a broad-based windfall tax on excess profits of major companies, so that major organisations such as Amazon and other large retailers, as well as energy companies, can help to relieve the burden that millions of households face. He could also scrap the £4 billion tax giveaway to the banks. Above all, he needs to stop making excuses, stop ignoring the realities of people’s day-to-day lives and what the Tory cost of living crisis is doing, and start delivering to make a difference where it is needed. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee East said, the UK Government must take urgent and immediate steps before this crisis spirals out of control.
The Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change (Greg Hands)
I thank right hon. and hon. Members for taking part in this important debate. This Government recognise and understand the pressures people are facing with the cost of living. This is of course a deeply worrying time for many of our constituents, and we will continue to listen to people’s concerns, as we have done throughout the pandemic.
Wholesale energy prices have been rising due to global pressures. Let me add here the Government’s condemnation of Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, with its inevitable impact on global energy prices, and the UK is not alone in feeling the pinch. However, I reiterate that energy security remains an absolute priority for the Government. We are confident that our security will be maintained as we transition to net zero. Indeed, many of the measures in going to net zero will help our energy security by reducing dependency on imported fossil fuels.
We continue to work closely with key industry organisations including Ofgem and National Grid Gas to monitor both supply and demand. As well as ensuring security of supply, we are also working to ensure that consumers get a fair deal.
Let me turn to points raised in the debate, first by Back-Bench Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), in a sound speech, called for more nuclear power and reminded us of Labour’s failures in the past. In 1997, the Labour party manifesto said
“We see no economic case for…nuclear power stations.”
Secondly, he rightly spoke against hydrocarbon imports from Russia. Thirdly, he spoke about heating oil—as we heard, heating oil prices are a concern on both sides of the House at the moment—and raised a few points about whether the prices charged can be justified. A recent Competition and Markets Authority investigation did not show any sign of profiteering, but, if he has evidence of unfair or sharp practices, he should please let me or others in the Department or the Treasury know.
The right hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) had done his homework. He spoke of the impacts of bills and other changes. However, he also needs to consider other aspects of Government action, such as the 12-year freeze in retail fuel prices and the increase in the national living wage from £8.91 to £9.50, which will put an extra £1,000 a year into the pockets of someone on that.
Greg Hands
I will respond first to the debate. If I have time, I will take interventions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton) said that there were more universal credit recipients in his constituency than in any other in the UK—a startling fact for his constituency—and said how much his constituents are benefiting from the changes in the UC taper rate as well as the increases in the national living wage, which he supported. On green levies, we announced in the heat and building strategy an affordability call for evidence on where to put those levies. We will take decisions on that later this year. His support for nuclear was well made, particularly coming from his part of the world near Springfields.
The hon. Members for Airdrie and Shotts (Ms Qaisar) and for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) gave a selective account of Scottish Government actions. But Scotland is benefiting hugely from the broad shoulders of the United Kingdom and the UK taxpayer in particular. What would really hammer his constituents is separation and the immediate huge budget deficit, which would be easily the largest in the western world. Either taxes would have to rise or Scottish public services would be cut.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Suzanne Webb) praised the £9.1 billion package to help those with increased energy bills and spoke about how to reduce our dependence as well as the importance of the transition to renewables. That is the answer. She also praised the Government for the 500% increase in the proportion of our electricity that comes from renewables since 2010.
The hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) made some important points about in-work poverty, but the best route out of poverty is work itself. I heard no mention from him of yesterday’s amazing figures, with the number of unemployed falling below pre-pandemic levels for the first time and another strong increase in employees on the payroll in February.
Greg Hands
I will answer the hon. Member’s point about minimum wage job adverts. The Department for Work and Pensions does have checks and, if it discovers any positions below the minimum wage, it will take them down.
Chris Stephens
I thank the Minister for that helpful answer. Is it in order for us to report the Department for Work and Pensions to the national minimum wage compliance unit?
Greg Hands
We take enforcement of the national minimum wage incredibly seriously across Government—all Departments do. However, I point out that the increase in the national living wage from £8.91 to £9.50, which is coming in just a few weeks, will help out someone working full-time by £1,000 a year. That will make a huge difference to their pay packets.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) rightly condemned the Russian invasion of Ukraine—I praise her for that—and made some important points on food security that I am sure will be drawn to the attention of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) called for a package of measures to tackle the crisis. Well, I had to go back to the SNP motion, because we will remember a package of measures being announced by our Chancellor of the Exchequer on 3 February at this Dispatch Box precisely to take action on energy bills. The hon. Gentleman is calling for a package of measures. Unfortunately, his motion calls
“to scrap the energy bill rebate scheme”.
His own motion calls for that very package of measures to be scrapped.
Moving on to the Front-Bench contributions, I have been in this House 17 years but I do not think I have ever heard a Member of Parliament for Aberdeen—for Aberdeen itself—without a single word of support for the North sea oil and gas sector. The hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) was ducking the issue, rightly raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), about what exactly is meant by the windfall tax. There are 100,000 Scottish jobs at stake, many in his constituency—in fact, his constituency may have more of those jobs than any other constituency in Britain—yet there was not a single word of support for those hard-working people in the North sea oil and gas sector.
The First Minister of Scotland said—these are her own words—
“production from the North Sea in the short term is not a practicably deliverable solution.”
That is totally defeatist. We will do further licensing rounds and we will do one this year. We are now seeing the benefits of previous licensing rounds. Only today IOG announced the Elgood field coming online, the second new field this week. This is great news for the UK as a whole and for the overall North sea sector so crucial for Scotland’s success, as well as the success of the whole of the United Kingdom.
They are not the Scottish national party. They are against the interests of Scotland. They are the Scottish dependency party, dependent on imported hydrocarbons from abroad, including from Russia. I read carefully the hon. Gentleman’s motion—one should always read the motion, as we all well know—which calls to
“scrap the energy bill rebate scheme”.
That would mean no reduction of £200 in energy bills in October, no council tax reduction in two weeks’ time, and, presumably, a repayment of the £290 million Barnett consequentials. What public services would the hon. Member for Aberdeen South cut in Scotland to fund that £290 million repayment?
Finally, I turn to Labour’s windfall tax. I must say that I had a slightly different interpretation of the position of SNP Front-Benchers. I think the hon. Member for Aberdeen South was supporting the windfall tax. I agree that it was not really clear, but I took it as supporting given that the motion talks about the windfall tax and this is a debate on energy. But I have to say to Labour that 82% of oil and gas produced in the UK is produced in Scotland, which means that Labour’s windfall tax would very largely hit the Scottish economy. A windfall tax could accelerate rising prices.
Labour has given up on Aberdeen and north-east Scotland. I remember when Labour had both seats for Aberdeen. Now, they are nowhere near—nowhere near. The Scottish Conservatives have overtaken them and anyone opposing the SNP in Aberdeen should vote for Ryan Houghton and his team in May. With moves like the windfall tax, is it any wonder that Labour support in Aberdeen is in decline and going nowhere? Maybe the hon. Member for Edinburgh South should go back to the shadow Cabinet and stick up for Scotland, and not throw in Labour’s lot with the Scottish National party—or the Scottish dependency party—when it comes to oil and gas.
As the Exchequer Secretary and I have set out, the Government have listened to, recognised and acted on the concerns of families who are struggling with the cost of living. We do not take their concerns lightly. The energy bills support scheme will provide £5.6 billion of support to households later this year, ahead of the winter period, while the additional support for English homes in council tax bands A to D will further help households with the cost of living—totalling, with Barnett consequentials, a package worth £9.1 billion. The Government will continue to engage with industry, consumer groups and other stakeholders as we progress these measures.
It is this Government who have the clear plan. The Opposition parties have squabbled among themselves today, arguing over the definitions of windfall tax, but it is we who are delivering energy security and energy transition, and securing this nation’s prosperity.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House warns that households will soon be suffering the worst income squeeze since the 1970s; notes The Institute for Fiscal Studies analysis that households are on course to be £800 worse off; calls on the Government to scrap VAT on energy bills, implement a windfall tax on companies which are benefitting from significantly increased profits as a result of impacts associated with the covid-19 pandemic or the current international situation, and to scrap the energy bill rebate scheme and introduce immediate emergency cash payments for households.
House of Commons Members’ Fund
Ordered,
That Stuart Andrew be removed as a Trustee of the House of Commons Members’ Fund and Christopher Pincher be appointed as a Trustee in pursuance of section 2 of the House of Commons Members’ Fund Act 2016.—(Gareth Johnson.)
Business without Debate
(2 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Delegated Legislation
(2 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 4 to 7 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Agriculture
That the draft Agriculture (Financial Assistance) (Amendment) Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 1 February, be approved.
That the draft Direct Payments to Farmers (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 3 February, be approved.
That the draft Agriculture (Lump Sum Payment) (England) Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 10 February, be approved.
Medical Devices
That the draft Commissioner for Patient Safety (Appointment and Operation) (England) Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 7 February, be approved.—(Gareth Johnson.)
Question agreed to.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I said no to the statutory instrument motion, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I did say “With the leave of the House,” but am I able to take the second motion again? [Interruption.] No, it has already passed. I am sorry; you should have shouted more loudly, Wera. You could have come up and told me, and that would have been a lot clearer. I gave the opportunity.
Periodontal Disease and Diabetes
(2 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I rise to present a petition that has been prepared by my constituent, Dr Christopher Turner. The petition highlights a relationship between diabetes and periodontal disease of which too few doctors are aware. It has been signed by more than 100 people across Bath.
The petition states that the petitioners
“request that the House of Commons urge the Government…to add questions about dental care to the five diabetic risks already checked annually by doctors and to require doctors to record the names of patients’ dentists in their notes and give them annual HbA1c results and for dentists to send an annual summary of the Basic Periodontal Examination with an explanation of the scores to patients’ doctors.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Notes that there is overwhelming scientific evidence from multiple countries that diabetes mellitus and periodontal disease are linked, the one affecting the other in a two-way process and that diabetics are at a 3-4 times greater risk of developing periodontal disease than non-diabetics and that diabetics who smoke are at even greater risk; further that periodontal disease has been described at the sixth complication of diabetes yet few doctors are aware of the relationship, although it is well-known to dentists since it was first described in 1928; further that when periodontal disease is brought under control, metabolic control is improved and this can lead to a reduced need for diabetic medication; further that doctors are not asking patients about their dental health when they carry out reviews because this question is missing from the National Institute of Clinical Excellence check list that they follow; further that NCIE has previously refused to add a question about dental care to the above list such that doctors are not advising diabetics who do not have regular dental care that this is in their interests; declares that diabetic patients may be disadvantaged because of this omission; further that as a routine doctors and dentists are not working together for this growing group of patients and not sharing results when it is known that a blood HbA1c level of greater than 6.5 is associated with greater periodontal breakdown; and further that dentists are not routinely sharing their Basic Periodontal Examination results with doctors such that trends in the management of both diseases are not being observed.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government, and in particular the Department for Health and Social Care to add questions about dental care to the five diabetic risks already checked annually by doctors and to require doctors to record the names of patients’ dentists in their notes and give them annual HbA1c results and for dentists to send an annual summary of the Basic Periodontal Examination with an explanation of the scores to patients’ doctors.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002717]
Bank Branch Closures
(2 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am aware that it is not necessarily a requirement to thank the Chair in an Adjournment debate, but this is my very first Adjournment debate and it really is a pleasure to serve under your chairship.
The subject that I am raising today is so important and so topical: just today, HSBC has announced that it is closing 69 stores across the four nations. My constituency of Airdrie and Shotts is centrally located; in fact, the wee town of Harthill is pretty much halfway between Glasgow and Edinburgh. There is therefore an assumption that my constituents can travel around easily, so if a local service such as a bank closes, they can simply hop on a bus. That is not the case.
In September last year, Virgin Money announced that it was closing three of its Lanarkshire stores: Airdrie, Cumbernauld and East Kilbride. The Airdrie store closed its doors in January this year. My constituents were told that they could travel from Airdrie town centre to the nearest branch in Baillieston. That is either 20 minutes by car or a bus journey of an hour, and for that to work, we would have to assume that people do not live in places such as Greengairs, Petersburn or Chapelhall. Essentially, my constituents who do not live in Airdrie town centre have considerable journeys to make. That poses additional barriers to those who are either financially vulnerable or struggling with mobility.
When I spoke last year to officials from Virgin Money, which is the rebranded former Clydesdale branch, they told me that the closures were in response to changing customer demand and a reduction in footfall. That did not really make sense to me, because every single bank branch in the country saw a change in customer demand and a reduction in footfall. Why? Because we were in the midst of a global pandemic and in lockdown.
When we think of banking hubs, we also think of London, the big city. However, my constituency has a proud 181-year history as a banking hub, and Airdrie Savings Bank, founded in 1835, had its own long and proud history in north Lanarkshire and, indeed, throughout Scotland. It was a small commercial bank which operated on mutual principles and had no shareholders, being governed instead by a board of trustees.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. We have discussed banks here on many occasions. These closures affect the most vulnerable in society, the elderly and others who have no access to modern technology. They cannot simply jump online to do their banking. The banks make massive profits every year, and they have an obligation to look after the customers who have, in fact, built them up.
Ms Qaisar
Those are important matters, and I will come to them later in my speech.
I vividly remember being dragged to the high street when I was a wee girl growing up in Motherwell. Adult Anum does not necessarily have to be dragged to the high street, but as a child I hated it. My mum had her routine: she would go to Asda and get her messages, and then she would pop into Airdrie Savings Bank. Popping into the bank meant that she could get all her banking issues sorted out, but bank branch staff tend to become known to locals, so Mum would often stand and have a wee blether with them. However, this small commercial bank ceased trading entirely and closed its doors in 2017. Royal Bank of Scotland in Graham Street closed its doors in 2018, and Barclays shut six years ago. As of today, Airdrie is serviced by only one bank, Bank of Scotland, and one building society, Nationwide. It is the same story in Shotts. In 2016 Royal Bank of Scotland shut down, and Airdrie Savings Bank closed its Shotts branch back in 2015. RBS does send a van to the Co-op car park once a week for an hour, but outwith those times people have to head for a nearby town such as Wishaw.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
Does the hon. Lady agree that this is a national issue? We have experienced exactly the same problems in Reading and Woodley. Again, it is elderly and disabled people who are put under enormous pressure by these closures. It is really hard for them. Many are only familiar with banking through cheques, and they want to see a person: they do not want to have to deal with “online”, and, indeed, their families often worry about their using online banking. Perhaps the hon. Lady will join me in calling for wider national consideration of this issue, and, in particular, for the Government to put pressure on the banks to provide hubs.
Ms Qaisar
I entirely agree. When banks decide to close, we as Members of Parliament rightly engage in meaningful discussions. We fight for our constituents and try our level best to ensure that they have access to the local branch for as long as possible. If a branch does close we will fight for those banking services, but the reality of these commercial decisions is that all too often such discussions do not end in a positive outcome for our constituents. I say to the Minister that, with only a handful of banks on our high streets, now is the time for Government intervention. The banking issues that my constituents are facing will affect people in all four nations. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on what work she plans to do to ensure that our high streets do not become banking ghost towns.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
My hon. Friend said that there was “meaningful” engagement between MPs and the banks. It may be meaningful on one side—indeed, I know that it is—but it certainly does not appear to be meaningful on the other. The lack of proper consultation between the banks, the communities and their representatives is particularly unhelpful at a time when the banks are abandoning so many of our high streets.
Ms Qaisar
I completely agree with my hon. Friend.
In 2018, a Scottish parliamentary inquiry into the impact of bank branch closures on local businesses, consumers and the Scottish economy highlighted a number of concerns. It stuck out to me that Pete Cheema of the Scottish Grocers Federation said:
“We need to go back and talk to the banks. It is very clear that the decisions are being made in London. Up and down the UK, 600 branches have closed, but part of Wales, the whole of Scotland and bits of the south-west of England have suffered the most. We need to take that in context; I wonder sometimes whether the banks understand Scotland’s landscape.”
Evidence from Which? indicated
“there are 130 ‘cash deserts’ in Scotland (places where there is no access to either a branch or an ATM within a reasonable distance).”
Several hon. Members rose—
Ms Qaisar
I will make some progress.
Banks are so much more than simply a place to deal with money. Age Scotland has argued:
“For many older people, going to the bank…gets them out of the house… This is an important component in addressing the…effects of loneliness”.
The stark reality is that bank branch closures deny vulnerable communities their right to independent living.
Face-to-face banking must not be lost. Will the Minister clarify what work she is doing to ensure the social inclusion aspect of banking is not lost for those who need it? Bank branch closures affect around 20% of small businesses with a turnover below £2 million, as they often use branches as their primary means of banking.
I remember working part time in retail as a university student and having to jump over to the bank with the takings of the day or to ensure we had enough petty cash in the register. Such access to banking and cash is vital, especially if we want to ensure that small businesses continue to hold a place on our high streets.
Ms Qaisar
I will make some progress, if my hon. Friend does not mind. [Interruption.] I am trying to be polite, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The concerns I have outlined also apply to charities and trusts, which often heavily rely on cash donations and payments. There is a security risk to volunteers, causing additional pressure, if they have to travel a distance to an alternative branch.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate.
I am lucky that my constituency has the Cambuslang bank hub, which was part of a pilot scheme involving the Post Office and the high street banks to ensure locals have access to face-to-face banking services. Does my hon. Friend agree it is important that, where there are widespread closures, there is something to replace those services for the community?
Ms Qaisar
I agree with my hon. Friend.
I was speaking about the impact on local businesses, charities and trusts. Can the Minister confirm what the Government are doing to ensure the safety of staff and volunteers? This is an important point, because they are often having to travel a distance when their nearest bank branch has closed. Although that is a commercial decision, we cannot have our constituents put in a precarious situation when carrying cash at the end of the day or after a fundraising event.
At the heart of this, banks tell us that the decision to close a branch is driven by customer behaviour and demand, but I would argue that banks are pushing this change. Speaking to branch staff and customers to examine the trends does not necessarily provide the full context of what is happening in a particular area. Does the Minister agree that the UK Government should consider introducing an independent body to conduct independent impact assessments, including of the impact on a local community, before a bank closes a branch? Such a localised assessment could ensure that decisions made in a local area are reflective of the needs of the local community.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
Lanark serves a much wider rural area. Access to mobile banking and different types of accessibility is so important when rural communities are left without access to banking, as people are often told that their bank is 20 miles away, inaccessible and unavailable to most.
Ms Qaisar
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and Members will not be surprised to hear that I completely agree with what she has just stated.
At the onset of the covid pandemic so many businesses across the country literally switched overnight to cashless payment systems. The concerns about the move towards a cashless society have been raised numerous times by Members from across this House. However, the shift to digital banking has only been accelerated by the ongoing pandemic. While we continue to move away from cash and towards the digital era of banking, it is vital that we ensure that no one is left behind. I mean no disrespect to my colleagues, especially those on the SNP Benches, but there is a wee bit of an age difference between myself and some of the others. I am stereotypical of those young people who are more likely to use digital wallets, smartphone apps and online banking. Recent statistics show us that about 76% of people in the UK use some form of digital money management, and this trend is increasing, especially in the younger sections of society, with more than 50% of 25 to 34-year-olds willing to go completely digital when handling their finances. That does not translate throughout older demographics and more vulnerable groups in society.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
As one of the older generation, I get my hon. Friend’s point: we absolutely are moving towards a digital economy. There is no doubt about that, but access to cash is absolutely required for the most impoverished in our society and, yes, some of our older colleagues. Does she agree that the banks and, importantly, the post offices have to look at this closely, because as high street banks close, the ATMs often go with them? They provide access to cash and, importantly, access to cash to the penny, which is still required.
Ms Qaisar
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and what he is saying is important. Of course, when I was talking about older Members, I was not referring to him at all. [Laughter.] At that point, I will swiftly move on.
Throughout the course of the pandemic, we have witnessed the need for a more digitally connected society, both for work and socialising. Banking, however, is not excluded from that. While there has been a sharp increase in the uptake of digital banking, simultaneously we have also seen a mass exodus of banks from our high streets. This poses huge concerns for those who are not digitally literate, have no access to technology or are simply uncomfortable with the transition away from cash. An important point to remember is that where some of these people are not using digital wallets, online banking or digital banking it is through no fault of their own; they might have financial struggles that mean they are unable to get access to mobile data or wi-fi. That is hindering their access and we are not necessarily talking about people from an older age demographic. The 2019 Access to Cash final report found that more than 8 million people would struggle directly as a consequence of a cashless society. Cash is therefore essential to ensuring that vulnerable groups such as older people or low-income households, who often have limited access to digital banking, are not excluded.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
As the granny of the House, I have to say that I have an electronic wallet on my phone. However, does my hon. Friend agree that it is about time the Government brought forward their access to cash Bill, which has been promised for quite a long time?
Ms Qaisar
I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for raising that important point. She has raised it on a number of occasions and I fully support her in all her comments.
While we are trying to become this more digitally inclusive and digitally literate society, there are projects going on in that regard. For example, in my constituency, a project funded by Connecting Scotland, a Scottish Government initiative, has been working alongside the community to help people to get online and into the digital age at Lorne Gardens retirement complex in Salsburgh. The project supplies elderly constituents with 200 digital devices and mi-fi boxes so that on Tuesday nights tenants can meet to share skills with an aim to building up relationships and increasing their confidence when using their devices. I am delighted that projects such as this are providing older constituents with vital digital skills that could be used for navigating online banking. However, this should not detract from the fact that many older people still ultimately prefer traditional methods of banking. The really important point about such projects is that they teach people transferable skills, because once they get online and are able to use digital banking, they can use those skills to navigate other websites—and maybe not become too addicted on online shopping.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
In countries such as Estonia—I am delighted to be co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group—it is a constitutional right for all citizens to have access to the internet, and therefore the transition to the digital age is a far more equal process. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is something the United Kingdom needs to think about?
Ms Qaisar
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. As I said, if we are able to help people across all sections of society to get online, even in just one aspect such as digital banking, these are transferable skills that they can then use in digital literacy. That is absolutely key and it has to be an initiative for the UK Government.
Although the move towards digital banking is happening rapidly, it is vital that we as politicians, banks and Governments make a conscious effort to ensure that everyone is included in this process. While 46% of Londoners are using digital-only banking, this is far from the reality for people north of the border. The responsibility of ensuring that everyone across the country is financially included therefore falls at the feet of this Government. It is imperative that we do everything we can to ensure that no one is left behind.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Frazer)
It is a privilege to respond to this debate on behalf of the Government. I congratulate the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Ms Qaisar) on securing her first Adjournment debate on an issue on which she has been vocal and campaigned hard. My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury takes the issue of bank closures very seriously, and he would have represented the Government’s position here today were he not on ministerial business abroad.
The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts talked about the importance of people going into banks. The reality is that the way that consumers engage and interact with their banks is changing, with increasing numbers using digital services to manage their affairs. It was interesting to hear her talk about her own experience and that of her generation in terms of how people are now accessing their money.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
The reality is that the experience of those states that have moved to a digital framework, such as Estonia, highlights the fact that this transition needs to recognise those who find it most difficult. Therefore, we need to be in a position where people who still use cash are able to do so whenever they need to.
Lucy Frazer
The hon. Member makes an important point. I will come on to the ways in which we are ensuring that those who need to access a physical location are indeed able to do so.
According to UK Finance, as of 2019, half of adults in this country used mobile banking. In the 12 months to February 2020, half of adults with a day-to-day bank account carried out their banking activities face to face in-branch, down from almost two thirds— 63%—just three years earlier. The Government want to ensure that people have appropriate access to banking services, and the transition towards digital banking brings many opportunities for individuals and businesses. It is our view that the Government cannot and should not seek to reverse the changes we are seeing in the market and in customer behaviour. Nor should the Government determine firms’ commercial strategies in response to these changes. Having the flexibility to respond to changes in the market is part of what made the UK’s financial services sector one of the most competitive in the world, and the Government want to protect that success.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
While Governments should not be setting commercial objectives for the banks, I was told by a representative of a bank which had shut both a branch and removed the automated teller machine that it cost as much to keep an ATM as to run a branch, so I think we need to say to the banks—while not imposing any commercial criteria on them—that they should at least be honest about the reasons why branches are shutting.
Lucy Frazer
I am confident that banks will be carefully looking at how much it costs to run an ATM versus a people-staffed bank and will make those decisions accordingly, but we recognise the impact of branch closures on people and their communities, and the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) talked about the importance of engagement with communities. Since 2017, the UK’s largest banks and building societies have been signed up to the access to banking standard, which commits them to ensuring that they inform customers about any branch closures, that they explain the reasons for the closure, and that they clearly outline customers’ options for continued access to banking services.
Lucy Frazer
I am going to carry on because the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts, who secured the debate, made many points and I want to respond to them.
The Financial Conduct Authority has also set out its expectations of firms when deciding whether to reduce the number of their physical branches or the number of free-to-use ATMs. FCA guidance states that firms are expected to carefully consider the impact of a planned closure on their customers’ everyday banking and cash needs.
The hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Reading East (Matt Rodda) talked about the importance of going into a physical location for those such as the elderly and the disabled. As well as the innovations around mobile and online banking, there are alternative options to access everyday banking services via telephone banking and also, importantly, via the Post Office. The Post Office plays a significant role in servicing people’s everyday banking needs across the UK. The Post Office banking framework allows 99% of personal banking and 95% of business customers to deposit cheques, check their balance, and withdraw and deposit cash at the 11,500 Post Office branches right across the UK. As the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts pointed out, it is important that there is somewhere to take that cash, which is why the Post Office provides such an important service.
Lucy Frazer
I am going to come on now to the point the hon. Lady made about access to cash. Access to cash is one of the services that bank branches and post offices help to deliver, but the Government understand the importance of cash to the daily lives of millions of people across the UK, particularly vulnerable people, which is exactly why we have committed to legislate to protect access to cash.
Last year, the Government consulted on further proposals for new laws to make sure people need to travel only a reasonable distance to pay in or take out cash. The Government’s proposals are intended to support the continued use of cash in people’s daily lives and help enable local businesses to continue accepting cash by protecting deposit facilities. We are carefully considering the responses to the consultation as we develop legislation and will set out next steps in due course. Encouragingly, following the Government’s commitment to legislate, firms are working together through the Access to Cash Action Group to develop new initiatives to provide shared services.
I wish to touch on another way for people to access the banking system in person. The hon. Member for Reading East mentioned banking hubs. The introduction of shared banking hubs is an exciting development. Last year saw the successful pilot of the initiative, with two bank hubs offering counter services run by the Post Office and dedicated spaces for customers to see community bankers from their own bank. The findings of the pilot revealed that, as of October 2021, £4.65 million of cash had been deposited at the two pilot sites. Almost a quarter of local businesses said the pilots meant they no longer needed to close their shop to get or deposit cash. As a result, the two bank hubs have been extended until at least the spring of 2023.
Building on the experience gained in the pilots, last December the industry announced its intention to introduce five more Post Office bank hubs in Acton, Brixham, Angus, Knaresborough and Syston. The bank hubs are a commercial initiative, meaning it is for industry to play a key role in the provision of appropriate facilities for customers.
At the beginning of her speech, the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts talked about HSBC’s announcement of the closure of some banks. I reassure her that all the branches that are to close have a post office within 1.5 miles for everyday banking transactions.
Lucy Frazer
I am going to conclude because I fear I am running out of time.
The Government understand what is at stake here and are working hard to do right by communities up and down the country. Banking is changing in ways to which industry can and should respond but, as I have said, it is also right that the impact of branch closures on people and communities is understood, considered and, where possible, mitigated, so that everyone, whoever they are and wherever they live, continues to have access to the services they need.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Electricity Supplier Payments (Amendment) Regulations 2022
(2 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change (Greg Hands)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Electricity Supplier Payments (Amendment) Regulations 2022.
The draft statutory instrument, which was laid before the House on 7 February 2022, amends regulations concerning the levies used to fund the operational costs budgets of the Low Carbon Contracts Company, the LCCC, and the Electricity Settlements Company, the ESC— two separate companies, all within this one SI.
The LCCC administers the contracts for difference scheme on behalf of the Government, under the Energy Act 2013. Under the same Act, it is anticipated that the LCCC will also administer the dispatchable power agreement and support the development of a new scheme for bioenergy with carbon capture and storage within the next three years. The ESC, the other company covered by the draft SI, administers the capacity market scheme. The schemes will incentivise the significant investment required in our electricity infrastructure, keep costs affordable for consumers and help to deliver our net zero strategy, while keeping our energy supply secure.
Contracts for difference, or CfDs, provide long-term price stabilisation to low-carbon generators, allowing investment to come forward at a lower cost of capital and therefore at a lower cost to consumers. The current CfD auction, the fourth to date, opened in December, and we are seeking to secure more than in all previous auctions. It will allow a broad range of renewable technologies to come forward, while delivering the best for bill payers. I remind the Committee that, for the first time, we also introduced a £20 million dedicated pot for tidal.
Only projects located in Great Britain have been awarded CfDs to date. However, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Northern Ireland Department for the Economy are considering whether to extend the current GB-only CfD scheme to Northern Ireland. Funds have therefore been included in the budgets to enable LCCC to undertake some preparatory work in case a final decision is made to enable Northern Ireland to join the scheme.
Turning to the ESC, the capacity market is tried and tested. It is the most cost-effective way of ensuring that we have the electricity capacity that we need now and in the future. The capacity market provides incentives in the form of guaranteed payments to eligible capacity providers to be on the system and to deliver capacity when needed by increasing generation or by turning down their electricity demand in return for the guaranteed payments. The capacity auctions held to date have secured the capacity that we need to meet the forecast peak demand out to 2025-26. The next auction, scheduled for early 2023, will secure most of the capacity we need out to 2026-27.
In both the CfD and the capacity market schemes, participants bid for support via a competitive auction, which ensures that costs to consumers are minimised. The LCCC and ESC’s effective administration of the CfD and capacity market schemes to date has demonstrated their ability to deliver such schemes at least cost to consumers. In part for that reason, LCCC has been working with BEIS to develop new schemes to incentivise deployment of more low-carbon technologies.
For example, LCCC has supported BEIS in the development of dispatchable power agreements, or DPAs, under the Energy Act 2013. Those agreements, which are based on CfDs, have been designed to instil confidence among investors for power carbon capture and storage projects and to incentivise the availability of low-carbon, non-weather-dependent dispatchable generation capacity. The DPA will drive the private sector investment required to bring forward at least one power CCUS—carbon capture, utilisation and storage—project by the mid-2020s. LCCC is expected to be the counterparty for DPAs, and funds have been included within the budgets to support that role.
It is anticipated that LCCC will also work with BEIS to develop incentives for bioenergy with carbon capture and storage. Although that has not been confirmed, contracts for such projects could potentially be entered into following a process established under the Energy Act 2013. Were BEIS to move forward with that option, LCCC would need to undertake activity to prepare for acting as the counterparty in the next three years. Consequently, funds have also been included in the budget for that purpose.
It is important that LCCC and ESC are sufficiently funded to perform their roles effectively given their critical role in administering the schemes I have outlined. However, the Government are clear that both companies must deliver value for money. With that in mind, we have scrutinised the operational costs budgets closely to ensure that they reflect the operational requirements and objectives for the companies. LCCC and ESC are very mindful of the need to deliver value for money, as their guiding principle is to maintain investor confidence in the CfD and capacity market schemes while minimising costs to consumers. They have taken a number of actions to date to reduce costs, such as bringing expertise in house rather than relying on more expensive outside consultants. It is because of such actions that CfD operational costs per contract are falling despite the growing size of the CfD portfolio.
There is a similar narrative for ESC. The company currently manages 200.8 GW of capacity agreements, with 1,335 capacity providers under the capacity market. For the delivery year 2022-23, that equates to 52.9 GW of capacity and 350 capacity providers, an increase of 78 capacity providers compared with the 2021-22 delivery year. Despite this increase, operational costs are expected to be lower in 2022-23 compared with the year before.
The operational costs budgets for both companies were subject to consultation, which gave stakeholders the opportunity to scrutinise and test the key assumptions in the budgets and ensure that they represent value for money. The response received to the consultation noted the significant increase of budget for LCCC, but was generally supportive of the Government’s rationale for the increase. BEIS is satisfied that the operational costs budgets for LCCC and ESC should remain as consulted on; the budgets remain unchanged as a result of the consultation.
The proposed operational costs budget for LCCC is £24,210,000 in 2022-23, £26,978,000 in 2023-24, and £29,051,000 in 2024-25. For ESC, the proposed operational costs budget is £6,954,000 in 2022-23, £7,382,000 in 2023-24, and £7,734,000 in 2024-25. The regulations revise the levies currently in place to enable the companies to collect enough revenue to fund those budgets. Any levy collected that is not spent will be returned to suppliers at the end of the relevant financial year, in accordance with the regulations. Subject to the will of Parliament, the settlement costs levy for ESC is due to come into force on the day after the regulations are made, and the operational costs levy for LCCC by 1 April in each of the relevant financial years.
I assure hon. Members that the Government are also mindful of the uncertainties involved in setting a budget for the next three years, such as world events impacting energy demand and supply decisions on new schemes that have not yet been taken. Consequently, BEIS will keep the companies’ budgets under careful review throughout the budget period to ensure that costs to consumers are minimised. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
The SI is clearly not controversial, except for a number of points on which I would like to ask the Minister for clarification. The Opposition do not oppose the SI, and there will be no need for the Committee to divide today. I will restrict my remarks to questions for the Minister about the LCCC, the settlements body, the budgets, what that means for value for money, and a review of the functions of the LCCC and the settlements body. One would hope that the review of the workings of the capacity market and CfDs, which is supposed to be coming up, will include a review of a number of the issues that I will raise.
First, we have two separate bodies essentially doing the same thing. They were set up by different pieces of secondary legislation. Each body has a budget for its work, but they do the same work and even, I think, have the same address. They are essentially counterparty bodies—one for the capacity market and one for CfDs. It is beyond me why there is not one organisation with one set of costs and arrangements. I am sure the costs would be rather less than we have now. That may be something that the Government might like to include in a review of the workings of the capacity market and CfDs.
The report of that review was supposed to be with us in 2019, five years after the Energy Act 2013 was passed. It is still not here. I note that the explanatory memorandum states that
“the findings for the review are expected to be laid in Parliament shortly.”
They have not been. What is the progress of that review? When is it likely to be laid before Parliament, if it is indeed ready? There has been a two-year hiatus in getting the report organised. Why has it been so difficult to it bring forward? If there is any time for reconsideration of any aspects of the report, perhaps some of the things that I raise—particularly the companies’ status—could be included in it.
My second question relates to the capacity market settlement body and how the funds for capacity auctions are being administered. I will shed a small spotlight on the recent T-1 capacity auction. The Secretary of State—I think it was the Secretary of State, rather than the Minister who is present this afternoon—decided that the amount to be procured in that auction would be identical to the amount of pre-qualified capacity in the auction. One can see fairly clearly that that move meant that there would not be an auction in the way that auctions are normally decided, in so far as all the capacity that decided to enter the auction would get a place because there was no room for anything pre-qualified to be outside the auction.
Indeed, that is what happened, and the auction closed at a very high price of £75—a record high for a capacity auction. I suggest that that was particularly due to the Secretary of State’s declaration that the amount to be procured would be identical to that which had been pre-qualified. Indeed, the amount that was procured was actually less than the amount that was pre-qualified, and that added to the inflation of the price in the capacity auction. I would be grateful for the Minister’s explanation, because there is a much higher price for capacity being procured and therefore administered by the settlements body than would otherwise have been the case, and there is possibly also a greater administrative cost.
The inflation in the budgets for the two bodies is actually quite staggering. For example, the CfD counterparty’s operational budget will increase by 14% between ’21 and ’22, by 10.3% between ’22 and ’23, and by 7% between ’23 and ’24. That is a cumulative increase over three years of 34%. That is enormous, by anybody’s reckoning, for any Government Department or sub-department or agency. I am not convinced that the explanation put forward today—that the CfD counterparty body will have a larger number of CfDs to deal with—justifies a cumulative 34% increase in budget over that three-year period, particularly as a similar, but smaller, increase is contemplated for the capacity market settlements body at the same time.
It is a considerable increase in budget, which, by the way, lands back on customers’ bills. Hon. Members will see in the explanatory memorandum that the estimated effect on household bills will be about 50p added to each customer’s bill per year. That is set out in the explanatory memorandum as one of those “only” calculations—“it is only 50p on bills”—but that is, of course, a cumulative £1.50 on bills over the settlement period. Indeed, the Government have levied similar increases on customer bills—for example, with the green gas levy—in order to deal with arrangements for the management of the market.
We are therefore faced with a number increases that are very small individually but collectively add up to quite a bit of money on customer bills, at a time when those bills are going through the roof. We need to find every method we can to ensure that bills are cheaper. Let us be clear: these measures will add to the problem, not take away from it. Is the Minister absolutely satisfied that the increase in operational budgets is justifiable? Is there merit in reviewing it, now or in the near future, to ensure that we have got the figures right?
I would like to run a final point by the Minister. As he knows, the LCCC, as the body responsible for CfDs, has the function of collecting the money where the difference between the strike price and the reference price on the CfD is positive and giving the money back where the difference is negative. What I mean by that is where a project has a CfD at a certain price, that price would normally be above the prevailing price on the electricity market. Where the price on the electricity market goes above the strike price, which it has done more recently with a number of bodies that have CfDs, the body that has a CfD starts paying the money back to the LCCC. The estimates for this year are about £1.5 billion to be paid back over a period, which is substantially larger than the operational budgets of these bodies, as hon. Members will see.
That arrangement being in place, I would have thought that a useful way of underwriting the operational budgets of such bodies would be to take those repayments back into account as part of the operational budget arrangements for the companies, so that prior to redistributing those moneys on the way back, they could incorporate part of that payback into their operational budget, circumstances permitting. Alternatively, if they build up reserves as a result of the payback arrangements, they could use those reserves for their operational budget instead of levying a further cost on customer bills, as they are at the moment.
Those are fairly modest suggestions for the Minister. I will be grateful if he considers those points, if he thinks that they are reasonably valid. If he does not think they are, perhaps he will say so. They all have the objective of ensuring that what we have, as far as the counterparty bodies are concerned, is the most efficient way of running them; the most appropriate way of procuring the finances to make sure that they run in the best possible way; and the best possible way of organising them so that they are as lean as possible in the operation of their duties.
Greg Hands
I thank the hon. Member for Southampton, Test for living up to the name of his constituency—he set some testing questions for us. Let me deal with the five questions that he asked.
First, why are there two companies? It is worth stating that the two functions are very different: the capacity market and running the contracts for difference auctions. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is fully aware of that. The idea is also to separate out the liabilities of the two companies. During the consultation on electricity market reform, investors and other stakeholders believed that it would be better to have two legally separate companies to keep the liabilities separate. We rolled them together because, in essence, they are funded in a similar way, but they have two different functions. However, I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s testing question about that.
The hon. Gentleman is right that the report due under the Energy Act 2013 has been delayed. That is, essentially, because of the pandemic and to ensure that it did not get in the way of the recent contracts for difference auction by taking people off that. The recent CfD auction that started in December is the largest ever—in fact, larger than the previous three auctions put together. We will publish the report in due course. I expect to see advice on it shortly.
The hon. Gentleman asked why the Secretary of State and/or I recommended increasing the amount that was bought at the recent capacity market auction. It was a prudent decision, in these times of high and volatile energy prices, to ensure that we were as covered as we could be going into next year. The Secretary of State and I very much took the same view—we always take the same view in the Government; there is never such a thing as different views—that it was a very prudent decision to be able to maximise that. The hon. Gentleman asked whether that resulted in a higher price. The answer is no. There was obviously a very high price going in to that auction, reflecting high energy prices at the moment.
Dr Whitehead
Is the Minister saying that the exact comparability of the pre-qualifying amount of capacity for the T-1 auction and the amount of capacity that the Ministers decided was the right thing, which was an increase in the recommendation, was a coincidence? Or is he saying that that was carefully designed to ensure that the capacity available and the capacity bid for was the same?
Greg Hands
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that further question. I would not say that it was a coincidence, but what we wanted to do was make sure that the British consumer had the maximum positive protection looking forward, particularly at a time of high and volatile gas and electricity prices combined with the previous parts of the auctions and the previous years rolled into that one period. For example, the previous T-4 auction meant that, overall, the ’22-23 capacity market year, which we are about to go into, is the second cheapest yet because of the cheaper prices in previous auction years. Although there was a high price paid in the T-1 auction this year, when we look at the whole period, we took advantage of lower prices to have the second cheapest delivery overall in terms of the capacity market for ’22-23.
The hon. Gentleman asked some fair questions about the budget increases. The budgets overall put less than 50p on the average electricity bill in the previous year, 2020-21. He is right that there is a significant increase; I have laid out why and shall do so again, but this is not a big part of consumers’ electricity bills.
The hon. Gentleman made the perfectly reasonable point that surely we should do everything we can to make bills cheaper, and that is exactly why the Chancellor announced on 3 February the package of measures to help households and bill payers through council tax payments and the different support funds for those who do not qualify for the council tax rebate but none the less have high energy prices.
The budget increase reflects the increase in the number of CfDs. Over this budget period, there has been a 400% increase as a result of the success of the Government’s renewables policy and of more renewable energy providers wanting to take part. That will mean a necessary increase in the number of people needed to go through all the bids in the CfD process. There are also more capacity market providers and the development of new technologies such as power CCUS. I also remind the hon. Gentleman that during the consultation, no one was against this proposal. I do not think that we received a response from him—
Dr Whitehead
I wonder whether the Minister would like to reflect on the numbers taking part in the consultation. Does he have an answer as to how many people responded to that? What conclusions does he think can be drawn from the total number of responses?
Greg Hands
I am happy to answer that. We had one response during the consultation, which was not from the hon. Gentleman but was from one of the power companies. The one response was not principally against the increase in the cost of the scheme. The increase in the cost, particularly in the LCCC, reflects a hugely increased workload with the 400% increase in the number of CfDs during the course of the budget period.
Finally, on the LCCC paying back the money, to put it more in the vernacular, when it comes to the strike price referencing the reference price, I do not think that it is practical to take that into the LCCC’s budget or in some way to pay for the LCCC that way. This is the right way to pay for the LCCC. The scheme is working in the way that it is designed to.
Dr Whitehead
If the Minister does not think that that is the case, does he think that some method of making sure that those repayments go back directly to customers rather than indirectly, as is the case at the moment, might be a better way of doing things?
Greg Hands
The hon. Gentleman raises a really interesting and important question. We have seen no evidence so far that repayments because of high energy prices are not being made to consumers. We will monitor that situation very closely and the scheme is designed to ensure that it happens. If he has evidence to suggest that that money is not reaching consumers in the way that it should, I am happy for him to write to me and lay out the evidence as he sees it. I have yet to see any evidence that that has happened.
I hope that my speech has given some answers to the hon. Gentleman’s five questions and that the responses I have provided give the Committee the necessary assurances to approve the statutory instrument before us. As I said at the start of the debate, the regulations that the Government are seeking to amend through the instrument will revise the operational costs levies of the LCCC and the ESC. Those companies play a crucial role in delivering the CfD scheme and the capacity market. The Government anticipate that the LCCC will play a similar role in administering new schemes in the future, including the DPA and potentially a scheme supporting bioenergy with carbon capture and storage. It must be sufficiently funded to perform these roles effectively, but the costs of doing that must be kept to a minimum.
It is my view that the operational budget for 2022-23 to 2024-25—so, for the next three years—strikes an appropriate balance between ensuring the companies are adequately funded and ensuring consumers’ bills are minimised. I therefore urge the Committee to back the regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Electricity Supplier Payments (Amendment) Regulations 2022.
Westminster Hall
(2 years, 7 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
Peace and Stability in the Balkans
(2 years, 7 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
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the maintenance of peace and stability in the Balkans.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has sent frightening shockwaves throughout the European continent, and there is particular concern in Finland and Sweden; in the Baltic states of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia; in Moldova, regarding Transnistria; and in the Balkans.
I well remember, as we all do, the terrible bloodshed in the western Balkans following the break-up of Yugoslavia. I visited Bosnia in 2013 as part of an inter-parliamentary delegation. I recall the harrowing stories I heard from people belonging to all ethnic groups, and I will never forget travelling by bus through the Balkans and visiting Sarajevo. We passed through numerous communities in the Balkans and saw graveyard after graveyard in every community.
A little later in the conflict, only the intervention of NATO in Kosova and Serbia prevented even more appalling bloodshed when Serbian nationalists, led by Slobodan Miloševic, tried to ethnically cleanse Kosova of Muslim Albanians. Whatever our views and our differences in this Parliament, we must all be united in our resolution to stop that happening again.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter to the Chamber. He is talking about the exclusion of aircraft and an exclusion zone. Perhaps he agrees that today, when we think of Ukraine, we do so for the very same reason that a no-fly zone was wanted in the Balkans—because it would stop the murder of children, babies and elderly people, the killing of innocents and the destruction of property. Does he agree that if we want to make sure that the Russians cannot win, we need a no-fly zone so that we can protect people?
Wayne David
I certainly understand the sentiments the hon. Member expresses so strongly, and I am sure we all agree with those sentiments, but we must look carefully at what a no-fly zone might mean in the situation we face in Ukraine. A no-fly zone would be easy to do, but it is wrong to draw exact parallels between what happened in the western Balkans and what is happening in Ukraine today.
Even before the invasion of Ukraine, there was growing concern that Bosnia and Herzegovina could once again be engulfed by ethnic bloodshed of the kind that we saw in the 1990s. The fragile Dayton peace agreement had been under strain for some time, and the President of Republika Srpska had advised of his goal of fracturing the Bosnian state. The Bosnian Serbs had announced that they were going to boycott key institutions of the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Serbia has lent implied support to Dodik and his supporters in Bosnia—a country that is already seeing real unrest. I would be interested to hear the hon. Member’s views on the risks associated with an emboldened Dodik and how those risks might spread across the region.
Wayne David
That is the essence of my speech, and I shall come to that point, but the hon. Member has put her finger on the centrality of the issue and the difficulties that we face.
That withdrawal from the state apparatus of Bosnia and Herzegovina, including the ending of Serb involvement in the tax system, the judiciary and, crucially, the army, is tremendously important. After meeting with the President of Serbia in January, the leader of Republika Srpska, Dodik, stated that a return to Bosnian state institutions could occur only if reference to genocide by Republika Srpska entities were prohibited. The boycott of Bosnian state institutions began in July last year after the EU High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina outlawed the denial of the 1995 Srebrenica massacre. That is worth remembering, because in July 1995 over 8,000 Bosniak men and boys were massacred in cold blood. There can be no attempt to forget that or erase it from history. To attempt to do so is fundamentally wrong.
There is no doubt that for some time the Kremlin has been supporting the destabilisation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. For a number of years Putin has been encouraging Serb nationalism, putting arms into Serb hands and stirring up ethnic hatred. In November last year the EU’s High Representative wrote that the country was facing
“the greatest existential threat of the postwar period”.
That was true when it was said in November 2021. Unfortunately, it is even more true today.
Recently, the United Kingdom, the European Union and the United States have reaffirmed their support for the territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina. There has also been condemnation of the decision by the Parliament of Republika Srpska to start planning for the withdrawal of the republic from the state institutions and apparatus of Bosnia. Following a United Nations Security Council mandate, EUFOR, the EU-led force, has been deployed in Bosnia and Herzegovina for some time. I am pleased to say that its strength has been increased from 600 to 1,100, but that increase is woefully inadequate given the scale of the crisis that is unfolding.
I am pleased that the British Government have appointed Sir Stuart Peach as special envoy to the western Balkans. Sir Stuart is a former chairman of the NATO military committee and UK Chief of the Defence Staff, and I am sure he is already making a difference, even though his appointment is relatively recent. Not only is he demonstrating Britain’s commitment to maintaining peace in the region, but he is helping to address some of the more important issues that have to be confronted if long-term stability is to be achieved in the region.
His task is enormous, not least because there can be little doubt that Dodik is now very close to President Putin. Dodik and Putin met in Moscow in December, and Russia has refused to endorse international statements that have expressed concern at Dodik’s actions. Dodik has also stated that if the European Union were to impose sanctions, Republika Srpska would declare itself an independent state. The situation is extremely serious and demands our attention.
I have focused on the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, but we should also be concerned about the developments in North Macedonia, Serbia itself, Kosova and Montenegro. I do not have time to go through all of those situations, so I will simply refer to the situation in Kosova. Since the NATO intervention in 1999, there has been acute tension between Kosovans and Serbians, and between Kosova and Serbia itself. It is particularly worrying that Putin has cited NATO’s intervention in Kosova in 1999 as some kind of justification for the Russian invasion of Ukraine. That is absurd and should be absolutely rejected.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
As the hon. Member may be aware, I and other members of the Select Committee on International Development visited Bosnia only last month and discussed the situation with parliamentarians there. Does he share my concerns about any future aggression from President Putin in the region, and will he press the Minister on what steps this Government are taking to safeguard the security of the Balkans in the light of the current geopolitical crisis?
Wayne David
Absolutely. As I move towards my conclusion, that is precisely the point I want to emphasise, because our Government have to do more than they have already done.
Earlier this month, the Kosovan Prime Minister visited London and warned of Russian influence over Serbia. He warned that, as the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) suggested, there could be a proxy war in the western Balkans. He made particular reference to tensions that erupted in Kosova in the border area with Serbia only last year. There was a seemingly insignificant dispute over what number plates should be displayed on cross-border journeys, but one thing led to another and Kosovan special forces were deployed to the border area. That was followed by the deployment of Serb military jets and tanks. That clearly highlighted how tensions are simmering below the surface and do not take a lot to boil up. That demands our attention to the situation.
To be honest, over the past few years the United Kingdom and other western countries have not given the western Balkans the attention that they deserve. I am pleased to say that is changing, but change must happen more radically and quickly. The UK has given logistical support to EUFOR but needs to do much more. We must consider allocating our own forces to strengthen EUFOR, possibly even deploying forces ourselves in a peacekeeping role. That option should be carefully examined by our Government.
We also need to work more closely with our European allies, to ensure that there is a co-ordinated and sustained diplomatic and economic strategy in place. It is all too easy for us to say, “Well, we have left the European Union. We are not going to be so engaged with these issues.” That is a profound mistake. Brexit is one thing, but it does not remove the need—it is greater than ever—for us to have foreign policy and military co-operation with our European allies. The situation in the western Balkans highlights that dramatically.
We need diplomatic initiatives with all our European partners, because it is clear that the Russians like to play off one country against another. If there is any fracture in solidarity among western nations, we see the Russians play on that. We must ensure that, wherever humanly possible, Britain, its western European allies and the United States speak with one coherent and concerted voice. That must be a diplomatic priority.
We also need to look at what economic tools are available. We are all aware of the situation in Ukraine and how the British Government have gradually increased the deployment of sanctions. We also need to look carefully at the situation in the western Balkans but, again, we must do that in concert with our European allies.
Those are the points I make in conclusion. It is important that we do not see this as a party issue that divides us. We must find common ground and work together to give solidarity to Bosnia and Herzegovina at this crucial time.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, Mr Bone. I thank the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) for setting the scene with expertise, knowledge and a deep interest. I know he intends to retire at the end of this Parliament and we shall miss him; his contributions are always significant and helpful, due to his years of experience, for which I thank him. I also thank him for leading today’s debate on such an important issue.
There are so many things happening in the world, and I will talk about Ukraine, as we probably all will. I am ever mindful of the responsibility that the Minister and the Government have on their shoulders. We pray for our Ministers every day, because we think it is really important that our Prime Minister and Government have the wisdom and knowledge that they need when decisions are made. As I mentioned in my intervention, I support the introduction of a no-fly zone. That is my opinion, but I understand the issues and what the implications are. Maybe I see things too simplistically sometimes, but I want to know how we can protect the Ukrainians, because we need to be doing so.
We have heard so much in the media and in this House about the recent invasion of Ukraine by Russia. There is not a morning or evening that I do not feel cut to the very core of my heart when I see the things that are happening and feel powerless to physically help people—sometimes it overcomes me. We must focus on the priority to help the Ukrainian people to fight the devastation. However, this debate is about the Balkans, particularly Bosnia and Herzegovina, and we must not forget the smaller non-NATO states, which have the potential to be targeted as well. The Minister and others might agree that the fight in Ukraine today is a fight in the Balkans tomorrow. It is a fight in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria, and on the doorstep of west Germany and France. Maybe the fight will be on the white cliffs of Dover at some time in the future, so the fight today in Ukraine is a fight to which we have to be physically, mentally and emotionally committed in every way we can.
Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, concerns have rightly been raised about the impact that it will have on the Balkan states. Historically, Russia has maintained rocky relations with different states in the Balkans, playing politics with them all. The Russians have been friends of some and enemies of others, and then they have changed their minds a few weeks later and entered into different relationships.
Margaret Ferrier
The Kosovan President has previously accused Russia of using Serbia to destabilise the Balkan region, and the Kosovan Prime Minister has said that Putin wants the state of Kosovo to fail in order to show that NATO success was temporary. Does the hon. Gentleman perceive there to be a risk to the stability in Kosovo and a need for it to join NATO?
Jim Shannon
I do think that, because Russia thrives on instability. The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and I thank her for her intervention.
Historically, Russia has maintained rocky relations. I also understand that Putin has a very clear relationship with the Bosnian Serbs. There is an Ulsterism that is particularly relevant. Back home, we would say—forgive me if this is rather graphic, but it is the way we see it—that Russia and Serbia suck off the same hind tit. It is very clear what the Ulsterism means: they both think the same, they both feed off the same person, and they both act together. As the hon. Member for Caerphilly said, Russia and Serbia are hand in hand in their aspirations and goals.
Regardless of whether small states such as Kosovo and Montenegro are part of NATO, we have a responsibility to protect their citizens from Russian invasion and violence. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has stated that, as of 14 March 2022, there have been more than 2,000 civilian deaths as a result of Russia’s military attack. Looking towards Bosnia, we have to consider what could happen in the Balkans in the light of what is happening in Ukraine. A further 1,500 people have been injured in Ukraine, and I am mindful of the picture of a lady being carried on a stretcher after the Russians attacked a hospital in Mariupol. It seems that she and her baby did not make it. It is very obvious that the lady was physically and mentally traumatised. The impact of Russian aggression will be the same in the Balkans if they can get away with it.
Ukraine has been crippled by greed and evil, and we must assume that Putin does not intend to stop at Ukraine; the EU, NATO, the UK and the US must be prepared to respond if the current situation deteriorates. I want to put on the record—something that we do not do often enough, but need to—my thanks to the Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace). I know about some of the battles that he has fought in fulfilling our commitment to supply anti-tank missiles. Incidentally, those missiles are made at Thales in Northern Ireland; we have a talent for many things in Northern Ireland, but we seem to have a special talent for that. The now 4,000 anti-tank weapons are proving to be very effective against Russian tanks and armoured vehicles. So we want the support, and the Secretary of State has done that. I put on record my thanks. He has fought, through the obstacles that civil servants throw up, to help. We are asking today for that same commitment to preserve peace in the Balkans.
We must also employ atrocity prevention tools and policy, especially in the states of Bosnia and Herzegovina where society is full of tension and division. The hon. Member for Caerphilly said he had seen a small thing. It looks like a small thing, but it could very soon become a large thing—a confrontation and a battle over that issue. While we maintain the focus on Ukraine, having wider diplomatic engagement across the Balkan states ensures that we are able to practice mitigation tactics further. Protection Approaches, a charity based in London, has stated that the situation in Ukraine must not limit our capacity to respond appropriately to the risks in the Balkans, as the hon. Member for Caerphilly has outlined. We cannot allow the violence and terrorism to be mirrored in the areas surrounding Ukraine and risk more death and loss of life.
Today I look to my Minister and my Government and ask, where does the responsibility lie in co-ordinating the United Kingdom’s approach to the atrocities and ongoing risks of further potential devastation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, and the western Balkans? In addition to this, Montenegro, North Macedonia and Albania have been added to Russia’s list of “enemy states.” My goodness me, who has Russia not made an enemy of today? They hate the world; they hate their very own people—there is absolutely no end to it. It frustrates me greatly when I think that here is one person—Putin, along with his army—who are pursuing death and destruction; and their plans and their eyes are set on bigger things. They refer to those countries as “enemy states” for aligning themselves with sanctions against Russia, causing direct concern for potential invasion.
Everyone in this House was encouraged by that media lady on Russian TV who took her stand; We are very conscious that she is a person with tremendous courage, and she will be in our thoughts.
We must come to terms with the fact that Putin does not intend to stop. Only a few days ago, a Russian missile was launched, and landed some 10 miles from the Polish border. It is crucial that we pave the way to protect other small states while we can. We have a big job to do; the Minister has an incredibly big job to do; our Government have an incredibly big job to do. We look to them, and support them in their methodologies, moving forward. The talk of war has already been discussed in Bosnia and Herzegovina and they are already at risk of facing a resurgence of secessionist tendencies.
While the protection and refuge of the Ukrainian people must be at the forefront and pinnacle of our efforts, as has been said we must not forget the smaller states, which are also at the hands of Russian terror, destruction and murderous thoughts. I urge the Government and the Minister to have plans in place, should there be a future invasion into the Balkans. I think the hon. Member for Caerphilly was right to set the scene today—I thank him for it. We all know that there are many things in the world to keep an eye on, and the responsibility of our Ministers and our Government is one of overbearing pressure at times. I support our Ministers and our Government in the policies that they are taking forward, although I would like to take them forward a wee bit harder, perhaps—but that is just me talking. Others have a different opinion, and I understand that.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Bone. It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—it is always a pleasure to be in a debate with him. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) on securing this debate and on his opening speech, which was based on his extensive expertise on the region. He rightly called for additional time to be given to talking about securing and maintaining peace and stability in the Balkans. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments. I am glad that we are able to discuss this subject, and I think there is a lot of unity across the House that we want to see peace maintained in the region; we need to look at other areas affected by the Ukrainian war, including those where there was already a fragile peace before the war.
No one wants to think that there will be war in their area. When I worked as an aid worker in Bosnia, I spoke to many communities. I asked when they thought there would be war in their villages—when they thought they would have to flee. All of them knew it was very near—there were soldiers in the next-door valley—but they never thought it would come to their home, until it did. We see that in Ukraine. We hoped that the conflict would not come to this. We need to look ahead at what could happen in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
I am co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the prevention of genocide and crimes against humanity, and vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Bosnia and Herzegovina. I was a humanitarian aid worker during the war in Bosnia, living in Belgrade and then in Banja Luka. Four years later, I returned with my baby to head Christian Aid’s Bosnia office, rebuilding villages in north-west Bosnia and supporting the return of refugees. So I knew a bit of what it feels like to live amongst a war in a region—the chaos that ensues and the uprooting of people’s lives—and how long it takes to rebuild afterwards.
This House is united in support for peace, and for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all the states in the region, including Ukraine, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, I think that unfortunately the Government’s policy on the Balkans could go further and I will focus on three points—Russia, sanctions and civil society.
If any Member here or anyone reading the debate in Hansard thinks that Putin does not have designs on the Balkans as well as Ukraine, they need to think again, and if they think that peace is not very fragile indeed in the Balkan states, especially in the Republika Srpska, they need to think again. The violence in Ukraine makes clear Putin’s intention to fuel instability and division across the whole region. The Balkans is no exception.
The UK still has no atrocity prevention strategy for any of its offices, including those in this region, or as part of its policy towards Ukraine. Such a strategy would mean looking at early warning systems, training civil servants, learning from best practice in other areas, and specifically taking action to prevent atrocities.
The risks have already been increasing, particularly with regard to Bosnia and Herzegovina, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly noted. Six months ago, there was talk of potential war. Piece by piece, Milorad Dodik, the leader of Republika Srpska, is dismantling the Dayton peace treaty. That cannot be allowed to happen. Lines must be drawn.
For years, Dodik has been advocating the separation of Republika Srpska from Bosnia—for it to be part of Serbia. With support from Russia and Serbia, he has recently intensified his secessionist campaign. On 10 February, Republika Srpska lawmakers voted to create a high prosecutorial judicial council, which will have the power to choose its own judges and prosecutors. He is also working on creating a Bosnian Serb army, a separate judiciary and tax system, and is continuing with genocide denial. It cannot be said often enough that there can be no denial of the genocide in Srebrenica. In July 1995, more than 8,000 men and boys were killed in Srebrenica. To deny that it happened, and to fuel nationalist sentiment within the region, is almost an act of war.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Lady and others in this Chamber will have heard the right hon. and gallant Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) recall in graphic detail some of his experiences of genocide and murder in the Balkans. There is not a time that I do not listen to him and feel incredibly moved. I think the hon. Lady has heard him as well. For those who perhaps have not heard his story—few in the Chamber have not—it will always bring back the cold, brutal reality of what happened, which the hon. Lady is referring to.
Fleur Anderson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that. I have met many of the relatives of those who disappeared that day in Srebrenica, and I have spoken to many who, even years afterwards, hoped that their relative was not there because they had not had the proof, which it was absolutely heartbreaking to know. The reverberation carries on not only with all those directly affected but through the generations. When we say “never again”, we must ensure that it is never again, and that we note the build-up of potential war and conflict and a fragile peace being shattered in the region. We can have no excuse for not seeing it coming. We have no excuse for not taking action to prevent anything like Srebrenica happening again.
The Foreign Secretary said that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office knew Russia was going to invade Ukraine, but made no preparations for the human rights crisis that would follow; and we have seen chaos ensue in the last few weeks. Preparations need to be made in Bosnia now. So I would like to question the Minister today, and hope he will tell us what preparations are being made to ensure that peace is built and created, and that any moves to war are being stopped in the Balkan region.
Wayne David
We are seeing terrible scenes as millions of people leave Ukraine, but it must also be our concern if conflict re-erupts in the Balkans and we also see large numbers of people moving into western Europe from the Balkans. We have to be aware of that and must put in place preparations should that happen. It underlines the fact that we need to do everything possible to stop conflict erupting in the first place.
Fleur Anderson
Absolutely; I thank my hon. Friend for that reflection. Given the history of the region, if someone has already endured conflict and already fled with their family to another region of Bosnia, or to Germany or another country during the war, they might have returned and now be seeing the threat arising again. As they see what is happening in Ukraine, they will think, “Shall I stay? Is it safer to leave?” So we must prepare for that, and for more numbers on top of the huge numbers affected by the Ukraine crisis.
Sanctions is another area where we could take action. A smart and creative sanctions policy for the western Balkans, designed and implemented as soon as possible, would help to mitigate the rising risks, and could be that line in the sand that we can create. We could say to Dodik, as the EU and the US have, “You have already gone too far to undermine Dayton, so we are going to sanction you.” We have not yet said that to Dodik and other members of his regime. Is this the time to say it? What talks are being held? Perhaps the Minister can tell us.
Finally, I want to speak about civil society. If we are to maintain peace and stability in the Balkans—maintaining it is the key issue—strengthening civil society is crucial. The price of eternal peace is not just eternal vigilance but eternal peacebuilding. Dodik does not have the massive support among the Serbs in Bosnia that he likes to appear as though he has. There is an opportunity to support moderate voices on all sides who want to see peace in their country and community, including those from civil society. It is important to remember that genocide and crimes against humanity are usually well planned and organised. They are preceded by a polarisation of views and caused by a manipulation of public fears and grievances, and sometimes even deliberate and targeted attacks on moderates, political and civil society leaders and freedom of the press. All of the signs are there and can be watched over.
It is hard to overstate the importance of civil society in winning over hearts and minds for peace in such situations. There are abundant examples in conflict settings, through investment in social cohesion and peace education work. Around the world, we can see in South Sudan and the Central African Republic that community-based prevention work has led to young people handing in their weapons and working together across identity groups. Mothers are setting up groups to say, “No more war in our society. We want to see peace.”
I want to pay tribute to two inspiring women from Republika Srpska who I recently met and spoke to online, who have been doing magnificent work in this regard. The first is Velma Šarić, who is an investigative reporter, researcher, academic and peacebuilder. She is the founder and CEO of the Sarajevo-based Post-Conflict Research Centre, which was established in 2010. She lived under siege at the start of the war, and she told me about all the peacebuilding work that that organisation is doing. The second is Tatjana Milovanović. She has been a peacebuilder in Bosnia for 10 years and is now a programme director at the Post-Conflict Research Centre. There are peacebuilders. We can work with them and support them, and that should be a crucial intervention by the British Government, the British people and Members of Parliament.
I say to the Minister: can we have an atrocity prevention strategy for our teams in the region? What work are we doing to actively support civil society? We cannot take peace and stability in the Balkans for granted—none of us in this room do. We need to have these conversations much more widely, and I hope the FCDO does as well. As someone who has lived in the region during its darkest days, I have seen how quickly hate and polarisation can infect people’s hearts and minds and turn a peaceful, multi-ethnic integrated society into an extremely divided one, where one side is actually shooting into the town they were living in. Personally, I feel this is the closest that peace has ever been to unravelling in the region. The UK has a very important role to play in ensuring that it does not. Let us act now before it is too late.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Bone. I thank the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) for securing this vital and timely debate. I also thank the eloquent speakers who have contributed to the debate for their experience and insight into the Western Balkans. Next month the world will mark the 30th anniversary of the beginning of the Balkan war—a war that resulted in up to 100,000 people being killed, caused 2 million people to be displaced and saw, horrifically, the first genocide in Europe in 1995 since the second world war, where over 8,000 Bosniak men and boys were massacred in Srebrenica by Serb forces.
I too have memories of that time, not because I was in Bosnia, but because I was living in the Netherlands. I lived with a community of refugees who came from each of the six states of the former Yugoslavia, who were all fleeing for the same reason: because on the ground it was unbearable to live. Neighbours were fighting with neighbours, and family members were fighting with each other. They saw horrific consequences, so this subject touches me.
It is a great tragedy that, as we speak here today, there is war in Europe once again. Images of Russia’s brutal, bloody and barbaric invasion of Ukraine, with the systematic targeting of civilians and public infrastructure, have been incredibly distressing to see. The suffering of innocent people, including pregnant women, children and newborn infants, must never be normalised or accepted. Our urgent and completely justified focus on the war in Ukraine must not distract our attention from other conflict areas of concern in Europe, and we must not lose sight of the precarious political climate in the Balkans.
Just three days before Russia began its invasion of Ukraine, the EU Foreign Ministers had to meet to discuss crisis-averting in Bosnia and Herzegovina, with EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell commenting:
“The nationalist and separatist rhetoric is increasing…and jeopardising the stability and even the integrity of the country”.
In November, the international community’s High Representative of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Christian Schmidt, warned that the country is in imminent danger of breaking apart and there is a “very real” prospect of a return to conflict. The Dayton accords, which brought the Bosnian war to an end in 1995 and created a complex political system for Bosnia and Herzegovina to manage ethnic tensions, are being undermined. That poses a huge danger to the stability of the region.
As we heard, threats by the Bosnian Serb leader, Milorad Dodik, to boycott the country’s major institutions—including the armed forces, top judiciary body and tax administration, to be replaced by several new bodies—and secede the Republika Srpska, are a clear violation of the peace accords. The fact that that was in response to an announcement, by a former High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina, that anyone who denied that genocide or war crimes had been committed during the 1990s would face jail time, is huge cause for concern.
Yet, despite increasing tensions in Bosnia and Herzegovina since summer 2021, the UK Government have been slow to respond. That is indeed alarming. The Magnitsky sanctions are a powerful tool in the UK’s diplomatic arsenal, but the Government’s web- page devoted to UK sanctions relating to Bosnia and Herzegovina has not been updated since December 2020. The US Treasury sanctioned Dodik for significant corruption and destabilising activities in January of this year, and a leaked internal document from the EU has recommended that sanctions are imposed on Republika Srpska and that financial support is withheld, if the crisis continues in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Moving on to some questions, will the Minister commit to increasing the Magnitsky sanctions regime against hostile actors within Bosnia and Herzegovina? If so, will the UK Government commit to making those decisions through scrupulous discussions with international allies? As with the war in Ukraine, it is vital that we maintain close alignment with the EU on matters of European security, as has already been suggested here today.
We also cannot ignore the malevolent role of Russia in fuelling the instability in the Balkans. It has been argued that Vladimir Putin considers NATO intervention in Kosovo a most important recent international event, and wants the state to fail to show that NATO success was temporary, as it was in Iraq and Afghanistan. Russia has not recognised Kosovo’s independence and has blocked it from joining the United Nations.
Russia has allied itself with Serbia on this issue, and has been accused of using Serbia to destabilise the region. Although Serbia has declared support for the territorial integrity of Ukraine, and voted in favour of the UN resolution condemning Russia’s actions, it has not aligned itself with EU sanctions against Russia.
Given that context, it is not surprising that there have been reports that Milorad Dodik tried to prevent Bosnian officials from voting to condemn Russia’s actions at the UN. It has been alleged that Dodik sent a letter to the UN Secretary-General, through the Russian mission, stating that the Bosnian UN ambassador should not vote, as the Bosnian presidency had not agreed a joint stance on the matter.
There is evidence of Russian interference in the Balkans from the recent past, when it condemned Montenegro’s accession to NATO. I should also point to news reports yesterday that the Russian-backed parliamentarians in Montenegro are pushing for advance elections to try to turn their minority into a majority in Parliament, so that it can leave NATO. Two pro-Russian politicians and nine Serbs were subsequently sentenced for staging that coup, with two alleged Russian agents tried in absentia.
Balkan leaders have made stark warnings. Šefik Džaferović—I hope I have pronounced that correctly—the Bosniak member of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s presidency, said,
“Dodik is trying to take advantage of the fact that the attention of the west is focused on Ukraine”.
Kosovo’s Prime Minister, Albin Kurti, added,
“I fear that the longer the war lasts in Ukraine, the greater the chances of spillover in the western Balkans. And that is because it is in the interest of the Russian Federation to have new battlegrounds.”
We need to heed those warnings, as any proxy ethno-nationalist war in the Balkans would be devastating, as history has shown us repeatedly.
The Minister for Europe and North America has previously said,
“we see the hand of Russia at play here”.—[Official Report, 9 November 2021; Vol. 703, c. 178.]
If that is the case, we need to know what the FCDO is doing about it. What assessment have the UK Government, along with our EU and North American allies, made of that influence, and how has that changed since the invasion of Ukraine? Do we have a strategy for a proxy conflict scenario erupting? Are the UK Government actively investigating Kremlin-linked entities in the UK contributing to political destabilisation in the Balkans? Will there be a broader sanctions package to sanction Russian individuals promoting or enabling conflict in any part of Europe?
A return to violence is not inevitable but the warning signs must be responded to. For years, voices in civil society and Select Committees of this House have called for a cross-governmental atrocity prevention strategy, yet it still does not exist. The integrated review promised that this would be prioritised, yet in December the UK Atrocity Prevention Working Group wrote to the Prime Minister, voicing concerns that the UK systems capabilities and policies toward Bosnia and Herzegovina still lack a focus on atrocity prevention, grievance and political marginalisation.
Protection Approaches has stated:
“Bosnia is the test case of the promise made in the Prime Minister’s Integrated Review to prioritise atrocity prevention. The UK is well placed to lead a coalition of Bosnia’s allies in a coordinated preventative effort and fulfil its promise made.”
Where do the responsibilities lie for articulating and co-ordinating the UK Government’s approach to the atrocities, and the ongoing risk of further atrocities in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the western Balkans? How is the UK mapping the motivations and interrelations of potential perpetrators and the coalitions that can help to prevent violence? Do the embassies in Sarajevo, Pristina and Belgrade have emergency communications protocols in place? When will the UK publish a national atrocity prevention strategy?
I recommend that those responsible for answers to those questions read the book “Architectures of Violence” by Dr Kate Ferguson. It was published just a few months ago, and shows that when these acts of mass atrocities happen, it is systematic and calculated, not spontaneous. It is also preventable. It is clear that we still do not yet have a strategy mapped out.
Finally, I visited Bosnia and Herzegovina last month with the International Development Committee. I returned last night from a visit to Derry, where I was joined by a Bosnian delegation. The Bosnians I met were shocked and surprised that we actually have our own challenges and tensions within these islands. The message was clear that peace and security is only achievable with those on the ground working in partnership, and putting in the hard work and steely determination to resolve the issues. I pay tribute to all the women and men on the ground at grassroots level who work hard to build peace and solidarity across the divides in their communities, often risking their own security in the process. Without them, we have no peace and security.
I also pay tribute to all those in British embassies working in partnership with local NGOs and volunteers to strengthen peace and security in the western Balkans. I pay tribute to the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, which through its fellowship programmes has created opportunities for people from the western Balkans to see for themselves the hard-won victories that have built peace on our own islands. We have a duty and responsibility in our own national interest and security to work for and invest in peace and security in partnership across the western Balkans for now and into the future.
Conflict and instability are neither innate nor inevitable. Equally, peace and security are not easy—there is no quick fix and they do not grab headlines—but one thing is for sure: failure to invest will come back and bite us all badly. The world’s eyes are quite rightly on Ukraine right now, but this war has been going on for eight years, not the three weeks that the media and UK Government keep repeating. There is an invaluable lesson in this: prevention is far better than a cure, and the early signs need to be acted on coherently, strategically and, most importantly, continuously. The alternative is unconscionable.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Bone, and to speak in this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) on securing it. There have been powerful speeches, largely based on hon. Members’ personal experiences. It is particularly a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law), who gave a passionate speech.
My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly is right to highlight the worries we should all have about events beyond the terrible situation in Ukraine, whether that is in the Baltics, Moldova or the western Balkans. Many of us have been asking the FCDO questions, and I raised them with the Minister the other day. It is crucial that while our attention is rightly focused on what is happening with the atrocities in Ukraine, we do not ignore or fail to recognise the very serious risk that events elsewhere in our own continent could descend into chaos, violence and conflict.
My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly spoke powerfully of his own experiences in the Balkans. The horrors of the 1990s are seared into the minds of many people across this country, including many British servicepeople who honourably and bravely served in many stabilisation missions across the continent, such as those involved in the operations in Kosovo and elsewhere. Indeed, members of my own family served in operations in Bosnia and there are Members of the House who served in a military capacity and in humanitarian organisations; my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) and others loom large among those with such experiences. The right hon. and gallant Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) is not with us today, but he has spoken to me personally and very powerfully on many occasions about his own experiences during his time with the United Nations in Bosnia.
The current risks are indeed huge. The High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina wrote last November that Bosnia is facing
“the greatest existential threat of the post-war period.”
Of course, the invasion of Ukraine and the events emanating from that have only heightened the risks for Bosnia.
Much has been said in this debate about the threats and machinations of Dodik. Of course, he has threatened to follow the Russian example; many fear that he seeks to break Republika Srpska away from the settlement that has endured for decades now in Bosnia and Herzegovina. We know that he has the support of, and close links to, the Kremlin. By his own admission, he also apparently has links to China. I hope that the Minister will say in his remarks what he makes of the serious allegations about weapons supplies supposedly coming through to the Republika Srpska, the close ties to the Kremlin and the allegations of links to China. What discussions he has had with international counterparts about those issues?
Wayne David
It is correct that much of the focus this morning is on Russia, but we should not forget that, as my hon. Friend has mentioned, China has a malign role in much of this as well. We need to take note of that, because Chinese influence is growing, as is the use of their resources, in a number of the Balkan states, particularly Serbia.
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Of course, we have seen Chinese influence across other areas in which Russia seeks to cause instability. For example, we know of the Chinese influence in the Baltics and elsewhere. It is crucial that we take full account of that and have strategies to respond.
Quite rightly, there have been many questions about sanctions. I know that the Minister will not want to get drawn into the detail either of existing sanctions or of others that have not yet been proposed, but it is important to note—this point has been made strongly—that there have been sanctions from the US. I hope that the Minister can say something about the apparent differences in the approach, particularly given the steps that have already been taken, very publicly and vocally, by Dodik and others to undermine the Dayton agreement.
Beyond Bosnia, we cannot forget the situation in the other countries in the western Balkans, particularly given the alleged Russian-sponsored coup in Montenegro in 2016. Of course, Montenegro, Albania, Kosovo and North Macedonia have followed the EU and others in sanctioning Russia over the situation in Ukraine. It is welcome that we see that unity of purpose and the position that they have taken—boldly and bravely, given the risks that they face. I hope that the Minister will tell us how we will support them as they seek to respond to attempts by Russia to undermine their politics and societies. They have now been designated as enemy states by Putin and Russia. We need to recognise the inherent risks for them. It would be good to hear what the Minister has to say about that, and when he last met representatives of those countries in particular, not least given the domestic political goings-on that the hon. Member for Dundee West raised in relation to Montenegro and the risks to its domestic politics.
My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly and others quite rightly highlighted that there cannot be any justifiable attempt to deny the Srebrenica massacre or the many other atrocities that took place in Balkans in the past. Those who seek to do so are simply speaking outwith the overwhelming facts. Many of us who have worked closely with Remembering Srebrenica and other organisations in the past, and declare our interests in relation to our associations with that organisation, know the reality of what happened in those terrible days in the 1990s—of course, not just in Srebrenica, but in many other places.
I absolutely agree with the points that my hon. Friend made about the territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the risks posed by those who seek to undermine it, and the importance of the role that EUFOR is playing, and I join him in commending the appointment of Sir Stuart Peach.
One point that came out quite strongly in a number of contributions was that although we may no longer be a member of the European Union, we remain one of the crucial guarantors, with a key role to play in this situation. Therefore, we need to work closely with the EU and the other guarantors to ensure we have a coherent and joined- up approach to what is an increasingly worrying situation.
A couple of weeks ago, I met with Miroslav Lajčák, the EU special representative for the Belgrade-Pristina dialogue, formerly the Slovak Minister of Foreign Affairs, and EU special representative and High Representative to Bosnia. We discussed the crucial role that the UK plays, working alongside him and other representatives, including the current international High Representative. The EU special representative is working to achieve the normalisation of relations between Serbia and Kosovo, and to improve relations and reconciliation between partners across the western Balkans as well as in that specific situation.
Could the Minister say when he last met with the EU special representative, and how he sees us working closely together over these difficult months? I completely agree with the points that have been made; we need to speak with one coherent voice. In that regard, could the Minister also tell us about his recent discussions with the High Representative, Christian Schmidt, and where the Government see the relationship between all those different, interlocking parts going in the months and weeks ahead?
As always, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made a very strong speech containing some powerful points. He was absolutely right to highlight, as many have, the concerning links between many in Serbian politics and Russia. In recent weeks, we have seen some deeply worrying scenes of Russian flags being waved in the streets of Belgrade. Are attempts being made there to whip up even more of a fervour in the current, very difficult times?
My hon. Friend the Member for Putney spoke from her immense personal experience of, and dedication to, the people of the region, which I commend her on. She was right to give similarly stark warnings about Russia’s involvement in undermining this situation, and to raise the case for an atrocity prevention strategy, as did the hon. Member for Dundee West. I welcome those calls and hope the Minister can say what the Government are actually doing. They do not seem to have moved forward on this issue, but it is critical, not just in the Balkans, but in so many other situations globally.
I could not agree more with the points that my hon. Friend also made about peacebuilding and civil society. It is the people in the western Balkans—people who have been through a great deal over recent decades—who could be the foundations for peace and, crucially, provide resilience against the forces who would attempt to break apart their country or return it once again to chaos and conflict. I hope that the Minister can set out what the FCDO is doing to fund those projects.
As we have said many times in multiple debates in this place, the Government’s cutting of the aid commitment from 0.7% to 0.5% has undoubtedly had an impact on many different programmes, some of which were funded under these measures. I would like the Minister to explain what the FCDO is doing to fund peacebuilding and civil society strengthening programmes. Such programmes could provide a crucial bulwark against the forces I have referred to—Dodik, Putin or others—who seek to undermine these countries and regions and take them back to very dark times.
Lastly, the Scottish National party spokesperson, the hon. Member for Dundee West, was absolutely right to highlight how the Dayton settlement was being undermined, the domestic political events in Montenegro, and the need to make progress on the atrocity prevention strategy.
At the moment, the focus is rightly on Ukraine. We will be having further events on Ukraine—we had an important debate on it yesterday—but as the Minister will know from his extensive military experience, at times like these we also have to watch the flanks and the rear. We have to watch what is happening elsewhere, and we all know that the warning signs in the western Balkans were there well before the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
We have a particular duty and responsibility, not only because of our extensive involvement in the 1990s, but as one of the key guarantors in the region. It is crucial that we play that role to the utmost at this time—that we have resources in the FCDO attuned to the western Balkans and ministerial time attached to this region, and that we are making those contacts, having those conversations and funding those projects. We need to make sure that we do not end up in an even worse situation in the weeks and months to come, which we would deeply regret and, most importantly, would have devastating impacts on the people of the western Balkans. We have a critical role to play and we must continue to play it.
The Minister for Europe and North America (James Cleverly)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Bone, and I genuinely thank the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David), my former Labour Front-Bench shadow, for initiating the debate. As we have heard, recent developments demand our attention, and they demand our action. He is right to use the debate to bring those issues to the attention of the Chamber.
Unresolved tensions in the Balkans serve only to embolden those who seek to foster division and hamper progress. The UK is leading efforts to counter destabilising activities, especially from Russia. Putin is no friend to these countries—not a friend to the people of the Balkans, not a friend to the Slavic brethren and not even a friend to the people of Russia itself.
Putin’s barbaric invasion of Ukraine is casting a dark shadow across Europe, and across the Balkans in particular, and we are seeing the full breadth of Russian tactics: violations of sovereignty and territorial integrity, brazen breaches of international law, and devastating attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure. The UK has been at the forefront of political and diplomatic efforts to stop this. We highlight and criticise Moscow for its actions on the international stage. We expose its untruths. We seek with partners to deter Russia from going further. We are building international resolve on sanctions, and supporting Ukraine with £394 million of aid, both humanitarian and other, plus military equipment and the training that we provided for the Ukrainian armed forces for many years through Operation Orbital.
The tragic situation in Ukraine underlines the need to pay close attention to the Balkans, which is the point made by the hon. Member for Caerphilly and others. That tragic situation is not unfamiliar. There are those in the Balkans who know only too well the horrors of war, and Putin’s aggression has given the Balkans deep and genuine cause for concern. That has, unsurprisingly, generated huge passion, as we have seen today, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) for her direct, first-hand experience in Bosnia during and immediately after the most difficult period in that country’s recent history.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is beautifully elegant in his self-deprecating way, but he sees with clarity and speaks with passion, and he is universally respected across the House for that. He calls on us all to do more and go further. I assure him that we will always look at what options are available to us to help the people of Ukraine and to help prevent the atrocities that everyone in the Chamber has highlighted as a concern.
We of course support Bosnia and Herzegovina in its territorial integrity. I assure the hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) that the UK has been robust in its condemnation of the dangerous moves led by presidency member Milorad Dodik, and we will not be passive in our response. Dodik’s attempts to withdraw unilaterally from state institutions, as the hon. Gentleman highlighted, threaten to undo 26 years of hard-won peace and stability. Dodik is supported by Putin, so we will continue to work in close co-ordination with our partners and allies in our response. I hope hon. Members will forgive me if I do not go into further details on what that might look like.
EUFOR, the peace stabilisation force, has increased its presence in Bosnia and Herzegovina to ensure that it is mobile and visible right across the country. We work hard to prevent Russia from closing it. EUFOR has a remit across the whole country, which it must continue to fulfil, from north to south, east to west. The UK also supports NATO headquarters in Sarajevo with personnel, and we are calling on allies to send more. We will give practical support to the armed forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina. At the same time, we are promoting progress—
Wayne David
I want to press the Minister slightly on that point. I hear what he says about giving practical support to EUFOR, but will he give any commitment at least to looking at the possibility of British soldiers going there to stabilise the situation, in partnership with others?
James Cleverly
I hear the points made by the hon. Gentleman. Obviously, our formal membership of EUFOR stopped with our departure from the European Union, but that should not be read in any way as a downgrading of our support for peace and stability in this region. We will, of course, look at further ways we can act to support the international community, in what should be—I believe it is—the aim of us all in this House and across the continent, to prevent the region slipping backwards into the bloodshed and violence we saw sadly in the recent past.
We will continue to promote progress towards normalising relations between Serbia and Kosovo to that end. We strongly support the EU’s role in facilitating the Serbia-Kosovo dialogue. The Government in Kosovo has a strong electoral mandate, and elections are fast approaching in Serbia. The opportunity to reach an agreement is there to be grasped, and we must help both countries to seize it. A deal would be transformative, not only for them but for the entire region’s security and prosperity.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly spoke about the UK working with our European allies. I can tell him and the hon. Member for Cardiff West—
James Cleverly
Sorry; I mean the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty)—my knowledge of Cardiff geography is not as strong as it should be, lovely city though it is—who asked about our liaison with representatives of European institutions. I had an excellent meeting last week with Miroslav Lajčák, the EU special representative for the dialogue. He rightly said at the time:
“Standing up for our shared goals and values in the western Balkans and elsewhere is now more important than ever.”
I had the privilege of meeting heads of Government from western Balkan states when the Prime Minister hosted them recently on their visits to the UK. The UK will, of course, continue to support reforms to promote peace and stability, freedom and democracy across the Balkans. Our embassy in Sarajevo supports programmes that promote security and citizen-centred reforms.
We have seen divisive and inflammatory rhetoric from Russia and some others in the region, and we wholeheartedly condemn it. The dangers of ethno-nationalist language are clear, as are concerns across the region at moves by proponents of a Serbian world approach. Reconciliation and positive relations between neighbours are essential. Through our work and engagement, we support that across the Balkans.
When I visited Bulgaria last week, I welcomed its Government’s commitment to improving their relationship with North Macedonia. Romania has mobilised as a NATO ally against Putin’s aggression. I applaud the warm welcome and support it has offered to those poor people fleeing the war in Ukraine.
As part to the Dayton agreement, Croatia plays an important role in maintaining peace and stability. We are also grateful to Slovenia for its long-standing support for peace, as demonstrated during its recent EU presidency. Sir Stuart Peach has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members, and I am very pleased that he has been appointed the special envoy to the western Balkans. With his characteristic alacrity, he has already visited all the countries in the region since his appointment in December last year. I had the opportunity to meet him when the heads of Government for the western Balkans visited the UK. I have no doubt we will continue to liaise closely as the Minister and envoy, respectively. He recently discussed the dialogues with political leaders in Serbia and Kosovo. He is maintaining close contacts with our partners in the US and in Europe as we work together to pursue an agreement.
It is essential to ensure the security and defence of all our allies that we continue to work in close co-ordination. What happens in the Balkans affects the whole of Europe. We have a long-standing interest in the security of the region, and we will continue to work to protect that. We will do so by contributing to peace support operations, strengthening democratic institutions, combating organised crime and corruption and promoting international justice. That includes UK personnel supporting KFOR, the Kosovo Force. Our UK military training hub is active in North Macedonia for the whole region. From April, we will finance a new international security program to boost resilience across the western Balkans to defend against cyber-attacks and disinformation.
Economic opportunities also play a crucial role in supporting stability. Co-operation and trade are increasing between the UK and the whole region, and that benefits us and the region enormously. They will help to create jobs, improve quality of life and reduce emigration and the loss of talent that, sadly, a number of countries in the region have experienced. We are building on the partnership trade and co-operation and agreement that we signed with Albania, Kosovo, North Macedonia and Serbia. Energy diversification will improve the region’s energy security, help to deliver on our climate objectives and help to provide liberation from a reliance on Russian gas supplies. We have quadrupled the UK’s export finance availability to the region to support that.
Politically and diplomatically, the UK remains at the forefront of efforts to stop destabilising activities in the Balkans, especially those supported by Russia. We are working hand in hand with partners in the region and our allies more broadly.
Wayne David
On that point, some have suggested that Turkey has a crucial role to play in the area. Turkey is well respected by Bosniak Muslims, for example, but it also has significant investments in Serbia and Republika Srpska. Turkey might therefore be well placed to play a significant role in helping to stabilise the situation. I wondered if the Minister has any views on that opinion.
James Cleverly
Turkey is a significant country in the near neighbourhood of the western Balkans. It is a NATO ally. I enjoy a good relationship with my opposite number in the Turkish Government, and I have a call scheduled with him in the near future. I have no doubt that maintaining the stability in the western Balkans will be one of the things that we discuss. We will continue to work hand in hand with our partners and allies to promote and maintain peace, security and prosperity for the people of the western Balkans.
Wayne David
This has been an important debate. We are all focused on the terrible situation in Ukraine, but I think it is also extremely important that we cast our minds towards developments closer to home. I hope this very important debate will not be a one-off but will lead to others on the Floor of the House. It is important that we maintain the dialogue that exists among Members of all parties to ensure that this Parliament speaks with one strong voice.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the maintenance of peace and stability in the Balkans.
South East Strategic Reservoir Option
(2 years, 7 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
Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)
I will call Layla Moran to move the motion, and I will then call the Minister to respond. As is the convention for a 30-minute debate, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the proposed South East Strategic Reservoir Option.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I am very grateful to be able to bring back to the House the issue of what is actually called the Abingdon reservoir, in common parlance. At the outset, I thank all the local campaigners who have been fighting alongside me on this issue, including Derek Stork and all the members of the Group Against Reservoir Development, Councillors Sally Povolotsky and Richard Webber, and local campaigner Richard Benwell. I also thank Thames Water and Sarah Bentley, whose team have engaged with my office on this issue on a number of occasions.
The last time I was here in Westminster Hall to speak about this issue was in December 2018, in a debate called by the former Member for Wantage, the now Lord Vaizey. Three and a half years later, here we are again. In fact, many campaigners are telling me that the campaign already feels like groundhog day, because the proposed Abingdon reservoir has been looming on the horizon for the people of South Oxfordshire for the best part of 25 years. In 2010, community campaigners were successful, as the Planning Inspectorate determined that there was “no immediate need” for a reservoir of this scale. In 2018, following the Westminster Hall debate, we defeated the monstrous project again. This debate is especially timely, because the public consultation on the regional plan put together by Water Resources South East closed on Monday. It is fair to say that the proposal has mobilised the community, with one constituent writing to me to say that
“these plans are frankly scary and have prompted me to try and take some action.”
It is important to make it clear that I fully accept that continuing to meet rising water demand is of utmost importance. Those in the industry refer to the point at which demand outweighs supply as “the jaws of death”, and I have no desire to find out what that means. They are warning, however, that we are on this path and that something needs to happen—on that, let us agree. Climate change means there is a reduction in water supply, and population growth will continue to increase demand. There is clearly a gap in supply and a growing need for drought resilience. I therefore understand the drive to plan for the worst but hope for the best.
Water Resources South East, which is an alliance of six water companies in the south-east of England, has a proposal to fill the gap: the Abingdon reservoir. For those who may be less familiar with the project, let me paint a picture. The Abingdon reservoir is a fully bunded—that means walled—raw water storage reservoir in the upper Thames catchment area. It is near the villages of Drayton, Steventon and The Hanneys, but it also affects Garford, Frilford and Marcham. During periods of high flow, water would be taken out of the Thames and pumped into the reservoir. When flow in the Thames is low and the water is required in London and the rest of the south-east, water would be released to the Thames in order to be taken out further downstream.
It sounds good, but it is worth noting that this not just a reservoir. It is a mega-reservoir. It would be the largest walled reservoir in the UK and hold 150 megatonnes of water, with a footprint of seven square kilometres—that is ever so slightly smaller than Abingdon itself. The entire city of Swindon—by which I mean every person, car and house—weighs five times less than the water that would be contained in the reservoir. Its concrete walls would be between 15 and 25 metres high—equivalent to three double-decker buses stacked on top of one another—and all of this would be built on a floodplain in the River Thames, in an area that was heavily affected by flooding in 2007.
It is understandable that my constituents are concerned, first, about the disruption that will be caused by eight to 10 years of construction and, secondly, about all the local infrastructure that will be put under water. Local people may draw a comparison between this reservoir and the Farmoor reservoir. The Farmoor reservoir’s walls are only 1 metre to 2 metres high and it is about a third of the size. People can sail on Farmoor; we certainly will not be able to sail on this one, and nor is it going to be a nature reserve. This reservoir will cost the taxpayer billions of pounds and will have a huge environmental impact. In my view and that of the campaigners, it is imperative that Water Resources South East does due diligence and reassures the public, at this early stage, that the proposal is absolutely necessary. That reassurance is wholly lacking at the moment.
My constituents are challenging some key assumptions. A cornerstone of the argument for the reservoir is population growth. WRSE predicts a population increase of 4 million by 2060. The Office for National Statistics puts the figure at 1.13 million, less than a third of that prediction. Water companies have pointed to growth in the Oxford to Cambridge corridor as a factor in their need to create extra resources, but the Oxford-Cambridge Arc appears to have been scrapped. Which number is it? Overestimating population growth has a huge impact on planning for future water demand. The WRSE estimate overstates the required water output by 150 million litres a day.
The case for an infrastructure project of this size should have no holes, but one appears to be leaking already, and it is not the only issue. If the project were to go ahead, the impact on the environment would be monumental. The submission to the Regulators Alliance for Progressing Infrastructure Development—RAPID—claims that the reservoir would have a moderate adverse environmental impact but that the plan would increase biodiversity by 10%. How can the report make such claims, when the initial environmental impact assessment scoping studies will not be carried out until gate three? We have just passed gate one. That will be in spring 2023, with construction due to begin in 2025.
An initial background environmental impact assessment was conducted by Thames Water. When it was released—under pressure—it was almost entirely redacted. That is simply not good enough. Campaign groups have raised concerns that there will be a total loss of habitat and biodiversity. The size and depth of the reservoir will be unsuitable for nesting waterfowl, and it is highly unlikely that species pushed out during construction will ever return. The project will also have the largest construction carbon footprint of any strategic water project, which we know from Thames Water’s own figures. Thames Water has refused to give any breakdown of the figures in the gate one review.
If the requirement for the project seems in doubt, and the consequences for the local area are so catastrophic, but we accept that there is a problem, it is fair to ask whether there are alternatives. The short answer is yes. The reservoir is one of many strategic resource options open to water companies. There are the Severn Thames transfer, Grand Union Canal transfer and London effluent reuse schemes, desalination schemes and, of course, important leakage reduction measures and water demand reduction.
In its submission to the regulator, to which Thames Water contributed, companies argued that the proposal to link the Severn Thames transfer scheme to the Abingdon reservoir via a pipeline would have “no material…benefit”, but in conversations with my office, Thames Water has said that the Severn Thames transfer depends on the reservoir, as the River Thames does not have the storage capacity for the additional water. Both things cannot be true at the same time. What are they telling us? Why is what they are telling us different to what they have submitted?
Local campaign groups further argue that the Thames does not in fact store the water transferred from the Severn, but that the water simply flows down the river and then gets extracted elsewhere. There is no point in supplying the water from the Severn and pumping it to the Abingdon reservoir, because it can be extracted and stored locally, where it is needed. The common misconception about all these schemes is that they will be supplying large amounts of water all time. That is not true: for the majority of the year, neither scheme would supply more than a trickle flow to keep the pipes clean. When there is a likelihood of shortages, developing schemes will be called on to put water into the Thames, and even then, it will not necessarily be at the maximum rate. The point is that the two schemes are, to a large extent, interchangeable. The Severn Thames transfer is, however, more flexible and more adaptable. It will be delivered earlier at a lower cost and a lower construction carbon footprint. It takes up less land and leaves workings underground, not threatening surrounding villages.
As the justification for the reservoir looks flawed and there appears to be a better alternative, we have to ask how we have ended up debating this proposal yet again. One answer lies in the make-up of Water Resource South East, which is a body of six water companies—that is, six organisations interested in maximising their profits. Thames Water pay-outs in dividends to shareholders of parent companies amounted to £57 billion between 1991 and 2019, nearly half the sum it has spent on maintaining and improving the country’s pipes and treatment plants over that period. With Thames Water’s record of pumping sewage into our rivers and failing to fix leakage problems, how are customers expected to trust it to deliver this new infrastructure project? Water companies in the south-east of England appear to have free rein to implement these plans and projects, with little public scrutiny or engagement. Moreover, they are operating under a veil of secrecy, with one quango being under a non-disclosure agreement to another for a scheme that uses public money. That is surely not right, and when an organisation is permitted to operate in this way, it is unsurprising that an element of group-think pervades it.
However, there is another model. Water Resource East has board members not just from the water companies, but from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, local councils and the Rivers Trust. Engaging local stakeholders at all levels of the organisation is the way to maximise local engagement and improve planning, rather than box-ticking exercises and cursory public consultations.
My constituents’ feeling on this issue runs deep, and it is a campaign that some have been fighting for nearly a lifetime. I therefore urge the Minister to thoroughly interrogate the proposal for this reservoir, especially as the Secretary of State has sign-off for the regional plan in spring 2023. I ask her to look again at the population estimates, ensure sufficient environmental impact analysis, reconsider the structure of Water Resource South East, and make it clear to Thames Water through a written warning that releasing wholly redacted environmental studies is simply unacceptable. As the plan for the reservoir progresses to gate two, £29.8 million of taxpayers’ money has been committed to further feasibility studies. We have been here before, and millions of pounds and copious amounts of time were spent fighting it. All I ask is that before we go around this merry-go-round again, we pause, reflect, properly consult, and make sure every available option is considered fully and transparently.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) on securing the debate. I realise that she had a similar debate in the past; I was not Environment Minister then, but I have looked at the transcript—it was in 2019, wasn’t it?
I think we are all agreed that water is the most basic, yet vital, resource. It is needed for everything we do and is essential for a healthy environment and a prosperous economy. A reliable water supply should not be taken for granted. I say that because we have not experienced significant shortages of water countrywide since the 1970s, although in April 2012, following two dry winters and just weeks before the London Olympics, water availability in the south-east was reaching record lows. We only avoided significant shortages thanks to a very wet summer in 2012, which highlights how important our water supply is. We have to consider not only a growing population but the effects of climate change, especially in drier parts of the country where it is causing increasing challenges to our water supply. Water companies have to take account of those factors in their future planning in order to provide a reliable and sustainable supply of drinking water. It is our job in Government to work with the water regulators to ensure that the water companies do their job effectively.
The Environment Agency’s national framework for water resources, published in 2020, identified that between 2025 and 2050 about 3 billion to 4 billion extra litres of water a day will be needed for the public water supply—that might surprise a lot of people. We must therefore take a strategic approach to future water needs and work with regional groups and water companies to take account of climate change while protecting the environment. We want to preserve our iconic valleys and water bodies such as chalk streams. Indeed, we welcomed the Catchment Based Approach’s chalk stream strategy, published in October 2021.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has worked closely with our chalk stream restoration group on its development and to drive forward a future vision for chalk streams. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon engaged with any of that, but some of her neighbours did, and a lot of people, myself included, want to re-establish and restore our amazing chalk streams. That includes having to reduce unsustainable water abstraction from chalk streams and aquifers. We have measures in the landmark Environment Act 2021 to do just that.
The EA’s national framework also reflects the Government’s commitment to a twin-track approach to improving water resilience by investing in new supply infrastructure where necessary. Leakage will be tackled by our water companies as they crack down on water wastage. Up to two thirds of our additional water needs can be made up by water demand improvement. By 2050, we expect to see leakage levels halved and average per capita consumption at 110 litres per person—more than 30 litres less than we currently use in our homes. We are consulting on legally binding demand management targets under our new powers in the Environment Act. The issue is so critical that we are looking at it from every angle.
We must expect all water companies, including Thames Water and Affinity Water, to act on customers’ needs for a resilient water supply, as well as to manage the pressures. I hope that the hon. Member will appreciate that collaborative regional water resources groups, including Water Resources East, which she mentioned, have been consulting on their emerging plans—that consultation closed yesterday—and will publicly consult again to improve them. That will be used to inform water companies’ draft statutory water resources management plans, which will require further public consultation at the end of the year. There will be opportunities for her to feed into that.
Layla Moran
I gave Water Resources East as the example of best practice because it has the councils, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Rivers Trust sitting on the board, as opposed to their being simply consultees. Does the Minister agree that that is a better model? Local accountability feeds into the plans at the highest level, as opposed to in the Water Resources South East model, which does not include any local democracy whatsoever.
Rebecca Pow
The hon. Lady makes a valid point. We expect water companies to work with their local authorities. She touched on the point about population in her speech. That is where working with the local authority on its local growth plans is valuable, because the local authority will be aware of what new housing there will be and how the population will expand in its area. On those grounds, water companies need to plan for sustainable growth, which is very important.
There will be an opportunity to feed into the management plans. The reservoir would be in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (David Johnston), so I urge him to get involved. He was vociferous about the need for transparency in the process, as is the hon. Lady. He stresses the importance of making sure that there is a need for the reservoir. He would have spoken in the debate, but he has covid, so we wish him well. Perhaps he is at home listening.
The consultations will help inform future decisions on the right way to secure water supplies, including for Thames Water’s 10 million and Affinity Water’s 3.6 million customers. To support the robustness of water resources planning, as well as the national framework, the water regulators issue detailed guidance to water companies on their water resources plans. If water companies forecast a water supply deficit—as we will see in the south-east—they should study all the available options fully to justify the preferred solutions in their plans.
The Environment Agency and Ofwat have both helped to shape the regional plans and are statutory consultees on the water resources management plans. The EA’s national framework sets out that regional groups must be strategic in planning their water needs. There needs to be more effective collaboration between water companies to manage the supply and demand, the resilience and, indeed, the environment, all of which have been clearly flagged. The Environment Agency also advises the Secretary of State on the draft plan before it can be finalised following consultation, so there is a set and clear process.
Water companies are also using the £469 million made available by Ofwat in this price review period properly to investigate a range of potential strategic water resources options, such as new reservoirs, big reservoirs, small on-farm reservoirs—which we potentially need more of—water recycling projects and inter-regional water transfers. The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon criticised the use of money for investigation, but I would argue that it is critical to know that the right projects are being focused on.
As the hon. Lady mentioned, the work is supported by RAPID, or the Regulators’ Alliance for Progressing Infrastructure Development, a joint team made up of the three water regulators: Ofwat, the EA and the Drinking Water Inspectorate. It is working with industry on the development of strategic water resources infrastructure that is in the best interests of water users and the environment to inform water company plans. She is absolutely right that a range of schemes are being very closely looked at. It is possible that a combination of these big national infrastructure projects will be needed, and options such as the Severn-Thames transfer and the reservoir are not necessarily mutually exclusive. All of that will come out through the consultations, the investigation and the data.
Recently, I went to visit an enormous pipe that goes from the Humber, where there is a lot of water, right down to Essex. That pipe is one example of the huge water transfer projects necessary because of the critical water situation in the east of the country. The planning for that huge project was put in place some years ago, so that the investment could be made and the project could get under way. I am sure that the hon. Member will not disagree that such projects will be necessary in the future.
I agree with the hon. Lady that we need robust plans and transparency but we do have a system to enable that. The need for new infrastructure is, again, set out in the draft national policy statement for water resources infrastructure under the Planning Act 2008. The statement applies to nationally significant infrastructure projects, and I would expect the proposed reservoir scheme to qualify as one such project. I can assure her that extensive pre-application consultation and engagement must be undertaken by applicants using the Planning Act 2008.
Layla Moran
The Minister mentioned transparency, but there is a real issue with the redacted environmental impact assessment. I say “redacted”, but the document is gobbledegook and I cannot make head or tail of it. The water company would get much further if it took a much more constructive approach to local campaigners, so that they could be reassured that their numbers were right. Does the Minister agree that the company ought to release the unredacted paper so that we can look at it?
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but I did hear her at the beginning of her speech praising her relationship with Thames Water, so she could use that relationship to urge it to do just that. We are still consulting and there is a long way to go in the process.
I want to touch on a couple of points about the carbon impact. The hon. Lady obviously made a good point when she said that if the project went ahead it would be huge, but regional groups and water companies have to show how their overall contribution to the sector’s 2030 net zero commitment would line up, and how it would line up with the Government’s targets and our net zero commitment. All our big infrastructure projects have to take those things into consideration.
Similarly, on the environmental impact, the water companies will have to continue to develop their proposals and their evidence surrounding any kind of footprint on the environment and habitats, and on the requirements for biodiversity net gain. As nature recovery Minister, I would certainly want everything possible to be done in any scheme that came forward to add to the sum total of our nature recovery.
I hope that the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage, who potentially is joining us from his sick bed, see that there is a robust process in place, which is critical. The other critical thing is that we must provide the nation with a reliable source of water. The solutions that are finally selected must go through the right due process and we must know that they are the right system for the right purposes.
I thank the hon. Lady for introducing the debate, and I thank you, too, Mr Bone.
Question put and agreed to.
In-work Poverty
(2 years, 7 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
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered in-work poverty.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. Before I start, I want to pass on our best wishes, from all sides of the House, to the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), who I am sorry to hear has covid. I am sure that her colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley), will do an admirable job in her place.
Work should always be a pathway and route out of poverty. The fact that the phrase “in-work poverty” even exists is a damning indictment of successive Conservative Government policies over the past 12 years. The Government are clearly making life harder for working people, as I will illustrate with a number of examples. I am conscious that a large number of Members want to participate in this important debate, so I will truncate my remarks, but I want to illustrate my argument with some examples from a number of sectors.
Clearly, one of the issues is the increase in taxes and national insurance, which is in direct contravention of a commitment that the Conservatives made in their last general election manifesto. We are also having to deal with the problem of the huge increases in energy prices that the Government, via Ofgem, have allowed to take place. Members may recall that I had a question for the Prime Minister last Wednesday in order to contrast the position of the French Government, who have capped energy price rises at 4%, with that of our Government, who have capped energy price rises at an incredible 54%. That has had a huge impact on people who are in work.
Fuel poverty, food poverty, energy poverty, housing poverty and child poverty are all measures of economic failure, and they are all on the increase. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, one in eight workers are struggling to make ends meet. If work guaranteed a decent standard of living, the UK would be going through a golden age of prosperity. Instead, the Conservative party has delivered successive year-on-year policies of austerity over a decade. The social security safety net has given way, after a decade of wear and tear.
Without the most basic protection, a decade of pay cuts and wage stagnation has left working families ill prepared. Many have no savings at all, and people certainly have far less resilience to cope with the current cost of living crisis. In the workplace, we have seen employment rights deliberately weakened, a dramatic increase in the number of zero-hours contracts, and an expansion of the gig economy, with a growing proportion of working people in insecure employment.
I also want to mention the appalling employment practices. Poor employment practices, such as fire and rehire, are rife, even with very profitable and long-established companies, some of which are household names. Despite recent and repeated assurances from Ministers at the Dispatch Box—often condemning the practice—they have done nothing to outlaw the practice of fire and rehire by rogue employers. The Government have disregarded the interests of working people and dismissed the private Member’s Bill brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner).
The key workers we all clapped for and honoured during lockdown are bearing the brunt of our low-wage, poverty-pay economy. Figures produced by the TUC reveal that 43% of north-east key workers—over 173,000 people —earn below £10 an hour. Personally, I do not think that £15 an hour is an unreasonable ask in this day and age.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I thank my honourable comrade for giving way. Is he as surprised as I am at a recent article, published by The Herald newspaper and The Ferret website, showing that 20% of jobs advertised on the Department for Work and Pensions website paid under the national minimum wage rate of £9.50? The Department really needs to launch an inquiry into why that is the case.
Grahame Morris
Absolutely. It should concern us all when the DWP is advertising jobs that fall below the minimum standard and even the limited protections afforded to working people.
We know that even a modest increase in the minimum wage to £10 an hour would transform the lives of key workers, including one in three care workers—so many of us applaud care workers for their contribution, particularly during the pandemic—and 173,000 childcare workers. It would raise the incomes of over half a million people.
Workers across the country are struggling to feed their families and heat their homes. I will give some examples, including one I received from the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers. Like many of us, I have met the cleaners employed by the Churchill Group who are fighting for a real living wage of £15 an hour. I will also highlight the fact that the GMB trade union is campaigning against real-terms pay cuts for nearly 150,000 ASDA staff, and the ongoing University and College Union strike in the university sector. The pattern is the same: terms, conditions, wages and pension rights are being eroded; workers who try to negotiate are blocked, ignored and blamed; while well-paid directors shrug their shoulders with uninterest, often while picking up huge bonuses.
The workers who kept our supermarket shelves stacked during the pandemic are now struggling to feed their own families. I was shown a survey by the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers’ Union, which was very illuminating; it was conducted by the union of its members, who are in the food sector. It found that between February and March 2021, 40% of those surveyed had eaten less than they should have eaten because they did not have sufficient cash; 35% had eaten less than they should have to ensure that other members of their household got a meal; and 21% relied on goods and contributions from family and friends to make ends meet. These are people who are in work—shift workers who supplied the country with bread during the pandemic.
I will also highlight the excellent Right to Food Campaign, which was mentioned in this very Chamber yesterday. The campaign was set up and promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne), and it has been endorsed by my own union, Unite. It seeks to make the Government responsible for addressing the raging income inequalities and the broken benefit system that have pushed so many people into a spiral of poverty.
I saw a quote on social media just before this debate and thought how relevant it is to what we are discussing, because we are talking about the cost of living crisis. The country has more than enough resources and more than enough money to keep everyone warm, housed, free from hunger and properly clothed; in fact, the country has enough wealth to do that a hundred times over. So it is not really a cost of living crisis; what we have is an inequality crisis.
I think the Government should scrap some of the provisions that currently apply to those in receipt of universal credit. Let us not forget that a substantial number of those in receipt of universal credit are in work—they are the working poor. The five-week wait before they can receive a penny is a major contributing factor to the huge increase in the number of people having to turn to food banks.
We need to start putting people before profits. Sadly—it is lamentable, really—poverty has become the norm in Britain; it has become normalised. Yards away from where we are having this debate, homeless people are freezing on the streets and sleeping rough for want of a home. Children go hungry. We see Members of Parliament, particularly Members of the Conservative party, posing for photographs at food banks, and I think the irony must be lost on them that those food banks exist only because of the policies that this Government have promoted.
To return to energy prices, the French Government have capped cost rises at 4%, Germany has cut tariffs and Spain has introduced a windfall tax on the energy companies. But here in Britain, standing charges are doubling and the energy price cap will see energy bills rise by 54%—that is £700 more on average—for our families. Peterlee is the biggest town in my constituency, and EDF, one of the big six energy companies, has many customers there. It is interesting to contrast what is happening in Peterlee with what is happening in Paris. Will the Minister explain why French state-owned EDF can cap cost increases at 4% in Paris while my constituents in Peterlee face a 54% increase in their bills?
Tax rises are exacerbating the cost of living crisis as many in our nation struggle with rising prices. I happened to meet a farmer last weekend, and we chatted about a number of issues. He grows oilseed rape and wheat, and he said that the price of wheat is doubling, and that the price of fertiliser is doubling as well, which will cost him an extra £10,000 a year. He reliably informed me that the cost of wheat, which was £150 a tonne, is now £300 a tonne. That will filter through into dramatic increases in food costs for staples such as bread. The prices of many basic staples, including margarine, tomatoes and apples have increased by as much as 45% in the past year.
Figures from the Trussell Trust and the Independent Food Aid Network show that more than 3 million food bank parcels were distributed in 2020-21. I tried to get the figures for the food banks operating in my constituency —at the community centre in Dawdon and at the East Durham Trust in Peterlee—but they are not part of the Trussell Trust, so the excellent work that they do is not included in those statistics, meaning that the figure is even bigger.
Average petrol and diesel prices are £1.61 and £1.73 per litre respectively, but regional public transport is expensive and unreliable after a decade of neglect, meaning that families have no alternative to protect against increasing fuel costs. The energy cap is up at 54%, and further increases are in the pipeline. The Conservative party once promised to be the “greenest government ever”, but the Public Accounts Committee recently described the green homes grant as a “slam dunk fail”.
House prices are rising beyond the reach of first-time buyers; sky-high rental costs leave little at the end of the month for deposits and savings; and we as a country have abandoned council housing, which is quite disgraceful—that social housing delivered low-cost homes for the post-war generation.
Nelson Mandela said:
“poverty…is man-made and can be overcome and eradicated by the actions of human beings… Overcoming poverty is not a gesture of charity. It is an act of justice. It is the protection of a fundamental human right, the right to dignity and a decent life… While poverty persists, there is no true freedom.”
Once again, we see that poverty is a political choice. It is a Conservative political choice, and one that this Government should be ashamed of.
Several hon. Members rose—
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
Order. The debate is well subscribed, so I am putting in place a formal time limit of four minutes. I call Peter Gibson.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. I congratulate my County Durham colleague, the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris), on securing the debate. He called for a 58% increase in the minimum wage, which would have a massive inflationary impact. He cannot complain about inflation and the cost of living crisis that we face while advocating policies that would create further problems. If levelling up is to succeed, we must tackle poverty. I want to make it clear that I believe that one person or family in poverty is one too many.
As we all know, employment is the best route out of poverty. Evidence shows that full-time work substantially reduces the chances of living in poverty, and I am proud that the Government have taken an approach to tackling poverty that has employment at its heart. We have seen the Government accept the four recommendations of the Low Pay Commission, which will see the living wage increase to £9.50 an hour—an increase of 6.6%. We have seen the Government extend the national living wage to 23 and 24-year-olds, who will also benefit from the increase to £9.50. Improvements have been made for those on universal credit and in work, with an increase in the work allowance and a reduction in the taper rate, making work pay. Across the country, we have seen massive improvements in our pension savings for working people, with auto-enrolment securing a pension income for millions. I am hopeful that this can be extended to younger people and those working part time, to help ensure that they save for their futures too.
I appreciate that some people do not have the skills to get the job that they want, including those who left school at an early stage and those who have caring responsibilities. That is why the Government’s lifetime skills guarantee is designed to transform the adult education system, helping people of all ages to develop the skills that they need to get better jobs and supporting businesses to find or develop talents to fill the skills gap. Last week, I visited the marvellous Darlington College and saw with my own eyes the incredible learning and training opportunities on offer, from plumbing, plastering and public service to catering, car repairs and childcare. As T-levels will be introduced later this year, the college also offers courses in robotics. These are incredible opportunities to learn and improve skills for the economy of the future.
We know that our economy has record vacancies. From ambulance, bus and taxi drivers to doctors and nurses, we know that there are opportunities out there. The simple law of economics means that wages are increasing in order to attract people into these roles. We help our constituents in the long run by ensuring that they have the chances to improve their skills and employability. I hope that one day we reach a point where wages from employment provide enough, so that in-work benefits are not necessary. In the meantime, however, I believe that increasing wages, reducing the amount taken from those on benefits who work, and giving people the chance to learn in order to improve their lot is the best way to tackle the issues raised in today’s debate. I look forward to the Minister’s response and to hearing an update on the cross-departmental mechanism on in-work progression.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The cost of living crisis is biting deep into the lives of my constituents in North Ayrshire and Arran. In-work poverty ought to be a contradiction in terms, but it is at an all-time high. Two thirds of working-age adults in poverty live in households where an adult is working, and 75% of children in poverty live in a home where at least one person is working, which shows that work offers no guaranteed route out of poverty. In-work benefits, such as universal credit, are simply not enough to lift people out of poverty, and cutting the universal credit uplift and the working tax credit of £20 a week was not just folly on the part of the Government; it was also cruel in the extreme, because it was done in the full knowledge of the hardship it would cause.
Despite the doubling of the Scottish child payment, the universal credit uplift cut has caused untold hardship in our communities. What can the Government do? They need to raise the statutory minimum wage in line with the real living wage, and they need to remove the age discrimination that it inherently contains. They need to understand that increasing the national minimum wage to £9.50 per hour next month is simply not enough to compensate the people who are suffering because of soaring costs in every direction, and it does not compensate them for the £20 cut in universal credit that they have already suffered.
The Government could ditch the national insurance tax rise, which is set to kick in next month and will disproportionately hit those in the lowest-paid jobs. They could increase statutory sick pay—we have one of the lowest sick pay rates in the OECD. Even so, one in five workers are simply not eligible for it, which, again, disproportionately impacts on women. They could support my Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill, because we know that beyond the emotional impact of bereavement, there are significant financial costs as well, without the bereaved having to worry about lost earnings. They could reverse the £20 per week universal credit cut immediately and abolish the electricity standing charge, which amounts to about a quarter of consumer energy bills for the less well off.
We all understand that global fuel prices are increasing, but motorists pay 58p per litre on fuel duty and then additionally pay 12p in VAT on that charge, so around 70p per litre of petrol goes straight to the Treasury in tax. As fuel hits £1.80 per litre, the UK Government must cut the tax take on fuel, as it does not just hit motorists who rely on their cars to get to work, but adds to business costs and impacts the whole economy, and increases the costs of goods and services. Cutting the tax on fuel could help prevent inflation reaching double figures. It makes complete sense to do that at this time.
The scandal of in-work poverty cannot be simply tolerated. The current cost of living crisis demands direct and urgent Government intervention right now, to support those in work who are no longer even just about managing—the group that the Government say they care about. The Government must respond to the needs and demands of those they purport to serve. I hope the Minister will not simply regurgitate what has already been done, because what has already been done is simply not enough in the face of a cost of living crisis that grows by the day. I hope he will be able to give us some hope that in the spring statement there will be a prospect of some respite for people across the UK, and for my constituents in North Ayrshire and Arran.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. I congratulate the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) on securing this debate. Although we might disagree on the ways of tackling poverty, I think we all agree on the need to do so.
I want to start by defining what I mean by in-work poverty. It is important that when we talk about poverty we use the correct definitions. The Work and Pensions Committee’s report on children in poverty goes into different definitions and how they are used and misused. I will use the standard definition of relative poverty. Many have focused on financial poverty, but I do not think that is the best definition. I prefer multi-modal models because I think poverty is about more than just money. It is also about educational and societal resources, but this debate has very much veered into the financial side.
On the financial side we look at inputs and outputs. Inputs are about wages, benefits and benefits top-ups, and outputs are about living costs. I want to focus on the outputs and what I call the two big beasts, which I have been campaigning on for some time—affordable housing and childcare. For affordable housing we need to sort out affordable rents. It horrifies me that in my constituency the No. 1 cause of someone being at risk of homelessness remains affordable rents, which we need to get sorted and fixed.
Childcare is also a particular challenge in terms of a big beast. It costs a lot. It is difficult for people to administer, particularly the requirement to pay up-front costs and then claim retrospectively when one is on benefits, as opposed to directly invoicing the Department for Work and Pensions. The 85% cap for people on benefits is not enough to cover childcare costs for many people. For those in receipt of 15 to 30 hours’ free childcare, certainly if they live in my constituency, lots of childcare providers require top-ups, so the idea that it is 15 to 30 hours of free childcare is illusory. Many people need financial top-ups over and above that provision. The provision is very generous, but it could be more generous still.
Childcare is also a barrier to in-work progression. Lots of people who work part time face childcare costs. When they want to increase their hours, there is a diminishing return in terms of the taper. I welcome the reduction of a taper in terms of UC payback, but that on top of increasing childcare means that when someone moves from 36 to 40 hours a week, they see relatively little return for the extra hours of work. That acts as a substantial disincentive; we need to look carefully at how we can support people who want to work—and make sure that work always pays.
Besides cost, availability of childcare is a huge problem; it remains a disincentive to work for people who are not on the breadline. I speak to lots of people on the doorstep who tell me about the challenges of childcare provision and costs when returning to work—people previously in quite high-flying careers. There are some areas where we can fix that. We can look at ratios of childminders to children. We can look at increasing school hours; I would support a move to a more continental model around that. Reducing the cap on benefits and providing more childcare support for people who are on benefits is another area we can look at.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Rees. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) on securing this important debate. This debate takes place in the context of a sustained attack on the living standards of ordinary people in this country. Energy bills are rocketing. There are tax rises and real-terms pay cuts for millions of people, as well as cuts to universal credit, benefits and pensions. That does not happen in a vacuum; it comes after a decade of austerity, cuts to public services and the tightest squeeze on wages in 200 years. Experts warn that this could be the biggest drop in living standards in many decades.
What does that mean in reality? The daily reality of this crisis for families in my constituency of Leeds East and throughout the country is grim. How, in the fifth-biggest economy on Earth, can we have families who cannot turn the heating on? How, in the fifth-biggest economy on Earth, can we have a situation where parents are missing meals to make sure that their children can eat? How, in the fifth-biggest economy on Earth, do we have more food banks than branches of McDonald’s? I recently met staff at the Chapeltown Citizens Advice in Leeds; their data shows that already, more than one in seven people in my constituency cannot pay their energy bills without cutting back on essential spending.
At the same time, the richest are getting richer. While millions suffer, the millionaires are doing very well. British billionaires have increased their wealth by £290 million per day. The Government have been slashing the taxes of bankers and the gas and oil giants that make £900 profit every single second. Let us be clear: the right to be warm is more important than the right to make super-profits. It is a rigged economic system, which is failing ordinary people. It is a crisis made in Downing Street—let us not be scared to say that.
The Government are trying to shift the blame; they are trying to say that the cost of living crisis is due to the horrific war on Ukraine. It is not. The Government’s plan is to make working people pay the costs of the pandemic, just like they made ordinary people pay for the bankers’ crisis. Poverty is a political choice, and the Tories are choosing to push people into poverty through the cost of living crisis.
What do we do about it? We need an emergency plan to tackle the situation. I will make five suggestions. First, the Government must scrap the national insurance hike that is coming in next month and replace it with a wealth tax on the richest 1%. Secondly, we need a windfall tax on energy profits, to be immediately used to lower energy bills, and a huge home insulation programme to save people hundreds of pounds a year. Thirdly, we need a national minimum wage of £15 per hour. Fourthly, we need the restoration of the universal credit uplift, and its expansion to those who are denied it. We need to uplift benefits by the 8% that the Resolution Foundation and others are calling for to meet inflation pressures. Finally, we need to tackle child hunger, with free school meals for all schoolchildren—learning from what Labour is doing in power in Wales.
We cannot allow the Government to yet again force working people to pay for a crisis. They have made a political choice; our political choice is to fight back with a set of proposals that will make a real difference.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Ms Rees. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) on securing this incredibly important debate.
Poverty is a scourge that devastates lives. In today’s debate we are focusing on in-work poverty, but the Government should address poverty however it arises. A report by the Institute for Public Policy Research in May 2021 highlighted that the UK’s poverty rate among working households was at a record high this century. The report also found that in 2019-20 the majority of those living in poverty were in households that had some form of paid work.
That is also reflected in the Government’s statistics, which show that of all the working-age adults in poverty, both in the UK and in the north-west, 65% are in working families. In some areas, the figure is even higher. For the east of England, that is 70%, and for the south-west, 72%. That is truly shocking, and completely dispels the Conservative myth that work is the best route out of poverty. I am so disappointed that we have already heard that myth chanted today.
Margaret Greenwood
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We have just listened as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) came out with all sorts of suggestions, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Easington—such as increasing the minimum wage, tackling insecure work, banning zero-hours contracts and so on. I will return in my speech to the issue that the hon. Gentleman raised.
As I said, those figures completely dispel the Conservative myth that work is the best route out of poverty. It is clear that low-income households are likely to be disproportionately affected by the cost of living crisis. The Trussell Trust has warned that, for people already struggling to afford the essentials, the cost of living crisis can mean parents going without meals in order to afford to feed their children. That, sadly, is nothing new, but the situation, instead of improving, is getting worse.
Food prices have been increasing since the middle of 2021 and are expected to increase in coming months. The domestic energy price cap will increase by 54% from 1 April for approximately 22 million customers. Energy prices are likely to continue to rise beyond that, as a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Some economists have suggested that the inflation rate in the UK could hit 10%.
Margaret Greenwood
I have given way once and am short of time; I am sorry. The increase in national insurance contributions from next month, opposed by Labour, will increase the pressure on working people and businesses even further.
The full impact of the coronavirus pandemic on levels of poverty is not yet known, but early analysis suggests that poverty will increase over the next few years, and that low-income households are particularly vulnerable to the economic effects of the pandemic. The Government must end the scourge of in-work poverty, by tackling the structural causes of poverty and inequality, such as low pay and high living costs. At next week’s spring statement, the Government have a chance to make a real difference to the lives of working families. There are plenty of steps they could take.
The Government should never have cut universal credit by more than £1,000 a year, and they should reinstate the uplift. They should also scrap the two-child limit, which the Child Poverty Action Group has called for, and the benefit cap. They should increase child benefit by £10 a week, and call a halt to the rise in national insurance. They should also initiate a one-off windfall tax on oil and gas producers, to cut household energy bills by up to £600, as Labour has called for.
Those are all measures that this Conservative Government could take; it is simply a matter of political will. I ask the Minister to set out today what action the Government will take to eradicate poverty.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Ms Rees. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) for securing the debate and for his comments.
In-work poverty undermines the social contract that evolved in this country after world war two with the establishment of the welfare state. The whole purpose of Beveridge was that people would work and pay national insurance, which would provide for their sickness and retirement. Those who fell through the gap would be dealt with by supplementary benefit. Work was the route out of poverty. That is no longer the situation.
We now have in-work poverty, as others have said—something that is unprecedented in recent times. That is not an accident; it is an economic model that has come from the United States. It was brought in—established perhaps—by Clinton. For those who have not read it, I recommend the book by Barbara Ehrenreich, “Nickel and Dimed”. She refers to the United States that came into being after the reforms brought in by Bill Clinton in 1996 with the Welfare Reform Act. That created a low-wage economy. It might have created many jobs, and Clinton dined out on that for a long time, until people began to drill down into what was actually happening. It was a low-wage economy. Ehrenreich talks about people having to do one, two or three jobs simply to survive—not to pay medical bills or school fees, but simply to live—because the cost of living made it impossible. We perceived that to be a problem for people in the United States, which did not have a welfare state, and that it would not apply here. We still have a welfare state, but it is beginning to fall apart—not just fraying at the seams, but being eroded, corroded and, indeed, torn down from within.
The whole concept of work being a route out of poverty no longer applies. That simply is not the case, as we can see all about us. It is not simply about the statistics that have been mentioned; we are conscious of other aspects. The problem hits every corner of this country and applies to every sector. The movie “Sorry We Missed You” highlights how the issue affects social care and distribution, but there is hardly a sector that is not affected.
The problem is not restricted simply to those who work on zero-hour contracts because, as in the United States, we now have people who cannot live on the hours they get in one job; they have to do two or three jobs simply to survive, and we have to make sure that that changes. It is simply unacceptable, and a breach of the social contract that was supposed to be the benefit of world war two.
We still see risks, so what can we do about them? First and foremost, we have to recognise that this was an issue even before coronavirus and the cost of living crisis. It was, as others have correctly testified, predicated on high rents. People were unable to earn enough to meet their rent, and they had to choose between paying their rent and eating. That is now compounded by a cost of living increase, especially for fuel, and inflation is hammering food costs. Now, the situation is not just about people managing to pay the rent, but deciding whether they can heat their homes before even indulging in feeding themselves and their children. Society has to change, but how can we do it?
Fundamentally, we must ensure first of all that we have a living wage. Our current minimum wage is not enough; it needs to be a national living wage. We need to empower trade unions, because workers are being driven right over. We must regulate, so that people can afford their rent. Finally, as we face escalating fuel costs, we need a social tariff and an end to the abomination of standing charges, which are impoverishing people. There is a better way. This is not the society that was anticipated by the generations before us.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) for securing this important debate and for his passionate speech.
More than half of those who live in poverty are in working households. Indeed, the Institute for Public Policy Research found last year that since 2010 the situation has deteriorated steadily, leaving working families at the highest risk of falling into poverty since the welfare system was at its most generous in 2004. That was before the current cost of living crisis that we face.
Now, the Government’s proposed national insurance contributions increase will affect more than 2.5 million working households on low incomes, inflation is expected to hit at least 7.25% in April—pushing food and everyday costs through the roof—and energy prices are expected to rise by a whopping 50%. If we add the Government’s proposed benefits uplift of 3.1%, which, in the light of the anticipated rates of inflation that I have just mentioned, actually amounts to a dramatic benefits cut, we have the makings of a poverty crisis the scale of which we have not seen in our lifetimes.
Things do not need to be like this. In fact, it makes no economic sense at all, because in economies where incomes are supressed, it is not just living standards that suffer; growth is suppressed, too. I am sure that we have all heard the saying, “A rising tide should lift all boats”—as the economy expands, everybody should reap the rewards—but we cannot successfully expand the economy without two things—industrial strategy and demand. If consumers have no money to spend, there is no demand—unless we export everything we produce in the UK.
I urge the Minister to take a number of urgent actions. First, the Government must set about setting out a far more detailed and comprehensive industrial and skills strategy. Secondly, the Government must take the reins on liveable wage levels. They must reform corporate governance and industrial policies to promote healthy wage growth. They must strengthen the workforce voice and roll out sectoral collective bargaining to give working people more power in the workplace, and they should examine the concept of a universal basic income for all. Thirdly, they must introduce the long-promised renters’ reform Bill, to give renters the security and protection that they deserve.
Finally, on providing support to households during the cost of living crisis, I urge the Minster to scrap the proposed NICs increase and to help struggling households on energy bills by cutting the rate of VAT for household energy bills, and levying a long overdue windfall tax on oil and gas companies to generate income. This plan should include expanding the warm home discount, significantly increasing universal credit to offset soaring inflation, and increasing public sector pay and the living wage to push further wage growth. I know that this suggestion goes against every ideological principle that the Minister probably has, but he must finally address the fact that privatisation of our energy system has failed, and acknowledge that public ownership is not just a pragmatic way to solve the energy crisis, but essential to securing our energy security.
There is much that I disagree with when I study the economic principles of Adam Smith, but I will leave the Chamber with one final quotation, which I hope the Minister will agree with:
“A man must always live by his work, and his wages must at least be sufficient to maintain him.”
I hope that the Minister bears that in mind when he sums up, and that he will address the points that I have raised.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. I congratulate the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) on securing the debate.
In the course of the last few weeks, we have been speaking about issues such as the cost of living crisis and in-work poverty almost as if they are new concepts. However, it would be remiss of any of us in this House to allow that to pass without saying that the cost of living crisis and in-work poverty are not new; they are the result of 12 years of Conservative government and austerity.
Many of my constituents, particularly those in Wellhouse, raise three main points with me regularly, and I will come them in a minute. First, I want to discuss the issue of the national insurance hike, which a number of other hon. Members have mentioned. I must be one of the many people in this House who find it a bit bizarre to be told that we need to hike national insurance on the youngest and lowest earners in society, when only in 2016 a bus was going around the UK that said that if people voted for Brexit, there would be £350 million a week extra for the national health service. I find it a little bit odd that, having committed the act of economic madness that is Brexit, we now find ourselves being told that national insurance has to be hiked to pay for changes in the health system.
The national insurance hike will disproportionately hit the youngest and the lowest income earners in our society. To put that in context, particularly for my constituents back home in Scotland, that means that 20% of the pay increase for a band 5 nurse will go on the national insurance hike. We can all stand there and talk about clapping for carers and that kind of thing, but the very people who we are seeking to reward and recognise for their work during the pandemic will be clobbered by this national insurance hike.
I will raise three other issues today. First, I want to see proper statutory sick pay. If the pandemic has highlighted anything, it is that making people choose between adhering to public health guidance and having enough money to heat their homes and put food in the fridge is a nonsense. The Government will say that now is not the time to look at statutory sick pay, but I would turn that on its head: the pandemic has magnified why statutory sick pay needs to be reformed. Statutory sick pay in these islands is the equivalent of about 17% of average weekly earnings, according to the Office for National Statistics. The Government must revisit the issue.
Secondly, let me turn to the idea of removing age discrimination. The hon. Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) talked about the living wage. Let us be clear that the living wage is a con trick. The Government talk about the living wage, but it is not a real living wage that is set in line with the recommendations of the Living Wage Foundation, and age discrimination is baked in.
We celebrated Scottish Apprenticeship Week just last week. I do not know whether Conservative MPs are aware that an apprentice in the UK can be paid as little as £4.30 an hour. Indeed, the UK Government website states:
“An apprentice aged 21 in the first year of their apprenticeship is entitled to a minimum hourly rate of £4.30.”
I served alongside many apprentices when I was an apprentice at Glasgow City Council. Apprentices do not get a discount on their fuel when they go to the pumps, they do not get a discount on their energy bills, and they do not get a discount when they go to Asda or Aldi for their food. If the UK Government want to talk about equality and making sure that work pays, let us start by ensuring that everybody gets a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work.
Finally, I want to talk briefly about the importance of childcare. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) made a thoughtful speech. He is right to say that we can by all means provide childcare, but the universal credit childcare offer is not enough. The Government must do so much more to help people with in-work poverty, which is a stain on this society.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. I thank the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) for setting the scene so well. He has a passion for the subject, as we can tell from the way he introduced the debate.
Like others, I have been contacted by countless constituents who are not only concerned about the increase in the cost of living, but struggling to make ends meet on a daily basis. It is as simple as that, unfortunately. It is important to highlight these issues and discuss what steps we can take to help working families who are in need.
It has been estimated that 14.5 million people—some 22% of the population—were in poverty in 2020. If they were in poverty in 2020, they will unfortunately be even more so today. In addition, some 11% of families where one adult is in work are in poverty. Although the cost of living and some other issues remain devolved, they have an impact on the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Consumer rates were 5.4% higher in December 2021 than they had been a year before, making the inflation rate the highest recorded since 1992.
We all know the issues that I want to focus on. I want to focus on working-class people, who are impacted the most. I am not saying that the middle class are not impacted, because they are, but the hurt and anxiety are larger for the working class. Fuel prices are up 50%, and food prices are up some 25%. Almost 60% of people in the UK are termed working class, and in Northern Ireland 220,000 working-age adults are in poverty. We have seen the prices of petrol and diesel soaring with little or no hope of a reduction, although they have stalled today. The price of heating oil has gone up, like the price of diesel or petrol for the car.
I want to make a genuine request to the Minister. The Republic of Ireland—I do not think it is the greatest country in the world, by the way, as people know—has responded to its people by reducing VAT on household energy and fuel, as a short-term measure to help constituents. Why can we not do the same? I put that very gently but very firmly to the Minister, because I think we should do something about this.
I want to highlight the problems with the child benefit cap. I am conscious that many working families feel unable to take a pay rise from their employment, because they could lose their child benefit and be worse off. That is not the Minister’s responsibility, but we need to address the issue for those who juggle their wage with the child benefit cap.
The people of the United Kingdom deserve more when it comes to housing rental prices and food prices. In the Department for Communities back home, Deirdre Hargey has brought forward some support in the Northern Ireland Assembly for those on benefits at this tough time. Whenever I see that being done, I look to the Government here to do the same. My staff have taken numerous calls from those in unemployment who cannot afford the cost of living, and unfortunately there does not seem to be any answer. More must be done to support them.
What is sure is that the issue with living costs will not de-escalate any time soon. Prices are set to rise even further in April, and we cannot and must not sit idly by and watch that unfold without knowing that we have taken all steps possible and done everything practicable to combat it. I know that this is not directly in the Minister’s portfolio, but it is important, and he is the man here today responding to the debate. We need to have some measures in place and take some steps in the right direction, so that we can go back to our constituents knowing that we have done our darndest for them in Westminster Hall today. I urge the Minister to ensure that all the comments are taken on board and that the devolved nations are communicated with, so that we in Northern Ireland, and in the Northern Ireland Assembly, can benefit from whatever steps are taken to try to address the issue.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Rees. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) for securing this debate, which is absolutely vital but should not be necessary in 21st-century Britain.
My constituency of Bolton South East is the 38th most deprived constituency in the United Kingdom. We have a jobs crisis, a wage crisis and a poverty crisis. Every single day, constituents write to me, outlining the most tragic circumstances. The stories include the inability to get a job, an unexpected benefits freeze and, more recently, a collective panic about how to pay for food, heating and bills. These are not the make-believe people that Cameron and Osborne dreamed up in 2010—the “shirkers” or “scroungers”—but the strivers that the coalition supposedly championed. They work long hours in tough jobs to provide for their families, put food on the table and give their children the best chance in life.
The 800 taxi drivers in the borough of Bolton are an example. Many of them live in my patch, and work long, hard hours, but because of rulings about the gig economy and their self-employed status, they often fail to make even the minimum wage on some shifts. We need to factor in the continuing restraints on licensing by local authorities, insurance costs, and other rules set by local authorities that make life even harder for them.
So many hard-working people are living in poverty. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that 56% of people in poverty are working; that represents a rise of 17% from 1998. Additionally, almost 40% of people on universal credit are working. That tells us that our economic model and wage system are fundamentally broken. We are told frequently by the Government that work is the best route out of poverty, as if that is an irrefutable fact, but clearly it is not the case.
Real wages were revised down again on Tuesday and are collectively lower than at the height of the financial crisis in 2008, yet the pay of chief executives of big companies has ballooned. The rich have actually got richer over the years. House prices are up by 150% in some areas of Bolton. Of course, there is also the rise in national insurance for the lowest paid, just to make things even worse for them. We need the Chancellor of the Exchequer to top up universal credit and take it back to the rate that it was at during the pandemic. The removal of the £20 uplift is not only morally bankrupt, but economically illiterate. It affected 14,000 of my constituents, and £20 per week is a lot of money for them.
Another reform that the Government could support is in relation to public transport. Only 30% of households in my constituency have a car and therefore rely on public transport, at significant cost. Thankfully, the Mayor of Greater Manchester has brought the buses into the public sector. As a result, no one will have to pay more than £2 per journey, which will make life so much easier for people. The Government could also quite easily implement a windfall tax on the £31 billion-worth of profits from oil and gas companies—above the ordinary profit that these companies make. That could be used to help to alleviate people’s problems, yet what does the Treasury say? “We’ll give you a £200 loan that you must pay back to us.” That is an insult to our constituents.
Many of my colleagues have today suggested practical steps that the Government could take. Bearing in mind that we are the fourth richest country in the world, we should not have constituents in poverty. I hope that the Minister listens to the suggestions put forward today and acts on them.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
It is a delight to see you in the Chair, Ms Rees. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) for securing the debate.
If anything proves how broken the current economic model is, it is the extent of in-work poverty—it does just that. I have listened carefully to the remarks from Government Members. You would not think, Ms Rees, that they have been in power for 12 years. The hon. Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) talks about work being the best route out of poverty. Are cleaners not entitled to a decent wage? Are security staff who keep our hospital staff and patients safe not entitled to a dignified life? Are care workers not entitled to the decency of a wage that they can live on? Are the shopworkers who we applauded not entitled to be able to make ends meet? Or have people got to leave those jobs and get “better” ones? What an indictment it is on this Government that they say such a thing.
It is a fact that one in six working families is now in poverty—a record high. It puts paid to all the Tories’ boasts of job creation when the jobs that they are creating still confine people to destitution. The latest employment figures, published by the ONS yesterday, show that real wages dropped by 1.5% over the past year. That is the worst fall in real pay for eight years.
This is clearly a situation that the Government are actively pursuing. The motion they passed last month—effectively cutting pensions and social security payments by 3% to 4% in real terms—along with their slashing of the universal credit uplift, the rise of the energy price cap and the increase in national insurance contributions all point to the simple conclusion that this Government are knowingly pushing more and more families into circumstances where they have to choose between staying warm and putting food on the table.
Just as with the coalition Government’s austerity programme after the financial crash, we hear from this Tory Government that it is those in most need who will have to bear the biggest brunt of the fallout of the covid crisis, and now the illegal and atrocious Russian invasion of Ukraine. The Government’s argument is that the cost of living crisis is a sacrifice that must be made to oppose Putin’s actions—it is nonsense and must be called out. Poverty is a political choice, and the Government are choosing for that sacrifice to be made by working people instead of the wealthy. In fact, despite the ongoing crises, billionaires have never had it so good.
Grahame Morris
Would my hon. Friend comment on the level of profits being generated by the energy distribution companies for gas and electricity, and what alternatives there are in windfall taxes on those companies?
Andy McDonald
My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. Those transmission companies are enjoying a scandalous rise in profits; if ever a case was made for public ownership of the transmission of energy, that is it. The time is absolutely now.
There are also a number of longstanding factors that have caused the spiralling levels of in-work poverty. Above all is the fact that the so-called national living wage of £8.91 an hour is significantly below a wage that people can actually survive on. I have said it time and again: we need to raise the minimum wage to a level that allows people to live fully flourishing lives, not just get by. The planned rise to £9.50 an hour next month simply will not cut it. In the midst of a cost of living crisis, with inflation soaring, the national minimum wage is nothing but a poverty wage. The time is right for a £15 an hour minimum wage—in fact, it is way overdue.
Different categories of workers are going to work with different types of employment rights. We need to consolidate those categories into a single status of worker so that people have the same full employment rights from day one. I am pleased to have introduced to this House the Status of Workers Bill, which was guided through the other place by my noble Friend Lord Hendy. I implore the Minister to allow the Bill the necessary time to pass through this House, so that it can make the fundamental change to workers’ rights that could do so much to turn the tide of in-work poverty.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see a friend of the worker in the Chair, Ms Rees. I thank my good friend and comrade the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) for making an excellent speech to kick off the debate. The contributions—with the possible exception of one—have been very impressive indeed.
I want to make a number of points. First, in-work poverty and inadequate living standards remain the norm for far too many people on these islands. We urge the UK Government to look at the minimum wage rates in the country. They need to not only amend the definition of a worker, but go further by strengthening protection for workers.
The UK is experiencing the highest levels of in-work poverty this century, which disproportionately impacts groups facing high living costs, such as lone parents—the majority of whom are women—disabled people and people with caring responsibilities. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation report that was mentioned earlier shows that around two thirds—the actual figure is 68%—of working-age adults in poverty in the UK live in a household where at least one adult is in work. The figure has never been higher since records began in 1996, so we now have the highest ever levels of in-work poverty. For too many people, low-paid jobs offer no opportunities to progress to better work and better wages, and far too many people are in insecure work with unpredictable hours and incomes, which is something that I want to touch on. That is, of course, in stark contrast to the situation in Scotland.
Grahame Morris
The hon. Member is making some excellent points, but I wonder what impact the Government’s decision to close jobcentres will have on constituencies such as mine and perhaps 60 others. What impact will that have on alleviating in-work poverty and on encouraging people who are out of work into paid employment?
Chris Stephens
It will increase in-work poverty. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Government tried to close half the jobcentres in the city of Glasgow. People there are having to spend more money and go further in order to get to a jobcentre to see whether they can get better work.
As we have a Minister from the Department for Work and Pensions in front of us, I want to point out that a number of people claiming universal credit are in work. We have a situation—the Minister responded to a written question on this issue—whereby half of DWP claimants have their universal credit claims deducted. I would argue that that is a poverty tax. In some cases, £60 a month is taken away from someone’s universal credit claim. Universal credit is supposed to be a subsistence benefit that is paid at a rate that people can live on. If we take £60 a month away from them, people have to choose whether to heat or eat. That really needs to end. Advances need to be replaced by an up-front grant or a starter payment, as we argued on the Work and Pensions Committee. The recovery of tax credits needs to be at a lower level, and I would say that debts of more than six years should be written off entirely. There are a number of lawyers in the Chamber and they know that if I try to sue them for a debt that is over six years old, a sheriff in a Scottish court would write that off and absolve the debt.
I also want the Minister to respond to a point that I made earlier during my intervention on the hon. Member for Easington. In the jobs advertisements on the DWP website, 31% of full-time jobs and 50% of parti-time jobs pay less than the real living wage of £9.90 an hour. Some 20% are advertised as paying less than the national living wage of £9.50. I will give three examples: Burger King pays £6 an hour, Pizza Express £6.56 an hour, and Farmfoods £6.66 an hour. None of the adverts clarifies wage rates for different ages, and all the companies have made substantial profits in the last year or two, so increasing the wage rates and asking them to pay more certainly would not harm those businesses all that much. I am talking about multinational companies, and I would like to know what the DWP is going to do about the adverts. Will it refer itself to the national minimum wage compliance unit, which has a number of vacancies? Perhaps we can advertise those jobs on the DWP website.
I want to touch on what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) said about discrimination in the national minimum wage rates, because he is absolutely right. There is a nonsensical argument that somehow young people are not active participants in the labour market. If Burger King has a 17-year-old next to a 37-year-old and they are both flipping hamburgers, they are equal participants in the labour market and should be paid the same rate for doing the same work. That is what I call equal pay. The equal pay legislation always encourages people to get the same rate for the same job, the same work.
What would happen if we increased wages? People would spend money. A false argument is also made about public sector pay—that somehow it takes money out of the economy. But that is not how it works. When people get a wage increase, they do not put it in a shoebox and hide it under bed; they go out and spend it in the economy. It means that they can afford things that they could not afford before, so they spend more on food and other items.
To touch on the contribution of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald)—I support his Bill and I know that he supports my Workers (Definition and Rights) Bill—there needs to be a definition of “worker”, so that we can strengthen workers’ rights. For four years the Government have been sitting on the Taylor report, which sought to address the issues, but at the last Queen’s Speech we were told that it was no longer a priority for them. That is scandalous. We need to take a real look at protection for workers and at eliminating zero-hours and other unfair contracts.
Employers are currently able to text four people to say, “The first one here gets the shift.” That has to end. People phone taxis and run out of the house to get there first, spending money as they do so, only to end up as the runner-up and get nothing. That is completely and utterly scandalous. I have included that in my Bill, because we need to address it. We also need to look at flexible working and at strengthening parental, neonatal and miscarriage leave for workers.
SNP MPs have consistently sought to strengthen workers’ rights and have promoted Bills to do so. I commend the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union for its Right to Food campaign. I will welcome that in Glasgow, because it has identified Glasgow South West as one of the constituencies in which it wants to do work. There is much that the Government need to do to address in-work poverty, before it gets even worse.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairship, Ms Rees.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) for, and congratulate him on, securing this debate in Westminster Hall. The passionate contributions from all, particularly Opposition Members, have made it clear that this is a crucial discussion. At the heart of the debate is a simple truth: we all want to get on in life. Many of us know the feeling of receiving our first pay packet—that sense of finally releasing our parents from the stress of having to afford us and from that worry about money. There is a feeling of ease—not of great wealth, but of having enough—and that is what we want every person in our country to feel. With hard work, that should be available to all. The truth, however, as we heard in so many countless examples, is that that feeling is not available to everyone.
The hon. Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) described the simple law of economics that a high number of vacancies increases wages. If that were the case, real wages ought to be shooting up, but they are not. The fact is that economics does not have simple laws—if it did, a lot of economists would be out of work.
Things do not work like that; they are much more problematic. This is the challenge: there is a rocketing number of vacancies, but people are not able to get on in life. That is the problem. The Government themselves know that that is the case. They know we have a problem. They commissioned the in-work progression review by Ruby McGregor-Smith.
Peter Gibson
As a former employer of a substantial number of people in a very competitive industry, I frequently had to recruit people when demand was greater than the supply available. It was often the case that employers such as myself had to increase wages to make those jobs attractive and to bring people in from other employers. I was speaking from my own experience. Having spoken to employers in my own constituency who have vacancies, I know that they too are increasing their wages to attract people.
Alison McGovern
Perhaps the hon. Member could ask those other employers why real wages are not increasing, because that is what the data tells us is happening. Unfortunately, it turns out that the rules of supply and demand are not so simple when an economy has as many problems as those experienced in Britain.
The Government themselves—the hon. Member’s own Government—know that this is a problem. They know that people are stuck in low pay, because they got Ruby McGregor-Smith to investigate and ask why people are simply not able to get on in life, earn a better pay packet and look after their family. She found that there were myriad issues with the cost of childcare and transport, and that people are unable to get the right skills to move on and move up. In certain professions, including care, a culture of low pay means that people are not able to move on and get a well-paid job to look after themselves and their family.
Last February, the Secretary of State told me that she was the reason that the response to Ruby McGregor-Smith’s report was being held up. My first question for the Minister is: when will the Government respond to that report? When will practical steps be taken to help working people get better pay? As the review found, there are myriad reasons why it is not a simple matter of supply and demand. It also showed that single parents have only so many hours in a day, and that if someone lives in a town whose bus service is so chronically bad that it limits their job choices, it is not their fault that they cannot get a better paid job. We need the Government to reply to that report.
My second question to the Minister is time-sensitive. Working people are facing a national insurance rise. If ever there were a time for such a tax rise, it is not now. People are dealing with truly horrific increases in energy bills and other costs. The Government really must rethink this. I want to quote an organisation that has spoken on this issue and on the underlying reason why this tax increase on workers is being brough about. It said:
“There is a large, unjustified and problematic bias against employment and labour incomes”.
That quote comes not from Marxism Today, but from the Institute for Fiscal Studies. The Government must rethink their whole approach to working people and how we make sure that people have decent pay.
To conclude, I want to come back to the point made by the hon. Member for Darlington about the iron law. As I have said to him on several occasions, it is not a matter of simple supply and demand. We only need to look around the economy today in Britain to realise that we can have rocketing vacancies while real pay does not go up. That is what is happening now. I ask myself what could possibly have gone wrong. The economics textbooks say it should work. What could have possibly gotten in the way of working people and a decent income?
Since 2010, the Tories have done the following: presided over a massive increase in zero and short-hours contracts; overseen a pandemic of low pay in key professions such as social care, which has driven chronic staff shortages; put charges on employment tribunals, so that working people find it much harder to get their rights confirmed; put roadblocks and bans in the way of trade unions, so that organising is harder; got rid of Unionlearn, which helped many working people get on; and overseen a labour market with a skills crisis and in which 20% of people have to work below their skill level, making it impossible for them to get on.
Rishi Sunak has put taxes up more times in two years than Gordon Brown did in 10 years, and he is landing working people with a devastating tax rise at the worst possible time. We have seen child poverty rise and food bank use explode, and 1 million experienced destitution in 2019. That is the problem. It has been a decade of doom for people trying to get on in life—a Labour Government is required.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (David Rutley)
It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Rees. I congratulate the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) on securing the debate. I recall having had a similar debate with a similar cast list recently, so some of the arguments are familiar but some have been amplified. I take all of them seriously and will endeavour to answer some of the questions. No doubt others will be addressed separately, but I look forward to responding to them. Like the hon. Member, who is very kind, I wish the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies) a speedy recovery and return to good health. She would have been keen to be here had she had been able to.
Prior to this debate, I had just come out of a meeting with Communities that Work, a group of housing associations that help people into work and to progress in employment. I am grateful for the work it is doing. One of the participants was Helen Johnson, a livin futures manager at Livin Housing in the north-east, who is doing great work in Country Durham. Despite party political differences and different views on policy, we can all applaud the work those people are doing to help literally thousands of people—in this case, tenants—to achieve their potential in employment opportunities. I congratulate them on that work. All hon. Members present want to see everybody have the opportunity to progress in work, improve their earnings and realise their potential.
Andy McDonald
We hear with unerring regularity the mantra that the only way for someone to progress and live a good and flourishing life is to progress out of their current job. It will then be occupied by somebody else, who will be paid a low wage. Where is the dignity or decency in that philosophy, which does not have regard for the people doing the key jobs we applauded all the way through the pandemic?
David Rutley
I understand the hon. Member’s point, and that is why we have taken steps in that direction. I was going to come on to that in my speech, but I will come to it now. The national living wage, which we have already talked about, is projected to increase to £10, and other steps are being taken. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Easington would have the courtesy to let me respond. He raised that question earlier in the debate. Another important point is that policies, such as the increase in work allowances and the reduction in the taper rate for people on universal credit, are helping people in work to progress, do better and flourish.
We have already seen the creation of exiting job opportunities in the north-east, including through the industrial zone at the UK’s largest freeport, Teesworks, which is expected to create 20,000 jobs. Many of them are in green energy, establishing literally a green industry revolution in a region that many hon. Members participating in the debate represent. We should not forget that 6,000 jobs will be created as a result of Nissan’s plans for the UK’s first large-scale battery factory, as part of a £1 billion electric vehicle hub in Sunderland. That is alongside Stockton being on the frontline in the battle against covid, with the Novavax vaccine being made in Billingham later this year.
Opportunities abound in the north-east. Of course, we need to go further. I am disappointed that we are not hearing about these opportunities. So often we recognise that there are challenges, but there are also opportunities, and this Government are working hard to create them.
David Rutley
I would not dream of not giving way to the hon. Member, because she is always so polite with her questions.
Patricia Gibson
I want to press the Minister on something that has been in my inbox—in all of our inboxes, I am sure—in the last few weeks. One of the big outlays for people who are in work and suffering is the cost of petrol or diesel to get to work. We pay 58p per litre in fuel duty and 20% VAT on that—it is a tax on a tax. The Minister will know that the cost of petrol drives up the cost of goods and services across the whole economy, and that drives up and feeds inflation. Does he agree that if we cut the tax on petrol, we can stop inflation driving up into double digits?
David Rutley
I understand the point that the hon. Lady makes; she makes it well and she makes it long. Perhaps we could do an Adjournment debate on the subject later. I recognise her point—I was trying to bring in a bit of humour there. With the fuel duty freeze that has been put in place we have been able to keep that cap over time. I recognise that we are in challenging circumstances; that is why the Chancellor has put in place a three-point plan. We have £20 billion set out in this financial year that is designed to help vulnerable people facing challenges and to deal with rising energy costs, £9 billion of which goes to the Chancellor’s three-point plan. We are doing substantial work to try and address those challenges, and we will continue to review the situation. As hon. Members will appreciate, throughout the pandemic we looked at what the challenges were and we responded. We responded well in the Department I work in—universal credit was particularly resilient.
I want to address the questions raised during the debate. The hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens)—a good man who understands a lot of those matters—asked about jobs being advertised on the DWP website. They go through a process and are checked to make sure that they are at the minimum wage or above—there are obviously some exceptions. If he has further information on that, I will gladly follow up because I know he takes the issue very seriously.
Chris Stephens
I will send the Minister the articles from The Ferret website and The Herald, which found 10,000 such jobs in Scotland alone. Does that not suggest that there is a problem?
David Rutley
I will take a look at the hon. Gentleman’s point. I am not familiar with all those issues, but he knows that I will follow that up.
Other points were raised about the health and social care levy, the purpose of which is to deal with backlogs in the NHS and the future costs of social care. Those with the broadest shoulders will rightly pick up the bulk of the cost, with the highest earning 14% paying around half of the revenues.
The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), who is no longer in the Chamber, spoke about statutory sick pay. That is just one part of our welfare safety net and the wider Government offer of support for people in times of need. As we move on from the pandemic, the Government are continuing to take a broader look at the role of SSP—we are keeping the system under review.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) always contributes well in these debates; I hope I have addressed some of his points about energy costs. We will continue to take a look at those issues.
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) was concerned about uprating, but we have followed the time-worn process of looking at inflation in the year to September. All benefit ratings since April 1987 have been done on that basis; the Opposition could have changed that approach when they were in Government. However, in recognition of the challenges we face, we have a £20 billion package of support this year to help people.
The hon. Member for Glasgow South West also talked about deductions. I remind colleagues that we have put a spotlight on dedications, and we have reduced the maximum amount from 40% to 25%.
Chris Stephens
Will the Minister look at the issue of pursuing debts that are over six years old? It seems a nonsense that we still pursue people who have had a debt for longer than that period, and then taking a deduction.
David Rutley
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but as a member of the Work and Pensions Committee he will also realise that we are experiencing record levels of fraud, and we are absolutely determined to bear down on that. We need to get the balance right, because it is taxpayers’ money that we are talking about.
Alison McGovern
Just to remind the Minister, when will the Government respond to the in-work progression report?
David Rutley
Of course, we recognise that we need to do more on in-work progression. The hon. Member is right to highlight that and we will respond shortly, and the response will be important. We are already taking action in this area, and I did not focus on that today because it was focused on in a previous debate. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) wanted to know what we were doing differently on progression, and I confirmed then and confirm now that we are working to put in place progression champions across the country who will make connections between employers, local authorities and skills providers and help more people to progress in work, which all of us across this Chamber want to achieve.
I believe passionately that we need to help people to see the opportunities before them and realise their potential. The plan for jobs helps people into work and also provides lots of mechanisms to enable people to progress in work. The progression work coaches will be a vital tool to help with that agenda. We know there is more to be done, and we are working hard to deliver on it.
Grahame Morris
I thank everyone who has participated in the debate. I particularly thank the Minister for his courteous responses to the points put by Labour Members, and I thank the hon. Members for Darlington (Peter Gibson) and for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), who made some excellent points. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood), for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey), for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) and for Wirral South (Alison McGovern). I also thank the hon. Members for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill), for Glasgow East (David Linden), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens).
Some really good points have been put forward as a critique of existing policies in relation to a raft of things that I hope the Minister has taken note of. We look forward to such issues being addressed in the spring statement.
I conclude by saying that there are young people across this country subsisting on poverty pay with little hope or prospect of home ownership or a decent pension. They are crippled by student debt and long for a standard of living above the breadline. We look to the Government to come up with policies to address that. If the Minister and his colleagues cannot, there are people willing and waiting to take up that challenge.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered in-work poverty.
Future of Soft Power
(2 years, 7 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
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
I will call John Baron 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.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future of soft power.
It is a pleasure to be called to speak, Ms Rees. I thank the Speaker’s Office for selecting it and the Minister for Asia and the Middle East, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling), for attending. I know she is very busy.
It is fair to say that the west has relaxed its guard and enjoyed a peace dividend following the cold war. We thought the concept of democracy would sweep the field—that the very righteousness of the cause would sweep all before it—and it therefore required little investment. But democracy is a fragile concept; it needs nurturing, encouraging and protecting. Many in this world do not share our values. As Ukraine has shown, we are engaged in a new battle for democracy. If there was any doubt about that, we need only look at the recent UN vote on the cruel invasion of a sovereign country, where more than half of the world’s population as represented by their Governments did not condemn it.
In this new era, this new cold war, we need to talk softly and carry a big stick, if we are to defend our values. Our values have stood the test of time but, at times, have required defending. I suggest that we now require a significant and sustained increase in spending on both hard and soft power capabilities. Soft power was a key factor in our victory in the cold war.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It was President Roosevelt who said, “Talk softly but carry a big stick”—I understand it is an African proverb. If we are going to have soft power, we need to have hard power behind it to back it up, otherwise it does not work. I think we are at the stage where we have learned from our mistakes in the west. It is time to get it right.
Mr Baron
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. We have to do more to realise that democracy needs defending. We have to step up to the plate—not just this country, but the west generally—and commit sufficient resources, to ensure that we can talk softly, which we should always do first, but carry a big stick, because the big stick reinforces the weight of the soft diplomacy. We live in a hard world, but people will listen if they think we have assets that could be committed. I am an ex-soldier. War should always be the measure of last resort, but we need to talk and have the assets behind us to reinforce the weight of those talks.
This country should be proud. We have the BBC World Service, the British Council, our music industry, our culture, our values and the rule of law. There is little doubt—in fact, it has been shown through various measurements—that the UK is the world’s soft-power superpower, and we should be very proud of that.
During the invasion of Ukraine, the number of listeners to the BBC World Service in Russia went up three or four times. Listeners to the Ukrainian service went up to 5 million. Yet we are still debating whether the BBC World Service and BBC Monitoring budgets should be ringfenced. There is a question mark over their funding.
The British Council last year was in touch with more than 750 million people worldwide for education, arts and the English language. That is a phenomenal achievement. On the UK music industry, I will share with colleagues that I am not very good at contemporary music, but I am reliably informed that three of the top 10 artists came from these shores. That is punching above our weight and helps to create the positive view of this country—there is a lot to be positive about—but it also reaches out and makes contact with people globally.
There is, however, growing competition for influence. We cannot stand still. Individual states, many of them not democratic, are looking to invest and are investing to enhance their soft power around the world. Cultural institutes such as the British Council are an effective way of doing so, and one which truly global nations all employ. As chair of the British Council all-party parliamentary group, I will confine my remarks to that wonderful organisation.
I remind the Minister that other cultural institutes of other countries receive far greater amounts and proportions of public funding, between 40% to 50% of their total income. Whether it is the Goethe-Institut, or Confucius Institutes, or whatever, they get around half their income from the state. The amount is only around 15% from the British Government, because the British Government have said that the British Council must rely on its own commercial activities to help fund its endeavours. That is fine, except when those revenues fall through the floor in a pandemic year. It is, therefore, with regret for many of us—across the Floor in this House, but also in the other place—that the Government did not fully compensate for the loss of commercial income by the British Council as a result of the pandemic.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for taking an intervention, and for his fantastic work for the British Council. Its work is crucial—he is highlighting the loss of revenue—but we often forget about the revenues it generates through its great work and the number of people it introduces to British education and infrastructure. People who go through the British education system become allies of the United Kingdom, and continue that in their businesses and the posts that they hold, including Chevening scholars. The British Council does a tremendous amount of work that is rarely recognised, particularly in terms of funding.
Mr Baron
I completely concur with the hon. Gentleman’s comments. Sometimes we talk about figures and percentages too much in this place. We need to step back and realise that the British Council does an awful lot of good work that reaches into people’s lives on a global basis.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and on his work chairing the APPG, of which I am a member. He makes the point around soft power and the value we get from that. The British Council really does punch above its weight, as does the whole UK, in terms of soft power, but there is a price for liberty, which we are seeing all too clearly around the world at the moment. That price is eternal vigilance. That means we need to invest in those assets, such as the British Council. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is vital?
Mr Baron
I completely agree. I have been remiss in not thanking APPG members for being here today and contributing to the debate.
I am conscious that others want to contribute. I know we have half an hour, but I do not want to speak for the full 15 minutes. I want to address the issue of funding with the Minister, because funding the British Council was one reason I applied for this debate.
Let me be clear: the Government were generous in increasing the budget to the British Council during the pandemic, but the problem is that it was still £10 million short of fully compensating the British Council when it came to its commercial activities. For those who do not know—I do not think anyone here does not—its commercial activities essentially centre on teaching English in the far east.
Being £10 million short, it had to close 20 country operations, which is an ongoing process. Those countries were Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the USA, Slovakia, Slovenia, Malta, Switzerland, Belgium, Croatia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, North Macedonia, Afghanistan, Chile, Namibia, Uruguay, South Sudan and Sierra Leone. That is a long list of countries, including the Five Eyes and others, where we should not be closing the British Council’s soft power operations.
The British Council wants to be ambitious about what it delivers for the UK, in partnership with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, when the world reopens for business and manages the shock of Russian aggression in eastern Europe. However, looking at the CSR—the comprehensive spending review—budget going forward, having the 20 closures in train, we were delighted to see a 21% increase in funding for the FCDO over a three-year period. The Minister will recognise that figure. Yet, we now find that further cuts are being proposed to the British Council, below the £171 million of annual public funding that the council needs to carry on its sterling work across the global network, when it put its bid in to the FCDO.
In other words, despite the FCDO receiving a 21% funding increase over the three-year period, the British Council was going to be cut. Those negotiations are ongoing. I implore the Minister to have a look at the figures and to try and ensure that there are no further country closures, because the British Council is already having to deal with 20 from the previous cuts. Any more would hardly fit with the ambition and concept of global Britain. We need to show solidarity with our friends and allies, not only to counter the rising threat of autocracy around the world, but to secure much needed trade deals for the UK. We stand less chance of doing that if we are cutting our soft power capabilities in key countries, many of them strong allies of the UK.
In conclusion, my questions to the Minister are threefold. First, will she confirm when the British Council will receive notice of its full allocation for the spending review period? I ask that because the organisation cannot be expected to make any plans given the uncertainty created by this lack of notice; it needs to know sooner rather than later.
Secondly, will the Government confirm that the current negotiations will not result in a further cut, itself resulting in further country closures? I hope the Government get it, in the sense of understanding that we need to strengthen the UK’s soft power capability during this moment of global stability.
Finally, will the Government stop touting the figure of a 26% funding increase? I have heard it bandied about so often, but it is misleading because it is comparing a pandemic year with a non-pandemic year. It is not comparing like for like. Despite a 26% increase in funding, the figure was still £10 million short of fully compensating the British Council for its loss of commercial revenue during the pandemic year, which is why it had to close 20 country operations. Hiding behind percentage increases does not mask the truth that we withdrew from the world stage, because there was a £10 million shortfall that resulted in those 20 county closures. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
Order. This being a 30-minute debate, we do not usually take contributions from other Members unless they have permission from the Member in charge and the Minister.
Mr Mahmood
Very briefly, there is never a reason to speak after the chairman of the APPG has spoken, because he is always so eloquent, particularly in describing the needs of the British Council, and some great work has been done for a long time in support of it.
The hon. Member talked with passion about the British Council, and I agree with him, because as I said in my intervention, it is not just a financial organ. I would caution the Government against knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing, because value is what the British Council has provided. In Russia, for instance, it has provided a huge amount of access to education. In Commonwealth countries in particular, it provides a huge amount of access for people who would not otherwise have access to the type of education that those countries need to become better democracies and to build better communities and societies that we want to engage with. That is the value of the British Council: supporting people to do that and to go on to higher and further education. But on top of that, when people enter into education their mindsets change, away from other doctrines and towards democracy and valuing human life. That is one of the really important things that the British Council does.
The British Council also does a huge amount to support our trade, because when we have people understanding English and coming here to get their education at our universities, they build up links that they want to retain when they go back, whether they are in private or Government jobs, and the amount of connection that creates is of huge value. The £10 million shortfall over the covid period was a horrendous loss for those countries and their people’s education. It has had a huge effect on those people, who we want to be able to support.
I will be quick, Ms Rees, because I know that time is limited. We have to understand the value of this work. This is why we are all so passionate about it. We have to understand that it is not just about what we put in to keep those offices open; it is also about the value we get in return, because the soft power that the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) spoke about is hugely important.
Karen Bradley
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who indulges me by allowing me to intervene a second time. Does he agree that it would be wonderful if there was some way of assessing the value of institutions such as the British Council, which is so much more than the money that goes in? If only the Treasury had a way of assessing the overall value to the United Kingdom, rather than just looking at the pounds going in, we would appreciate those institutions all the more.
Mr Mahmood
I totally agree with the right hon. Lady, who makes a valid point. That sort of assessment could be made if we looked at the number of people who come to our universities to be educated and who then keep in contact when they go back home, and also through our embassies and our imports.
The hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay made an important point about Brexit and having new deals and contracts with different countries. Once we have that heritage, people want to talk to us. Once we have that connection, people want to come back and talk to us, and to make sure that they retain that connection. That is really important for us. Certainly in the Maghreb countries, there are people who are moving away from France and want more English classes in order to understand English, so that is another issue we should look at. That would mean an incalculable amount of finance coming back into the country, so we need to look at that.
I will reinforce the case made by the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay by urging the Minister to ensure that we get a clear indication of the budgets that will be set, bearing in mind the losses there have been, and hopefully those will now be increased. Such an investment would be well made not just for the British Council but, most importantly, for us as the United Kingdom.
The Minister for Asia and the Middle East (Amanda Milling)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) on securing the debate, which I am pleased to respond to, and I thank him for all his work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the British Council. I am also grateful to the other Members who have contributed to the debate through speeches and interventions. I will try to address some of their points as well as answering the questions put by my hon. Friend.
The UK’s soft power is rooted in who we are, our democratic values and our way of life. It is central to our international identity as an open, trustworthy nation. Our strength in this area is widely recognised. In a recent British Council study, we ranked as the most attractive country for young people in the G20. Only yesterday, the latest global soft power index was published, placing us second out of 120 countries. Other countries trust the UK; they appreciate our values and they want to work with us. They are enthusiastic for our culture, from our premier league football to our music. Of course, there are our brilliant products, from cars to fashion and food.
We must never take our soft power for granted, especially now that freedom and democracy are under attack and we see disinformation all around. We will continue to build our influence and seek to inspire; to forge links with people around the world to promote our values. This is how we will champion freedom and rights on the international stage, and challenge those who seek to tear down democracy. We are blessed with many wonderful and powerful tools in that regard.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay mentioned what I will describe as the battle of the values. Our international leadership, which we demonstrate every day, is crucial in the battle for hearts and minds. We are showcasing it through our unwavering support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity in the face of Putin’s barbaric illegal invasion, and in our steadfast support for our democratic partners, through the UN Security Council, NATO, the G7 and partnerships such as AUKUS. Beyond that, we are championing open societies and promoting the rule of law through our economic, security and development leadership.
The British Council is another vital instrument for our influence overseas. It demonstrates our strength and values in practical ways, building trust and opportunities between nations. The British Council, which has been a trusted partner for more than 85 years, teaches the English language and promotes UK education, arts and culture across the globe; operates in more than 100 countries and reaches 76 million people; promotes UK higher education through Study UK; showcases British creativity through arts such as the current UK/Australia Season; and provides English language and teacher training. The British Council delivers for the whole UK, forging theatre connections between Wales and Nigeria, and cultural networks between Northern Ireland and India. Building on the success of COP26, it has connected young people in Glasgow with its global schools network.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay referred to the British Council’s offices. In a digital age, it would be a strategic mistake to judge the British Council’s impact in a country purely and solely by the physical presence of an office. During the covid crisis, the British Council embraced new technologies, including online teaching platforms, which were vital to its operations—as they were to all our operations as we sat in front of Zoom and its equivalents. The British Council has ambitious growth targets: by 2020, 30 million people will experience UK arts each year, an increase of 800 million in five years; and one in 10 people globally—more than 140 million people—will learn English through the council.
Amanda Milling
I will give way, but I was just about to answer some of my hon. Friend’s questions.
Mr Baron
I look forward to receiving the answers. Of course we live in a digital age, but a physical presence is still important and very symbolic. Presidents and Prime Ministers of countries that we are pulling out of raise it with our own ambassadors. The fact that they are upset by that is a mark of the importance that they attach to the British Council. Will the Minister reflect on that?
Amanda Milling
I will talk a little more about the offices in a moment, if my hon. Friend will bear with me.
Since the start of the pandemic, we have allocated more than £560 million to the British Council to support our shared goals—that is a generous deal in the current financial climate—including £180 million in grant and aid funding for 2021-22, which is an increase of £40 million over last year. The British Council’s non-official development assistance allocation was £39 million, which is triple its 2020-21 baseline. Although we have had to make difficult decisions in other areas, we have increased the money that we have made available to the British Council. The challenging fiscal environment continues, and we are working closely with the council on final allocations for the coming settlement review period. They will be confirmed at the conclusion of the Department’s financial and business planning process. As we look to the future, our partnership will continue to be vital.
On the operational structure and offices, the country presence remains an operational matter for the British Council. As I say, we are working closely with it on the final funding settlements.
I also want to mention the BBC World Service, if I have a bit of time. That is another organisation that is really important in promoting our values.
Mr Baron
I take on board what the Minister says about the budget being operational, but when a budget is cut—it was cut, in effect, because there was not full compensation for that loss of commercial revenue—these are the decisions that come out at the other end of the sausage machine. The funding is not there. I support everything she said about the British Council—she has spoken very eloquently about it—but those are just words unless we fund it appropriately. Will she address my second question, which is perhaps the most important? At a time when the FCDO budget is increasing by more than 20% over the three-year CSR period, why are negotiations ongoing that, as I and colleagues understand it, suggest a cut to the British Council? That does not make sense when we have this fight on our hands in the battle for global democracy.
Amanda Milling
My hon. Friend is a very powerful champion for the British Council, but, as I say, we are working closely with it while we reach the final funding settlements following the spending review.
May I please have a couple of minutes on the BBC World Service? It brings high-quality impartial news to global audiences across the world, including in regions where free speech is limited. It reaches 364 million people every week with an increase in audience numbers of more than 40% since the FCDO-funded World 2020 programme began in 2016. It delivers in 42 different languages, and the licence fee currently funds English and another 29 from a commitment of £250 million a year. The FCDO World 2020 programme funds an additional 12 language services across Serbia, India, Africa and Asia, with additional funding provided to existing services in Russian, Arabic and English.
I probably do not have time to go into that in much more detail. We have talked about the importance of the British Council and of the BBC World Service, and I also want to talk about the overseas network. Another huge soft power asset is our diplomatic network, which is one of the largest in the world. We have 282 posts in 179 countries and territories staffed by 4,500 staff from across Government. Our network promotes our values and delivers our priorities with positive impacts right across the world.
In conclusion, I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay for securing the debate and for everything he does to promote the British Council and fight its cause. He is a real champion for the British Council. I reiterate that we are determined to use every soft power tool we have to promote open, democratic societies across the world. We will to cherish and sustain our assets, from the BBC to the British Council, championing education, culture and diplomacy, making a positive difference, standing up for our values and demonstrating the international leadership that is so vital in these incredibly challenging times.
Question put and agreed to.
Local Enterprise Partnerships
(2 years, 7 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
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the status of local enterprise partnerships.
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Ms Rees, and I thank everyone for attending the debate.
I am delighted to have secured the debate at such a critical time for local enterprise partnerships, when strategic, business-led, local economic growth remains in rather a state of suspended animation following the LEP review. In East Sussex, we have been well-served by LEPs over the past 10 years and I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Levelling Up recognised and affirmed the vital role that LEPs can continue to play in the recent levelling-up White Paper. It would have been all too easy for him to have looked for a headline and to have announced the creation of successor bodies, so I congratulate him for the leadership and common sense that he has shown on the issue.
That said, the sector is in limbo as it awaits clarity on its future role and, critically, confirmation of the funding it needs to fulfil it. That is creating an inability to plan, and the continued uncertainty has seen some of our most talented people leave LEPs. It is also having an impact on our business leaders, who give their time and experience in support of their local areas. They will not stay at the table for long if the uncertainty continues or if they do not feel valued.
It is six weeks to the day since at the levelling-up White Paper was published and LEPs have very much welcomed its conclusions. The value of LEPs is based on an array of evidence about their impact across the country, and a visit to any of their websites or social media platforms will demonstrate the huge amount of work that is under way. Only last week, the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), who is the Minister with responsibility for the digital economy, was in Hull to launch the latest LEP local digital skills partnership, which equips people across Hull and East Yorkshire with the skills needed to support the region’s digital jobs boom and to ensure that more residents can benefit from the thriving local tech sector. LEPs are also home to, and work closely with, world-leading sector champions, from creative industries, cyber and net zero through to defence and space. LEPs are already bringing together critical clusters to support innovation and turbocharge growth.
In research and development and innovation, LEPs are making groundbreaking advances based on high-tech economic clusters. They are demonstrating their value in a way that is crystal clear, whether through cell and gene therapy in Hertfordshire, the first test flight of a hybrid electric aircraft in the south-west, developing new agri-tech systems in the midlands, strengthening cyber-security technology in Gloucestershire, automation and robotics in Oxfordshire, or building new supply lines for future electric vehicles in Coventry. Some of the largest stand-out examples of innovation are driven by LEPs, which was also cited in the White Paper.
In my own beautiful constituency of Hastings and Rye, the South East local enterprise partnership, or SELEP, has had a major impact thanks to its ability to convene partners, build strong relationships and help to put the required structures and processes in place to help local businesses thrive.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I commend the hon. Member for having secured a debate on LEPs, because the LEP in my own Thames valley region does a great deal of work to bring together businesses, local government, the third sector and higher education so that they work collectively not just for our region but for UK plc. Does she agree that when those groups are all talking in unison and agreeing with the likes of myself that we need to build a western rail link to Heathrow, which is the No.1 infrastructure priority in our region, the Government should agree to such work rather than delaying it, as is currently the case?
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
Order. It is nice to see that you have not lost your technique for long interventions, Mr Dhesi.
Sally-Ann Hart
The hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) makes a good point about partnership working, but I cannot comment on the western Heathrow link as I do not know enough about it.
Turning to skills, LEPs have significant success in the sector, in particular through skills advisory panels. Business feeds directly into that SAP data and relies on the cross-co-operation and capacity of LEPs to gather and deliver that level of information at scale. No other organisation does that locally and it connects directly with the aims of the Government’s proposed unit for future skills. LEPs also co-fund the Careers and Enterprise Company’s enterprise adviser network, which has brought nearly 3,000 business volunteers into schools to support and stimulate vital career choices for students. The convening role of the LEPs has boosted the benefits, scale and reach of that partnership, enabling more business stakeholders to connect directly with local schools.
Furthermore, LEPs work in cross-partnership to deliver solid results for their skills boot camps and institutes of technology, addressing skills needed in green technology, the heavy goods vehicle and logistics sector, digital, advanced manufacturing and the construction sector. Again, that helps to deliver on another White Paper ambition to resolve acute national and local skills shortages.
Only last week, the Higher Education Commission launched its latest report on innovation, again highlighting the central role that LEPs can play in driving innovation across our regions. More broadly, LEPs have played a critical role in supporting our local small and medium-sized enterprises through the pandemic and the recovery, too. That is absolutely right in East Sussex.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend refer to the work of the Coventry and Warwickshire LEP in supporting suppliers of the electric vehicle supply chain. She talked about SMEs, and the Coventry and Warwickshire LEP has supported 5,500 businesses, organising a whole range of roundtables. Is not the great strength of LEPs that they bring private sector expertise into an area that was originally only for the public sector?
Sally-Ann Hart
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The commerciality of the minds in the LEP adds to the local authorities, giving that broad cross-section of expertise.
In the past year alone, 1.6 million businesses turned to their local LEP growth hub for advice and support. During the most challenging times of the pandemic, LEPs designed and delivered more than 100 local initiatives, targeting help and support to give local businesses the best chance at survival. They played a similar role in preparation for exiting the EU. They are now looking at how global challenges are impacting on local business. The intel is fed into central Government weekly, providing real-time data and insight. LEPs have shown it, the White Paper confirms it, and I am confident from my discussions with my local LEP that they have a unique role to play in the future.
The LEP structure, however, of regional collaboration with public and private organisations and individuals, with a unique focus on improving local economic growth, is potentially under threat. Six weeks on from the review, LEPs have no confirmation of their future role nor, more critically, how or whether they will be funded to fulfil that role—hence I am here today to ask the Minister for clarity on that important issue. We must turn the words of the White Paper into tangible policy. Action is now a matter of urgency.
In conclusion—though quite a long conclusion—I would welcome the Minister’s consideration of the following points. The Government must please clearly define and establish the future functions of LEPs and make them clear to all parties. If the functions are not clear, or no obligation to consult them is made, any meaningful role will simply be lost to posterity in future structures.
It is vital that the local independent business voice of LEPs is safeguarded for it to be engaged in local economic planning and decision making, and that the LEPs’ local government partners recognise that. More than 2,000 local business leaders offer their time and expertise through LEPs to support their local economies. They are an asset that we cannot afford to lose. Involving that local voice in devolution agreements will help to keep business around the table. The private sector expertise and investment has many regional benefits and we need to encourage a culture of enterprise and engagement.
We also need to recognise that LEPs’ business acumen is already helping to identify and drive some of the biggest groundbreaking economic clusters in the country, generating jobs and pulling in more private sector leverage than public finance alone. In one example, a LEP’s brokering capability generated an investment ratio of 12:1 for a local sector cluster, and it is still increasing. That capability, at minimal cost to the public purse, could simply disappear if we do not clearly establish their function now. It is not the number of allocated capital pots that counts; it is about LEPs having the ability to influence how that capital is spent. That is really fundamental.
For many, the journey to devolution could be a lengthy one. The White Paper suggest that it is a decade-long ambition, and some suggest even longer. In some areas, there may be no greater appetite for Mayors or county deals than we currently see, and the focus on immediate mayoral combined authorities reflects only about 32% of all areas, because approximately 68% of LEPs are not covered by MCAs. LEPs rely on European funding to support skills and deliver projects, so they will therefore need to access the UK shared prosperity fund to do the same, as the vast majority will not be in MCAs. Ultimately, we need to identify the functions and pathways for LEPs outside MCAs.
Through their unique collaboration and local business voice, LEPs broker investments that deliver the jobs, environment and local taxes that local communities need and depend on. It is now vital to ensure that LEPs have the teeth and funding, so that they can continue to develop the opportunities that play such a significant part in levelling up the entire country from north to south and east to west, including our coastal communities.
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
I would like to start the wind-ups at 5.12 pm in order to give Sally-Ann Hart a couple of minutes to sum up at the end. I do not think there is any need to put a time limit on speeches, as long as you are kind to one another.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) on securing an important debate for all local enterprise partnerships up and down the land. Indeed, since 2010, local enterprise partnerships have been integral to growth. The contribution that LEPs make to the prosperity of the nation is invaluable, and I want to make the case as to why nowhere is that more clear than in the country of Buckinghamshire.
The Buckinghamshire local enterprise partnership has played a vital role in determining local economic priorities and driving job creation, workforce skills and growth. It is quite a startling statistic that 55% of all new commercial and industrial employment space in the county of Buckinghamshire over the past five years has been delivered on the local enterprise partnership-managed enterprise zone sites at Westcott, which is wholly in my constituency, Silverstone Park, which is roughly half in my constituency and half in that of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), and a further site next door, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler).
With 14,000 active members, the LEP’s Buckinghamshire Business First growth hub has filled the void and delivered a unified business voice across the county. Let me give a few examples. Over the 12 months from the start of the covid crisis, it provided 65,000 essential business assists. Ahead of any of the Government support that was announced and delivered, the LEP covid recovery fund provided £1.6 million directly into business survival and it was the first LEP in the country to act in such a way. The impact is clear: all 62 businesses supported are still trading, 197 new jobs have already been created and 258 have been safeguarded.
The LEP skills hub in Buckinghamshire is ranked No. 1 in the country by the Careers and Enterprise Company. Buckinghamshire is the first area in the country to have enterprise advisors active in every state school in the county, and the LEP’s annual skills show is the biggest single skills event in the south-east of England. The LEP has supported transformative projects such as Pinewood Studios in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), which has helped the UK film industry grow by 18% in the last five years. Those are some incredible examples. I could give more, but time is against me. By working more closely together, local enterprise partnerships will continue to maximise job creation, growth and real investment right across the country, delivering long-term, meaningful results, particularly for communities outside London.
Brexit was about removing the distortions created by European Union membership, doing things differently in ways that work better for the communities we serve and promoting productivity and prosperity. LEPs are an integral part of that vision. There has never been a more exciting time to be involved with local enterprise partnerships, not least in Buckinghamshire, where our LEP has invested wisely. Its capital programme funds have been recycled. Investment loans have been repaid and enterprise income secured—all to enable Buckinghamshire to operate independently of taxpayer support if necessary. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye said, LEPs need certainty. I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will give us some reassuring words and actions.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart), who made some valid points. We are all here seeking certainty, and I hope to hear more information from the Minister, as many of our LEPs have contacted us asking for clarity.
I work closely with the GFirst LEP in Gloucestershire. My patch is Stroud. Even before my election, the LEP was really helpful. It was easy to approach and had a helpful team. It is packed full of a diverse range of skills and made up of local businesses across Gloucestershire. I find that it shares my attitude that, in Stroud, it is getting things done that matters to people. That means working with everybody, regardless of party politics, and making sure that the people they are engaging with can make a difference. I find that an effective, pragmatic approach—and one that is not always present in all aspects of an MP’s life as we try to move things forward.
I have inherited many projects that are decades old and need some attention and a bit of a kick up the backside. The LEP assists me with that. A key aspect of the LEP and the work I do with it is in harnessing the power of businesses in the private sector, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) mentioned. Private sector businesses are our job makers and wealth creators and are vital in getting things done. If we do not have their brains and aptitude on certain issues, things fall down, particularly when they get mired in long-term squabbles.
It is important that we think carefully about the future of LEPs. I have no issue with that. I know from speaking to colleagues across the House that not all LEPs are performing brilliantly and we have to acknowledge that. The word “patchy” comes up when people talk about local enterprise partnerships and there are questions about the value that they bring to some areas—not mine, but others.
It is also safe to say that not all work with their local MPs and their local community champions of councils and councillors. Some operate as mysterious benevolent bodies doling out millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money. They make no reference at all to the Government or local businesses and community champions that could give them some guidance about the best place to spend that money. I understand why the Minister and his team are looking at LEPs, particularly as we are looking at new models of devolution, but I do not want the Government to throw the baby out with the bath water.
I will go through a few of the projects that we have been working on locally. We have growth hubs in our college. It is an ambition of our Skills and Post-16 Education Bill work with the Department for Education that we bring businesses into our further education colleges. We are already doing that through the work of the LEP, including by providing net zero advice and supporting businesses. I have some fantastic local businesses in my area, such as The Boys Who Sew, which have valued the advice and support. We have a huge bid request in to host the world’s first fusion power station in my patch, which has involved every single aspect of local enterprise; a LEP is certainly a big part and player in that. The GFirst LEP chairs in the western gateway area are all members on the gateway board, so we work closely together.
I want to give credit to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk)—he would be here, but having been elevated to Solicitor General, he is not allowed to join in these debates—who, working closely with the GFirst LEP, has worked tirelessly to create the cyber-cluster for Cheltenham, Gloucestershire and the western gateway. It was one of the discussion topics at the inaugural meetings for the western gateway and it is now actually happening, so we can certainly chalk that up as a win.
On skills, we have a joint portal between the county council and the GFirst LEP, and an employment charter, which is being piloted across the county at the moment, involving about 20 employers and a number of schools. We also have 10 business sector groups. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye said, if we delay making decisions or giving those groups certainty, we will lose those busy people. They are not going to stick around; they will go and join another group if they can see that that is worth while.
In essence, LEPs can improve by being more transparent and helping more people to understand what they are there for. They can do better at showing where the money is coming from and why they are spending it, and they can work better in some areas with their MPs, councils and councillors. However, I support what they are doing—certainly in Gloucestershire—and I hope we are able to give them certainty so that they are able to plan and continue doing good work. As Government work with the levelling-up fund and the prosperity fund comes along the line, we have a lot to do. LEPs are a big part of that.
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)
I thank you for your chairmanship, Ms Rees, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) for securing this debate. The debate around LEPs is of particular interest to me because when I was leader of Derbyshire County Council from 2009 to 2013, I was there, in the thick of it, when the old regional development agencies were dissolved and the new concept of local enterprise partnerships was created. I helped to create D2N2 and sat on the board of that LEP for some years, so I had a ringside seat in terms of the strengths and weaknesses that the new organisation brought to the table.
One great weakness was that there was a lot of overlap: different areas were in all sorts of different LEPs, which caused all sorts of problems. There was, perhaps, a weakness of political will in the centre, with that sort of washing machine salesman theory of politics: someone creates something exciting, and for six months Ministers talk about it as the great solution to everything; then, something else comes along and interests fade or distractions happen.
I got a sense of that when I was the Member of the European Parliament for the East Midlands, where I was the European Conservatives and Reformists group co-ordinator for the Committee on Regional Development. It was certainly clear there that regions were still where it was at, whatever we had decided to do in England. From 12 months after the creation of LEPs, the background of a lack of central focus and drive was sometimes quite apparent.
Since my election as Member of Parliament for Northampton South in 2017, I have worked closely with SEMLEP, the South East Midlands Local Enterprise Partnership, on a range of issues such as local town regeneration, company growth funding pots and larger, more ambitious investment programmes—it is almost a sort of Voldemort moment—such as the Oxford to Cambridge arc. Over the past 12 to 13 years, I have seen what works well and what does not work so well, and I have some general observations to make from my experience, given the current time and context. Policy initiatives such as levelling up are hitting the ground just as the economically damaging covid emergency finally recedes and just in time for a whole new set of economic pressures. This fits in well with my time and role on the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee and as chairman of the devolution all-party parliamentary group.
First, LEPs are not perfect. There are issues around geography; not all LEPs fall very neatly within boundaries. There are some perceived overlaps, and in the case of the Oxford-Cambridge arc, we could see some perceived underlaps. It is worth noting that the Oxford-Cambridge arc LEPs tried to adapt and co-operate with other LEPs to meet the milestones. That has been encouraging, but the arc is not in the levelling-up White Paper, and now there is an explosion of question marks around it and its future.
The LEPs themselves are not perfect, but they are there. They have a pool of critical knowledge, expertise and relationships to draw from. The machine works pretty well, so I would like the Minister to speak about the changes and whether growth funding pots will go through LEPs henceforth. Now, at this critical juncture, might not be the time to mess around with organisational architecture, tempting though it may be. We should not make the perfect the enemy of the good.
There are always risks. When Northamptonshire Enterprise Partnership dissolved a couple of years ago, not only the senior leadership but almost the entire staff—with their deep wells of knowledge and, critically, their interpersonal relationships—disappeared overnight. It has taken time for those gaps to be filled, a phenomenon that my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) and for Hastings and Rye have referred to. I have personally had a good relationship with SEMLEP, and I am loth to start all over again when my focus in this instance is not so much on the vehicle as the destinations, looking for progress, not perfection.
My constituency has many challenges, as do the greater geographies of counties and regions, but they also have great opportunities for improvements, which is what our focus should be on. LEPs have the economic expertise, relationships, knowledge and history of public-private partnerships that we can draw on heavily. As my noble Friend Lord Lilley said many years ago, I have a little list, but I will simply say that Northampton has seen some great achievements through the LEPs, including the Vulcan ironworks, MAHLE Powertrain, Northampton College’s advanced engineering centre and digital skills academy, and MK:5G. Of course, there is displacement theory in the economy—just because money has been spent here, it does not necessarily mean it would not have been spent better by companies themselves, or elsewhere. This is spending packaged as investment; it is still taxpayers’ money. Nevertheless, that is a list of positive projects.
The LEP investment independent evaluation said that the return on investment for the whole programme will be £9 for every £1, so there is some good stuff there. I am always slightly suspicious of ROI figures—it always seems slightly like the Del Boy theory of investments: “Next year, we will be millionaires”—but nevertheless there is some good ROI there that can be effectively demonstrated. LEPs often operate on a larger scale than a local authority, but are obviously smaller and nimbler than central Government. They therefore have an important part to play in the delivery of our local growth and investment plans, imperfect as they are—imperfect as we all are.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Rees. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) on securing this important debate and on the case she made, particularly for the value of LEPs. Many of her points about the role of LEPs in skills, business development and attracting inward investment were well made, but I particularly liked her point about their power in terms of convening. That is one value that has been harder to quantify, but it is absolutely important, and when the Minister closes, I hope he will talk about the need for greater certainty —I will make some points about that myself—because that is a clear message that is coming back to all of us. LEPs have shown the value of bringing business together and giving it the chance to help shape a place and the future of local economies. That has been a real success of the model.
I tried to keep pace with the hon. Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith). In the end, I wrote down “sheer volume” for the wonderful achievements in the Bucks LEP. I was struck by 55% of new starts being in the enterprise zones, which really shows the impact in that community. That relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) about getting things done, which is what our constituents want and what we all want for our communities. We talk about long-term projects, but we want to get things done, get the economy moving, get people in work and get them the right skills. Those points were well made.
The hon. Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) sold himself short. My LEP is Derby, Derbyshire, Nottingham and Nottinghamshire—D2N2—and the hon. Gentleman was a founder director. It is widely accepted across the patch that it has done a very good job. Those things were very difficult at that time; looking back, it seems a lot easier. He made some points about geography, which was a contested issue in our part of the world at the time, as was the structure. The transition from regional development agencies to the LEP model was quite painful. The hon. Gentleman is widely considered to have done a very good job. That shows that, as well as the value of business in these bodies, there is still, and always will be, an important place for local politicians in shaping a place, whether that is leaders of councils or economic development leads on councils. We should always want them to be part of the work, because the value is in the rich partnership between the public and private sector. There is real opportunity in that.
I do not want to go past the point about geography and overlaps and underlaps, because we are going to go through that now—on steroids—as we move now into the next phase of the levelling-up White Paper and the different plans around devolution. There was some interest when it was about local economic partnerships, but in reality we knew that most of our constituents would not particularly connect with the issue. But they are going to when it starts being about mayoralties and combined authorities, and we are really going to have those conversations, so some of that insight and experience will be very welcome.
Local economic partnerships have been an important forum. In my own community, D2N2 covers 2 million people with an output of £45 billion, and it aims to add another £9 billion. That is the scale of the ambition. The LEP has brought real expertise, and a co-ordinating role, as the hon. Member for Stroud said. That has been particularly clear during the pandemic, where it has pulled the partners together to assist people back into work, to steer local investment and to support businesses to grow. We have been very lucky to have it.
It would be remiss of me not to mention the predecessor bodies. For us, that was the East Midlands Development Agency. In general, regional development agencies were good bodies. I know that the hon. Member for Northampton South does not like the ROI stats, but the evidence for RDAs was very good in that regard, and I feel that the changes were a false economy—a cost-cutting measure. I am not advocating a return to that system, but the governance model we have today, with a partnership between local politicians and local business, plus the heft of the support that RDAs had, might be a better way forward. I would be interested to hear what the Minister foresees.
We face significant challenges in our economy. We have had anaemic growth for a decade. We can have a big argument about why that is, but it is still the reality. When we look at wage growth, I do not even think it would qualify even as anaemic. The Bank of England is predicting economic growth to be as low as 1% by 2024. Whatever our economic plans, LEPs have to be there to jump-start our economy. There are elements of the levelling-up White Paper that start to address the situation, in concept and rhetoric, and there is lots that we would all agree with, but we now need to hear from Ministers about more than the concept, and about how we are going to tackle the failed model of over-centralisation and genuinely shift power from the centre—from Whitehall to town hall, and then from those town halls to communities themselves. We know that that is what communities want and that when people are treated well and are given the opportunity, they do well. I fear that, in the long journey between now and 2030, if we go on another trip around the deal-making process and the piecemeal model of devolution, it will be very slow and will frustrate progress. I think we can go faster and I hope the Minister might reflect on that.
The White Paper says that the Government are
“encouraging the integration of LEPs and their business boards into MCAs, the GLA and County Deals”.
Many LEPs have welcomed that but, very much in the spirit of the comments of the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye in opening the debate, they want to know more about that transition. The White Paper said that further detail would be provided in writing to LEPs, Will the Minister say when that happened or will happen?
I will finish with a couple of quick questions. We are moving into an age of more individual, personalised government. I have to say, that is not to my taste. I think the superman model of leadership is a dated and failed one—and they are virtually always men. I like a Cabinet Government; I think more heads are better together. The value in the LEPs was that they brought together a rich mix of partners. They are very busy people with very important day jobs, and they are going to need to know that their work is valued. If they are downgraded to a business sounding board for a Mayor, then that will be a challenging process. Otherwise, if we are putting all accountability on an individual personage, where will LEPs fit in to that? I am keen to hear what the Minister has to say about that.
The White Paper announced three new innovation accelerators. Can the Minister provide some detail on how LEPs and local government are expected to interact with those? Will they have genuine power and a say in them? Similarly, how will LEPs engage with the new levelling-up directors and the Levelling Up Advisory Council, and how will they provide feedback? We have seen a general sense of enthusiasm for sub-regional business and political leadership on important matters of developing the economy. Saying that sounds almost facile, but that is what we are all saying. We are now moving into a new context through the levelling-up programme. There are many questions that need to be answered, so I hope that we might start to hear answers from the Minister today.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Neil O'Brien)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) for securing this important debate. It has been inspirational to hear the many varied things that LEPs are doing across the country: in the south-east, Thames valley, Coventry, Warwickshire, Buckinghamshire, Gloucestershire, and D2N2 in Northamptonshire and the south midlands. They are doing everything from heritage to digital skills and, indeed, fusion power. They have a very exciting agenda and are playing an important role.
The short answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye is that, through the White Paper, LEPs now have certainty about their overall role in the future and how they will fit together with mayoral combined authorities. LEPs will continue to exist where there are no MCAs; where MCAs exist, they can be folded in as the business sounding board where they are co-terminus. Where there is a part-in and part-out LEP, we will respond to whatever the desires of local partners are. They will also shortly have the funding certainty that a number have Members have asked about, because we will be writing to them very shortly.
The longer version of the answer to the great questions that colleagues have asked today is that LEPs have played a very important role in unlocking local economic potential and growth over recent years. Using the convening power that so many Members have talked about, partnerships have forged lasting and productive relationships between business, education and local government. At the same time, they have brought that crucial private sector perspective into local decision making, and indeed into combined authorities. They have delivered major capital investment schemes, some of which have been mentioned today, such as the £12 billion local growth fund and the £900 million Getting Building fund.
LEPs have been really instrumental in supporting businesses through the twin challenges of leaving the EU and responding to the pandemic. As if that were not enough, a lot of businesses are now turning to their LEP and growth hub for guidance and support regarding the current situation with the Russian invasion of Ukraine. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye said, that is just part of what is driving the 1.6 million visits that she talked about.
Over the past two-year period we have seen LEPs implement a series of actions to strengthen their governance and accountability, and it has made a big difference. In the most recent assurance review we found that every one of the 38 LEPs met our expectations on strategic impact and delivery, and all but one met our expectations on governance. The National Audit Office has noted the progress that LEPs have made over time. In its 2019 report, the NAO highlighted the marked improvement in LEPs’ financial transparency between 2016 and 2019. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) touched on the marked progress we have seen on the removal of boundary issues between LEPs—an issue that the Government recognise can blur accountability and transparency. Although there is further to go, the majority of those boundary issues have now been dealt with.
I want to thank the people working in LEPs who might watch this debate or read the transcript, because the Government place a huge value on the contribution that they have made and will continue to make to their local economy. We are grateful to the talented, busy people who serve on LEPs for giving their skills, knowledge and expertise to the community and to improve the functioning of LEPs over time. We look forward to the next stage in our partnership with LEPs.
In some areas of the country, such as the Liverpool city region, West Yorkshire and Greater London, business leaders are effectively integrated into local decision-making structures through combined authorities and the GLA. As Members know, LEP partnerships extend beyond their immediate combined authorities. In a LEP census in 2016, nine out of 10 LEPs reported that they have full engagement with businesses of all sizes and LEPs reported engagement with higher education bodies, so it is not just about the interface with local politicians.
The bigger geographical scale—beyond the council scale—which a number of hon. Members have pointed to, gives LEPs a unique vantage point to bring people together on lots of different subjects. For example, one of the reasons why we use and resource them is to develop local industrial strategies, which have flowed into such things as innovation accelerators. Where innovation accelerators exist, we hope that LEPs and the equivalent bodies in the devolved areas will play a role in shaping what they do.
There are lots of other such examples but today, in 2022, the local growth landscape looks very different from when LEPs were first launched. We have seen the introduction of combined authority Mayors and a number of funds, such as the towns fund, which involves local stakeholders potentially at a sub-local authority level, bringing together lots of partners in the most deprived half of towns. For example, through the local growth fund and the forthcoming shared prosperity fund, we are empowering those in lower-tier local government. Of course, LEPs still play a crucial role in all the different things that they are running and their wider role is also a crucial part of the local growth story.
We are in the process of continuing on the journey of growth in the number of mayoral combined authorities. In the White Paper, we talked about nine new areas that have started talks with Government, including a combined authority deal for York and North Yorkshire and widening the geography of the north-east deal, as well as deepening the deals that have been done for the west midlands and Greater Manchester. Even as we do that, LEPs will continue to have a crucial role outside the areas where there are not electively accountable mayoral-type figures operating across a strategic geography. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye said, in many parts of the country there will be no other body on that kind of scale with that kind of strategic overview of the wider economy, straddling a number of different local authorities.
Following the LEP review, which has concluded, we have clarity about the end state that we want to get to and why we want to continue to have LEPs: for that convening role, the private sector expertise, and the ability to broker lots of different local stakeholders and drive forward a wider strategic vision for the area. That is why we have chosen to keep LEPs and why I pay tribute to them today.
We appreciate the urgent need for certainty of the kind that various hon. Members have raised. We are working to provide that clarity to LEPs at the earliest opportunity. I am sure that Members will appreciate some of the wider pressures that the Government are facing, given the international situation. It has been useful to have this debate today and to be able to express my thanks and pay tribute to the work of LEPs. We will be in touch with our colleagues in LEPs in the very near future.
Mark Pawsey
One strength of LEPs is that the functional geography was delivered by the LEPs themselves. It was left to people in their own areas to determine what makes a sound economic unit. Does my hon. Friend intend to retain that autonomy within the LEPs, so that we keep that geography rather than relying on historical local government boundaries?
Neil O'Brien
Yes. My hon. Friend has given me a good opportunity to recognise that there is, I think—from my conversations with Coventry and Warwickshire—a strong desire to continue to work together. Without prejudging the outcome of anything, we have said that we will respond to what local places want to do where LEPs straddle areas, being partly in an MCA and partly outside. I am conscious, from all my conversations with those involved in Coventry and Warwickshire, that they have found it useful to work together. I was very impressed by the list of projects that my hon. Friend reeled off that they were leading in Coventry and Warwickshire. We are absolutely conscious of what local people want—yes, absolutely. Let me end by saying that we will continue to respond to what local places want and how they want to work together to drive forward their local economy and get more good jobs in all these different parts of the country.
Sally-Ann Hart
I thank the Minister for his fantastic response and the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) for his contribution, as well as my hon. Friends the Members for Buckingham (Greg Smith), for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) and for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) for their excellent contributions, and my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) for his contribution through interventions.
LEPs clearly have a role to play and are an asset to all the constituencies represented today. They are not perfect, but they have the ability to harness the power of businesses and they have a commerciality about them that local authorities just do not have. When it comes to decision making on the if, why, how, when and what of spending money, it is really important that we have the LEP voice in our regions. LEPs really do encourage business growth. If we want to develop a culture of enterprise in this country, LEPs really do play an important role in that. They really do manage to convene partnerships, which is one of their strengths. I was therefore delighted to hear the Minister’s confirmation that LEPs will continue and will be funded and that clarity will be provided soon.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the status of Local Enterprise Partnerships.
Written Statements
(2 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Ministry of Defence Financial Update
(2 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
On Thursday 10 March 2022 I authorised the release of £393.8 million to discharge the debt owed by the Ministry of Defence-owned company, International Military Services Limited (IMS).
The debt resulted from contracts which were signed between IMS Ltd. and the pre-revolution Iranian Government. Following the Iranian revolution, the contracts were not fulfilled, despite prepayments made by Iran to the UK. The UK courts and the International Court of Arbitration (ICC) subsequently confirmed that the debt was still owed to the Iranian Government.
The payment of the debt reflects the UK Government’s determination to meet that international obligation, while seeking to ensure that such funds can only be used in accordance with applicable sanctions, and domestic counter-terrorism and anti-money laundering legislation, for example to purchase humanitarian goods.
I have been a consistent campaigner on IMS settlement, including as Chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Iran and securing a Westminster Hall debate in March 2014 in which I called to “honour the debt once and for all”.
[HCWS689]
Delivering the Environment Act
(2 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
We are today launching our consultation on legally binding targets under the Environment Act to leave our environment in a better state than we found it. This includes a world-leading target to halt the decline of nature by 2030. This is our compass, spurring action of the scale required to address biodiversity loss. We are also proposing targets for air quality, water, trees, marine protected areas, biodiversity, and waste reduction and resource efficiency.
This goes beyond the legal minimum required under the Act and will support the delivery of many of the Government’s priorities, including to reach net zero by 2050, build resilience against the impacts of a changing climate, and level up all corners of the country.
In order to meet these targets, we must move the emphasis away from bureaucratic EU processes that have not done enough to moderate the pace of nature’s decline, and instead put in place the governance regime that can deliver nature’s recovery. That is why we are publishing a Green Paper today, setting out proposals to create a system which better reflects the latest science, has regard for our domestic species and habitats, and delivers nature recovery.
We have always said we will take a cautious and evidence-led approach to any reform. This Green Paper is the next step in setting out our ideas and gathering views to inform our approach.
Our protected sites and nutrient pollution
As set out in our 25 year environment plan, England’s protected sites are a vitally important part of this Government’s ambitious commitments on the environment, including delivering the target to halt species decline by 2030. Nutrient pollution is a particular problem for our freshwater habitats and estuaries. Increased levels of nutrients—especially nitrogen and phosphorus—can ultimately damage protected sites and the wildlife that live there.
Many of our most internationally important water bodies are designated as protected sites under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. Under the Habitats Regulations, competent authorities, such as local planning authorities and the Environment Agency, must assess the environmental impact of planning applications or local plans. As a result of these regulations and European case law, Natural England has advised that in areas where protected sites are in “unfavourable condition” due to nutrient pollution, Local planning authorities can only approve a project if they are certain it will have no negative effect on the protected site.
Following further work to understand the sources of site deterioration, Natural England has today issued updated advice and support to the 32 local planning authorities currently affected by nutrient pollution, as well as 42 new local planning authorities. So far this approach has too often been complex, time-consuming and costly to apply, and Government is clear that action is needed to make sure that we both deliver the homes and communities need and address pollution at source.
First, to help all local planning authorities affected to navigate this requirement, Natural England has published a “nutrient calculator” to enable development to take place in a sustainable way. The Government is offering £100,000 to each affected catchment to support cross-local authority work to meet Natural England requirements and enable development to continue.
These solutions are pragmatic short-term steps but do not amount to a permanent solution that will improve water quality and allow sustainable development to proceed, and so we are going further. The Government already has highly ambitious plans to reduce nutrient pollution from both agriculture and sewage works and has further plans for the future. We have also secured a series of pledges from water companies to provide new funding for nature-based “strategic solutions” to tackle nutrient pollution. We welcome the new and proactive investment from Severn Trent Water, United Utilities, South West Water and Yorkshire Water in collectively investing an additional £24.5 million in reducing nutrient pollution affecting these sites, including nature-based solutions. We will work with the wider industry to deliver further action, as far as possible.
Finally, we will explore legislation to further strengthen requirements to reduce nutrients at source enabling more sustainable development. This will provide greater certainty for local authorities.
[HCWS688]
Healthcare Professional Regulators' Emergency Registers
(2 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
In response to the covid-19 pandemic, to support the National Health Service and social care providers, the Government enabled some healthcare professional regulators to establish temporary emergency registers. The Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) and the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) maintain emergency registers using powers conferred to them under the Coronavirus Act (CVA) 2020; the General Medical Council (GMC) and the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) maintain emergency registers using existing powers. The circumstances for justifying the continuation of these emergency registers are reducing as the impact of the pandemic reduces. I am today announcing our intention that the emergency registers will close on 30 September 2022. This will provide those healthcare professionals who are practising on the basis of emergency registration six months in which to take up full registration if they so wish. Prior to the closure of the emergency registers the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Sajid Javid) will notify the regulators that the emergency conditions no longer apply, and the registers will close.
Context
The NMC and the HCPC currently maintain emergency registers using powers conferred to them under the Coronavirus Act (CVA) 2020. Under section 89 of the CVA, the Act will automatically expire two years after coming into force. This means that, following expiry, the NMC and HCPC will no longer be able to add new registrants to their emergency registers, but those already registered will remain so until the register is subsequently closed. The GMC and the GPhC currently maintain emergency registers using powers they held prior to the pandemic.
The powers to set up emergency registers, both under the CVA s.2 and in the GMC and GPhC legislation, can only be exercised where the Secretary of State declares a state of emergency to exist.
To manage the closure of the emergency registers and mitigate any impact on the NHS workforce we are providing regulators, registrants and employers with six months’ notice of the closure of the registers, in order to facilitate transfers between emergency and permanent registers. At the end of this notice period the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care will notify the regulators that the circumstance required for emergency registration no longer apply. Once this notification is made the emergency registers will close and those professionals on the emergency register will be unable to continue to practice.
[HCWS686]
Hymenoplasty
(2 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Care and Mental Health (Gillian Keegan)
On 23 December 2021, as part of the “Vision for the Women’s Health Strategy in England” publication, the Government announced its intention to ban the hymenoplasty procedure in the United Kingdom at the earliest opportunity:
Our Vision for the Women’s Health Strategy for England - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
We are already working to ban virginity testing and introduced a Government amendment to the Health and Care Bill in November to do so. Banning hymenoplasty is another important milestone in the Government’s ongoing mission to tackle violence against women and girls.
Hymenoplasty, a procedure which involves reconstructing the hymen, is a tool of honour-based abuse and, like virginity testing, is used to oppress vulnerable women and girls.
The Government’s decision to ban hymenoplasty followed the recommendations of an independent expert panel (the panel), that was established to look at the clinical and ethical implications of banning the procedure. The panel was made up of clinicians, ethicists, and subject matter experts and I would like to place on record my thanks to all members of the panel for their input in this process.
The panel made a suite of recommendations in their final report: Expert panel on hymenoplasty - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk), which we are accepting in full. This includes introducing legislation to create a criminal offence of hymenoplasty alongside the prohibition of virginity testing; ensuring there are no medical exemptions including for victims of rape; issuing guidance to support healthcare professionals to carry out risk assessments when hymenoplasty is requested; and providing adequate resources for community engagement.
Our work to ban the harmful practice of virginity testing and our commitment to banning the hymenoplasty procedure demonstrate that the safety of women and girls is at the forefront of this Government’s agenda.
By banning both procedures this Government will ensure the United Kingdom is a safer place for women and girls.
[HCWS690]
HS2 Six-monthly Report of Parliament: March 2022
(2 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Andrew Stephenson)
Review of High Speed Two (HS2) including programme update, local community impact and engagement, environment, benefits, and programme governance. Forecast costs by Phase Phase Target cost Total estimate costs range2 One £40.3 billion £35 billion to £45 billion 2a To be determined £5 billion to £7 billion 2b Western Leg To be determined £15 billion to £22 billion3 HS2 East (West to East Midlands)4 To be determined To be determined 1 All figures in this report are presented in 2019 prices unless otherwise stated 2 Rounded to nearest billion 3 As confirmed in the update on the Phase 2b (Crewe-Manchester) Strategic Outline Business Case, published in January 2022 4 The Government confirmed in the IRP that a high-speed between the West and East Midlands—known as HS2 East—will be taken forward, with HS2 trains continuing to Nottingham, and to Chesterfield/Sheffield (via Derby) on the upgraded conventional rail network. Phase Overall spend to date (£bn) 2021 to 2022 budget (£bn) 2021 to 2022 forecast (£bn) Variance (£bn) One5 15.7 5.0 5.0 0 2a 0.6 0.2 0.2 0 2b Western Leg 0.5 0.2 0.2 0 HS2 East (West Midlands to East Midlands) and East Midlands to Leeds6 0.66 0.0 0.0 0 Total 17.4 5.4 5.4 0 5 Spend to date stated above for Phase One includes a £0.8 billion liability (provision) representing the Department’s obligation to purchase land and property. 6 The Government is proceeding with HS2 East—the new high-speed line between the West and East Midlands—and is providing £100 million to look at the most effective way to run HS2 trains to Leeds, including understanding the most optimal solution for Leeds station capacity, and starting work on the new West Yorkshire Mass Transit System. As at the end of January 2022, £0.48 billon—rounded in actual prices—had been spent developing the HS2 Eastern Leg to Leeds, including workforce. A substantial proportion of this has been spent on HS2 East—the West to East Midlands section of the HS2 Eastern Leg—which is proceeding as confirmed in the IRP. A further £0.15 billon—rounded in actual prices—has been spent on land and property along the full HS2 Eastern Leg to Leeds, and again a substantial proportion of that land and property spend is along the section between the West and East Midlands. Any land or property not ultimately required for the railway will be resold, enabling us to recover costs. October 2020 Parliamentary Report March 2021 Parliamentary Report October 2021 Parliamentary Report March 2022 Parliamentary Report Total HS2 Ltd contingency drawdown and % used £0.3 billion (5%) £0.4 billion (7%) £0.8 billion (14%) £1.3 billion (23%) Total HS2 Ltd contingency remaining £5.3 billion (95%) £5.2 billion (93%) £4.8 billion (86%) £4.3 billion (77%) October 2020 Parliamentary Report March 2021 Parliamentary Report October 2021 Parliamentary Report March 2022 Parliamentary Report Total Government-retained contingency drawdown and % used £0 billion (0%) £0 billion (0%) £0 billion (0%) £0 billion (0%)7 Total Government-retained contingency remaining £4.3 billion (100%) £4.3 billion (100%)) £4.3 billion (100%) £4.3 billion (100%) 7 As with my October 2021 report, £0.015 billion has been allocated to enable Old Oak Common to increase the number of trains it runs from three to six trains per hour but has not yet been drawn down from Government-retained contingency.
Overview
This is my fourth update to Parliament on High Speed Two (HS2). I can confirm that the project remains within budget and on schedule in delivering Phase One (London-West Midlands) and phase 2a (West Midlands-Crewe), we have hit major construction milestones, made substantial progress on key procurements, and made significant progress to take HS2 further North. Work is also already underway to implement the proposals set out in the Government’s Integrated Rail Plan (IRP) for the North and Midlands, for example with the recent introduction of a Bill into Parliament to build HS2 between Crewe and Manchester.
Key achievements in this reporting period—September 2021 to January 2022 are:
HS2 is now supporting over 22,000 jobs.
Introduction of a Bill into Parliament to secure the powers to construct and maintain HS2 between Crewe and Manchester. This will increase capacity, bolster connectivity, and reduce travel times from the North West to London and Birmingham and will be critical to generating transformational economic change in the North West.
The Government have published their Integrated Rail Plan (IRP) for the North and Midlands.
Award of the £2 billion contract—under budget—for the delivery and maintenance of HS2 trains for Phases One and 2a. The state-of-the-art train fleet, capable of speeds of up to 225 miles per hour, will be designed and built by a Hitachi/Alstom Joint Venture based in the North East and Midlands.
Launch of the first Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) in the Midlands, the third on the programme. The two other TBMs in the Chilterns are making good progress and have now driven a combined distance of approximately 3.5 miles.
Public commitment to power HS2 trains with zero carbon energy from day one—supporting the goal of making HS2 net zero from 2035—and publication of HS2 Ltd’s Environmental Sustainability Progress Report in January 2022.
The five years of compulsory purchase powers on Phase One provided by the Phase One Act ended on 23 February 2022 with all planned notices served by the deadline set by Parliament.
Release of the Invitation to Tender for the Phase 2a Design and Delivery Partner (DDP). The DDP will act as a strategic partner for HS2 Ltd to drive efficient design and construction in extending the railway to Crewe.
A decision has been taken to support greater integration between the HS2 and Network Rail stations at Euston. This has potential to deliver construction efficiencies, along with significant passenger and place-making benefits at Euston and the surrounding area.
I am delighted to confirm that we are expanding Sir Jon Thompson’s role, an existing non-executive director on the HS2 Ltd Board, to become Deputy Chair. Sir Jon will chair meetings of the Board until a permanent Chair is in post.
This report primarily uses data provided by HS2 Ltd to the HS2 Ministerial Task Force for Phases One and 2a and covers the period between September 2021 and January 2022 inclusive. Unless stated, all figures are presented in 2019 prices.
Programme update
Schedule
On Phase One (London to West Midlands), the forecast for initial services from Old Oak Common to Birmingham remains within the Delivery into Service (DiS) range of 2029 to 2033. The revised schedule agreed last year has held to date with local delays being largely mitigated.
Over the reporting period, good progress has been made on closing out the majority of enabling works, with the remaining work due to be completed by early next year. Good progress has also been made on tunnelling activities. Additionally, HS2 Ltd has advanced its earthworks. Maintaining construction progress depends on the detailed design and consents needed to support a further very significant increase in civil works on earthworks and structures in 2022.
The main areas of schedule focus remain in the southern section of the line-of-route and tunnels leading into Old Oak Common Station from outer London, which form the critical path for initial services. Any delays in these sectors could delay the whole project. Other key watch areas include Bromford Tunnel, Birmingham Curzon Street Station and the route into Birmingham where the urban environment generates significant logistical challenges.
Phase 2a remains on track to be delivered between 2030 and 2034. Land possessions have commenced and enabling works started in early 2022.
As confirmed in the update on the Phase 2b Western Leg (Crewe to Manchester) Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) in January 2022, the Department has set a schedule range of 2035 to 2041 for the opening of the Phase 2b Western Leg.
Affordability
HS2 remains within budget. The overall budget for Phase One remains £44.6 billion. This is composed of the target cost of £40.3 billion and additional Government-retained contingency of £4.3 billion. The target cost includes contingency delegated to HS2 Ltd of £5.6 billion for managing risk and uncertainties.
To date, out of the Phase One target cost of £40.3 billion, £14.9 billion has been spent, with an additional £0.8 billion for land and property provisions. £12.7 billion has been contracted and has not been spent, with the remaining amount not yet under contract.
HS2 Ltd has drawn £1.3 billion of its £5.6 billion delegated contingency, meaning £4.3 billion remains. Contingency drawn to date reflects an increase of £0.5 billion since my last update—from £0.8 billion to £1.3 billion.
HS2 Ltd’s is reporting £1.7 billion of potential future cost pressures that are currently presenting across the programme. This reflects an increase in potential further cost pressures of £0.4 billion since my last update—from £1.3 billion to £1.7 billion.
Since my last report, the aggregate increase in actual and potential additional costs is therefore £0.9 billion—£0.5 billion from increase in contingency drawdown plus £0.4 billion from potential further cost pressures. While these pressures are manageable within the target cost given the remaining contingency, I am nonetheless concerned at the rate of their increase. I expect HS2 Ltd to maintain its focus on delivery to the target cost.
Should these or other cost pressures materialise, HS2 Ltd will continue to draw from the contingency it holds, of which £4.3 billion remains—as outlined above. Out of the £1.7 billion of net potential pressures currently being reported by HS2 Ltd in its January 2022 data, over and above the contingency drawn down so far, the key pressures are:
An estimate of £0.8 billion—increase of £0.2 billion from my last update—for potential additional main works civils costs stemming from additional design costs and slower than expected progress in some areas.
A pressure of £0.4 billion on the cost estimate for the HS2 Euston station. The move to a smaller, less complex 10-platform single-stage delivery strategy at Euston, as confirmed in my previous report, is now the basis for ongoing design work and other activities. The Department anticipates that this will assist in addressing the cost pressure at Euston, as the updated station design is developed over the coming months. This work will also consider and address the appropriate level of contingency that should be held to managing risks that are likely to arise during the construction of an asset of this complexity. The Department will provide further updates as this work progresses over the course of the next 18 months.
A pressure of £0.2 billion against HS2 Ltd’s budget for changes to Network Rail infrastructure at Euston and Old Oak Common that are required to facilitate the new HS2 stations.
There is a further £0.3 billion of net cost pressures presenting on other parts of the programme. This is the aggregate total of smaller potential cost pressures.
Over £0.8 billion in savings and efficiencies from across the programme—increase of £0.5 billion from my last update—have been identified against HS2 Ltd’s budget, principally from awarding the rolling stock contract under budget, contracting a common supplier for lifts and escalators, and savings in the acquisition of land and property. These have partly offset gross cost pressures. HS2 Ltd continues to focus on realising further efficiencies and opportunities to reduce the costs of Phase One.
On covid-19 costs, HS2 Ltd’s assessment of the likely financial impact of the pandemic on delivering Phase One remains estimated within the range of £0.4 billion to £0.7 billion. Formal claims will be subject to Government scrutiny and will require formal approval from Her Majesty’s Treasury before funds from Government-retained contingency can be allocated.
For Phase 2a, the overall cost range is £5.2 billion to £7.2 billion. We intend to set a target cost alongside publication of the full business case next year
As confirmed in the update on the Phase 2b (Crewe to Manchester) SOBC, the estimated cost range for the Crewe-Manchester scheme is £15 billion to £22 billion. It is project delivery best practice to set a range and to narrow this down over time.
Lastly, the Department and HS2 Ltd are currently working to assess and mitigate the impact of global inflationary pressure on materials and labour supply on the programme where short term increases are being seen. This is likely caused in part by the recovery of global construction demand following the covid-19 pandemic.
Delivery
On Phase One, delivery continues to build momentum at 340 sites. Tunnel drives are underway at two sites. In the Chilterns, Tunnel Boring Machines (TBMs) ‘Florence’ and ‘Cecilia’ have been making good progress and have currently tunnelled a combined distance of approximately 3.5 miles. In December 2021, we saw the launch of ‘Dorothy’—the first TBM in the Midlands—which will preserve the Long Itchington Wood in Warwickshire. The tunnelling team will operate the machine for around five months as it excavates the first bore of the one-mile tunnel. This will be the first HS2 tunnel to be completed on the project, with the machine set to break through its first bore at the south portal later this spring when it will return to the start to begin the second parallel tunnel.
At Old Oak Common Station, significant progress has been made in constructing the 750,000 metres-cubed box structure that will facilitate the six subterranean high-speed line platforms, as well as the works required to facilitate the start of tunnel boring to Euston in the east and Northolt in the west. Work is underway with the Old Oak Common and Park Royal Development Corporation, the London Mayor and the Department for Levelling Up, Homes and Communities to bring forward proposals for the regeneration of the area around the station.
In the West Midlands, stage one of the two-stage design and build contract for Birmingham Curzon Street Station will conclude shortly subject to agreement of an affordable target price. A solution for co-construction of the West Midlands Metro tram extension while delivering the station has been agreed with Transport for the West Midlands so that benefits of both projects can be brought to Birmingham as soon as practicable.
In September 2021, HS2 Ltd launched the process to appoint a design and build contractor to complete Interchange Station in Solihull. Contract award remains on schedule for summer 2022. Central and local government are also working with the private sector to bring forward proposals to release land for development. This would enable approximately 350 acres of land to support the Arden Cross Masterplan, creating a space for innovation, business, learning and living, providing up to 27,000 new jobs and 3,000 new homes and is backed by conditional Government funding of £50 million.
A decision has been taken to proceed with greater integration between the HS2 and Network Rail stations at Euston. The Department and Network Rail are developing the business case for the redevelopment of the Network Rail station concourse at Euston in parallel with the HS2 build, which will support greater integration between the HS2 and Network Rail stations. HS2 Ltd and Network Rail, with support from The Euston Partnership, are working together to develop a cost effective design that provides integration between the HS2 station and the redevelopment of the Network Rail station and delivers value for money for the taxpayer. This integrated approach has potential to deliver construction efficiencies, along with significant passenger and place-making benefits at Euston.
I am delighted to confirm that we reached a major milestone on the procurement of HS2 trains. In December, an Alstom/Hitachi Joint Venture was awarded the £2 billion HS2 rolling stock contract for Phases One and 2a and is expected to support around 2,500 jobs across the UK. This contract includes the design and build of 54 new high-speed trains and an initial 12-year maintenance period. The trains will be manufactured in Newton Aycliffe, Derby and Crewe and then maintained at the new depot in Washwood Heath, Birmingham. The second-placed bidder, Siemens, continues to challenge the procurement decision legally but has not sought to impede the award and delivery of the rolling stock contract.
HS2 Ltd continues tendering for Phase One and 2a rail systems packages—including track, catenary, mechanical and electrical fitout, power, control and communications. Over the coming months, HS2 Ltd will request bidders to submit their final price and I anticipate that we will begin awarding these packages in early 2023. In the next six months, HS2 Ltd will further develop their approach to integration of these rail systems packages. This will include testing operational processes and systems, development of its leadership capability and standing up of interim governance arrangements.
On Phase 2a (West Midlands to Crewe), HS2 Ltd has invited tenders for a Design and Delivery Partner (DDP) in January 2022. Additionally, the start of procurement for the Main Works Civils Framework is expected to commence later this year which will provide the construction capacity to be managed by the DDP. Early environmental works and early civils works have also begun.
Integrated Rail Plan for the North and Midlands
The Government have published their Integrated Rail Plan (IRP) for the North and Midlands. It sets a £96 billion strategy of rail construction and upgrades for the North and Midlands to be delivered over the next 30 years. Work is also already underway to implement the proposals set out in the IRP.
For example, £249 million was invested to further electrify the Midland Main Line between Kettering and Market Harborough with work started at Christmas 2021. The HS2 Phase 2b Crewe-Manchester scheme sits at the core of the IRP, bringing high-speed rail to Manchester and providing vital infrastructure necessary to deliver the Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR) scheme. On 24 January 2022, the Government introduced the High Speed Rail (Crewe – Manchester) Bill to secure the powers to construct and maintain the HS2 Phase 2b Western Leg. Once approved, the railway will be critical to generating transformational economic change in the North West of England. Once the Crewe to Manchester section of HS2 opens, the railway will reduce travel times from 2 hours 5 minutes to around 1 hour 10 minutes from London to Manchester. The introduction of the Bill into Parliament was accompanied by an environmental statement and an update on the 2017 SOBC.
The IRP also confirmed the Government’s intention to take forward HS2 East, a new highspeed line between West Midlands and East Midlands Parkway, enabling HS2 to serve Nottingham and Derby city centres. In conjunction with plans for the electrification of the Midland Main Line, this will also allow HS2 trains to continue direct to Chesterfield and Sheffield. Following a pause to design work on the HS2 Eastern Leg as a result of the Oakervee Review, the Department and HS2 Ltd are considering how best to take forward this new West to East Midlands high-speed line working closely with Network Rail. The IRP provides £100 million to look at the most effective way to run HS2 trains to Leeds, including understanding the most optimal solution for Leeds station capacity and starting work on the new West Yorkshire mass transit system.
Local community impact and engagement
As HS2 Minister, I expect affected communities to be at the heart of our plans for this project. I am therefore pleased that HS2 Ltd’s refreshed community engagement strategy—‘Respecting People, Respecting Places’—has this vision at its core and sets out HS2 Ltd’s renewed commitments to the communities impacted by the programme.
One of the ways that the HS2 project counterbalances some of its negative impacts on places is through the Community and Environment Fund and the Business and Local Economy Fund. These funds have now supported 192 projects through £11.1 million of grant funding along the line-of-route and play a crucial role in ensuring a positive legacy for communities most affected by construction.
HS2 Ltd has also recently launched several initiatives to continue actively engaging communities affected by HS2. For example, ‘In your area’ is an interactive map which informs people of HS2 works in their area. Furthermore, independent construction inspectors continue to support the assurance of the delivery of works. Where problems do arise, the Construction Commissioner provides a means of escalation and independent consideration. I am pleased to report that the existing Construction Commissioner, Sir Mark Worthington OBE, has been reappointed for a further three years. Additionally, I am currently recruiting a replacement for the outgoing Residents’ Commissioner, Deborah Fazan.
Targeted protester activity continues to have some impact on Phase One delivery. However, following successful removal of the unlawful protester site at Small Dean near Wendover in October and November 2021, protest impact on Phase One has now been reduced significantly. HS2 Ltd estimates that ongoing protester activity, including the removal of encampments and protest-related delays to the programme, has cost just under £12 2 million, an increase of £42 million since my last report. HS2 Ltd continues to work with its supply chain, local police forces and wider Government to minimise the impact of unlawful protester activity.
Land and Property
I am pleased to announce that the five years of compulsory purchase powers on Phase One provided by the Phase One Act ended on 23 February 2022 with the serving of all planned notices by the deadline set by Parliament. While work to complete the land acquisition and, crucially, settle compensation for affected property owners will continue, this is an important milestone for the programme.
Significant progress has also been made to implement the proposals set out in my 2020 Land and Property Review: three-quarters of the proposals have now been implemented. The response to our recent public Land and Property consultation was also published in February 2022.
Environment
In January, HS2 Ltd published its ‘Environmental Sustainability Vision’ which reaffirmed its commitment to provide low carbon rail travel for a cleaner, greener future.
I was delighted to confirm, as part of that Vision, that HS2 trains will use zero carbon energy from day one of operation. This will support HS2 Ltd target to achieve net zero in construction and operation from 2035. The commitment is a key part of the new HS2 ‘Net Zero Carbon Plan’ which sets out a suite of ambitious new targets to reduce the carbon footprint of the programme.
The Vision confirmed that HS2 Ltd will seek to deliver a 10% net gain in biodiversity for replaceable habitats on the Phase 2b Crewe-Manchester scheme. I also intend to explore going beyond the existing no-net-loss of biodiversity target for Phase One and Phase 2a, to secure biodiversity gains where this is cost-effective and possible within existing funding limits.
Lastly, HS2 Ltd published its first ‘Environmental Sustainability Progress Report’ in January. This provides a clear and up-to-date account of HS2’s environmental impacts and the progress being made to mitigate any adverse effects.
Benefits
I am delighted to announce that HS2 is supporting over 22,000 jobs and to date over 2,400 UK-registered companies have delivered work on HS2. To date, there have been 1,674 jobs starts by people who were previously workless. The programme will create 2,000 apprenticeships, with 825 having been started since 2017.
In November 2021, HS2 Ltd construction partner Balfour Beatty VINCI opened a new ‘Skills Academy’ in the West Midlands in partnership with South and City College of Birmingham.
As stated in the Government’s ‘Levelling Up White Paper’, this year, the Government will publish a HS2 Local Growth Action Plan, setting out how it will work with places hosting Phase One and 2a stations to realise their local growth ambitions. The new railway will stimulate growth around HS2 stations and further afield, helping to level up the economies of the Midlands and North.
Promoting active travel along the HS2 route and at stations is also a key priority for me. To ensure that opportunities for lasting legacy improvements are realised, I have asked HS2 Ltd to explore the potential for the re-purposing of temporary construction routes, into new vehicle-free connections between rural communities that could connect other emerging local authority cycle proposals to provide a wider active travel network along the spine of HS2. This will not only benefit the environment, but also improve the health and wellbeing of residents and commuters. In addition, I have asked HS2 Ltd to upgrade active travel provisions at 12 locations across Phase One.
Programme Governance
An updated HS2 Ltd framework document and HS2 development agreement will be concluded shortly to continue effective governance between the Department and HS2 Ltd. Furthermore, we have relaunched the search for a new Chair with updated role criteria to appeal to a wider set of candidates. In parallel, we are expanding Sir Jon Thompson’s role, an existing non-executive director on the HS2 Ltd Board, to become Deputy Chair. Sir Jon will chair meetings of the Board until a permanent Chair is in post.
Lastly, as committed to in my previous update, all recommendations from the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) report of 22 September 2021 have now been implemented.
Forward Look
On Phase One, over the next six months we will continue the ramp-up of construction work, launch the fourth TBM on the programme to start excavation of the London tunnels, and we will see HS2 Ltd award a contract for the construction of interchange station.
On Phase 2a, focus will be on progressing environmental and enabling work, early land acquisitions plus the procurement for the DDP and progressing the procurement for the main works civils framework.
On Phase 2b, following the introduction of the High Speed Rail (Crewe – Manchester) Bill into Parliament, the Environmental Statement Consultation is now underway, which will close on 31 March 2022. The priority for HS2 East is to develop the next stage of design work for the West to East Midlands high-speed line.
I will continue to engage closely with Parliament and will provide my next update in autumn 2022.
[HCWS687]
Grand Committee
(2 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(2 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, Members are encouraged to leave some distance between themselves. If there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division bells are rung and resume after a few minutes.
European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Repeal of EU Restrictions in Devolution Acts etc.) Regulations 2022
(2 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greenhalgh
That the Grand Committee do consider the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Repeal of EU Restrictions in Devolution Acts etc.) Regulations 2022.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations were laid in draft before the House on 25 January. Their purpose is to repeal the powers introduced by Section 12 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which provided a regulation-making power to temporarily freeze devolved legislative competence while UK common frameworks were finalised. If approved, the regulations will also remove limitations on devolved legislative and executive competence introduced into the devolution settlements and any cross references to those powers.
The European Union (Withdrawal) Act has an inbuilt duty on Ministers to consider the repeal of Section 12 powers. Those powers are time-limited. In any case, the powers have never been used and, since 31 January this year, can no longer be used. There can now be little reason to retain them. Although the powers have never needed to be used, they provided a useful contingency while the Government and the devolved Governments worked jointly to develop UK common frameworks. The Government and the devolved Governments have successfully worked together on a collaborative basis to develop common frameworks, and the powers have not needed to be used. The frameworks that have jointly been developed now underpin a common approach across the United Kingdom to policy areas previously governed by EU law that are within devolved competence.
If approved and made, the regulations will remove the now redundant powers from the statute book. They will also remove the ongoing statutory obligation on the Government to report to Parliament on the use of these powers. The Government have produced 14 reports since the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 was enacted, with the most recent report published last week.
In addition to keeping the statute book in good order, the regulations mark the progress that this Government have made jointly with the devolved Governments to develop common frameworks. These frameworks are in operation to create a consistent approach across the United Kingdom in a wide range of policy areas. I commend the regulations to the Grand Committee.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
I thank the Minister for the clarity of his presentation. As he has already outlined, this SI removes the powers introduced into the devolution settlements by Section 12 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act. These were temporary powers to prevent divergence from existing structures established in the UK by EU law while the UK common frameworks were developed. The Explanatory Memorandum points out that these regulation-making powers are no longer needed, as the Minister has already explained, because of the progress made towards developing the frameworks. It also points out that the power to make such regulations cannot be exercised after 10.59 pm on 31 January 2022. As we are now six weeks past that date, I presume that the powers no longer exist and that this instrument is therefore needed to remove these redundant provisions from the statute book.
The Government make much of the collaborative approach taken towards working with the devolved Administrations, and point out that the powers introduced by Section 12 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act have never needed to be used because of that. My concern is that, by removing the powers from the devolution settlements, we are also removing an ongoing statutory obligation to report to Parliament on the use of the powers and, crucially, report on the implementation of the UK common frameworks.
I am a great admirer of the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee and the expertise of its chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, and of its members. I hear of its activities through members of the committee. In its report, Common Frameworks: Building a Cooperative Union, the Committee highlighted three problems with the common frameworks. The first was that the frameworks have been developed behind closed doors, with minimal stakeholder engagement or parliamentary scrutiny. The second was the need to clarify the relationship with the Northern Ireland protocol, and the third was the lack of information given to Parliament to enable it to scrutinise the operation of these important governmental agreements, which, it says, remain largely invisible. While doing excellent work, the committee appears almost to be working in limbo, so what progress has been made on the three problems that it identifies? What steps have been taken to present information to Parliament on a regular basis so that Members can better understand and scrutinise the intergovernmental relationship?
As usual, I am particularly interested in the quality of the collaboration between the UK Government and the devolved Governments. In various Bills that have come before this House recently, the UK Government have talked about consultation or collaboration with the devolved Governments, but they in turn have complained about a lack of meaningful consultation, having sight of a Bill only the day before it is presented to the Commons, and being presented with information without being allowed a sensible response time—so much so that the Senedd’s Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, in its legislative consent memorandum to the Elections Bill, made a recommendation that the Welsh Government should include a commentary on the extent of co-operation and engagement with the UK Government in all legislative consent memoranda that are required by virtue of Standing Order 29. This enables the Senedd to scrutinise the level of engagement between the Governments.
I hope that the noble Lord can assure me today that the UK Government have a plan to allow scrutiny of all aspects of the common frameworks process by Members of this House.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, and to note that four of the six Members in this Room are from Wales. It is noteworthy that there is nobody from Northern Ireland or Scotland here. Before referring to Wales, I want to ask whether there is any substantive difference in the provisions that are being made for Northern Ireland from those being made for Wales and Scotland, and between Wales and Scotland, or is it a uniform approach for all three? Circumstances and challenges are different in Northern Ireland, as we all know.
Regarding Wales, at First Reading of the Bill, it seemed that there were powers coming back to Wales—but perhaps the Minister can clarify that there are no additional powers coming back to Wales. They are coming back to the UK, and they may be handled in a way which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, mentioned, may or may not go down well in the devolved Governments. That brings us to the very serious point of how we oversee the working of these regulations to see that there is proper co-operation between the devolved Governments and Westminster. It is in everybody’s interests, and very often is a matter of talking early with each other, rather than waiting for something to arise.
I have seen in the context of the work of the Select Committee dealing with EU business relationships that notification goes to Cardiff often very late in the day. Ministers can then rightly respond, “Yes, we have contacted Cardiff”, but they have not given a reasonable amount of time to get a meaningful response back. I hope that will be taken on board, and that mechanisms can be developed jointly between the Government and the Parliaments in Westminster and Cardiff so that there is a proper, constructive relationship, and that, when there is a need to harmonise things, it can be done by voluntary agreement rather than imposing things from the centre.
Having said that, these sorts of regulations obviously have to come forward and one accepts that they must be enacted.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, as we have heard, this instrument will remove the Government’s powers to temporarily freeze devolved legislative competence, which were previously introduced while the UK common frameworks were finalised. The intention was that they would be used only in exceptional circumstances. I am pleased that the powers were never used. Since they were always intended to be time limited, they are now being removed.
The Minister said during the debate in the other place that the removal of these powers is
“a reflection of the huge progress that the Government have made with the devolved Governments in developing new common frameworks.”
I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Andrews for her chairing of that committee, at which I spoke a few months ago. In the Commons, Labour’s Front Bench welcomed the removal of these powers, saying that
“these were seen as valuable safeguards at the time to ensure orderly transition, but the moment for that has certainly passed.”—[Official Report, Commons, Sixth Delegated Legislation Committee, 3/3/22; col. 4.]
Like other noble Lords today, I continue to urge the UK Government to work in partnership with the devolved Governments, which of course have their own elected mandates. It is positive to build and strengthen the union, not undermine it.
Picking up on the point from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, I was at a meeting earlier today with the Minister for Local Government in the Welsh Government, Rebecca. She noted that the Welsh Government had not heard of the £150 council tax rebate announced by the UK Government; they were getting questions about it but had not been informed. Those niceties would take only a phone call—from Minister to Minister would be good, but so would senior official to senior official. In this day and age of communication, that should not be a problem.
I will ask two questions in conclusion. Can the Minister foresee any future situations in which these powers would be reintroduced? Does he believe that any consequential legislation is needed to fully repeal these powers? Diolch yn fawr.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their attention to these regulations. I think there is great unanimity that we are where we are and that we need to tidy these matters up in the way that noble Lords have outlined. It is quite clear that there is cross-party support for the removal of these regulations.
We have had a short but very helpful debate, with rousing voices from Wales. Under normal circumstances we would probably have heard from my noble friend Lord Caine, who has great experience on Northern Ireland matters; I am the understudy and will try to do my best in that regard. I have certainly learned a great deal from my discussions. In fact, I had tea with the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, to learn more about common frameworks, which I had not really heard of until I became a Minister at the department that has now taken over this responsibility, with the arrival of my right honourable friend Michael Gove as Secretary of State.
I will do my best to answer the questions—they were asked because noble Lords want some answers. To answer the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, there are no plans for these powers to be replaced. They are not being replaced; that is a tick.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, on common frameworks and our approach to them, we are committed to transparency in the frameworks programme and will continue to work with Parliament to inform it of significant developments beyond the point at which Section 12 powers are repealed. The devolved legislatures have also shown an interest in being kept up to date with the common framework developments, and we are working closely together with the devolved Governments on the form that future reporting on frameworks might take—so there is that commitment, and we need to make sure that we deliver against it. I am sure that noble Lords will hold this Government’s feet to the fire in that regard.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, wanted to know about any difference in approach between Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. There is essentially a uniform approach across all devolved Administrations, but I was struck by something that the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, said. We need to get devolution right, because we all have a shared interest in a strong union through effective devolution. I know that, working together, we can always have that in mind in ensuring that for the devolved Governments or Administrations—to talk about Northern Ireland in particular—this works alongside the strengthening of our overall union as four nations and one United Kingdom.
I have done my best to address the points raised, and I am happy to talk about them, if I have not done so, outside this forum. For the reasons set out, I commend the regulations to the Grand Committee.
Energy Performance of Buildings (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2022
(2 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greenhalgh
That the Grand Committee do consider the Energy Performance of Buildings (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2022.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move the regulations. This statutory instrument was laid before the House on Monday 31 January 2022 under paragraph 12(1) of Schedule 7 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. It was debated and moved in the Commons Second Delegated Legislation Committee on Tuesday 8 March. Mirroring legislation has been prepared for data registered against properties in Northern Ireland and was considered by the Assembly, also on 8 March. Scotland operates its own energy performance of buildings register and is not covered by this instrument.
This is probably one of the most straightforward statutory instruments that noble Lords will be asked to consider this year. It is almost exactly 12 months ago that I introduced and we last debated a similar measure, and last year the Committee dubbed that SI
“as simple as they come”.—[Official Report, 18/3/21; col. GC 9.]
The instrument relates to the statutory fees that are charged when data is registered for energy performance certificates, display energy certificates and air conditioning inspection reports for properties in England and Wales. Fees are applied to two classes of data registration covering domestic and non-domestic properties. This instrument proposes to reduce fees from £1.64 to £1.50 when data is lodged for domestic premises and from £1.89 to £1.70 for non-domestic premises.
Fees charged for data registrations in England and Wales were last adjusted nearly one year ago. A significant reduction in fees was possible at that time because government had invested in a new, cloud-based digital platform and had moved away from the fixed hardware model, run on concession contracts, that had been in place since 2008. In the last 12 months, contractual costs for building the service have fallen out of the model, which means that we have the opportunity to extend last year’s reductions further.
The new EPB register became operational in September 2020 and has been managed in-house since then. Significantly, it passed the digital service assessment in December 2021 and is the first citizen-facing digital service in my department to be hosted on the GOV.UK platform. It is also one of very few government digital services to publish performance statistics. The register now carries approximately 28 million energy certificates across all types, which includes more than 2 million data lodgements since September 2020, which we are receiving at a rate of around 155,000 each month. Importantly, by managing this cloud-based service in-house, we have delivered efficiencies and reduced the overall burden on public resources.
This instrument builds on the fee reductions we introduced last year. New fee rates set out in this regulation will allow costs of operating the Energy Performance of Buildings Register service to continue to be met. We aim for the register service to be cost neutral, without profiteering, but we do not expect taxpayers to subsidise a loss. Costs of the service, and the fees we propose, have been calculated in line with government policy and tested with stakeholders in the property energy profession.
Officials in my department have engaged with officials from the Treasury, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the Northern Ireland Executive and the Welsh Government, and all have agreed that, given uncertainty in the property market, recent movements in interest rates and higher inflation, the modest reduction proposed today represents the most practical way to amend fees and ensure that the register is run on as close to a cost-neutral basis as possible.
The small differentiation between fees for domestic and non-domestic lodgements reflects technical differences between the classes of data, but it is now significantly smaller than historically.
The Committee will recall that the United Kingdom aims to bring greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050. Heating and powering buildings currently accounts for 40% of the UK’s total energy usage. We must therefore ensure that buildings are constructed to high standards of energy efficiency.
In December last year, we implemented an uplift to Part L of the building regulations to improve conservation of fuel and power. When it comes into force this summer, new homes and new non-domestic buildings will be expected to deliver 30% and 27% fewer carbon emissions respectively. We are still on track to develop the full technical specification for the future homes strategy and the future building strategy, which we will consult on in 2023.
The Energy Performance of Buildings Register is a key tool in supporting our aspirations for improved energy efficiency. It holds valuable information about the energy performance of buildings. We want homeowners, commercial building owners and occupiers to improve the energy efficiency of their buildings.
Energy certificates improve market information, so that consumers can make informed choices. An energy performance certificate is needed whenever a property is built, sold or let. At a glance, a consumer searching for a new home or for commercial premises can determine how efficient a property might be, while an owner can consider recommendations for how they might improve the energy efficiency of their property.
To conclude, these regulations serve a very specific purpose: to reduce the statutory fees charged when data is registered for domestic and non-domestic energy performance certificates, display energy certificates and air conditioning inspection reports. Over the two classes of fee, reducing domestic data registration fees from £1.64 to £1.50, and non-domestic data registration fees from £1.89 to £1.70, extends the savings that we introduced last year.
Colleagues in Northern Ireland are introducing their own mirroring legislation to ensure coherence between different parts of the United Kingdom that use the same register. This will ensure that fees charged for Northern Ireland data lodgements are in line with those for England and Wales.
I hope colleagues will join me in supporting the draft regulations. I commend them to the Committee.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
I warn noble Lords that there is likely to be a series of Divisions in the Chamber quite soon, so prepare to be interrupted.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I spent many sleepless nights reading this through in detail, but I must admit it was time well spent.
Lord Fox (LD)
I will keep off that subject.
I congratulate the Government on implementing a computer system that means it is actually cheaper to do something—perhaps the department could speak to the National Health Service about its implementation of digital systems, which could be better.
I am pleased that the Minister went through the slightly broader issues of home efficiency. This is a big subject and I am not going to speak for long on it, but I need to talk about it a little, and I welcome the fact that he did. I recognise that making our homes and buildings more generally energy efficient—we have 29 million of them in the UK and 2 million commercial buildings—is not an easy task. We all recognise that. But it is something that has to be done to meet net zero.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, there is a Division in the House. The Committee will suspend, in theory for 10 minutes, but if noble Lords were able to vote more quickly than that and indicate to me that they have voted successfully, we can recommence more quickly.
Lord Teverson (LD)
I was reminding the Grand Committee that we have 29 million houses in the country and one of the least energy-efficient housing stocks in Europe. Half of them were built before 1956, and a fifth of them before 1919—I am a proud owner of one of them, which operates off oil heating because it is off the grid, like many.
As we all know, we have a huge challenge at the moment with heating bills. The message from the Climate Change Committee, which looked at this recently and produced its report a couple of weeks ago, was to plead with the Government to get on with it. The task is huge and we need to get on with it now. There was a government commitment of, I think, £8.26 billion for 2026. I should be interested to hear how much we have actually managed to spend of that; most of the public money is obviously going on social housing.
We should not just spend money on big nuclear power stations—I shall try not to get into that argument. Of the estimated £18 billion of private and public money that is actually required each year up to 2050 to get through this problem, there is £5 billion per annum savings on it. It is around that.
My colleagues and friends in Denmark have the same energy price increases. Are they concerned about it? Not particularly, because the bills are so low. Why is that? Because of the energy performance of buildings in Scandinavia.
I plead with the Minister to push very strongly to get back to the zero-carbon homes target—I should be interested to understand whether the 2025 deadline for heat pumps in new homes will be a legal requirement—and get on with the programme.
That is a more incoherent speech from me than normal, but this is an important issue and one which I recognise is not easy to solve.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, I cannot argue with much of what the noble Lord just said on energy performance and energy efficiency. I visited Sweden a number of years ago and was impressed by the way Scandinavians do so much right.
We know about the statutory instrument and about the fees and charges. The reduction in fees is clearly welcome and the Official Opposition support these changes.
I have just a couple of questions for the Minister. Since these regulations relate to England and Wales only, what recent discussions has the department held with the devolved Government of Scotland and the devolved Administration of Northern Ireland on related fees? Can the Minister explain the difference in fees between the two classes of data registration covering domestic and non-domestic properties? Finally, given that fees charged for data registrations in England and Wales were last adjusted nearly a year ago, why are they being changed again?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for a short, sharp and focused debate. It is appreciated. The fees have changed again a year later because there is essentially a dividend around an IT project, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said; we do not want to profiteer or make a profit, but the cost of running the service has gone down. That comes in the form of lower prices for consumers and commercial users. I think I mentioned in my speech why there is a slight difference between non-domestic and domestic rates, as noble Lords will see in Hansard.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I understand that there is an energy company obligation between 2022 and 2026, estimated at £1 billion per year, to enable poorer, more vulnerable households to get more energy efficient. That is a BEIS policy, and I am not an expert on it.
My property interests are declared in the register, as I am sure the noble Lord’s are. It is a difficulty that, the older the property—I own a Queen Anne cottage—the harder it is to hit the net-zero target; there is a real issue around older properties, even if there is real resolve from the homeowner to be carbon neutral over time. That is a point well made. Brains across government are thinking across different departments about how we embrace that challenge. One way is to set standards, and the future homes standard is critical to do that for new build, which is again only a certain proportion of the existing stock. The question then is how we retrofit and deal with the stock we have in this country.
However, I think we are going beyond EPC price ratings, which are essentially good news for the consumer and people who pay these bills. I take the points from noble Lords that it is good to see an IT project working well, being managed in-house and done efficiently. I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Motion agreed.
Combined Authorities (Borrowing) Regulations 2022
(2 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greenhalgh
That the Grand Committee do consider the Combined Authorities (Borrowing) Regulations 2022.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before this House on 31 January 2022. The other place approved them on 14 March 2022. If approved by this House and made, they will implement a commitment made by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, my noble friend Lord Hammond, back in 2016 to extend the borrowing powers of mayoral combined authorities that have agreed debt caps with HM Treasury, which is reflected in the devolution deals that North of Tyne, South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire have agreed with government.
This extension is another important step towards empowering these mayoral combined authorities to invest in infrastructure while giving local leaders the tools needed to stimulate local economic growth, increase productivity and seize levelling-up opportunities available to their areas. In the levelling-up White Paper we set out plans to transform the fortunes of places across the UK by spreading growth and prosperity in areas that feel as though Westminster has forgotten about them. That paper sets out a series of long-term missions that put us on a trajectory towards that goal, including giving every part of England that wants one a devolution deal by 2030.
Devolution is a central part of our levelling-up agenda and we want to give areas the powers they need, along with a simplified, long-term funding settlement. We are committed not only to extending devolution to new areas but to deepening it in areas that already have devolved powers. The regulations we are discussing today will live up to that ambition: deepening devolution in North of Tyne, South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire in line with commitments we have already given, by providing new and deeper powers to the local leaders so that they can act more flexibly and innovatively to respond to local need and be held to account by local citizens.
Put simply, these new powers will allow these three combined authorities to borrow not only for their transport functions but for any of the other functions conferred on them as a result of their bespoke devolution deals. These areas will be able to make the most of new opportunities by borrowing for their investment programmes, delivering improved public services and greater prosperity for their areas. At the moment, the legislation in place allows combined authorities to borrow only for transport or, where the mayor is also the police and crime commissioner, for such purposes. The primary legislation also provides that the Secretary of State may, by regulations, confer the ability to borrow for additional functions.
The draft regulations specifically provide that the three named combined authorities can borrow for all their functions other than transport, which is, of course, already covered by the existing primary legislation. Each of the three mayoral combined authorities and each of their constituent authorities—15 in total—has given consent to these regulations. If Parliament approves these regulations and they are made, then North of Tyne, South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire mayoral combined authorities will be able to borrow for all their functions. I should say that, through regulations made four years ago, this is already the case for the six other mayoral combined authorities of Greater Manchester, Liverpool City Region, West Midlands, West of England, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, and Tees Valley. It is also the position for the generality of local authorities, which are empowered to borrow for all their functions.
In the same way as a local authority, combined authorities are subject to the requirements for borrowing provided in the Local Government Act 2003. The prudential borrowing regime requires that an authority can borrow lawfully only if it can demonstrate that servicing and repayments of debt are affordable. As such, this gives the necessary assurance that the proposed borrowing powers will be used appropriately. I add that, in the case of combined authorities, this ability to borrow is also subject to a debt cap agreed with the Treasury. Each agreed debt cap specifies the ceiling for the mayoral combined authority’s debt for 2021-22. Debt caps for future years are currently being agreed with all nine mayoral combined authorities.
These regulations fulfil our existing promise to deepen the devolution deals of these three combined authorities and extend their borrowing powers to bring them in line with the six other mayoral combined authorities. With this extension, they will be able to borrow to make investments in infrastructure that are essential to an area’s ambition for growth. We firmly believe they will also lay the groundwork for further levelling up in these areas. I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, this instrument implements a 2016 commitment to extend the borrowing powers of mayoral combined authorities. As the Minister noted, it reflects devolution deals agreed with the Government for North of Tyne, South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire.
During the debate in the other place, the Minister said that this is
“another important step towards empowering mayoral combined authorities to invest in the right infrastructure while giving local leaders the tools needed to stimulate local economic growth, increase productivity and seize the levelling-up opportunities available to their areas.”—[Official Report, Commons, Seventh Delegated Legislation Committee, 9/3/22; col. 3.]
Labour colleagues in the other place welcomed the instrument and reminded the Government that Labour mayors had indeed been calling for this change.
I politely and respectfully ask that the Minister recommends to his colleagues in the Department for Education that they trust the judgments of the MCAs when finalising the skills Bill that is about to return to your Lordships’ House.
I have two short questions for the Minister on this business. Do the Government intend to extend these borrowing powers in further devolution deals? What steps will they take to monitor levels of borrowing?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, that was a very short and knowledgeable debate. I make the general observation that we are both former local authority leaders. We are the most centrally taxed nation in western Europe, but we also hold the least amount of debt below the level of national debt. That is the policy background for all this. Essentially, this moves to a level playing field for all mayoral combined authorities.
I have just been given a helpful note to say that we are negotiating deals, so the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, are in play and will be part of the negotiations with all the mayoral combined authorities. We all know that the reality is that the levers required to change places often require thinking about local taxation that is appropriate to a local place, but also about borrowing. If you get that right, you can borrow in a way that provides a real dividend for local areas. Those flexibilities are part of what makes local government function more effectively. This is a step in the right direction and I am sure that more will follow.
House of Lords
Minister for the Oceans
(2 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the case for appointing a Minister for the Oceans.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
My Lords, ocean protection is vital for the domestic and global economy as well as for nature, of course, and that is why we have several Ministers across government covering different aspects of the marine environment. We work together to deliver our ambition for healthy, productive and sustainable oceans through the effective management of UK waters and by championing ocean protection internationally. The range of ministerial portfolios covering the marine environment is both a reflection of the priority that we afford the ocean and the need to integrate ocean considerations across government policy, from biodiversity and climate change to energy and maritime security.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Well, actually, if I could be allowed to speak—
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I do not find it to be a brilliant Answer at all because it sounds like everywhere and nowhere to me. The oceans are a huge entity with billions and trillions of ecosystems. This is about not only their protection but understanding our impact on them, which might be good or bad. Should not the first job for the Minister today be to go back and ask for one good person to be a Minister for the Oceans so that they can be understood and supported?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness is right about the importance of the ocean but that is why this issue runs like a thread through most departments of government. The impact of our collective government approach is clear from: the success of the G7; COP 26, where we put nature, including the ocean, at the heart of our approach; our own extensive MPA network, covering nearly 40% of our domestic waters; our protection of 4 million square kilometres around our overseas territories; our leadership of international efforts to secure protection of 30% of the world’s ocean by 2030; and our co-sponsorship only last week of the successful UNEA resolution on a new treaty on plastic pollution. I could spend much longer than I have done reeling off things that have been achieved on the ocean by that collective approach here in the UK.
Baroness Fall (Con)
Rising sea levels are a national security issue as well. They threaten the boundaries of countries, as well as countries full stop. If we are to avoid the wild west on the wild seas, with refugees left abandoned, can I urge the Minister to address this matter on a global level with colleagues?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
We absolutely do address this issue at the global level. There are many things that we need to do to restore the health of the ocean and protect what we have, but the single most important thing that we can do is to tackle emissions. The mantra “climate action is ocean action” is very much the case , which is why the oceans were such a central part of our presidency of COP in Glasgow just a few months ago and throughout our presidency this year.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, in terms of international humanitarian law, how would a future Oceans Minister reconcile our signature to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the safety of life at sea convention with the Government’s policy to push back vessels to outside national boundaries?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I am not 100% convinced that I followed the question, but the UK’s role internationally in standing up for the rule of law on our oceans is almost second to none. We have taken a strong position in the past few days in the BBNJ negotiations on the attempt to create a new framework. Other than perhaps France, which has taken a leadership role in recent weeks, no country in the world is doing more heavy lifting than the UK.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I stand ready to be Neptune. I must congratulate the Government on a number of the measures they have taken to protect whole areas of the ocean around our overseas territories. However, as I have mentioned before, looking after those waters needs ships. It is no good just having satellites and aeroplanes. Even in this latest shipbuilding strategy, there is no coverage of the ships that might be able to do that task. In the context of the strategy, and looking to the future, will the Minister ensure that we have the ships to look after these waters?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
It is a really important point. Take South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, for example, where we have a large protected area. Those waters are policed by a UK ship that is paid for through very conservative sales of the right to fish for krill. The areas of ocean that we currently protect, combined with what we hope to protect in the near future, mean that the vessel approach is probably unrealistic. One of the things we are trying to do this year is bring together the main donor countries and those countries most affected by illegal fishing to agree a global action plan. It will rely heavily on technology, which has advanced massively—even in the past 12 months—but has not been put to proper use.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, given that 90% of the UK’s biodiversity is in the overseas territories, what plans does the Minister have to work more closely with the First Ministers of those territories on this agenda? Can I also suggest that he is doing an excellent job as the Minister for Oceans and we do not need anyone else doing it?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thoroughly approve of the second part of the question; I thank my noble friend. I am in regular contact with my counterparts across the overseas territories. There is a real hunger among our overseas territories to do more in not just ocean conservation but terrestrial conservation. There is real ambition there. We made provision for their representatives to have a serious platform at COP 26, which has not happened before. Their leadership shone through and inspired other countries to raise their game.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that a single Minister for Oceans could capitalise on our status as a maritime nation, bringing together offshore renewable energy, a sustainable fishing policy and blue carbon initiatives to harness the ocean’s carbon sequestration capacity and deliver huge environmental benefits?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I am just not convinced that we would have a better approach. We may enjoy self-flagellating in the UK but, outside this country, the UK is seen as a leader on ocean conservation issues, on ocean-related climate change issues and in standing up for the rule of law in international waters and beyond. I am just not convinced that having a single Minister would meaningfully change anything. This issue touches almost every department of government. It is therefore right that, instead of creating new positions, we focus on improving cross-government discussions.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has talked a grand game about policing the oceans of the world. Does he understand why we might be sceptical when the waterways under his and the Government’s direct control are infected with tonnes of sewage every day?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
That is a very different issue. The noble Lord will not be surprised that I disagree, but again I challenge him to give me a single example of another country that has either protected more waters directly or done more heavy lifting internationally to get the rest of the world to increase its ambition. More than 100 countries are now signed up and committed to protecting 30% of the world’s ocean by the end of this decade. That would not be happening if it were not for UK leadership.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend, as Minister for the Oceans, took a great interest in the passage of the now Environment Act, and in how the competing claims of fishing, shipping and new planning applications for offshore wind farms would be balanced. Have there been any further developments to put our minds at rest that future applications for offshore wind farms will have regard to fishing and shipping?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
This is an important point and there is a tension between our desire to scale up offshore wind, a sector in which the UK has a leadership position, and the need to protect our ocean and fishing sector. Defra is playing an increasingly important role, mostly through my colleague Rebecca Pow, and is liaising with BEIS and other departments, working to improve our understanding of the adverse environmental impacts and developing a cross-government approach to addressing them. In a few months, we will publish the findings of our recent consultation.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, in advance of World Ocean Day, could the Minister indicate what action the Government will take to protect sensitive fish species and ensure that the by-catch is minimised, at the same time as underpinning our fishing industry throughout UK coastal communities?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, before becoming a Minister, my noble friend Lord Benyon put together a report for the Government on highly protected marine areas. We are now taking those plans forward. These areas will take a whole-site approach and conserve all species in the key habitats we want to protect around our domestic coastline. We will provide more details of this programme shortly. In addition, through the new blue planet fund the UK is investing £500 million to help other countries, particularly small-island developing states which really depend on marine environments for their economies, to protect and defend those environments against the threats we all know about.
Inflation: Families
The Lord Bishop of Durham
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of inflation on the real terms value of the benefits received by families with children.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, by convention, the September inflation figure is used to uprate benefits. Any fluctuations year on year smooth out over time. In 2022-23, we will spend an extra £2.6 billion on benefits for people of working age, following the annual uprating exercise. We are providing £12 billion this year and next to help with the cost of living. In addition, we recently announced support worth £9.1 billion to help households with rising energy costs next year.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
I thank the Minister for her Answer. By now, we are aware that the cost-of-living crisis will hit every one of us, but the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Child Poverty Action Group, Resolution Foundation and New Economics Foundation all agree that it is going to hit families with children hardest, particular those with more than two children. They will see a real-terms cut in their benefits this year. There are further warnings of inflation of over 10% for the poorest families if the Ukrainian conflict continues and there are no plans for further mitigation from the Government. In this climate, can the Minister point us to parameters that demonstrate the ongoing apparent success of the two-child limit or does she agree that now is the time simply to scrap it?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the Government understand people’s concern about pressure on household budgets and are taking action to help. We are working closely and monitoring the situation with the Bank of England. The Government are also putting in place policies to help families and individuals to meet the rising costs of living, such as increasing the national living wage and cutting the taper rate in universal credit. I am sorry to disappoint the right reverend Prelate, but we have no plans to change the two-child policy.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, ONS research shows that many are cutting back on basics in the face of the cost of living crisis, but what about parents struggling on inadequate benefits, the real value of which is set to fall by over 4% over the coming year? Many of them are already cutting back to the bone and cannot wait for next year’s smoothing. What are they supposed to do if the Government refuse to act on the growing calls for an additional increase in benefits?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the Government are spending £6.6 billion this year in increasing benefit rates: £2.6 billion on working-age benefits and £4 billion on pension benefits. I agree that the uprating order was only 3.1%, but we have increased other rates, as I explained to the right reverend Prelate. We will continue to monitor it and, if necessary, will look in further detail.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate’s Question raises the problem of cash flow. When inflation is climbing, as it is now, families are lagging behind the curve. What are the Government doing to help them with this negative cash flow at present? Also, the obvious way to increase income is to progress in work, including by moving into more skilled work. What are the Government doing to fill skill vacancies?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My noble friend is absolutely correct. As I said, we are providing support of around £20 billion this financial year to help families with the cost of living. The most important thing must be to get people into work. Our expanded multimillion-pound Plan for Jobs is continuing to target tailored support so that universal credit claimants, including those already in work, can access the support they need. As my noble friend says, this includes skills development. It is really important to get people into work in the first place but also for them to progress in those jobs and earn more for their families.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, this below-inflation increase to social security is, in real terms, a disaster for the poorest and most desperate people in our society; there is no doubt at all about that. Can the Minister explain why the Government are once again attacking the poor, making them even poorer while the rich are getting richer in our country and society today?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, as I have said before, we are looking after the poor. We are investing in increasing benefits and, as we heard on 3 February, giving an energy bills rebate. We are giving £144 million of discretionary funding to local authorities and giving a council tax rebate to people in bands A to D, which is 80% of households in this country. The Government are doing everything they can and will continue to monitor the situation for people who need our help.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, the Minister talks about the importance of getting people into work, yet the maximum reimbursement for childcare has been frozen since 2005. The cost of childcare has doubled since then. Currently, in 99% of local authorities the cap does not cover a full-time place for a child under two, and in 9% of authorities it does not cover even a 25-hour part-time place. What plans do the Government have to review the reimbursement of childcare costs for parents and people on benefits?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The noble Baroness brings up an extremely important point. To get back into work, many families need good and affordable childcare. Universal credit claimants can claim up to 85% of their registered childcare costs each month, compared with 70% of those with tax credits. In England we are also giving 15 hours a week of free childcare to all three and four year-olds and to disadvantaged two year-olds, doubling to 30 hours a week for the working parents of three and four year-olds if they are claiming benefits. We have also introduced tax-free childcare and, if a universal credit claimant requires emergency help in the period before they get their first pay cheque, we have a non-refundable flexible support fund.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, inflation is a malign and silent thief that, as we have heard from all sides, hits the poorest hardest. Beyond the obvious mechanisms of raising interest rates and switching off the printing presses, there are none the less things that Ministers can do to alleviate the cost of living crisis. We can bring down food prices by lifting tariffs, we can make it easier to build homes and, not least, we can cancel the planned rise in national insurance. Does my noble friend the Minister think that there are levers that the Government could be pulling now to mitigate the impact of this terrible scourge on the poorest people?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The question my noble friend asks is probably a little above my pay grade. I will go back to the point that the Government are closely monitoring the situation with the Bank of England and will be looking at all these issues as we go forward.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, the Government’s decision to cut the universal credit uplift has left hundreds of thousands of extra children in poverty. Following Labour’s lead in reducing the taper rate to allow those on low incomes to keep more of what they earn is indeed a welcome step, but what else are the Government doing to make up for the biggest ever cut to social security, as well as tax hikes and a cost of living crisis?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, our long-term focus for all families remains on continuing to support parents into work and to progress in work. This approach is based on clear evidence of the importance of parental employment. That is where we are putting our investment. Particularly where parents are in full-time employment, it substantially reduces the risk of poverty and improves the long-term outcomes for children. In 2019-20, a child in a home where all adults were working was around six times less likely to be in absolute poverty.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I thought the Question from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham was about the value of the benefits received by families with children, which is where the greatest need is. The Answer he got was that the Government had no plans. What are the reasons for it?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I am sorry; I did not quite understand the question. We have no plans to change the two-child policy. I will look in Hansard and, if that is the wrong answer, I will make sure the noble and right reverend Lord gets a written answer.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
The Minister has told us now six times that she is monitoring the situation. That is precisely the problem. What is needed is action, not watching or observing. I well recall a Scotland-England game many years ago where the Scotland goalkeeper, Frank Haffey, monitored the ball going into his net nine times. The point is that he was supposed to stop the ball going into the net. Can the Minister get the Government to do something other than Frank Haffey-ing?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, not long ago, on 3 February, the Government did indeed do something about the cost of living when they announced significant financial support of up to £350 per household to help with energy costs, as well as the energy bills rebate and £144 million of discretionary funding to local authorities. That is action, not just monitoring; but the monitoring is important.
Pensions: Triple Lock
Baroness Bryan of Partick
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact that the suspension of the triple lock on pensions will have on the lives of pensioners.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, during the passage of the Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Act 2021, which suspended the earnings link for state pensions uprating for one year, the Government published an impact assessment. The one-year suspension of the triple lock was in response to the extraordinary economic circumstances at the time, and the Government are committed to applying the triple lock as usual from 2023-24 and for the remainder of this Parliament.
Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab)
I thank the Minister for the reply, although telling us that they were looking in their rear-view mirror when making these decisions is not very helpful. We were told at the time that the suspension was justified because 8% inflation was unthinkable. Can the Minister tell us what the inflation rate on household energy is expected to be next month? Can she also perhaps tell us what the inflation rate on budget brands of food is likely to be and, most importantly, how she expects people on state pensions to stay warm and fed?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I cannot look into a crystal ball and give those figures but they will come out. We know that they are much higher than we ever expected at that time, which is due to global rather than domestic issues. The important thing with this is that the Secretary of State has to undertake an annual review of benefits and pensions, and the CPI in the year to September is the latest figure that they can use to allow sufficient time for the required legislation and operational changes before new rates can be introduced in the new financial year. As I mentioned on a previous Question, because it had to be done at that time, the Government looked at the pressures on the budgets of families and pensioners and made the changes that I spoke about earlier.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
My Lords, what are the Government doing to increase the take-up of pension credits?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that question because pension credits are important, particularly for very vulnerable pensioners and those on very low incomes. At the moment, there are about 1.4 million people claiming around £5 billion in pension credit but only about 73% of the people who should be taking it up are doing so. The important thing is that we have to continue to raise awareness. We have put out many letters to pensioners while encouraging them, through the press and social media, to take this up because it is money that is sitting there and should be in their pockets.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I fully understand why the Government have had to cancel or suspend the triple lock this year. I also understand that the whole population will take a hit from the inflation increase. I am not sure whether this figure is available but, if it is, can the Minister tell the House what percentage increase in pensions there will be this year, to provide some compensation to pensioners for the huge inflation rate that we all anticipate?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I cannot give the figure for that but am very happy to find somebody who can. I will let not only the noble Baroness but the House know it.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, figures show that one in five pensioners in the UK are living in poverty, while 1.3 million retirees are undernourished and 25,000 die each year due to the cold weather. The Minister spoke about extraordinary changes in economic circumstances. Given these and the massive increase in energy costs, what additional support will the Government be providing for pensioners, who suffer particularly when energy costs are high?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I am conscious that I spoke about households with families before but all the money that the Government are giving for families is available as well to pensioners. The full annual amount of the state pension is worth over £2,300 more in cash terms now than it was in 2010. More than that, about 1.4 million of the most vulnerable pensioners also receive, as we have heard, £5 billion of pension credit. We know it is difficult out there. We are giving money to pensioners through our energy relief costs and living standards costs. We will continue to keep an eye on it and do what we can to increase their budgets.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it seems to me that this is a perfect storm and I support the noble Baroness, Lady Bryan, in her Question. There is going to be a real reduction in the income of the vulnerable elderly at a time when, on all fronts, the cost of living is going to go through the roof. Can the Minister give some words of comfort to those members of communities who are not just about managing but are manifestly not managing in the autumn of their years and having to choose between eating and heating?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Yes, I can. I think it is up to everybody in communities to support our older population in making sure that they are aware of what they can get. There is the basic state pension and, as I said, there is pension credit, but there are also things such as free bus passes, free prescriptions, winter fuel payments and cold weather payments. All these things are available to help the budgets of these very vulnerable people and it is important—and, I feel, important for the department—to make sure that everybody is getting everything they are entitled to.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, while many pensioners live on the breadline, quite a few do not and many of those are still in work. Would it not make sense for them to pay the full rate of national insurance and give people who are not in work more help?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Of course, they will pay the new rate of national insurance for the National Health Service and social care. I think it is right that they do so if they continue to work, so I agree partly with the noble Baroness.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, following up on pension credits, given that the percentage uptake is creeping up very slowly and surveys show that 60% of eligible people who are not receiving it are reluctant to ask for help, is it not time to look again at auto-enrolment? I know this was seen to have failed a decade ago, but digitalisation of records has moved on a lot since then and people should not have to ask—they should just get the money.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Yes, I accept what the noble Baroness says and I will take that back to the department. The rate is creeping up; it is at 73% now. We just need to work harder at that as this is money that belongs to those people.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I would like to debunk the Minister’s statement that somehow the Budget did not permit the Government an increase in pensions, especially as the Government gave a £4 billion tax cut to the bankers. The national insurance fund had a surplus of about £43 billion, more than enough to fund the triple lock. In addition, if the Government had wanted, they could have got more, for example by taxing capital gains at the same rate as earned income and charging national insurance on the same. That would be another £25 billion. Will the Minister admit that the real problem is that the Government are choosing to inflict hardship on our pensioners? It is a political choice, not an economic necessity.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
No, I do not agree with the noble Lord. For a start, there is no surplus in the fund that can be simply drawn on. The Government Actuary’s Department recommends that a surplus is kept in the national insurance fund to cover day-to-day variations in spend and the surplus is lent to the Government while that happens. It cannot simply be spent again. The money is invested, it is ring-fenced and there is no question of the Government being in a position to use this facility to extract money from the fund as an extra source of revenue.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
The Minister quoted what the Government Actuary said. The surplus in the fund will be heading towards 60% but the surplus recommended by the Government Actuary is 16%. That is a difference of more than 40% of the fund. There is the money there.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I have no answer to that but I will make sure I get one. I assure noble Lords that the fund cannot be used for the purposes that have been put forward.
Stalking Protection Orders
(2 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to encourage police forces in England and Wales to increase the use of stalking protection orders to safeguard the lives of victims, particularly women.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)
My Lords, we expect all police forces to make full use of stalking protection orders and the Safeguarding Minister has written to chief constables whose forces have not applied for many of them to make that clear. The Home Office is working closely with the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s stalking lead to ensure that these orders are being used appropriately and to establish best practice.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, an awful lot of letters must have been written because the orders were introduced in 2020. In that year, while 80,000 stalking offences were reported, only 456 stalking orders were issued. In Wales, 7,000 offences were reported and only five orders were issued. The Government said in 2019 that they
“will publish statutory guidance which will help to ensure consistency in their use.”—[Official Report, 18/1/19; col. 471.]
I suggest that there is no consistency. It is a postcode lottery at the moment, and they are used very rarely. A recent Home Office review stated that there was a “lack of training” and insufficient staff and resources. What are the Government doing to address each of those problems? I am glad that the Government are prioritising violence against women and girls, but there seems to be a lack of prioritisation of offences in relation to stalking.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, on actions in relation to enhancing training, I can advise that in 2019 the College of Policing released a set of new advice products. There is a mandatory course for prison offender managers to complete. Within the Crown Prosecution Service, e-learning modules in stalking, harassment and restraining orders are available. The noble Baroness asked how many letters had been sent, although I acknowledge it was partly rhetorical. All chief constables have been written to and, depending on how they were using SPOs, the tenor of the letters has been either to congratulate or to encourage.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that the nature of stalking means that individual incidents may seem innocent enough, but it is when a pattern emerges that they become insidious? Does that not mean that the police need specific training to recognise stalking patterns, and that all police forces should have such training tailored and developed so that victims get the help they deserve?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
I agree wholeheartedly with both parts of the noble Lord’s question. I assure him that such training specifically for police—particularly, and importantly, for first responders—is in place so that the real nature of stalking and the tremendous strains and fear it provokes can be identified at the very outset.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, the stalking protection orders are very welcome in all matters for victims, and I am grateful to the Suzy Lamplugh Trust for its briefing. However, I am really concerned, as a former Victims’ Commissioner, that we are seeing murky waters. I appreciate that the Safeguarding Minister has sent a letter, but that is to the heads of all these police forces; it is the policemen on the ground who are not adequately trained and are not supporting victims. I say this as I am dealing with two different areas where insufficiently experienced officers are coming out to deal with the severity of the liquids being thrown. Can the Minister go back to the department and see what is happening on the ground? While you are at the top of the league, the bottom is not giving support to victims. The severity of these stalking offences is very important. I hope we are going to address this in the victims’ Bill in the next parliamentary Session.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
I am very grateful to my noble friend for the question. In part, I refer her to the answer I gave to the previous question. The situation is that there is a degree of independence for individual chief constables to prioritise matters within their own jurisdictions, if I may use that expression. We are seeking to emphasise the real importance of this particular area of law and the real harm inflicted upon victims of stalking, so that it percolates down from the chiefs to the foot soldiers.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I invite the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, to make a virtual contribution.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Suzy Lamplugh Trust reports that it repeatedly sees police officers trying to apply for other protections, such as non-molestation orders, instead of stalking protection orders. Given that half of stalking cases are not from domestic abuse settings, if you are being stalked by a stranger or a work colleague—not an ex-partner—non-molestation orders would be of no use. What will the Government do to change this? Otherwise, non-domestic stalking cases will continue to be ignored.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
I gratefully acknowledge the noble Baroness’s question and the terms thereof. The Government are aware that there is a bad practice of applying for the wrong order or for running SPOs in tandem with other matters, including prosecutions. These are aspects of the bad practice that we are seeking to advise against. We are also moving forward with those police forces that are doing exceptionally well—I mention Sussex and Nottinghamshire in those contexts. We are working with police and crime commissioners as well, who are also promulgating good practice through their association.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, in addition to the imposition of restrictions, stalking orders can also include positive conditions, such as requiring offenders to seek mental health treatment or enrol in a drug addiction programme. In this way, they can not only address the horrific impact but help to reduce reoffending. Can the Minister say how many of the 456 orders issued in England and Wales over the last year have included any requirement for this kind of treatment or training?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that question. I am aware, of course, that one of the great values of SPOs is that they can impose positive conditions as well as negative ones. I regret to say that I do not have the specific statistic for which the noble Baroness asked, but if she will permit me, I will write to her with that.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, by what specific criteria will the Government judge whether their intervention with chief constables on stalking protection orders has been successful or unsuccessful, so that we can hold the Government to account?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
In the first instance, we look at the number of stalking protection orders that are sought and imposed. The figures that I have in relation to their use are encouraging. I can tell the House that 78% of SPO applications in 2021 were granted, compared to only 5% refused, with 17% being dealt with in other ways or withdrawn.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)
My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord advise the House on whether the Crown Prosecution Service has any play in this? Obviously, the police increasingly look to the Crown Prosecution Service for advice, and I wonder whether it has any involvement in this type of decision and whether perhaps it should.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
The Crown Prosecution Service is involved in training its staff in relation to these matters. Of course, as an independent body, it takes decisions on the prosecution of crime, but in addition the victims of stalking are able to apply, without cost to themselves, for these orders.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas (Con)
My Lords, will the Minister accept that his policy to extend it to all police services is very welcome, and that women should be protected at all times against violence or attacks, whatever they may be?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for this point. Tackling violence against women and girls is a priority for the Government. I am sure that the House will agree that that should be the case. My noble friend is correct to say that there is a universal application of such measures. Scotland has its own distinctive regime, but it is one that deals with the same matter as SPOs in England and Wales.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, could I gently take the Minister to task for the accuracy of some of the responses that he has been given in his brief? If training were in place for all first responders, I really do not think we would be seeing the alarming figures that were issued today for Wales, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall. These showed that, out of 7,000 alleged stalking offences, only five SPOs were given. The cost of training an officer fully in the complexity of stalking is £75 per police officer. Will the Government—a combination of the Home Office and the NPCC—get on the backs of every chief constable in England and Wales and get something done? A letter from Rachel Maclean is not enough of itself.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
First, I acknowledge the interest and hard work which the noble Lord has devoted to this topic. I fully accept that a single letter from the Safeguarding Minister sitting in the other place will not address these matters per se. The figures the noble Lord quotes to your Lordships are indeed worrying. However, I hope that the answers I have been able to give provide some comfort to the House—the noble Lord is shaking his head—as to the seriousness with which the Government take these matters.
Building Safety Bill
(2 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greenhalgh
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clause 2, Schedule 1, Clauses 3 to 21, Schedule 2, Clauses 22 to 26, Schedule 3, Clauses 27 to 42, Schedule 4, Clauses 43 to 54, Schedule 5, Clause 55, Schedule 6, Clauses 56 to 106, Schedule 7, Clauses 107 to 115, Schedule 8, Clauses 116 to 124, Schedule 9, Clauses 125 to 138, Schedules 10 and 11, Clauses 139 to 145, Schedule 12, Clauses 146 to 161, Clause 1, Title.
Flood Reinsurance (Amendment) Regulations 2022
(2 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 27 January be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 10 March.
Relevant document: 29th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Health and Care Bill
Wednesday 16th March 2022
(2 years, 7 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 114-IV Marshalled List for Report - (14 Mar 2022)
16:39 - Division on Amendment 158 - Ayes: 213 / Noes: 154 - Amendment 158 agreed.
17:03 - Division on Amendment 162 - Ayes: 203 / Noes: 159 - Amendment 162 agreed.
20:14 - Division on Amendment 170 - Ayes: 145 / Noes: 179 - Amendment 170 disagreed.
Lord Crisp
“Tobacco products statutory scheme: consultation
(1) The Secretary of State must, no later than six months after this Act is passed, consult and report on the desirability of making a scheme (referred to in this section and section (Tobacco products statutory scheme: supplementary) as a statutory scheme) for one or more of the following purposes—(a) regulating, for the purposes of improving public health, the prices which may be charged by any manufacturer or importer of tobacco products for the supply of any tobacco products;(b) limiting the profits which may accrue to any manufacturer or importer in connection with the manufacture or supply of tobacco products;(c) providing for any manufacturer or importer of tobacco products to pay to the Secretary of State an amount calculated by reference to sales or estimated sales of those products (whether on the basis of net prices, average selling prices or otherwise) to be used for the purposes of reducing smoking prevalence and improving public health.(2) The consultation must ask for views on a draft statutory scheme (or alternative draft schemes), which may, in particular, make any provision mentioned in subsections (3) to (6).(3) The draft scheme or schemes may provide for any amount representing sums charged by any manufacturer or importer to whom the scheme applies, in excess of the limits determined under the scheme, for tobacco products covered by the scheme to be paid by that person to the Secretary of State within a specified period.(4) The draft scheme or schemes may provide for any amount representing the profits, in excess of the limits determined under the scheme, accruing to any manufacturer or importer to whom the scheme applies in connection with the manufacture or importation of tobacco products covered by the scheme to be paid by that person to the Secretary of State within a specified period.(5) The draft scheme or schemes may provide for any amount payable in accordance with the scheme by any manufacturer or importer to whom the scheme applies to be paid to the Secretary of State within a specified period.(6) The draft scheme or schemes may—(a) prohibit any manufacturer or importer to whom the scheme applies from varying, without the approval of the Secretary of State, any price charged by the manufacturer or importer for the supply of any tobacco product covered by the scheme, and(b) provide for any amount representing any variation in contravention of that prohibition in the sums charged by that person for that product to be paid to the Secretary of State within a specified period.(7) The Secretary of State must lay the report before Parliament and a Minister of the Crown must arrange to make a statement to each House of Parliament setting out in detail any steps which will be taken to implement the findings of the report.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause, along with others, would require the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to carry out a consultation about a statutory scheme for the regulation of prices and profits of tobacco manufacturers and importers. Funds raised by the scheme would be used to pay for the cost of tobacco control measures to deliver the Government’s ultimatum for industry to make smoked tobacco obsolete by 2030 and for England to be smoke-free with smoking rates 5% or below.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 158 and note that the other three amendments in this group are consequential on this one.
These amendments would require the Government to consult on a statutory polluter pays scheme imposed on tobacco manufacturers to fund measures to reduce smoking prevalence and improve public health. In 2019, when the Government announced their smoke-free 2030 ambition, they promised to consider just this sort of polluter pays approach to raising funds for tobacco control. The amendments require the Government to fulfil this commitment by consulting on a statutory scheme and reporting back to Parliament within six months of the Bill’s passage. The scheme consists of two distinct parts: a levy raised from tobacco sales volumes, which would raise an estimated £700 million a year, and a price cap on tobacco products to prevent tobacco companies simply passing these costs on to smokers.
The amendments propose that funding from this scheme be used to pay for the tobacco control measures needed to achieve the smoke-free 2030 ambition. This includes greater investment in stopping smoking services, mass media public education campaigns, targeted support for disadvantaged groups, tackling the sale of elicit tobacco and preventing young people taking up smoking. There are three sets of arguments in this regard, which are all compelling. The first is the impact of tobacco on public health. The second, bluntly, is that this is in line with government policy. The third is the need for a pragmatic approach to where we are today and how we can achieve funding.
Let me just make a few points about the first of those, the impact of tobacco. First, smoking is, of course, the largest single risk factor in ill health and early mortality. Secondly, it is not a lifestyle choice; it may have been originally—as an ex-smoker, I know that—but it is also addictive, and addiction normally starts in childhood. That is why it is really important that we target younger people. Two-thirds of younger people who start smoking carry on into adult life. The current rate of decline is insufficient; smoking prevalence is coming down around the country but, currently, it would take until at least 2047 for the most disadvantaged communities to achieve the level required. Indeed, inequality is a big issue here. Given that so many noble Lords have spoken about inequalities in relation to other amendments to the Health and Care Bill, I just draw out that smoking is responsible for half of the 10-year difference in life expectancy between the richest and poorest parts of society. Whether one smokes or not has a far greater impact on life expectancy than a person’s social position in society.
This is a fundamental health issue—and there are costs. There are costs to the individual: it is estimated that the average smoker spends about £2,000 a year on smoking; and half a million households, a third of a million children and 183,000 pensioners are living in poverty because of the costs of smoking. There are also costs to the system. It is not just about mortality; it is very much about morbidity. We know, for example, that smokers are more than five times as likely as non-smokers to have microbiologically confirmed influenza and twice as likely to develop pneumonia. Similarly, we know that smokers who quit smoking have better treatment outcomes from day one for everything from cancer to cardiovascular disease, diabetes to dementia, maternity to mental health, stroke to surgery—to the benefit not just of those smokers, but the NHS that provides the service and, frankly, the economy by ensuring that people of working age can be more productive and not take so many days off sick.
Finally, in talking about the impact, I note that there is now enormous public support for these measures. In a recent survey, some 77% of the public supported making tobacco manufacturers pay a levy or licence fee to government for measures to help smokers quit and prevent young people taking up smoking. Nobody in your Lordships’ House will be surprised to know that a levy on tobacco manufacturers has also been endorsed by around 50 health organisations of many different sorts.
As I said at the beginning, there are arguments for these amendments that are about the impact of smoking, which are compelling in themselves. There are arguments that this is fundamentally in line with government policy and that the smoking target will not be hit in 2030 without something of this sort. There is also the very pragmatic argument that in a time of financial difficulty such as this, it is very often the longer-term measures that get cut. There is nothing longer term than making sure that we stop children smoking at an early age. We have, therefore, in this levy a very practical way forward. I beg to move.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 158 and the others in this group, to which I have added my name. Last Wednesday was national No Smoking Day, and there was an excellent event in a Commons dining room hosted by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Smoking and Health—I declare an interest as an officer of that group—to celebrate the 50th anniversary of ASH. The star speaker was the Public Health Minister, Maggie Throup. She reaffirmed the Government’s commitment to achieving a smoke-free England by 2030 and rightly said that stop-smoking services would be at the centre of the forthcoming tobacco control plan.
NICE has estimated that, for every £1 invested in stop-smoking services, £2.37 will be saved on treating smoking-related diseases and reduced productivity. However, cuts to local public health budgets have disproportionately hit stop-smoking services. They have lost a third of their funding in real terms since 2015, accompanied by a decline in the number of smokers setting quit dates.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lords Lord Crisp and Lord Faulkner in support of these amendments, which replicate the amendment I moved in Committee. They set out proposals for a statutory smoke-free 2030 fund, based on the polluter pays principles, to pay for measures to end smoking. We are grateful to both Ministers for the time that they spent with us on a Zoom call last week, when we sought to persuade them of the merits of these amendments, and time alone will tell whether those representations bore fruit.
In Committee, my noble friend Lord Naseby, whom I see in his place, suggested that these proposals had been consulted on in 2015, and that the Government had concluded they were not workable, a conclusion which he said had been reiterated by the Exchequer Secretary on 10 January 2022. While my noble friend was right to say that the Government consulted on the levy in 2015, they did not consult on the proposals before us today. What was consulted on then was an additional tax, and the decision was taken not to proceed because tobacco manufacturers and importers would pass the costs of a levy on to consumers; the Statement by the Treasury in January merely reiterated that conclusion. Back in 2015, the regulation of tobacco prices to prevent the costs of a levy being passed on to consumers was prohibited by the rules of the European Union. That is no longer the case, so the 2015 objection to the levy no longer holds true. The Government can now put the financial burden firmly where it belongs, on the polluter—the tobacco manufacturer— and not the polluted—the smoker.
Our scheme enables the Government to limit the ability of manufacturers to profit from smokers, while protecting government excise tax revenues, which is a win-win for the Government and for smokers. The scheme is modelled on the Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme, the PPRS, which has been in operation for over 40 years and is overseen by the Department of Health and Social Care. It has teams of analysts who already have the skills to administer a scheme for cigarettes, a much simpler product to administer than pharmaceutical medicines.
Unlike corporate taxes, which are based on reported profits and can be—and indeed are—evaded, the levy would be based on sales volumes, as is the case in America, where a similar scheme already operates. Sales volumes are much easier for the Government to monitor and much harder for companies to misrepresent. Implementing a levy would not require a new quango to be set up, as the Department of Health and Social Care has all the expertise needed both to supervise the scheme and to allocate the funds raised. We would not be averse to the consultation mentioned in the amendment including other options, as long as it included careful consideration of our proposals.
The Government have said that they accept the polluter pays principle. My party has form in implementing that proposal through the landfill levy, the tax on sugar in soft drinks and requiring developers to pay for the costs of remediating building safety defects. Indeed, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, the Government promised to consider this approach to funding tobacco control nearly three years ago in the prevention Green Paper. Surely they should now welcome this opportunity to consider how it can be put into practice.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, I speak in support of these amendments, to which I have added my name, and which are in accordance with my party’s policy.
In Committee, there was almost universal support for dealing with health inequality issues, and there was widespread recognition that, as the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, said, half the difference in life expectancy between the richest and the poorest people in this country is caused by smoking. There are many ways in which we can further reduce the prevalence of smoking, and those of us who are members of the APPG on Smoking and Health set them out during the course of our debates.
However, we are concentrating today on just one key principle which is necessary if the Government’s target of reducing the prevalence of smoking to 5% or below is to be achieved by 2030. That principle is finding the funds to support smoking cessation and tobacco control measures through a levy on the tobacco companies. This would help to ameliorate the terrible damage done by their products, which includes shortening the lives of half the people who use them.
The funding for local authorities to pursue tobacco control policies such as smoking cessation services and enforcement and for national mass media campaigns has been cut significantly. Without the proposed levy, the NHS will face greater costs in future in dealing with the many issues, such as lung cancer and heart disease, which arise in part because of smoking tobacco.
Last month, together with other officers of the APPG on Smoking and Health, I had the pleasure of meeting Javed Khan, chair of the Government’s independent review into smoking. He listened carefully to all our proposals, particularly on the levy, and certainly understood the necessity of funding being found. The Government have asked him to say what the most impactful interventions that could be taken forward in the new tobacco control plan would be. He told us that if nothing different is done, the Government’s smoke-free target will not be met. He promised that his recommendations would be “bold and brave”, as I hope they will.
I expect that we will soon get some soothing words from the Minister. But before he replies to this debate, I ask him to consider how, in “Hamlet”, King Claudius has to admit that
“words without thoughts never to heaven go”.
I hope the Minister will give us not just warm words about tobacco control but confirm that the Government have thought about the tobacco levy and will undertake a formal consultation on it.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I hasten to say to your Lordships that I do not smoke and have never smoked. In considering the amendments before us this afternoon, it is worth giving some of the official statistics rather than the aspirational ones. Smoking rates in England continue to decline year on year and that has been a trend for the last 30 years. According to the Office for National Statistics in 2021, smoking rates in England have declined significantly, from 20% in 2011 to 12% in 2020. The decline in the number of smokers has resulted in a reduction in the cost to the NHS of treating the impact of smoking. In 2015, Public Health England estimated that the total smoking-related cost to NHS England was £2.6 billion a year, when 18% of the population smoked. This figure and the corresponding cost to NHS England over the last five years have declined further, given the 12% smoking rate in England in 2020. According to NHS data published in 2019 on smoking, drinking and drug use among young people, the number of young people aged 11 to 15 smoking has declined dramatically, from 16% to just 5% in 2018. According to the Office for National Statistics in 2021, only 12% of 18 to 24 year-olds in Great Britain smoke, a major reduction from 26% in 2011 and the lowest smoking rate across all age groups except the over-65s.
By way of background, according to the most recent HMRC tax gap data, illegal smuggling and consumption of illicit tobacco cost Her Majesty’s Government £2.3 billion in lost revenue in 2019-20, a figure that remains unchanged from the fiscal year 2016-17, which reinforces the fact that the Government’s anti-illicit tobacco strategy is not working. It ought to be working, when you have a situation where a group of companies is working with the Department for Health and has done over many years. Frankly, it is a sad reflection on the status of HMRC that this illicit tobacco importation is increasing. You have only to look at what is happening in Dover or any of our other ports today to see why it is increasing. It is a pathetic and embarrassing performance at Dover at the moment, the net result being not just tobacco but illegal alcohol and so on coming in.
Now we look at the idea of a levy, something that has never been in the manifesto of a Conservative Government to the best of my knowledge. A levy on any company prescribed by government, even companies trading locally, certainly does not fit into the basic elements of our financial and economic strategy. If it was just a levy on cigarettes, there might be half a case, but this is on anything to do with tobacco. Most of all those other products have no effect on people’s health—they are a matter of enjoyment—but this idea goes across the whole lot. It has not been thought through.
It is all very well my noble friend Lord Young on the Back Benches saying that there was a consultation in 2015 on a levy on tobacco manufacturers’ profits and the Government concluded that it would be unworkable, but that was because we were in the EU so it has all changed now. I say to my noble friend on the Front Bench: I would have thought he had enough on his hands without introducing a complicated levy, but that is my personal view. There was an exchange between the Exchequer Secretary and the then shadow Exchequer Secretary, confirming
“that our position regarding the 2015 consultation stands. A levy would be a complex”—
this is not going to change—
“and costly way of raising money to fund tobacco control measures and would be unlikely to provide a stable revenue stream.”
I say to my noble friends on all sides of the House that tobacco manufacturers already invest hundreds of millions of pounds every year in R&D and highly skilled jobs to bring to market alternative smoke-free nicotine products. Some of your Lordships may use e-cigarettes, nicotine pouches or heated tobacco products. Further tax increases on manufacturers as a whole will have the effect of reducing that investment, which is not a very clever way forward.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, briefly, I support these amendments; my name was on an amendment at an earlier stage. I hope that the Minister will have managed to persuade other parts of government that they will not achieve a smoke-free 2030 in the UK unless they move further and faster on tackling an industry built on promoting ill health and death—the reverse of what the health service seeks to do.
The Department of Health has come a long way in this area, with much cross-party working, and I know that the noble Earl himself has been part of that cross-party support in tackling the terrible health consequences of smoking. I have a sense of déjà vu, as I think others might. Over the years, the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, has been a rather lone voice on the other side. From time to time FOREST, which makes it plain that it is funded by the tobacco industry, kindly sends me its brief, no doubt inadvertently, and I recognise some familiar phrases that have just been voiced. I noted the rueful expression of the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, took apart what he had said about the levy.
The Government say that they are committed to delivering a smoke-free 2030, but keep putting off the action required. Not all parts of government are fully aligned to this in the actions taken. The steps proposed in the amendments are designed to help the Government achieve what they say they wish to do. I therefore commend them to the House.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
My Lords, I want to make just a small factual supplement to the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Naseby. In fact, it was a Conservative Government in 1957 who introduced the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme or PPRS, and that scheme has been sustained ever since by Conservative, Labour and coalition Governments. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, pointed out, if it is deemed appropriate to have a form of price and profit regulation for the medicines industry, which delivers products that are essential and life-saving, it does not seem too far a stretch to think that an equivalent mechanism might be used for an industry whose products are discretionary and life-destroying.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I was not intending to intervene, but I was prompted to do so not least by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham. That the PPRS has been sustained by Governments, albeit amended from time to time, should not lead us to the conclusion that all products should have their pricing and regulation controlled by government. I do not think that the analogy runs at all, so we should ignore the PPRS for these purposes.
My noble friend on the Front Bench whom I believe is replying to this debate and I were in a coalition Government with the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and we were pretty clear then. I remember a decade ago creating a bit of a storm by saying that I wanted to end up with a smoke-free England. We have reached a point now where there are tobacco companies which think that we are going to arrive at that position, and so we should. I do not think that this debate is about whether we achieve that; it is about the mechanisms by which we do so.
If my noble friend reiterates the Government’s intention, willingness and sense of urgency about bringing forward measures, as I hope he does, I would not bind the hands of the Government with these amendments. Frankly, even if they were passed, nothing would happen unless and until the Government bring forward legislation for the purpose. It would be better for us to have the debate and make the position clear. I do not disagree with the arguments presented by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and others—when we were in government, we implemented things such as the ban on display in shops and preventing the availability of cigarettes to youngsters through vending machines, which I think was one of the most important things we could do. We made progress; we need to make more. We need the Government to come forward with proposals for that, but these amendments are not necessary if the Government say that they are willing to make progress.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I was not intending to speak, but I wanted to counter the point made to the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, that he was simply rehearsing lines from FOREST, the pro-freedom to smoke group. I also inadvertently receive communiques from ASH, the anti-smoking lobby group—I think it has me muddled up with someone else—and I have heard many of its lines rehearsed here as well on the other side of the argument. I thought it might be worth noting that.
Secondly, I have to declare an interest: I smoke. I appreciate that this means that I am beyond any redemption—goodness knows, I am controversial enough on a range of other things, but that is probably the worst.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
Well, good. I have got a few “hear, hears”.
Lord Rennard (LD)
Does the noble Baroness accept that a crucial difference is that organisations such as ASH are funded by organisations concerned with public health, including Cancer Research UK and people who deal with trying to save lives, while FOREST is funded by the tobacco industry, which kills half its customers?
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I was coming on to that point. I would really appreciate a dose of honesty in this House. If those people who are so hostile to smoking a legal product believe that it is the killer they allege, they should call for smoking to be made illegal and be done with it. At the moment, tobacco companies are legal companies. People talk about them with such distaste, as though they should be abolished. It would be better and more heartfelt if they argued that tobacco should be illegal; then we would have a different debate. Public health is not always neutral when you talk about public health lobbyists, in my opinion. The freedom to choose to do something that is bad for your health is still allowed in a free society, despite some people wishing it was not.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I do not recall anybody suggesting in the debate that tobacco companies should be made illegal. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, is not suggesting that, just because the number of smokers is going down, nothing more should be done. I thought I heard the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, suggest that, if we carry on at this rate, it will be another 25 years before we get to where we need to be.
Lord Naseby (Con)
I was suggesting that we do carry on because the evidence is there in government data, not in a forecast from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, or some minor operation that he—
Baroness Penn (Con)
I remind noble Lords that only short questions of elucidation are allowed on Report.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
Many thanks. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, that a lot more people will be dead from tobacco if we carry on at this rate. He suggested that, just because this measure was not in the Conservative Party’s manifesto, perhaps we should not carry it forward. Well, the Conservative Party does not have all the best ideas, although I congratulate the Government on the sugary drinks levy, which has been highly successful. We support the polluter pays amendment introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. I might call it the killer pays amendment because, make no mistake, this is a killer substance.
I happen to live in Wales so I want to raise a matter that has not been mentioned yet. I am glad that the Welsh Government have committed to a smoke-free Wales by 2030. However, although England announced its intention to go smoke-free by 2030 two years before Wales did, Wales has leapt ahead as regards action, which is why I hope that the Minister will either accept Amendment 158 or give adequate assurances. In the Green Paper of July 2019, the Government said:
“Further proposals for moving towards a smoke-free 2030 will be set out at a later date.”
Approaching three years later, still nothing has happened. There are no further proposals and no funding has been announced. In contrast, Wales has published concrete proposals, but many of the interventions require action from the UK Government. Examples include the polluter pays funding mechanism, which could help to fund tobacco control in Wales; raising the age of sale; and putting warnings on cigarettes and pack inserts. I am concerned that, by being so slow, the UK Government are undermining the ability of the devolved Administrations to achieve their smoke-free ambitions. We will support the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, if he chooses to put this amendment to a vote.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions to this debate and for putting forward this group of amendments. In introducing Amendment 158 and the consequential amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, outlined that they would establish a consultation on a polluter pays levy whereby funds are raised by the scheme to pay for the cost of tobacco control measures to deliver a smoke-free 2030. This strikes me as wholly pragmatic; a wide-ranging consultation would undoubtedly help to strike the right balance between all the parties involved.
We know from this debate and many previous debates that tobacco use carries huge health risks, and disproportionately so for the most disadvantaged in society, whose likelihood of smoking is four times higher in the most deprived areas compared to the least deprived. If ever there was a case for levelling up, this is it. My noble friend Lord Faulkner rightly highlighted that we have seen cuts to stop-smoking services, and this group of amendments seeks to redress the situation in a practical way. It is vital that we motivate and support more smokers to quit, while reducing the numbers of children and young people who start to smoke. Greater action is clearly needed now.
The scheme proposed in this group of amendments would provide a well-funded and much-needed boost, and a consultation would allow this proposal to be tested, refined and shaped. I hope that the Minister will accept the opportunity of a consultation but if the will of the House is tested, these Benches will support the amendments.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and in the informative debate we had in Committee, on which I have reflected carefully. Let me first remind the House of what we are doing in this area.
We are committed to making England smoke free by 2030 and will set out our approach in a new tobacco control plan to be published later this year. As part of that work, we are exploring a number of regulatory proposals and have launched an independent review into smoking. The review, led by Javed Khan OBE, will make a set of focused policy and regulatory recommendations to government on the most impactful interventions to reduce the uptake of smoking and support people to stop smoking for good. It is in that context that I turn to the detail of these amendments.
As mentioned in previous debates, while I speak for the Government as a whole, tobacco taxation matters are ones for Her Majesty’s Treasury. As noble Lords will know, the tobacco industry is already required to make a significant contribution to public finances through tobacco duty, VAT and corporation tax. Through these finances we are able to fund local authority stop-smoking services through the public health grant and provide extra resources as part of the NHS long-term plan commitment to help smokers quit. As part of the annual Budget process, Her Majesty’s Treasury will continue the policy of using tax to raise revenues and encourage cessation through continuing with above-RPI duty increases on tobacco products. It is a proven and effective revenue-raising system.
I am as keen as anyone to find new ways in which to bear down on the prevalence of smoking and I am proud to have been instrumental in bringing some about. However, I am afraid that I cannot accept the amendment as it stands. The proposal may look simple on the surface but it is complex to implement. It may also take several years to materialise. Our strong preference is to continue with high tobacco taxation and excise as the best means and the most efficient process through which to generate revenue that can be put back into public services. However, I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Crisp—I hope that this will at least be of some reassurance to him—that the department’s officials will continue to work with Her Majesty’s Treasury to explore whether there are other innovative financing models that can be applied to the tobacco industry to support Smokefree 2030 and be as effective and efficient as the current taxation system. It may be—I do not know—that Javed Khan will come forward with recommendations in this area. We should allow him the necessary time to conduct his independent review.
I realise my reply will be disappointing to the noble Lords, Lord Crisp and Lord Faulkner, and my noble friend Lord Young, who are understandably passionate about this issue. I hope they will realise that we are very much on the same page regarding the overriding objective to reduce and eliminate the practice of smoking in this country. I hope I have provided some reassurance that the Government have listened and thought carefully about this proposal, even if we have not felt it right to proceed with it, in the end. As the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, would expect, we will set out our financial plans to support smoke-free 2030 in our new tobacco control plan. For those reasons, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, first, I thank those noble Lords who added their names to this amendment and spoke so eloquently in this debate, which covered a range of important issues that between them present a compelling argument for what is only a consultation. Secondly, I thank the other noble Lords who spoke during the debate, including those who spoke against the amendment, because having a proper debate allows us to pull out some important issues. I will return to that in a moment. Thirdly, I thank the Minister for the time that he and his colleagues gave to meet with us, and for our helpful discussions. I very much accept the noble Earl’s statement about us being on the same side and pushing in the same direction, but we need to get there.
That takes me to picking up some of the points that were made. I thought the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, was very helpful. The point he made about how the numbers are coming down was terrific. It is great news—so let us accelerate it. We can get behind that and really shift it. There is a problem here, as with so much in public health, in that people talk about aggregates and averages. There is a real trap in aggregates and averages. The aggregate could come down to 5%, but 20% of people in the lowest socioeconomic group could still be smoking. That is the problem when you deal in gross numbers. I said in the debate that, according to Cancer Research UK, which is a reasonably reputable body, it would be 2047 before we saw that level of achievement among the lowest socioeconomic group in the country. Aggregates and averages are real traps in public health.
I understand the good faith of the Ministers in this House. However, and I think I speak for my colleagues on this amendment, we note that the Green Paper in 2019 promised to consider the idea of polluter or perpetrator pays—whatever is the right language for that. Almost three years on, we have not yet seen that happen. Not surprisingly, we are rightly suspicious of how these things can be kicked into the long grass and continue for a long time. If we are to achieve the 2030 outcomes for all the people for whom we want to achieve them, we need to accelerate. I believe the proposals put forward here are practical and implementable, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, spelled out.
In our discussions with Ministers, we offered a number of concessions, including the idea that it did not have to be precisely this scheme that was implemented, as they could consult on others. I am sorry the Government have been unable to accept that. On the basis of everything that has been said today, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Crisp
“Tobacco products statutory scheme: supplementary
(1) The Secretary of State may make any provision he or she considers necessary or expedient for the purpose of enabling or facilitating—(a) the introduction of a statutory scheme of the type mentioned in section (Tobacco products statutory scheme: consultation), or(b) the determination of the provision to be made in a proposed statutory scheme.(2) The provision may, in particular, require any person to whom such a scheme may apply to—(a) record and keep information;(b) provide information to the Secretary of State in electronic form.(3) The Secretary of State must—(a) store electronically the information which is submitted in accordance with this provision;(b) ensure that information submitted in accordance with this provision is made publicly available on a website, taking the need to protect trade secrets duly into account.(4) Where the Secretary of State is preparing to make or vary a statutory scheme, he or she may make any provision he or she considers necessary or expedient for transitional or transitory purposes which could be made by such a scheme.”
“Tobacco products statutory scheme: enforcement
(1) The provisions of this section apply if, following consultation under section (Tobacco products statutory scheme: consultation), legislation is enacted which enables the making of a statutory scheme.(2) Regulations may provide for a person who contravenes any provision of the scheme, including any regulations or directions made under the scheme, to be liable to pay a penalty to the Secretary of State.(3) The penalty may be—(a) a single penalty not exceeding £5 million;(b) a daily penalty not exceeding £500,000 for every day on which the contravention occurs or continues.(4) Regulations may provide for any amount required to be paid to the Secretary of State by virtue of any provision in the scheme reflecting section (Tobacco products statutory scheme: consultation) (4) or (6)(b) to be increased by an amount not exceeding 50 per cent.(5) Regulations may provide for any amount payable to the Secretary of State by virtue of any provision in the scheme reflecting section (Tobacco products statutory scheme: consultation) (3), (4), (5) or (6)(b) (including such an amount as increased under subsection (4) of this section) to carry interest at a rate specified or referred to in the regulations.(6) Provision may be made by regulations for conferring on manufacturers and importers a right of appeal against enforcement decisions taken in respect of them in pursuance of the scheme, section (Tobacco products statutory scheme: consultation), (Tobacco products statutory scheme: supplementary), and this section.(7) The provision which may be made by virtue of subsection (6) includes any provision which may be made by model provisions with respect to appeals under section 6 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, reading—(a) the references in subsections (4) and (5) of that section to enforcement action as references to action taken to implement an enforcement decision, and(b) in subsection (5) of that section, the references to interested persons as references to any persons and the reference to any decision to take enforcement action as a reference to any enforcement decision.(8) In subsections (6) and (7), “enforcement decision” means a decision of the Secretary of State or any other person to—(a) require a specific manufacturer or importer to provide information to him or her,(b) limit, in respect of any specific manufacturer or importer, any price or profit,(c) refuse to give his or her approval to a price increase made by a specific manufacturer or importer, or(d) require a specific manufacturer or importer to pay any amount (including an amount by way of penalty) to him or her,and in this subsection “specific” means specified in the decision.(9) A requirement or prohibition, or a limit, under section (Tobacco products statutory scheme: consultation), may only be enforced under this section and may not be relied on in any proceedings other than proceedings under this section.(10) Subsection (9) does not apply to any action by the Secretary of State to recover as a debt any amount required to be paid to the Secretary of State under section (Tobacco products statutory scheme: consultation) or this section.(11) The Secretary of State may by order increase (or further increase) either of the sums mentioned in subsection (3).”
“Tobacco products statutory scheme: controls: supplementary
(1) The provisions of this section apply if, following consultation under section (Tobacco products statutory scheme: consultation), legislation is enacted which enables the making of a statutory scheme.(2) Any power conferred on the Secretary of State by legislation enacted which enables the making of a statutory scheme, and by section (Tobacco products statutory scheme: supplementary) may be exercised by—(a) making regulations, or(b) giving directions to a specific manufacturer or importer.(3) Regulations under subsection (2)(a) may confer power for the Secretary of State to give directions to a specific manufacturer or importer; and in this subsection “specific” means specified in the direction concerned.(4) In this section and sections (Tobacco products statutory scheme: consultation), (Tobacco products statutory scheme: supplementary) and (Tobacco products statutory scheme: enforcement)—“tobacco product” means a product that can be consumed and consists, even partly, of tobacco;“manufacturer” means any person who manufactures tobacco products;“importer” means any person who imports tobacco products into the United Kingdom with a view to the product being supplied for consumption in the United Kingdom or through the travel retail sector, and contravention of a provision includes a failure to comply with it.”
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
“Appropriate consent to transplantation activities when travelling abroad
(1) Section 32 of the Human Tissue Act 2004 (prohibition of commercial dealings in human material for transplantation) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (6).(2) In subsection (1), after paragraph (e) insert—“(f) travels outside the United Kingdom to a country or part of a country where explicit consent is not required for the legal donation of controlled material which does not meet the criteria in subsection (1A)(a) to (c) and receives any controlled material, for the purpose of transplantation, without—(i) the free, informed and specific consent of a living donor, or(ii) the free, informed and specific consent of the donor’s next of kin, where the donor is unable to provide consent;(g) travels outside the United Kingdom to a country or part of a country where explicit consent is required for the legal donation of controlled material and receives any controlled material for the purpose of transplantation where the material was obtained without—(i) the free, informed and specific consent of a living donor, or(ii) the free, informed and specific consent of the donor’s next of kin, where the donor is unable to provide consent;(h) travels outside the United Kingdom to a country or part of a country and receives any controlled material for the purpose of transplantation for which, in exchange for the removal of controlled material—(i) the living donor, or a third party, receives a financial gain or comparable advantage, or(ii) where the controlled material comes from a deceased donor, a third party receives financial gain or comparable advantage.”(3) After subsection (1) insert—“(1A) The Secretary of State must publish an annual assessment of countries where, explicit consent is not required for the legal donation of controlled material, determining whether each of those countries—(a) provides a formal, publicly funded scheme for opting out of deemed consent for donation of controlled material,(b) provides an effective programme of public education to its population on the deemed consent system and the opt-out scheme which delivers a high level of public understanding of both, and(c) is not considered to be committing Genocide by resolution of the House of Commons.(1B) In paragraph (h) in subsection (1), the expression “financial gain or comparable advantage” does not include compensation for loss of earnings and any other justifiable expenses caused by the removal or by the related medical examinations, or compensation in case of damage which is not inherent to the removal of controlled material.(1C) Subsection (1E) applies if—(a) an act which forms part of an offence under subsection (1) takes place outside the United Kingdom, but(b) the person committing the act has a close connection with the United Kingdom.(1D) For the purposes of subsection (1C)(b), a person has a close connection with the United Kingdom if, and only if, the person was one of the following at the time the acts or omissions concerned were done or made—(a) a British citizen;(b) a British overseas territories citizen;(c) a British National (Overseas);(d) a British Overseas citizen;(e) a person who under the British Nationality Act 1981 was a British subject;(f) a British protected person within the meaning of that Act;(g) an individual ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom;(h) a body incorporated under the law of any part of the United Kingdom;(i) a Scottish partnership.(1E) Where this subsection applies, proceedings for the offence may be taken in any criminal court in England and Wales or Northern Ireland.”(4) In subsection (3), after “subsection (1)” insert “(a) to (e)”.(5) In subsection (4), after “subsection (1)” insert “(a) to (e)”.(6) After subsection (4) insert—“(4A) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1)(f) to (h) shall be liable—(a) on summary conviction—(i) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months,(ii) to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or(iii) to both;(b) on conviction on indictment—(i) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 9 years,(ii) to a fine, or(iii) to both.”(7) In section 34 of the Human Tissue Act 2004 (information about transplant operations), after subsection (2) insert—“(2A) Regulations under subsection (1) must require specified persons to—(a) keep patient identifiable records for all instances of UK citizens who have received transplant procedures performed outside the United Kingdom; and(b) report instances of transplant procedures performed on UK citizens outside the United Kingdom to NHS Blood and Transplant.(2B) Regulations under subsection (1) must require NHS Blood and Transplant to produce an annual report on instances of UK citizens receiving transplant procedures outside the United Kingdom.””Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment is aimed at ensuring that in relation to organ tourism, there must be informed consent with no coercion or financial gain for the donation of organs. Thus prohibiting organ tourism which involves either forced organ harvesting or black market organ trafficking.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, this was debated two weeks ago, but I know that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, wishes to say a few brief words to your Lordships’ House. With the permission of the House, I will say very briefly, without seeking to open the debate, what the amendment does. It is to amend the Human Tissue Act to prohibit UK citizens from travelling to countries such as China, although the wording in the amendment is not country-specific, for the purpose of organ transplantation. The restrictions are based on ensuring that there is appropriate consent, no coercion and no financial gain.
Forced organ harvesting in China is the crime of forcibly extracting organs from prisoners of conscience, killing the victim in the process. The harvested organs are sold to Chinese officials, Chinese nationals or foreigners for transplantation. This is a very modest amendment, doing our bit to try to prevent this obnoxious habit. I beg to move.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for allowing me to say in a few sentences why the Government advise noble Lords not to support the amendment.
Reason number one is the effect on patients. In my submission, very sick patients who may be taken overseas for a transplant but are not fully made aware of how their organ was sourced should not have to face prosecution when they return to the UK. The existing legislation rightly targets those who buy and sell organs, not recipients who may have been quite unaware of any commercial dealing taking place. If we target the organ recipient, we will find that those who legitimately receive organs overseas—incidentally, individuals who are more likely to come from ethnic-minority backgrounds—will be deterred from seeking follow-up treatment for fear of being treated like a criminal suspect.
Reason number two is that the mischief the amendment seeks to address is dwarfed by the considerable burdens it would impose on the NHS. All the information indicates that we are dealing, at worst, with tiny numbers of illegal transplants performed overseas. The amendment would require officials, whose focus should be on promoting legitimate donation, to research and write a report every year on the status of every other deemed consent system in the world and on the public understanding of each scheme. That is not a drafting criticism but a necessary consequence of what the noble Lord seeks to achieve. In my view, it is an unreasonable ask and a hugely disproportionate use of resources.
To address the issue at first base, we will take forward the excellent suggestion from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, to work with NHS Blood and Transplant. My noble friend Lord Kamall has already instructed officials to engage with it on how we can help clinicians make their patients aware of the health risks, the risk that they may be exploiting others and the risk of breaking the law if they travel abroad in search of an illegitimate transplant. I truly think that is a better way forward, and I invite the noble Lord to change his mind about pressing his amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I will not detain the House. It is time for the House to make a decision. I am very grateful to the Minister for picking up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, in relation to NHS Blood and Transplant. In the end, it may be a small gesture but it is an important gesture—a mark against this obnoxious habit. I would like to test the opinion of the House.
“Alcohol labelling
(1) The Secretary of State must, no later than one year after this Act is passed—(a) publish a report on alcohol labelling, assessing which elements should be mandatory on labels to improve consumer knowledge, and this should include, but not be limited to—(i) warning about alcohol harms,(ii) calorific and other nutritional information,(b) lay the report before Parliament, and a Minister of the Crown must arrange to make a statement to each House of Parliament setting out any steps which will be taken to implement the findings of the report.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to publish a report on alcohol labelling to improve consumer knowledge.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, we now come to an amendment on alcohol, and I declare that I chair the Commission on Alcohol Harm. This amendment is designed to get the Government to produce a report on labelling, which is long overdue. Some people in this Chamber have been asking for it for 20 years or so, and nobody can quite understand the delay.
My amendment looks at the feasibility of putting information on labels about the harms and calorie content, and it runs completely in line with the Government’s strategy on trying to do something about obesity across the nation. I know that some people in the alcohol industry have suggested that they would like to put a QR code on, but it seems almost impossible to imagine people going with their mobile phones along a supermarket shelf looking at all these QR codes. If they can put some printing on the QR code, they could put on some printing with proper health information, harms information and calorie information in a way that one can read it in a reasonably sized font.
Alcohol is the leading cause of death and ill-health among 15 to 49 year-olds. It is linked to more than 200 health conditions. Alcohol is highly calorific: two glasses of wine can contain almost the entire daily recommended sugar limit. If you have two glasses of some wines, you will have a calorific intake that is the same as that of a big burger. This is not small numbers of calories.
Currently, the only legal requirements on alcohol labels are alcohol by volume, the volume itself and the common allergens that may be present. This does not match up with other food and drink. Alcohol labels do not list ingredients, calories or other information such as health impacts. There is more information on a bottle of orange juice or a carton of milk than there is on a bottle of wine.
The Government have committed money for the drugs strategy. That is most welcome, but I hope it will not all get diverted into drugs of addiction and that it will actually be used to support alcohol treatment services. We know that, in the last few years, only about one in five dependent drinkers have been able to access treatment services for their alcohol addiction.
The problem for consumers when they start out is that they do not know what they are consuming. They do not realise how calorie-laden the drinks are, and they cannot make informed choices about their health. Nor can they make informed choices about the dangers they pose to others, which includes other people with whom they interact when they are intoxicated as well as the dangers in driving.
Voluntary labelling has failed. We have seen again and again that consumers will not get the information they need on alcohol labels unless it is required in legislation. Seven in 10 people think that the warning should be displayed on alcohol labels as a legal requirement. Even the symbol not to drink in pregnancy is so tiny that it is not getting the message across, and foetal alcohol syndrome featured on the “Today” programme just this morning.
I remind the House that we took forward the Domestic Abuse Act, and one in five people are harmed by other people’s drinking.
As for driving, the road death figures show that problem drinkers are responsible for many of the 2,000 seriously injured or killed each year in alcohol-related crashes. The long-awaited consultation on labelling must also look at lowering the blood alcohol limit to 50 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood, with its potential to reduce fatal alcohol-related crashes by 11%. There is good evidence that those with blood levels between 50 and 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres are six times more likely to be involved in a fatal accident than people who are alcohol free.
The Government’s intention to consult on including more information on alcohol labels is welcome if it is realised, but we have been waiting almost two years for the announced consultation to be launched. During this time, alcohol harm has increased, and deaths from alcohol reached record highs in 2020. Can the Minister tell us when the consultation’s report will be formulated and when it will appear? We cannot leave this unattended to, with consumers not knowing what they are taking whenever they take a drink. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, in moving this amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, has emphasised its importance to improving personal and public health. The amendment requires the Secretary of State to publish a report on alcohol labelling, with the aim of improving consumer knowledge about the contents and potential harms of alcohol products. Surely it is in the interests of consumers for labelling on alcoholic products to meet the standards we have come to expect from food labelling.
The context really matters. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said, alcohol is the leading risk factor contributing to ill health and death for 15 to 49 year-olds, and it is the fifth leading factor across all age groups. Drinking a bottle of wine is, for example, the equivalent of smoking 10 cigarettes, yet a packet of cigarettes must carry a health warning. Surely consumers should be entitled to know how many units of alcohol, how many calories and how much sugar is in a bottle or can. It is very clear that the alcohol industry’s self-regulation has failed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said. Commitments were made a decade ago that labelling would improve in line with Department of Health recommendations, yet that has not happened.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I support what has already been said and the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. I also declare an interest in that I was a member of the commission she so ably chaired.
I have been on this, along with others, for a decade. Back in 2011 we had The Government’s Alcohol Strategy, which was very good but regrettably fell by the wayside. I was heartened back in 2019 when the Government, while they are prepared to give details about sugar and calorific effects on almost anything we eat or drink apart from alcohol, were given cause to think about consulting on extending it to alcohol too.
We had a short debate last autumn with the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, who was then the Minister responsible, on calorie and labelling regulations. I was persuaded not to divide the House on the basis of promises given of change coming. The Minister said:
“I give the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and all those who have expressed concern about the issue this commitment: the Government will be consulting shortly on whether calorie information should be mandated on prepacked alcohol and alcohol served in pubs and restaurants. Covid-19 makes it more important than ever to support the nation to achieve a healthier weight, and the Government are taking action to help people to lead healthier lives.”—[Official Report, 22/7/21; col. 456.]
It is now 2022 and we still have not got the consultation, so the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has posed a fairly simple question.
I think in their heart of hearts the Government know they have to do something on this; it is quite ludicrous that alcohol is out of step with almost all other drinks and food. It is time we brought it into line. Can the Minister please tell us when we are going move on this issue? When are we going to have some definite dates and when will the consultation be concluded?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I too support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. I declare my interest as my wife is a director of Diageo. There is no doubt that mandatory calorie labelling of alcohol is one of the most basic steps we need to take to make this country healthier. We have a moral obligation to give people the information they need to make an informed choice. We must take reasonable steps to prevent illness so that we can keep our spiralling health costs down. We must address the health inequalities the Minister has spoken about so thoughtfully on previous occasions. We should do all we can to nudge drinks companies to bring down the calorie levels of some drinks.
As the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said, these measures have been promised for years. They were made in Tackling obesity: empowering adults and children to live healthier lives, published in July 2020. In October 2020, the then Minister responded to a Written Question, saying:
“we are committed to consult before the end of the year on our intention to make companies provide calorie labelling on all pre-packaged alcohol they sell. The consultation will also cover introducing calorie labelling on alcoholic drinks sold in the out of home sector, for example bought on draught or by the glass.”
The then Minister wrote on June 21 2021:
“We are committed to consult shortly on our intention to make companies provide calorie labelling on all pre-packaged alcohol they sell. The consultation will include further details about the proposed timescale for implementation of the policy.”
In the debate on calorie labelling regulation on 22 July 2021, when alcohol labelling was left off at the last minute by the then Minster, he said—well, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said what the Minister said and I will not repeat it, but it was pretty emphatic.
As the Minister who said and wrote all those words, I ask the current Minister to make the very specific time commitment the amendment seeks.
Lord Vinson (Con)
My Lords, there is a sheer impracticality to this suggestion. Whatever the need to get people to drink less, there is the actual practicality of getting millions of bottles of wine shipped from all over the world pre-packaged with this label stuck on them, quite apart from the number of drinks, as has been mentioned, served in carafes or over the counter freely. This is not the way to tackle the problem. It goes to the heart of people’s freedom of choice. They may be overdoing it, but labelling like this is expensive, impractical and it does not work.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I feel I have to respond immediately to that. I intended to speak anyway, having attached my name to an amendment on alcohol advertising in Committee. I would have attached my name to this amendment both in Committee and on Report, had there been space.
The noble Lord, Lord Vinson, talked about freedom of choice. I do not know how many people know that a bottle of wine can contain anywhere between zero and 59 grams of free sugar per bottle. Surely the public do not have the freedom of choice to decide which wine they consume and which level of sugar they consume.
The noble Lord made a point about the difficulty of labelling. Bottles of wine are shipped to many different countries with labels in different languages. We have computers these days which can cope with these things quite simply and easily. It is clearly not beyond the wit of producers to achieve this.
The Government often like to talk about being world-leading. I point them to an editorial in the Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology titled Shining a light on international alcohol industry lobbying, showing just how powerful this incredibly wealthy industry is in influencing and damaging public health messages around the world. Would the Government not like to be world-leading in standing up against this industry lobbying, in the interests of public health?
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, at the risk of being boring, I am one of those people who has been asking for this for the last 20 years. I started off asking for the number of units of alcohol in a bottle of wine. Every manufacturer of these alcoholic drinks knows exactly what goes into them. On the issue of labelling products from abroad, there are a lot of foodstuffs that come from abroad and they have to abide by British rules on labelling, so why not wine and spirits? It is time we did this. It is terribly important for public health, and I hope the Minister will say yes.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for bringing forward Amendment 163, and thank other noble Lords for outlining their support for or concerns about it. The amendment refers to publishing a report on alcohol labelling to improve consumer knowledge.
Government data comparing pre-pandemic and post-pandemic figures has shown that sales of alcohol increased by some 25%. This is, as we know, a booming market and consumers need to be equipped with the right information to make informed choices. They have a right to know what is in their drinks and decide what and how much to drink. The consultation promised by the Government, with this in mind, remains something of a consultation in long-overdue waiting.
Currently there is no requirement for alcoholic drinks to include health warnings, drinking guidelines, calorie information or even ingredients. As my noble friend Lord Brooke said, this is very much out of step with any other information on what we consume. There is, as always, a balance to be struck between health improvement measures, consumer information and industry regulation, but this amendment supports a necessary move in the right direction and I hope the Minister will agree to it.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, as a doctor and a wine drinker, I have serious concerns about this amendment, particularly, for example, when it comes to the use of fine wine—I think there is broad understanding in the House of what that is—where, in every case, those bottles are labelled with the amount of alcohol. One has to accept that labelling bottles in this way does not change behaviour. We have had committees looking at behaviour change, and the only time we managed to induce behaviour change was with smoking—certainly never with labelling. That is the only time it happened and there were all sorts of reasons for that.
Much of the evidence for alcohol being harmful in minor doses is still dubious and, more importantly, there is real concern that a lot of the so-called evidence is not being put to the real test of whether it makes a difference to behaviour. I must say to the House that I think the noble Lord—I am afraid I do not know his name; my eyes are bad enough not to have been able to see his name on the screen—is right that this is unworkable. It would probably do all sorts of untold damage to what is, for me and no doubt many others, a very fine drink. We need to look seriously at whether we can simply label all bottles.
I just remind the House that there is one amendment that I could have put down. In in vitro fertilisation, embryos are cultured in culture media, which are in fact commercially made and a commercial secret—nobody knows exactly what the composition of those media is. My laboratory is looking at this at the moment. It is really interesting, because some of the products in those culture media may indeed be quite dangerous in terms of epigenetic effects. To me, that seems far more important to regulate than what we are trying to do here with bottles of wine, which is probably not really workable.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, this is an important topic, so let me start with an immediate reassurance to the House, which I hope will enable to the noble Baroness to consider withdrawing the amendment. The amendment calls on the Government to publish a report on alcohol labelling. The Government already plan to report on alcohol labelling, as it is a key part of our overall work on reducing alcohol harm. In no sense do we propose to ignore it and I undertake today that we will report on it. Part of what is taking the time is formulating what the proposals should look like, but I will come on to that.
As part of the Government’s tackling obesity strategy, published in July 2020, we are committed to consulting on whether mandatory calorie labelling should be introduced on all pre-packed alcohol as well as alcoholic drinks sold in the out-of-home sector. In addition, as part of our public consultation, respondents to the consultation will be able to provide suggestions and evidence for additional labelling requirements that they would like the Government to consider, including warning labels and nutritional information. In that sense, the consultation will be even more of a two-way process than perhaps noble Lords might have been expecting. Naturally enough, we make no assumptions in advance about any such proposals; they will have to be looked at on their merits. The consultation will be launched in due course and I can assure noble Lords that the Government will feed back the results to this House. Although, for reasons beyond my control, I have not been able to provide definitive news on the timing of the consultation—much as I would like to—I hope nevertheless that the firm commitment that I have given on the Government’s intention to carry out the consultation and on its scope will have provided the noble Baroness with sufficient reassurance to enable her to question whether she wishes to press her amendment.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I am very grateful to everyone who has spoken and I note the tone with which “in due course” was uttered, which is really disappointing. Some very important points have been made, particularly about people really having the choice to know what they are taking into their bodies in the name of alcoholic drinks. May I assure the noble Lord, Lord Winston, that I really do not believe that fine wines will be sacrificed on the altar of public health? Very few people drink fine wines; most people drink drinks bottled and labelled in this country—the obesogenic effect is really important.
However, I am a realist and I am aware that the chance of this being thrown out when it goes to the other place means that it would not remain in the Bill. I hope the Government will take the message back to the Secretary of State to empower him to grasp the nettle, provide leadership in public health and, for the first time, proceed to make sure that people know what they are drinking and what the harms are—they might prefer to go out with their family and eat a large burger than have two glasses of wine. Given that, and the reality of the situation we are in, we will hold the Government’s feet to the fire over what “in due course” means; I hope it is a very short course. On that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
“Vaccine damage payments
Within 6 months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must establish an independent judge led review into the operation of the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 and the adequacy of payments offered to persons seriously injured, or bereaved, consequent upon vaccination against any of the specified diseases to which the Act applies.”Member’s explanatory statement
The Vaccine Damage Payment Act is now more than 40 years old and the aim of the amendment is to ensure that a judge led review takes place into the operation of the Act.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am speaking to my Amendment 164 but I also strongly associate myself with Amendment 180 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege.
In Committee, I raised concerns about a small number of individuals and families who have paid the highest personal price for the success of the Covid vaccination programme, suffering bereavement or serious injury as a direct consequence of adverse reactions to vaccination. We have the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979, which was intended to provide a safety net for such individuals by providing a modest ex-gratia payment to those injured or bereaved in recognition of the fact that their injuries and losses flowed directly from “doing the right thing” by having the vaccine for the benefit of society as a whole.
The scheme is 40 years old and no longer fit for purpose. The maximum payment is capped at £120,000, which is far too little to provide proper financial support for families who have maybe suffered the death of a main income earner. The current scheme also requires that all eligible applicants in the UK must meet what is called the 60% disablement criterion. This criterion is antiquated, counterproductive and unfair: many applicants could have significant injuries and may be disabled up to 59% and yet, on the basis of the current scheme, they would have no access to funds.
The current system takes far too long to provide the payment. The causal connection between certain injuries and Covid vaccination is now accepted, I believe, by clinicians and regulators. However, despite providing death certificates that identify Covid-19 as a cause of death and medical reports confirming Covid-19 as the cause of injury, the scheme still estimates that it will take more than six months to begin to process claims submitted under the scheme more than 12 months ago.
In Committee—I thank Ministers for another meeting yesterday to discuss this further—the noble Earl explained that responsibility for the operation of the scheme has transferred from the DWP to his department and the NHS Business Services Authority has taken over the operation of the scheme. This is very welcome and I am glad that it has happened. However, this is not an issue that will disappear any time soon—Covid is not an issue that is disappearing. Further vaccinations will come along and there will unfortunately be adverse effects for a very small group of people, in the interest of the greater good.
I believe that the scheme offers too little, too late, to too few and I have three asks of Ministers. First, I ask that Ministers and the NHS Business Services Authority engage with the families affected. It would be valuable if Ministers and senior executives at the NHS Business Services Authority were to meet some of the families. I know that Sarah Moore of Hausfeld will be happy to facilitate this, and I pay tribute to her. Secondly, I ask that everything that can be done is done to speed up the process of meeting claims. Thirdly, on behalf of the families and individuals, I ask the Government to consider undertaking a review of the scheme in the light of current experience and particularly look at the 60% criteria bar and the £120,000 limit which has not been updated for a number of years.
The vaccination programme has been a wonderful success both in this country and globally. It is very unfortunate that inevitably there will be a small group of people damaged in the process. I think we owe it to them to have a generous scheme. I beg to move.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con)
My Lords, my amendment is grouped with the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, whose persistence I admire concerning those who have suffered vaccine damage. My amendment is slightly different, but it is along the same lines in that it is about unintentional outcomes and redress for those who have suffered.
My amendment requires the Secretary of State to bring forward proposals for redress schemes to help those who have suffered avoidable harm linked to the three medical interventions that were examined in the report from the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review, which I chaired. These are hormone pregnancy tests—the most common being Primodos—the epilepsy drug sodium valproate and pelvic mesh, which was used to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse.
I will be brief, but I make no apology for bringing this before your Lordships’ House again because the case for these schemes is so compelling. These are people who, through no fault of their own, have suffered terribly and had their lives changed for the worse and in some cases completely ruined—all because of mistakes, errors of judgment, oversights and a refusal to listen across the healthcare system. In each case—Primodos, valproate and mesh—harm could and should have been avoided. If that does not underline the moral and ethical case for providing some help, then I really do not know what does.
I believe that my noble friend the Minister and his colleagues are genuinely sympathetic to the plight of these women and their children, but I sense that they are hesitant. I urge them to overcome some of this reluctance and act now. The suffering is immense, it is continuing even today, and very sadly people are dying before they receive the help they need. I remind my noble friend that these redress schemes are not the same as compensation. We are not talking about large sums of money. We are talking only about modest funds to help with the challenges of daily life: to pay for mobility aids, a respite break, travel to hospital. This is help that they do not and cannot access at the moment from the NHS, social services or elsewhere.
In Scotland, the Government there have acted. A scheme was set up to provide help to women suffering from mesh complications. It is modest: it was given a £1 million budget and women had to apply to it to be eligible. But it was welcomed, and it has helped. That is the kind of help I have in mind. Sums of that scale are barely noticeable in the context of the hundreds of billions we spend on health and social care, yet these small sums would mean so much to so many.
Are there concerns that this might set a precedent and that before we know it dozens of other groups of people who have suffered will all want the same? I do not believe so. That has not happened in Scotland. Thalidomide did not lead to an avalanche of other groups requiring help. We have existing schemes to help others who have been harmed. If the Government really believe that compensation is the better way for these people to get help, they are mistaken. The fact is that many have tried to obtain compensation through the courts. It is time-consuming, costly, stressful, adversarial and, worst of all, it simply has not worked.
The three groups that Amendment 180 is designed to help are small in number—not millions of people, not hundreds of thousands. I do not believe that an unwelcome precedent would be set. I do not believe that these schemes would cost the earth. The cost would be modest and can be contained and managed. I believe the benefits will outweigh the cost and that we have a moral and ethical duty to help these people. They have suffered for years and in some cases for decades. Surely the measure of a decent society is how well it looks after those who have suffered harm, especially where that harm could and should have been avoided.
I have met hundreds of people who have suffered; even today I get a lot of emails, phone calls and letters. We have heard from many more people. I am clear that help is both needed and deserved. People should not be made to wait any longer. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will agree.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Geddes) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. I invite the noble Baroness to speak.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I speak from these Benches to support both amendments in this group. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, introduced his Amendment 164 on vaccine damage payments, explaining that the current law as set out in the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 is now over 40 years old. The amendment asks for a judge-led review on what parts of the Act need to be updated, especially the maximum payable as a result of vaccine damage.
The amendment proposes a small and focused review that will assist those who have been damaged by vaccines and will help the NHS, Government and Parliament ensure that the legislation is fit for purpose in the 21st century, especially for the families of those damaged by the Covid vaccine and of the very few who died. They may be an infinitesimally small percentage of those who have been vaccinated but their lives have been turned upside down because of doing the right thing.
Amendment 180 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, is an important pillar of delivering the recommendations from her First Do No Harm review, which outlined routes to assist those who had been harmed by an avoidable harm as a result of using certain HPTs, sodium valproate or pelvic mesh. The victims of this avoidable harm are not to blame for it either, but are living out the consequences, including needing additional care for the rest of their lives. I know that the Government have been very supportive of the First Do No Harm review. I hope that they can be persuaded that now is the time to introduce schemes that will help these people. While I fear that there may not be movement on these two amendments today, I hope that the Minister can outline when there is likely to be progress on these two financially modest but essential areas that could right some long-term wrongs.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend has returned with his amendment on the need for an expert-led review on the 40 year-old Vaccine Damage Payments Act, and I am pleased that the meeting he sought with the Ministers has taken place. The amendment is a timely reminder for all of us that while the vaccination programme against Covid has been hugely successful, for a small group of people suffering very serious adverse effects and deteriorating health as a result of having the vaccination, the experience has been devastating, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, underlined. The current legislation dealing with compensation arrangements is not fit for purpose: in the words of my noble friend, it offers too little, too late and to too few people. I hope the Minister acknowledges the need to meet and engage with the families of those affected, and that he looks urgently at the ways in which claims under the current system can be speeded up, and he also accepts the need for the review of the scheme and the next steps that have to be taken on this.
My noble friend has also added his name to Amendment 180 from the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, on her unrelenting campaign for separate compensation schemes to meet the cost of care and support for the victims highlighted in her First Do No Harm report. Once again, we have heard convincing and forceful contributions from the noble Baronesses, Lady Cumberlege and Lady Brinton, which we on these Benches strongly support, calling for an independent redress agency for the three patient groups covered by the First Do No Harm report. The Government’s positive response to another key aspect of the First Do No Harm report, to improve patient safety for the future, including establishing the patient safety commissioner, is a welcome and necessary development. But the redress agency needs to be there to provide care and support for the thousands of women who suffered, and whose needs will not be met by the healthcare system, social care support or social security benefits support.
I hope the Minister has considered the matter carefully since Committee, and will report positively to the House on the ongoing discussions and progress which will ensure the strongest recompense possible for the people we are concerned about.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I will turn first, if I may, to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, on the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme, and start by thanking him for his campaigning on this issue, and for the informative debates we have had today and in Committee.
As we discussed in Committee, since the NHS Business Services Authority took over responsibility for the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme from the Department for Work and Pensions in November 2021, we have started to find ways to improve the operation of the scheme. The most important thing the NHS Business Services Authority is looking do to is to improve the claimant journey on the scheme, and that means making engagements with claimants more personalised, as well as giving claimants access to more general support. The crucial part of this drive is to reduce response times, which the authority knows has been a cause of dissatisfaction, particularly during Covid; in other words, the whole process is being modernised.
The NHS Business Services Authority has done its best to hit the ground running. Since taking over in November, it has already contacted all applicants to update them on their cases and it has also allocated additional resource to the operation of the scheme. I can assure the noble Lord that the department will further engage with the NHS Business Services Authority to ensure that these service improvements, greater digitisation in particular, really do make headway. There is already regular dialogue on this.
With all this enhanced activity happening, I do not think this is right time to establish an independent review into the VDPS. As the noble Lord will know, reviews take significant time and they carry substantial costs to the organisation, not just financial but in terms of leadership focus and energy. Instead, we think it is a better use of resources to focus on making the changes that we know need to happen; that is, to improve the claimant’s journey, and to modernise the process for claimants, as well as scaling up the capacity of the VDPS. We will keep the progress on these under regular scrutiny, and I am sure we will report regularly to this House as we do so.
I will address the noble Lord’s three key questions. First, I should be happy to facilitate a meeting with representatives of the families, and my honourable friend Maria Caulfield, who is the Minister with direct responsibility for the scheme, will be pleased to see them. Secondly, as I have already indicated, reducing response times is one of the NHS Business Services Authority’s key objectives. Thirdly, the noble Lord asked whether the Government would undertake a review of the scheme. I simply remind the noble Lord that the scheme has been revised many times since its inception, which shows that it is reviewed regularly as a matter of course, but perhaps it is worth my making the point that the VDPS is not a compensation scheme; nor is it designed to cover all expenses associated with severe disablement, which are catered for from the public purse in other ways. I hope that is helpful to the noble Lord, and that on the basis of those assurances he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Before I address the detail of Amendment 180, I would like to again put on record my thanks to my noble friend Lady Cumberlege for her continued commitment to the issues she has so powerfully spoken about, and the diligence and dedication of the IMMDS team, and the brave testimonies of those who contributed to the IMMDS review. As my noble friend knows, the Government have accepted the majority of the report’s nine strategic recommendations and 50 actions for improvement, and are taking forward work to improve patient safety. This includes establishing specialist mesh removal centres, the ninth of which opens in Bristol this month, and work to improve the care pathways for children and families affected by medicines during pregnancy.
We remain committed to delivering improvements in patient safety across the board. We are focusing government funds on initiatives that directly improve future safety. For this reason, the Government have already published their decision that redress schemes will not be established for people affected by hormone pregnancy tests, sodium valproate or pelvic mesh. I realise that was a disappointing decision for my noble friend, and I am always very sorry to disappoint her, but, for the reasons I have given, I ask her not to move Amendment 180 when it is reached.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and my noble friend Lady Wheeler for their support. I empathise with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and her report, which was far-reaching. Having met some of the women who were affected, I know how keenly the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, feels about these issues. It is disappointing that the Government have rejected this particular request, although they have accepted many of her recommendations. It leaves the groups of women whom we have met to continue with their long, hard campaign, but they will continue, and one day a Government will agree to give them some of the support that they deserve.
On my own amendment, I pay tribute to the work of the NHS Business Services Authority. I am very glad that it took over responsibility for the scheme, and I wish it well in speeding up the process of claims. I am grateful to the noble Earl for facilitating a meeting between representatives of the families and the Minister—that is very welcome indeed. All I would say is that as the Business Services Authority continues its work, it is bound to come across issues in relation to the operation of the scheme, and I hope the Government will reflect on that and look at further improvements to the scheme. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
“Secretary of State: Duty to promote and ensure the full integration of self care for minor ailments within the health system
(1) The Secretary of State, in exercise of his or her functions, must promote self care for minor ailments and prepare a national self care strategy to integrate self care fully into the wider health system.(2) The national self care strategy referred to in subsection (1) must include measures to—(a) improve inequalities in health literacy,(b) enhance the understanding of primary and secondary age children on how to self care,(c) introduce self care modules in healthcare professionals’ training curricula and continuing professional development,(d) make best use of, and expand, the Community Pharmacist Consultation Service,(e) improve access to effective self care treatments,(f) enable community pharmacists to refer people directly to other healthcare professionals,(g) ensure better support for Primary Care Networks (PCNs) to deliver self care,(h) evaluate the use of technologies developed during the COVID-19 pandemic to promote greater self care, and(i) accelerate efforts to enable community pharmacists to populate medical records.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State promotes self care for minor ailments and publishes a national self care strategy to fully integrate it into the wider health system.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 165 requires the Secretary of State to
“promote self care for minor ailments and prepare a national self care strategy”.
I hope that Ministers will just agree to this, without very much debate.
Self-care is defined as
“the actions individuals take for themselves, on behalf of and with others, to develop, protect, maintain and improve their health.”
It is an important but often overlooked part of the primary care pathway.
Given all the pressures that there are on the health service and that there are going to be over the next 30 to 40 years, surely we should do everything we can to encourage self-help for minor ailments. During Covid, the importance of self-care in reducing the burden on GPs and A&E became very self-evident. Since the outbreak started, people with minor ailments were not able to visit their GP in the traditional manner and learned, or at least practised, self-help behaviours instead. A survey carried out by PAGB, the consumer healthcare association, during the first national lockdown indicated that the pandemic has had an impact on people’s attitudes to self-care. Some 69% of people who would not have considered practising self-care prior to the pandemic said that they were more likely to do so after their experience of lockdown.
Interestingly, if the Government were prepared to run with this strategy, there are all sorts of behaviours that they could start to encourage. They could ensure that individuals understand or are willing to practise self-care; ensure a cultural shift among healthcare professionals toward well-being, enabling people to self-care; ensure that the system is supported to encourage self-care where appropriate, with pharmacies, of course, playing a big role in that; encourage the use of digital technology; enhance the national curriculum on self-care for schoolchildren; and introduce self-care modules in healthcare professionals’ training curriculum.
I come back to the point that the Minister and noble Lords know that the health service is currently under huge pressure, not just because of the backlog. Already before the pandemic, the health service was really struggling to meet its targets. The demographics, the growing older population and all these factors suggest that the NHS will struggle hugely to cope with the pressure on it over the next 20, 30 and 40 years. Surely some part of the strategy to deal with this is to encourage all of us not just to look after our own health more but, where we can, to self-help. I would have thought that message would have been accepted with alacrity on the Government Front Bench. I hope the Minister will be able to say that this is very much taken to heart and that the Government really will start to drive the new strategy. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support Amendment 165, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and thank him for putting it forward. Self-care has an important role to play in supporting people to manage their own health needs, and also in alleviating an unsustainable demand on GP and A&E services. As the noble Lord described, prior to the coronavirus pandemic there were some 18 million GP appointments and 3.7 million visits to A&E every year for conditions which people could have looked after themselves or sought advice from a pharmacist. It is estimated that this was costing the NHS in the region of £1.5 billion a year.
During the coronavirus, again as the noble Lord described, surveys have shown a much greater willingness among members of the public to self-care for these self-treatable conditions. But it is vital that appropriate policies are put in place to ensure that, as we emerge from the pandemic, people who can self-care continue to do so. It is evident now that self-care can help address many of the challenges we face in the NHS today, but to do so we need to address some of the system barriers to self-care, as described in this amendment, and unlock the important behavioural shifts that enabled people to self-care during the pandemic.
In particular, I will highlight how the NHS can make much better use of digital technologies and community pharmacists to enable people to self-care. We need to make better use of the technologies that the NHS has embraced over the course of the pandemic, such as the Covid-19 symptom checker on the NHS website. The digital triaging technology should be used to support the expansion of the community pharmacist consultation service to enable people to follow an algorithm online to get a referral for a consultation with a local pharmacist. It is critical, if we are to optimise the role of pharmacists—I am a big supporter of community pharmacists—that we give them the digital tools and information they need to support people. At present, a pharmacist cannot routinely record the advice or medication they give people, despite receiving training. The NHS must address the question of interoperability in IT systems, so that pharmacists can have access to read and to input into people’s medical records and enable pharmacists to be a core part of an individual’s primary healthcare team.
6.15 pm
The pandemic has highlighted how quickly the NHS and patients can adopt technological and digital changes. Realising the Potential: Developing a Blueprint for a Self Care Strategy for England, a document launched last October, is an excellent blueprint for this. A whole range of organisations, including NHS clinical commissioners, the RCN, pharmacy organisations, the Self Care Forum and, of course, the PAGB, have worked together to develop this blueprint for a comprehensive national self-care strategy to support the introduction of self-care policies throughout the NHS in England. It contains policy proposals and case studies, in particular in relation to digital technologies, which set out how the NHS can fully embed self-care and pharmacy into primary care.
I hope the Minister today will outline how the Government are ensuring that the NHS can adopt these proposals, which learn from the pandemic, and will expand them to support individuals to enable self-care.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, we had a good debate in Committee on the issue of self-care and the management of health conditions, particularly on its importance as a key part of the primary care pathway. This was underlined in diabetes care and, as I also emphasised, in the care and treatment of people with rare diseases, most of whom are living with lifelong conditions. As vice-chair of the Specialised Healthcare Alliance of charities supporting this key group of patients, I know that they often do not feel sufficiently supported in terms of care and support and health and system information, and with physical and daily living.
As the two noble Lords have stressed, the Health Foundation’s research on the effective self-management by patients has shown a significant reduction in the need for emergency admissions to hospital and in A&E attendances, and fewer GP appointments. In this context, Amendment 165 makes a great deal of sense. If patients with, for example, rare diseases receive appropriate support to manage their less intensive care needs, then promoting self-care has the potential to help them prevent their conditions from deteriorating, to improve their lives and to reduce demands on the NHS, as the noble Lords have stressed.
We therefore strongly support the need for the development of a national self-care strategy, starting with awareness raising among primary and secondary children on how to self-care, and with appropriate staff and management training of healthcare professionals. Improved technologies, as underlined by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, especially those developed during the pandemic, will have a key role in broadening access to effective self-care and ensuring the better support from primary and community pharmacists that we all want to see. I hope the Minister will respond positively to this amendment.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for bringing forward a debate on this issue. I reassure him and other noble Lords that the Government absolutely agree that supporting people to maintain their health and well-being and to manage self-treatable conditions is a vital part of delivering a comprehensive health service. Indeed, much of what the amendment seeks to achieve is already government policy. However, I do not agree that requiring the Secretary of State to prepare a single national strategy would add value. Instead, we are threading self-care through a wide range of work, reflecting the range of areas that it impacts upon.
A good deal of work is already under way. The community pharmacy contractual framework for 2019 to 2024 five-year deal sets out how community pharmacy will support the NHS long-term plan. Community pharmacies, which provide easy access to the NHS, are already required to support patient self-care, signpost to other parts of the NHS and local services as necessary, and help people to live healthily.
I am especially aware of the interest the Proprietary Association of Great Britain has shown in this area. The Department of Health and Social Care officials have met with it to discuss its blueprint for a self-care strategy in England and will continue to engage with it about further supporting self-care throughout our healthcare system.
We do not think placing an additional duty on the Secretary of State would be the right way to support this work, as it would take it out of the NHS long-term plan, where it belongs as part of a holistic approach to the provision of a health service. It could risk making it more disjointed rather than integrated in its approach, but noble Lords made a really important point about demand on our health service and the role that self-care has in this. Prevention was a key theme of a speech by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State last week and, clearly, elements of self-care and prevention go hand in hand with each other, particularly in the use of new technology.
Noble Lords also made an important point about how we can use self-care, particularly at community pharmacies, to reduce pressure on GPs and A&E departments. All community pharmacies are required, as I said, to provide support for self-care. To ensure that people get directed to the right support for their health needs, we have introduced referral systems from NHS 111 and GPs to pharmacies for advice and treatment for minor illnesses. We are also exploring expanding referrals from other settings, including urgent treatment centres and A&E to community pharmacies.
I hope that gives noble Lords some reassurance that we place an importance on self-care, as part of our health service. That will only increase in future and work is under way in multiple areas of the health service to do that. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord is able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and my noble friend Lady Wheeler for their support, and to the Minister. I am glad to hear her recognition of the importance of community pharmacy, and about the meetings between officials and the PAGB. That is very welcome.
I agree that the interrelationship between self-care and prevention is important—as is, may I say, personal responsibility. I also agree that the pressure we face in the system is such that this is important for the future. The Government may not want a strategy but, at some point, setting out their aim in this area and giving the right signals to us as individuals, but also to the system, would be very helpful. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Moylan
“Guidance on Pancreatic Enzyme Replacement Therapy
(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of this Act being passed, publish national guidance making the appropriate prescription of Pancreatic Enzyme Replacement Therapy a priority within pancreatic cancer care in the NHS through the implementation of national targets.(2) The Secretary of State must, within a year of this Act being passed and every year thereafter, publish data on the prescription of Pancreatic Enzyme Replacement Therapy for pancreatic cancer patients.”
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, pancreatic cancer is a terrible disease, as noble Lords know: 10,500 people in the UK a year are diagnosed with it, 9,000 people a year die from it and five-year survival rates in the UK rank us 29th out of 33 countries with comparable data. The Government recognise that this is not good enough, so they are commissioning an audit of existing services as a first step to improvement. That is wholly welcome but it is turning out to be a very slow business, with the first data expected in 2023 and no timetable for action to follow.
Amendment 167 in my name is intended to add a sense of urgency to that. I am grateful for the support it has received from the noble Lords, Lord Aberdare and Lord Patel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock. However, I turn my attention this evening principally to Amendment 166 in my name, which is also supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. It relates to improving the treatment of those diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and can be delivered immediately.
The end-of-life experience of pancreatic cancer sufferers includes huge difficulties in eating and digesting food, because of the lack of an enzyme normally produced by a healthy pancreas. Pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy, or PERT, is a simple tablet costing only £7 a day. It is fully approved by NICE and allows sufferers to eat, but it reaches only about 50% of pancreatic cancer sufferers. Why is that? The truth is that we do not know exactly and, pending the audit, may not be able to say exactly. But a likely reason is that diagnosis of pancreatic cancer occurs so late because the symptoms present so late that a prompt decision has to be made about those who might be saved by surgery and those for whom nothing can be done. The former go to specialists, who tend to be aware of PERT and prescribe it. The latter, on the whole, move into more general palliative settings, where it seems that knowledge and understanding of PERT is less widespread.
Amendment 166 obliges the Government to make increasing prescription rates for PERT a national priority, without waiting for the outcome of the current audit. It was tabled in Committee and got a somewhat dusty answer from the Government Front Bench, hence its return today. To say that emphasising PERT should await the outcome of the audit would be to condemn literally tens of thousands of people to unnecessary suffering at end of life so I think these amendments, especially Amendment 166, will find general support across the House. Happily, I understand that my noble friend the Minister will be able to offer certain assurances when he speaks that would make any such Division unnecessary.
Before I conclude, there is one extra step that the Government could make early progress on that would be welcome. It is in disaggregating the data about the prescription of PERT, which can be prescribed for conditions other than pancreatic cancer. While the Government and the National Health Service are able to point to figures showing slowly increasing PERT prescription rates, what they cannot do at the moment is to say whether it is being prescribed for pancreatic cancer or some other condition. Disaggregating that data will be an important job for the Government to do, even to make progress with their own audit. Some comments on that today would also be welcome so, for the moment, I beg to move.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, I am pleased to speak in support of Amendments 166 and 167 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, addressing pancreatic cancer, to which I have added my name. I shall be brief as he has already made the case for these amendments so strongly. Both amendments include deadlines: for guidance on pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy to be published within six months; for data on PERT prescription to be published within a year, and yearly thereafter; and for a report on the audit of pancreatic cancer services to be laid before Parliament within six months and updated six-monthly. The reason for these deadlines comes down to a single word: urgency.
On average, pancreatic cancer sufferers live for only six months following diagnosis and more than half of the 10,000 a year will die within three months. That is hardly enough time for them to say proper goodbyes to their family and close friends, let alone to put their financial and other affairs in order, so the usual government timescales of “in due course” or even “shortly” are nowhere near fast enough for action to improve their treatment. I hope we may hear something more encouraging from the Minister.
Some such improvements may help extend their lives, even if only by a matter of months, but others equally important, such as PERT, may make a significant difference to the quality of the time remaining to them, however short. PERT enables pancreatic sufferers to digest their food; in some cases, it may even help them to gain the strength needed to undergo life-saving surgery. It is recommended by NICE and widely available. It costs just £7 a day per patient. I find it shocking that, as the noble Lord told us, half of patients who need PERT are not being prescribed it, mainly because of lack of awareness among non-specialist staff. Surely the Government can and should investigate and address this with urgency, as required by Amendment 166.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I was glad to have been able to put my name to Amendment 166 about PERT. In this Bill, the Government have introduced a milestone in changing the care of people who are facing serious illness at the end of life.
The reality, as we have already heard, is that the majority of patients with pancreatic cancer are diagnosed late, because it comes in the head of the pancreas. The pancreas has two parts—the head and the tail. But, because it can grow without causing much pain in the initial stages, it often goes undetected until it is fairly advanced. That means the outlook is poor. The other thing it does, as it grows, is block off the flow of enzymes into the gut. Without replacement, these patients get a malabsorption syndrome; they can get terrible diarrhoea and muscle wasting, because they are not absorbing the nutrients they need.
This amendment is very important. It could quite easily build on the network that will now be in place to commission specialist palliative care services. The move the Government have made has been welcomed across palliative care in this country and is being seen as a way to dramatically change the care of patients. With data information flows now integrated and networked across the NHS, we will be able to get accurate data on how many patients with pancreatic cancer are getting replacement therapy when they need it. Some people do not need it; some need it later on. This is part of building on the important foundation the Government have laid. It was that which persuaded me to put my name to Amendment 166.
Another point I would like to make is about improving things for the lowest quartile of the population. Incidence of pancreatic cancer is highest in the most deprived areas and it is higher in women than in men. Part of levelling up, to help people to live well for as long as they can, is making sure they get the enzyme replacement they need.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I have in my hands the latest cancer waiting time figures. It is very unfortunate that, despite the hard work of NHS staff, every single metric was worse in January than in December. It therefore seems a great pity that not all patients who have a diagnosis of this dreadful disease of pancreatic cancer can get this medicine, which can improve and even extend their lives.
I well remember a senior, well-loved and well-respected Member of the Labour Benches who died of this dreadful disease. We lost him far too early, because this disease takes people very quickly. Anything at all the Minister can say to encourage us that this effective and approved medicine can be made fully available to everybody who needs it—depending on the conditions, as outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay—would be helpful.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, can I say how much I support this suite of amendments? I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for tabling and speaking to them. This most lethal of killers has been defying science—or we at least have not had enough investment in the science—for many years. This means the survival rate is still not as it should be and as it is for other cancers. Anything that pushes the NHS and research community to tackle this and to set the targets that are needed to do so is very welcome. I look forward to what the Minister has to say.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
I thank noble Lords for bringing forward this further debate on the subject of pancreatic cancer services. I begin by confirming that the pancreatic cancer audit is included in the national cancer audit collaborating centre tender, which is currently live. Reporting timelines are included in the specification for this audit, developed in partnership with NHS England and NHS Improvement. However, I hope noble Lords will understand that, during a live tender, the document is commercially sensitive and cannot be shared beyond the commissioning team, as this would risk jeopardising the procurement process. While I recognise that it may be disappointing that I am unable to confirm the timeline for the pancreatic cancer audit until the procurement process is completed, I can say that the future contract to follow the procurement process in relation to the clinical audits is anticipated to start this autumn.
The normal process for a new national audit is a year of development and set-up, followed by data collection and analysis. The publication of the data would then follow. However, on a more positive note—and I hope my noble friend Lord Moylan considers this response less dusty—I can confirm that, alongside the audit of cancer services, important actions are being taken to ensure that clinicians are able to take informed decisions. NHS England and NHS Improvement have ensured that guidance on pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy is shared with cancer alliances to disseminate to clinical teams in their area. NHS England and NHS Improvement will also continue to work with Pancreatic Cancer UK to raise awareness among the clinical community about the value of PERT for many patients with pancreatic cancer.
Noble Lords will be aware that NICE has a clinical guideline, NG85, recommending that PERT should be offered to patients with inoperable pancreatic cancer, and that NICE has also included PERT in its quality standard on pancreatic cancer. NICE clinical guidelines are developed by experts based on a thorough assessment of the available evidence, but they do not replace the judgment of healthcare professionals. They are not mandatory, but they represent best practice. The NHS is expected to take them fully into account in ensuring that services meet the needs of patients. Ultimately, the use of PERT in individual cases is for clinical decision-making, following a discussion between doctor and patient. As such, national targets would not be appropriate.
My noble friend asked another question on data. PERT prescription data is already published online through the English prescribing dataset. This shows that levels of prescription have been rising. The data does not currently differentiate between prescription for pancreatic cancer patients and for people with other conditions. However, NHS England and NHS Improvement will consider PERT prescription data during the scoping of the pancreatic cancer audit.
I end by thanking my noble friend Lord Moylan for his constructive engagement and for pushing the Government on this. But I hope that the reassurances I have given are sufficient to persuade him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to noble Lords who have spoken, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, Lady Walmsley and Lady Thornton. I know that support for the principle behind these amendments is widespread throughout the House. The Minister has also taken that on board, and I am grateful to him not only for his engagement before this short debate but for the words he uttered from the Dispatch Box. He will be in no doubt that noble Lords will be paying attention to these prescribing rates in the future, carefully following what is happening, monitoring and asking questions to ensure that the information is getting to clinicians and that the medicines are getting to the patients who will benefit from them.
Before I sit down, I want to say a word of thanks to the excellent charity Pancreatic Cancer UK, with which I have worked on this and which I know also works with officials at the department to improve treatment for pancreatic cancer patients. I will test my licence a little further by saying that it is not only pancreatic cancer; there are also conditions such as bile duct cancer, which are just as devastating and which we, as a nation and a National Health Service, need to bring to the fore so that people get better treatment, better care and early diagnosis. We really can do this.
With that, I express gratitude to my noble friend the Minister and the other noble Lords who have spoken. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, I inform the House that the noble Baronesses, Lady Masham of Ilton and Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, will take part in the following debate remotely.
Amendment 170
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
“Assisted dying
(1) The Secretary of State must, within the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a draft Bill to permit terminally ill, mentally competent adults legally to end their own lives with medical assistance.(2) In preparing the draft Bill and any accompanying documents and in making arrangements to lay them before Parliament, the Secretary of State must take account of the need—(a) to respect that this is a matter of conscience, and(b) to enable Parliament to consider the issue.”
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, we are on Report and I know that a number of colleagues have engagements and want to see this matter resolved as speedily as possible, so I will be brief and stick to the substance of my amendment.
This amendment has nothing whatever to do with the rights and wrongs of assisted dying, and I apologise to colleagues who have received many letters and emails urging them to vote against it from people who have been told that it does. The amendment would simply enable a Private Member’s Bill on assisted dying to be properly considered by Parliament at a time when the courts and the vast majority of the public are crying out for this to be done.
Time and again, private Members’ legislation on assisted dying is destroyed in Committee after enjoying strong support at Second Reading. The Bill from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and, most recently, the Bill from the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, suffered this fate. The noble Baroness’s Bill was subject to more than 200 amendments, many of them tabled by Members who expressed complete opposition in principle to it at its Second Reading. It is hard to escape the conclusion that their purpose was to ensure that the Bill ran out of time. They succeeded; it is dead. A particularly egregious example was an amendment requiring a terminally ill person to give 12 months’ notice of a diagnosis of having only six months to live. You do not need to take my word for it that some people are using these tactics, which are deliberately intended to subvert the democratic process and prevent Parliament coming to a considered view.
This is what Care Not Killing, as it calls itself, had to say in an email sent to its supporters on 24 January 2022 at 6.29 pm about new subsection (2), proposed by my amendment, which would require the Secretary of State to treat this issue as “a matter of conscience” and enable Parliament to consider it:
“It must be opposed because”—
horror of horrors—
“point 2 would force the Government to give parliamentary time and prevent it from instructing its MPs on which way to vote.”
It goes on:
“This in turn would open the way for MPs and Peers to pass a new law.”
How shocking that that should be allowed to happen.
I regret to say that, even though the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats are rightly allowing a free vote on this amendment, the Government are instructing colleagues to vote against it—despite my offer to the Front Bench to withdraw it in return for an undertaking to provide time in future for a Private Member’s Bill to allow Parliament to reach a considered view. Everyone knows that Private Members’ Bills, unless they are government handouts or are utterly uncontroversial, have little chance of clearing the parliamentary hurdles unless they are given government time and assistance. It is fatuous for the Government to say that they are neutral on assisted dying while, at the same time, refusing to allow time for it to be considered. Without government time for private Members’ legislation, many controversial and important social reforms, such as the decriminalisation of homosexuality or the abolition of the death penalty, would never have reached the statute book. Passing by on the other side is not neutrality. It is a failure to come to the aid of the democratic process on an issue of the highest importance.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, is taking part remotely. I invite her to speak.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB) [V]
My Lords, many people are fearful and dismayed about the disastrous, inhuman situation in Ukraine. The threat of a nuclear attack and a third world war frightens many people. Added to this, many disabled and elderly people here in the UK are also frightened. Many vulnerable people feel that, if the assisted dying law is changed, they could be pressured into assisted dying because they feel that they are a nuisance and because they need looking after. Whatever the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, says, this Bill should be about care, not killing. There should be compassion and palliative care for all those people who need it.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. I invite the noble Baroness to speak.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has introduced his amendment very clearly, so I will be brief and say that I will also support him if he chooses to call a Division.
The majority of the British public support the legalisation of assisted dying. In a Populus poll of more than 5,000 people in 2019, 84% of respondents said they supported giving dying people the right to an assisted death. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has managed to praise the Scottish Parliament system that has enabled my colleague Liam McArthur to have time for his Bill in its Parliament.
As the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has said, it is important to note that the amendment would not actually change the law on assisted dying. What it would do is to ensure that some proper parliamentary time is made available, as in Scotland, within 12 months of the Bill passing into law, to ensure that there can be a planned and proper debate with the wider public and with MPs and Peers that is just not possible in the Private Members’ Bill process that we have in our Parliament.
It is important to note that the amendment does not require government to support the legislation through Parliament, merely to ask for the time, and that this procedure has happened before with Section 16 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. I hope that the Minister will change the Government’s mind on this so that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, does not have to call a Division.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, is taking part remotely. I invite the noble Lord to speak.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, in moving this proposed new clause, superficially so bland, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, beckons us along a path which leads towards constitutional and moral anarchy.
What is dangerous constitutionally about this amendment is that it would undermine the way we do parliamentary government. Forcing the Government to lay a Bill before Parliament and to enable Parliament to consider the issue, as the proposed new clause requires, would be a coup. This Back-Bench amendment would usurp control of the parliamentary agenda from the democratically elected Government. In the last Parliament we saw Back-Bench MPs, with the collusion of Mr Speaker Bercow, contriving to set aside Standing Order 14(1), which gives precedence to business tabled by the Government, in order to substitute their own agenda on Brexit. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, was very much opposed to that.
Parliament proceeds by precedence, and these are dangerous new precedents, as any noble Lord who sees their party as a party of government must surely agree. While it is for Parliament to interrogate government and hold it to account, it is not for Parliament to claim for itself the role of the Government. Parliament is incapable of governing and it should not dictate the parliamentary programme. If Parliament makes exceptions to that principle to gratify a faction of its Members in either House, and if the principle that it may do so becomes established through reiteration so that the Government no longer control the legislative agenda, the ability of Governments to govern will suffer. Our system of parliamentary government is battered and unsteady as it is; we should not injure it further.
The moral anarchy that lurks in this new clause is that it would legitimise in a new way the taking of human life by other human beings. I readily acknowledge that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and other proponents of what they call assisted dying are motivated by compassion and kind intentions. I profoundly believe, however, that their approach misreads human nature and that legislation to permit assisted suicide would create more suffering than it would alleviate. The offspring of this compassion would be a coarsening of our society and a diminution of the value we place upon life.
Some people make a moral case for assisted suicide on the basis of personal autonomy. I understand the appeal: I want, or I think I would want, such choice and control for myself at the end of my life. But that is not a good enough argument. Our responsibility is not just to ourselves, or even to those individuals we love the most, but to our community. For a community to be healthy, it must have norms. It has been a norm in our culture to place an especial value on human life. We reaffirmed that value when we abolished capital punishment. Since then, we have subjected our society to decades of laissez-faire ideology and chaotic individualism, and among the consequences of that have been a dissolution of community bonds and new harshnesses.
If we continue to dissolve our traditional norms, we are at risk that there really will be no such thing as society. As we look at our society now, at lethal child abuse and domestic abuse, at murderous assaults on women, as we look across the world at the millions consigned to death in the pandemic by the refusal of rich countries, including our own, to share intellectual property and technology to enable poorer countries to have vaccines, and as we witness increase discriminate mass killing in Ukraine and Yemen and genocide in Xinjiang, do we really think we should be preparing to sanction a new class of killing?
The new clause requires that a vote in Parliament on the intended legislation must be a matter of conscience. Let us examine our consciences very carefully indeed as we consider the proposal the noble Lord has put before us.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 170 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, to which I have added my name.
As the noble Lord made clear, there is no realistic prospect of a Committee day for my Assisted Dying Bill. This makes the point that the current procedures limiting Private Members’ Bills to Fridays do not enable important legislation such as the Assisted Dying Bill to reach the statute book.
The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, introduced his amendment brilliantly. It leaves me only to reiterate that we are not discussing the pros and cons of assisted dying this evening. The House is expected to rise at 1.30 tomorrow morning. I hope for the sake of everybody in this House that noble Lords on both sides of the assisted dying debate will resist the temptation to get into such a debate—that is not as what this amendment is about. We are debating whether it is acceptable that there is no procedure at present to enable the Westminster Parliament to test the willingness of both houses to pass such a significant and popular piece of legislation. We know that not only Scotland, which the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, mentioned, but Jersey and even the Isle of Man have procedures to enable them to pass an assisted dying law, and all those three are likely to pass such legislation within the next one to three years.
We therefore ask noble Lords: do we really think it is satisfactory that the Westminster Parliament is hamstrung without a procedure for Parliament properly to debate a Bill to legalise assisted dying for terminally ill people who are mentally competent and who are suffering unbearably? For Westminster to be upstaged on such an important and popular human rights issue by our much smaller neighbours is surely unconscionable. Amendment 170 from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, deserves our support.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I oppose this amendment. Much as I admire my noble friend Lord Forsyth and fully understand the reasons why he has brought this before your Lordships’ House, it is not a good precedent to bind the Government in one Bill to introduce another a year or so hence. We should think very carefully about the constitutional issues.
We should remember Silverman and we should remember Steel: those Bills began in the other place—an elected House. An initiative of this sort should come from the elected House and not be imposed upon it by an unelected House. I do not think anybody would question my devotion to this House. I believe passionately in it. I believe passionately in an appointed House, as we are. I admire enormously the variety of expertise and experience that is in your Lordships’ House. However, we are not the elected House. I agree that it would be entirely reasonable in the elected House for time to be sought from government. The last time they debated this there was a fairly emphatic result, and it was not in favour of having an assisted dying Bill.
Much as we can admire the total sincerity of those who are committed to the principle of assisted suicide—I happen not to be of their number—it is very dangerous for us to begin in this House changing constitutional precedent by obliging government to introduce a Bill. Therefore, I urge your Lordships not to support this amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, I have been informed that the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, would like to participate in this debate remotely. I invite her to contribute.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
Not remotely but present, which is very good indeed.
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton (CB)
My Lords, I am so thankful to be here tonight. It is a rare appearance but an important one and I am glad to be here in your Lordships’ House to oppose Amendment 170, which repeats the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, tabled in Committee. I apologise to the noble Lord for missing the first sentence of his contribution—I always enjoy his contributions and I am sorry to have missed the very first part.
This is a complex and highly contentious ethical issue. Opening the door to what is effectively assisted suicide would be a monumental change in the criminal law with potentially lethal consequences. If we get it wrong, it will result in some vulnerable people needlessly taking their own life.
The current Bill on assisted dying needs to be examined with the utmost care on the basis of highly informed opinion, robust evidence and a deep understanding of why hundreds of disabled people fear it. I do not think that we understand this cohort. I wish we did but we do not. We have seen a range of legislative developments in recent years in the UK and abroad, all of which demand detailed analysis.
Using this Bill to force the Government’s hand and the pace of deliberation on a matter specifically covered by an existing Bill is, I believe, as others do, a blatant manipulation of the parliamentary process. It sets a dangerous precedent and should be resisted. This is the wrong Bill, the wrong time and the wrong way in which to debate one of the most fundamental issues that we face as a society. I beg—yes, beg—noble Lords to reject the amendment.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
It is a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, whose contribution to the debate on assisted dying over many years is the admiration of all. I pay tribute to her and I know that the House thinks that as well.
I strongly support what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is proposing for the following reason. We are trying to deal with an issue of conscience in Parliament. Issues of conscience generally have a bad time in Parliament because the major parties are not interested in such issues. You have to fight under our parliamentary procedures in order for issues of conscience to get dealt with. I completely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, that this is a complex and difficult issue, but it is one that requires parliamentary time and, above all, Parliament to address the issue and make a decision.
I cannot convey adequately the mess that the law is now in. The law does not have the stomach to be enforced. Nobody wants a decent person who helps a loved one to die because they are having a terrible death to be the subject of prosecution, conviction and a possible sentence of 14 years. The law has been stood on its head and the Director of Public Prosecutions has been given the power to say that he will not prosecute if certain guidelines are followed. That means that the most basic principle of English law is subverted. It is not the judge and jury any more who decide whether you are guilty of the offence but the well-meaning and admirable Director of Public Prosecutions. If he says that you are not to be prosecuted, you are in the clear. If he says that you are to be prosecuted—remember you have assisted somebody to take their own life—you are guilty. He is making the decision. That reflects the way in which our society is trying to deal with the issue.
What we need is proper parliamentary time for parliamentarians to address this exceptional issue. I was a remainer, tragically, and was very much against all the strange ways in which Parliament operated. But this is an exceptional matter. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, with respect, is not talking sensibly when he says that that we are sticking this matter on to the Commons. The Commons will have to decide whether they agree or not.
I urge this House to adopt the amendment, not because noble Lords agree or disagree on the issue of assisted dying but because they take the view that Parliament should properly address issues of conscience. Please do not be swayed one way or the other by the issues on assisted dying, because everybody knows that there are strong arguments in favour and against—I feel as passionately as those who are against. Address the issue on the basis of whether Parliament should be able to deal with issues of conscience.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, it would be perfectly possible for someone in the House of Commons to raise this issue and deal with it there. What concerns me—I pick up what the noble Lords, Lord Cormack and Lord Howarth, said—is that this seems to be a constitutional issue. I am not going to say a word about the rights and wrongs of assisted suicide or assisted dying. However, I shall just read a few words of the amendment. It asks us to agree that the
“Secretary of State must, within the period of 12 months … lay before Parliament”
not just the possibility of a Private Member’s Bill being given time, which was what was suggested earlier, but a draft Bill. That is telling the Government what legislation they have to pass. This is a matter that transcends issues of compassion or whether one is on one side of the argument or the other, because what we in the Lords are telling the Commons is that they have to support us telling the Government to put forward a Bill with which they may not agree. But they do not have any choice if this amendment is passed. That Bill has to,
“permit terminally ill, mentally competent adults legally to end their own lives”.
The amendment is not asking the Government to please give time—I could understand that. It is telling, not asking, the Government to put forward a draft Bill in support of one side of the argument. Whichever side I was on, I would feel absolutely impelled to resist this amendment.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, I have repeatedly opposed assisted dying and it is well known that I feel, and have felt, strongly about it. I also feel that this is quite a different situation. I do not want to argue my case here, but serious issues are raised by the amendment. I am not persuaded that voting for it would make a difference, because the Commons can still consider what we have said this evening. However, it is clear—I completely agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer—that we as a Parliament have to discuss this issue.
I remember, when I first came into this House 27 years ago, in the Prince’s Chamber there was a notice recording an Act of 1620, I think—under Charles I—that argued that we should not use intemperate language in the Chamber. In this situation, I believe this is inevitably important. I regret very much that the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, spoke in the terms he did. I do not think it is helpful to the argument. I think it probably destroys his argument to some extent. What the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, says is a very different matter—and I regard the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, as a friend. Above all, it seems that as a Parliament we have to discuss this, and this is something burgeoning in the public. Therefore, it is a duty to discuss this in Parliament. If we happen to introduce this Bill, which the Commons can then consider, whether it is passed at this stage or not, that would be utterly justifiable, and I support this amendment.
Baroness Mallalieu (Lab)
My Lords, this amendment surely goes to something of importance to all of us in this House, whether we support assisted dying or not, because it is about the role of Parliament and the proper exercise of the duties of an elected Government. The Supreme Court has repeatedly said that Parliament, and not the courts, should consider whether in some circumstances assisted dying should be legal. But so far, this Government have fought shy of doing so either of their own volition or by giving Private Members’ Bills time. There is now clear evidence that the public opinion has changed and wants Parliament to face up to this question and express its will. Yet the door is effectively being shut in the face of that opinion.
Dying is surely an issue of general public importance as it concerns every single one of us. Yet this subject is consistently and currently being starved of the oxygen of time in Parliament in order for the Government to avoid a controversial topic. This amendment does not require the Government to take sides or promote a Bill themselves; it merely requires them to prepare and lay a draft to enable Parliament to consider any possible change properly. I shall support this amendment, and I would hope that noble Lords, whatever their views on assisted dying, do the same, because this amendment is essentially about democracy.
Baroness Davidson of Lundin Links (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Forsyth. I do not do so lightly, because in 10 years of parliamentary politics, despite sometimes being seen as a bit of a rebel or trouble-maker, I have never actually broken a Whip before, that I can remember. It does help that I was a party leader for eight years and wrote the Whip, but it is still quite a big step for me. But for me here tonight, I have to, because I cannot believe, or understand why, the Government have whipped this in the first place, particularly when the amendment from my noble friend Lady Sugg, which is equally an issue of conscience, tonight is not whipped.
The reason I cannot believe this has been whipped is the reason that has been given—that of neutrality. I am absolutely content for the Government to be neutral on the issue of assisted dying. That is not just defendable but completely understandable, but not allowing time for discussion is not a neutral act. When contentious Private Members’ Bills attract clear tactics from oppositional Members to affix a deluge of wrecking amendments to slow progress through the House, denying such discussion time is not neutral. This is a convention that previous Governments have understood, and they have acted. The decriminalisation of homosexuality, the repeal of the death penalty, the legalisation of abortion: none of these measures would have passed without the Government of the day allocating suitable parliamentary time for their debate and discussion. To deny that time here is not a neutral act. It is to guarantee that this issue is killed by procedure and killed by practice. It is a de facto opposition to change.
For these reasons, I will break the Conservative Whip this evening. I encourage all people, no matter which side of the argument they happen to be on, who want us to have the deep, broad and considered debate we need on an issue as important as this to do exactly the same. I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and I urge him to press it.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I feel I have to remind the House that we have had 95 hours of debate in recent years on this topic; and the implication that we have not debated this is a misrepresentation. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has asked us not to talk about assisted dying but then actually did talk about some aspects. We are being asked to test the willingness in both Houses, but I remind the House that the Marris Bill started in the Commons, was debated there and was defeated there by 330 votes to 118. That is where a Bill like this should start.
It is true that, historically, there have been major changes. Those have been in Bills that started in the House of Commons, when the public understood what they were about. The public knew what capital punishment was, and they know what homosexuality is. These Bills started in the elected House, and they then came to this Chamber. That has been our procedure.
I would, though, like to challenge the claim that there is overwhelming support among the public. I think it is questionable. In the poll, when asked a bit more detail, 57% of the public did not understand what assisted dying is; 42% think it is your right to stop treatment, which is already a legal right; and 10% think it is hospice care. Dignity in Dying has said it wants to have the largest record of public support, yet to date it has less than 0.5% of the population of England and Wales signed up to this list. So I do think we have to look at some of the claims being made and think about them.
Whatever noble Lords think about assisted suicide and euthanasia, this amendment would set a dangerous constitutional precedent for any Government. It is surprising that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, with his deep respect for parliamentary processes and Governments being able to govern, has taken this approach, because this amendment would set a precedent enabling any Back-Bencher from any pressure group to disrupt a Government’s agenda. Does the noble Lord plan to bring judicial proceedings if his proposal is not tabled in a year? That is the criterion in the text of his amendment. A draft Bill leads to a Bill, assuming and forcing government support, before exploring evidence of the complexities of licensing doctors to provide lethal drugs.
We do indeed already have a Bill before us, and it is awaiting debate. The amendments laid are not vexatious. Based on the extensive evidence from abroad, they expose the problems with the proposals from the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. Where assisted dying is legal, palliative care has dwindled, legislation has widened, the safeguards have been seen to fail, and non-assisted violent suicide rates rise disproportionately. Post-event reporting, as in her Bill, does not work because it relies on the clinician. I could go on, but I will not.
Yet surprisingly, no request was made for Committee until months after Second Reading, and no one seems to have sought to discuss the amendments that have been widely criticised by those who have spoken today. Some Members openly want the prognosis requirement to be dropped from the Bill to make legal drugs available on request. We have to at least know what the content of the Bill is even before we proceed. An 18 year-old with severe anorexia is already eligible under the Bill that is currently before the House. The answer to harrowing accounts of inadequate care is not to force the Government to draft a Bill that would allow doctors to supply massive overdoses of unevaluated lethal drugs to patients. Good, holistic, palliative care has been made a right in this Bill by this Government, and people should ask for it and insist on it.
This amendment is not the way to seek a careful analysis of the complexities of assisted suicide and euthanasia. It creates a constitutional headache for any future Government’s ability to govern. The procedure is to debate a Private Member’s Bill properly in Committee; and that Private Member’s Bill should start in the elected House.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I hate to disagree with the noble Lords who have spoken against this amendment, almost as much as I loathe supporting the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on anything. But, for me, this is a matter of democracy. Public opinion is constantly moving on this, and it becomes more and more supportive as the public understand the issues involved. It is partly the duty of the Government to explain exactly what it is about. Having a proper debate like this is something we should all support.
Personally, I want this on the statute book before I need it. I have five grandchildren, and I try to talk them all into pushing me over a cliff if I were to get too ill. As soon as their mothers told them that it was illegal, they refused me. The idea remains that this is something which many of us want for ourselves, because we fear being incapable. Therefore, I support Amendment 170.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I would like to put a point to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. He said that his amendment simply provides time for Parliament to consider an assisted dying Bill. I note that proposed new subsection (2)(a) also says that the Secretary of State should
“respect that this is a matter of conscience”.
But a draft Bill is a draft Bill. It will be prepared by a government department; instructions will be given by solicitors, after consultation with Ministers, to parliamentary counsel; and that Bill will eventually be approved by Ministers in the relevant department and put before Parliament. There will be a Minister in charge of the Bill. Whatever mechanism is chosen—maybe a Joint Select Committee of both Houses—to consider the draft legislation, the Minister will be in charge and will be seen by the public to be driving through a Bill. If the noble Lord had said in his amendment that more time should be given for the Private Member’s Bill, I would have supported it. Businesses managers clearly need to take account of the obvious wish of this House to have more time to debate it—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I do not want to prolong the debate but, for the sake of clarity, I will say that the issue here is that this is a complex subject—as has been pointed out. It is a Private Member’s Bill, and the Government would provide support for that. It is not a government Bill, and it is not being piloted by the Minister. This is clear from the amendment. It could not be, because the Government then would not be neutral, as they should be, on a matter of conscience.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. However, his amendment says:
“The Secretary of State must, within the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a draft Bill”.
In my book, a Minister laying before Parliament a draft Bill is in charge of that Bill.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I agree with those who have already spoken opposing the amendment. First, the amendment is not appropriate as a use of the legislative process accompanying this Bill through your Lordships’ House. There is a question of purpose. If opportunity for debate is the goal, we must underestimate neither the significance of the Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, in October and the thorough, careful and considered debate, nor the possibilities of calling for Committee. I would also support that time being given in this House. There are important constitutional questions which arise if the amendment enacted by this House does in fact instruct the Secretary of State in the other place to propose and introduce a draft Bill—as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has just outlined. If that is not the case—and if the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is not advocating for this draft to be introduced—what is the purpose of the amendment?
Secondly, I am aware that the language of the amendment has some real problems. One example is “terminally ill”. We debated the importance of language at Second Reading of the Assisted Dying Bill. The phrase “terminally ill” is understood in a whole range of different ways in different parts of the world. Is there any guidance offered on the definition or scope behind the language in the draft Bill attached to the Secretary of State’s instruction?
The complexity of the issue in question is so great—and the lives of the people who are facing a personal debate of this kind, and feel that they would be particularly impacted, are so important—that this cannot be how we legislate on their behalf. We are on Report, so I was disturbed that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, intervened when he did.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, ordinarily I would not support a novel procedure which overrode the precedence of the ways in which we normally do business and in which the Government expect to direct how business is taken in both Houses of Parliament. But I have been increasingly concerned that the Private Member’s Bill processes, both here and in the other place, simply do not work. They do not work for controversial Bills. It is simple to thwart the progress of a controversial Bill both here and in another place—but particularly so in this House through the mechanisms which we have seen used.
This issue is so important: it is clear that there is strong body of opinion within the British public wanting to see this issue addressed in some way. We must find parliamentary time to make a proper decision on it. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, says about the unusual nature of a Minister having to lay a draft Bill which is not government business. But sometimes things are so important that we must find practical ways through them. I believe that my noble friend’s amendment is a practical way through a very difficult problem, and I urge all noble Lords on my Benches to ignore the Whip.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, in Committee, I asked whether the Minister—I think the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, was responding on that occasion—had thought about giving parliamentary time to the Private Member’s Bill. The proponents of the current amendment are suggesting that this is not about the Government bringing forward a piece of legislation, even though—as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, pointed out—that is exactly what the amendment says. If the intention of the amendment is to request parliamentary time—and we really are looking only at proposed new subsection (2)(b)—could the Minister, in replying, consider whether parliamentary time could be given to the issue without damaging neutrality in any way? The amendment, as drafted, would require the Government to bring forward legislation in favour of assisted dying. An amendment which gives parliamentary time to the issue would be very different.
Lord Carey of Clifton (CB)
My Lords, I will make a brief intervention. First, I rise to challenge the view that all bishops and religious leaders are against assisted dying. I changed my mind some seven years ago.
Secondly, we are discussing the Health and Care Bill. It so happened that this week I received a letter from two doctors—husband and wife—from Colchester. I will read a part of it because they asked me to intervene on their behalf. Their experience comes from within the National Health Service; they worked in the NHS all their careers. One of them says:
“I visited P a little more than two weeks before he died. Alone with me, he explained that he was beyond misery, from the pain of his condition and from the effects that drugs were having. The time had come, the patient asked, to request something that would allow him to slip away. The look of disbelief and horror as I explained that I could not do this haunts me still.”
The doctor goes on to say:
“The Health Service which has done everything it could to involve the patient in their care and comply with the patient's wishes waits until they are at their most vulnerable and incapacitated, to impose a course diametrically opposed to the wishes of the patient.”
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, made the accusation that lots of the amendments to the Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, were a sort of Machiavellian plot to subvert the democratic process. I want to point out that I had tabled one of those amendments, about mental health, partly because I thought that that was our job here, that when a Bill was before Parliament, we followed it through—to every Bill that I have followed through here, there have been myriad, endless amendments. I thought that our role was to scrutinise proposed laws, to debate the merits and demerits and so on. I was therefore disappointed that there was no Committee stage of that Private Member’s Bill. So I do not accept the suggestion that those who put down amendments did so somehow to avoid debate; in fact, it was the opposite.
My general view on the problems of parliamentary and democratic process was best summed up by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. I also feel queasy that there is a kind of subverting of the parliamentary process by an amendment on assisted dying or assisted suicide being put down on the Health and Care Bill. It is totally inappropriate. It is hijacking a Bill. Whatever else assisted dying and assisted suicide is, it does not contribute to improving anyone’s health. It requires ending a life; it is not a healthcare matter, and it will require a major change in the criminal law, so this is the wrong Bill.
However, I have every sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and feel his frustration. I feel all the time that there are lots of laws I want to change; there are lots of things I want to change about the country; there are lots of times when I feel as though the public think one thing and the Government ignore them. What one therefore needs to do is to lobby the Government—the noble Lord probably has closer access to them than a lot of us—or, as maybe I would do, to organise a demonstration or a protest, unless the Government had got away with banning that by the time we got there. In other words, in a democracy, there are lots of frustrations that need to be expressed if you want to change the law. Using our position as unelected legislators to add an amendment to an inappropriate Bill seems to be completely wrong on a matter of such huge importance.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I am glad to have the opportunity to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, because it is important to recognise that she is quite right. We should be able to debate all the amendments that Members wish to debate, in both Houses, on a Bill of this sort—a Bill which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, said, addresses one of the most fundamental social issues facing society.
However, I disagree that this amendment is nothing to do with health. The last days, weeks and months of your life, the healthcare that you receive, and the options open to you are part of the healthcare provided throughout the NHS and elsewhere. So I believe that it is appropriate to discuss this here.
It is a novel procedure. It is not a procedure that mandates the Government to support the draft Bill that would be brought in. The amendment is precisely designed not to do that but to ensure that a proper and full debate is held. I normally follow the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, closely and often agree with him, but I do not accept that we are imposing something on the other House by passing an amendment to a Bill which is going to have lots of amendments made to it and will go to the other place, where those amendments will be debated and accepted or not accepted.
Most of all, I support this amendment because it is now nearly 20 years since I served on the Select Committee on the Joffe Bill. There have been numerous attempts since then to resolve this most important issue. They have all run into the sand one way or another. Our legislature has not found itself able to produce a result that satisfies everyone that there has been full debate and resolution found to how we should go ahead as a society. In that time, 20 other jurisdictions have managed that task, because they have found a way of providing adequate time so to do. For those reasons, I support this amendment.
Baroness Greengross (CB)
My Lords, I want to add my support particularly for what my noble friend Lady Hayman has just said. This has gone on for a long time. I have been involved in it throughout my time as a Member of this House and I do not intend to repeat what I have said before. I want just to say that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, offers a useful way forward so that assisted dying is given time in both Houses to be debated properly. It must be given serious consideration. Whether one is for or against changing the law on assisted dying, we all surely agree that this is a very serious issue worthy of serious scrutiny and debate. It is unacceptable that, once again, my noble friend Lady Meacher’s Private Member’s Bill risks being lost, due not to lack of support but to not enough time being allowed to take the Bill through all its stages.
Assisted dying is very much related to health and care, and it is appropriate that this amendment should be included as part of this Bill.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
My Lords, this is the second occasion on which I have spoken on assisted dying in your Lordships’ House. Five years or so ago, I supported the Bill in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and voted for it. I did not speak on the Bill in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, but I was ready to vote for it. However, as we know, the vote was not called because the opponents of the Bill feared that, if there was a vote, there would be an even larger majority in favour of the Bill on that occasion than there was earlier, because the arguments against assisted dying are shrinking year by year.
This House has now accepted on two occasions a Second Reading for a Bill to ensure that assisted dying is placed on our statute book. That is the political and democratic decision of this House, yet it has now been thwarted twice, and the thwarting is most extraordinary.
We managed to survive constitutionally in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries without trying to kill legislation by tabling so many amendments. It was a device invented by Conservative Back-Benchers in the 1970s to prevent a Bill passing through the House of Commons that prevented the hunting of foxes by dogs. A small number of devoted hunters devised this trick. The Member of Parliament was Marcus Kimball; older Members might remember it. It was a political trick which has been used in this House on three occasions: on the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, on hereditary Peers; on the Bill of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer; and on the Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher.
I remind your Lordships that the only way in which we as Back-Benchers in the House of Lords can effect personal influence on social change is through Private Members’ Bills. There is no other way in which we can effect a policy—we are all controlled by the agenda of the Government—yet we are being denied this. The democratic choice of this House in passing the Second Reading on two occasions is very clear, and it is being thwarted. That is very unfair.
I told my Whip three weeks ago that I was going to come in and support my noble friend Lord Forsyth’s Bill and vote. He said, “It doesn’t matter; it’s a matter of conscience”. He confirmed that in an email to me last week and in a conversation I had with him on Monday. I do not believe my Whip was lying—it was the Government’s view—but suddenly the Whip was changed last night, right at the last minute. Somebody must have spoken to people in the House of Lords, because the view has been very clear since my noble friend Lord Forsyth tabled his amendment. It was clear that the Government—a Conservative Government—were going to be asked to prepare a Bill on assisted dying and, in a reasonable amount of time, find time for it to be debated.
The great social reforms we have had in the last 50 or 60 years all started with the Government of the day being prepared to find time for them. The Wolfenden report in 1957 recommended the decriminalisation of homosexual activity. That was opposed by many Conservative Back-Benchers, yet the Conservative Government of the day made time for it to be debated. When David Steel produced his Abortion Bill, the Government of the day—I think it was the first Wilson Government—made time for it to be debated. Thirdly, when Roy Jenkins as Home Secretary introduced a Bill to abolish hanging, the Government of the day found time for it to be debated.
That is the principle, so I expected that we were going to have a free vote tonight. I am simply amazed that the Government have now suddenly changed the Whip. Someone has spoken to them. I do not expect the Minister to accept that, but somebody from the other House has certainly spoken to the Government and said, “We don’t want to be in a position to have to draft a Bill on assisted dying and find some time in the not-too-distant future for it to be debated”.
We are not suggesting that the Meacher Bill should come back and be debated in May or June this year, in this parliamentary Session, but there are other parliamentary Sessions in which it could be introduced: 2022-23, 2023-24 or 2024-25. If it has not been decided by the next election, I very much hope that all of the four major parties in our country—the Conservatives, Labour, the Liberals and the Greens—have a clear undertaking in their manifestos that, if they were elected, time would be found for the two Houses of Parliament to make up their minds whether they wanted assisted dying on our statute book. I am quite happy to leave that decision to the British people because, unlike the noble Baroness here, I happen to believe that the argument has moved decisively as far as the people of this country are concerned. There are now far too many people who have seen relatives or friends die long, lingering and miserable deaths.
The original argument against assisted dying was sanctity of life. I found it extraordinary that in the debate of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, not one of the Bishops or Archbishops addressed the sanctity of life. Other arguments are now put forward: the vulnerability of people who are dying, with relatives gathering around and wanting to polish them off—things of this sort, all of which can be addressed by amendments to the Bill.
I am very surprised that a Conservative Government should decide to vote against my noble friend Lord Forsyth. He and I go back a very long way. Thirty years ago he was the chairman of the Conservative Party in Scotland—that was when we had a Conservative Party in Scotland—and I was the chairman of the Conservative Party in England. I got to know him very well, and I can think of no one who more embodies conservatism in his whole mind and being than my noble friend. Whether it was a question of lower government expenditure, lower taxes, greater freedom of choice on housing or greater freedom of choice for parents, he was there. Conservatism runs in his blood—he has the bluest of blood—and I think it an insult to him and a disgrace that the Whips on my side of the House have said we should vote against him.
I hope that this amendment will be passed and that this House will recover the sense that, without it being passed, your Lordships’ democratic choice, which has been exercised on two Bills, is being totally disregarded by a political trick. That is simply not right.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I do not understand why it is a conscience vote if it is not about the substance or the subject but somehow about parliamentary process. That does not seem to me to be a matter of conscience.
The point is that people want better care at the end of their life. The amendment to this Bill from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, is a game-changer. I wonder how many noble Lords understand that something has changed during the passage of this Bill. For the very first time, people will now be eligible and able to have palliative and hospice care at the end of their lives commissioned by the NHS. It is the responsibility of all integrated care boards to commission proper, good palliative care so that the poor care and poor deaths that people in this House are afraid of will be a thing of the past.
This is the wrong time to talk about introducing lethal drugs as a last resort. We should be looking forward with optimism and hope about how things have changed. This is also relevant to my noble friend Lady Meacher’s Bill. Noble Lords have questioned the motives of Peers who have tried to amend that Bill. It needed to be amended and scrutinised. My amendments were all about palliative care—this was before the game-changer of universal palliative care—being available before people are offered the only option of lethal drugs. If lethal drugs are the answer, why was this not an amendment to introduce lethal drugs to enable people to be assisted in their own suicide? Palliative care will reduce the supposed demand for physician-assisted suicide.
I think the statistics have been misrepresented. Only 10 US states have legalised physician-assisted suicide, despite the supposed success in Oregon. Maybe they have recognised that palliative care decreases rather than increases when lethal drugs are available. Some 200 attempts to introduce physician-assisted suicide in the United States have been defeated.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I do not want to detain the House long. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, told us that this is not to open the debate in favour of or against assisted dying but, as the debate has gone on, there has been an opening up of that debate. We have to look very carefully at what was given to us by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, on the constitutional question. This amendment is not saying that the Government must find time to debate this matter but instructing the Secretary of State.
This is a revising Chamber. It is made up of unelected people telling the Government in the elected place that they must produce a Bill and it must be given time. That is my worry. My views on assisted dying are very clear. I will debate it whenever the issue comes back again, but the issue for me now is to avoid what was happening towards the end of Theresa May’s Government, when the Back-Benchers were trying to take control of government business. That led us into a mess.
I am not against speaking in favour of any Government of any colour, because I have never been a member of any party, but I want to observe how the liberalisation of homosexuality actually happened. Michael Ramsey, as Archbishop of Canterbury, began a debate in your Lordships’ House because of what had happened to Turing and many other people. He just thought: is it natural justice that consenting adults should actually be prosecuted and have to go through horrendous treatment, some of them facing horrendous stuff? The debate happened here and what was the result? It was the Wolfenden report. That recommended that this should be debated and a Minister of the Government, and Mr Jenkins on behalf of the Labour Party, joined in the debate and what happened? The law was passed. Where did it start? It started in the elected Chamber.
I have a real concern that we, as a revising Chamber, are not even considering a Bill that has actually come from the Government but instructing the Secretary of State to produce a Bill within a year of this coming into being and saying that it must be debated. Does this respect our position and why we are here? This is not revising legislation, at which all your Lordships do a fantastic job. Without your Lordships, the Bills in this country would be horrendous. However, let us not overreach ourselves and think that we can instruct the Secretary of State to bring this in. Who is the Secretary of State in this case? is it the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care?
May I please ask that we get another amendment or another Statement to give the House a Private Member’s Bill that needs to be given sufficient time to be debated properly? Also, other people told your Lordships that on 21 September 2015, there was full a debate in the other place.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
Noble Lords might say that it was a long time ago, but it was debated. It is not as if this has never been debated properly. It went through all the processes and unfortunately the Bill was lost. Is this another example of once something is lost, you bring it back again and again? I do not want to be like a particular German Chancellor who lost an election and said, “This is really wrong, we must change the people.” Friends, we are a revising Chamber. We need a bit of humility about our position, and should not think that we can instruct the Secretary of State to bring in a particular Bill because time has been lost.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, I detect a sense that the House would like to hear from the Front Benches, but I know that all noble Lords have a right to speak and that the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, is very keen to say something. I am sure she will understand that the House wants to hear the Front Benches and that, if my noble friend wants to bring this to a vote, we should get on with it.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I have spoken numerous times about my opposition to assisted suicide for many different reasons. It is not, for me, about the sanctity of life. Not everybody who believes that the law should not be changed has strong faith. However, we are continually being asked to vote through the principle and think about the detail later. The devil is in the detail.
Detailed scrutiny is our role as a revising Chamber. The Commons has so many of its amendments guillotined. However, we have to take an issue such as this, which is about ending people’s lives, very seriously and we have to debate some of the detail. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, feels strongly about this and I wish she had pressed much harder and much earlier for a Committee stage for her Bill. In an issue such as this, when we are talking about ending people’s lives, there should be hundreds of amendments, because it has to be debated properly.
I would like to briefly go on the record to thank the hundreds of people who have written in. We are really lucky right now that we live in a democracy and that people are able to freely express their opinions, whether we agree with them or not. Our role in the House of Lords is to deal with those people who write in. Lots of people from both sides have written to me. However, we must also be really careful in our language and not scare people into thinking that assisted suicide is the only option for them.
As a disabled person who sits in this Chamber with a red stripy badge, I have a huge amount of privilege. Many, many thousands—tens of thousands or more—of disabled people do not have privilege in respect of protection. This amendment and what it seeks to do will fundamentally change the political and societal landscape for disabled people. If people have not read it, they should look at the article by the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, this weekend about how disabled people are encouraged to think that they would be better off dead than live with an impairment. Even in this Chamber, we hear about things such as incapacity and incontinence and all the things that people fear. I push back on that, and I push back on the view that public opinion is overwhelmingly in support of this. On the Dignity in Dying website, 284,881 people have signed the public petition. On the Commons website, asking for a change in the law, 46,483 people have done so. That is not overwhelming public opinion.
I know the frustration of people who want to change the law. I can feel it; we hear it, and I admire the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Baker, says that we are a democratic Chamber. There are plenty on the outside who would not agree with that in terms of the way that we operate. This, however, is a constitutional matter. For all those arguing in favour of this tonight, I really look forward to them supporting my Private Member’s Bills asking for things such as good education, work, social care and access to trains, which are the things for which disabled people are arguing. This is not it: this is not the right time and not the right place. I do not support this amendment.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I think the mood of the House is that the Front Benches—
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, may I just be indulged by the House in following the excellent speech by my noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson? Exactly seven weeks ago, not just to the day but to the exact hour, I started to feel very ill. I was barely 36 hours out of the operating theatre after surgery that had gone incredibly well and I knew something was seriously wrong. By midnight I was in agony, my bowels totally blocked by the combined effects of the anaesthesia and the pain relief. By the morning, I was passing blood and my haemoglobin levels had plummeted. That was just seven weeks ago. It was at that point that a decision was made to transfer me by ambulance to St Thomas’ A&E so that I could have an urgent blood transfusion. I lived to tell the tale, but tell it I would much rather not have done. I would much rather forget the whole episode—the unbelievable pain, the helplessness and the acute sense of vulnerability. My family do not know any of this; I have not told them. I am hoping they do not read Hansard.
I share it with your Lordships’ House because I believe that my recent experience is directly relevant to Amendment 170. We have been assured that this is not about the merits of assisted dying, but noble Lords should not underestimate the magnitude of what is at stake in this amendment. This is not the start of some cosy conversation about a harmless, anodyne measure. The end goal is assisted suicide and the means is a Bill proposed in this amendment. If this amendment were passed tonight, I firmly believe that in years to come, we would look back and say that today—16 March 2022—was a pivotal moment.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, rightly said, the devil is in the detail. That is what Parliament does and it is what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is asking your Lordships to allow Parliament to do.
Like many families across the country, my family has had discussions about the substantive issue of assisted dying. Different views have been expressed and no one has fallen out, but it is not around our dinner table that decisions must be made about an issue as serious as this; that is for Parliament. I trust Parliament, and I do not think it should be—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, pointed out—for the Director of Public Prosecutions to make decisions about these issues. Assisted dying is happening and Parliament must decide how or if it should be done.
It has been suggested that this House should not instruct the Secretary of State to do anything. As we have gone through the Bill, we have asked the Secretary of State to do quite a lot of things; in fact, we have voted that the Secretary of State should do a lot of them. What happens to those amendments? They go to the elected House. I have great respect for the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and I understand how important he feels it is that issues as controversial as this should be decided by the elected Chamber. Well, if we vote for this amendment, those issues will be decided by the elected Chamber. If this novel procedure of a draft Bill being laid before Parliament is used, I trust Parliament; there will be proper debate and I hope that what will come out of it will be a very measured piece of legislation that takes all the concerns into account. The game-changer that my noble friend Lady Finlay has successfully introduced to the Bill will be taken into account by the elected Chamber.
It is very important that people who want to have palliative care to ease their suffering at the end of life actually get it—everyone should get it; there should be no postcode lottery—but even in those situations there may be people who do not want it and instead want to do something else. It is for Parliament, not for my dinner table or anyone else’s around the country, to make that decision and to be given the proper amount of time to come up with something that I hope will reassure those who rightly have fears. They have fears because they do not know what Parliament will decide. If we give Parliament the opportunity, I am quite sure that even a draft Bill, however well drafted, will probably be amended as it goes through the elected House. What will come out at the other end will probably reflect public opinion—genuine public opinion, that is; I am not quoting any polls on either side—as they will have given serious thought to the issue and listened to everyone who wants or does not want this measure on the statute book.
We must give the elected Chamber the opportunity either to accept an amendment that we may pass tonight or to send it back to us, but at least we will have asked them to think again. This House does that very well. We ask another place to think again. I hope we will tonight.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I have listened very closely to the many passionate, informed and often personal contributions from noble Lords this evening. This debate has inevitably been about not only parliamentary process and legislative approach but consideration of assisted dying. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, for opening the debate on Amendment 170, which proposes, as your Lordships’ House is more than aware, a new clause to bring forward a draft Bill on what the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, described as a complex and difficult issue.
However, for me, the challenge of this debate is encapsulated in the contributions in the middle of it. The first, from the noble Baroness, Lady Davidson, was that not allowing time for discussion is not a neutral act. This was followed swiftly by my noble friend Lord Hunt taking a different tack, saying that allowing for this amendment is also not a neutral act, and it is that which your Lordships’ House has wrestled with this evening.
It is indeed a matter of profound moral, personal and legislative importance that we find ourselves dealing with in Amendment 170. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, will be seeking a Division and these Benches will approach this on free votes. It is a shame that this is not the case on the Government Benches. Your Lordships’ House heard from the noble Lord, Lord Baker, about the importance of principle, whereby matters such as this should be subject to nothing other than a free vote. I certainly share that view. I know that noble Lords will exercise their vote this evening with the greatest of care.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I must tell my noble friend Lord Forsyth that I am not with him on this amendment and nor are the Government. That has nothing to do with the issue of assisted dying, about which we each have our own views, but is about the proper process for bringing forward legislation and the roles and responsibilities of government on the one hand and parliamentarians on the other.
Governments are elected. The electorate then expect the Government to bring forward their programme of legislation, which Parliament then decides on. If alongside that process there is an issue that the Government do not choose to legislate on, but which happens to be close to the heart of an individual parliamentarian, that parliamentarian has the privilege of being able to bring forward a Private Member’s Bill for Parliament to consider. In each of those two legislative processes the roles, rights, responsibilities and privileges of the Government and of individual parliamentarians are separate. It is no more appropriate for a Government to force an MP or Peer to bring forward a particular Private Member’s Bill than it is for an MP or a Peer to force a Government to bring forward a government Bill. That includes a draft Bill. As my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern observed in Committee, draft Bills are brought forward by Governments only when there is an intention to legislate.
The Government have no intention of legislating on assisted dying; it is not part of our programme, nor was it part of our election manifesto. Equally, it is no part of our agenda to prevent an MP or a Peer bringing forward a Private Member’s Bill on assisted dying. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has done just that because it is something that she feels strongly about. It is for her to persuade Parliament and the Government that her Bill is a good thing.
That is the proper process, and surely that is how it has to be. If it ever became possible for an MP or Peer to use a government Bill as a vehicle for obliging the Government to publish a completely separate Bill, even one on a subject which was in tune with the Government’s thinking, the due process of legislating would thereby be subverted. I ask noble Lords opposite how they would react if under a Labour Administration, an MP or Peer proposed to use a health Bill as a vehicle to oblige the Government to publish draft legislation, the purpose of which was to place all NHS hospitals into private ownership—or one might find an MP trying to use a criminal justice Bill as a vehicle to oblige the Government to publish legislation to bring back capital punishment.
My noble friend might say, “Well, in that circumstance, it would be for Parliament to decide whether or not to accept such an amendment”—but that is not the point. The point is that if one House of Parliament were to approve such an amendment and the other House were to follow suit, Parliament would thereby usurp the role of the democratically elected Government. The noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, and my noble friend Lord Cormack were 100% right: it is for the Government to say what their legislative programme should be, not Parliament.
As the late Lord Simon of Glaisdale might once have said, this amendment is constitutionally offensive and it should be rejected on those grounds.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
Before the Minister sits down, does he believe that limiting debate on a crucial human rights issue to Fridays—when, as he knows, certainly in the House of Commons, very few MPs are around, and in the House of Lords too, many Peers are not available—is an appropriate way to consider a matter of very great importance?
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, we gave a full day’s debate to the noble Baroness’s Bill. That is surely not ungenerous.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, it is late; we have had a very good debate. I have to say, I shall long remember being accused of leading a coup in Parliament.
My purpose was very simple. My noble friend has explained the Government’s position very clearly. I say to my noble friend Lord Baker, who was very kind in his remarks about me, that the Chief Whip made it perfectly clear to me from the beginning what the Government’s position would be. It has been set out by my noble friend Lord Howe. However, there is a problem here. It is all very well for my noble friend to stand at the Dispatch Box and say, “Well, we have the private procedure, and we have the government procedure”, but on a matter of huge importance, Parliament is completely unable to reach a view. My amendment was really an attempt to do that.
There has been some nonsense talked, I have to say, about how we are getting above ourselves and that we are instructing the House of Commons. If this amendment is passed tonight, it will go to the House of Commons and, under our procedures, it will be for the House of Commons to decide.
I have made it absolutely clear to my noble friend the Chief Whip and the Front Bench that if the Government say, “We don’t like this procedure; we think it’s a bit too novel, but we’ll give a commitment that we’ll make time available at some point in this Parliament for the purpose of discussing this really important issue”—I agree with the points made by a number of people that it is a complex and difficult issue; that is why it needs time for everyone to put their point of view and for a result to emerge, which might very well be a conclusion that we do not want to change the law—then I would withdraw my amendment. But, for some reason, the Government are refusing to do so. They seem to think that it is more important to discuss ending the lives of lobsters than addressing this hugely important issue of the end of life for people. There is time for the former, but not for this.
The Government are entitled to their programme, but having listened to the response, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Ukraine Sponsorship Scheme
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I begin by warmly welcoming the noble Lord to his place; it is good to see him in this Chamber. He was an excellent Member of the other place and he is very welcome here.
Moving on to the Statement, any scheme that will help Ukrainians reach safety is welcome. However, we feel we need more information as to how this will work in practice to give desperate Ukrainian families the help and support they need at this truly terrible time. Since the Statement was made, we have had a letter from the Secretary of State, the right honourable Michael Gove MP, in which I was pleased to see that he says:
“Our aim, through this route, is to offer a safe, warm welcome to as many arrivals as possible, based on the number of sponsors.”
The announcement introduces a new website, which allows UK households to say that they would host refugees, but there is no way to connect these households to refugees in search of homes. It seems that only households that have details of a specific refugee are able to host them, leaving families unable to flee to Britain unless they have somehow found hosts.
In addition to this, there is still no material change to the process, which means that refugees will still need to apply for visas by completing a 50-page—I understand—online form and uploading a number of documents. Yet the letter from the Secretary of State, in follow up, says that
“we want to minimise bureaucracy and make the process as straightforward as possible while ensuring the safety of all involved.”
I also draw attention to concerns raised about how refugees will actually get here if it is agreed—who will cover the costs and how will that be managed? We have concerns that individuals will not be able to properly sponsor a Ukrainian national’s visa until Friday.
I am pleased to see that there is promised financial support for local authorities. This will be an awful lot of work for them, so I thank the Government for that. However, we would appreciate further details on broader resettlement matters such as how healthcare, education, social care and so on will be managed and provided for those who will need them.
If the Minister will indulge me, I have a number of questions. Can the Minister confirm who exactly is eligible to sponsor a Ukrainian as part of the scheme? Do people have to be British nationals, or is someone with indefinite leave to remain also able to do so? Can the Minister confirm whether the £350 a month will be treated as income that could potentially affect recipients’ benefits?
I do not understand why the Government are not playing more of a proactive role in matching sponsors and refugees. Could they not match some of the cases with those who wish to help but perhaps do not know how to navigate social media? Can the Minister confirm who will be responsible for undertaking any safeguarding checks on sponsors? Will this be done by the Government or will it be part of the local authorities’ responsibilities? Will data about arrivals via the route be shared with local councils ahead of time? As much access as possible to data ahead of time will help local councils to provide proper healthcare and education, particularly for the children who are coming.
We also have a worry that there are still 12,000 Afghan refugees living in hotel accommodation, and clearly we do not want to find Ukrainian refugees in the same situation and the situation being exacerbated. So, again, a little more information about that would be helpful.
I have mentioned children. We know that a large number of the people requiring settlement will be, sadly, women and children who have escaped, often leaving their menfolk behind. We will have specific issues around nursery provision, childcare and education. Can the Minister confirm who will be responsible for ensuring that these needs are met? Will it be the Department for Education or local authorities?
I think we are looking for more clarity from the Government about their expectations of local authorities. It is great that there is financial support, but what are the expectations for delivery by local councils? Will there be support for, say, voluntary or faith groups, which will also have an important role to play? My final question is: what provision will be made for unaccompanied children? Will there be a specific scheme for them?
The main thing is that refugees arriving into the UK are treated with dignity, and provided with the accommodation and further support they are going to need to cope with this terrible crisis, until Ukraine is safe once again and they are able to return home and work to rebuild their country. I look forward the Minister’s response, which will be his maiden speech, and I wish him well.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I too welcome the Minister to the House and to the Front Bench.
Of course, we welcome in principle an unlimited scheme where UK residents can sponsor Ukrainian refugees, but Homes for Ukraine is limited by other schemes. First, the Government still insist that all Ukrainian refugees must have a visa, while all member states of the European Union are allowing visa-free entry. These refugees are in desperate need now, and a fast response is required. Countries bordering Ukraine are being overwhelmed and they need us to take some of the pressure off them. Why is the Government restricting the flow of refugees into the UK?
The Government cite security concerns for slowing things down, but the Irish Prime Minister was interviewed on the BBC’s “Sunday Morning” programme, where he said that the need for a humanitarian response to Europe’s biggest refugee crisis since World War II
“trumps anything as far as we’re concerned.”
Mr Martin said the view within the EU is that all borders should be open to Ukrainians for as long as Russian bombs and missiles are being targeted at civilian populations inside Ukraine. He went on to say:
“We can all see the humanitarian crisis, we do know that that can be exploited by certain bad actors, but our security personnel will keep an eye on that in a more general way.”
If Ireland can keep an eye on security issues once refugees arrive in Ireland, why can the UK not adopt the same approach? Bearing in mind that there are no passport checks between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland and between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, how does the UK and Ireland having a different approach make any sense? The Minister in the other place talked about putting humanity first; the UK is clearly putting visas first.
Another bottleneck in the process is caused by sponsoring families in the UK having to identify Ukrainian nationals or families by name in order to sponsor them. How are older people without IT skills who are fleeing Ukraine supposed to identify themselves to British sponsors, let alone complete a 50-page online form to get a visa? I know that the Minister is trying to cut that form down, but is it not a fact that the most in need are the least likely to get to the UK quickly?
Another barrier to accessing the heartwarming generosity of British families is that the programme is initially open only to refugees who have known connections to the UK sponsor. The Minister in the other place said that
“we will … expand the scheme in a phased way”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/3/21; col. 620.]
Can the Minister explain what the various phases are and when they will be in operation?
Another potential bottleneck are DBS checks for sponsors. There are already backlogs. What additional resources are the Government providing to ensure that necessary safeguarding checks are done in good time? Some of those volunteering to sponsor will already have been DBS checked. What are the Government doing to match unaccompanied child refugees, in particular, with those who have already been safeguarding checked, rather than expecting these sponsors to identify the most vulnerable?
What consultation has taken place with local authorities on whether the £10,500 per refugee is enough to provide additional school places and child mental health support, which is often assessed by child psychologists working in schools, and the other range of services that refugees are likely need? The Minister in the other place said that the payment to sponsors of £350 a month would not affect benefit entitlement or council tax status, but would a single-person sponsor lose their single-person council tax discount? In short, where is the detailed plan for how this nice idea is going to work in practice? I know that the Minister wants to do his best, but we believe that the constraints within which he is being asked to operate are too restrictive.
The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and Home Office (Lord Harrington of Watford) (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their comments. I should point out that this is technically not my maiden speech; I am told that it is my first speech but not my maiden speech. I leave it to noble Lords to work out what that means, because I am not sure.
As many might know, I was offered this job because of my experience from the programme that we did for Syria. At the time, I was the first person to be a Minister in three different government departments at the same time. On my return to this hugely enhanced job—the two are not the same—I am doing my best, in the few days available, to get the team who successfully did the Syrian programme back into action. It is a bit like one of those bands from my childhood that, 10 years later, completely reforms with some different artists and some of the main ones. And if I slip into Commons terminology, I apologise. I realise that I may have just one excuse for doing that tonight, so I will try not to.
I will deal first with the subjects brought up by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. Basically, she requested more information about the scheme. I understand that. The questions raised by both the speakers are perfectly proper. No one is playing politics with this and I know that no one is trying to take advantage. We are learning quickly. I will explain the visa, because both the contributions come down to whether we need visas, why we need visas, why it is taking such a long time and what a bureaucratic performance this is when people are dying, suffering and living in appalling conditions.
When I was offered the job by the Prime Minister, the only criterion that I was given, as alluded to by the noble Lord, was a security one. It is my job to make sure that this is done as quickly and as humanely as possible. I know that no one in this Chamber or in the other place would question the fact that national security comes first, but that does not mean that we are obsessed by it.
The current situation is that people fill out a form. It is unacceptable that it is 50 pages and I have been through every page of it with the Home Secretary. By the way, I do not think that anyone is trying to mislead, but it is slightly misleading to say that it is 50 pages because, on most of them, if you click yes, the page after does not come through. Quite why anyone historically, never mind a refugee, has to do the whole lot I do not know, but there will be a lot less of it by Friday and, shall we say, far more obstacles removed after that.
Nevertheless, a form has to be filled in on a mobile phone, tablet or laptop. This is for Ukrainian passport holders, who will download their passport. This is not in a visa centre, by the way; it can be done everywhere. Then it will be sent electronically to the Home Office, where we have a team that we are gearing up all the time. It is in excess of 100 people now and will be gearing up to be double that by the weekend. Very soon afterwards, the refugees will receive a response. I have to be a bit of a politician and waffly by saying “very soon afterwards”; I have set a target of 24 hours and it may be more if the team is so overwhelmed, but I expect it to come down and down. The only reason for that delay—it really boils down to this—is so that criminal record checks can be done from all the databases that the team has. It is no more complex than that.
The passport holders then get a PDF back, which gives them the right to get on a plane and come here. It is not as cumbersome as it was and they do not have to go to a visa centre. The visa centres are being kept open with enhanced hours for people who do not have documentation—vulnerable children and groups that we can spend a lot more time dealing with. I hope that I have briefly covered the visa point brought up by both speakers tonight. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, summed it up as “fast response required” and I hope that I have gone some way towards that.
This is not being used as a tool to restrict the number of refugees who we are taking in. This is not like the Syrian programme, where the Prime Minister at the time, David Cameron, said, “This is the number of people we are taking in through a humanitarian vulnerability scheme”. By the way, there is nothing wrong with vulnerability schemes—please do not think that I am saying that—but this scheme is open to everyone who is Ukrainian to come in. It is not restricted in number.
I return to the points brought up by the noble Baroness, some of which were duplicated. There is some concern about the matching process: “But what if I don’t know anybody?” I understand that and it is perfectly right, but I will give a bit of background to the matching process. When I was involved in the Syrian scheme, the model for community sponsorship was Canadian. Ironically, with politics being what it was, the day I was due to go to Canada to see it was the day I was reshuffled to the Department for Work and Pensions. Luckily, the Civil Service correctly fought back and officials went and this is very much the scheme used. The community sponsorship scheme for Syrians and others worked in small numbers but this is nothing like that. This is a way of fast-tracking it.
The reason why the scheme worked slowly is that it was a proper, boilerplate exercise. Every single detail was known about the refugee before they took off to come to this country. Everything was preplaced, not just the accommodation but employment and everything else. This is a mass-type operation. No one has come up with a better word than matching, but it does not mean that someone who has been forced to flee Ukraine will think, “I have to look on a list, but is anybody suitable?” We have been speaking extensively to NGOs in the last two or three days which will do that for them. They will have tablets, laptops and all that sort of thing to do it. It is not just one individual having to find another individual.
On the points made about safeguarding and related issues, perhaps I could combine my reply to the two questions. However, if noble Lords feel that the answers are not adequate, I would be happy to follow up by taking questions either here or elsewhere. If any noble Lord or noble Baroness would like to meet with me, I would be happy to talk them through this because we are learning as we go. A lot of the comments I have had from MPs and Members of this House have been useful in our thinking on this—particularly MPs because their constituents speak directly to them about it.
I will make a general point about local authorities, if I may, which leads into safeguarding. They are being paid £10,500 per refugee. I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, how that was calculated. Was it done like this? For the sake of Hansard, let me say that I put my finger in the air, meaning “Was it just a wild guess?” It was done on the basis that we used for the Syrian programme. It is for all the wraparound services except education, which is done on a per capita basis. I do not have the figures to hand—well, I am sure I do in the file I have been given—but, basically, it is an amount per child depending on their age, a bit like with academies generally.
The local authority will be responsible for all the wraparound services, meaning the things that they would normally deal with. They include safeguarding issues. I will come on to DBS checks separately because they were brought up separately but, on other safeguarding issues, the eyes and ears have always been education for children, for example, as the first way of doing it. However, the question of social services, mental health services and primary care was brought up. Through its networks, the Department of Health has been in touch with GPs and other people to make sure that primary care places are available.
Turning to DBS, basically, the question is: do we have to do full DBS checks on people who will be offering sponsorship and people with accommodation? We took the decision that it has to be a two-phase thing. If we must wait for full DBS checks, it may be that we can speed them up. When I left the House of Commons, I decided to become a school governor. It took two months. I hope that it was not because I am on any naughty list, but that is the way the system works. Before allowing people into homes, we will do criminal record checks and get all the things that are easily obtainable online as part of the process before people are approved as sponsors. After that, it will be the local authority’s responsibility to do the full DBS checks. Related to that will be its duty to inspect properties as well. Obviously, this is all very new to us, so we do not really know much. I am sure that the vast majority of people mean well in offering accommodation, but we have to have the back-up system of property inspection and everything else that we would normally have.
It takes care of some of the other questions if I say that the local authorities have been extremely co-operative. I started off over the weekend talking to organisations such as the LGA and other council groups but, today, we had a call with 200 council leaders and chief executives; at least, that is what I was told, but you can only get so many people on Teams. There were a lot of them; it was a call to arms for them. My second cliché is that they have stepped up to the plate—at least, they have told us that they have stepped up to plate. In my department, particularly regarding the Syrian refugee scheme, we were used to dealing with local authorities. They were our main conduit for the resettlement of people. The only difference in this case is that the full burden of providing accommodation will not be on them.
By the way, let me add this because it answers one of the noble Baroness’s points: we have spent a lot of time with faith groups, voluntary groups and others—for example, World Jewish Relief and Church organisations—because they will, we hope, be able to facilitate a big supply of accommodation through their members and their associated people.
On the subject of unaccompanied children, I have a problem. I have been discussing it today with a group of Ukrainian MPs, and I am seeing the Ukrainian ambassador tomorrow on this subject. It is the Ukrainian Government’s position—far be it for me to criticise them; the meeting with the Ukrainian MPs was very emotional—that we need their permission before bringing children here. They do not want children removed far away because of what may happen in the future when they are settled. They want them back with their families. I am working through these things.
I am trying to make sure I have answered everything in the brief time available. Will the single parent discount disappear? I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, that it will not. This is not being treated as income for benefits, or regarding school and university fees, by HMRC or anyone else. I believe my time is up. I hope I have answered the questions. If not, I am happy to answer them either formally or informally.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I hope the House will forgive me; Bishops do not usually go first. I declare my interest as a trustee of Reset. I offer the Minister welcome. I loved working with him with Syrians and we did loads of work together. Please will he pass our thanks to Paul Morrison and the team, who I know have worked almost without sleep over the last four or five days? It is great that that team is being brought back together.
The big thrust from churches and the voluntary sector as a whole is about when the next phase is coming in. We believe that individual sponsors are inadequate because people cannot do this on their own. They will need the support of their neighbours, family, friends and local clubs. Can the Minister comment on when phase two will move through? Noble Lords might like to know that there is a matching system on the website Homes for Ukraine run by Reset tonight.
Lord Harrington of Watford (Con)
One of the other things I have to adjust to in this House is that I cannot call him Paul anymore and I have to refer to him as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham. I thank him for his comments on Paul Morrison. I hope he will be Lord Morrison one day; he deserves it because he has given up his new career to come back to this. The serious point is: when are we going to get to the next phase? It will be very soon, but I cannot say when because we are launching this phase on Friday. It will certainly be done in communication with the Church. The Archbishop of Canterbury was one of the first people to come forward for the Syrian refugee scheme.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on his new position and welcome him to the very difficult job he now has. I declare an interest as we are trying to sponsor a family ourselves and work through this with them. Can he tell me what will happen to those who have had to flee and do not have their documents with them—whatever those documents are—even though they may be known to the people wanting to sponsor them?
What is being done on the transferability of DBS checks? Many of us working in the health service or schools have been DBS checked. Are those going to be automatically transferred? Are the Government going to require every adult in the household to have been checked or will one be adequate as an interim to take things forward?
Have the Government issued a template to local authorities of issues they need to address, such as the ways of managing bereaved children? Many of these children will have left their fathers behind; many will not know what has happened to their fathers even if they have come with their mothers. Managing bereaved children has to be done right and it is not a question of just going “There, there”. They really need to be understood. Is that guidance going to local authorities at a national level as to resources, or is each local authority having to find it out for itself?
Lord Harrington of Watford (Con)
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, is very experienced in this field and has asked some very detailed questions. I cannot answer in detail the question about the transferability of DBS checks. I would much rather answer properly in writing. I hope she understands that just fobbing her off with a letter is not normally my way but this is not high level; this is a very detailed conversation. As far as issuing guidance to local authorities is concerned, we will be doing that. It cannot be left to a situation where some are better than others. On dealing with traumatised children, that will be part of the local authority’s duty.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I join others in welcoming my noble friend to this House and to his new post. I also commend him on his very well-informed and sympathetic response to the questions he has been asked so far after only a few days in the job. Can I press him on primary care? Many of those coming under Homes for Ukraine will be in poor health. How confident is my noble friend that they will have ready access to GPs and primary care services, many of which are already under some pressure?
Lord Harrington of Watford (Con)
My noble friend has not changed since the first time I was in the Commons, as he always makes a good point in such a kind way. The primary care thing is very important. As I explained before, we have been in communication with the doctors’ organisations. It is true that his former constituents and mine are finding it difficult to get appointments with GPs, given Covid and everything else, but on this—this is not a very House of Lords type of expression—we have to muck in. I know the GPs know that, and they will be given the financial resource to enable them to do that.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on a delightful non-maiden speech. I have three quick questions. First, will those who come and who want to work be able to do so immediately? Will they be given a national insurance number in order to do that? Secondly, in how many languages have the forms been made available? Thirdly, what will be the long-term position of the devolved Governments in Edinburgh and Cardiff? Will they be in charge of this indefinitely?
Lord Harrington of Watford (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has referred again to my non-maiden maiden speech. I just say to him to wait for the maiden speech and think what he wants. The forms are in English only but there will be translation guidelines for all of them. We are not asking for translations for the documents that need to be downloaded—for example, birth certificates and the other things that would be provided in a normal situation. As far as the devolved Administrations are concerned, the first meeting I had was with Nicola Sturgeon, Mark Drakeford’s representative and the head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service. As with the Syrian refugees, they have really stepped up to the plate. Although the conduit for this will be their local authorities—like any other local authority in terms of payment—the Scottish and Welsh Governments may well choose to be sponsors themselves. I am pleased with their response and have always found them an absolute pleasure to work with on the refugee front.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will have gathered that this is quite a friendly place. The start he has made in the Chamber has been exceptional, and I look forward to many more exchanges in future.
I want to draw his attention to a letter that the vice-chancellor of the University of Worcester, David Green, has written to our Member of Parliament in Worcester, Robin Walker—who, of course the Minister will know—and to the Further Education Minister, local authority leaders and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester. The vice-chancellor says:
“At the University, we have readied ourselves to be a reception centre for Ukrainian refugees. This is in addition to doing what we can to raise money, send goods and help the Ukrainian people in every way at our disposal. We have accommodation and all necessary supporting facilities other than medical, which we are sure can be arranged in co-operation with NHS colleagues.”
The Bishop and the Dean
“have made plain that there are many who will willingly welcome refugees into their homes.”
I wonder whether he will agree to a meeting, when he has a moment, with the right reverend Prelate Bishop of Worcester, the vice-chancellor and me.
Lord Harrington of Watford (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his comments; I would be delighted to meet with him and them. I should say that we have been in touch with the various university organisations and I am seeing the relevant Minister, Michelle Donelan, to discuss this, but I am happy to have that meeting.
Baroness Wyld (Con)
My Lords, I welcome my noble friend to his new role. I cannot think of a better person to get to grips with one of the important jobs we are facing. I want to build on the question from my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham and ask about refugees who come here who will need to access public services. Those who take them in will need help to help them access those services. They will need signposting. The Government have a very good Government Communication Service. Can the noble Lord say a little about what help will be available to those hosts to make sure that they do justice to the role they take on?
Lord Harrington of Watford (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lady Wyld—my noble friend both personally and professionally—for her comments. On the authorities that are being involved in this, as I have explained before, it is a wraparound service and it will be done in different ways. For example, we are organising welcome centres, so that when people arrive at the airports and, for example, Victoria Coach Station, there are those who can help with the first stage of the services that she mentioned, so it is not forgotten. I hope it will be part of an integrated process. Obviously, it needs the involvement of all the different organisations. This is not central government saying, “This is what we are doing, and we are controlling it centrally.” We cannot; this is happening on an unprecedented scale. We have a lot to learn and there will be problems. I am not claiming that it is all perfect, but we are getting there. I found that comment extremely helpful and I will bear it in mind for everything we do.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I join others in welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Harrington, to his post. He comes with a very high reputation for the way in which he dealt with the Syrian refugee programme. I know that everyone in the House, from all sides, welcomes him to his new responsibilities.
I will ask him two things. The first builds on something that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked about. He may have seen comments by Theresa May over the past few days and by the Local Government Association this morning about the dangers that young people, children and unaccompanied minors could face from people trying to traffic them or exploit them. I declare an interest as a trustee of a charity which works in that field.
Secondly, I want to ask him about sponsorship for programmes not in this country but in countries such as Moldova. Moldova has a population of 2.4 million and in just over two weeks it has already taken 300,000 Ukrainians—the equivalent of 2.4 million in the United Kingdom if they came here. Some 200,000 have gone to Romania and, of course, millions have now gone to Poland. Last week his noble friend Lady Williams was good enough to have a short discussion about the ways in which we can help charities based in the UK but which do not receive match funding; they are not covered by the DEC programme. Will he have a conversation with her about how sponsorship can work, so that people do not have to travel too far away from the region if they want to stay in those neighbouring countries, and can they be enabled to do so?
Lord Harrington of Watford (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, characteristically makes very good comments on this issue. On his point about sponsorship overseas, I must confess that I had not thought of that. All our overseas efforts have been put into providing money and resources, and we can be quite proud of what we have done. I know life is not down to money; this is about human misery. Last weekend, when I looked at the numbers, we were, I think, the largest single country in that regard. That does not answer his question, but it does mean that we have resources on the ground to help with that sort of thing. But I will consider the point he makes because it is very valid.
On the fear of the child exploiters, people traffickers and general predators that appear in these situations, as they do in every situation, we are relying a lot here on the local authorities. We are relying on electronic methods initially but on the local authorities and all the services—medical services, schools and so on—to provide the eyes and ears we need. But I am worried about it.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, like every other Member, I welcome the noble Lord to the House and to the Dispatch Box. My question is not so much about the money that will be paid to families who take in refugees. Rather, do the Government intend to provide for those refugees something in their own language that will set out for them what we in Britain are going to provide, so that they know and can expect the type of help that the Minister has so helpfully outlined?
Lord Harrington of Watford (Con)
I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, for his comments. For the Syrian programme we did a one or two-day induction programme before people got on aircraft to come here. We do not have the time and facilities to do that because of the scale. However, when people arrive at the airports and other ports they will be given a welcome pack in Ukrainian which will explain why they are here, how they are here and what services are available to help them. These people will be terrified, tired and exhausted and will need to know those things, and that will be in their own language. I hope to expand on that but that is what this situation is immediately.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, first, if Ukrainians who are already here are students or have a work visa, their visas will expire at some point. Have the Government thought about their position? One does not want them to fall into illegality and they could be subject to exploitation, as the noble Lord just said. However, they could also be helpful with the integration of the people coming here. Secondly—I realise that neither point may have crossed the Minister’s desk or his mind yet, although clearly he is bringing a lot of imagination to this—I have a question on Syrians who have been recognised as refugees in Ukraine. I have heard—this may or may not be right—that they are being told that they need to make an asylum claim from the very start. That seems illogical and unhelpful. If the Minister cannot comment on it, perhaps he could take it away.
Lord Harrington of Watford (Con)
I cannot comment on the second point that the noble Baroness made because I do not know the answer. However, I will give it some thought and drop her a line, or perhaps meet with her if she prefers to do it that way. On the first point about Ukrainians who would normally lose their right to stay here because they are on a work permit that has run out, I assure the noble Baroness that nobody will have to leave this country because of that. That permission will be extended so that they will get the same benefits as all other Ukrainian citizens. I am not sure about the actual detail, but I can assure the noble Baroness that that will be the case.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in welcoming the Minister to his place. The Statement says, “The British people have already opened their hearts” to the Ukrainians. That is something that comes as no surprise to me, as someone who sees the hashtag #RefugeesWelcome fill my Twitter feed very often. However, there are of course also refugees from Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria—which the Minister referred to—and many other places who are in need of a safe haven from war and persecution. I appreciate that we are at the very early stages of an enormous rush situation now, but there are people in the UK who know refugees and asylum seekers from other parts of the world and who would desperately like to sponsor them to come here. Would the Minister agree that it is very hard for the Government to say to them, “No, you can’t do that for this person you know who’s desperately in need of haven” when people are so keen to do that?
Lord Harrington of Watford (Con)
No one would disagree with the points the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, makes. However, this is a new community sponsorship scheme for us. We have our work cut out with Ukrainians but that is in no way to disrespect people or to claim that people who are not Ukrainians and who are in a terrible situation do not deserve the support this country gives. My own grandparents were beneficiaries of this country’s attitude towards refugees. Ironically, they fled the Russians as well, in different circumstances.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on his maiden speech. It is maiden because it is his first in the House, otherwise he is illegal and should not be speaking. I congratulate him on the way he dealt with a number of questions. I declare an interest as chair of Christian Aid. We are one of the beneficiaries of the public money that has been raised—£120 million. We are getting some of that because we already have people working in Ukraine as part of our NGOs. My second interest is as president of the YMCA, which is already working, particularly in Germany and in Hungary. By the way, the YMCA is bigger in Europe than in the United Kingdom and Wales. It is already working and trying to work out how to help.
The question that both organisations ask is: why have the Government called those community activities “sponsorships”? Why are they not welcoming people? I speak as someone who caused trouble for Idi Amin by opposing him for expelling Ugandan Asians who were citizens. I got into trouble and that is why I am here. When they were all expelled, the British Government provided aeroplanes to bring them over. There was no question of sponsorship. Then they asked in the communities where they were, “Can you help?”. Why do the Government not get the refugees in first and then we will be able to sponsor them?
Lord Harrington of Watford (Con)
I thank the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, for his comments. I know that he spends his life dealing with precisely this kind of thing. On the semantics of the word “sponsorship”, if we had had time to think about it perhaps we would have thought of something else, but I think most people know what it is. People are sponsoring people and are responsible for them. The Government are paying some money towards that—£350 per month—but people are effectively offering because they are kind and decent. However, if we have time to breathe and to change the name, after people much more creative than me have thought of something a bit more user-friendly, I should be delighted to do so.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister to his place and congratulate him on his quick command of everybody’s titles. I cannot imagine where he is getting the information from. However, I should like to press him on his answers about language to the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate. The Minister said that on arrival people will be given information in Ukrainian. He has kindly said that documents will not have to be translated any more but can the Government not work with Ukrainians based here to translate the forms so that people in Ukraine can fill in the form in their own language to make it as easy as possible for them?
Lord Harrington of Watford (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her comments on people’s names. Indeed, some days I cannot remember my own name but I seem to be good at remembering the names of people in this House. Yes, people should have a form in Ukrainian. It is not, in my opinion, best for them to have it by the side of the form that they fill in but, in the short time available, it is the best I can do. Ideally, I should like the form to be in Ukrainian. Also, although the Russian language is horrific to many Ukrainians, for many or some it is their first language.
Health and Care Bill
Wednesday 16th March 2022
(2 years, 7 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 114-IV Marshalled List for Report - (14 Mar 2022)
21:55 - Division on Amendment 172 - Ayes: 112 / Noes: 107 - Amendment 172 agreed.
22:45 - Division on Amendment 174 - Ayes: 82 / Noes: 115 - Amendment 174 disagreed.
“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 to inform the parent’s proposals for the child’s treatment (including obtaining an additional medical opinion);(c) to allow the provider of an alternative treatment that is being advocated by the parent to provide evidence, in person or remotely, to the mediation process and subsequently to the court;(d) to demonstrate the reasons that significant harm would be likely to be caused by the proposed treatment; and(e) where the two parties are unable to resolve their difference of opinion, to allow for a mediation process, acceptable to both parties, between the parent and the senior doctor with overall clinical responsibility.(3) Nothing in subsection (2) requires, or may be relied upon so as to require, the provision of any specific treatment by a doctor or institution, and in particular nothing in subsection (2)—(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.(4) 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.(5) Nothing in this section affects—(a) the principle of the best interests of the child,(b) the law about the appropriate clinical practice to be followed as to—(i) having regard to the child’s own views, where they can be expressed; and(ii) having regard to the views of anyone interested in the welfare of the child, whether or not a person concerned with the welfare of the child within the meaning of this section.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment aims to ensure that disputes between parents and doctors will be able to engage effective mediation.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, we now come to the very real problem that relates to the power differential between a doctor and the parents of a sick child. I am most grateful to all who have met me and discussed the amendment, particularly some senior paediatricians and the charity Together for Short Lives, and for support from the Charlie Gard Foundation in redrafting this amendment.
The amendment has been carefully redrafted in the light of comments made on the earlier version. Everyone I have spoken to has recognised that problems sometimes arise. In its 2018-19 review, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics observed common themes behind disagreements—communication issues, differing perspectives on what kind of risks could justifiably be taken, feelings of powerlessness for both parents and staff, and delays in seeking resolution interventions. Among the recommendations is mandatory communications training, as in proposed new subsection (2)(a) in the amendment, and the timely use of effective resolution interventions such as mediation, as in proposed new subsection (2)(e). When parents, as most do, have looked up their child’s condition on the internet, they often come across suggested treatments on different websites or by talking to medical contacts that they have. Clinicians can feel threatened by that.
When parents are worried, they can come across as angry or difficult in their attempt to get information or get something done. All too often, they are labelled as overanxious. Yet, is it normal to be out of your mind with worry if your child, whom you adore, looks as if they might die.
This amendment tries to provide a route for everyone to communicate better, and for the temperature to be lowered. It applies where there is a difference of opinion between the parents and the responsible doctor when a child is thought to be nearing the end of life. When staff become aware of a difference of opinion, the clinicians need to listen to the parents, and others concerned with the child’s welfare, who may have important information to inform thinking. Parents who want to seek a second opinion want to know the results of tests, such as radiology, for example, and, at the moment, they must go through a complex and sometimes slow process to access the information. Sadly, some parents only find out what was in the clinical record after their child has died. Of course, if there is any suspicion of child abuse, subsection (2)(b) would not apply, as it would be outwith the “reasonable steps” criterion.
Where another clinician from a reputable centre is suggesting a treatment, they should be asked to explain it, and the evidence base behind the suggestion, to avoid distortion of messaging—hence, subsection (2)(d) of the amendment. Clinicians, in explaining why they oppose a proposal, need to be able to explain to the parents what the “significant harm” in the proposal is. When taking any clinical decision, harms and burdens are weighed up against potential benefit. If a child is going to be taken into care, the test is whether it is of “significant harm” to leave the child where they are, rather than be taken into care. In some ways, this is similar, because the clinicians are being asked to show that it is significantly harmful for the child to pursue the parents’ proposal, rather than continuing with the current management plan—when it often involves withdrawing treatment and is likely to lead to death.
Some hospitals have excellent ethics committees to involve early. The Nuffield Council report recognises that there are very real difficulties in the concept of best interest when deciding not to treat, as it is often not clear to the parents why abandoning the hope of improvement is in the interests of the child. In an overcrowded NHS, unconscious bias can skew towards wanting a service to clear beds, when prognosis looks poor. However, parents know that the child has no interests once they are dead. Nuffield recommends that the views of parents should be accorded considerable weight in decisions about their child.
When the two parties are unable to resolve their difference of opinion, such a case would now go to the court immediately. This amendment suggests that a
“mediation process, acceptable to both parties”
should be allowed when, and only when, earlier attempts at resolution have failed, as in subsection (2)(e). A mediation process would be between the parents and the senior doctor with overall clinical responsibility. It cannot be delegated to a junior in training or to one of the nurses on the ward. If mediation fails, then, as now, the case would proceed to court. The amendment is clear that no doctor or institution would be required to provide a treatment which they do not feel comfortable giving. This is the current law. The amendment is also clear that the overriding principle is the principle, as laid out in current law, of the
“best interests of the child”
being paramount. If the child is Gillick-competent, such an amendment would not apply.
Similarly, the views of others, such as a social worker or health visitor who knows the family may provide important information. As is the case now, that information must be listened to, as it may relate to some safeguarding issues or other information unknown to either the clinical team or the court. The early steps outlined in this amendment should improve the quality of communication between parents and the medical team, thereby decreasing the need to go to mediation. The mediation process is to try to decrease the number of cases going to court. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. I invite the noble Baroness to speak.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I have put my name to Amendment 172. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, for tabling this improved amendment, with important changes since Committee, as she has very helpfully explained to your Lordships’ House. I believe that this helps to find a way to balance the views of the child’s parents and the child’s doctors, and it is reassuring that many of the stakeholders from different perspectives have come to agreement on this.
The amendment also makes it clear that nothing affects the principle of the best interests of the child. This means that no medical professional could ever be forced to provide a medical treatment that they do not believe is in the best interests of the child, and that any other provider of such medical treatment would have to provide evidence during the mediation that this would benefit the child.
Another key reason for the need for this amendment is that at the moment mediation provision across England is inconsistent. While there is certainly excellence, there are also some problem areas. Having in legislation an independent mediation process made available at the earliest stage possible can help facilitate less confrontational conversations while supporting both sides in the argument.
The issue of parent-doctor conflicts will continue to persist frequently unless the Government can consider this amendment, and I strongly urge them to do so. If the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, were to call a Division, we would support her on this, but I hope that the Minister will be able to provide some positive news.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, is also taking part remotely. I invite the noble Baroness to speak.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I have my name to Amendment 172, and I congratulate my noble friend Lady Finlay of Llandaff on her persistence on this important matter of mediation. It is a proven way of dismantling conflicts before they reach the courts.
Over the years, there have been some tragic cases when relationships have broken down between doctors and family members. When this happens in a hospital environment, parents can feel backed into a corner, with no alternatives. Mediation gives the opportunity for the parents to give their views and to hear the doctors’ views too at the earliest stage.
Ending up in the courts costs parents, hospitals and the Government hundreds of thousands in legal fees and causes avoidable distress and concern to all those involved. The only people who win are the lawyers. Parents have to live with grief and the decisions which have been made for their child for the rest of their lives if the results are not good. They want to know that they tried everything possible to give their child the best chance.
I feel that there should be adequate training for doctors, nurses and social workers in the values of mediation so that there is a team approach to treating a child in a life-and-death situation. I hope the Minister understands the need for this amendment and will accept it.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, it is always a great privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton. I too have added my name to Amendment 172 and commend the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for the way in which she introduced it. This debate could risk sounding technical and legalistic, but it is really about redressing an imbalance of power between doctors and parents when their child is desperately sick and at risk of dying and decisions are being made about how best to care for them.
I will not repeat all that I said in Committee, but my attention was drawn to this issue just over a year ago by listening to Connie Yates describe the ordeal that she and her partner Chris endured through the courts when the Great Ormond Street Hospital doctors disagreed with their decision as parents to seek alternative treatment for their baby. Theirs may be an extreme example of what it means not to be listened to or taken seriously by highly qualified professionals who, because they know more, believe they know best, but it is all the more profound because, as parents, what they experienced was not right, and it certainly was not what they deserved.
While this kind of ordeal might be rare, the wider principle—ensuring that we are all taken seriously when we deserve to be—needs promoting with vigour by those of us who enjoy great power and privilege. We need to go out of our way to redress imbalances where we see them, because the inequalities and unfairnesses that people feel, which have driven the political realignment we have seen in recent years, will not be fixed by infrastructure projects or economic decisions alone.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, my only previous intervention on the Bill came about when I read the proposed clause, and in my capacity as a trained mediator I thought that the original proposed clause was not very sound. The proposed new clause is a huge improvement on that, and I hope it will be looked on with favour. As the noble Baroness said, it is about evening up the power relations.
If you are in a hospital and dealing with anyone who is ill, but particularly small babies, it can be a very difficult experience. My daughter-in-law had two very small twin babies. Gathered around the incubator were one PhD and three decent BScs, and we did not know what to do. We felt quite powerless, but we also felt that it was very difficult to get the doctors to tell us what the prognosis was. In fact, the prognosis was quite good—they recovered and are now both in the school football team—but at the time there was on our part a great sense of powerlessness and a feeling that the doctors did not feel they really needed to communicate with us. That level of powerlessness is what this aims to address.
It is about early access to independent mediation. The first qualification of a mediator is that independence. They will not get a result, and nor should they, unless they have the trust of both sides and unless both sides enter into it in a good spirit, looking for a solution. Finally, if they get a solution, it has to be one that sticks. That is why the amendment refers to
“the senior doctor with overall clinical responsibility.”
This cannot be a mediation where a junior member of the medical staff is sent along, where it has no binding effect and where the senior doctor looks at it and says, “I don’t like that; we’re not going to do that.” There has to be some sort of legislative backing.
However, as noble Lords will have seen, the amendment states:
“Where the authorities … become aware of the difference of opinion they must take … reasonable steps.”
It is all about getting consensus; it is about releasing medical data to both sides, and it is about ensuring that the doctors responsible for treatment are at least obliged to listen to any alternatives that the parents might wish to put forward.
When we last debated this issue, I advised—and indeed this has been done—that we knock out the financial provisions, because we thought that the Government would object and say, “We can’t sign a blank cheque.” However, clearly not all the people listened, because this very morning the Ministry of Justice released its Legal Aid Means Test Review, which states:
“We are proposing to increase significantly both the income and capital thresholds for legal aid eligibility, and remove the means test entirely for some civil cases. These include legal representation for children, and legal representation for parents whose children are facing proceedings in relation to the withholding or withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment.”
It rather shoots the government fox that was running around, does it not? It was said that mediation would encourage litigation, whereas now mediation will discourage litigation, because it will be in the interests of both the health service and the medical profession to make mediation work. In making it work, they will not have days and days in court, but they will have a chance of putting the case to a mediator—having been one, I can tell you that it is a lot cheaper than a barrister—and coming to an agreement without needing the great generosity of our Deputy Prime Minister, Dominic Raab, in offering to pay all these costs. I must say that I was surprised by that statement, but if anyone wants to read it, there are multiple copies in the Printed Paper Office, which is where I got mine.
I hope that the Minister will be able complement his colleagues in the Ministry of Justice by taking a positive attitude to curing this particular result. Otherwise, we will be in a position where the Department of Health and Social Care is saying no to mediation, but where we are now going to get free access to the law courts to run up huge bills. What the Ministry of Justice does not say is which departmental budget will pay for this concession. I would not mind placing a little bet as to which one it has in mind.
So I am asking the Department of Health and Social Care to save itself some money, thanks to the beneficent amendment proposed by the four noble Baronesses and supported by me. We are out to save the Government some money, to make it much easier and to build into the system a right for parents to have a more evenly balanced say in what happens to their child at what is a very difficult and distressing time for many of them.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, I did not contribute to the debate on this amendment in Committee, but I did sit and listen to the contributions from around the House. What struck me was that in his characteristically sympathetic response, the Minister had not quite understood the purpose of the amendment and the problems it would solve. He stated that the amendment would place the views of parents and guardians above those of clinicians. I do not see that this is the case, especially with the revised amendment that we have before us. Unfortunately, it is a reality that parent-doctor conflict happens. I declare an interest as chief executive of Cerebral Palsy Scotland, and I have seen far too often the views of parents dismissed by clinicians. No matter how qualified parents may be, or what their role in life outside the hospital may be, they are consistently referred to only as “mum” or “dad”. Too often there is an imbalance of power with doctors, and too often parents are labelled as “difficult” or “sharp-elbowed”, as if wanting to do the best for your child is an irritant, and such parents should be grateful for what they get.
By the time a family is faced with palliative care, they will undoubtedly have been through the care of many clinicians: specialist, community, hospital and, potentially, hospice teams. The parents are therefore often the one consistent factor, and they are especially important when the child is too young or too ill, or unable to voice their own views. It is when parents feel they have not been listened to by clinicians that they resort to formal complaints or litigation. It is a last resort, but too often it is the only resort that is open to them. This amendment seeks to address this by giving them space for a formal coming together of all interested parties at an earlier stage, and so preventing costly and lengthy legal disputes. It does not place one party’s views above others; it does not, as outlined in proposed subsection (3), require the provision of resources for any treatment or require a doctor to provide treatment not in the best interests of the child. It simply ensures that there is a clear framework in these tragic, difficult cases to guide what happens next.
This amendment is designed to solve a problem currently faced by families and clinicians at moments of crisis. I urge the Government to consider it, and I will listen carefully to the response of the Minister tonight.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, the House will want to move on quickly, so I will not make the speech that I intended to make on this issue, but I would very much like to endorse what the noble Baronesses, Lady Fraser and Lady Stowell, the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, and my noble friend said in their earlier speeches. I know Connie Yates and Chris Gard, who are the parents of Charlie Gard, who died in 2017 of mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome. Indeed, I have entertained them here in the House, arranged meetings for them and travelled with them. I entirely agree with what my noble friend is trying to do. This will make mediation work; it will create a proper balance and equality of arms. No parents should have to face litigation in these often tragic and troubling circumstances, so this is a good amendment and I hope the Minister will feel he can accept it.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I was patron of Martin House in York, which is one of the amazing hospices that care for children and their parents. I was invited by the parents of a nine year-old, who was having a very difficult and trying time, to talk to clinicians, because they did not think that they were being heard. As we talked, it became clear that that was not true: the clinicians were on the side of the parents, but their language was not helpful. We had this amazing conversation, and as a result the needs of the child and the aspirations of both the parents and the clinicians matched, and we were able to get very careful care. What the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, is trying to do is recognise that in most cases parents have good desires, and clinicians probably know more than they are willing to say but hold back because of the sheer pain and difficulty that they see on the faces of everybody, and another voice can help in these situations.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, this eminently sensible amendment sets out various considerations aimed at ensuring that there can be effective mediation when there is a dispute over children’s palliative care. There has been considerable discussion to bring this amendment to its current iteration and I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for her efforts around this, having already secured a meaningful amendment to ensure that ICBs must commission the palliative care services they consider appropriate.
Your Lordships’ House is aware that this amendment and debate come out of the heartbreaking situation of Charlie Gard and multiple other cases like his. I therefore know that this issue has to be handled and considered incredibly delicately, taking into account the best interests of the patient receiving care above all others.
Balancing the views of clinicians and parents is intrinsically and incredibly difficult, and particularly challenging to codify in legislation. This amendment is a rational measure to move towards achieving a better balance and keeping matters out of the court, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, referred to in her opening. We certainly support its intent and I therefore hope that the Minister’s response gives it due justice.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I first thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for having brought forward this important issue for debate and for introducing it in her characteristically informed and professional way. I assure her that I understand the issues she has highlighted and why she has done so. There is no doubt in my mind that the kinds of case that she has cited are extremely distressing and stressful for all involved, and can, on occasions, be contentious.
The Government agree that mediation is often a good route to take when there is such contention. Parents and clinicians should have access to high-quality, independent mediation schemes where they wish to do so. There are many mediation schemes available and we are very supportive of them.
The NHS already ensures access to mediation in many cases, and we strongly encourage it to continue doing so. But, at the same time, we need to ensure that those schemes are effective in the different contexts in which they are needed. Currently, organisations have the flexibility to offer mediation services earlier in a dispute or to prevent such disputes arising. They have the flexibility to tailor services specifically to the unique circumstances in which they are needed.
I hope the noble Baroness would agree that each case is unique. It is essential that everyone is able to have their voice heard, that there is a good understanding of different perspectives and that there is appropriate involvement of parents in decisions about the care and treatment of their child. Naturally, in that process, differences of opinion can and do arise.
The key to progress in this area is something deeply nuanced—human relationships. That is why I believe that, rather than legislation, our efforts are better directed at working together to develop systemwide solutions about how disagreements can be avoided or recognised early and, most importantly, sensitively managed. We need to ensure that in these difficult situations NHS trusts and staff are well equipped, well prepared and well supported to make that sure parents’ feelings and concerns are fully considered and supported, and that the relationship remains positive and constructive. We know that there are already examples of best practice and guidance but we need to do more.
To improve the outcomes of these difficult cases, we need to look at the whole process. We need to look at how best practice can be shared across the system to ensure that parents’ voices are heard throughout the process, not just in mediation, and how we can prevent disputes arising in the first place. In the rare cases when a dispute does arise, we need to focus on the quality of mediation schemes and not just prescribe that mediation is offered by default.
To look at how best we can embed best practice, training and advice on shared decision-making and dispute resolution across the system, the Minister for Patient Safety and Primary Care has agreed to chair a round-table event facilitated by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics. This will build on the work already being done by bringing together key stakeholders to agree actions that support the creation of healthcare environments that foster good, collaborative relationships between parents and healthcare staff. I have also offered to meet Connie Yates and Chris Gard to hear their experiences and discuss how we can support better collaborative relationships between parents and healthcare staff. I hope this demonstrates that the Government understand the importance of this issue and that we are committed to addressing it.
It is the Government’s view—I say this with some regret—that putting this amendment or another in the Bill will not help improve the outcomes of the very difficult, rare situations in which an unresolvable dispute arises. This is because efforts need to be focused on a holistic approach to dispute resolution to improve the process as a whole. Merely allowing for mediation to be available at the end of a dispute will not do this; either party could refuse it and allowing mediation will not, we think, drive the careful, sympathetic and considered work with parents and carers that this topic so urgently demands.
I recognise that these are difficult matters, but I think progress will best be made through practical, down-to-earth work across the system and by bringing in a wide range of perspectives. This is what I am now offering and I therefore hope that, in reflecting on that offer, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, will feel able to withdraw this amendment.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
I am most grateful to everyone who has spoken. I realise that the time is late so I will try to be very brief in responding. I appreciate the offer of Nuffield to host another round-table event. I believe it held one recently and it had its previous inquiry. The sad reality, however, is that over recent decades of trying to teach communication skills, things have not improved as much as they should. One of the reasons is high staff turnover, which means you educate one group and it moves on. Yes, things have to be sensitively managed, but the role models come from the seniors. We are not talking about the vast majority, who are doing really well. The problem is that the people who are not doing well are the very ones who do not take up the education and do not want to change. I believe we have now got to the point where we need to send a very clear message and put this in the Bill. I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Chakrabarti
“Global health emergency international cooperation
In the event of the World Health Organisation declaring a public health emergency of international concern (“PHEIC”), the Secretary of State must within three months—(a) initiate or otherwise support and implement proposals temporarily to waive elements of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (“TRIPS”) at the World Trade Organisation to assist wider global manufacturing of and access to health technologies;(b) waive such UK-registered patents, industrial designs, other intellectual property rights, and protections concerning undisclosed information relating to—(i) vaccines,(ii) medicines,(iii) diagnostics and their associated technologies, and(iv) materials,as necessary for combatting the emergency internationally; and(c) issue relevant emergency compulsory directions to enable the domestic manufacturing of generic and biosimilar products.”Member’s explanatory statement
In the event of a public health emergency of international concern, this new Clause requires the Secretary of State to support domestic and international knowledge-sharing, to combat the emergency.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, the aim of Amendment 174 is to learn from mistakes made during this pandemic and ensure that, in the event of a public health emergency of international concern, our Government share and support others to share critical knowledge, data, research and intellectual property relating to vaccines, tests, treatments and their associated materials. By sharing this information and intellectual property we can scale up and, crucially, diversify the manufacturing of pandemic tools to ensure equitable access around the world, expediting our ability to end the emergency for all by winning the race against new variants.
Less than 10% of people in low-income countries have been double vaccinated. Lower-income countries are not prioritised. The status quo pharmaceutical model of supplying to the highest bidder means that low-income countries have to rely on the good will of high-income countries and companies to provide donations. Evidently, this has not proven effective in achieving global equitable access. Many low and middle-income countries therefore want to manufacture their own vaccines, tests and treatments so that they can have greater oversight of supply volumes, timelines for dispensing products and prices now and for the future. However, pharmaceutical companies have widely refused to share their technology openly. In addition, the United Kingdom, the EU and Switzerland have continuously blocked South Africa and India in their proposal to temporarily waive certain provisions of the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement—the TRIPS agreement—on all Covid-19 tools, vaccines, tests and treatments.
Amendment 174 seeks to remedy this. It calls for the Secretary of State to support or initiate a temporary global waiver of the TRIPS agreement within three months of a pandemic being declared at the WHO. This three-month period is there to give pharmaceutical companies the opportunity and the push to make plans for how they will voluntarily openly license their products and engage in transferring their know-how to companies with established manufacturing capacity. This time period is in step with the recommendations of the Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response.
The pharmaceutical industry is an immensely powerful machine, and we need to work with it. But as history has taught us, through the HIV crisis, pricing for cancer treatments, and now with Covid-19, it does not always do the right thing. As we speak the WHO’s mRNA hub in South Africa based at a biotech company called Afrigen has managed to reverse engineer Moderna’s vaccine. As Moderna made a pledge not to enforce patents during the pandemic, Afrigen are doing well in its development. The project has been significantly slowed down by Moderna and BioNTech’s refusal to share their knowledge with the hub. This is just one example. There are over 100 potential mRNA producers across Africa, Asia and Latin America who could be producing vaccines now, if only they had access to the know-how and data, and were not restricted by the fear of patent infringement.
Amendment 174 is about encouraging the industry to do the right thing and the Government to take action to protect global health and live up to the slogan “global Britain”. It is not just political rhetoric but epidemiological fact that none of us are safe until we are all safe. If viruses are left unchecked, they will mutate and this pandemic is far from over; cases have risen hugely in South Korea, China and here in the UK of late. Talk of Covid-19 becoming endemic does not that mean it has disappeared. Malaria is endemic in many parts of the world, but it continues to kill hundreds of thousands of people every year.
This amendment will also initiate a great deal of cost saving for the NHS during pandemics. We are paying the highest recorded price for the Pfizer vaccine at £22 per shot. This amendment reaffirms our commitment to using in these emergency situations compulsory licences, one of the public safeguards in the TRIPS agreement to enable the domestic manufacturing of generic and biosimilar products, which would mean that any company within the UK with manufacturing potential could be making these vital medical tools.
Just today we heard that a draft copy of the waiver has been leaked, although it has been significantly watered down and reduced in scope. None the less it shows there is a global consensus that intellectual property monopolies are a barrier to accessing Covid-19 vaccines, tests and treatments. We need the Government to use this moment finally to do the right thing and support a waiver on all intellectual property covering vaccines, tests and treatments that can be utilised by all countries in the negotiations to come.
I also urge Her Majesty’s Government to use their influence as a faithful customer of Pfizer and Moderna to push them to share their technology with the WHO’s mRNA hubs and revoke the patents they filed on Covid-19 technologies. This amendment is about improving access to affordable life-saving health technologies for our NHS and worldwide during public emergencies. We can bolster pandemic preparedness and expedite our response to Covid-19 and future pandemics. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
I invite the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, who is taking part remotely, to speak now.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I have signed Amendment 174 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. I thank her for introducing it and for making it clear that this aims for global pandemic preparedness. The World Health Organization set a target to vaccinate 40% of the world by the end of 2021. However, 92 countries missed this target due to a lack of access. Despite the funding from high-income countries to the WHO-run COVAX and Gavi schemes, low-income countries have remained at the back of the queue as high-income countries have been able to jump in ahead, using their money to get second and third doses for their own population.
Frankly, we need a better system for future pandemics. We need to understand that openly licensing newly developed Covid-19 technologies, waiving intellectual property rights and sharing the manufacturing know-how would allow more companies to begin producing life-saving vaccines, drugs and tests across the world. However, pharma companies have widely refused to share their technology openly. We also need to source other key critical control products, such as testing equipment, PPE and masks. Relying on too few suppliers in too few countries caused immense problems for the first six months of the pandemic, and again as subsequent waves hit those countries. In addition, the UK, the EU and Switzerland continue to block South Africa’s and India’s proposal to temporarily waive certain provisions of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights—TRIPS—on Covid-19 tools.
Despite regular pandemic exercises in this country, and despite previous experience with vaccines for other diseases not being shared with low-income countries, we have not learned the lessons. This amendment sets out what a Secretary of State should do within three months of the WHO declaring a public health emergency. I really hope that Ministers are prepared to help make progress on this issue. If not, and if the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, calls for a Division, we will support her from these Benches.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
I now invite the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, who is taking part remotely, to speak.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this is an important amendment. To me, it is the most important in the Bill. It concerns preservation of life in conditions of general pandemics. If you leave worldwide vaccine manufacturing programmes to the free market, you will never fully deliver. Profit will always trump the public good, unless the state intervenes in some regulatory form or another. This is basically why I am a Labour person.
With that in mind, it is clear that the more we are told that the current arrangements for licensing and manufacturing are necessary for reasons of quality control, the more I am convinced that this is not the only consideration in mind. There are other considerations—primarily the need to maximise profit. There is nothing wrong with profit if the justification is reasonable. It drives initiative and entrepreneurship. However, when there are wider issues involved, as in the case of a global pandemic which threatens the well-being of nations and the international economy, there must be a consideration of the wider public good and benefit. I am not convinced that, apart from the case of the AstraZeneca project, public benefit has been the driver.
In Committee, I set out in some detail a case wider than this amendment for worldwide licensing arrangements based on the original amendment of my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti. I remain confused by the Government’s position, which seems ever reliant on research and limited production at home, with volume production overseas. I would have thought that there are lessons to be learned about supply volatility from the case of oil from Russia. Equally, with both China and India leading the world in vaccine supply—at the same time as both countries remain reluctant to support us over certain areas of dispute and crisis in foreign policy—alarm bells should be ringing. I remain of the view that we in the United Kingdom should lead the world in this area of research, development, manufacturing, licensing and supply.
We are moving into an era of further pandemics as research-spawned accidental releases inevitably will reoccur, or perhaps they will not even be accidental in origin. There are huge foreign policy benefits to be gained arising out of being the world’s primary producer and licensee of these vaccines. When you help people, they remain indebted. That is the approach China is taking in many areas of its foreign policy.
I will give an example. The French Government funded my higher education in France 60 years ago. To this day, I remain indebted to France, with a lifetime feeling of obligation. This is often the case for foreign students. I believe that if we had been suppliers and licensees to the world over the recent period, in particular Africa and the third world, the payback would have been immeasurable, with huge implications for foreign policy.
I will exaggerate to make my case: suppose we had been supplier and licensee to China. Can noble Lords imagine what influence such beneficence would have had on Chinese public opinion and, perhaps ultimately, on Chinese foreign policy? A friend in need is a friend indeed—we should never forget that.
I appeal to the Government, even at this late stage in the current pandemic, to think long term, and create the vaccine supply, manufacturing and licensing programme that my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti is advocating. Her amendment seeks at least a temporary, time-agreed waiver. It is a start. I am using her amendment to argue a wider case, a new vision. Her excellent amendment puts in place a building block on which a longer-term strategy should be constructed. We should lead by helping others to help themselves. The rewards are inestimable.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I was happy to add my name to this amendment to give it a bit of cross-House balance. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, I am an officer of the all-party parliamentary group on coronavirus. In the last two years, we have had a bellyful of coronavirus; we have heard ad nauseum about the problems and the tragedies that it has created and encompassed, and that is partly what leads to this amendment.
It is self-evident that the United Kingdom, and most of the rest of the world, was unprepared. Countries that had experienced SARS, particularly in south-east Asia, had a better idea of what they were getting into. Frankly, however, for most of us in the West, it was the blind leading the blind. Looking in the mirror today—and accepting our failings, and the unease that we in the developed world should surely feel for largely having prioritised looking after our own—is for me, certainly, distinctly uncomfortable.
The aim of Amendment 174 is very simple: equitable access to affordable health technologies for all. One of the biggest challenges is how to deal with the exclusive intellectual property rights that exist in the healthcare sector. Only 7% of people in low-income countries have been double vaccinated. Only an additional 14% have had one dose.
Noble Lords should remember where the variants have come from. The exception, of course, is alpha, for which global Britain is responsible, so that is something that we can be proud of. Beta came from South Africa, gamma from Brazil, delta from India, and omicron is truly global because it started in about 10 countries simultaneously. The two countries that went it alone, rather proudly, in developing their own vaccines—China and Russia—have produced manifestly inferior vaccines, which have not been subject to proper, clinical peer scrutiny.
I give two examples of the problem we face. First, Pfizer’s new antiviral treatment excludes most Latin American countries, and generic versions—unless Pfizer does something about relaxing its intellectual property—may not be available in those countries until after 2041. Secondly, Tocilizumab, an antiviral manufactured by Roche, which is based on UK government-funded research, is unable to be manufactured in countries with established production capacity because Roche is enforcing its patents in these countries. There is a global shortage of this particular treatment.
Tackling the complex world of healthcare intellectual property is not easy. In my past career as a headhunter, I worked with clients that were large, complex, well-funded, international pharmaceutical companies, so I know full well the level of intellect and resource that they put into their intellectual property defences. We must apply ourselves in a disciplined and determined way at an international level; this is a chance for Great Britain to prove that it is indeed global. As an aside, during Oral Questions this morning, some of us on the Cross Benches were playing a game where, every time somebody from the Government Front Bench mentioned global Britain, another notional £10 clinked into the pockets of the Cross-Bench Christmas drinks fund; this afternoon, we had a particularly fruitful Oral Questions. As a mantra, it is meaningless unless it has real content behind it.
We need to develop a rapid response plan for the next pandemic. We will demonstrate that we have intellectual and moral myopia if we fail to do it. In a nod to Amendment 170, which we debated earlier, we should not show that we are content to let the less-developed world suffer from what I would describe as unassisted dying. That is unacceptable.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise briefly to offer Green support for this amendment, which I would have signed had there been space.
The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, referred to today’s report that a watered-down version of the India-South Africa proposal for a TRIPS waiver looks likely to go through the WTO. I quote Max Lawson, co-chair of the People’s Vaccine Alliance:
“After almost 18 months of stalling and millions of deaths, the EU has climbed down and finally admitted that intellectual property rules and pharmaceutical monopolies are a barrier to vaccinating the world.”
Bouncing off the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, I think that the Cross Benches might find an even larger drinks fund if they go for “world-leading” as the key phrase to identify. The comment from Mr Lawson shows that, collectively, the world has done very badly throughout the Covid pandemic and done very poorly by the global south. If the Government want to be world-leading, they could leap in right now and accept the noble Baroness’s amendment.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, the noble Baronesses, Lady Lawrence and Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, on supporting and promoting this amendment. Its explanatory statement says:
“In the event of a public health emergency of international concern, this new Clause requires the Secretary of State to support domestic and international knowledge-sharing, to combat the emergency.”
I cannot see why anybody would object to that.
I would like to say one more thing. The former Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, has led this country on how one should respond to a global pandemic with his work at the World Health Organization on the importance of sharing knowledge, vaccines and technology across the world. This amendment is about the pandemic that is coming down the track as well as the one we are dealing with at the moment, so we on these Benches certainly support it.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I support this amendment. I do not intend to repeat the excellent points that have been made by others because the case in equity—and the case in our own interests—is absolutely compelling in my noble friend’s excellent amendment. However, for a short period of time, I do intend to test just how good the Government’s resistance to this is; I will do so by referring to the Minister’s own speech in Committee on this very amendment. I will ask two questions of the Minister; I hope that he will be able to answer them because, if he cannot, there is no resistance to this amendment.
On 9 February, on the ninth day in Committee, the noble Lord the Minister repeated the Government’s oft-repeated view on this issue when it has been debated in your Lordships’ House that
“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.”
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I was not going to speak, but I am driven to respond to what I have just heard. I first declare an interest as chair of Christian Aid, which works in some 29 countries, most of which have experienced what I call vaccine inequality. We constantly get letters urging us to try to help.
As far as the British Government are concerned, in relation to some of those countries, the money and the way that they have tried to help—which must be acknowledged—certainly with AstraZeneca, there has been a far greater equity coming out. When we had the Kent variant, the Government were very quick to share that information with everybody else. What I think the amendment is asking is that, when the World Health Organization declares a health emergency, if we have information we should make it available immediately.
Secondly, on the question of equity, we have just had a big Commonwealth service in Westminster Abbey and there are particular people—noble Lords may not believe it—who come from those 54 countries of the Commonwealth who still look to the United Kingdom as giving them not only language but the ability to understand the sheer pressure of inequality. I would have thought that this particular amendment would help us to answer some of our supporters out there in the global south by saying that we are very serious, given some of the help that has been provided—though it has not gone far enough; the antivirals and all those drugs have not been given equitably. I therefore ask the Minister to realise that the issue is not whether we have or have not done enough; it is that, if there is a global health emergency—locally and internationally—the Secretary of State is in a better position sometimes to speak and to help those who are struggling and finding it difficult.
Nkrumah said that Ghana would not be free until the rest of Africa was independent, and I believe the same is true now. I have had my double vaccine and my booster, but I am not fully vaccinated until the rest of the world is vaccinated.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate for the passion they have shown. I think we are all concerned by vaccine inequity—as noble Lords have rightly said, we are getting our third or fourth vaccines while some people have not had their first yet—but we also have to be clear how we get to this stage. It is easy to say, “We spent this much money on public research and that led to the vaccines”, but it is not as simple as that. It may have led to the research but that does not lead to the production of millions of vaccines that can be distributed worldwide. There is a clear difference between pure research and turning that into actual vaccines and, once they are produced, getting them into people’s arms. You can certainly deliver them to countries but they do not always reach the arms. We have heard stories of vaccines being thrown away because of a lack of distribution in particular countries.
The sharing of knowledge has played and will continue to play an important role in the rapid scale-up of Covid vaccine production. The UK Government are very committed to addressing vaccine equity on every front. As the son of people who came from outside the EU—not white, privileged Europe—I believe very strongly in global Britain.
The experience of the pandemic has shown that it is voluntary collaboration that has made real, positive impacts on vaccine delivery. The scale-up of vaccine production at record pace has been driven by more than 300 voluntary partnerships. This unprecedented collaboration around the world has meant that global Covid vaccine production now stands at nearly 1.5 billion doses per month. Voluntary partnerships such as AstraZeneca and the Serum Institute of India, and Pfizer-BioNTech and Biovac in South Africa, show what is possible if you work together.
The intellectual property framework has been crucial in facilitating this knowledge sharing. Indeed, the legal certainty it produces cannot be overstated. It gives innovators the confidence to form partnerships and continue investing in the innovative health products and technologies that have contributed so positively to our global pandemic response. The intellectual property framework similarly supports the production and dissemination of vaccines and other products across the world.
Yes, 97% of the investment in research is public funding, but research is not vaccines. There needs to be a whole chain from that pure research to scaling up and distribution, and universities cannot do that. Waiving intellectual property rights would dismantle the very framework that has facilitated this collaboration. It would undermine not only the knowledge sharing that has helped to develop and produce Covid-19 vaccines at the pace and scale now seen but the framework needed to support the development of new vaccines and treatments, should these be needed in future.
It should also be noted that the least-developed countries are exempt from implementing the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights—or TRIPS—Agreement, meaning that they already have a de facto TRIPS waiver. In addition, the TRIPS Agreement already provides flexibilities to enable countries to achieve their public health objectives, and we fully support the right of these countries to use these where needed—but you have to build the capacity. Low and middle-income countries can access medicines in times of emergency through flexibilities that allow them to manufacture or import without the consent of the patent holder.
For these reasons, the UK does not consider intellectual property rights a barrier to supplying and improving access to Covid-19 goods. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, can put another £10 in the Christmas bag. Instead, we shall continue to be a visible champion of those elements of the intellectual property framework that support effective knowledge sharing.
The noble Baroness will be aware that we have contributed vaccines through the COVAX scheme—a partnership of the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, UNICEF and the World Health Organization—but we know that is not enough. As noble Lords have rightly said, we have to learn from what we have done during this pandemic. One part of my ministerial portfolio that I am very proud of is international relations and health diplomacy. A constant theme in my G20 and G7 Health Ministers’ meetings is how we tackle these vaccine inequities and learn the lessons that many noble Lords have rightly raised.
Last week, the British Government hosted the Global Pandemic Preparedness Summit to learn those lessons: to make sure that we brought together all our experiences as countries, learned from those and asked what we could do next time. I was very privileged to host a working lunch with several overseas Health Ministers, as well as Dr Richard Hatchett, CEO of CEPI; Dr Seth Berkley, the Gavi CEO; and Dr Tedros, the director-general of the World Health Organization, sitting next to me. One of the issues that came up in our discussions was, rather than developing and less-developed countries relying on donations via COVAX, how we ensure that, first, there is more local and regional manufacturing of vaccines through public-private partnerships and, secondly, that vaccines get into people’s arms as quickly as possible once they are manufactured or are imported into a country. We need to avoid those situations where vaccines were wasted because they were not stored or transported properly, or where there was difficulty distributing them once inside a country.
With international partners, we are looking at a whole range of issues and new technologies, such as new distribution methods. Some noble Lords may well have read about drones being used to deliver vaccines to certain remote areas. Before using these drones, it is all very well having all these vaccines in the capital, but how do you get them into people’s arms? We have to look at that area. Intellectual property rights are irrelevant here. The fact is that the vaccines are there but you have to get them into people’s arms. We have to train more vaccinators and we need better transport.
We agree that the vaccine supply must be matched by the capacity of health systems to deliver them, and we have been working to strengthen health systems around the world. Our recently launched health systems strengthening position paper sets out this Government’s determination to do more to build overall capacity, from policy through to delivery.
But there are other issues. Just as there are the vaccine-hesitant in this country, there are many vaccine-hesitant people in other countries. Our African vaccine confidence campaign is working with experts in countries such as Botswana, Ghana and Uganda to reinforce communities’ trust and build demand from the ground up. Once again, you can get the vaccines there but you have to get them into people’s arms. We have also been working to minimise constraints on supply chains, such as tariffs. This has been demonstrated by our sponsorship and promotion of the trade and health initiative as well as the unilateral measures we have taken, including tariff suspensions.
We have also provided support for the development of regional manufacturing capabilities. This includes technical support to develop business cases for the manufacture of vaccines in South Africa, Senegal and Morocco. We are working with the COVAX supply chain and manufacturing task force to champion other practical efforts to scale up capacity. We believe that we are doing lots of things with our global partners—with Gavi, CEPI and the World Health Organization.
To be honest, I am incredibly inspired by some of the work that I see going on. This is about building real capacity. It is about transferring knowledge and technology and making sure that we have that capacity. It is about making sure that we live up to global Britain, in which I firmly believe given my own family history—not from white Europe, but from a global perspective. I believe very strongly in that. I believe that waiving intellectual property rights will not help overcome these challenges. I may be passionate about this but I feel very strongly about it. I feel strongly about global Britain. I feel very strongly about my distant relatives who come from developed countries and about my own history, my own heritage. I feel much more strongly about this than noble Lords may well feel.
This is the right approach. I am hugely encouraged by this international co-operation and the potential of new technologies to help. I would be very happy to continue to engage with the noble Baroness. I think we probably share the same passion for making sure that this happens. Given that, I hope she will consider withdrawing her amendment.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful to all noble Lords who spoke at this late hour, including the Minister. With respect, however, the numbers just do not stack up. I am so glad that the Government have now donated over 30 million shots, but these have almost all been AstraZeneca, which has lower efficacy against the now-dominant omicron variant. Moderna belatedly allocated a mere 110 million shots for a continent—Africa—with an estimated population of 1.3 billion people. Pfizer has allocated only 2% of its global supply to COVAX. We are just not getting enough shots to enough people, and so the variants develop.
I am grateful to everyone and I would happily keep speaking to the Minister, who is always courteous in his responses, but I really do think that it is time to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Hollins
“Mandatory training on learning disability and autism
(1) In regulation 18(2) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 (S.I. 2014/2936), for sub-paragraph (a) substitute—“(a) receive—(i) such appropriate support, training, professional development, supervision and appraisal as is necessary to enable them to carry out the duties they are employed to perform, and(ii) in particular, training on learning disability and autism, appropriate to their role, as set out in the code of practice issued by the Secretary of State under section (Mandatory training on learning disability and autism) of the Health and Care Act 2022,”.(2) With regard to training on learning disability and autism, the Secretary of State must prepare and publish a code of practice (“the code”) containing guidance addressing—(a) the content of mandatory training and its co-production,(b) the appropriate levels of training required across staff roles,(c) the co-delivery of training,(d) the in-person delivery of training,(e) the accreditation of training,(f) the procurement of training,(g) the monitoring and evaluation of the impact of training, and(h) the implementation of mandating of training across regulated health and social care providers.(3) The Secretary of State must seek the participation of and consult such persons and bodies as they consider appropriate—(a) in preparing the code, and(b) in revising it.(4) The Secretary of State may not issue the code or any revision unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.(5) The Secretary of State must review the code every three years and lay the findings before Parliament.(6) In this section—“appropriate to their role” has the meaning given by the code;“autism” means a spectrum of disorders which start in childhood, the clinical manifestations of which include atypical social communication and social interaction and restricted, repetitive patterns of behaviour;“in person” means training delivered live, by people, in the presence of the trainee;“learning disability” means a disability which includes a significantly reduced ability to understand new or complex information or to learn new skills, with a reduced ability to cope independently, which started before adulthood, with a lasting effect on development.”
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 176 proposes that guidance should be published on how training in learning disability and autism will become mandatory for all health and social care staff. The amendment has been altered from earlier stages to address concerns raised by the Minister and officials, both in Committee and in discussions following Committee. I am grateful to the Bill team, Department of Health and Social Care officials, Mencap and noble Lords who are supporting this amendment.
The unacceptable health inequalities that many people with learning disabilities and autism face, which have been worse during the pandemic, have been reported numerous times and I am not going to repeat them here. Nor will I repeat the circumstances of Oliver McGowan’s tragic death. His parents have been powerful advocates of mandatory training and persuaded Her Majesty’s Government to commit to introducing it. Her Majesty’s Government conducted a consultation and launched an ambitious pilot of the Oliver McGowan mandatory training scheme and the evaluation is due any day.
This amendment goes a step further because it would put in statute a policy that the Government have committed to undertake. It would create a code of practice that would consult on and set out how training will be scaled up across the country. The code provides a number of advantages compared to simply amending the Health and Social Care Act 2008. It intends that co-production and co-delivery are embedded from the start and this is achieved through a requirement for the Secretary of State to consult relevant persons in preparing the code and regularly revising it in the light of outcomes. These relevant persons must include those with lived experience.
Co-production and co-delivery should be uncontroversial, but campaigners are still having to fight for this. One of the concerns put to me is whether in fact there are enough experts by experience to contribute to training that would be provided to all health and care professionals. This morning, I told my son, who has a learning disability, about tonight’s debate. He said that he wanted other people to have the same opportunity that he has had to be able to train the staff in his GP practice, but training for trainers would, of course, be needed. So many people with learning disabilities and so many autistic people are keen to have work and yet the work opportunities are not there. Here is a brilliant work opportunity.
The amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay before this House and the other place the findings of a regular review of the code, which will be needed to ensure accountability and scrutiny and help to shape any revisions or changes required in the light of improvements or otherwise of the health and care outcomes for this group of people. Accepting the amendment would be a wonderful signal to campaigners, including Oliver’s parents, Paula and Tom McGowan, that the Government’s promises will be honoured sooner rather than later. I urge the Minister to accept the amendment.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, it may be convenient for the House if I clarify the Government’s position on the amendment at this stage. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for bringing her amendment before the House today on the important matter of mandatory training on learning disability and autism for the health and social care workforce and I pay tribute to the work that she has done in this area.
The Government recognise that mandatory training on learning disability and autism will support the health and social care workforce to improve the quality of care and support provided to people with a learning disability and autistic people, thereby improving health and well-being outcomes. We remain committed to improving the lives of people with a learning disability and autistic people. That is why we invested £1.4 million to develop, test and trial the Oliver McGowan mandatory training with over 8,000 people in 2021. This will help to ensure that the training rolled out is meaningful and impactful. It is with great thanks to noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, for her determination and her collaborative work with the Government that I am very pleased to say that the Government would like to support the amendment put forward to introduce mandatory training on learning disability and autism.
While we are keen to support the amendment, we will be proposing to make some changes to ensure that it is fully workable and fits into the legal framework. It is likely that such changes will be introduced at the Commons consideration of Lords amendments stage. We have discussed this with the noble Baroness and we will ensure that we keep her fully updated with our proposals in this space. We hope that this commitment today sends a strong signal to people with a learning disability and autistic people, as well as their families and carers, that the Government are committed to addressing the significant and persistent health disparities that they face.
I could not make this announcement today without a special mention and thanks to Paula and Tom McGowan, who campaigned tirelessly for this cause. The resilience and commitment that both they and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, have shown have been inspiring. They should be proud of all that they have achieved for Oliver and for others whose lives have sadly been cut short.
To further emphasise the Government’s commitment to instilling real change for people with a learning disability and autism, I confirm our intention that all integrated care boards should have a named learning disability and autism lead and that NHS England proposes to issue statutory guidance on this matter to assist integrated care boards. The Government are supportive of this approach and believe that learning disability and autism leads on every ICB would act as a voice for those with a learning disability and autism in commissioning decisions. I commend this amendment to the House.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s statement—it really is very welcome—and declare an interest as a vice-president of the National Autistic Society. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, for her dedication, commitment and sheer endurance in pressing this matter of ensuring that those who support people with learning disabilities and autism are well trained. Training is essential if we are to help young people in particular to experience the kind of life that all of us in this Chamber take for granted. With the right support, young people with learning disabilities and autism can enjoy that quality of life. I do not intend to detain the House, but I will just share with colleagues some of my experiences of young people who have succeeded because they have had the right support.
I met an 11 year-old boy with learning difficulties at a special school. He said, “You’ve heard I’ve got learning difficulties?” I said yes. “My brother has too,” he said. “He is five; he’s got autism. I’m helping my mother help him.” I said, “Oh, that’s good.” “I’m off to comprehensive school,” he said. I said, “That’s good. Are you looking forward to it?” “Yes,” he said, “and I’ve decided on my career.” I said, “What are you going to be?” “I’m going to be a High Court judge, and I can tell you now, if you come up before me, you’ll get a lenient sentence.” The point is that the school had really worked hard, but the head said to me, “He worked hard too at overcoming these problems.”
I met Max at a joint meeting of the All-Party Group on Autism and the All-Party Group on Apprenticeships chaired by the late Dame Cheryl Gillan, who pioneered the Autism Act. Max worked for a housing association. When I went there, I could see how hugely supported he was, as he had been as a youngster, in his job by his colleagues. At that time, he was an amateur actor and had appeared on “Victoria Derbyshire”. That was then—now he is an actor, a producer, a public speaker, an ambassador for the National Autistic Society and a recipient of the Princess Diana award, awarded to changemakers for their generation. He has had that success because he had the right support.
Finally, I mention Louise—I have not met her; I have just talked to her. Louise had some difficult times early in her life. “You don’t look autistic,” somebody once said to her. She said that she was often humiliated by her teachers and those in authority, and when she tried to work, she had meltdowns and could not cope. She got her first job in her mid-40s. She is now working for a charity supporting people with autism, and she said to me, “Now I’m given the space, and they let me lead and I can flourish. I’m helping other autistic people improve their lives.” With the right support, quality of life has been given to that woman, now in her 40s.
My point is simple: given the right support and encouragement, people with learning disabilities and autism can have the same quality of life as we all in this Chamber would expect for ourselves and our families. I welcome the Government’s decision to support this amendment. There is still much work to do, but it is going the right way. I thank the Government, and especially the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, for pioneering the work that we are talking about this evening.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, on bringing forward such a wise and sensible amendment, which follows a series of failings in the healthcare system, failings which might have been prevented if health and social care staff had had the proper training to meet the particular needs of those with autism and learning disabilities.
I consider this amendment to be about fairness—those with autism and learning disabilities may be treated as anybody may expect to be treated. I thank the Minister for her very positive response, and her and her team for working so closely with the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and others to achieve the training of the relevant staff and to ensure a voice on integrated care boards. This is a fitting and lasting tribute to the memory of Oliver McGowan, and I am sure that it will always be regarded as such.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I am very grateful, and I know that Paula and Tom McGowan will also be very grateful—as will many people with learning disabilities and autistic people—to the Minister and to all those working behind the scenes for reaching this point and accepting my amendment, as well as for committing to include a learning disability and autism lead on integrated care boards.
I understand that some small changes may be proposed to ensure workability. I look forward to working with the Bill team and Department of Health and Social Care officials to ensure that these changes further strengthen the intention behind Amendment 176. I thank noble Lords for their support.
Lord Moynihan
“Office for Health Promotion
(1) The Office for Health Improvement and Disparities is to be re-established on a statutory footing, as the Office for Health Promotion (“the Office”).(2) The Office is an independent advisory board to the Department for Health and Social Care.(3) As part of its duties, the Office must publish a National Plan for Sport, Health and Wellbeing.(4) The aim of the National Plan for Sport, Health and Wellbeing is to—(a) tackle preventable factors causing death and ill health in the UK;(b) demonstrate ways in which sports can help to strengthen social ties;(c) direct funding for sport;(d) include measures to promote physical access to the countryside;(e) identify ways in which schools and colleges are to be encouraged to develop closer links with local sports clubs;(f) include a fully costed National Facilities Plan and specific efforts to tackle discrimination and ensure there is a safe environment for all participants;(g) instil a life-long habit of sport and physical activity throughout the education system;(h) include a comprehensive approach to welfare, care and safeguarding including reports on enforcement of welfare, care and safeguarding standards in sports governing bodies;(i) lead national efforts to improve people’s health by tackling obesity, improving mental health and promoting physical activity;(j) establish a Physical Activity Observatory to act as a centre for independent research and analysis of physical activity data to input into the design of the National Plan for Sport, Health and Wellbeing;(k) promote, encourage and raise awareness of the benefits of participation in sport for health, longevity, fitness, social interaction and wellbeing, and the other health benefits of exercise for all individuals, with the aim of preventing the onset of avoidable physical and mental illness and protecting people's health; and(l) promote clean athletes and the integrity of sport.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment implements recommendations 1, 2 and 3 of the House of Lords ‘National Plan for Sport and Recreation Committee’ report (session 2021-2022 HL Paper 113) which makes ‘The case for a national plan for sport, health and wellbeing’.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for meeting yesterday with the noble Baronesses, Lady Morris of Yardley and Lady Grey-Thompson, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and me to discuss this important amendment. We were all grateful for the sympathetic hearing we had. We are also grateful to the Bill team and particularly to Jamie Blackshaw, the lead of the physical activity team at OHID.
The Government immediately raised a number of concerns about our amendment. We readily accept the wishes of Ministers in the department that, instead of the office for health promotion, it should be called the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities. We completely understand the motivation behind that and totally accept it.
I will also respond to the second concern that the amendment could be read as if we were taking away the mandate of OHID, when we were talking about focusing on a national plan for sport and recreation and calling it the office for health promotion. That was never our intention, and it was good to have the opportunity to clarify that yesterday. The intention is that OHID should continue to undertake all its admirable functions in full. I hope it succeeds in that objective. Importantly, it should add to that accountability to Parliament for a national plan for sport, health and well-being.
The noble Lord, Lord Willis, chaired the National Plan for Sport and Recreation Committee, which recently reported on a national plan for sport, health and well-being. There was a good response to that from the Government and we were pleased when, yesterday, the Minister underlined his commitment to many of the recommendations we made. We certainly will not raise them again this evening.
We simply focus on the importance of hearing from the Minister about the health promotion task force. It may not be inaccurate to say that we have had, or appear to have had, a first win, as a result of the work of the Select Committee, in recognising that there needs to be a co-ordinating activity within government for sport, health and well-being to come together to tackle obesity, low levels of activity and the problems that so many children face coming out of Covid. We believe the health promotion task force may be able to achieve many of the objectives that we set out in the committee and that, ideally, should have ministerial responsibility. There should be somebody driving that.
Sport tends to be on the touchline of Whitehall when it comes to policy co-ordination. We must ensure that we have somebody of the calibre of, say, Tracey Crouch, who has done so much good work in bringing together sport, health and well-being, as New Zealand does with its Deputy Prime Minister. It would be an admirable benefit to Government if they considered somebody of her ability, experience and respect to draw the work of the health promotion taskforce together.
It is important tonight not to rehearse any of the arguments we made in earlier deliberations on this Bill. High levels of inactivity, especially among women, ethnic minorities and disabled people, is of epidemic proportions in the UK. Nobody believes we can avoid the importance of cross-departmental policy co-ordination. Virtually every department of state now has an interest in sport, health and well-being. Unlike when I was a Minister when it was on the fringes of government, 30 years ago, today it is central to government policy. It needs the full weight of government behind it and that push must include education—we need to enhance the value of PE and teacher training time devoted to PE—as well as health, in addressing the obesity epidemic. It has to back up the outstanding work of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, in delivering a serious and robust approach to duty of care and safeguarding in sport.
I end by asking the Minister a number of questions. It looks as if the health promotion task force that is due to be established can achieve many of the objectives that the Select Committee and the four of us set out in earlier deliberations on the Bill. Is that the case? Does the Minister believe that the health promotion task force has the strength and remit to achieve those objectives?
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, I support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. I do not want to repeat points that have been made at this late hour, but I wish to emphasise that the arguments about the importance of sport and well-being do not need to be made again. Everybody from all parties, right across the House, understand their importance and the consequences of not getting them right. The good will has been there for years, but the ability to transform it into effective action has not, and lots of well-intentioned efforts in the past have come to naught. That is what is driving the committee that met under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, and I agree with the questions that have been asked.
For me, it is a case of not relying on a cross-departmental committee to run this project. It has not worked in the past, and there is no reason to think that it would work in the future. Is there seniority? Is there someone with clout who can bang heads together? Is there someone for whom it is a very important part of their job, and who knows they will be held accountable? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that the Health Promotion Taskforce does seem to offer hope. Clarity on that—letting us know about its leadership, and the presenting to Parliament of an annual report for discussion—would allay many of our concerns. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I draw your attention to my interests: I am chair of ukactive, and I have a number of interests in this area. I also sat on the Lords Select Committee.
I too am not going to rehearse the arguments we gave in Committee, but all the names added to this amendment have been involved in this space for many years. We have all been through various iterations of this, and we should be talking about physical literacy and physical activity, and slightly less about sport. That might be surprising considering my background, but as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said, we have an obesity crisis and a generation of young people who are more likely to die before their parents, and there are a number of conditions that can be treated. Frankly, we have been tinkering at the edges of this for way too long. There have been programmes and lots of initiatives that have had some success, but if we are serious about the NHS and the health of the nation, we have to do things in a different way. I feel like I have been talking about this for about the last 30 years—the noble Lord has had a slightly longer time in sport than I have—but I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response in order to understand how we can genuinely make a change and stop going round in circles on this important issue.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, the last shall probably be quickest on this. We have all, as is agreed, said that we need to do something that is coherent. This has not been coherent. We have had committees that met once every full moon, provided everybody had had tea of the right quality that day; thus was their infrequency. Nobody was prepared to ensure that something that was inconvenient for one department was done to ensure that another department fulfilled it. There just was not anything. The Olympics did not manage to make them work together. We need coherent leadership and a price to be paid—accountability—for not doing it. If the Minister can give us that, we will have taken a major step forward. I would of course prefer the amendment that has been tabled, but I will take half a loaf any day over no bread. Can the Minister assure us that there will be leadership and that a price will be paid, publicly paid, for not doing it? Without that, as we know, this will merely become a report with somebody else saying, “They should have had a meeting about it some time”. Let us bin this. I am fed up with making that speech, even though it does usually get me out of a lot of trouble.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, this is a key opportunity to do something really significant for the health of the nation, from the youngest to the oldest, and for all the groups we refer to as “excluded.” This is a key moment. If the Minister can respond positively to the questions put to him by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, he will be doing a very good job for the nation.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I entirely support my noble friend Lord Moynihan when he asks for proper accountability. That is what drives the few examples of successful cross-departmental co-operation. One of the recent missed opportunities is Defra not picking up on aspects of the Glover report that deal with people getting out into the landscape. To make a difference to that, Defra has to care and it has to be brought to account, but there also has to be a good enough mechanism to ensure that if Defra does propose to do something, someone is going to fund it. That would certainly apply too to schools’ collaboration with local sports clubs. Parents up and down the land want that to happen. But how is that going to be afforded? How is that going to be made to happen? Who is holding the systems accountable? There has to be some system whereby accountability and interest flow through—as my noble friend said, ideally, to Parliament—to make that happen.
I have written to the Minister on perioperative care, which is another example. How does the NHS collaborate with all the other people who might provide the support required for effective perioperative care? They are not in the NHS; it does not work that way. You can have a system that just involves spending the money and ticking the box because that money has been spent; or you can have one with real accountability, in which people care whether you get the results and are measuring that, and who feed that through to someone with a central interest in things. So I am really going to listen to the Minister with great interest on this.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan—along with the noble Baronesses, Lady Morris and Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington—for bringing forward this important amendment. It does strike me as strange that the UK does not already have a national plan in place to promote sport, health and well-being. If we are to tackle the acute obesity crisis in this country, a joined-up, forward-looking strategy at a national level is necessary. From these Benches, we support this amendment wholeheartedly. It offers huge potential to tackle obesity, poor mental health and a sedentary lifestyle in a joined-up way that sees people as whole people with different pressures and needs, but with the intention of focusing on prevention. So, I hope the Minister will be able to respond positively tonight.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I begin by thanking the noble Lords who initiated this debate tonight and my noble friend Lord Moynihan, the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Morris of Yardley, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for meeting with me yesterday, and with the Bill team and representatives from the Department for Education and DDCMS. What was really interesting was the experience that all four brought. The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, talked about her experience in government and how it was sometimes difficult to get departments to talk to each other, even though they all seemed to agree. We had two former Olympians, who spoke about their experience of elite sport. But how does that translate into grass-roots sport? How do we make sure we get people active?
What was also really interesting was when we spoke about the 2012 Olympics. Yes, we had them and there was some legacy of redevelopment in east London, but they did not really lead to a legacy when it came to physical activity. How do we make sure we avoid the so-called Wimbledon effect? We all know that effect: around the time of Wimbledon, you cannot get a place on a tennis court, but a few months later it is simple to do so. How do we make sure this is long term?
If you are going to tackle obesity, yes, we can reformulate food and look at other issues such as taxes and negative externalities to discourage the intake of calories. However, you also have to burn off calories at the same time through activity. It does not have to be elite sport. We are not all going to be Olympians—like the two noble Lords here who were—but that should not stop you. All too often, what happens at school level is that if you do not get into a top team, you give up because you are considered not good enough. It does not matter how good you are; it is the activity that counts.
The Government’s recent response to the National Plan for Sport and Recreation Committee report addresses clearly, we believe, the recommendations made in this amendment. I hope that noble Lords will take some reassurance from what I am about to say and the fact that we take this seriously. The Government agree with the committee’s overarching recommendation on the need for an ambitious national plan for sport and physical activity. We are firmly committed to increasing sport participation and physical activity levels, and to ensuring that everyone has access to opportunities to get active. It should not just be about elite sport.
I can confirm that the Government will set out their forward-looking strategy for sport and physical activity later this year. It will look at tackling levels of inactivity as part of our plan for recovery from the pandemic. We hope that this strategy will provide a unified, cross-government approach to driving participation, integrating with Everybody Active, Every Day, the School Sport and Activity Action Plan, and Sport England’s new strategy Uniting the Movement. Of course, while setting out a cross-government strategy will be welcome, it is equally important to set out information on the implementation. I can confirm that the strategy will set out further detail on implementation, including how to harness such action across government and between departments.
The Government understand the concerns that noble Lords have raised and recognise that previous Governments of all parties have not always got it right. They tried—it was not for lack of trying—but it is about the implementation and strategies in this area. However, we believe that lessons have been learned and I hope that our approach will have the intended positive impact.
After the conversation yesterday with noble Lords, during the post-meeting debrief I spoke to the officials from other departments and asked, “How can we make sure that this is truly cross-government?” Let me assure noble Lords that other departments have also been looking at this issue. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and the Department for Transport also have important roles in helping to create health-promoting and more active local environments. I reaffirm the Government’s commitment to working cohesively on such actions.
I also assure your Lordships that departments involved in the sport and physical activity strategy take their responsibility to co-ordinate extremely seriously. This is being led by DCMS while, more broadly, the Government understand the utmost importance of getting this right—and we must not lose that. That is why I am delighted by the leadership of the Prime Minister on the Health Promotion Taskforce, supported by the Cabinet Office. That will enable the Government to consider all options open to them. I will come to this in due course.
The Government recognise that it is important to provide updates to both Houses on the progress of the strategy and will publish arrangements for that reporting in the strategy. I also assure noble Lords that the Government invite and welcome the continued scrutiny of plans to address inactivity, to promote sport participation and to improve people’s health through physical activity. Undoubtedly, the relevant committees in the House of Lords and the House of Commons will have an interest in any future strategy and its progress. I am sure noble Lords will also want to continue to ask Questions of Ministers.
We recognise the deep experience of noble Lords in this area and I know that that interest extends to the other place. Only last night, my honourable friend Gillian Keegan, the Minister of State for Care and Mental Health, responded to an adjournment debate on physical activity and health. On that point, I reiterate and acknowledge the benefits and importance of promoting that. We know the gains made in activity levels in some key populations, including women and older adults, before the pandemic have now been reversed, and the Government share the concerns of noble Lords on this matter.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I have to say that that is the best statement that I have heard in support of sport, health and well-being from the Front Bench for many a decade from all parties. It is exceptionally welcome to hear from the Minister early in his response the importance of the agreement to an ambitious national plan. That is something that the Select Committee was very much looking to and, in fact, it was a central plank. To hear from my noble friend that the Prime Minister will be chairing the Health Promotion Taskforce and that its first meeting will be considering physical activity as a key aspect of the work of that task force is also exceptionally welcome. To hear from the Minister that the deliberations of the Select Committee and the comments made this evening in the debate from everyone, including members of the Select Committee and other who have contributed, will be passed to the task force for its consideration is also welcome.
We heard from the Minister that it was vital that, for this whole initiative to be successful as a catalyst for change in the sector, accountability is key. We push for accountability to Parliament because, if that can be done every year and Parliament can consider the outcomes of the work of the Health Promotion Taskforce and the other bodies that he mentioned, that accountability itself will be the much-needed catalyst for change. So I thank my noble friends in sport from across the House and the Minister for his response.
It was echoed, I might add, by many hundreds of responses from across the worlds of sport and recreation during the work of the Select Committee. The overwhelming majority were in favour of a national plan. I am very grateful to noble Lords who have stayed to this late hour to hear this debate. Given the assurances that the Minister has given, I beg leave to withdraw.
Baroness Sugg
“Permitted locations for abortion treatment
(1) The Abortion Act 1967 is amended as follows.(2) In subsection 1(3) after the first “section” insert “, or section 1A of this Act”.(3) After section 1 insert—<strong>“1A</strong> Approved places(1) The home of a registered medical practitioner is approved as a class of place for treatment for the termination of pregnancy for the purposes only of prescribing the medicines known as Mifepristone and Misoprostol to be used in treatment carried out in the manner specified in subsection (3).(2) The home of a pregnant woman who is undergoing treatment for the purposes of termination of her pregnancy is approved as a class of place where the treatment for termination of pregnancy may be carried out where that treatment is carried out in the manner specified in subsection (3).(3) The treatment must be carried out in the following manner—(a) the pregnant woman has—(i) attended an approved place,(ii) had a consultation with an approved place via video link, telephone conference or other electronic means, or(iii) had a consultation with a registered medical practitioner, nurse or midwife via video link, telephone conference or other electronic means; and(b) the pregnant woman is prescribed Mifepristone and Misoprostol to be taken for the purposes of the termination of her pregnancy and the gestation of the pregnancy has not exceeded nine weeks and six days at the time the Mifepristone is taken.(4) Nothing in this section should be taken to affect any approval otherwise made by the Secretary of State under subsections 1(3) or 1(3A) of this Act.(5) For the purposes of this section—“approved place” means a hospital in England or Wales, as authorised under section 1(3) of this Act, or a place in England or Wales approved under that section;“home” means, in the case of a pregnant woman, the place in England or Wales where a pregnant woman has her permanent address or usually resides or, in the case of a registered medical practitioner, where a registered medical practitioner has their permanent address or usually resides.””
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 183 in my name, if accepted, would maintain the existing provision of at-home early medical abortion following a telephone or video consultation with a clinician. It is very late in the evening, but this is an important issue which will impact hundreds of thousands of women. The existing provisions, which the amendment simply transcribes into the Bill, were adopted in March 2020. It is a straightforward and narrow amendment with the sole purpose of retaining a service that has been in place for the last two years.
Early medical abortion, which can take place up to 10 weeks into a pregnancy, involves two medications. Previous government policy in England was that only the second pill could be taken at home, with women having to attend an abortion provider in person to take the first pill. The approval that was put in place simply enables women to take both pills at home. This was a pandemic-led shift to telemedicine, but the clinical benefits of telemedical service were known even before Covid-19, with NICE recommending it in September 2019. Sadly, following a government announcement a few weeks ago, this approval is currently set to be removed in August this year.
At this point, we should briefly be clear on what removing the existing provision would affect. It would have no impact on the requirement for face-to-face consultation, for face-to-face safeguarding, for ultrasound scans or to be seen in person by both doctors. Any of those changes would require amending existing regulations and that is not what we are debating tonight. The only thing impacted by this amendment is the requirement for women to visit a clinic and then leave again. I hope noble Lords agree that we can focus on just that.
There is no medical reason why telemedicine, alongside interpersonal appointments, should not remain a permanent option. There is overwhelming evidence that allowing women the option to access early medical abortion at home, where clinically appropriate, has created a safer and more effective service. During the pandemic, the largest ever study of UK abortion care, published by the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, found that this service shortened waiting times and enabled women to receive care much earlier in their pregnancy. Some 150,000 women have received telemedical abortions since March 2020 and the data on the number of women presenting to NHS services with complications has shown a decrease. Renowned medical bodies support its use, including the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Midwives, the British Medical Association, the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges and many more. Just last week, the World Health Organization made it a key part of its global guidance on abortion care.
It is not just the medical experts who want to see this service made permanent—women do too. A recent study in the British Medical Journal found that 89% of women who have used a remote abortion consultation would choose to have treatment at home. It helps women who may struggle to find the time and travel the distance to an abortion provider. This includes those who have childcare or caring responsibilities, who struggle to take time off work, who live in remote or rural areas with little transport and many other logistical, social and economic reasons. Importantly, it can also be a lifeline for women in vulnerable situations. Maintaining the service is fully supported by women’s groups, including Women’s Aid, the End Violence Against Women Coalition and Rape Crisis, which say that it enables women in controlling and abusive relationships to access essential medical care. Removal of telemedical abortion provisions would almost certainly lead to a resurgence in women seeking to access unregulated pills bought online. Without telemedicine, waiting times will rise and current staffing levels would be insufficient.
There is a serious risk that some women would, as a result, be unable to access legal abortion care, either because the providers do not have the capacity or because increased waiting times push some women over the legal limit. Of course, face-to-face services must still be provided for all women who require or request it. However, to take away from women a service that has proven safe, accessible and compassionate, and which enables women to deal with a difficult situation in the comfort and privacy of their own homes, is not the right way forward.
This amendment follows the guidance of medical professionals and would deliver on the Government’s aim to listen to women and put them at the heart of the women’s health strategy. I believe the case is clear and hope that the Government will accept this amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, in speaking to this amendment, I apologise for not having spoken in Committee. I want to do so because I have received hundreds of emails urging me to vote against this amendment. I want to explain why I will vote for it—if there is a vote—and why the people who emailed me are worrying about the wrong thing. I emphasise that this is not about changing the law.
I will not make a long speech because the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, explained the amendment brilliantly and thoroughly. I will make just a couple of points. Over the past two years, the Department of Health, the Government and SAGE—everyone—have told us to follow the evidence. The truth is that this telemedicine, pills-by-post approach to termination pre 10 weeks’ gestation is simply a medical practice innovation that is safe, effective and follows the best clinical practice. So I want to follow the evidence.
About the only positive outcome of the pandemic I can see is that an enforced pilot scheme has given us evidence of the efficacy of this. We also know, as has been mentioned, that many women appreciate this option because there is no clinical need for them to attend a clinic for this procedure. I really cannot see why the Government cannot see that women who do not need hospital care or in-clinic services to access a procedure should not be forced to take up valuable appointment slots and staff time and unnecessarily squander resources that would be better used to intervene in genuine medical emergencies.
Despite all this, I understand that, for many people, the issue of abortion cannot be reduced to evidence or medical practice because they have moral concerns. I assure them that nothing in this amendment, which is literally about the location where a woman swallows a pill, touches on moral values. This is not a law change. Who can and cannot have an abortion remains exactly the same. The grounds on which abortion is legal remain exactly the same. It is common sense and pragmatic as a matter for women but, if you are morally opposed to abortion, you will still be morally opposed to abortion because nothing in this amendment will change your moral objection. Be reassured: you must have a different fight but not on this amendment, which is total common sense. The Government should accept it.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I begin by paying tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, for her tireless work on gender equality and areas of international development. We have often been collaborators on such matters. I also apologise to the noble Baroness if she has personally received any hurtful comments on this; some of the things I have seen were shameful. She should not have been abused in this way. Nevertheless, I will oppose her amendment; I hope she understands that this in no way lessens the way in which I honour her for her work.
I declare at the outset that the Church of England’s position on abortion is principled opposition, with a recognition that there are strictly limited conditions under which it may be preferable to any available alternative. My opposition to the amendment is based on that in part but also because I believe that the amendment is functionally inadequate in providing the necessary protections. This was a temporary measure introduced during the pandemic to allow continued access to abortion services, simply to meet a need in extraordinary circumstances. I support the Government’s decision to return to the pre-pandemic system for early medical abortions from August, which was supported by many in the public consultation response.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I support this amendment, to which I have added my name. Evidence-based practice that utilises modern technology for the assessment and delivery of treatment for people who choose to take the first pill at home is cost-effective. I think we forget that the majority of healthcare workers, be they medics, midwives or nurses, try to provide person-centred care. Person-centred care means that some women will still be asked to come into the clinic to take that tablet because it is the best solution for that woman.
However, some women live in rural environments where there are very poor bus services. When I went to the women’s meeting at the UN three years ago with other Members of this House, young women representing the four country youth parliaments told harrowing tales of women who had been given the tablet in a clinic but had not got home before the spontaneous abortion commenced. We heard very good examples, particularly from some other countries in Europe, where taking the tablets at home was already normal practice.
The largest study on telemedical abortion in the world was conducted in the UK, covering 52,000 women both before and after the change—in other words, using the natural experiment that occurred as a result of lockdown. There was no change in adverse incidents, no change in successful completion rates, a reduction in waiting times, a reduction in gestation at treatment and it was preferred by women. This evidence was used by the US Food and Drug Administration to make the first tablet at home a permanent option at the end of last year. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, has just said, the World Health Organization issued its international Abortion Care Guideline last week. Telemedicine and self-management of abortion outside a healthcare facility are both in there.
This amendment would enable better person-centred care for the majority of women, as well as for their families and often their partner who will be with them at the time—particularly for people who are perhaps having a third or fourth child which for clinical reasons is not advised. I therefore hope that the fact the majority of people here have a free vote means that they really consider what I have just said.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
My Lords, health and safety have arguably never been more front and centre in our nation’s thinking and approach to healthcare. The Government prioritising healthcare in one of their flagship Bills is therefore expected. I am proud of our Government.
As proud as I am, I feel equally perplexed as to why the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, seeking to override the Government’s decision to end the temporary policy on at-home abortion would garner any serious consideration, given that it would contradict the aims of the Health and Care Bill by placing the health and safety of women and girls at risk. It also distracts from important matters in the Bill, for which the Bill was intended.
The provision allowing at-home abortion made alongside a host of other Covid regulations during an unprecedented global crisis was only ever meant to be temporary alongside almost all other temporary provisions of the Coronavirus Act that the Government are expiring or have already expired. The Prime Minister said that the Covid restrictions
“take a heavy toll on our economy, our society, our mental wellbeing and the life chances of our children”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/2/22; col. 45.]
The health toll could not, in the specific case of the temporary provision allowing at-home abortion, be more apparent; it is a toll being taken on vulnerable women and girls. As highlighted by a submission to the government consultation on this matter, the lack of in-person consultation increases risks of potentially life-threatening conditions being missed, pills being prescribed beyond the 10-week limit, more women being coerced into a home abortion against their wishes and pills being obtained fraudulently.
These are not unwarranted concerns. Soon after the temporary policy was implemented, story after story emerged of the tragically painful experiences women underwent as a result of this policy. For example, a Telegraph article reported on a nurse whose at-home abortion led to extreme complications needing surgery. Indeed, there have been several cases of women taking these abortion pills outside the legal and safe time limit. For example, in May 2020 police investigated the death of an unborn baby after a woman took pills received by post at 28 weeks pregnant. Such cases are unsurprising given that abortion providers cannot ensure that at-home abortion pills are taken by the intended person in the intended circumstances and time. According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, only half of women accurately recall their last menstrual period, again reaffirming that medical confirmation of gestational period is critical.
Given the vast evidence base highlighting how this policy has placed women’s health and safety at risk, an evidence base thoroughly reviewed by the Government in an extensive three-month consultation, I urge the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, to withdraw her amendment but if she does not, I urge noble Lords to vote against it.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, and I rather agree with the points that she has just made. But the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, also knows that I have considerable admiration for her, especially over issues around the stand she took about cuts to our overseas aid programmes; we had the privilege of serving together on the Select Committee of your Lordships’ House that deals with international relations and defence. She will not be surprised to know that I find myself in disagreement with her and I urge your Lordships to think seriously about Amendment 183.
I will give the House two reasons for this, if I may. One is procedural and the other is more substantive. I suppose on the substantive point, I will cite, as the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, has done, some of the contradictory evidence that we have before us. Your Lordships may not be able to work out whether you believe one side of the argument or the other, and that brings me straight to the point about procedure.
Here we are at almost midnight. This issue has never been debated at any stage in another place in the elected House. Rather like Amendment 170 that we discussed earlier, we have to consider how we resolve sensitive and controversial ethical issues of this kind. There was no consideration of this question in the elected House, and it has come to us without being considered in Committee but at the fag end of Report stage. Surely all of us can agree, wherever we come from on the more substantive point, that this is not the way to go about parliamentary business.
We should bear in mind that since 1967, when the original legislation was passed in another place and then approved here, there have been 10 million abortions, which is around 200,000 every single year. Put another way, there is one abortion every three minutes. You do not have to come from the position that I think noble Lords will be aware that I come from, of believing in the sanctity of every human life, to think that this cannot be right. Indeed, my good friend Lord Steel, who was the mover of the original legislation, has often said that he never intended abortion to be as widespread or repeated as often as it has become.
This all points to the question of procedure. Should there not be a joint committee of both Houses to consider this extraordinarily complex ethical question? Should we not at least have a Select Committee that considers these matters? Should there not be pre-legislative scrutiny before a Bill or an amendment of this kind comes before Parliament? It is passing strange that since 1967, no Select Committee of either House has looked at this legislation, the original Abortion Act 1967. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, who always makes valuable contributions to your Lordships’ House, that we are changing the law. That is why this amendment is before your Lordships’ House this evening. We would not need the amendment if we were not changing the law.
I also ask those who have rightly emphasised the importance of conscience, and particularly some of my friends and noble friends on the Lib Dem Benches, why this is not a conscience vote. Why is there a Whip on an issue of this kind?
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
I am glad to hear that, because I was sent a document earlier on saying that there would be a Whip and that people should vote “Content” for this amendment.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
If that is so, I am glad to hear it. Noble Lords will know that, for me, this issue led to my leaving the Liberal Democrats when it became a party policy, so I would love to hear clarity on that question as the evening goes by. I passionately believe that this should be a conscience question for every Member but also at every vote. This should never be a party policy; people should be free to make up their own minds on a serious ethical issue—one of such magnitude and order that it should not be dealt with in such a perfunctory manner.
It was the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, who said that this
“was always intended to be a temporary measure.”—[Official Report, 10/2/22; col. 1820.]
In February, in announcing its end, the Government gave the results of a public consultation. Some 70% of those who responded said that it should end immediately. The consultation highlighted increasing safeguarding risks and “concerns about coercion”. Reinforcing that point, last weekend, BBC “Newsbeat” reported that 15% of women in a Savanta ComRes survey said that they had experienced pressure to terminate a pregnancy. Some women reported being given substances to cause an abortion without their consent.
I would be very happy to share with the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, some of the contradictory evidence from GPs and doctors. She cited the RCOG and others, but I point out that, again in that ComRes poll, 86% of GPs surveyed across the UK were concerned about women having a medical abortion past the legal limit of 10 weeks gestation. Concern was highest among female doctors, at 91%. Six in seven GPs were concerned that the policy could see more women being coerced into abortion. Some 86% were concerned that women were at risk of being coerced into an abortion by a family member or partner, and 87% were concerned that women were at risk of unwanted abortion arising from domestic abuse by partners controlling or monitoring their actions. Some 94% agreed that staff at abortion providers need to ensure that they are collecting correct medical and personal information to certify a woman for a home abortion, and that it is important that checks are put in place to ensure that women being certified for abortion meet legal criteria. So, there is contradictory evidence, and surely that should be properly evaluated before we proceed in further liberalising our abortion laws.
A study released in November 2021 suggested that more than 10,000 women had to receive hospital treatment following the use of medical abortion pills in England between April 2020 and September 2021. Previous polling showed that 92% of women in Britain agreed that a woman receiving an abortion should always be seen by a qualified doctor. There are many statements from women that, again, I could provide to the noble Baroness, should she wish to see them.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton. I join him and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham in paying tribute to my noble friend Lady Sugg for her work on women’s issues—work that I support in every way I possibly can. I think that this amendment is a useful amendment to this Bill. My noble friend Lady Sugg is right that the world is changing: science raced ahead during the pandemic, and many things that had not been tried before were tried. Clinical tools have become more sophisticated, practices are undoubtedly evolving and there are definitely lessons from the pandemic that are worth our consideration.
That is why I very much welcome an opportunity to stand back and reflect on what has changed since 1967, which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred to, when the current settlement on abortion was agreed. That was an incredibly important moment, when those with different views engaged with public opinion, clinical judgment, ethical analysis and spiritual leaders. I accept that that settlement made in 1967 will not last for ever. In fact, I agree with my noble friend Lady Sugg that the arrangements that have been in place for many years definitely need a second look. If we agree that the moment is right, I emphasise that any reconsideration of these issues should be done in a thoughtful, considered fashion and that we should engage the large number of people who have strong feelings, as well as expert opinion.
We need to do this because these issues are extremely complex and the evidence is conflicted, and they engage so many different strands of our emotional, spiritual and intellectual life. If this this debate this evening is a starting gun for that process, I would recognise its significance and ask the Minister to reflect on the moment in his comments.
However, if this amendment is a realistic attempt to bring about a significant long-term change to the clinical pathways of our health system, I would be extremely alarmed. Regarding the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on procedure, I have serious concerns. There is no value in blowing up the long-term arrangements that were agreed in 1967 in a late-night Report debate on an amendment introduced at the last minute to a Bill that is about the integration of our healthcare system. It would be a travesty if the easements that were brought in to cope with a global pandemic were used as a pretext for a long-term rewriting of our abortion laws. We were promised that that would not be the case, and it would be regrettable if this Government went back on those reassurances.
I draw to the attention of noble Lords the report by Gynuity Health Projects, published in March 2021, on its study of the efficacy of telemedicine abortion. It found that 5% of participants using the medical abortion treatment at home needed surgical intervention to complete the procedure. These are worrying numbers and are worthy of further investigation before the current situation passes into legislation.
My hope is that this amendment is regarded for what it should be: a testing amendment to stimulate debate and not a serious effort to overturn arrangements that need to be reformed, not overturned. That is why I call on the Minister to explain why this amendment should not stand, and on my noble friend Lady Sugg to confirm that she will not be moving her amendment.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I find myself conflicted over this amendment. I am probably the only person in this Chamber who has consulted women over abortions, signed forms for abortions and performed abortions and I have been with women during late abortions for foetal abnormality. It is a complex area. I have also had women say to me, in the privacy of the consulting room, just before they go, “I have never told anybody else this before”—they have then told me about the serious abuse that they have suffered.
My worry with the first part of the amendment, on remote consultation, is that you do not know who is on the other side of camera or who is standing in the room with the woman. You do not know whether the man is using fertility and sex as a form of abuse and is standing there threatening the woman to proceed in one way or another. We know that men refusing to use condoms is a common form of coercive control of women.
The abortifacient tablets, to which my noble friend Baroness Watkins referred, are a separate step. It is inhumane to expect women to take those and then travel on a bus or even go in a taxi. Knowing what has happened before, I cannot help feeling that there is another step. Yes, let the women have their tablets and take them in the privacy of their own home. It is not pleasant to undergo an abortion—nobody should think that it is—but those women also need support and contraceptive advice as part of the package. I am concerned that I do not see that in this amendment and I have been concerned that during the pandemic the ability of women to access contraception may have become more difficult.
This is a complex issue. It is about a pathway with many steps in it. I wonder whether we should return to it at Third Reading, rather than trying to take a yes or no decision tonight on something that has some merits but also some problems. We are not adequately going into them by having a short debate now.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, whose contribution reflects her extensive wisdom and knowledge in this area. I just want to say that I commend my noble friend Lady Sugg for her leadership in bringing forward the amendment. I, too, will listen to what the Minister says in reply this evening, but instinctively I support what my noble friend is seeking to achieve.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support Amendment 183. My background in this goes back to March 2020, in those difficult, scary, early days of the pandemic, when your Lordships’ House was operating on a skeleton crew. That led to me, as very new Peer, moving the amendment to the coronavirus regulations that would have allowed for telemedicine. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, who I note has signed this amendment, for supporting me through that process, because I had little idea about what I was doing in terms of your Lordships’ House. It is worth noting that we were doing that in part in acknowledgement that women would not otherwise have access to the necessary medical service of an abortion, but also because we knew that NHS resources were going to be enormously stretched. We are still in a situation where NHS resources are enormously stretched. Earlier we were talking about the Ukrainian refugees whom we will be welcoming here and the medical services that they will need.
Of course, we want to say that, in this area of medicine, we should be putting resources into all the NHS services that women need, but the evidence is overwhelming that telemedicine abortion is giving women a better service. I pick up the point made by the right reverend Prelate that there may be safeguarding concerns. There is evidence, particularly from MSI Reproductive Choices, reporting a major uplift in safeguarding disclosures, including from survivors of domestic and sexual abuse, with telemedicine.
On the medical side of this is a simple clear fact: since telemedicine has been introduced, complication rates from abortion have fallen by 20%. You do not have to listen to just me on this; permanent provision of abortion telemedicine is supported by eight royal colleges and medical societies, including the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Royal College of Midwives and the British Medical Association. I also point out that abortion telemedicine is going to continue in Wales and Scotland, based on the evidence. The arguments are simply overwhelming: this is the best option.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I was not going to speak on this, but I listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and that encouraged me to stand up and speak, together with other noble Lords who are a bit cautious about all of this. I was a vicar of an inner-city parish in which there were a lot of teenage pregnancies, and those who made them pregnant tried to force them to have abortions. The only person they felt they could tell was the vicar, not their parents, because their parents would hit the roof. Some of them would get corporal punishment as a result. I found myself in difficult, tricky situations, but I was fortunate, because in the congregation we had midwives and doctors. I simply said, “I listened to what you are saying to me, but I am not medically qualified to give any advice. We have experienced people who can give you that advice.” I was grateful that those midwives and doctors were able to accompany these teenage girls and help them come to a more sensible position.
I speak as somebody who is not against abortion, because the welfare of the mother and her rights need to be protected, but I am concerned about a measure that was brought in because of extreme circumstances. The Government were right, during the pandemic, to allow the kind of arrangement that was set up. But I am with the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, that we should not change overnight a tradition and circumstances that were accepted by the majority who see the right of abortion. We should not say that we will now go down this almost administrative route as the norm. Most people would be very concerned if we were going down a particular route.
I strongly believe, because of my experience of those teenage pregnancies in Tulse Hill, that the role of doctors, specialists in counselling and others is absolutely vital. You cannot do away with that because it is easier at the end of a telephone. You may not believe it, but young boys who had made girls pregnant would put pressure on them to have these abortions, for no reason other than that they wanted to move on to the next young girl. I still find that unacceptable.
Lord Duncan of Springbank (Con)
My Lords, I have listened to many remarks this evening. There are three things we must remember. First, this approach was brought in during a time of necessity and it has worked. Not only has it worked but it has worked well. It has worked well for vulnerable groups; it has worked well for the wider community, and we should not lose sight of that fact.
Secondly, as we consider what we must do next, we must recognise that it has worked and, on that basis, we should move towards the next step, which is recognising how we can move this forward. It is not an easy issue; it is late at night, but at the same time, we are building on what has already been done. In so doing, we must recognise what can be done further.
Finally and importantly, there is a much wider issue. Many noble Lords have touched on it this evening. That needs to be addressed in the appropriate place, but it is not tonight. Tonight, we have a very simple amendment. It is a very careful amendment and a very simple extension of what we expect to deliver. On that basis, I hope the House will support the amendment. It is simple, it is straightforward, it is right and it is timely.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, I appreciate the lateness of the hour and, therefore, I want to make just a very few comments.
Without apology, I believe in the sanctity of human life. I believe that it is important to preserve the life of a mother. It is also right to preserve the life of the unborn child. When this measure was originally presented, it was clearly stated that it was an emergency policy introduced because of the unprecedented circumstances of the coronavirus pandemic. The policy was said to be time-limited but many, like me, feared that this was another way of extending abortion on demand. However, many noble Lords accepted that the at-home abortion powers would be exercised only temporarily and be used only for the purpose for which they were granted and in a manner proportionate to the situation. I commend the Government for the actions they took to turn the coronavirus crisis around to the situation we have today. Therefore, continuing the policy is not proportionate, although I did not think it ever was.
At-home abortion endangers the health of the woman and the girl. Consultation revealed that among a number of concerns raised about safety the most common was the risk of women being coerced. I do not think that is an unimportant issue for this House to consider. Therefore, I shall oppose Amendment 183.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I want to intervene briefly, partly because I believe I set a hare running which I perhaps need to explain. I want also to ask the Minister replying to the debate a few questions.
I am told that I am not whipped to vote for this amendment, even though the Liberal Democrat Whip is to support the amendment—those of us who have a conscience reason not to support the amendment do not have to do so. I take that as being not a free vote, which is why I was of the view that, nevertheless, we were being whipped. Make of that what you will. I shall be voting against the amendment, unless the Minister can clarify certain points.
We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, in introducing her amendment, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that essentially this amendment changes nothing about the law on abortion. But we have also heard that if that were the case, we would not need this amendment at all. If it changes nothing, why is this amendment here? So it must be changing something. What I am not at all clear about is what protections are actually in place. The 1967 legislation was very tightly drawn. The nature of abortion in 2022 is much more widespread. The provisions are not perhaps quite as Lord Steel would have anticipated.
This is a very detailed amendment. We have heard that it is very simple but it is also very detailed. It explains who women need to see. They are supposed to be seeing people either via video or via telephone. I do not know whether any of your Lordships experienced telemedicine during lockdown, but it is not always very effective. If virtual medicine means a telephone call not on a smartphone, your doctor cannot see you. They have no idea how you are presenting or whether you are vulnerable. There is a real question about what certainty there is. Can the Minister say what security there is about telemedicine?
We also heard that women would still have to go through normal medical tests and so on. Where is this happening? In the amendment, all we hear about is things being virtual. At what point do we know that a woman is nine weeks and six days pregnant when she takes the first tablet? How do we know that she is not actually 22 weeks pregnant and not seen by anybody? How do we know what certainty there is? If this is, for many people, a conscience vote, do noble Lords, in good conscience, believe that telemedicine actually means that women are understood and their needs really recognised? Do they get the care that they would get if they were having consultations in a surgery?
Baroness Brown of Cambridge (CB)
My Lords, at this very late hour, I just rise to say that I hope your Lordships will not confuse individual anecdotes, however moving, with the very extensive scientific evidence base quoted by the noble Baronesses, Lady Sugg and Lady Watkins.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
My Lords, what is proposed in this amendment is a fundamental change in the law. What we must look at is, I think, fundamentally for each woman, what actually happens in each situation, and what care is provided for the woman in that situation.
I believe that the Government were right to say that this provision would come to an end and that it is not necessarily safe. There are major uncertainties for many women when they conceive. They do not always know when their last period was, as noble Lords have said. But it is not just that. They do not always know the nature of their own medical health and the consequences of taking the telemedical abortion pills.
In that period after 2020 alone, 10,000 women needed hospital treatment for the complications arising from telemedical abortions. It is not an anecdote but a scientific fact that losing a baby, whether by miscarriage or by abortion, is a very bloody and, on occasion, very painful business, which gives rise to all sorts of problems and complications.