House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
This Government provide more than £5 billion of pension credit. In August 2021, there were 1,864 people receiving pension credit in the Kettering constituency. That accounts for approximately 10% of those in receipt of the state pension in the Kettering constituency in broad terms.
Mr Hollobone
Pension credit is largely unclaimed across the country; there could be 4,500 people in north Northamptonshire who are eligible but not claiming. Those who do claim it get extra help with council tax, heating bills, dental treatment and TV licences. Would the Minister be kind enough to join me in Kettering at an older persons fair that I am organising in the summer so that we can encourage the take-up of pension credit in the Kettering constituency?
Guy Opperman
Rumours had reached me of the Kettering older persons fair, which I believe is taking place on Friday 1 July. All roads lead to Kettering on that occasion. I would be honoured and privileged to attend to support my hon. Friend, who is a doughty champion of his constituency, and all the good charities, such as Age UK and Citizens Advice, that are working hard to get those numbers up, which is what we all want to do.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
The Minister could have a busy summer ahead. Take-up of pension credit remains low: an estimated 850,000 pensioner households across the country are not receiving the help that they are entitled to. The Department could feasibly work out who those households are and simply make them an award of pension credit. Given the scale of the current cost of living crisis, will the Department commit to an ambitious target for increasing the take-up of pension credit across the country and to a much more ambitious campaign to promote it?
Guy Opperman
I hate to disagree with the Chair of the Select Committee but he is wrong. As he knows, because he did this job in 2007-08, the Department does not know the exact numbers of a means-tested benefit that was set up by Gordon Brown specifically for circumstances where there is not the capability of saying exactly who can apply. The right hon. Gentleman is also wrong, however, that the stats are going up, not down, because they are up on the main income element.
Guy Opperman
The right hon. Gentleman is shaking his head, but he is wrong: they have gone up from 70% to 73%.
Huge efforts are also being made by the Department in the form of the work with the BBC and the utility companies, the pension credit taskforce, and all the letters that were written only this morning. I wrote to the right hon. Gentleman’s local paper and to that of the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), to set out what we are doing to try to get people to take up pension credit and why we want everybody to do so.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
This year, we will spend more than £129 billion on the state pension and benefits for pensioners in Great Britain, including, as I said, £5 billion on pension credit for the vulnerable. Pensioners can also benefit from wider Government support with energy costs on top of the warm home discount, the winter fuel payment and cold weather support.
Scott Benton
I thank the Secretary of State for visiting Blackpool last week and for opening our brand-new, Government-funded youth hub, which will help young people to find work. Many pensioners will be extremely concerned about the recent increases in the cost of living. Alongside the measures that the Minister mentioned, what steps is he taking to ensure that those eligible for pension credit and the expanded warm home discount are able to apply and do so?
Guy Opperman
I know that the Secretary of State loved her trip to Blackpool and I congratulate my hon. Friend on his jobs fair, which I gather was a great success. He is a great champion for Blackpool and for the elderly residents in his community, and he is a big improvement on his predecessor. I am delighted to say that I wrote to the Blackpool Gazette this morning to set out in more detail how we are trying to get more people to take up pension credit, and it is definitely the case that we are doing that.
Mr Speaker
Order. I do not think it is becoming of anybody to condemn a Member of Parliament who has not been here for a long, long time. I do not really want to get into that, so we should think about what we say in future.
Chris Elmore
The Minister will know that, in my constituency, 88% of people will see their energy bills go up next week, more than 50% of whom are over the age of 64. What more will the Department do to ensure that older people in my constituency get more support with their energy bills? Simply ignoring the issue, or giving pensioners a loan to pay back, penalises people who do not have enough money to survive—it is heating or eating under this Tory Government.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
Has the Minister written to the local paper?
Guy Opperman
I have—I have written to all local papers in the country.
The bottom line is that there is a £200 discount on energy bills from this autumn for domestic electricity customers in Great Britain. There is also the £150 non-repayable council tax rebate and the £144 million of discretionary funding for local authorities to support households who need support but are not eligible for the council tax rebate.
Mr Dhesi
We know that the Government have already abandoned their promises on keeping the pensions triple lock and free TV licences for the over-75s. Now, before the soaring inflation and the soaring energy bills have even kicked in, thanks to the Government’s policies, almost a fifth of all pensioners in the UK are living in poverty. One million households are missing out on pension credits and thousands of pensioners, including in my Slough constituency, are bothered by delays, underpayments and other issues. When will the Government finally get a grip and resolve these problems?
Guy Opperman
With respect, there are 200,000 fewer pensioners in absolute poverty, both before and after housing costs, than in 2009-10. [Interruption.] With respect, the statistics are correct. The hon. Gentleman will recall, as a Labour Member of Parliament, that when the Government changed in 2010, the state pension was barely £100; the new state pension will be over £185 this coming year. It has risen by £2,300 in cash terms over the last eight years.
Jonathan Gullis
Claiming pension credit is a passport to a variety of other benefits for elderly residents in Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, so could my hon. Friend advise local people what support becomes available to them if they submit a valid claim for pension credit?
Guy Opperman
I have. Literally hundreds of pounds a month can become available in the form of support for housing, council tax, the TV licence for the over-75s, NHS dental, warm home discounts and many other things—as I am setting out in my hon. Friend’s local paper. I am delighted to say that in so many different ways we are making the case that pension credit and the support is out there for our local residents.
Henry Smith
What success has my hon. Friend had in ensuring there is greater take-up of pension credit in the Crawley constituency, and will he consider joining me at the older persons fair that I am planning to hold later this year?
Guy Opperman
Again, all roads lead to Crawley, and quite right too. I would be delighted to attend my hon. Friend’s older persons fair in the summer or the autumn. It is definitely the case that there is a larger take-up of pension credits on an ongoing basis, and that is something we want to see going forward.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
Pensioners who have worked hard and paid in all their lives face an absolutely enormous increase in the cost of living. Food prices are up, the cost of heating is going up and the cost of living as a whole is going up. This huge increase in inflation was clear before the invasion of Ukraine and it is crystal clear now, yet so far the Government have only come up with a buy-now-pay-later scheme for heating bills, so I would like to ask the Minister: just when will the Government start listening to pensioners and when exactly will they show even a shred of understanding of the dreadful situation facing our pensioners at this time?
Guy Opperman
The hon. Member will be aware that we raised state pension by 2.5% this year, when we did not need to do so, and it is going up by 3.1% in April, on top of which there is the support from the Chancellor with the £9 billion scheme set out only a few weeks ago. He will also be aware that huge efforts are being made to ensure there is take-up of the support benefits, which definitely assist. There is over £5 billion of them, but we want much more to be taken up.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Despite what the Minister says, the Government’s last-published figures show that there are 200,000 more pensioners in poverty compared with 2018-19, and it is going to get worse. Next month, pensioners will face an increase in their heating bills of over £800 a year compared with this time last year, and at the same time, due to breaking their triple lock promise, the Government will have taken £500 a year out of the pockets of pensioners. It is shameful. Does he agree that Wednesday represents the one opportunity the Chancellor has to reverse the breaking of the triple lock and to do something to help pensioners?
Guy Opperman
I wish the hon. Gentleman a swift recovery from the trip or fall that caused his injury.
It is definitely the case that pensioner poverty is declining. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman’s statistic is manifestly wrong on that: pensioner poverty is down in relation to 2009-10. Of course, there are conversations with the Chancellor, but it is absolutely the case that state pension has increased year on year on year, and we have never paid a higher state pension than we presently do.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
We have introduced Department for Work and Pensions Train and Progress to address our claimants’ skills needs. Working across Government, we have been able to extend the length of time during which universal credit claimants can undertake full-time training, including skills boot camps in England, to up to 16 weeks. I am also pleased about the role that kickstart has played in helping more than 152,000 young people to gain vital new skills and work experience to help them in their future careers.
Stephen Metcalfe
Ensuring that people have relevant skills is essential to helping them stay in work throughout their working lives. What opportunities are available to my constituents through jobcentres to access training to ensure they can apply for a wider range of opportunities in south Essex?
Mims Davies
I thank my hon. Friend for the chance to highlight our jobcentre teams in Basildon and east Thurrock, who are working closely with partners to provide a wide range of support for local jobseekers, including with South Essex College, which has delivered a sector-based work academy programme—SWAP—for candidates to help them prepare to go into new roles in healthcare, logistics and administrative jobs with Essex Police.
Sir David Evennett
I welcome the work being done by the Government in this important area, which is appreciated in my constituency. Will my hon. Friend update the House on the SWAP and how it is helping people upskill and change careers?
Mims Davies
This is a very successful programme, helping jobseekers, including in my right hon. Friend’s constituency, get an opportunity to develop the key new skills that employers are looking for, including through training and work experience, and a guaranteed job interview in that new sector. I am delighted to be able to say that we have surpassed our delivery goal, with over 146,000 SWAPs having been started since April 2020.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
We know we are at record levels of in-work poverty, with more than 8 million people in that category, so why are three out of four people who were in low-paid work in 2010 still in low-paid work now?
Mims Davies
The hon. Lady makes an important point about progressing; there is a focus on that at DWP and I hope the Select Committee she serves on will have a look at it, because we have just mentioned two areas where this is working for people and filling vacancies that need to be filled. We will be filling half a million new jobs by the summer through our Way to Work campaign; that will help people progress, and I hope the hon. Lady will welcome it.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
The Minister has just accepted the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) that far too many people in this country are stuck in low-paid work. Last month the Secretary of State told me that she was the block to the Government’s response to the report on in-work progression, and last week the Minister told me it would be coming soon. It looks like nothing is happening, so may I give the Minister one last chance: when will the Government respond to the report they commissioned last year on in-work progression?
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Lady for giving me one last chance at the Dispatch Box—that sounded rather ominous. In-work progression is absolutely vital; from April we will, as was just mentioned, have more work coaches supporting people who have got stuck, as some people have—there might be things going on in their lives which mean they need more skills or confidence. The Secretary of State and I are working on this response and will be bringing it forward very shortly.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
Yes, I have.
Stuart C. McDonald
I thank the Secretary of State for that illuminating answer. Jack Monroe was right that this cost of living crisis could be fatal for some, and that is not a term to be used lightly. Has the Secretary of State urged the Chancellor to reverse the £20 universal credit cut and rule it out to legacy claimants, or has she asked to replicate the Scottish Government’s £20 per week child payment? Where is her comprehensive plan to stop our constituents suffering—and by “plan” I do not mean more loans?
Dr Coffey
There is a cross-Government effort to tackle the cost of living; that has been ongoing for some time, and was most recently revealed by the Chancellor’s announcement on council tax rebates, but also—[Interruption.] Council tax rebate is not a loan; the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) is misinformed. There is also a phasing of energy bills. [Interruption.] I am afraid the hon. Lady is yet again wrong in her assertion about the council tax rebate. However, moving on, the Chancellor really listened when he moved to make sure that the taper rate was reduced to 55% in the autumn Budget; that is ongoing, and it recognises the principle of universal credit that people will be better off working than not working. It is already delivering that, and I welcome the fact that the Chancellor did that.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
One thing that would help single-parent families with the cost of living is receiving child maintenance. In fact, research by York University has found that securing child maintenance payments would lift 60% of children living in single-parent households that currently are not receiving them out of poverty. We have made good progress, but I think we can do more, for example by using home curfew to penalise non-payers. What plans does the Department have to move forward with home curfew?
Dr Coffey
I agree with my hon. Friend that we should be doing and want to do more on child maintenance. There are a number of reasons why sometimes parents are not so keen on that process. However, that specific power was created in primary legislation, and it is my intention later this year to bring the curfew order into effect. I will be working carefully across Government to make sure that we get the appropriate consultation and clearance for regulations.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
The Government speak about their plan for jobs. I think many of us were quite shocked that a plan for jobs meant butchering back-office jobs in the Secretary of State’s own Department; I suspect that she might want to reflect on that. Given that her right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a multimillionaire who has no idea what it is like to get by on poverty, as many of my constituents and those on these Opposition Benches do, has she suggested that he should follow the Scottish Government’s approach of uprating benefits by 6% with a fixed budget? Is that something she is planning to ask him to do on Wednesday, or is it going to be more of the same from her Department—no action?
Dr Coffey
The House has just recently voted through the uprating order, recognising the traditional way in which the inflation index is used. We will continue to strive to get more people working than ever before. We have seen that certainly on payrolls. I am conscious that the surveys on self-employment may differ in that regard. That is why we will keep working in different ways to try to make sure that we try to lift as many people out of poverty as we can, and we will do that the best way we know: through our work coaches.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (David Rutley)
We know that moving into work—particularly full-time work—is the best way to tackle poverty. We are taking decisive action to make work pay, giving nearly 2 million families an extra £1,000 a year through our changes to the universal credit taper rate and work allowances.
Sir Edward Leigh
I represent Gainsborough South West ward, the 24th most deprived in the country. I wonder whether the Minister would like to come to Gainsborough and discuss with me how we can have pilot schemes, perhaps in the 100 most deprived wards in the country, to really tackle the problem of deprivation with a cross-Government approach that would improve universal credit and tax credits to get people into work and keep them in work, help businesses create jobs in those wards and, above all, help with housing. Is that not a good idea?
David Rutley
It is always a good idea to meet my right hon. Friend, and I will look forward to that. He is absolutely right: the best way to assist people is to help them gain the skills they need to move into work and to progress in work. In Gainsborough, the local jobcentre has worked in partnership with the local council, training providers and the owners of a local business park to recruit staff for a new hospitality venue called the Caldero Lounge through a sector-based work academy programme to help get unemployed people back into work, and there is another SWAP already in train in his constituency. I look forward to meeting him.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Back in the real world, we have seen food bank use rocket over the last 12 years—the Trussell Trust alone distributed 2.5 million emergency food parcels in 2020-21, compared with 40,000 in 2010—and it is set to balloon further as the cost of living soars. That is not tackling poverty through the benefits policy. What does the Minister think went wrong with the welfare state under the Conservatives?
David Rutley
With a record 1.3 million vacancies in the UK, our top priority needs to be to get people into work. We have the household support fund to help people who have vulnerabilities in their lives. That has played a very important role, with £500 million.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
The new report from the centre-right Centre for Social Justice is about the latest scourge to hit the desperate and the destitute: illegal money lending. Over a million people have been driven into the arms of illegal money lenders. The report—by the Centre for Social Justice, not the Labour party—states:
“We can expect this to get worse. The emergent cost-of-living crisis casts a looming shadow of financial anxiety.”
It adds that
“pressures on household budgets, low financial resilience and increasingly limited credit options”
are creating “a perfect storm”, driving people “towards exploitation”. Given soaring inflation and falling real living standards, does the Minister expect that there will be more or fewer people in destitution this year?
David Rutley
We work hard to ensure that people receive the money they need and we also work hard to ensure people get into work. As far as people needing debt management advice, we can do that through our jobcentres. The Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), also does a huge amount of work in this area to provide the right sort of advice on money and pensions.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
My hon. Friend will know that in February, 9,846 people were claiming universal credit in Darlington. Does he agree that the decision to increase the living wage, extend the work allowance and reduce the taper rate will massively improve the income of people on universal credit?
David Rutley
Absolutely. We want to make sure that work pays, and my hon. Friend has highlighted that fantastically.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
We are committed to seeing 1 million more disabled people in work by 2027. A wide range of initiatives are available to support disabled people to stay in work or move into work, including contracted employment support, Access to Work, Disability Confident, and initiatives in partnership with the health system.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
I am sure the Minister would agree that an important part of preventing the disability employment gap from widening further is the provision of assistive technology for disabled claimants who are applying for jobs. Can the Minister advise the House on whether every jobcentre is equipped with assistive technology for disabled claimants and whether that is supported by appropriate staff training—and if not, why not?
Mims Davies
We have 900 disability employment advisers who individually work with claimants to help them to progress. One of the most positive outcomes of the kickstart scheme has been the number of people with neurodiversity or disabilities getting a first start into work because they worked directly with their work coaches to understand what support they needed to get into work. There is also, of course, the Access to Work programme.
Marion Fellows
This Thursday, the all-party parliamentary group for multiple sclerosis is launching a report on the support that people with MS receive to get into and remain in employment, and to leave employment. According to the report, people with MS are not receiving enough support from their employers to remain in work. On average, 80% of people with a diagnosis have to retire within 15 years of receiving that bad news. Will the Department commit to improving Access to Work by reducing waiting times, ending the payment cap altogether, and helping employees to better support their disabled employees to thrive and remain in work?
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Lady for raising a really important point about employers being able to understand and work with their employees as their health needs change. Employers stepping forward to do more to retain quality staff is absolutely right. She will be pleased to know that we are adapting Access to Work to support hybrid working. We have introduced a new flexible offer, and we are also piloting an adjustment passport to help to smooth transitions into employment. Perhaps we need to look at that in terms of those leaving or having to change their employment. I am sure the Minister for disabled people, the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), who is unwell today, will be keen to hear from the hon. Lady.
Anna Firth
Many people who live with disabilities struggle to enter the workplace as they often lack the soft skills and the confidence needed. In my constituency of Southend West, we have a wonderful charity called the Phabulous Café, which provides a training centre for young people with disabilities, learning difficulties and mental health issues to help them gain those essential soft skills. What support do the Government give such charities to help people with disabilities live their lives to the full?
Mims Davies
The Phabulous Café is exactly what its name says. I welcome my hon. Friend to her place, as this is my first time responding to her. Support for small charities exists in the form of the work with the Regional Stakeholder Network, which provides charities with a platform to influence policies that directly impact the lives of disabled people. Through the RSN, support is provided for small charities by helping them to navigate the often difficult process of accessing public sector grants and contracts. I am keen to see the Phabulous Café in action soon.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (David Rutley)
To support people to become financially resilient by moving into work and progressing in employment, eligible UC claimants can claim back up to 85% of their registered childcare costs each month regardless of the number of hours they work, compared with 70% in tax credits.
Florence Eshalomi
Today is national Single Parents’ Day, a day on which I remember my late mum and everything she did to raise me and my sisters. Many single parents in Vauxhall struggling on universal credit find it impossible to pay up front for childcare, because universal credit pays them in arrears. How can the Minister justify forcing universal credit claimants to pay money that they simply do not have for childcare while parents receiving tax-free childcare receive that funding immediately?
David Rutley
The hon. Member makes an important point, and I also pay respect to her mum and to single parents across the UK on today of all days. I thoroughly recommend that her constituents go to the jobcentre and see the work coaches, because a flexible support fund is available that can help to take care of up-front payments for childcare. I would gladly talk to her about that afterwards if she needs further direction.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
The Government have made significant progress in implementing those recommendations, improving the working conditions for agency workers and more harshly penalising employers who treat their workers badly. I will continue to work with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to make sure that we fulfil our commitment to ensuring that everyone, no matter what their background, has the opportunity to start, stay and progress in work.
John Penrose
Ministers from both Departments originally promised to implement the full set of the Taylor review recommendations back in 2018, but four years later, we still have gaps and missing dates for legislation. The conditions faced by many lower-skilled and insecure workers create huge barriers to opportunity, career progression and social mobility. Is it not past time for us to smash these glass ceilings as a key part of levelling up?
Mims Davies
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter, and I am sure that BEIS Ministers will have heard him loudly as well. It is absolutely right that we have boosted the secondary legislation, which boosts the rights of workers by quadrupling the available aggravated breach penalty used in employment tribunals, but it is right too that he and I work with my colleagues to make sure that employers—and the experience at work—are better, because they need to be.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (David Rutley)
We take all fraud very seriously and have a wide range of measures in place, supported by £613 million of additional funding. Our integrated risk and intelligence service co-ordinates the detection of, and response to, fraud risks from identity fraud, including threats from organised criminals. We will continue to do all that we can to track down fraudsters.
Dr Evans
I am grateful for the Minister’s answer. I was contacted by my constituent, Dr Ralph Mitchell, after he was contacted by a debt collection agency on behalf of the DWP for a £1,500 outstanding debt. He has never taken UC or made any form of claim before. He rang the Department and, after many phone calls, was unable to have the debt removed. He was told that he was a victim of identity theft. It took the involvement of my office and myself to get that resolved. What are we doing to prevent identity theft, and what is the Department doing to make sure that the communications with those who fall victim to it are sorted out as swiftly as possible?
David Rutley
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s support for his constituent. Verification of identity remains a critical requirement for all DWP benefits, and we are recruiting an additional 2,000 trained specialists to identify and stop scammers. We work hard to make sure that victims of identity fraud are not penalised and that universal credit benefits staff have access to information and intelligence from other sources prior to the payment, which allows them to make a real-time risk assessment on a case. Anyone who contacts us about a notification regarding a debt for a claim that they believe they never made will have their case referred to our stolen ID team, and we will endeavour to contact them within 48 hours.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (David Rutley)
The Secretary of State is legally required to conduct an annual review of benefit rates to determine whether they have retained their value in relation to the general level of prices. We have used the same approach since April 1987 of uprating benefits based on the increase in the relevant inflation index, the consumer prices index, in the 12 months to the previous September. We will spend over £59 billion this year, 2021-22, on benefits to support disabled people and people with health conditions.
Wera Hobhouse
One of my Bath constituents, who is disabled, has been told by his energy supplier that his bill will go up by £130 in April. He is on legacy benefits; he is not eligible for a top-up. He does not know how to cope. According to the charity Scope, he is not alone: disabled people are more than twice as likely to have a cold house and more than three times as likely not to be able to afford food. Thousands of disabled people are losing trust in the system. To improve trust and transparency in the DWP, will the Minister commit to automatically providing audio recordings of assessments, unless a claimant opts out, and to providing all claimants with a copy of the assessor’s report by default?
David Rutley
We take seriously the points that the hon. Member makes. Each interaction is key. We want to make sure that people get the support that they need, and we can achieve that through vehicles such as the household support fund, but I will take away her specific point and write back to her with a full response.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
Disability benefits are being cut in real terms. Charities such as the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Scope, Leonard Cheshire and the MS Society have been pressing the Government to do more to ensure that disabled people are not pressured into using food banks, not washing their clothes or leaving the heating off in order to prioritise keeping life-saving medical equipment running. Let me just repeat that, Mr Speaker: in order to prioritise keeping life-saving medical equipment running. What extra support are Ministers pushing the Chancellor to deliver in Wednesday’s spring statement to help disabled people to survive this cost of living crisis?
David Rutley
As the hon. Member heard over the weekend, the Chancellor said that where he can, he will support and provide assistance to people. There is a track record of that through the pandemic and in response to rising energy prices, with his three-part plan.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
I thank my hon. Friend for the opportunity to talk about our really positive Way to Work campaign bringing jobseekers and employers together in our jobcentres and filling vacancies much more quickly. In South Yorkshire, employers in the jobcentre are interviewing candidates, who are often being offered new roles the very same day. I know that my hon. Friend had a very successful jobs fair on Friday.
Alexander Stafford
The most recent claimant count in Rother Valley shows that about 2,000 people are looking for work. That is why, as the Minister says, I hosted the first ever Rother Valley jobs fair, which was attended by hundreds of jobseekers and by 30 organisations advertising several thousand good jobs—and they were very local jobs. Will my hon. Friend tell me how her Way to Work campaign will help my constituents to find jobs? Will she talk about the tools she is using to ensure that people are ready to work and can start jobs as quickly as possible?
Mims Davies
Across Rotherham, our jobcentre teams are really helping to employ people and get those vacancies filled. I have been in jobcentres where people have quite often been unemployed for a very long time; the experience of being offered a job, there and then, changes their lives. We are working locally and nationally with employers on local recruitment days, jobs fairs and sector-based work academies, all as part of the commitment to get half a million claimants into work by the end of June.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
The Government are providing support worth over £21 billion across this financial year and the next to help families with the cost of living. Through the Department for Work and Pensions, that includes cutting the universal credit taper rate and increasing work allowances.
Richard Burgon
Most benefits and the state pension will rise by just 3% in April, but inflation could be over 8%, so that is a real-terms cut of 5% for people who are already having to choose between eating and heating. Given that, how on earth does the Secretary of State think it acceptable to target the incomes of the poorest in our society like this? Will she commit today to action so that nobody’s benefits are cut during the deepest cost of living crisis in decades?
Dr Coffey
The Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley), has set out the inflation index that has been used consistently since 1987 in consideration of the inflation rate. I am very conscious that the House voted for the uprating order recently—apart from the hon. Gentleman, along with a handful of others. If his vote had been successful, benefits would not have risen at all.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
The Government are wholly committed to alleviating levels of pensioner poverty. State pensions are at record levels, pension credit take-up is increasing, and we are taking a number of other steps to provide assistance. On the day of the launch of the spring booster, I should also stress the need for all pensioners, residents of care homes, and those like me and, I think, you, Mr Speaker, who are immunocompromised to get that booster jab. It is vital for everyone’s welfare.
Christine Jardine
According to a recent report from Independent Age, 40% of pensioners will spend one year in poverty during any nine-year period, and with the situation set to be exacerbated by spiralling inflation and the Government’s removal of the triple lock, pensioners will now be £270 worse off every year. Does the Secretary of State agree with my party that we should double, and extend eligibility for, the winter fuel allowance?
Guy Opperman
The hon. Lady will be aware that the state pension rose by 2.5% last year, in circumstances in which prices were not so rising, and that it will rise by 3.1% this April. Money is also being provided in the form of the cold weather payment, the winter fuel allowance and many other kinds of support, including the £9 billion package announced by the Chancellor and administered by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (David Rutley)
We are committed to tackling barriers to work for everybody, especially those in supported housing. Through our Plan for Jobs, we are targeting tailored support at people of all ages to help them to prepare for, get into and progress in work.
Kerry McCarthy
I welcomed the announcement made by the Minister for Housing, the right hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), towards the end of last week about regulation of supported housing—that is a very good move—but at present there are people in supported housing where there is an exemption from the housing benefit limit, so they could be paying hundreds of pounds a week in rent. My local DWP branch tells me that that is a real deterrent for them to come off housing benefit or universal credit and get into work. What is the Minister doing to address the problem?
Guy Opperman
The income taper in housing benefit ensures that claimants will always be financially better off working than not being in work. We believe that maintaining housing benefit in these cases has allowed claimants to continue to receive more tailored financial support for their housing costs than would currently be available through universal credit.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
Our Homes for Ukraine scheme was formally opened for applications on Friday, with more than 150,000 Britons registering their interest. Ukrainian evacuees coming to this country are able to access DWP benefits, support and services from day one, and jobcentres will be helping people to find and move into employment, with assistance from an assigned work coach. Extra support will be available through our flexible support fund. We are also ensuring that the household benefit entitlements of those who have stepped up to sponsor a Ukrainian individual or family will not be affected as a result. As the public open their hearts and homes, we are ensuring that the right support is available to provide security, stability and safety in their hour of need.
Andrew Jones
The excellent team at my local Jobcentre Plus have briefed my office that they have placed 163 young people in Harrogate in work through the Government’s kickstart programme. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the new Way to Work scheme builds on that, especially in sectors where we are seeing workforce shortages, such as social care?
Dr Coffey
My hon. Friend is right to praise the young people in his constituency who have started their careers thanks to kickstart. Way to Work will build on our success in bringing employers and claimants together in jobcentres so that we can try to fill local vacancies, and will ensure that when candidates do not succeed in getting job interviews, they receive the feedback much more quickly. We will continue to try to directly address the barriers to entering roles in social care through job fairs and informed campaigns.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
Families and retirees are facing rising energy bills so unaffordable, tax rises so punishing, real-terms cuts in the basic state pension so deep, and cuts in universal credit and disability benefits so severe that money-saving expert Martin Lewis has said that people will either starve or freeze. Secretary of State, Mr Lewis is correct, is he not?
Dr Coffey
We still have the household support fund, which is available for people to apply to, to get extra support from their local council. I encourage people who are struggling right now to make that approach to their council as quickly as possible.
Jonathan Ashworth
People are struggling right now, and the Secretary of State is about to cut benefits to the tune of £500 for 9 million households. That is a choice that she has made. She has also made a choice by breaking her promise on the triple lock and cutting the basic state pension in real terms by £388 this year, according to The Daily Telegraph. Her justification for that was that the increase in earnings was at 8%. The Bank of England estimates that inflation will hit 8%. Can she rule out breaking the triple lock again this year?
Dr Coffey
I said the Opposition; the SNP might be the second Opposition party. The Labour Opposition did support the Bill until it came back from the Lords. There was a lot of support at the time, recognising the statistical anomaly.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
I thank my hon. Friend for that question, which I think will interest the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) as well. From April this year, our new DWP in-work progression offer will support working universal credit claimants to progress and increase their earnings. It will include better support to upskill and retrain, and low-paid workers are eligible for training funded by the Department for Education via skills boot camps in digital engineering and the green sectors.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
Dr Coffey
The hon. Lady raises an important point. All parents automatically go into the direct payment process. I am working with my noble Friend Baroness Stedman-Scott, the Minister who has direct responsibility for this portfolio, to see what more we can do to accelerate reform if people are clearly not being compliant and not paying. Meanwhile, our financial investigations unit will investigate where people are hiding money and, if necessary, take them to court to ensure that the money gets paid.
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Ind)
Mr Speaker
I think the Minister might struggle to answer that question, but if she wants to try, please do so.
Mims Davies
I am going to try, Mr Speaker.
That may be a devolved issue, but I would point out that many employers in Wales have been putting on transportation to bring workers in. That has been happening particularly in Ynys Môn—in Anglesey—to support production there. Working with the jobcentre to put on suitable transport makes a difference in getting people into work too.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
The factual matter is that the state pension has increased by in excess of 5% over the past two years. There is also £5 billion-worth of pension credit—I encourage the hon. Gentleman to get his vulnerable constituents to apply for that—and the Chancellor’s £9.1 billion package for energy bills. I also encourage the hon. Gentleman to get his constituents to apply to the local authority fund.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
Mims Davies
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. There are currently over 1.2 million vacancies. On jobs and vacancies, Opposition Members do not appear to understand that people are better off in work than they are on benefits. Let us get to the point: there are key sectors in this country that need people. To tackle this challenge, we at the Department for Work and Pensions are stepping up, with Way to Work bringing people into our jobcentres and helping claimants to change their lives.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
While the Secretary of State was enjoying our warm Lancashire hospitality in Blackpool this weekend, just a few miles up the coast in Fleetwood, my constituent Patricia was emailing me as her MP. She is a disabled pensioner and says:
“The state pension does not keep up with rises in cost of living or inflation…Fuel costs are crippling, as I don’t move and feel the cold but we have to be careful with the heating. I need carers but their costs rise faster than the annual increase.”
What does the Secretary of State have to say to my constituent?
Guy Opperman
I urge the hon. Lady’s constituent to contact her local authority to see whether there is local authority access to funds. As of April, there will be £9.1 billion of energy support from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities fund. There is also pension credit and efforts are being made on a whole host of levels. I have listed three clear examples of access to cash for individuals such as her constituent.
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)
Following last week’s announcement of changes to the DWP estate, 55 of my constituents are directly affected by the closure of the Bishop Auckland back-office function. Joanne Illingworth, who has worked for the DWP for 36 years, has written to me because she is really concerned that moving her job would not be compatible with balancing her work life and caring responsibilities. To give Joanne and others reassurance, can the Minister confirm that individuals will be given specifically tailored support to find a new role that is suitable for them in their current circumstances, and, if not, that, as an absolute last resort, exit packages will be made available?
Mims Davies
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. I spoke to her about her constituents just before the weekend. It is absolutely right that our Department is committed to supporting customers, families, the economy, claimants and our staff. Some 65% of our buildings are of very poor quality; they are small and do not allow for opportunities for progression. Thirty-six years is a really decent innings. We will be working directly, one to one, with our staff, using hybrid working practices to retain as many people as we can and give them a better quality working experience.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
For many people with disabilities, switching off essential equipment to reduce energy costs is not an option. Extra power is needed to run equipment on which they absolutely rely—to power ventilators, to charge electric wheelchairs or to run a stairlift. When I asked the Prime Minister about this recently, he said that the Government would be looking at ways to abate these costs, so what are the Government doing to support people with disabilities who now face unmanageable energy bills?
Dr Coffey
Throughout questions my hon. Friends have been setting out the different types of support available for energy bills. I am conscious of what the hon. Lady refers to, and all I can say is that we will continue to look at opportunities to help people, but I encourage her constituents to access support via the local council’s household support fund.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
Last week was a nervous moment as we read the news that Stockton’s DWP offices are closing and that 380 staff would be relocated. It is now being reported that those jobs could simply be moved down the road to Middlesbrough. Will the Minister assure me that the Department is looking to keep as many of those jobs as possible in Teesside and that it is working with local leaders to see if there is any suitable usable space in the area so that Teesside does not lose any of those jobs?
Mims Davies
That gives me a chance to provide clarification for my hon. Friend, as it is important for his constituents and others who may be affected. This move is about turning opportunities into larger hubs, with more progression, and a chance for better career opportunities. With people working about two days a week in the new vicinity, which may be around 10 miles away, they will have opportunities to stay local and spend local; it will be hybrid working and able to support people’s needs in terms of caring and other responsibilities, such as doing the school run, which they might not be able to do now. I ask his constituents to lean into the engagement and I hope that they will find that the next stage is promising for them.
Mr Speaker
The Minister should be answering the questions through the Chair.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
A recent report by Rethink Mental Illness has highlighted that the Department for Work and Pensions is not carrying out investigations of claimants who have suffered significant or serious harm, including a mental health crisis, self-harm and even attempted suicide. We are talking about the cost of living crisis and we know what that is going to drive people to, so will the Department instigate independent reviews of people who have suffered in the claims process so that they can make it more humane and supportive?
Dr Coffey
The hon. Lady raises an important point. I am confident that my Department and officials will undertake their duties carefully and considerately. I am conscious that there will be times when things go wrong and that sometimes the Department will be brought into local investigations, usually by social services. It is important that we respond to that, as well as to the ongoing lessons that we learn from broader themes that we investigate through the Serious Case Panel.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
I thank the Minister for the phone call last week about the DWP closure and the potential for more than 200 job losses in Stoke-on-Trent—she rightly understands the concern of local residents. Although it is totally irresponsible of the Public and Commercial Services Union to brief before local employees were spoken to, it is vital that we make sure we retain these types of jobs in Stoke-on-Trent, where we know that the average salary is below the weekly average of the rest of the UK and that unemployment is higher than the UK average. What can she do to keep as many of those jobs in the city and work with the local authority to find a new hub within Stoke-on-Trent?
Mims Davies
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. I will address this to you equally and fully, Mr Speaker. It is vital that we ensure that our staff our consulted and listened to. We have more than 920 buildings, which can house 168,000 people—we currently have 92,000 people. Some of them are poor-quality buildings, without progression opportunities, and we have not been able to embrace hybrid working. Let me remind the House that this is about back-office function and retaining staff, giving them a better quality of workplace and embracing hybrid working, and about people staying local when they can.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
As a result of my Food Insecurity Bill, the family resources survey now reports on food insecurity. The survey found that one of the key reasons, even pre-pandemic, that people could not afford to eat was that benefits were grossly inadequate. Does the Secretary of State think that the pitiful 3.1% increase in benefits, when inflation will peak at 8%, is going to make people more or less able to afford to eat?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (David Rutley)
The uprating was in line with inflation in the way that it has been calculated since 1987, but additional support is available, through the three-part plan that the Chancellor set out to tackle energy costs and through the household support fund.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
Blackpool South has one of the highest unemployment rates in the entire nation, but there are more than 1,000 job vacancies in the local area. Despite that, many local businesses tell me that they struggle to recruit, as often they have few applicants for local roles and some of those who attend job interviews often do everything they can not to get the job. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that those who are able to work do not continue to refuse reasonable offers of employment?
Dr Coffey
I was in my hon. Friend’s constituency on Thursday night and Friday morning, and was at the jobs fair held at the Pleasure Beach, which was a great success, as has already been referred to. It is important that we continue to have that relationship with claimants through the intensive work search regime. They are expected to look for work and take work that is available that they are capable of doing. We will continue not only to enforce that regime but to bring employers and claimants together to try to make sure that those interviews are successful and we get people into work, because that will always be the best way of getting out of poverty.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
The Minister referred earlier to the modest reported percentage increase in take-up of pension credit. Does he recognise that that increase is a consequence of the removal of mixed-age pensioner couples from eligibility for pension credit, rather than of any actual increase in take-up? Is it not high time that the Department set an ambitious take-up target and published an action plan to deliver it?
Guy Opperman
With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, with whom I have repeatedly debated this matter, we already have an action plan. We are already engaging with all the key organisations, whether that is the energy companies, television companies or media in the normal way. I respectfully say to him that pension credit take-up is increasing. It is up by 3%, which is definitely not for the reason he asserts, and we continue to make the case for pension credit to the wider population. We want not just individuals to claim; we want carers or people on behalf of their mum or dad to put in a claim.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
Almost £4 million of pension credit remains unclaimed in Darlington. What advice can Ministers give to my constituents and others to encourage them to take it up?
Guy Opperman
I sincerely hope that my hon. Friend’s local paper contains a letter from me this week explaining exactly why upwards of £3,000 is available to vulnerable pensioners—serious money that is as yet unclaimed. We are keen that my hon. Friend’s constituents and others claim pension credit, because it is an important source of money for the most vulnerable. We already spend £5 billion on it, and we want to spend more, but people must claim.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Countless pensioners across my constituency have been forced to make the heartbreaking choice between heating and eating. They were told all their lives that if they worked hard enough then, when their time came to retire, we would take care of them. However, it is evident from those contacting me that that is no longer the case.
As the Secretary of State and the Pensions Minister have already outlined, the Government provide a range of benefits to older people in a whole host of areas, including housing, NHS dental treatment and transport costs. Those things can go a long way to helping with the cost of living crisis, but many such benefits go unclaimed each year. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that older people are aware of and able to access the benefits for which they are eligible?
Dr Coffey
My hon. Friend the Pensions Minister has already set out the huge number of ways that we are trying to increase awareness. I think it is accurate to say, from internal management information, that we have seen a 30% increase in people applying, so we are encouraging take-up. The lowest proportion of pensioners taking up such things are those with an income above the basic state pension who are still entitled to savings credit, and we need to work harder on that. Just getting a few pennies from the state can unlock hundreds of pounds for their costs.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
With the DWP urging benefits claimants to apply for various top-up funds to help with the mounting cost of living crisis, what steps is the Secretary of State taking to increase awareness of the warm home discount scheme and to maximise take-up in my constituency?
Dr Coffey
Mr Speaker, having got through all the questions in record time today, you are keeping us beyond 3.30 pm, which is very generous of you—[Laughter.] Perhaps we are being rewarded for our efficacy.
The hon. Lady has been working with my hon. Friend the Pensions Minister on a Bill that will hopefully succeed in the upper House, and she will know that we are working through several avenues to try to increase take-up. The warm home discount will be going up later this year, and we estimate that the number of people who will qualify for the increase in the discount will go up by a third.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
I am very grateful, Mr Speaker. Although the Secretary of State might be used to dishing out sanctions to people in our constituencies, I gently suggest that it is inappropriate for her to try to do that to you in the Chair.
Dr Coffey
No one is sanctioning anybody here today. I was just pointing out how efficient this ministerial team is, which reflects the effective work that we do on the behalf of claimants across the country. I do like the hon. Gentleman’s shoes, and I am sure others would claim that title as well.
Mr Speaker
Before we come to the urgent question, I remind Members that they should be careful not to identify the child at the centre of this case. That includes being cautious about mentioning information that might help others to establish their identity. I call Bell Ribeiro-Addy.
Metropolitan Police: Strip-search of Schoolgirl
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
(Urgent Question) To ask the Secretary of State to make a statement on the recent report concerning the Metropolitan police’s handling of the strip-search of Child Q.
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
The City and Hackney Safeguarding Children Partnership report into the strip-search of a 15-year-old schoolgirl while at school by police officers in 2020 is both troubling and deeply concerning. This experience will have been traumatic for the child involved; the impact on her welfare should not be underestimated.
The Government and the public rightly expect the highest standards from our police officers. The ability of the police to perform their core functions is dependent on their capacity to secure and maintain public confidence and support for their actions. While the Metropolitan police have apologised for their actions and recognised that this incident should never have happened, the force’s culture has again come under scrutiny.
Members of the public must be treated fairly and without prejudice, no matter their race, age or background. Strip-search is one of the most intrusive powers available to the police. The law is very clear that the use of police powers to search must be fair, respectful and without unlawful discrimination. Any use of strip-search should be carried out in accordance with the law and with full regard to the welfare and dignity of the individual being searched, particularly if that individual is a child. If police judge it operationally necessary to strip-search a child, they must do so in the presence of the child’s appropriate adult.
It is the role of the independent police watchdog, the Independent Office for Police Conduct, to investigate serious matters involving the police, and the IOPC says it has been investigating the actions of the Metropolitan police in this case. We must let the IOPC conclude its work. We will of course expect any findings to be acted on swiftly, but it is vital that we do not prejudge the IOPC’s investigations or prejudice due process, so it would be wrong of me to make any further comment on the case in question at this time.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy
They walked into her place of safety at the request of people who were meant to keep her safe, stripped her naked while she was on her period and forced her to remove her sanitary towel, spread her legs, part her buttock cheeks and cough, to look for drugs they never found. We should remember that this comes on top of a string of incidents, from the abuse and strip-search of Dr Duff, the rapist and murderer Wayne Couzens, the vile racism and misogyny uncovered in Charing Cross police station, the brutal handling of the vigil in Clapham Common, and the record low confidence in policing, particularly by minority communities, who are evidenced as being over-policed as citizens and under-policed as victims.
Does the Minister understand that there is no apology that could atone for the perverse racist degradation of this child? Does the Minister accept that this is not an isolated incident—that between 2016 and 2021 the Met carried out over 9,000 strip-searches on children, some younger than 12, and that over 33% of all strip-searches were carried out on black people, despite only 13% of Londoners being black? Given that this happened in a school, what discussions has his Department had with the Department for Education on this serious breach of safeguarding and the questionable presence of police officers in our schools? Will he finally accept that the Met police have an issue with institutional racism and misogyny and take steps to ensure that any new commissioner is committed to rooting it out?
The Minister may be aware that during the statement on the commission on race and ethnic disparities last week, the Minister for Equalities said:
“We have systems in place to ensure that when things go wrong we can right them. What we cannot do is stop any bad thing happening to anyone in the country at any time.”—[Official Report, 17 March 2022; Vol. 710, c. 1075.]
I have to ask: what on earth are this Government here for? I simply do not accept that. Finally, in the words of Child Q herself:
“I need to know that the people who have done this to me can’t do it to anyone else ever again”.
Can the Minister assure Child Q and our constituents of that?
Kit Malthouse
As I said earlier, we await the outcome of the investigation, and we will learn whatever lessons need to be learnt from it. While my hon. Friend the Minister for Equalities said that we cannot prevent all bad things from happening, we can try. What is clear from this case is that the complaint mechanism and the safeguarding practices involved did surface the issue and bring it to light, and have allowed us to examine this appalling—[Interruption.] Hold on. They have allowed us to examine this appalling incident in more detail and to try to learn the lessons, so that as—I assume from what she said—Child Q hopes, we are able to prevent such incidents from occurring in the future.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
I have huge admiration for my right hon. Friend, and I know that he takes these things very seriously, but can he understand the revulsion felt by women to hear that a girl has been strip-searched at her school—and had to remove her sanitary towel—by the very people whom we trust to look after us? What action will he take to make it clear that there needs to be cultural change in the Metropolitan police so that no serving constable could ever think that that was an appropriate course of action?
Kit Malthouse
The revulsion is not confined to women. There are many men, including me, who obviously find it a distressing incident to contemplate. I very often find it helpful in these circumstances to put one of my own relatives in a similar situation to bring home the impact. I am not at all denying the fact that it was distressing and appalling and that it should not have happened, as the Metropolitan police have said themselves.
The hon. Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) referred to a number of incidents that have prompted concerns about the culture in the Met, and she, I hope, will be pleased to know that I had a meeting last week with Dame Louise Casey who has obviously been detailed by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to look at the culture across the whole of the Metropolitan police. Her work will dovetail neatly with the work of the Angiolini review, which is looking, in its first stage, at the circumstances surrounding the employment of Wayne Couzens. Following that, stage 2 will look more widely at culture and policing. There is no doubt that there is work to be done here, and we are determined to do that work.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
The Local Child Safeguarding Practice Review published last week, compiled by the extremely highly regarded Jim Gamble, into the case of Child Q was deeply disturbing. The details of the strip-search of a black schoolgirl by the Metropolitan police at a Hackney secondary school in 2020 have horrified us all in a society where we police by consent.
The review concluded that the search was unjustified and that racism was likely to have been a factor. We have heard the details from my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), and I think that everyone will agree that this strip-search should not have happened, that everyone will want to say sorry to Child Q, and that something went terribly wrong. What is so shocking is that the existing guidance and training was so insufficient—so broad, perhaps—and so vague that it did not prevent the strip-search of a child who supposedly smelled of cannabis from happening in this way. I have read the College of Policing guidance and the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 on strip-searches, and they are not clear enough. Is the Minister already working on new guidance?
Given that the Met and Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services say that the smell of cannabis is not good grounds for a normal stop and search of an adult, will the Minister confirm that the circumstances described in this review should never have happened and that the new guidance will be clear on this point?
Given the serious harm that has occurred in this case, does the Minister agree that we must understand the scale of this issue? Will he therefore commit to publishing the full data on the use of strip-searches of children in our police forces across England and Wales by the end of the week?
The little data that we do have makes very difficult reading. A freedom of information request on strip-searches in the Met over the past five years shows that 33% of all strip-searches were of black people, while black people make up only 11% of the population of Londoners. There are other issues that we will come to when the Independent Office for Police Conduct has passed its report to the Met, the Met has taken any action and the report is finally published. Those issues include: how this case was first referred to social services; why Child Q and her family had to wait so long for answers; and what the role of education policy, guidance and safeguarding is in this. We know that this could be months or years away, so the key point is that there are significant faults that this case has brought to light, in terms of data, guidance and training, which this Government can choose to tackle now if they have the political will to do so.
Kit Malthouse
We obviously take this matter extremely seriously. The hon. Lady is right that the report made recommendations to the Government, not least on strengthening and revising code C of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. We will have to consider our response to that in the light of this report, taking into account the outcomes of the IOPC review. We need to understand whether we have a specific problem or a systemic one. The report indicates that we may have systemic problems, and if we do then obviously we will seek to address them. We also need to work out from the IOPC report whether the same is true; if so, of course we will act.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
Does the Minister appreciate how angry people up and down the country are about this incident, particularly people in Hackney? We had a very big demonstration outside Hackney town hall—it was a completely peaceful one, but people were just consumed with unhappiness and anger and fear. It is not just parents of colour; all parents are thinking, “This could have been my daughter.” Is the Minister aware of how traumatised that young woman still is by the incident, and is he aware that it took the police two full years to apologise? What is he going to do? He is telling us about inquiries, but what is he going to do so that at the very least, the instructions and guidelines to the police are much clearer than they currently appear to be?
Kit Malthouse
Of course I understand the anger and concern across the country, and I share it. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), it could have been any one of our relatives. As the right hon. Lady knows, I spent a long time in London government and I understand the impact that these events can have on trust between the police and London’s various communities. It is extremely important that people feel confident that, when such appalling incidents happen, action is taken to try to prevent them in the future. I am trying to stress to the House that, while we have the report of the safeguarding board, we want to ensure that we also have the IOPC report so that we can see the full picture in the round and act accordingly to reassure her constituents and many other Londoners.
It is worth saying, however, that it would be helpful to me if London Members such as the right hon. Lady recognised that the Mayor of London has a role to play in this, as the primary accountability body for the Metropolitan Police, and that the Government and the Mayor must work together to solve these problems with the police.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I am sorry, but I feel as if we have woken the Minister from an afternoon nap to come in and make this statement. There is a distinct lack of urgency in his approach. It is quite clear that there are areas where the Government can act now. Why is he not coming to this House to explain to us exactly what he is going to do, rather than taking this “wait and see” attitude?
Kit Malthouse
As I have already said, there is a process under way through the IOPC. That process will, I hope, conclude shortly and the IOPC will bring us the evidence of the report. It is an independent organisation—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) is barracking me from a seated position, but I do not think she is participating in the urgent question. The point is that the IOPC is an independent organisation, and she will know that it would be completely incorrect for me to put any kind of pressure on its investigation. That process must complete. When it does, we will have the full picture and, if we are required to act, have no doubt that we will act swiftly.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Last week I raised the issue of Child Q with the Minister for Equalities, the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Kemi Badenoch). I told her of my disgust that a child experienced being stripped of her clothes and searched at school by police officers while she was menstruating. It is beyond belief that she was pulled out of an exam and then expected to be fit and well enough to return to that exam. I am outraged by that, as are other hon. Members of this House. I am pleased that the Minister has said he is disgusted and appalled, but does he agree that the officers and teachers involved should be sacked and charged for their misconduct and that, as a matter of safeguarding, they should never be allowed to work with children again?
Kit Malthouse
Those are conclusions, I am afraid, for the IOPC. Much as I know the House would love me to do so, I cannot circumvent that quasi-judicial process. The IOPC is independent for a reason; the office of constable is dealt with in a different way from other matters of employment. Once it concludes, we will be able to draw conclusions ourselves.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Like many people across London and this country, I am utterly appalled and disgusted by this case, not least as the mother of a young daughter. I cannot begin to conceive of what that young woman went through and how furious her family must be. I am not sure I could be held responsible for my actions if I were her mother, to be honest. The Minister has talked about the IOPC review and there have been calls for guidance to be reviewed. In the meantime, has he spoken to every single police chief in the country and asked for a guarantee that no other child will be subjected to such mistreatment in future?
Kit Malthouse
Obviously I have not spoken to every other police chief in the country, since the report came out just a few days ago. As I say, we will eagerly await the IOPC report to establish whether we have a specific problem or a systemic problem. The initial reports of the local child safeguarding practice review are telling us that we may have a systemic problem. If we do, then we will act on it accordingly. Please believe me when I say that the impact of this on any family would be profound. Some of us have children too. Those children may, in time, be subject to something like this, and I hope we are able to prevent that from happening.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I think we all recognise that the Minister is waiting for the IOPC report. However, he says that this could have happened to any child and that he thinks of his own relatives. The brutal, difficult truth that many of my constituents have raised with me over the weekend is that it is not likely to have happened to any of his relatives or our relatives—it is young black girls who have read this story and are horrified by it, and who need us to recognise explicitly the disproportionality in how the police work with them.
I hope the Minister can help to answer the question that my constituents have been asking, because they have looked at the data, especially on families of colour in my community, and they can see that strip-searching of children is not a one-off. So will he, ahead of the IOPC report, publish the data about the numbers of strip-searches that have taken place, by borough command unit and by ethnicity, and confirm that if it ever comes to this exceptional circumstance—I think we would all agree that it should be exceptional that a child should be strip-searched, not a matter of course—a parent or carer will always be present? He could do that today. He could start recovering the trust that has been so lost. He could start by being honest that communities of colour in London are looking at and questioning the police. The data is the first point in getting this right. Will he publish—yes or no?
Kit Malthouse
If a strip-search is deemed necessary to be undertaken on a child, then an appropriate adult, whether a parent or otherwise, has to be present. [Interruption.] Indeed, they were not in this case, and the question we have to ask ourselves is why—what went wrong? Why did the officers do what they did? Why did they decide to have two present? What were they doing? We will know that from the IOPC report. Once we have that, as I say, we will have the full picture and we will be able to look at it accordingly.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
In 2019, Cressida Dick said that police officers should be
“embedded in the DNA of schools”,
and we have seen how that massively failed Child Q in this disgusting case. How far has the search for Cressida Dick’s replacement gone? We have heard that she is clinging on, haggling over her settlement. The Minister blamed Sadiq Khan. Could there be additional safeguards for Parliament in this process? The Met’s workload is of national significance; it is not just a normal police force. Could we have an urgent review of the boundaries of cops in schools?
Kit Malthouse
I did not blame the Mayor of London—I just pointed out that he has as much influence, if not more, over the Metropolitan police than we do. I was the deputy Mayor for policing. If this had happened under me, I would have taken responsibility for it and tried to sort it out myself. I am just saying that the Government and City Hall will have a duty to work together on this issue.
As for police officers’ involvement in schools, it is, I am afraid, a source of great sadness that it is necessary for police officers to be involved in and around schools, but we have found over the years that such is the problem with youth violence and youth crime, particularly in the capital, that creating a good relationship with young people through the police’s involvement in schools is critical to success, and where it works, it can be of enormous benefit to their safety.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
I start by saying that it is incredibly disappointing that the Home Secretary could not be here to respond to this urgent question on an urgent matter.
The police tell us that if we have nothing to hide, we have nothing to fear, but everybody should fear the degrading and traumatising treatment that Child Q suffered when she was strip-searched by the Metropolitan police. More than four children a day are subject to that treatment by the Met, and black people are strip-searched at six times the rate of white people. How does the Minister expect to build trust and confidence in a force that is rife with institutional racism and misogyny when it victimises black children on a daily basis? If his Government’s Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities does not admit the existence of institutional and structural racism, how on earth can we put any trust in the Government?
Kit Malthouse
I refute the hon. Lady’s claim that the Metropolitan police victimises young black people on a daily basis. I have spent many hours with it over the years watching men and women of all types and races in uniform doing their best to save young people’s lives. Although I am often challenged about the disproportionality of things such as stop and search, in two and a bit years of doing this job, I have never been challenged in this Chamber on the disproportionality of victimhood and the sadly far too great number of young black people who die on the streets of London. As I said, we need to understand from each of these instances whether we have a systemic or a specific problem. I understand the House’s impatience, but we will know once the IOPC concludes.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
We have all been horrified by this case. We need assurances that it cannot happen again and we need urgent action from the Minister to address the issue. He says that he is waiting for the IOPC. As he knows, the national safeguarding panel is a ministerially appointed body. Will he stop ducking his responsibilities and urgently publish the data on how many children have been strip-searched over the years, breaking it down by gender, race, age and location of the search, including whether it happened at school? The safeguarding review also demonstrated that there were elements of racism involved, so can he urgently look into that issue, because it needs to be taken seriously?
Kit Malthouse
As I said, we do take the issue extremely seriously. The matter of strip-search in particular, and the disparity in strip-search, has been of concern for some time. That is why we have an initiative on in Norfolk and Suffolk police where we have a strip-search scrutiny panel to look at the disparity there. Similarly, in Thames Valley police, we have put agencies together to examine police custody and strip-search disparities there. There is work under way—the hon. Lady should be reassured by that—but we will know more once the reports have concluded.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
It is more than two decades since the Macpherson inquiry found institutional racism in the Metropolitan police. We now look at the figures on stop and search and we hear the awful story of this young girl and the way she was treated. Does the Minister accept that something has to happen now to give any confidence to the black community in London that its sons and daughters will not be treated in that way on the streets, and that the police will not behave with a racist attitude towards them and will not point to a young black person and see a potential criminal rather than a young person walking around the streets of our city? The confidence is not there, and that is made worse by the report, by the delay in an apology for this poor young woman and by the abominable way that she was treated.
Kit Malthouse
In my view, the vast majority of interactions between the Metropolitan police and members of the black community go well and are of benefit. There are, however, many—too many—that do not, and that is an area of work that requires constant attention. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the Metropolitan police is subject to the Casey review of its culture at the moment. It is working hard, again, as part of the police uplift to change the look and feel of the workforce, with ambitious targets to recruit people of different genders and different ethnicities into the force so that it better reflects the people of London and can better serve them as a result.
On a national level, the National Police Chiefs’ Council is similarly in the process of developing a race action plan to do the same and to deal with some of these issues. This area has been a challenge for policing in London—certainly throughout the right hon. Gentleman’s political career, as it has throughout mine—and it is one that requires constant attention from all of us, driven both by the thematic problems we see, but also by some of these specific incidents. Where we do have these specific incidents, it is incumbent on us to make sure we have the knowledge and the detail, so that we can make the right decisions to make a big difference for London’s communities.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
Mr Speaker:
“I can’t go a single day without wanting to scream, shout…or just give up.”
That is child Q, and I say to child Q and every other little black girl, “You matter.” In eight years’ time, when my daughter is 15 years old, I hope this issue is not still happening, but I am worried that it will be. The local safeguarding practice review found that child Q’s mother was not contacted, and she only found out when her child took a taxi home. Once at home, child Q’s mother had to take her to the GP who made a referral for psychological help due to her child’s level of distress. The Minister has outlined that he is waiting for the IOPC report, but does he agree with me that there are clear safeguarding issues in the treatment of child Q and the lack of parental engagement, and that he can take steps today to help address this and give confidence to little girls not just across London, but up and down the country?
Kit Malthouse
I completely agree with the hon. Lady that there are implications for safeguarding, and I know but will reassure myself that my ministerial colleagues at the Department for Education are taking it as seriously as we are. As I say, from a policing point of view we have to wait for the IOPC to come to a conclusion, but on the overall safeguarding, the panel obviously did its work, the review has produced a report and I will make sure that Ministers at the appropriate Department are taking action as well.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
The bad apple defence or the isolated incident excuse will no longer wash. Our constituents are no longer able to trust the police, including constituents such as Teresa Akpeki, whose brother was the victim of a hit-and-run accident. The police, when they attended the body—this was an NHS worker collecting samples—did not reach into his pocket to find his ID card, but phoned the Home Office to find out whether he was an illegal immigrant, because he was black. The Minister now needs to launch an inquiry into the way in which the Metropolitan police is dealing with ethnic communities, and if he fails to do that, the confidence of our communities in the police up and down this country is going to be rock bottom.
Kit Malthouse
As I outlined earlier, there are already two inquiries into the culture of the Metropolitan police in all its aspects—by Dame Louise Casey, who I know will do a thorough job, and following that, part 2 of the Angiolini review—but I would ask the hon. Gentleman to take care. There are 30,000-odd police officers in the Metropolitan police, the vast majority of whom are doing an extraordinary job and doing amazing things on a daily basis to keep us all safe from harm, and they deserve our thanks for doing that. They will be as outraged as we are at this event, and we need to learn the lessons on their behalf as well as on behalf of the Londoners we serve.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
The disgraceful, abhorrent, sickening strip-search of child Q took place two years ago, yet the Minister stands at the Dispatch Box today and speaks about the processes around the investigation as if this is a system working as it should. It is not. The constant delay in the outcomes of such investigations is a part of the structural denial of justice to complainants against the Metropolitan police. Can the Minister tell the House when he first became aware of the case of child Q and what action he took immediately to safeguard children in London, and does he have no concern at all about the time it takes complaints such as this to conclude and be resolved?
Kit Malthouse
Of course we are concerned about the time it takes for complaints to be dealt with, which is why we changed the IOPC regulations at the end of 2019 to compel speedy investigations. It is the case now that if any investigation is going to take longer than 12 months, the IOPC must write to the appropriate authority—me or, for example, the Mayor of London—to explain why. The director general of the IOPC has done an outstanding job in driving the workload down and bringing more investigations in under 12 months, but there is obviously still a lot more work to do.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
This is a deeply disturbing case both in terms of what happened and the fact that racism was clearly a factor, but may I ask the Minister how it came to light? According to the independent safeguarding report, Hackney Council only became aware of the incident when the family approached a GP; given that this happened two years ago, why is it not automatically the case that when a child is strip-searched social services are notified and a safeguarding review is triggered?
Kit Malthouse
That is one of the questions the investigations will answer. It is my understanding that this issue was referred to the IOPC by the Metropolitan police from a policing point of view, but I agree that it would be of interest to know why it took so long to appear through the local safeguarding structure and I undertake to find out for the hon. Gentleman.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
This appalling act of institutionalised degradation was committed against a black child and the report highlights the racism inherent in the adultification of black children. Does the Minister understand that seeing black children as adults is, just like seeing black men as more likely to be criminal or seeing black women as more likely to be troublesome, part of institutionalised, systemic anti-black racism and his inability to say what he is going to do about it says that he is prepared to continue to tolerate it. Does he also understand that we can never have trust in our policing services with a Minister who is unable to say anything?
Kit Malthouse
I think that is grossly unfair when the hon. Lady knows that I am bound by due process not to comment on an ongoing investigation by the IOPC. When that investigation is concluded we will have plenty to say, fear not. I have spent lots of time dealing with crime and social policy issues in the capital so I am sensitised to the issues the hon. Lady raises; I do recognise them and have done, I like to think, quite a lot of work on them in the past.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The shocking, scandalous strip-search of child Q is so demeaning; how could those Met police officers and the school have thought that such a horrible action could be even remotely acceptable? This could have happened to any one of our children—or could it? I ask that because the statistics tell a very different story, and indeed the safeguarding review revealed that racism could well have been an influencing factor in the decisions taken. Given that, what is the Minister doing to urgently take action on this?
Kit Malthouse
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answers I gave earlier, and we will know these things when the IOPC concludes, which I hope it will shortly.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
In the past three years Metropolitan police officers have been jailed for posing for selfies next to the bodies of black murdered sisters, a serving officer has been found guilty of Sarah Everard’s horrific murder, racist, sexist and homophobic messages between officers have been dismissed as “banter” internally only to have been described as “shocking” by the independent watchdog, and now we learn that Met officers strip-searched a 15-year-old black child at her school, inflicting trauma that will last for years to come. This is obviously not about blaming every single officer, but will the Minister accept that this is not just a few bad apples but reveals a deeper problem of institutional racism and misogyny at the Me? Will the Minister finally answer, rather than just leave, a question that has been asked three times: when did he find out about the case of child Q?
Kit Malthouse
We obviously accept that there is an issue to be addressed, which is why we commissioned the Angiolini review and why we are supporting Dame Louise Casey.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
The Minister started by saying this incident was very troubling and concerning, but I would have to say it goes well beyond troubling and concerning: it was dehumanising a young black girl, who was strip-searched by Met police officers. What is the Minister going to do about the state sanctioning abuse of black children, who are treated like adults in our schools?
Kit Malthouse
I understand the hon. Lady’s anger at this incident; I really do. It is a dreadful incident, and I would much rather not be standing here having to answer these kinds of questions, because I would rather these incidents did not occur in the first place. I will say to her what I have said to everybody else: we will know more when the IOPC concludes. While I understand the House’s impatience and anger, the police officers concerned have a right to due process and we have a duty to wait for the report so that we can see properly the evidence of what happened and then take action accordingly.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) for bringing the urgent question forward. This serious incident has undoubtedly sent shockwaves to every parent and grandparent in this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Does the Minister not agree that there must be safeguarding in place to protect the child as well as the police officers? If we do not robustly enforce protections to the very highest standards, the hardest questions must be answered by those in the highest positions within the police as, ultimately, the buck stops with them.
Kit Malthouse
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. He is quite right that we should expect and work for the highest possible standards. This young person, Child Q, has been through a dreadful, traumatic episode, which I am sure will live with her, sadly, for many years. We need to do our best to make sure that these kinds of incidents do not reoccur, and that is the best we can do. The hon. Gentleman has my undertaking that as soon as we have the full picture, that is exactly what we will do.
Points of Order
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your advice, on behalf of the Sikh community, to ascertain how, after months of waiting, they can elicit a response from the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary.
In a speech in November, the Home Secretary made inflammatory and incendiary remarks about the Sikh community. So incensed was the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, the mini Sikh Parliament based in Amritsar in the Punjab in India, that it wrote seeking an immediate apology from the Home Secretary. Subsequently, well over 200 British Sikh organisations wrote to the Prime Minister demanding that the Home Secretary be sacked for those incendiary remarks. However, they have not heard a dickie bird from either the Prime Minister or the Home Secretary. Mr Speaker, given your august and esteemed office, what power can you bring to bear to ensure that the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary issue a statement forthwith?
Mr Speaker
The first and easiest answer would be to say that it is not a matter for the Chair. What I would say is that I am very conscious about language that is used, and I always say that I want tolerant language, not inflammatory language. I would also say that replies need to be chased. The hon. Member has certainly put the point on the record, and I would like to believe that it has been heard and that somebody should be knocking out a reply as we speak. If not, I know the hon. Member will not leave it at this, and there are other avenues for him to pursue.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is further to the point of order by my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) in relation to the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens). I have informed the hon. Member that I will be making this point of order right now.
Can you advise me, Mr Speaker, whether it is orderly for a Member to ask a question—in this case an urgent question—on behalf of an organisation that that Member himself is involved in and in which he has a direct or indirect interest? The Public and Commercial Services Union has given £60,000 to an all-party parliamentary group that the hon. Member for Glasgow South West chairs.
Mr Speaker
There are two things. First, if the hon. Member was in the Chamber at the time—I am not sure whether he was—he would have noticed that the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) did make a declaration of interest. [Interruption.] So you were here to see that.
Mr Speaker
Okay. Well, really, why should we be raising it in this way? I would also say that it is a matter for the Registrar. If a Member thinks there is something wrong, I think that would be the way to pursue it, rather than via the Chair.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I receive emails on a weekly basis from people in my constituency who have been waiting dangerously long periods for ambulances. Over the weekend, a 90-year-old lady, having collapsed, lay for hours in the road with a suspected broken hip waiting for the ambulance to arrive. That corresponds with the fourth critical incident declared by the local hospital trust this year. It is clear that this is becoming an emergency.
Are you aware, Mr Speaker, of any intention by the Government to make a statement on this urgent matter? If not, could you please advise me how I can bring it to the Floor of the House for discussion before the situation worsens?
Mr Speaker
The last part of the hon. Member’s question has been answered, as she has raised her feelings, and those of her constituents, about the ambulance service for all to understand. I can assure her that I have been given no notice of a statement. I am sure she will continue to pursue the issue, by putting her name in for an Adjournment debate or another way forward. There are other avenues she can be advised on.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. To clarify, could the issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) raised about the propriety of questions be looked at, hypothetically, by the Standards Committee? Should that be the case, would you direct me on the best way?
Mr Speaker
That is not a matter for the Chair—we certainly do not deal with hypothetical questions and I do not think that is the way forward. If Members want to pursue the matter, they should pursue it through the right avenues. It would also be helpful if hon. Members gave me notice of points of order. Then we would be able to be more helpful. Trying to catch the Chair out is not a brilliant idea either.
Opposition Day
P&O Ferries and Employment Rights
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:30 - The House divided: - Ayes: 211 / Noes: 0 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House condemns the decision of P&O Ferries to fire 800 staff without notice and demands their immediate reinstatement; notes that DP World, the owner of P&O Ferries, received millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money during the coronavirus pandemic; calls on the Government to suspend the contracts and licences of DP World and remove them from the Government’s Transport Advisory Group; and further calls on the Government to bring forward a Bill urgently to outlaw fire and rehire and strengthen workers’ rights.
I know the whole House agrees that the action taken by P&O Ferries was a national scandal: 800 British workers sacked with no notice. Today, we learnt that they have been replaced with people earning just £1.80 an hour. This was nothing short of a betrayal of the workers who protected this country’s supply chain during the pandemic. The personal cost to those workers has been profound—some of them have joined us in the Gallery today—and it is with those workers that we should begin.
On Friday, like many colleagues, I stood side-by-side with sacked crew in Dover. There, I spoke to a married couple who had both been employees of P&O Ferries for 14 years. They loved their jobs. They spoke movingly about how P&O felt like a family:
“It sounds clichéd,”
she said,
“but it really was - we lived together, ate together, worked in a small space together. It was our life and we gave it our all.”
The reward for that loyalty? A summary dismissal via a pre-recorded video. Years of dedication ended with them being marched off the ships they lived and worked on by private security guards. They have a four-year-old child that they no longer know how they will feed and clothe. They told me with tears in their eyes that they felt they had been treated like criminals.
This was not a grim Dickensian depiction belonging to another era; this was the United Kingdom in the 21st century. It is nothing short of a scandal that this Dubai-owned company, which received millions in taxpayers’ money during the pandemic, can tear up the rights of British workers, all while its profits soared by 52% last year. That cannot and must not stand. We cannot allow British workers and this country to be taken for a ride.
The truth, however, is that P&O Ferries and DP World did it precisely because they thought they could get away with it. They knew they could exploit the UK’s shamefully weak employment law. They knew the investments the Government have with them would be prized more highly than the livelihoods of 800 people. And they knew that when they did what they did, the Government would not stand in their way. The impotent response so far from Ministers shows that they were right to think that, because, I am afraid to say, when a loyal British workforce was threatened, Ministers completely failed to act.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
We stand in solidarity with the sacked P&O workers, but if one company can divest itself of its responsibility to its entire workforce and get away with it, the worry is that this will be the first domino of many. That is why we should not just show our solidarity with the P&O workers but demand justice for them and get this dreadful decision overturned.
Louise Haigh
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; that is exactly why the motion calls not only for the reinstatement of workers, but for Ministers to take action to outlaw this practice for good.
What is important is that we now know that the Government had the opportunity to stop this before it happened. They knew before the workers what P&O had planned. I can inform the House that I have come into possession of a memo that was circulated to the Transport Secretary, his private office and, we are told, 10 Downing Street. For the benefit of Members, I am happy to lodge it in the House of Commons Library.
This memo was no vague outline; it was the game plan of P&O. I can reveal to the House that it not only makes it clear that the Government were made aware that 800 seafarers were to be sacked, but explicitly endorses the thuggish fire and rehire tactics that P&O had clearly discussed with the Department ahead of Thursday. There is nothing in this memo at all that expresses any concern, any opposition or raises any alarm about the sacking of 800 loyal British workers. This is the clearest proof that the Government’s first instinct was to do absolutely nothing. There is no use Government Members wringing their hands now; it is here in black and white, and I will happily lodge it in the Library, Mr Speaker, for the benefit of Opposition Members when they are considering how to vote tonight.
Mr Speaker
Order. In fairness, that would benefit all Members—if documents are being referred to, all hon. Members need to be able to see them.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
We all stand behind the P&O workers, because it is them today and it will be other workers tomorrow if we do not act. When, for so long, the Tories have stood against regulation that protects workers’ rights, and when they have pushed against the door of fire and rehire and kept it open, they cannot come here wringing their hands and say, “This is a terrible thing.” They have created the environment that has allowed these unscrupulous employers to walk through that door and attack those workers in that way.
Louise Haigh
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Successive Tory Governments have created the conditions that allow unscrupulous employers, such as P&O, to exploit that context. It is clear that the Secretary of State has serious questions to answer.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
If there is documentation available showing that the Government had prior knowledge of this, it is important that we all have sight of it. What is the date on the document and how long before the event did the Government actually know about it?
Louise Haigh
The text of the memo will be placed in the House of Commons Library. It is reported that this was received on Wednesday night and the memo was sent overnight into Thursday morning.
The Secretary of State needs to answer these questions: when exactly did he see this crucial memo and what was his response? Did anyone in No. 10 acknowledge it? Did they advise on any alternative course of action? Did he or his Ministers seek immediate advice from either the Solicitor General or the Attorney General as to the legality of P&O’s action? Why did he make contact with the boss of P&O only hours after the plan was publicly announced, despite the advance notice that he was given? Given that DP World has been publicly voicing concerns about the sustainability of P&O ferries for at least a year, will he publish all correspondence with it over that period? At what point did he or his Ministers first become aware that this may be a course of action that P&O was willing to take?
Either the Government were bewilderingly incompetent or they were complicit. Either way, there was a window of opportunity to protect the livelihoods of 800 British workers from an illegal act by a rogue employer, and the Government did nothing. For all the outrage that has since flowed from Ministers, the proof is before our eyes. What have Cabinet Ministers actually managed to do? They have written a strongly worded letter to the wrong person and have signposted workers to the jobcentre. The central calculation by DP World that this Government would not lift a finger to stop it has so far been proven right.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
It is not only about the appalling way in which workers are being treated now, but about the future of the whole industry. There were 18 apprentices—the only apprentices being trained on British ratings—sacked among the 800 workers. That decision will have an impact not only today, but for the future of our maritime industry: if it is allowed to stand, we will not have people trained for future generations.
Louise Haigh
I thank my hon. Friend; I know that her colleagues in Hull who are in the Chamber today have campaigned long and hard for the maritime industry in this country. She is absolutely right that this is an assault not just on those workers, but on the entire industry in this country.
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
The maritime industry, which exists in Liverpool as well as Hull, is precious and we have to fight for its future. The company paid out £270 million in dividends before taking this action. Does my hon. Friend think that the Government must now do all they can to end any association with the freeports and other contracts that P&O has, until it puts this monstrous injustice right?
Louise Haigh
I absolutely agree. The Government have significant leverage, both over P&O and over DP World, and they must use it. I will come on to the detail of that point shortly.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The hon. Lady is being very generous with her time and is making a compelling case. The Secretary of State for Transport suggested that the review of contracts by the Government would include DP World as well as P&O Ferries, but yesterday the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy appeared to roll back from that. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is critical that DP World be held to account as much as P&O Ferries? It has to be part of that review.
Louise Haigh
I absolutely agree. DP World, the parent company, must be held accountable for the actions of P&O—
Mr Speaker
Order. Will the hon. Gentleman let the hon. Lady answer one point before she takes the next, please?
Louise Haigh
As I was saying, I completely agree that DP World needs to be fully responsible for the actions of P&O Ferries. The Government exercise considerable leverage over both companies.
Mr Sheerman
I am sorry, Mr Speaker; I had anticipated that my hon. Friend was going to finish her point. She is making an excellent speech. Does she share my concern that when 800 British workers have been sacked in this savage way, there are 10 Members present on the Conservative Back Benches? What would make Conservative Members angry and make them turn up to support British business and British people?
Louise Haigh
As my hon. Friend points out, it is a shame that for all the anger and the outrage expressed over the past few days, so few Conservative Members have turned up to participate in today’s debate. But it is not too late: even at this late hour, the Government must hold P&O to account and stand up for the workforce being undermined by overseas billionaires. If an exploitative employer can escape without any consequences for this egregious action, that will give the green light to bad bosses around the world who think they can do the same. As one worker said to me on Friday: “If it can happen to us highly skilled workers in a unionised industry, it can happen to literally anyone.”
The Government must start by immediately commencing criminal action against P&O Ferries for its flagrant breach of employment law. That should mean unlimited fines not only for the company, but for the directors and managers of any that were complicit. It is in the gift of the Business Secretary, under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, to begin that action. He must do it now, and if he will not, he must explain to the public why he will not act to protect British workers.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
My great-grandfather and my grandfather served in the British Merchant Navy and were never treated in the appalling and disrespectful way in which this company has treated these people. This is not about where people come from or where they work in the industry. All people who work in the industry should be given trade union rights, should be able to work properly and should be treated as human beings.
Louise Haigh
Absolutely—and the sad fact is that these people had a collective bargaining agreement and recognition of their union, but DP World chose to trample over that in full violation of our domestic law.
The Government must take a serious look at their very long-standing relationship with DP World. This is a company that has contracts with the British Government worth billions of pounds, but is apparently confident that it can act with impunity when it comes to respecting our employment rights. The Government must suspend all the licences and contracts that they hold with DP World to maximise pressure and force it to reverse course. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government are reviewing all their contracts with both P&O Ferries and DP World? Yesterday, when questioned by the BBC, the Chancellor conspicuously chose to distinguish between those companies and portray them as two different entities. Ministers have spent the last few days condemning P&O’s actions; today they have a chance to prove that they mean it.
As has been said, however, this must be set within a context. That any business feels that it can get away with this behaviour in Britain today is a scandal. It is a damning indictment of weak employment laws and the broken promises to protect workers’ rights.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, and has rightly drawn attention to the Government’s failure to act consistently. We have, of course, already had a debate on fire and rehire on the Floor of the House, on the occasion when my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) presented a Bill to ban the practice. Not only did the Government object; they opposed the closure motion that would have allowed the Bill to progress to Report. Conservative Members shake their heads, but they have done nothing about this. Moreover, last Friday, when I supported my hon. Friend when his Bill was read out in the Chamber, they objected again. The Government are all talk and no action, and that is the real problem.
Louise Haigh
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. At every available opportunity, Conservative Members have voted against potential legislation to outlaw fire and rehire.
People throughout the country will be asking how it is possible that workers can be bussed in to instantly replace those in secure jobs. Is it not the case that P&O has exploited the immigration loopholes in exactly the same way as it has exploited loopholes in the minimum wage legislation for years, while the Government have sat back and allowed it to happen? This is the exact opposite of the promises made to the British people to safeguard their living standards, employment prospects and job security. In what world is this “taking back control”?
For far too long, Ministers have sat on their hands and chosen to side with bad bosses by failing to strengthen workers’ rights. This must be a line in the sand. If Ministers mean what they say, they will bring forward an emergency employment Bill tomorrow. They will outlaw fire and rehire without delay and strengthen workers’ employment rights, and they will demand that these loyal P&O workers be reinstated. Let there be no more excuses. Tonight, the Conservatives must back Labour’s motion, and send the clear message that no workforce can ever again be attacked in this way.
We are an island nation. British seafaring has been and is the envy of the world, and a sense of fair play and decency runs deep in this country: it is part of who we are. The action on Thursday was a straightforward assault on that tradition and on our values, so deeply entwined with our identity and synonymous with our global reputation. Britain deserves better. Tonight, Tory Members have the chance to join Labour and vote to stand up for British workers. They have the chance to stand up for that tradition, and stand up for the people of this country. They have the chance to ensure that this can never happen again. Tonight, they must decide which side they are on—the side of loyal workers in Britain, or that of the billionaires who are riding roughshod over our rights. I commend our motion to the House.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) for bringing this debate forward. It is important that this should be fully discussed, although we have already had an urgent statement on the subject. The way in which those 800 loyal and experienced workers were treated by P&O Ferries last week was shameful and utterly unacceptable, after two years during which maritime staff faced significant demands and worked tirelessly to keep the country open and supplied us with vital goods, without which this country would not have been able to function. In my view—I am sure it is the view of the whole House—this is about having respect for employees, about employers having the common decency to engage with their workforce, particularly when times are tough, and about having standards that we would expect every single company in this country and every single employer to uphold.
Of course we understand the financial pressures that many businesses are facing right now. Regrettably, redundancies are sometimes inescapable, but there is no excuse for what we saw last Thursday. There was no consultation with the workforce and no consultation with the unions. To answer the hon. Lady’s question, the first I heard about it was at 8.30 in the evening, not through the memo, which I did not see, but instead through communication with my private office to indicate that P&O would be making redundancies the next day. The House may or may not be aware that, in 2020 during coronavirus and again in 2021, redundancies took place at P&O. In 2020, the numbers were larger than those we saw last Thursday. However, the company consulted properly about those redundancies, and they were made voluntary. So it was on that understanding that I had a conversation with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) the next morning, in which he provided some on-the-ground information. Then, as colleagues will recall, I was standing at this Dispatch Box when I was passed a note about redundancies taking place. It was with considerable concern that I saw that the company was deploying those redundancies via a pre-recorded Zoom call, as the hon. Lady has said.
Clive Efford
The Secretary of State said that he did not know of P&O’s plans until 8.30 in the evening, but the shadow Secretary of State has indicated that the Government were aware of P&O’s plans before their public announcement. Can he confirm that that is the case, when that was, who had access to that information and what action they took on it?
Grant Shapps
My understanding is that a very small number of officials were contacted by P&O management during the late afternoon. They then wrote up a read-out of that, which is, I think, the note that has been widely circulated. As I have mentioned, my concern was not really sparked until I was at the Dispatch Box, when I started to hear about the way that it was being carried out, because in 2020 and 2021 voluntary redundancies had taken place in the way that we would expect. It was deeply concerning to see the footage of staff being forcibly removed from ferries, underlining the cynical approach and confrontational nature of the operation, which was not at all what we had seen in those previous two rounds. It is astounding that a company with a long and proud maritime past, whose vessels bear names such as the Pride of Kent and the Spirit of Britain, will in future have almost no British crew on board, but it is no more astounding than the manner in which the crew were left marooned last week.
Emma Hardy
Am I correct in understanding that the Secretary of State was made aware of the P&O workers being sacked and made the assumption that it would be done in the correct manner, without checking whether it would be done in accordance with trade union and employment legislation? We have heard the famous saying that if we assume something, it tends to make an “ass” out of “u” and “me”. It seems that in this case we have made an ass out of all those P&O workers who are now stuck without their jobs because the Secretary of State assumed that everything would be fine without doing his job and checking it.
Grant Shapps
I really want to avoid the temptation to try to turn this into a political knockabout—[Interruption.] It is not. It is about 800 people’s jobs. When the previous two rounds of redundancy took place—I think I am right in saying that neither the hon. Lady nor any other Member of this House, perhaps bar one, approached me about them—the company quite properly consulted the workers and the unions and carried them out in a voluntary fashion. The expectation, therefore, was, quite properly, that that was what would happen again on this occasion. We are also talking about a commercially sensitive decision, which limits what a Minister can immediately say and do. But there is no excuse—and this is the point—for the way in which it was carried out. For some employees, for a four-decade seafaring career to be brought to an abrupt video end is just plain insulting.
Since the news emerged, I have spoken to one of the sacked employees, who has given years of service to P&O. He told me about the chaotic way in which the situation unfurled for him on Thursday morning. He said that after a decade of service, workers were brutally informed via a pre-recorded Zoom message, and that, despite the fact that some staff have now been offered redundancy packages, nothing can change the way in which these workers were let down. They found out, as the rest of the world was finding out, via a Zoom message, which was linked to some of those individuals’ homes.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
I am very pleased that my right hon. Friend has had the opportunity to speak to some of the employees. Has he managed to glean the level of the financial compensation for redundancy? Will the package be the standard minimum or will it be different?
Grant Shapps
My understanding—again, the House will have a strong view on this—is that they are being offered two and a half weeks’ pay, rather than one week’s pay for every year’s service, as well as three months’ redundancy pay and then another three months’ redundancy pay for the fact that it is happening very early. In other words, it is six months’ redundancy pay and two and a half weeks’ pay. However—and this is the catch—it is on the condition that they sign a non-disclosure agreement. Again, this goes to the heart of the problem, which is the company working in a way that tries to keep employees quiet and then pay them off in return.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
You have been on your feet for eight minutes. Tell us what you are doing.
Grant Shapps
I hope the right hon. Lady recognises that I have taken a great number of interventions. I would be able to tell her what we are doing but only if she did not want me to take her colleagues’ interventions, which I want to hear.
Andrew Gwynne
The Secretary of State seems to be saying that it is absolutely unacceptable—indeed, outrageous—that the Spirit of Britain will be staffed by a non-British workforce because employees have not been sacked in an appropriate manner, but that, were the Spirit of Britain to be staffed by a non-British workforce because employees had been sacked through the appropriate channels, that would be okay. That is not taking back control. It is weak.
Grant Shapps
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is the point I was making. To have a ship called Spirit of Britain, Pride of Kent or any other name that attaches it to this country when it does not have British workers would be completely wrong, and I will be calling on P&O to change the name of the ships. It would be completely inappropriate. I think that was his point. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. It is getting very difficult to hear. I know that feelings are running very high, but it is important that we hear what the Secretary of State is saying.
Grant Shapps
I directly answered the hon. Gentleman’s question, but that seems to have brought derision, so I think I will make some progress to let the House, the country and those seafarers know what we are doing about this.
On Friday, I communicated my anger to the chief executive of P&O Ferries. I also urged him to engage with the seafarers and trade unions, and offered my support in organising those discussions. It is not too late for those discussions to take place to salvage the situation, so I implore him to do so. The maritime Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts), also spoke to the chief executive on Thursday and expressed in no uncertain terms our deep disappointment before coming to this House and explaining the Government’s position.
Grant Shapps
I want to make a little progress. We made it abundantly clear that the reputation of P&O Ferries has been badly hit by this episode, not just within government, but, more importantly, with the public. Many believe that they have seen this company’s true colours. Clearly, it has been handled disastrously by the company, which is why we have asked the Insolvency Service to look at the notification requirements and consider whether further action is appropriate, especially if, as we are concerned, the relevant notice periods were not given and the relevant consultation did not take place. I can inform the House that that would be a matter for criminal prosecution and unlimited fines.
We are reviewing, as a matter of urgency, all Government contracts with P&O Ferries and with DP World. Where possible, we are looking to use other providers if there are any contracts where the UK Government are involved—I believe, at this point, that such contracts have been historical in nature, rather than current. We are considering further steps that we can take to remove P&O Ferries’ influence from the British maritime sector, including positions on key advisory boards, because, again, I do not want to see that company, given the way the management have behaved, advising on the way the British maritime sector is shaped and rolls out.
Several hon. Members rose—
Grant Shapps
Again, I wish to make a little progress, so let me turn to the critical issue of fire and rehire. It is only a rehire to a very limited degree here, from what I can see—it is more like just fire. I have already asked ACAS, or, rather, my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary has, to produce additional information and guidance to employees, and—[Interruption.] And wait for it: if we need to go further, this is something we will consider doing. I have spoken to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to ensure that those who have lost their jobs are supported with relevant help and a rapid response taskforce. Since Thursday, I have received many messages from blue-chip employers anxious to snap up the newly redundant workforce, and I have arranged to put them in touch. I pay tribute to those who have come forward, and with unemployment at 3.9% I very much hope that those excellent individuals will be snapped up very quickly indeed.
Mr Carmichael
I hope that we are going to hear soon about the safety implications of this issue. P&O Ferries has obligations under the international safety management code, which requires each vessel to have a safety management system. That is then audited by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, which produces a document of compliance. It is difficult to see how, with 100% crew changes in the way we have heard, P&O can possibly now be in compliance with those obligations. Will the Secretary of State look at the possibility of suspending the documents of compliance until he is satisfied that P&O is in compliance with them?
Grant Shapps
I will, but I will come back to the right hon. Gentleman’s precise points in a moment in my speech. Seafarers’ rights and wellbeing are a matter I take extremely seriously. Indeed, the House may recall that during the pandemic I ordered the MCA to board vessels forcibly to ensure that conditions were appropriate where I believed that there may have been maritime workers who were being exploited, as indeed they were being. So I take this matter incredibly seriously. Maritime employees have not in this country, and indeed throughout much of the world, received some of the same benefits and protections that exist otherwise for workers. That simply is not good enough and it is a practice we have been seeking to end.
Grant Shapps
In 12 years we have done an awful lot, and I am just about to tell the hon. Lady about it. As I was saying, that is why in our maritime 2050 strategy, which she may not have read, this Government committed to a social framework for UK seafarers that will promote working, pay and social conditions, levelling the playing field with—[Interruption.] Let me explain to hon. Members who have not read the strategy that it is called the 2050 strategy but it takes place now. I do not want them to be confused by the name of the strategy. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. We really cannot have Members making it impossible to hear what is being said.
Grant Shapps
The right hon. Lady says I am “so annoying” but—[Hon. Members: “Division!”] [Laughter.] I see that the Opposition have the advantage right now. I am trying to explain that the maritime 2050 document is not about something happening in 2050; it is happening right now, and its purpose is to level up conditions between those working onshore and those working on ships. Seafarers, regardless of nationality, who normally work in our territorial waters are now, thanks to this Government, fully protected by our national minimum wage.
Colleagues should be aware that the UK operates under international laws as treaty members, meaning that UK law does not apply in all circumstances—an issue which may in part be in play in this case. A further consideration is that we understand that some seafarers were employed under Jersey law, which has further complicated the legal picture. Such complications allow employers to take advantage in the way that we have seen with P&O Ferries, which is why we will do all we can to ensure that domestic law is applied in full everywhere around the country.
Sammy Wilson
The boats on the route from Larne to Cairnryan never deviate, travelling daily from one British port to another British port. Do minimum wage laws apply on that route?
Grant Shapps
The laws apply in UK territorial waters, so I believe that they do. I will contact the right hon. Gentleman with the detail.
Despite the current disruption to P&O services, I can confirm that at present no major issues are reported on ferry routes to and from this country. I discussed supply-chain issues with my French counterpart this weekend, and both Government and industry have been working flat out to put alternative arrangements in place to ensure that the supply chain continues.
I place on the record my thanks to Stena for stepping up over the weekend at our request, laying on extra services from Scotland to Northern Ireland. We are monitoring the situation at other ports served by P&O, such as Dover, Liverpool and Cairnryan. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that Stena will be putting on additional services from Scotland to Northern Ireland from tomorrow, which will be of particular interest to retailers including ASDA and M&S.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way; I can perhaps help him and the House. National minimum wage legislation does now apply on UK-to-UK routes, but only since June 2020 when Opposition Members continually lobbied Ministers to ensure that it did.
Grant Shapps
I absolutely respect the hon. Gentleman’s knowledge and expertise, and I thank him publicly for ensuring that I was receiving information as he saw it break on the ground through his constituency contacts. As he says, it is the case that we introduced that legislation, and I am delighted that it was backed by all sides.
We will ensure that resilience plans are deployed on the supply-chain issue—
Grant Shapps
I want to make a little progress. Those plans will mean that passengers and freight traffic will be as little affected as possible.
While I welcome P&O’s plan to resume ferry operations this week, to the point of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), the safety of shipping remains a top priority. Staff must be experienced and trained to uphold the highest possible standards, as his intervention suggested. I have now instructed the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to inspect all P&O Ferries vessels prior to their re-entering service, including the operational drills to ensure that the proposed new crews are safe and properly trained. If they are not, these ships will not sail. I expect many customers—passengers and freight—will quite frankly vote with their feet and, where possible, choose another operator. On that subject, for the purpose of fairness, I point out that P&O Cruises, although it shares the P&O name, is nothing to do with P&O Ferries and should not be tarnished with the same brush.
Dame Angela Eagle
Why does the Secretary of State seem pleased that P&O is to recommence its routes when, as we have heard, some of the crew will be on as little as £1.80 an hour?
Grant Shapps
I do not have details of how the ships will be recrewed. The hon. Lady will be aware that we are still putting maximum pressure on the company to sit down around the table with the workers and unions to make sure that this is not where this sad story ends. Ultimately, to provide the supply chain, which Northern Ireland Members have been raising, it is important that we have the resilience needed to ensure that goods flow, but that cannot be done using crews who are not properly trained to do the job to the highest standards.
I implore P&O Ferries to reconsider its decision. It is not too late to acknowledge its mistakes. I hope that the reaction to that now infamous video—in the House, the media and across the country—tells the company that this approach is quite simply unacceptable.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Grant Shapps
I just want to complete my speech. Others wish to speak, not least Members on the hon. Lady’s side of the House.
I say to P&O, “Please, repair some of the damage done last week by fully engaging in a true dialogue with seafarers and trade unions.” Otherwise, we are committed to re-evaluating our relationship with P&O Ferries and will review our contracts with it and with DP World as a matter of urgency. We will do everything we can to help the workers, where possible by finding them new jobs, and we will make sure we send a powerful message to every other employer in this country that such disgraceful treatment of workers will never be tolerated.
Stella Creasy
The Secretary of State said earlier that he was going to ensure that P&O Ferries would no longer advise on transport issues in his Department. Right now, DP World has press promoting its role advising the Government on trade matters. Has he picked up the phone to his colleagues in the Department for International Trade to make sure that DP World is summarily sacked from that role? I am sure he could make a video to let the rest of the world know if that was the case.
Grant Shapps
I can confirm that that applies to all Government activity involving DP World and its ownership structure. I can also confirm that I am writing today to DP World—the ultimate owners—to express the outrage felt across the entire House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Before I call the Scottish National party spokesperson, I wish to inform the House—[Interruption.] Mr Kane! I wish to inform the House that I will impose a seven-minute time limit to start with. I suspect that that will come down quite quickly, so if colleagues take less than seven minutes, more Members will be able to speak. I call Gavin Newlands.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
We in the SNP welcome this debate secured by the Labour party, not least because, as the shadow Secretary of State says, there is unanimity on how deplorable P&O’s actions are, but how many times do we have to come to the House to debate the actions of a business before the Government take any action? P&O’s actions have sickened nearly everyone in the country and achieved a rare feat by uniting the Institute of Directors, the TUC, the CBI and the RMT in condemning what happened last week. When even the directors of DP World cannot stomach their company’s actions, with one non-executive director resigning, saying that he
“cannot support the way P&O Ferries has carried out this restructuring”,
it shows just how low the company has sunk. But it is okay, because it might rename some ships!
One small example of P&O’s complete lack of self-awareness came in an email to the remaining 2,200 staff. The P&O chief executive officer said that it was natural for them to be uncomfortable with the media coverage of its actions—not uncomfortable, angry, and deeply anxious about P&O’s crass and inhumane treatment of 800 of their now former colleagues, but with the media coverage. That is institutional arrogance writ large.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
My Garthamlock constituent Mark Stewart has gone from being a cadet to a chief officer on these vessels. Indeed, he, as a professional seafarer, has experience of working on vessels that are more than 20 years old. May I say to the Government, through my hon. Friend, that my constituent is not worried about the media coverage of P&O. What he is worried about is the idea of people being paid less than £2 an hour to do a job that is very reliant on safety—the very expertise that he has. It would be good if the Government could take that into account and come forward with a much more stringent and robust approach to P&O ferries, which has acted disgracefully.
Gavin Newlands
My hon. Friend is not often wrong, and he is right again on this. Sadly, I am not entirely sure that those on the Government Front Bench were listening to the message that he wanted to pass on. Nevertheless, I hope that they will look in Hansard and consider what was said.
I understand that the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy wrote to P&O last week asking for further information on its actions with a view to investigating possible breaches of criminal law. I do welcome that, but that investigation must happen as quickly as possible. I fear that shredders and mail servers here and overseas will be allowed to work overtime if delays are introduced. Those involved in this enterprise must be held to account for their actions and for the pain and misery that they have inflicted on P&O staff in this country. I would welcome more detail on the scope and the proposed timescale of that BEIS investigation in the Minister’s summing up.
We have been here before. Those seemingly tough words must be followed with tough action. The Government will not be forgiven if they allow this action to stand unfettered and unpunished. The fact that Ministers and officials knew of P&O’s plans and did not act beforehand to stop it or to minimise disruption is a damning indictment. It was claimed that only a limited number of officials knew about this, but further developments show—and, indeed, the Secretary of State has said this—that the Secretary of State was made aware of it at 8 pm the night before. This is an absolute abrogation of responsibility by the Government.
If P&O wants to squirm out of its obligations under UK employment law by claiming that it is not covered, let it repay every penny that it took from taxpayers, including the ones that it is trying to sack. It took that money while claiming to serve these islands. P&O has pocketed millions from the public purse—over £10 million in furlough payments, and £4.4 million in freight subsidy payments in the early stages of the pandemic. By sacking via Zoom the very same workers whom Government funds supported, P&O is laughing in the Government’s face.
Andy McDonald
Does the hon. Member agree that time is of the essence, and that the object of the exercise is to get those 800 workers reinstated? Does he get any reassurance from the Secretary of State, or does he share my complete lack of reassurance, that anything will be done to coerce P&O to do the right thing and reinstate those workers?
Gavin Newlands
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I have always been a glass half full type of guy, but, sadly, I have to completely agree with his interpretation of the situation. I do not see the urgency that is required to deal with this situation. If P&O thinks that it has the right to bring its weight to abuse its staff, the Government should be looking at what weight they can bring against its owners. Why should DP World be allowed within a mile of the London freeport project? It has shown itself to be a company without morals and without a care about regulation or legislation. Why should it be involved in one of the UK Government’s flagship projects? If the aim of freeports is to provide less regulation within each zone, we can have zero faith that even a minimal rulebook will be followed by DP World or any of its companies.
Until the despicable actions of last week are rectified, DP World should not be allowed anywhere near any Government projects or funding. Today we have found out more about how much P&O value its staff—this time, its new staff. Evidence has emerged, as has been mentioned, that those being used to bust workers at P&O may be paid just £1.81 an hour. P&O’s plan is to exploit the maritime employment regulations and give the bare minimum to the staff that it recruits. This means paying the International Labour Organisation minimums of £16.27 a day for an able seaman, or just £3.54 an hour for a cook. That is the reality of what P&O is trying to pull off here. It is plumbing the depths of wage slavery so that it can save a few quid.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
My hon. Friend will have heard the Minister say that because some of this was commercially confidential, he was limited in what he could do or say the night before. When we hear stories about “balaclava-clad security guards” dragging people off ships, surely commercial confidentiality goes out of the window?
Gavin Newlands
Absolutely. I thank my right hon. Friend for that point, which speaks once again of how this Tory Government care more about the businesses than the employees. That is at the heart of this particular issue. The truth is—[Interruption.] We are being barracked from the Government Front Bench, but actions speak louder than words.
The truth of the matter is that this is a race to the bottom, pure and simple, with overseas workers on starvation wages and workers here tossed on the scrapheap for having the temerity to expect a decent salary. It is about exploiting the global south for cheap labour, with people shipped thousands of miles from their homes, with virtually no employment rights, and used as pawns by the likes of P&O in their attempts to break UK-based staff.
Over recent years, we have seen how P&O and other shipping companies have made mass use of ILO contracts to pay their staff the bare minimum. I have mentioned able seafarers, but cabin stewards on North sea routes receive £2 an hour and cooks less than £5. It is a scandal that, having driven wages so low across the maritime sector, P&O is now using that as an excuse for its victimisation of loyal, hard-working staff.
Back some quarter of a century ago, when I started my first ever part-time job at a certain well-known fast food restaurant at Glasgow airport, I was paid £2.70 an hour. That was thought of as a low wage even at that time, and it was, but here we are in 2022 and people are asked to move across the world and break their backs for pennies. Since the staff operate from UK ports but work for companies or on boats registered in other countries, they are exempt from the minimum wage legislation that governs the rest of us. That is a disgrace, and something that the Government and international partners must resolve as soon as possible.
It is shameful that this country allows such poverty wages and employment conditions—close to indentured labour—on boats that ply its waters day in, day out. That race to the bottom has meant the loss of hundreds of jobs at P&O and the continued exploitation of hundreds of other people.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Many of my constituents have been in touch to express their concerns. Is he also worried about the precedent this sets? City of Glasgow College in my constituency provides excellent maritime education, but what is the point of people’s going into that education if they can be undercut by wages from around the world?
Gavin Newlands
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. The college will be looking on in horror at the current story, as numbers applying for courses perhaps plummet.
This is modern-day slavery on the high seas and in our ports. It must end. I would like to hear the Minister state that he will take a lead on trying to secure the required changes in international maritime law when he speaks from the Dispatch Box. The role of the agencies involved, Clyde Marine Recruitment, Columbia Shipmanagement and International Ferry Management, must also be called out. They have provided support to this action without telling any of the proposed replacement crew what was happening—in fact, as I heard on BBC Radio Scotland the other day from a Paisley merchant seaman, actively lying to the replacement agency staff.
A former worker who had been working on a P&O vessel just three weeks prior and who had asked for opportunities on non-P&O vessels was told that this was a brand-new vessel that required to be crewed. Agency staff were told nothing while they were holed up in an East Kilbride hotel for three days; in fact, they set up a WhatsApp group called “Mystery Ship”. He and several others walked away when it became clear what was happening. They viewed going on to that ship as tantamount to crossing a picket line.
For the past two years I have worked to end the practice of fire and rehire, with colleagues from across the House. We said to the Government at the start of this problem that if they did not act when British Airways made fire and rehire threats to 30,000 people, more would follow. The Government did nothing. Then British Gas, Weetabix, Marshalls and even Tesco made similar threats. The Government response? A change to the guidance. The actions of P&O go beyond fire and rehire, however; they are a supercharged version, complete with balaclava-clad human resources and handcuff-trained personnel to enforce P&O’s interpretation of employment rights.
We have been forced to hear from the Government Benches for the past six years how Brexit is about taking back control. I ask the Government in all seriousness what control they think they have taken back. Anti-union, human rights-busting oligarchs in Dubai are approving plans to hire private security contractors with handcuffs and balaclavas to physically remove employees from their place of work, so what control have the Government taken back? What improvements have we seen in workers’ rights since the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) said in 2019:
“In the Queen’s Speech on Thursday there will be a specific law which will safeguard workers’ rights.”?
There was no sign of that Bill in that speech.
Craig Mackinlay
That is very kind. The hon. Gentleman is quite right to talk about fire and rehire. Is he going to discuss the issue of Ferguson Marine, with no hire at all? The contracts for the vessels that could have been used for ferries in Scotland are not even being done locally—they are going to Poland, Romania or Turkey.
Gavin Newlands
I am delighted that I gave way to the hon. Member, but I am going to move on because that has nothing to do with the current debate.
David Linden
Throughout the Brexit campaign we heard the Government talk about the importance of taking back control of our borders, our waters and our laws. Which part of the P&O debacle does my hon. Friend think shows that we are taking back control of our borders, our waters and our laws?
Gavin Newlands
The answer is absolutely none of it. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State wants us to move on because he does not want to hear the truth of the matter. We have not taken back any control whatsoever. [Interruption.] Perhaps he could calm down a little.
After my attempts to introduce two Bills to ban fire and rehire that were blocked by the Government, the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) took up the issue. His Bill was talked out by Conservative Members rather than their having to vote, on the record, against a measure that would improve the lives of thousands of their constituents. Time after time Ministers have stood at the Dispatch Box and, in answer to questions from me and others, have told us that legislation is not needed. Indeed, the very last words spoken from the Dispatch Box during the debate on the hon. Member for Brent North’s Bill were:
“we will act and we do not need primary legislation to do so”.—[Official Report, 22 October 2021; Vol. 701, c. 1116.]
Where does that position lie now after this past week? How many companies need to treat their staff like dirt before this Government will act? The Government could bring forward their own Bill this week and have the support of Opposition Members in giving UK workers the same rights as their colleagues across much of Europe. We will be happy to support any measure that stops the duplicitous behaviour of companies like P&O. If the UK Government are unwilling to act, they should allow that power to better our employment legislation to be given to Scotland, with the Scottish Government already committed to banning fire and rehire.
The actions of P&O are shameful, but the blunt fact is that if it thought the UK Government actually took workers’ rights seriously, it would not have dared do what it did. It knows that a Government who waste three years doing nothing after pledging a workers’ rights Bill are not going to seriously tackle DP World and P&O. It knows that a Government who have consistently stuck their fingers in their ears over fire and rehire, and pleaded for employers to be nice, are not serious about protecting staff against bullying management and owners. It knows that unless and until the UK Government get serious about workers’ rights, and understand that they protect not just workers but businesses that play fair, it can do pretty much as it pleases. It is time the Government showed that they are actually interested in levelling up the playing field for workers against companies that have no scruples or basic humanity whatsoever.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Last Thursday, I spoke in this place and asked the Government to do everything within their power and influence, including tabling emergency legislation if necessary, to ensure that this appalling employment transaction cannot be completed. I agree with Opposition Members—time is of the essence now. The gloves are off. It is very important that we take immediate steps. With that in mind, I have a whole series of questions to put to those on the Front Bench about what we can do within the scope of the redundancy procedure, wages, safety measures, Government commercial bargaining power, and our intent under the maritime 2050 strategy.
A lot has already been said about the redundancy procedure, but the most important point for me is that under section 193 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, employers who want to make more than 100 people redundant have a duty to notify the Business Secretary of their plans before giving notice to the workers, and they are also required to do so at least 45 days before the dismissals. A failure to comply, as the Transport Secretary said, is a criminal liability. I have read the Business Secretary’s letter. He has given the company until 5 pm tomorrow—Tuesday 22 March—to respond before deciding whether to make a formal complaint to the prosecuting authorities. If he does not get that comfort by 5 pm tomorrow, will the Government immediately and formally issue criminal procedures, which, as the Transport Secretary said, carry an unlimited fine?
My second point is about wages, because the RMT reports that the new crew will be paid £1.80 an hour. I understand that because P&O trades internationally and its ships are not registered in the UK, it is not subject to UK employment law and the requirement to pay the minimum wage. The International Transport Workers’ Federation and the International Labour Organisation’s minimum recommended pay rate for an ordinary seaman is $1.99 an hour. It cannot be right that people who work between the UK and France, where the minimum wages are just short of £9, are being paid only £1.90—approximately 20% of what they should be paid.
My question is whether we are bound by the ITF and ILO rates of that type or whether we can impose our own minimum wage on routes that are clearly serving a domestic market and being crewed by those living here. As has already been asked, is there a difference between domestic routes, such as between Scotland and Northern Ireland, where the minimum wage should apply, and European routes? If we cannot intervene on the ITF and ILO rate, should we make it a legal requirement that routes of the type operated by P&O Ferries must be operated by ships registered in the UK if, in those circumstances, it would be more straightforward to ensure that the employment law and minimum wage rights were as in the UK? If we do not act, we risk other maritime companies following suit to compete in a race to the bottom. We must structure a way out to ensure that employees are paid the minimum wage.
My third point is about safety, which my friend the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) mentioned, and which seems to be the biggest area where we could surely intervene through our agencies. There must be a question as to how using staff being paid £1.80 an hour can meet our strict maritime safety requirements. Employers must ensure that their ships have enough properly trained and certificated officers so that ships can operate safely at all times.
Under the Merchant Shipping (Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping) Regulations 2015, according to the merchant shipping notice on those regulations, P&O Ferries must:
“Identify the skills and experience required to perform those functions”.
On the face of it, it has just identified the people with those skills and made them redundant. In making that assessment, the following must be considered:
“Hours of work or rest; Safety management; Certification of seafarers; Training of seafarers”.
Paragraph 8.5 of the merchant shipping notice relates to all passenger and roll-on roll-off ships. It expressly says:
“The need to handle large numbers of passengers unfamiliar with the marine environment must be taken into account in determining manning levels.”
Paragraph 11 states that if there are any changes in circumstances, companies will need to apply to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency
“for approval of a new Safe Manning Document under the 2015 Regulations…Ship owners must also inform the MCA of any change in circumstances which are relevant to a Safe Manning Document. The MCA will then review the document’s continuing validity or approve fresh proposals from the owner or operator.”
I heard the Secretary of State on that point, but I will chuck these questions into Hansard.
Will the Government confirm whether a notification of change has been submitted to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency? If so, how will the agency treat the change of seafarer workforce? If a notification of change has not been submitted, will the agency demand one and spell out the sailing sanctions should one not be forthcoming? Will one of those sanctions be that P&O Ferries cannot sail again until the agency has approved? I ask him to ensure that the agency goes in with its usual tough standards to ensure that every single nit-picking area is looked at in that regard. I am sure that we will get some action.
My fourth point is about Government commercial bargaining. P&O Ferries is an entity that has claimed millions in furlough payments. We have been here before with British Airways and we know that money cannot be claimed back, but there is an ethical point here on which the Government must stand. If the Government have legal and commercial powers at their disposal, they must use them immediately and indicate that contracts will be terminated unless P&O reverses its decision. Will they commit to so doing or, if they feel legally stymied, can they publish a legal summary and put it in the House of Commons Library to explain why they cannot act from a legal perspective?
My final point is about maritime 2050, on which, by coincidence, the Transport Committee has launched an inquiry. Its key objectives are to grow our skills base and inspire young people to join maritime. P&O Ferries’ decision will contribute to neither of those key aims. The maritime 2050 document states:
“Historically, the UK has grown much of its own talent and has kept a nucleus of highly trained and highly respected personnel, giving the UK a leading edge in its maritime work both at sea and at home.”
P&O’s decision goes completely against the Government’s desire for maritime 2050. For all those reasons, we need to fight fire with fire. P&O Ferries has disgraced itself, its workforce and this place with what it has done. It is time for us to respond and ensure that it reverses the decision.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
Madam Deputy Speaker, you have known me a very long time, and you know, as others do, that I often get very angry about the policies of this Government. I get angry about injustice, I get angry about inequality and I get angry about the rich and the powerful deliberately stifling the reasonable aspirations of people—and the majority of people—in my constituency of east Hull. However, in the nearly 12 years since I was elected, which is 4,336 days, I have never ever been so angry about a single act of brutal contempt for decent working people as I was on Thursday last week, when loyal workers were sacked by a pre-recorded Zoom call, with replacement crews and balaclava-wearing, handcuff-trained and Taser-trained private security waiting on the quayside.
This thuggery against workers must be an ultimate new low, but this day has been coming for a long time. I have spent years—years—telling anyone prepared to listen to me about the unscrupulous employers using loopholes and ambiguities in maritime law to get away with gross exploitation. If this was happening to any workers in any business on the mainland, it would not just be illegal; it would be the most grotesque act of illegality in industrial relations most any lawyer or indeed most any employment tribunal judge had ever seen.
Imagine any of the big employers notifying its staff that they had been sacked with immediate effect, only to be replaced with exploited eastern European, Filipino, Portuguese or Indian agency workers paid less than two quid—less than two quid—an hour, but that is what happened. That is what happened here, and it is a scandal that the national minimum wage legislation does not apply to seafarers on international routes, despite me, members of the Labour party and Opposition Members begging successive maritime Ministers to sort it out. It is a disgrace that this Government have allowed this practice to carry on unchallenged.
For how they have stood up to the onslaught on the terms and conditions of their members, we should all pay tribute to the RMT union and Nautilus International. Since Thursday, they have been tirelessly defending the workers, and I want specifically to thank Gary Jackson, the RMT’s regional organiser, for the unflinching support for the crew on the Pride of Hull, and the ship’s captain, Eugene Favier, for his efforts. Captain Favier is a very modest man, and he said he was only doing what was right when he instructed—ordered—his crew to lift the gangway. These trade unions do this work year round, day in and day out, and the general secretaries, Mick Lynch of the RMT and Mark Dickinson of Nautilus, are here in the Chamber for this debate. I thank Mr Speaker’s Office for kindly for facilitating other trade union members being in the Gallery here today watching the debate.
The Government have continually refused to listen to me and the unions, and refused to close the loopholes. Now, 800 families are suffering the consequences. By kowtowing to unscrupulous bosses and refusing to back the Bill that would have outlawed fire and rehire, this Government have allowed these predatory capitalists—pariah companies like P&O and its parent company DP World—to exploit cheap foreign labour at the expense of British maritime professionals. Kids in east Hull grow up in the shadow of ships in ports but are shut out of rewarding and prosperous careers at sea. In 2020, a further blow was dealt to their aspirations when P&O axed the Hull-Zeebrugge route at the cost of many more seafarer jobs.
You can see that this is deeply personal to me, Madam Deputy Speaker, as my late dad Ken was a proud trade unionist. He was a full-time official for the National Union of Seamen, predecessor to the RMT, from 1971 until his retirement as national secretary in 2000. He fought for years, along with other trade unionists, to achieve the decent terms and conditions enjoyed by British crews in Hull and across the country until Thursday last week.
The British seafarers sailing out of Hull worked long and demanding hours at sea but got proper rest breaks and were paid rates that they could live on. They had work stints of two weeks on and two weeks off.
Emma Hardy
My hon. Friend is making an incredible speech, and I want to state that Hull is of course united on this issue. The leader and deputy leader of the council were at the demonstration, as of course were the people of Hull West and Hessle.
Karl Turner
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. and she is right: Labour councillors from Hull attended that rally and were incredibly supportive.
The work stints of two weeks on and two weeks off allowed seafarers proper rest times for safety at sea. Steward jobs are not just pulling pints behind the bar; they require skill and experience, and safety and survival training.
Once upon a time British seafarers were treated with respect. In my office in Parliament there is a painting of the MV Norland, predecessor ship to the Pride of Hull. It was presented to my dad and my predecessor Lord Prescott by Captain Don Ellerby CBE. When she sailed to the Falklands we were all proud of her: proud of her crew, fighting for Queen and country, supplying our Navy and the military personnel. The painting illustrates the vessel as she was under fire at sea. In those days the owners of P&O, and then North Sea Ferries, were also proud of British ratings and British officers.
Emma Hardy
Yes, just to say again that my hon. Friend is making a wonderful speech.
Karl Turner
Of course, I am bound to agree.
I am not going to spare my anger and wrath at this Government today for enabling this industrial vandalism. We now know that Ministers were told in advance, and we know that officials thought it acceptable to sack 800 men and women with immediate effect, ignoring any liability in law that might apply. It is absolutely despicable, and it is the fault of the Prime Minister and his Government. The ideology of the small state, a leave it to the market, full speed ahead, devil take the hindmost Thatcherite philosophy that allows, defends and incentivises this shocking corporate arrogance and this most malicious act of violence on workers’ rights is their absolute shame.
I spoke with the Secretary of State on Thursday and I think he was angry, but the Government can do something about it now. They should support this motion, or they should expect the electorate to sack them at the next election. Unlike our British seafarers sacked last week, they are on good and proper notice: do something now—close the loophole. It is possible; it takes a few minutes in a statutory instrument—get on with it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I am sure colleagues will understand that I am going to have to reduce the time limit after the next speaker. We will start by reducing it to five minutes after Natalie Elphicke.
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
P&O’s mass sacking of ferry workers and their proposed replacement with agency contractors is a body blow to our Dover and east Kent community, where the majority of these job losses have occurred. It is devastating news for the P&O workers affected, as well as their families. Be in no doubt that this is shameful corporate behaviour by P&O Ferries and its owner DP World, and DP World must be held accountable for it. It is an insult to the decades of loyalty and hard work shown by the Dover workforce.
If P&O’s reported behaviour with the mass sackings was not bad enough, a female P&O worker who is a constituent of mine was thrown off her vessel in Rotterdam. P&O said that she and others had a ticket through Eurotunnel, but P&O had not booked the tickets, and they were stranded on a coach in Calais. Eventually, they returned home by DFDS ferries. I take this opportunity to thank the ferry operator DFDS, which has stepped in and helped passengers and others deserted by P&O over the last few days. This latest development puts further strain on DFDS, and I would welcome a meeting with DFDS and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to see how the businesses operating with good practices can be better supported on the Dover-Calais route.
This announcement was a U-turn on solemn assurances given to me and the RMT union over the last two years. DP World should rethink its behaviour and reverse its decision. In recent days, I have spoken with many Ministers and pressed for the Government to do all in their power to bring pressure to bear on DP World to do so. In response, No. 10 has roundly condemned the sackings, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is considering action on possible breaches of the law, and Transport Ministers are reviewing all Government dealings with DP World and P&O Ferries. I hope that DP World will take heed and reverse its decision. This is not so-called fire and rehire; it is simply bad business behaviour, and we should all be united behind stopping it.
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that in telephone conversations we had with the chief executive of P&O, it became clear that he was acutely embarrassed by having to tell us what he told us, and that this came straight from the top in Dubai, not from P&O?
Mrs Elphicke
I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. It is clear that this decision was authorised and made by DP World, and it is right that DP World should be held to account for the decision and its impact on east Kent and UK trade as a whole. The decision is a violation of the principle that businesses should treat their employees fairly and with respect, and it cannot be tolerated. It is right that the Government have taken a firm position to condemn what DP World and P&O Ferries have done. However, like colleagues, I press the Government to go further over the coming days.
If P&O Ferries does not change its mind, it is also vital that the impacted workers are properly supported. I am grateful to the Work and Pensions Secretary and the Employment Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), who have listened to my calls for immediate action and a rapid response team to support the workers impacted in our community. In addition, I am working closely with the leadership of Dover District Council and Kent County Council to do everything to see that the maximum possible support is provided. I am grateful to local businesses that have already come forward with job offers and practical support.
Karl Turner
Does the hon. Lady not think we ought to be saying to the Government, “Make sure these people are reinstated immediately”? Never mind talking about sending them to the jobcentre to sign on; get them back into the jobs. They are their jobs—give them back!
Mrs Elphicke
I have said that several times.
The appalling mishandling and mistreatment of P&O workers also threatens to cause problems on Kent roads and wider harm to the UK economy. I have been working with Kent police and the Kent Resilience Forum to see that such disruption is kept to a minimum. I am clear that DP World should be held to account if there are any further problems on our roads or with our trade.
In addition, the council leaders and I have today written urgently to the Chancellor to ask him to ensure that road resilience is addressed, and in particular that the Dover access road on the A2 upgrade is progressed. We have also asked the Chancellor to look again at our proposed east Kent extended enterprise area, from Discovery Park and Manston airport through to the port of Dover. Ours is an area of great opportunities, and it is vital that we get support from the Government to make the most of all of them.
Let me say again that what DP World and P&O Ferries have done is a complete disgrace. They should reverse their decision and reinstate the workers. Their behaviour breaks the social contract between employers and employees. They have been rightly condemned across the board in both business and political worlds. The right thing to do, I say again, would be for DP World to immediately reverse its decision and reinstate the workers.
Finally, I would like to take a moment to address the dangers of militant unionism. I worked closely with the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers on the previous restructure of P&O. I have always found the union to be firm and constructive in the workers’ interests, as am I. In light of our close working in the interests of my constituents, I was invited by RMT leaders to join a march in support of Dover’s P&O workers on Friday, which I did along with the Conservative leader of Dover District Council and Conservative councillors, because we are united in getting those jobs back and doing right by the P&O workers affected. However, I found myself surrounded, bullied and abused by hard left militants. It was clear that they were unelected bully boys seeking to drown out the voice of democratically elected representatives—me, as the representative for Dover. It is the hallmark of the bad old days of the 1970s and 1980s, and we must guard against that returning.
I will not be intimidated while serving my community by odious hard left militants who thrive on division, nor will I be deflected from serving my community and my duty to represent the ferry workers. That is why we must all call out the behaviour of hard left militants. It is not just me. The same hard left extremists also seek to bully the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield), a Labour MP. Bullying and physical intimidation is wrong whoever it is done to and we should call it out. That is why it is appalling that the Labour leadership has failed to address the bullying and intimidation of the hon. Member for Canterbury, just as it is shameful that the Labour leadership and the shadow Minister, who by her own account was present, has failed to tackle the bully boy tactics in relation to me.
We need to be clear that the issue we are dealing with is bad business behaviour by P&O Ferries and DP World. That is what we need to focus on and reverse. Our community in Dover has given decades of loyal support to P&O. Our country has given millions of pounds of support in furlough and other pandemic assistance. It is not too late for P&O to come to the table for discussions and do the right thing. For everyone’s sake, including its own, I hope it does so now without delay. Reinstate those jobs in Dover, and come to the table and have discussions about the future.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
A most remarkable speech from the hon. Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke).
Millions of people across the country saw in horror the fascistic scenes on social media, with taser-trained security guards with handcuffs boarding P&O ships to forcibly remove workers. It was an abomination. Civil liberties and employment rights may well be trashed in Russia, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, but despite this Government’s acquiescence they are still supposed to mean something in the United Kingdom. I am sure many colleagues will rightly focus on the domestic employment law deficits and the whole employment environment that gives rise to such thuggery, while the Government sit on their hands and do diddly squat about it, but I also need to remind the Government of their international obligations.
DP World has—or had—a human rights statement on its website, which states:
“DP World respects and supports the human rights of our employees, our extended supply chain and the broader community around us. DP World releases its modern slavery and human trafficking statement annually. This states our commitment to ensuring that slavery, servitude, forced labour and human trafficking are not tolerated in our global operations or in those of our suppliers.”
Clearly, that does not apply to £1.80 an hour—that is slavery.
DP World goes on to say that its statement has been guided by:
“The Universal Declaration of Human Rights…ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work…Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights; Implementing the UN ‘Protect, Respect, and Remedy’ Framework…The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals”.
This country is a signatory to all those, so let us look at the UN guiding principles, which
“are grounded in recognition of…States’ existing obligations to respect, protect and fulfil human rights and fundamental freedoms;…The role of business enterprises…required to comply with all applicable laws and to respect human rights;…The need for rights and obligations to be matched to appropriate and effective remedies when breached.”
Where on earth is the adherence to those principles?
There are also the OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises, which set out that proper notice has to be given, as does the International Labour Organisation tripartite declaration of principles concerning multinational enterprises and social policy. The best one, however, is the Government’s document, “Good Business: Implementing the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights”. It boasts:
“The UK was the first country to produce a National Action Plan to implement the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights”.
Where is the action? If there is supposed to be a plan, where on earth does it lead to?
The UN’s global goals for sustainable development speak of taking
“immediate and effective measures to eradicate forced labour, end modern slavery and human trafficking”
and about needing to
“Protect labour rights and promote safe and secure working…for all workers, including migrant workers”—
we have heard little about how the Government will do that.
We all know what will happen: DP World—these bandits, these pirates of the seas—will replace workers with cheap migrant labour from the Philippines and across the world. If the Government will not seize these ships, they should not be allowed to dock. Despite all this, they are still going to allow DP World to run our freeports. We know that these anti-trade union oligarchs will do as they like and take advantage of the industrial-scale corporate welfare that the Government are shovelling their way, with no corresponding benefit for working people who are left to scrabble for whatever benefits they can derive. If that is allowed to happen, I warn the Minister that the working people of this country will not tolerate their abuses and this programme will blow up in their faces. It is indeed time that we took back control—of our jobs, our economy and our key infrastructure, including our ports, to rebalance power in the workplace and deliver the Labour party’s new deal for working people. I support the motion.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. To get everybody in, after the next speaker, I will reduce the time limit to four minutes.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
I wish I could say that it was a pleasure to contribute to this debate, but it really is not. None of us wants to be debating the act of industrial brutality committed by DP World and P&O Ferries last week. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), who is not in his place, articulated an anger that I have seen is shared by many people across the country. This incident has more cut-through than any other I have witnessed in recent years and I hope that DP World is taking note of that.
As chairman of the all-party maritime and ports group, I care very deeply about this matter. It must not be without consequence for DP World. Although I was very pleased to hear the robust messages from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box, I fear that DP World has got its ducks in a row legally and that the threats of criminal prosecution will be rebutted quite robustly. That is why we must use all the tools at our disposal to make sure that there is some punishment for DP World for taking this action. This was a decision taken in Dubai, so the company cannot claim that its subsidiary has nothing to do with it.
We must make sure that we use all the tools at our disposal. I say that as an enthusiastic supporter and proponent of the Thames freeport, which hon. Members have heard me wax lyrical about several times. I say in all honesty to DP World that if it is really serious about a resolution, it should step aside from the freeport agreements that have been struck. It would simply be wrong to give that company any tax incentives while the dispute continues. I associate myself with the calls to have the workforce reinstated; I suspect that they will fall on deaf ears, but that is why we simply must take all action at our disposal.
I crave the indulgence of the House for a moment, because Thames freeport has been associated with DP World in recent press comments since these tragic events. Thames freeport is not just DP World. Thames freeport is Ford Motor Company: the freeport will breathe life into Dagenham, which has been a centre of motor engineering for a century or more. It is also Forth Ports: while DP World has been marching around Whitehall demanding everything left, right and centre, with concession after concession, Forth Ports has been quietly operating its ports in Scotland and its port in Tilbury without asking for those favours. We have massive ambitions to expand the operation at Tilbury, and those companies do not deserve to be disadvantaged because of their association in good faith with DP World. I ask for a very clear commitment from those on the Front Bench not to let Thames freeport be disadvantaged. However, we should by all means give DP World the challenge that it cannot necessarily expect to be treated with favour after behaving in this way.
The other element of the Thames freeport is Thames Enterprise Park, which is on a redundant petrol refinery, the biggest brownfield site in Europe. That is what freeports are all about: resurrecting that growth and that regeneration. Frankly, we should not let DP World’s association with the Thames freeport undermine the very real objectives that all of us across the estuary wish to achieve.
As colleagues have recognised, our maritime sector is in our DNA. If we are serious about being a maritime nation, we have to value our seafarers. The truth of the matter is that we have all quietly looked the other way while shipping costs have been kept low. Our seafaring workforce has declined and has been replaced by overseas workers being paid a pittance. This example puts that into stark relief. We have happily looked the other way because, if we do not, it will mean higher prices in supermarkets as a result of shipping costs that properly reflect the cost of labour. At a time when the cost of living is a challenge, that is not something that we want to tackle, but perhaps now we will. We are not going to be a maritime nation unless we give young people who live in coastal communities the ambition to see the world by working in this fantastic industry.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Liverpool is where much of our personal protective equipment freight is imported into the country, including by P&O. Seafarers were and still are essential workers, keeping our country supplied with food and medicines as well as PPE. I hope that all Members in the Chamber will take the opportunity to join me in thanking every single seafarer who has kept our country going in the face of the deadly pandemic and the supply chain shortages.
On Thursday, all the workers who have kept us all going were sacked without warning by their employer. On Friday, I was at the port of Liverpool, just outside my constituency. There was an impressive turnout from trade unionists from across the north of England and concerned local residents. They were all united in outrage at this draconian, Dickensian approach and in support of the 800 workers who have been sacked by video call. We heard impassioned speeches from RMT regional officer Daren Ireland and Nautilus national organiser Steve Doran. Speaking as one, they were united in standing up for the members of both trade unions.
On Wednesday, the Chancellor will have his chance to spell out a plan to help the British people with the cost of living crisis, but the reality is that the cost of living crisis has grown even harder for the people and their families who have just lost their jobs.
So what should the Government be doing? They can suspend the P&O licences and contracts, including DP World’s contracts for two freeports, until the dispute is resolved. They can apologise to the workers for not intervening on Wednesday evening. They can claw back the covid money accepted by DP World. It beggars belief that the Secretary of State’s main suggestion this afternoon seems to be that P&O should change the names of its ferries.
What happened to the promise from the Business Secretary last year to strengthen employment protections in the UK? The Government blocked the private Member’s Bill to ban fire and rehire—and before Conservative Members say that that Bill contained flaws, let me ask why, if that is true, they did not give it a Second Reading and amend it in Committee. The Government’s failure to ban fire and rehire when they had the chance to do so has given P&O the green light to sack its workforce.
To ensure that P&O workers are the last group of workers abused by this pernicious loophole in employment law, the Government can make sure that this never happens again. They can introduce emergency legislation. They can ban fire and rehire. Yes, they can do that if they want; the question is, will they do it? I say to the Government, “Reinstate the 800 sacked seafarers, and say no to P&O!”
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
What happened to the workers at P&O is one of the most disgraceful examples of industrial practice in my adult lifetime. It speaks not to the weakness of our employment laws but to their strength that the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and the Employment Rights Act 1996 have, for the last 30 years, rendered cases such as this so rare that we are debating one such case in Parliament today. What is extraordinary about this case is not that the laws did not exist, but that P&O, or DP World, thought it could break them with impunity. Let us take a moment to establish what those laws are.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) spoke about section 193 of the 1992 Act, which provides for a statutory obligation to inform the Secretary of State 45 days before any proposed redundancies could take place. That law has been broken. Section 188 provides for a duty to consult 90 days before any dismissal takes place; that law has also been broken. Section 86 of the Employment Rights Act, on the duty to give notice, and section 98, on unfair dismissal? Those laws too have been broken. The question for the House is why DP World thought it could do that, and the issue, I think, is enforcement.
It is true that failure to notify the Secretary of State is a criminal offence, but I can think of no example in my lifetime in which any criminal proceedings have been brought against any employer anywhere in the United Kingdom since the passing of the 1992 Act. The fact is that a breach of this nature is so rare that parliamentarians have probably not had to worry about it, but none the less we have not insisted on it, and I was glad to hear the Secretary of State say that he would consider enforcing section 194 in this exceptional circumstance.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
Section 194 relates to a summary offence, punishable by a level 5 fine, but the Secretary of State referred to another section which gave rise to an unlimited fine. Does my hon. Friend agree that in such an extreme circumstance as this, the egregious nature of the sackings and the number of people involved would constitute gross aggravating factors in consideration about the size of an “unlimited” fine?
Laura Farris
I think that that is correct, and I think that that was what the Secretary of State was alluding to. It is also the case that DP World has obviously concluded that it would prefer to make a severance payment that takes into account the 90-day consultation period, the notice period and the redundancy period, because that is less hassle for them than going into a consultation for 90 days with the RMT and facing strike action.
I will come to my solution in a moment, but I want first to briefly address what Labour Members have said about banning fire and rehire. The hon. Members for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) and for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) said that the commendable private Member’s Bill presented by the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) would have done that. Let me, with great respect, refresh the House’s memory. The hon. Gentleman said at the time:
“I have no intention in this Bill of banning, and there is nothing in this Bill that would ultimately ban, fire and rehire. There is an important reason for that and I will come on to it in my speech.”—[Official Report, 22 October 2021; Vol. 701, c. 1051.]
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is absolutely correct: nothing in my Bill would ultimately have stopped fire and rehire, and that was with the full cognisance of the 22 unions that supported it. As she knows, however, there were measures in the Bill that would have prevented the current situation.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Let me say this before the hon. Lady responds to the intervention: I recognise that important points are being made, but if there are interventions it would be helpful, to ensure that we can get everyone in, for Members to try to stick to the original time limit.
Laura Farris
I thank the hon. Member for Brent North for his intervention. As he will know, the reason we do not want to legislate to ban fire and rehire is that we would end up with more dismissals from the decent employer who is under extreme financial stress. As the hon. Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) said during that debate, fire and rehire must be “an absolute last resort”, and Conservative Members have always agreed with that proposition.
We feared that the Bill risked more job losses, not fewer, and that is the prevailing view at the employment law Bar. Yesterday I spoke to John Bowers QC, one of the great trade union lawyers of his generation, and his view was that the hon. Member for Brent North was jeopardising jobs with his Bill. If I am incorrect in that regard, I ask the Opposition Front Bencher who winds up the debate to address the question of why, as a matter of law, he is wrong, but it is true to say that the idea that any provision that sets conditions so onerous—as the proposed new section 187B did—that any failure to consult or to disclose everything, no matter how sensitive, could lead to unlimited damages would not lead an employer to dismiss rather than to renegotiate employment terms is fanciful. The Bill would risk more job losses, and we know from the bitter lesson of P&O that if employers can take short cuts, and if they can take the easy option, they will. The Bill would risk more P&Os, not fewer.
I have said previously that the answer to this lies in the ACAS code of practice. Parliament intended it to do so, through sections 203, 207 and 207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act, which conferred on the Secretary of State a power to pass codes of practice backed up by financial penalties. I have said repeatedly in the House—and I respectfully ask the Minister not to make me do it again—that that is the correct mechanism. It turns the screw on the unscrupulous employer in a way that nothing suggested by the Opposition does. It is also consistent with the prevailing view in the excellent ACAS consultation that took place last summer, when a number of points were made by practitioners, including the question of how it could be demonstrated that fire and rehire was a genuine last resort. Consultation is one aspect of that, but employers should also be required to demonstrate that they had considered other options.
What I think is imperative is a new form of injunctive relief, which is not available to the claimants in this case, and which would allow the High Court to mandate employers to impose a 90-day consultation period. I think that that would address some of the problems, but, again, it could go into an ACAS code of practice. We do not need new laws; we need to turn the screw on exploitative employers by hitting them with penalties that will stop them doing this in the first place. We can talk in the language of emotion and recrimination—
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
The first thing I want to do is express my solidarity with the 800 seafarers and their families, and pay tribute to the RMT and Nautilus for the swift support that they gave their members, along with the whole of the TUC.
I am pleased that Ministers and Tory Members have said how disgraceful P&O’s behaviour has been, but they have said how unacceptable such practices are on previous occasions. It appears today, from both their words and their body language, that they are embarrassed. Maybe somebody has been saying “Shame on you”. It is almost as if it is more about justifying this disgusting treatment of summarily firing the workforce and justifying why they did not outlaw it five months ago when they had that opportunity.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Lab)
I was a supporter of my hon. Friend’s Bill when he brought it forward, despite being on the Conservative Benches at the time, and I even shared a platform with him at the party conference. We heard from the Secretary of State earlier that ACAS would be bringing forward further guidance, but guidance would not have helped the people from P&O. Does my hon. Friend agree that guidance is not the solution and that we need legislation to prevent this from happening again?
Barry Gardiner
I do agree with my hon. Friend. It is clear that nothing currently in the law could have stopped this incident from happening and that, whatever the outcome, 800 families are suffering as a consequence. Had it been clear in statute and had the company known that it could not take advantage in such a way, it would not have done so. It is the Government’s lassitude on this matter that has led to where we are now.
I do not want to engage in recriminations about who said what. Let us try to be positive and think of a way in which we could develop a law in this country that could solve these problems. The first thing, to which the Minister alluded earlier, is the importance of negotiation and the fact that the negotiations that ultimately took place in previous disputes were positive. Let us get it round the right way, so that we have consultation at the beginning of the process and a statutory obligation on the employer to consult, to negotiate and to be transparent. Incidentally, that happens to be in clause 1 of my Bill.
The hon. Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) referred to proposed new section 187B, but she knows very well that this was not about a duty of disclosure on employers that was completely open-ended. No, it was a very specific one. It involved information that would be in accordance with good industrial relations practice that the employer should disclose for the purposes of the consultation and
“without which the appropriate representatives would be to a material extent impeded in carrying on consultation with the employer”.
It was a measured, sensible approach, and if the Government had any concerns about it, they could have been ironed out in Committee, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) said. But the Government were not prepared to do that.
There was also the facility in my Bill to make complaints about the failure to follow good practice. The Bill was all about instantiating good practice and penalising bad practice. That would have meant that where an employer had not followed the rules properly, not obeyed the statute, not consulted or engaged openly with their workforce or not negotiated transparently, a complaint could have been made to the central arbitration committee and ultimately an injunction could have been made to restore the jobs of the people who were fired. That is not about rehire; it is all about fire. The Minister for lassitude whispered in the ear of his colleague the other day that this issue was not about fire and rehire, but those measures would have protected the workers in this situation and the Government now need to act. They should take this opportunity. They have had a rap over the knuckles and they have been embarrassed. Now they must legislate.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
The links between seafaring communities are strong but the links between those communities that run ferry operations, such as those at Holyhead in my constituency, are stronger still. The maritime Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts), visited the port of Holyhead recently and saw at first hand how important the seafaring community is to my constituency. Over recent decades ferry operators have merged and de-merged. Ships have passed hands or been sent to other routes to cover refits and repairs. Workers often move fluidly between different ports and routes, based on fluctuating demand. Back in 1996, P&O merged with Stena Line. Stena still owns the port of Holyhead and continues to run ferries from Holyhead to Ireland.
I say all this to outline the fact that the bonds between my constituents and the employees of P&O are incredibly strong, and also that P&O’s recent actions have struck fear into our local ferry workers. I have spent time on the phone with constituents who work for Stena, including David Gwatkin, a steward on board the Stena Adventurer and a union representative. They were all seeking reassurance that such things could not happen to them and their colleagues, but more importantly they wanted to share their deep anger at people losing their jobs in such an unfair and devastating way. I know that that concern is felt in other ports and industries right across the UK. I also spoke to Ian Hampton, the executive director of Stena Line, who was also in shock. He spoke about the importance of Stena’s company values and good industrial relations, highlighting how it is a partnership working together to provide the best affordable terms and conditions for their people on their vessels.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy said over the weekend:
“It cannot be right that the company feels tied closely enough to the UK to receive significant amounts of taxpayer money but does not appear willing to abide by the rules that we have put in place to protect British workers.”
P&O and DP World may claim commercial reasons for taking this action, but it is enshrined in UK law that no operating business should be able summarily to dismiss hundreds of employees at a stroke without notice or consultation. This Government have a strong record of introducing and supporting fair and realistic employment rights. They introduced the national living wage, and they protected millions of jobs with swift and decisive action through the pandemic. It was also this Government who introduced equal parental leave. One need only look at the progress made in this Parliament towards protecting vulnerable and disadvantaged workers to see that it is this Government who are committed to supporting workers’ rights and putting legislation in place to prevent just this kind of worker abuse from happening.
I want to reassure P&O’s staff and others working in the sector, including my own constituents, that the UK Government are taking this matter very seriously. As the Secretary of State made clear at the start of this debate, there is absolutely no excuse for the way in which these workers lost their jobs. The strength of feeling in this Chamber today is palpable, and my colleagues and I will be pressing for swift answers to our questions and ensuring that those affected by P&O’s actions are given the support they need at this difficult time.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I hope that the whole House can agree on this motion tonight. No matter where we are on the political spectrum, no one can defend what we saw happening last Thursday morning. Rather than being a picture of what should happen in the 21st century, it was like something out of a Charles Dickens novel. My constituents came into Larne harbour expecting a turnaround of their ship and then to head off again to Cairnryan. They found that too many buses had arrived, one with a replacement crew and one with a crew to put them off the ship. That is by no stretch of the imagination the way in which workers should be treated in the 21st century. The company has simply ignored all the requirements of law—consultation with workers, replacing workers they say they are making redundant, giving redundancy payments—while it has been planning for weeks and recruiting around the world for replacements. No one can describe that as abiding by the law.
Then the company brought in workers who will be operating at a fraction of the salary of the previous workers. The odd thing about that is that the company says that it was losing £100 million a year and had to deal with that, but it will not overcome that deficit by sacking 800 workers. Those workers were not getting paid £125,000 a year. One has to ask what else this company has in its plan for doing away with its deficit and at the same time supplying a vital service.
It is not only its workers that the company has treated with contempt; it has treated its customers with contempt, too. Those companies that relied on P&O were told, as the lorries were heading towards Larne harbour, “You’d better go elsewhere.” There was no notice given, because they had, of course, operated in secrecy. Larne harbour is owned by P&O and is a strategic point of entry into Northern Ireland. P&O is the only operator from that harbour and it carries 60% of the trade for Northern Ireland, and yet it was closed down summarily. It treated those people who rely on that strategic asset with contempt.
I accept what the Minister has said today and appreciate the work he has done to get extra capacity for Belfast through Stena. Over the past number of days, however, queuing at Cairnryan every day, Asda has had six lorries of fresh food, which cannot be held up, and 14 lorries of food that could stay for a while, although requirements do need to be fulfilled. All that has been held up.
I want three things from this debate. First, pressure must be put on P&O and DP World to ensure that they do not do this again. Secondly, we have to ensure that those workers who have lost their jobs are reinstated. Thirdly, action must be taken to address the issues and weaknesses that we now know about in the law, to punish this company and also to send a message.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
I wanted to take part in this debate because I wanted there to be a united front in condemnation of P&O’s tactics in firing 800 seafarers without notice via Zoom last Thursday. I watched that Zoom video, which was extraordinary and amateur. It thanked staff for their service while sacking them with immediate effect and without notice.
The motion condemns the decision of P&O to fire 800 staff without notice and demands their reinstatement. Despite the anger among Opposition Members, I think that this is a case of us furiously agreeing with each other, because we have shared overriding objectives. We must try to get those seafarers reinstated, and it is only if we cannot achieve that first objective that we should move on to secondary objectives, including making sure that this tactic is not seen to work either for DP World/P&O or as an example for other employers. It is really important that we set a standard and make a stand. It is quite right that through this debate—I congratulate the Opposition on calling it—we maximise public pressure on DP World to reconsider.
The Maritime and Coastguard Agency also needs to make absolutely sure that the re-manned vessels comply with all safety regulations. That means physical inspections and crew-related training and safety drills. No benefit of the doubt or leeway should be given to this business. I am not suggesting adopting discriminatory behaviour towards the company. However, if a company has lost the trust of the Government and of the public, it should be up to it to prove compliance.
I welcome the announcement that the Insolvency Service is being asked to look into the potential for a criminal prosecution and an unlimited fine. I have already mentioned that in an earlier intervention. It is also right that the Government immediately instructed officials to review all Government contracts. I understand that the Government must comply with any legal relationships that they have already entered into, but thereafter there should be no further positive relationship with a company that has forfeited its good name. The company I have in mind is DP World, not just P&O Ferries. P&O took the decision to follow the money. We need to challenge and change that calculation, to make sure that the sums for this act no longer add up.
We have to recognise that the business losses of P&O Ferries have been substantial and over a prolonged period. It is losing more than £100 million a year on an annual turnover of not much more than £600 million. That is unsustainable in the long run, even with a profitable parent company. The answer may be that a restructure is the only way to prevent the loss of the entire business, leading to many more—an additional 2,000—job losses. My complaint is not necessarily about the business decision to restructure, but about the manner and approach of P&O Ferries. There is no immediate and catastrophic change in circumstances—it has been like this for the past couple of years. There is and there has been time for notice and for consultation. There has been and there is time to work with staff to at least try to agree a route back to sustainable profitability, yet it has not even been attempted. No reason has been given for failing to treat employees seemingly within the realms of the law. This is a case of terrible business mismanagement, flouting the law in a calculation that money will be saved. We have to make sure that that calculation is wrong.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
This has been a rather strange debate so far. I am a bit discombobulated by a number of things. I want to place on the record my sincere gratitude to the RMT and Nautilus International for their fantastic work in such a short space of time on this unbelievably poor situation.
The Secretary of State stood there and said that this is not about politics. Of course it is about politics. Everything in this place is about politics, hence the name “politicians”—it’s a giveaway. The fact that 800 hard-working people got their notice in the way they did last week is an absolute outrage, an embarrassment, a disgrace—call it what you want.
The hon. Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke) should not really get mixed up with people who are angry at losing their jobs, and she should not suggest that somebody who has lost their job is a hard-left militant. If I lost my job, I would be desperately disappointed. If I lost my job in the fashion that these individuals did, I would be more than angry—I would be incandescent with rage. She should not get mixed up with people who got up in the morning, kissed their partner and then, when they got to work, were told that an announcement was going to be made that day. These are ordinary people. These are 800 hard-working individuals with families, mortgages, cars and all the rest of it, who carried this country through the pandemic. To criticise them for being hard-left militants because they are angry about losing their job is distasteful, to say the least. [Interruption.]
Ian Lavery
The reality is that these people were absolutely right to say what they did at that moment in time. They got to the workplace and were told that there was going to be a Zoom call. And then the chief executive of P&O Ferries was saying how hard up the company is and that that was why they were getting their notice that day, even though they did not realise that they were going to get their notice. The right hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) said that the chief executive was embarrassed that he had to do that and that this is not really about him but about DP World. Come off it! Let’s be honest. This was a commercial decision and DP World and P&O Ferries are awash with finance. DP World paid out £270 million in dividends last year. It even sponsored a golf competition for £147 million. What on earth? What sort of golf competition is that? At the same time, there is a £145 million black hole in its pensions. It would rather support and sponsor golf competitions than pay money into the pension schemes of hard-working people.
We have to get this right. The Government pride themselves on being a patriotic party. There is nothing more patriotic than looking after the people of this country in the way they should be looked after.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
I think the House is united this afternoon about the egregious manner in which these sackings took place by pre-recorded video. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke), who went down to speak to these people. She has explained carefully that these were not just local workers; some people had been bussed in as well. However, that is an argument for another day. A number of my constituents were working at P&O. I know that for a fact because when I have been on a P&O ferry and enjoyed a café breakfast, they have come up to me and said, “Oh, you’re my MP.” That will not happen again, not because my constituents are not working there, but because I will never use P&O Ferries again.
Let me pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts), because I watched the ministerial statement he made last week and I could feel his anger. He laid out clearly what the Government are thinking about this. They will be looking at the contracts they have with P&O and DP World, and the Insolvency Service has been appointed to look at the manner in which these people were dispensed with. I am pleased that the Government are ensuring that all those bound up in this will get the support of the Department for Work and Pensions and others—that is scant thanks, but they will be available to help them. I am sure that the unions, which I will be supporting, would be looking at breaches of any contract law. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) said, we know that this is a complex area; it is about maritime law, with international contracts, which puts it in a very different place from what we might usually see.
I do not have the benefit of full, detailed knowledge about the profit and loss and finances of P&O Ferries. Undoubtedly, there have been substantial losses during the covid period, but P&O Ferries has received significant amounts of furlough money from the public purse. As the House will know, I am a chartered accountant, and I find it hard to believe that after the redundancy costs are taken into account over a period this could possibly be the salvation of a company in trouble. I am sure that fuel costs have quite a lot to feed into this as well. I would have hoped that the company would look for stability of revenues post-covid and perhaps some stability in the fuel price market and then made proper, duly considered restructuring decisions if and when they were needed. I agree fully with the rehire proposals that are coming out of this House, but I wonder: what on earth were the board of P&O and DP World thinking of? Did they not realise the reputational damage that this measure would do? My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) laid it out clearly: did they not think about the freeport proposals and DP World’s involvement with them?
I have advertised widely on the usual channels that I will never use P&O Ferries again and I recommend that we all do the same. Do you know what I would like to see as an outcome to this? I would like to see P&O Ferries going down the toilet and a new carrier coming out of the woodwork that is prepared to deal with local people properly and hire in the appropriate way.
There is much in the motion I agree with. The first line says that this House “condemns” this, and of course we do. The motion rightly notes that DP World received a lot of Government money and that the Government should look at suspending DP World from Government contracts—I agree with all that. I do not agree with the call to outlaw fire and rehire, much in the vein that the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) put forward, as I do not think this is the time to jump on other employment legislation; this is the time to try to put this right and to show up P&O as a disgraceful company. I think we can unite on that this afternoon.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
P&O’s mass sackings are clearly a matter of putting profits before people, and the fact that they were done by Zoom just confirms the employer’s callous stance. It is scandalous that this should be happening at a time of a cost of living crisis. It is an attack on the viability of the UK maritime sector as a whole. In Wales, thousands of people are directly employed in the sector, on ferries in Holyhead, Fishguard, Pembroke Dock and Swansea. The additional indirect employment and benefits reach far out into our economy. The estimate is that for every £1 of domestic output initially generated by the maritime sector in Wales, the Welsh and UK economies get a gross value added gain of £2.70. That is the scale of loss we are facing. This attack on the rights and jobs of seafarers will do great harm to the maritime sector as a whole and to the wider economy.
As we have heard, P&O does not operate ferries from Holyhead, although it has a long history with the port; Stena Line is the major employer and it is a significant employer for north Wales. It, however, has been under pressure with the post-Brexit trading arrangements. A significant proportion of the former UK land-bridge freight now moves directly from the Republic of Ireland to France and north-west Europe, with traffic through Welsh ports permanently down by 30% since 2019. That is the situation we are facing. Any actions the Government do or do not take now will set a precedent for others, and I fear we might be facing a race to the bottom across the industry.
The Government must therefore pursue all legal options available, including criminal proceedings, in response to P&O’s failure to follow its statutory obligations. They should also review all P&O Ferries’ licences to operate vessels in British waters, review any contracts they currently have with P&O Ferries and leverage future Government support to restore the jobs lost—we need to see these seafarers get their jobs back. I include in that contracts with the parent company, DP World. Importantly, as has been mentioned, that includes plans for DP World to run freeports in the UK, which the Chancellor had previously said he was “delighted” about. If the Government do not end their contracts with DP World, they are actively signalling a green light to those low standards for the maritime industry in the UK and the bad effects that we have heard about and I have outlined.
Finally, and importantly, the Government must outlaw fire and rehire. My party’s view is that in the long term the best way to safeguard workers’ rights in Wales is to devolve employment law, so that we can create a strong and fair settlement for workers that protects their livelihoods from opportunistic bad employers by providing decent working practices, pay, terms and conditions.
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
When the chief executive officer of P&O rang me last Thursday at about midday, he told me that this was not a choice about some 800 jobs; it was a choice about 800 jobs or 3,000 jobs. Many companies, in the air, on the roads and at sea, have had to make redundancies as a result of both covid and rising fuel prices, but I know of none that have done it with the brutality, sheer indignity and crass stupidity with which P&O has handled this on behalf of head office in Dubai. About three months ago, P&O was running an advert for staff recruitment, saying:
“It’s not just a job. It’s family”.
In east Kent, those of us who use P&O regularly and those of us whose constituents work for P&O regard them as family and friends. They are good, honest, decent, hard-working men and women. They are skilled and dedicated, and we cannot afford to lose them. So my message is simply this to Dubai: reinstate those 800 men and women now. Then, if you need to, get around the table and talk about what restructuring may need to be done and do it properly. If you don’t do that, I fear that the ship will be renamed—it won’t be the Pride of Kent, but the Shame of Dubai.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
This debate comes at a time when 800 workers have lost their jobs in the most disgusting and disgraceful of circumstances. I join others in paying huge tribute to the RMT and Nautilus, not just for immediately defending their members, but for providing brilliant information and support to help us ensure that this debate is fully informed.
As Members have said, one coach turned up at the portside to replace the crew with low-paid staff. They are not the enemy; they are migrant workers who are being grossly exploited. The enemy is P&O, which sent them there in the first place. Then, as the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) said, another coach turned up full of people trained in the use of tasers and handcuffs to remove current staff, some of whom had worked for the company for 30 years or more. Just think about that. This is modern Britain, and people turned up wearing balaclavas, with tasers and handcuffs, to get workers off a ship because they might not want to leave. The workers were then told that if they did not accept the money and sign an order that would forever seal their lips on the subject, they would get no money at all. This is modern Britain at its absolute worst.
The situation also calls into question a lot of legislation. Over the years, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and I went many times to the Department for Transport demanding that the national minimum wage apply to international seafarers operating in and out of British ports as well as, obviously, to those working routes within the UK’s territorial waters. That never happened, I guess because of pressure from ship-owning companies on successive Governments. It is absolutely disgraceful. Other legislation is weak on trade union protection and weak on employment protection—weaker than most countries in Europe and many other countries in the world—and that must change.
The Minister comes here with his crocodile tears of concern, yet he refused even to support the principles behind the excellent Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) on fire and rehire. If we are serious about protecting employment rights, we need legislation that protects those rights and does not allow companies to behave like this and get away with it. I suspect the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) may be right that the company gamed the process through on a legal basis to see whether it could get away with it. Well, if it does, the Government have options.
The options put forward in the RMT document are as follows. First, the Government could tell the company to reverse the decision. Secondly, they could remove all Government contracts of any sort from P&O with immediate effect. Thirdly, we can all boycott P&O. Nobody needs to go on P&O. Fourthly, we could pass the necessary legislation.
If at the end of that process the 800 have still lost their jobs and P&O thinks it can still get away with this kind of behaviour, the Government have not just an opportunity, but a duty. Shipping is a major strategic industry. We are an island. We need shipping. Those ships have to sail, so it is the Government’s responsibility to ensure that they do. If all else fails, the option of taking the industry, or that section of it, into public ownership should be used as a direct threat to that company given its behaviour and its financial and investment strategy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) pointed out, the company has money for golf and Formula 1, but the pension fund has a huge hole and £200 million was paid out in dividends last year.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
P&O has a long association with the Northern Isles, where for many years it provided the lifeline services between Scotland and Orkney and Shetland. It was originally founded almost two centuries ago by a Shetlander, Arthur Anderson. However, we looked on with horror at what that company did last week, and we simply do not recognise it as the company we have known. The Secretary of State talked about renaming ships, but I do not think he quite carried the House with him when he identified that as a priority. If any names are to be changed, I suggest it should be that of P&O Ferries itself. It can be rebranded as DP World (UK Branch), or something of that sort, because continuing to trade as P&O damages the other P&O companies and dishonours the memory of Arthur Anderson and the thousands of good, hard-working seafarers who have served my communities so well for decades.
Of course, we all know that this day has been a long time coming. As a country, and successive Governments within it, we have tolerated practices at sea that we would regard as simply unthinkable on dry land. I remember lobbying in 2016 for the enforcement of the national minimum wage for crews on the freight boats operating between Aberdeen and Lerwick, who were then being paid £3.66 an hour. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs said that it was okay, because that route was deemed to be wholly outwith UK territorial waters. That is the importance we have given to the maritime industry until now.
What really matters is that what we allow P&O to do today, others will want to do tomorrow. If anybody doubts that, they may wish to revisit the comments of Peter Aylott, spokesperson for the UK Chamber of Shipping, on the “Today” programme on Friday morning. He could not comment on anything that had been done, but he was somehow happy at the end of the interview to say that he was “content and very confident” that P&O had acted properly. If I were a company paying a subscription to the UK Chamber of Shipping and I saw P&O trashing my industry’s reputation, I would want something rather better than that from the trade body. However, it is an indication that others in the industry will look to what happens to P&O and will follow. Indeed, they will argue that they are compelled to follow if P&O gets off. We must also look carefully at what may happen to the future employment of the 800 workers, because the industry has previously been guilty of blacklisting.
The shipping industry has never been slow to come to the Government with demands. I have advocated for it in the past in relation to the tonnage tax and getting more UK officers on to our ships. This, however, is a moment for the Government to turn the tables and to take a clear message back from this House to the industry as a whole: it is time for it to get its house in order, because we are no longer prepared to tolerate behaviour of this sort. Change has to come, and the industry must lead it.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I only want to take a few moments to express my solidarity with the workers given the disgraceful way in which they have been treated, and we can all agree with much of what has been said about that across the House. There has been a great temptation to transfer guilt this evening. Some want to blame the Government and others want to blame the unions, but that allows P&O to get away in the dark. We cannot allow that to happen. Let us keep the focus on this company and keep the punishment where it needs to be. Otherwise, P&O will get away with it, and the workers will lose even more.
I have several questions for the Government. Are they going to challenge the decision legally? If so, how? What do they have to say about the issues affecting various ports across the United Kingdom? My right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) spoke of P&O’s monopoly over Larne, which he represents. Indeed, it has a strategic impact on goods coming in and out of Ulster, so I wait patiently to hear what the Government have to say about that. What will happen to freeports? Will P&O get control? It has put in bids for several ports, but will it then control these strategic lines in and out of our island nation? How will the Government respond?
Finally, I thank the employers in my constituency, in East Antrim and in other parts of her country who have indicated that if workers are in need of immediate employment, they will step up to the mark and offer it, especially those in the hospitality sector and other sectors where there are vacancies. In the teeth of being made redundant in such an awful and brutal way, that will show the workers that there is solidarity across the community, that people are appalled by what P&O has done and the manner in which it was done, and that they want to help.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
The actions of P&O Ferries are among the most appalling abuses of British workers that I have seen in my adult life, but they did not happen in a vacuum. We did not get here by accident. I listened to the Secretary of State with care; I heard his outrage about P&O’s methods last week, but not his condemnation of the context in which this happened. A toxic combination of factors applicable in the UK but not in other jurisdictions where P&O workers live, such as France and the Netherlands, of weak employment rights, weak enforcement, a loophole in the minimum wage legislation and insignificant penalties for breaking law—have all contributed to this nationally embarrassing scandal.
In this House in June 2020, I told Ministers they needed to ensure that employers such as British Airways could not get away with their fire and rehire tactics. The Government did not listen to the warnings about where this would lead voiced by Opposition MPs and even a few in their own party, nor to workers at British Airways and the trade unions. We are in this situation today because this Government failed to act to protect workers in and of this country.
P&O’s skilled and experienced staff are being replaced by workers paid £1.80 an hour. That is morally unacceptable, but this is not just a moral issue, nor is it merely about employment law. It is about safety risk. Lloyd’s of London—hardly the most radical organisation in this country—has raised concerns, saying that the change of crew represents an underwriting risk that needs to be “swiftly assessed”, including an assessment of whether the ships can be considered seaworthy with a crew of unknown provenance who are unfamiliar with them.
I am old enough to remember the 1987 sinking of a ferry in Zeebrugge with the loss of 193 people, and the subsequent inquiry, which found that weak corporate culture was a factor. Ironically, that ship was named the Spirit of Free Enterprise. Now, in 2022, P&O’s tactics call to mind what a Conservative Prime Minister described as the “unpleasant face of capitalism”.
Ruth Cadbury
I think I would get in trouble if I did.
For too long, there has been a dirty bargain between UK Ministers and cowboy employers, such that employers know they can get away with it. They know what happens: Ministers appear at the Dispatch Box, all bluster and outrage, but what happens next? Absolutely nothing. In 2020, we saw thousands of British Airways employees being fired and rehired. Over 400 of my constituents were cast aside, and even now about 1,000 BA staff have significantly weaker terms and conditions. What is worse is that the Government were giving these companies billions of pounds of taxpayers’ support—a blank cheque—while they abused their workforces.
Ministers cannot just stand at the Dispatch Box and offer crocodile tears and words of wind. If they really care, they can use the might of their offices to stand up for workers. Specifically, they can outlaw fire and rehire, they can suspend contracts with DP World, and they can remove it from the UK Government’s transport advice workforce.
We told the Government in 2020 that they needed to act to send a clear message to bad employers. They did not listen. The Secretary of State’s key ask of P&O is to change the names of the ships. If the Government do not act today, the dial shifts. What is seen as outrageous behaviour this week could become the norm, in which the message is that all employers can treat their workforce how they like.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I commend the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) for her outstanding speech to open the debate, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) for his long campaign for legislation to be introduced banning fire and rehire.
The actions of P&O are morally reprehensible and may well turn out to be unlawful, even criminal. I hope those processes are carried out as quickly as possible, but even if the entire board of directors goes to jail, even if they are fined so much that the company goes into liquidation, it will not put a single plate of food on the table in front of the children of any one of the 800 people who have been treated so despicably. They are the ones who matter now. The workers have to be reinstated immediately, but even if they are, P&O and the parent companies in Dubai must be held to account. It must be made clear to them that this Government, the Scottish Government and all the Governments of Europe will not have any truck with a company that treats people so appallingly.
It was mentioned earlier that despite claiming to be losing money, P&O managed to pay dividends of £270 million. Even at £50,000 a person, those 800 employees could have been kept on for six years; it is equivalent to £337,500 per person. Instead of going to the employees though, that money went to the owners. A big chunk of it went to one of the richest and most powerful men in the United Arab Emirates, and therefore in the world—a man who was found in a UK court of law to have probably kidnapped, abducted and imprisoned his own daughters, one of whom accused him in court of torturing her to punish her for running away. Who thought it was a good idea for that person to be allowed to own a controlling interest in a company that is responsible for the livelihood of thousands of British workers, and to allow that individual to have a stranglehold on trade between Britain and Northern Ireland? Who thought it was acceptable for that sort of person to be involved at all in running businesses in these islands? Well, some people obviously did. That’s the free market for you.
We have to ask ourselves what the Government’s response would be to seeing all the ships tied up suddenly, with no notice, people’s plans being cancelled and lorries stuck on the quayside because of trade union industrial action. We would not be here today debating an Opposition motion condemning P&O. We would probably be here debating emergency Government anti-trade union legislation. If this chaos had been caused by the trade unions, the Government would have moved a lot more swiftly and a lot more fiercely against them than they are prepared to do against wealthy Arab oil sheiks. I wonder why that is.
Earlier, a Conservative Member, who is no longer in his seat, wondered why P&O thought it could get away with this action. I wonder. What could it be about six years of rhetoric about the sunlit uplands of a post-Brexit, deregulated, free-for-all Britain that made a big company think it might get away with it? After six years of being told, “We need to get rid of all the red tape that holds back businesses,” and a former Prime Minister actually saying that workers’ rights were one of the things that needed to be looked at post Brexit, I wonder what made P&O think that Britain was a good place to start trampling on the rights of its workers.
The Secretary of State, who, to his credit, turned up for the debate—a lot of his Cabinet colleagues would have run away and hidden—wants to rename the ships. May I suggest that, as a tribute to the legacy his Government are following—the trampling underfoot of centuries of hard-won rights for employees and trade unions—at least one of those ships should be renamed the MV Margaret Thatcher?
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
Last week, we saw one of the most shameful and debased episodes in our industrial history: 800 workers sacked, not because their employer was on the verge of collapse, but because they could be replaced by cheaper labour, and security personnel boarding ships in balaclavas, with handcuffs and Tasers, to remove crew who had given their lives to the company. It is the stuff of a dystopian Hollywood blockbuster, not the actions of a business in our own supposedly civilised economy.
It is important to stress that this is a business that received huge bail-outs from the British Government. Even though the company stated that it had lost over £100 million a year since the start of the pandemic, P&O Ferries actually made declared profits of nearly £63 million in 2020, and DP World, which owns P&O, made a profit before tax last year of over $1.3 billion. What about the poor workers on lower wages whom P&O now proposes to exploit? In some cases, they will be paid below the national minimum wage for much longer periods working at sea.
This whole scandal is not only illegal, but a serious warning to workers everywhere of the consequences of DP World’s strategy of international investment in shipping and logistics, including the Government’s freeports policy, which will allow even more companies to operate in this immoral and scandalous manner.
I truly hope that the Government share the outrage felt by so many Members on all Benches of this House, but I have to say that I am concerned by what I have heard today. The Government knew that this was going to happen, and they did nothing. The Secretary of State now knows what has happened and he can take robust legal action. He also needs to demand that P&O reverses its decision and holds negotiations with trade unions so that the 800 jobs and key supply chain services are reinstated. If that does not happen, the Government should take over P&O vessels as an operator of last resort and remove any Government support for P&O’s owners, DP World, including future contracts, and directly support the retention of P&O jobs instead.
Beyond that, the Government must now introduce legislation to ensure that this can never happen to any other UK workers again, and introduce new laws to protect the long-term future of workers in the maritime industry. There has been a lot of discussion today about the way in which this whole process was managed by P&O, but the fundamental point is that it was engaged in trying to do this in the first place—a profitable company trying to drive down wages and conditions for its workforce because it wants to make even more profit. We cannot stand for that as a democracy. It is up to the Government now: if they have any shred of moral decency, they will act today.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Let me declare an interest: by visibly wearing my RMT tie and badge, I can say that I am indeed a member of the RMT parliamentary group. I wish to acknowledge the fact that RMT and Nautilus members were lobbying Parliament today, and I was honoured to meet them, to listen to their concerns and to try to relay those concerns in the Chamber today.
Thursday 17 March 2022 was St Patrick’s Day and also a day that will live in infamy for people involved in the maritime sector. Those appalling scenes that we have seen repeated—those video sackings—are really diabolical. I will not go into too much detail because of the shortage of time. The Minister said that he did not see the note, but it seems to be all over the BBC website that people are making fun of that. Whether or not that is the case, the horse has bolted. What we are looking for from the Treasury Bench is some action. The British taxpayer stood behind P&O during the pandemic. Indeed, having the honour of serving on the Transport Committee, I can say that we saw evidence and received reports that up to £15 million was paid to P&O Ferries both through furlough and through the freight subsidy scheme. That was in the same year that huge profits were recorded by this particular group—some Members have quoted £270 million in dividends.
The Opposition motion is quite reasonable. We are calling on the seafarers who have been affected—the 800 men and women seafarers and officers—to be reinstated and for workers’ rights to be strengthened. If Ministers do not act with some haste and alacrity, the great danger is that other unscrupulous employers are likely to be emboldened—I do not just mean in the shipping and maritime sector. A number of hon. Members on both sides of the House have raised those concerns with the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Witney (Robert Courts) and Finance Ministers about what more can be done to support the industry.
This case is not unique. Eight hundred staff have been made redundant, so the Government have a decision to make about whose side they are on, and whether they will speak out in public. If the Minister fails to stand up for British workers today a dark cloud will linger over every employee in the maritime sector and in other sectors across the country. After the comments of the Transport Secretary today, those workers will possibly be thinking that they have no rights, or few rights, to security at work.
The Government have a choice: are they on the side of rogue employers, bandit capitalists, or do they stand up for British workers? People are becoming tired of platitudes from Ministers. I want to conclude with some words from the former RMT general secretary, Bob Crowe, who said:
“If you fight you won’t always win. But if you don’t fight you will always lose”.
So, today, is a day to fight. Will the Minister fight for what is right and stand up for those 800 seafarers who were employed by P&O?
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Before I make my main points, may I just say that I have heard reference to the tonnage tax a couple of times in this debate? Some of us have been dealing with the tonnage tax issue for more than 20 years, and, time and again, we have raised it with successive governments. The fact is that, although tonnage tax has now paid out something like £2.4 billion to shipping companies to enable them to promote and preserve British seafaring jobs, there has actually been a significant loss of seafaring jobs. I resent the fact that P&O has had tonnage tax money and has just brutally and grotesquely sacked 800 workers, as everyone has seen.
I was in Dover on Friday at a demonstration organised by RMT and Nautilus. Of course people were angry about losing their jobs, and of course some RMT members expressed their anger—I thought relatively politely—when MPs who had voted against the legislation to bring about hire and fire protections turned up. Nevertheless, there were two things that came out of the discussions that I had with RMT and Nautilus members. What they wanted from this debate was, first, the reinstatement of the jobs, and, secondly, legislation to prevent this from ever happening again.
I hope for some form of consensus today. Nothing that I have heard from the Secretary of State gives me any reassurance either that the jobs will be reinstated, or that there will be legislation brought forward to prevent this from happening to other workers. I listened in detail to the various actions that the Secretary of State said that the Government were taking. None of them gave me confidence that there was a sense of urgency about reinstating those jobs. I worry that the anger that we have heard expressed today will deflate and that those workers will be forgotten about over the coming weeks and months, and that, I believe, would be a tragedy.
Karl Turner
My right hon. Friend and I have campaigned as part of the RMT parliamentary group for many years on the fact that the national minimum wage does not apply on international routes. The Government changed that in June 2020 to apply to UK routes. Will he say something about that?
John McDonnell
I will come onto that. That was my second point. My first point is that we need to inject a sense of urgency into this debate. I have listened to what the Government have said, and the Government have listened to what the Opposition have said and to what their own Members have said. I would welcome the opportunity for the Government to meet us on a cross-party basis and that should include the Select Committee Chair, because in the next week—no later than that—I would like to see a report on the legislative changes that need to be brought together to enable this practice to be outlawed completely. We have legislated in emergency situations before.
The second point is that we are not dealing with a normal company. This is a state company; it is effectively owned by the Dubai state and we have a responsibility in international relations to point out to it that we will not tolerate this behaviour. We also have an international responsibility to work with others across Europe and elsewhere to make sure that it is not just our Government making this point, but other Governments working with us who want to uphold basic labour standards. This gives us the opportunity to bring forward an international initiative for which some of us have been arguing for some time.
The third point is that no one should underestimate the historic moment that we are at in terms of industrial relations in this country. No one should underestimate the anger in the wider trade union movement. Working people have woken up to what is happening. The point has been made in this House time and again, that if it can happen to these workers, no one is safe. If we are not seen to be acting responsibly, both as a Government and in this House overall, people will think that parliamentary politics is not working for them. What we will see is working people out there taking it into their own hands to enforce their basic rights to decent employment and security of employment. The responsibility is on us to act. Otherwise, I warn the Government that we will see a wave of industrial unrest, and not just from RMT or Nautilus, but from other unions, because others will see the significance of what is happening to working people.
We can avoid that by bringing forward legislation that installs in law the proper protections that working people need. I believe there should be some acknowledgment now of the seriousness of the situation we are in, and emergency action should be taken. I would like a report back to this House, next Monday and no later, on what action the Government, working cross-party, can bring forward.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
Like so many in my community, in this House and across the country, I am sick to the back teeth of working-class people in our society being treated with contempt and like dirt. That was shown graphically, was it not, with balaclava-wearing, handcuff-trained security guards boarding ships to chuck workers off their ships?
We have also had enough of the crocodile tears and manufactured anger from Conservative Ministers. We heard the Secretary of State earlier make the pathetic suggestion of a response including asking P&O to change the ship’s name from “Pride of Britain”. Now, if it were to be renamed, I would suggest the unwieldy yet accurate title “Pride of Neoliberalism”, because that is where it has landed us.
The brutality and authoritarianism of the security guards—people laugh, but it is a company whose parent company is in Dubai, and trade unions and labour strikes are illegal in Dubai and the United Arab Emirates—provided a grotesque spectacle of workers being treated like dirt. We need action. Forty years of the domination of neoliberalism and the celebration of the weakening of trade unions and working people’s legal powers have brought us to this despicable point.
DP World has done very well. It posted record profits and has paid dividends of hundreds of millions to its owner, the state-owned Dubai World company, in the past two years. Its own website has a press release saying:
“DP World announces record results”,
and adds:
“DP World Limited announces strong financial results for the year ended 31 December 2021.”
It states that revenue grew 26% to $10.8 billion and earnings grew 15% to $3.8 billion.
Today, the Government have a choice. They need to act like a Government, because what this company is doing is treating not only workers and trade unions, but an elected Government with contempt. It is saying to the workers, “You can’t do anything about this. We can treat you like dirt,” and it is saying to the Government, “We know you won’t dare to act.”
The Government need to act. Nothing should be off the table. That means that until P&O reinstates the workers, the Government must ban P&O from using British waters, cancel any Government contracts with P&O and DP World, including future involvement in freeports, and launch a national consumer boycott campaign encouraging citizens of this country not to go with P&O. If after all that P&O still does not comply, the Government should take the P&O ferries on those routes and run them.
The reason P&O has not been able to sack seafarers this way in France is simply because France has better employment laws than we do. We need stronger employment laws in favour of employees. We need stronger trade unions. We need a repeal of the anti-trade union laws. Let us stop attacking trade unions. We heard the nonsense about so-called militant trade unionism earlier. If the Government want to see militant trade unionism increase—because it will have to increase—they should allow P&O and DP World to get away with this, because all that workers will be able to do in response is increase action and increase strong, fighting trade unionism.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
I add my voice in expressing outrage at the utterly appalling treatment of staff by P&O Ferries. Its methods may be more brutal, more direct and more organised, but there is a reason the company thought it could get away with them: it is simply doing what some of the most high-profile and respected businesses in our country have been doing for years. Sainsbury’s, Asda, B&Q, Marks & Spencer and even companies that bear our country’s name and flag, British Airways and British Gas, offer 90 days’ consultation and someone’s contract—however long they have worked for the company, however loyal they have been, however much they have done their job to the best of their ability—counts for nothing.
I only entered the debate on this issue when my constituent Joseph came to see me, six years ago now, to show me a consultation document from B&Q. He was a man with two children, who earned £16,000 a year working for the company and was being consulted on losing £2,500—his bonuses, his break money, his forklift truck allowance—because B&Q could not afford to pay him £16,000 a year. I would like to see anybody in this Chamber live on £16,000 a year in London.
Sainsbury’s is a company regarded as among the most respectable. I hold one share in Sainsbury’s and I went to its annual general meeting in 2018 to talk about the 8,000 members of long-term staff who were going to lose up to £3,000 a year. Hon. Members should not be mistaken: P&O will not be the last, although it may be the least successful. There are thousands of people destined to have their terms and conditions changed unless we change the law.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) made the point about the recession. If those members of staff lose the little money they currently receive and are under greater pressure to pay their gas and electricity bills, food bills and travel costs to work, we will see disquiet and trouble in our country of a size that we have never seen before.
We know the problem exists, we know the loophole exists, and we know that other companies that have difficult times over the coming months and years in our economy will look to do the same thing. The Government must decide whether they will close those loopholes and stand up for those workers, or whether they are prepared to see levels of discontent in our country that we have not seen in 50 years.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
We have heard some excellent speeches today from my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey), for Easington (Grahame Morris), for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) and for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh).
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden and her campaigning on this issue over the past six years. She was absolutely right to talk about the work she has done there and the long list of employers that have tried this before, many successfully, highlighting exactly why a change is needed. Time prevents me from mentioning every speech in detail, but I will refer to the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East—a powerful and deeply personal speech about why this situation matters so much to him. As we heard, he has been campaigning on these issues for years, and surely now we must all regret that the Government have failed to heed his warnings.
My hon. Friend called this action industrial vandalism, and that sums up the situation perfectly. What has happened to P&O workers is nothing short of a scandalous betrayal. Workers with families to support, bills to pay and lives to live had their plans upended in three minutes by an unscrupulous employer acting in the most cynical and calculating way. Every Member of this House should be united in condemning the brutality we have seen: thugs for hire, some wearing balaclavas and carrying handcuffs, turning up to boot people off the ship straight after they were sacked on a three-minute video call. If that is not bad enough, the pariahs responsible for this had already lined up cut-price workers at the dockside to replace them: workers who, let us be clear, are going to be paid at a rate that drives a coach and horses through the minimum wage laws. Those who have been sacked have also been threatened with losing what little compensation they have been offered if they talk to anyone about it, further compounding the sense of injustice they feel and further exposing the bully-boy tactics of their employer.
We need to be clear that this decision cannot stand. Unscrupulous employers cannot be given free rein to sack their workforce, destroying secure jobs and replacing them with cheap, insecure agency work. Such actions must have consequences. Every tool at the disposal of the state must be used to its maximum effect, because if one company can divest itself of responsibility for its workforce in such a callous, cynical and frankly offensive manner without a serious response from Government, then others will see that as a green light to do exactly the same. This must be a line in the sand.
Condemnation, while necessary, is insufficient, and condemnation after the event from a Government who knew it was about to happen is simply not good enough. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), a memo was circulated beforehand that makes it clear that the intention of P&O was to replace staff on lower terms and conditions, and with agency workers.
Justin Madders
I am sorry but I do not have time to give way.
That means that the Secretary of State should have known that this was not an ordinary redundancy situation. The memo also says that disruption was expected to last for 10 days. Why would there be disruption if normal consultation procedures had been followed? The Secretary of State himself said that previous redundancies had been made in the past few years and consultation procedures had been followed, but there was no disruption then, so it was absolutely clear that there was going to be something different this time. Despite those warnings, the Government could not find the time to make one single phone call before P&O went ahead with the sackings, neither to the company nor indeed to the trade unions. All the anguish, distress and heartbreak for these 800 families could have been avoided if Ministers had made the effort to contact P&O before it went ahead with its plan. Having said that, given that their first attempt at letter-writing to P&O after the horse had bolted was addressed to somebody who left the company last year, I do wonder how effective such interventions would have been. As we have heard, the Secretary of State’s big demand of P&O is that it change the name of the ship: absolutely pathetic.
The internal Government memo makes it clear that there is a level of acceptance that these measures are necessary to ensure that P&O can stay competitive, but paying workers well below the minimum wage is not being competitive; it is cheating the system. Sacking permanent staff and replacing them with agency workers is not being competitive; it is yet another example of a big company chipping away at job security and safety just to make a few extra quid.
Karl Turner
When I was on King George dock in Hull on Thursday, I met some of the new crew. They did not have a clue what they were doing there. They were told they were joining a brand-spanking-new vessel. They did not know they were there to take jobs. Does my hon. Friend want to say something about safety? Does he think that those new crew have been trained sufficiently—for example, in lifeboat practice and safety at sea? Those courses are absolutely crucial, not least given that a few days from now it is 36 years since the Herald of Free Enterprise went down.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has made another excellent point. There really are serious safety concerns. We have to be absolutely crystal clear that the Government are enforcing all safety checks, because people simply cannot get on to a ship without any experience or knowledge of it beforehand, and that certainly cannot be done with an entire crew while expecting things to run okay.
Justin Madders
No, I do not have time—I am sorry.
The memo that the Government issued makes it clear that they are content for companies to ride roughshod over good employment practice. The net result is that bad employers have been emboldened by how little this Government do to protect the rights of workers. They think they can abuse workers and get away with it because for 12 years this Government have allowed exploitative work models to grow unchecked. They have let fire and rehire practices proliferate entirely untouched by legislation. Yes, guidance has been issued by ACAS, but that has not changed the legal position one bit. It has merely restated the existing law, but that law has been shown to be hopelessly unbalanced against the worker, open to abuse, and totally unacceptable in 2022.
The Government have the power to institute criminal proceedings against directors for this—I can assure the House that those P&O staff being sacked last Thursday felt like criminals when they were confronted with security guards carrying handcuffs—but it is those responsible for the decisions who are the true lawbreakers. Exactly how many people in the past have been prosecuted and hit with those unlimited fines? If anyone has been successfully prosecuted and fined for breaching these rules, the Government have kept remarkably quiet about it. Let us hope that this time the threats made to P&O are not empty and the Government follow this right through to the end and actually make some noise about it. If that does not happen, they must understand that they continue to send the message to these bad employers that they can carry on with impunity and that this Government are more interested in protecting their own Back Benchers’ second jobs than everyone else’s first.
On the review of DP World contracts, when will the Minister be able to update the House on the outcome of that? Why are the Government still just considering removing P&O from Government advisory boards? Why have they not done it already? What more evidence do they need that P&O is totally unfit to be part of these bodies? Labour stands firmly with the P&O workers and the work being done by the RMT and north-west unions to stand up for them. Today we are asking all Members to join us in standing up with them and for the rights of all workers, who deserve security and respect in return for an honest day’s work.
This is an opportunity for us to really say what kind of country we want. Insecurity is baked into so many workplaces that it is little wonder that so many people feel a sense of helplessness and inevitability about what has happened in this case. But it does not have to be this way. Job security does not have to be out of reach to millions; it should be the basic cornerstone of any civilised society, and one building block of that has to be an end to fire and rehire.
The destructive combination of weak employment laws, opportunistic employers and an indifferent Government is leading to a race to a bottom, and it is time that race was stopped. It is in all our interests that we have strong workforce protections. A secure workforce is a productive workforce. It is good for employers and good for the economy. It creates a level playing field. Do we really think it is a healthy sign for our economy that the only way businesses think they can get ahead is for their staff to be paid £1.80 an hour and to live in a tent? Is that what we really want as a future for our country? Are we not here to try to improve the lives of the people we represent? Do we not think that security, fair pay and decency in the workplace are central to that?
For too long the pendulum has swung too far away from protection at work and too far into the hands of those who wish to exploit British workers. Changing that is a fundamental part of why Labour Members are here. We should not be bystanders but defenders of working people and workplace rights. If we let this go now, who will be next? Without job security, people have no security. We cannot—we must not—continue to allow the worst excesses of capitalism to stick two fingers up at the workers in this country. It is time that these disgusting practices met their end.
It is time that this place sent out a message—a message that was backed up by the full force of the law. We are not going to be the soft touch of Europe, we are not going to be the easiest of easy pickings for the billionaires who want to boost their profits still further, and we are not going to be a country where loyalty is rewarded with the sack and the race to the bottom is all that matters; we are going to be a country where employment protections have strength and meaning, where security, prosperity and respect run through every workplace like a golden thread, and where those who seek to undermine those values and rules are sent packing. I commend this motion to the House.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) for bringing this debate to the House; it is absolutely right and important that she has done so. We have heard many powerful and passionate speeches and I am grateful to all hon. Members who have contributed. The strength of feeling in this place is absolutely clear: P&O Ferries has conducted itself appallingly.
We are working to establish the facts of the case, but there can be no excuse for the way that workers have been treated. We have seen that P&O Ferries felt close enough to the UK to receive furlough payments, but not close enough to respect UK employment law. In Britain, we expect companies to treat their employees fairly. That is not just the right thing to do; that is the law.
P&O Ferries has dismissed 800 loyal and hard-working staff without any consultation or notice. Those workers have given many years of loyal service to the company, including playing a critical role during the covid pandemic and dedicating their time, skills and experience to P&O. They should feel proud of their contribution to society, but instead of being rewarded for their efforts, they have received a massive slap in the face from their employer at a particularly difficult time. My thoughts are with those people who have lost their jobs—people who have bills to pay and families to support. It will be a very worrying time for them and their loved ones.
Businesses have experienced a challenging time during the pandemic and many may continue to face financial pressures. To stay afloat, businesses sometimes need to make staffing changes and unfortunately redundancies are sometimes necessary, but UK workers benefit from robust protections in such circumstances. I will briefly explain how those protections should work.
Collective redundancy occurs when 20 or more employees may be made redundant at one establishment within a 90-day period. Employers have a statutory duty to consult employees’ representatives about proposed redundancies. The consultation should be of good time and good length depending on the number of redundancies proposed, must be completed before any dismissal notices can take effect, and must be entered into in good faith, which means that it should be undertaken with a view to reaching agreement with those representatives. The consultation should include a consideration of ways to avoid dismissals, reduce the number to be made redundant and mitigate the effect of the dismissals.
Those rules are not a suggestion; they are the law and must be followed. If the work has a sufficient connection to the UK, the workers will have the benefit of UK employment rights, irrespective of the terms of the contract. P&O Ferries has clearly been well aware of those requirements and its responsibility under the law, which is what makes the situation particularly scandalous.
We are taking the matter incredibly seriously. As we have heard, on Thursday, the Maritime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts), spoke with P&O and made the Government’s anger and disappointment absolutely clear. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport wrote to the chief exec of P&O last week to make it clear that the Government will review all current contracts with P&O and its owner DP World and will instruct the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to inspect all vessels before they return to service to ensure their safety.
Several hon. Members rose—
Paul Scully
I will not give way, but that reflects the contribution of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), who talked about the agency workers not knowing the vessels. I have no doubt that that will be picked up by the MCA on its inspection.
Paul Scully
I have not got time, because I want to ensure that I answer the questions before the Opposition Whips inevitably cut me off early.
With my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary, I wrote to the CEO of P&O Ferries on Friday to demand answers and explanations of its decisions and actions. Once we have established the exact facts of the case, we can determine whether employment laws have been broken here in the UK and take necessary further action if needed. P&O Ferries has until 5 pm tomorrow to respond to our questions and I absolutely expect it to meet that deadline. We have also asked the Insolvency Service to look at whether P&O Ferries breached the requirement to notify the Secretary of State in advance of making those redundancies. If we believe that it is in breach, we will not hesitate to take further action.
On fire and rehire, briefly, the P&O Ferries situation, unlike other examples that have been cited in this place over the last year or so, does not appear to be simply fire and rehire. It is worse; it seems to be just “fire”, without the required consultation, the required notice or any definite prospect of further employment—that is, no “rehire”. It appears that hard-working British workers were given no choice and no notice and were instead immediately dismissed. There are reports that they may be replaced by cheaper labour from overseas. As I have said, I have written to P&O to demand that it explains itself. We will determine what further action may be required based on a detailed assessment of the facts of the case.
P&O already has statutory obligations under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and the Employment Rights Act 1996—both of which were creations of a Conservative Government. It is highly likely that it has breached both under UK jurisdiction. Under sections 193 and 194 of the 1992 Act, any employer proposing to make 100 or more employees redundant has a duty to notify the Secretary of State no less than 40 days before any dismissal will take effect. It has not done that and we demand to know why. The point is that whatever P&O has done appears to be in breach of existing laws within US-UK jurisdiction—it is not because we have not passed new ones.
Karl Turner
I thank the Minister for giving way; I will be as quick as I can. It is no good quoting domestic legislation. The reality is this: P&O Ferries has done what it has done because it knows that the sanction is worth it. He needs to address the issue and tell it to reinstate the workers immediately.
Paul Scully
The sanction for P&O Ferries under that legislation is a criminal sanction and an unlimited fine, so I would be wary of it believing that the sanction is worth it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. A lot of questions have been asked during the debate. Do Members not want to hear the answers from the Minister?
Paul Scully
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will try to answer many of the questions that have been asked.
On fire and rehire, we heard an excellent speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris), who asked what action we will take. She knows that we have had many conversations. I look forward to coming back to update the House after recess with further measures that we may be able to take, reflecting our conversations, on tackling and strengthening our guidance and our rules about fire and rehire. That will indeed have an effect on tribunal findings against anybody who is doing the wrong thing in that regard.
We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke) about her standing up for her local workers and her local constituents. It is a shame that that was misrepresented in contributions from the Opposition. When she was talking about militant activism, she was clearly not talking about the people from the union who invited her or the workers who have lost their jobs. She was talking about the people who have been bussed in and have come in from outside to agitate. That is absolutely not appropriate and it is not appropriate for hon. Members to accept bullying when it suits them politically.
I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), who spoke about her port. I was at the Thames estuary with several representatives to look at Tilbury and the benefits that can come from the Thames freeport. She is absolutely right to make sure that she dissociates DP World from the rest of the great work that is going on in that area.
I want to accentuate what we heard from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport when he emphasised that P&O Ferries is not the same as P&O Cruises. I think P&O Cruises should be able to continue to do the great work it is doing without being tarred with the same brush as P&O Ferries, which has acted disgracefully.
From the contributions today, P&O should be in no doubt about the collective condemnation of its behaviour. It has lost the trust of the public and given business a bad name. It is not too late for it to undo some of this damage, and I implore it to get round the table with workers and unions to discuss this issue and find a way through. ACAS stands ready to help, and I know it has reached out both to the company and to the unions involved.
On the national minimum wage, which has been raised, individuals can contact ACAS if they feel they have not been paid the national minimum wage, but HMRC has an intelligence-led approach to enforcement, so please will everybody contact HMRC to make sure that it can look at any egregious abuses of the national minimum wage on the wider scale that has been outlined? In the meantime, the Government will act on any findings we discover from our conversations with the company.
This House should be left in no doubt but that this Government will always continue to stand behind workers, because it was a Conservative-led Government who banned exclusivity clauses in zero-hours contracts, a Conservative Government who introduced the national living wage, a Conservative Government who scrapped the Swedish derogation and a Conservative Government who extended the right to a day one statement of rights to all workers. I want to reassure P&O workers that this Government stand shoulder to shoulder with them, and we will hold P&O accountable for its actions.
Question put.
Cost of Living Increases: Pensioners
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House is concerned that older people and pensioners risk being at the sharp end of the cost of living crisis as a result of spiralling inflation, a lack of Government action on household energy bills, a poorly thought-through tax rise on older people in work and a real-terms reduction to the state pension; notes that the state pension is being cut in real-terms by hundreds of pounds a year and that working pensioners will begin paying the Health and Social Care Levy from next year; regrets that levels of pensioner poverty and pensioner debt have risen over the last decade even before the current cost of living crisis with almost one in five pensioners now living in poverty; and calls upon the Government to cut home energy bills, halt the planned tax rise on working pensioners and ensure older people are protected from the cost of living crisis.
In recent weeks I have had the privilege of travelling the country, and I have heard the most desperate stories from our elderly citizens and retirees trying to cope with the devastating cost of living crisis they face. In Swindon, a woman in her late 60s told me that she now never uses the oven and instead lives off sandwiches and cold meals to avoid the bills associated with switching on the cooker. I met a man who served this country in the RAF but who could not understand why, despite contributing so much to our nation, he has been given so little help as prices rise, energy bills rocket and his fixed income is stretched to the limit. At a food bank in Bury I heard how more and more older people who, wrongly in my view, feel there is shame in asking for handouts and are too proud to ask, now feel they have no choice but to go to a food bank and are now turning up there in ever greater numbers.
Age UK tells the story of Maureen, who says, in desperation:
“The pension goes up by pennies and bills go up by pounds, so the money in my pocket is getting less and less.”
Age UK also quotes Albert:
“I have to choose between eating and staying warm for some hours of the day. I forego social life in order not to fall behind with essential bills”.
These are not one-off stories: in every constituency there are thousands of Maureens and Alberts facing soaring inflation, sky-high energy bills, petrol prices through the roof, and price rises in the shops. The situation is desperate and the prospects are terrifying, and to say this is a struggle to make ends meet does not do justice to the scale of the crisis people are facing.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
To back up the right hon. Gentleman’s comments, I point out that 300,000 pensioners and people in Northern Ireland—18% of the population—are in absolute poverty. That is reflected right across the whole of the United Kingdom. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this situation has swept across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to such an extent that people now, as he rightly says, have to decide whether to eat or heat?
Jonathan Ashworth
My hon. Friend—I will call him a friend as a fellow Leicester City fan—speaks, as usual, with passion and eloquence on behalf of his constituents. The poverty we are now facing is so desperate and severe, and the destitution so acute, and it is felt across the whole of the United Kingdom. I hope Ministers respond to the representations we are making tonight, and I hope the Chancellor responds to them on Wednesday.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The right hon. Gentleman is making a very good case and illustrating the scale of the problem we face. Does he agree that since we now know that 40% of pensioners in this country will be forced into poverty for up to a year in any nine-year period, the Government should have listened to us when we said earlier in this Session that doing away with the triple lock even temporarily was a rash move, and that pensioners are now paying the price for that?
Jonathan Ashworth
The hon. Lady anticipates the meat of my speech and has put her point on the record with typical aplomb and eloquence.
Martin Lewis of Money Saving Expert has warned that he simply has no tools left to advise people on how to manage their finances; he said that people are literally going to have to “starve or freeze.” Let us look at the facts: 2 million pensioners in poverty and the number rising; 200,000 more pensioners falling into poverty in the last year; one in five people of pension age now living in poverty; and 1.4 million older people in England in fuel poverty, with tens of thousands more likely to be pushed into fuel poverty. As we also know that pensioners spend a significant proportion of their income on energy and food and the basic necessities of life, this is the moment when the Government should be helping the Maureens and Alberts in all our constituencies with extra help with the cost of living. But instead of helping those pensioners in every constituency, Ministers broke their promise on the triple lock and are forcing through deep real-terms cuts in the value of the basic state pension. When I meet and speak to pensioners across the country—older people who are struggling—there is deep despair, and indeed bewilderment, that the Government have abandoned them, having promised them so much.
In the general election campaign, the Prime Minister said:
“We will keep the triple lock, the winter fuel payment, the older person’s bus pass”
to help retirees with the cost of living. Yet just at the moment when pensioners are shivering in the cold, skipping hot meals and anxious and worried about paying the bills, rather than helping retirees with the cost of living, Ministers abandoned the triple lock, a broken promise that the former Conservative Pensions Minister, Baroness Altmann, warned would
“plunge more elderly people into poverty”.
She said:
“With rising energy costs, I fear many of the poorest will be even less able to afford to heat their homes adequately over the winter…To take away their much needed and promised protection, knowing inflation pressures are rising, seems unjustifiable”.
The former Conservative Pensions Minister was absolutely right.
I read recently—in the money section of The Daily Telegraph, no less—that
“pensioners will be worse off after the Chancellor capped the rise in the state pension…this will equate to pensioners taking a real terms cut of £7.45 a week, or £388 a year.”
That is a cut of around £30 a month. These are significant sums of money. Given that the state pension is the biggest source of income for most pensioners, and given that retired women in particular rely on the state pension and other benefits, such as pension credit, for over 60% of their retirement income, it will be retired women again who are disproportionately hit by this deep cut to the basic state pension.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that it is a disgrace that the Government have broken their triple lock promise. The Red Book shows a transfer of £31 billion over this Parliament from the pockets of pensioners to the Treasury—a disgrace. Given the point he is making, should the Labour motion not have demanded the immediate reinstatement of the triple lock? That is the one thing that I am concerned is missing from the motion we are debating.
Jonathan Ashworth
We are making clear our commitment to the triple lock in the remarks that I am making at the Dispatch Box.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the speech that he is making. When the Government made their decision about the triple lock, we were not facing the energy crisis that we are facing today. Bearing in mind that older people expend at least twice as much energy because they are at home for more hours, and that we are starting to hear of cases of people dying of hypothermia, should not the Government not only reinstate the triple lock but underpin energy bills?
Jonathan Ashworth
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have so many pensioners in poverty, and many of them are living in inadequate, cold, damp homes that they cannot afford to heat. We know that we have considerable excess deaths every winter due to issues associated with hypothermia and so on, because so many pensioners live in cold, damp homes. Frankly, that costs the NHS more in the long run, so the economics of this are completely self-defeating.
What was the Government’s justification for breaking the triple lock even though pensioner poverty is increasing, as it was before the pandemic? Ministers said that the £5 billion cost was unaffordable. So the Chancellor took £5 billion off pensioners and then a month later, in his Budget, gave away billions in alcohol duty cuts and cuts to the bank levy—literally making it cheaper for the bankers to booze on bubbly on the back of making pensioners poorer. It is a disgrace.
Let us be clear: the reason Ministers are not increasing the pension sufficiently is not that the Government lack the money, but that they lack the political will. That is why older people are now asking whether the Government will break their promise on the triple lock next year too. Last year, Ministers rejected the 8.3% rise and refused even to explore alternative measures of wage growth, but they insisted that that was a one-off and that they would honour the triple lock throughout this Parliament. The Bank of England warns that inflation could reach 8% this year. I asked the Secretary of State at questions earlier whether she would rule out breaking the triple lock for a second year in a row. She did not give that guarantee at the Dispatch Box, so I ask her again: can she confirm that the triple lock will be honoured for the rest of this Parliament? Does she want to answer that? She did not do so at questions earlier.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
The right hon. Gentleman asked multiple questions earlier and I answered at least one of them, but the answer is yes, I do make that commitment.
Jonathan Ashworth
I have secured my first U-turn in the role, Madam Deputy Speaker. Does that not just show that we in the Opposition stand up for Britain’s pensioners? I asked the Secretary of State a very simple question earlier—whether she would commit to the triple lock—and she did not say yes. I am pleased that she has now cleared up the muddle she got herself in earlier, but given the other commitments—[Interruption.] The Pensions Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman)—says Ministers have said it repeatedly, but they all stood on a manifesto saying they were going to keep the triple lock. I say to him that his commitment to the triple lock might not be worth the paper it is written on, given that he broke his manifesto commitment.
While I am talking about the Pensions Minister, he told the House in September, in seeking to justify breaking the triple lock, that the Government would
“ensure pensioners’ spending power is preserved and that they are protected from higher costs of living.”
Does any Tory Member really believe that that ministerial promise has remotely been met? Of course it has not.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
I wonder whether my right hon. Friend could secure another U-turn from Ministers, on the national insurance rise for working pensioners.
Jonathan Ashworth
My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Pensions Minister, who will sum up the debate later, promised—these are his words—that the Government would preserve pensioners’ spending power and protect them from the higher cost of living. On the same day that the Government broke the triple lock, they introduced the national insurance increase, a proportion of which, for the first time, will be paid by working pensioners. Indeed, a working pensioner on average earnings will lose out by £1,400 over two years. That is not protecting pensioners’ spending power or protecting them from the higher cost of living.
Have pensioners been protected from the higher cost of living through energy bills? Next month, we will see energy bills rise by 54%—£700 on average. In October, there is likely to be another 25% rise. All the Government are offering is a £150 rebate this April—although it is not clear whether they will guarantee that for pensioners who do not pay council tax or who get council tax benefit—followed by a loan that has to be paid back through a £40 levy. That £350, £200 of which has to be paid back, will be totally wiped out by the £388 real-terms cut to the basic state pension. That is not protecting older people from the higher cost of living or preserving their spending power; I suggest it is more like daylight robbery.
We have already said that pensioners are going to be paying more in tax, but what about pension credit, which featured in the exchanges earlier? About 850,000 pensioners eligible for pension credit are going without it. That is £1.7 billion unclaimed—something like £1,900 for every qualifying household that is losing out. As Members across the House have pointed out, pension credit often unlocks other benefits, such as free TV licences—obviously, the Government cut those and changed their financing—council tax benefit and so on. Now Ministers are praying in aid the pension credit guarantee as justification for their real-terms cut in the value of the state pension. They do not mention very often that pension credit was a Labour policy, which they criticised when we introduced it. Indeed, if my memory serves me correctly, they also opposed its precursor, the minimum income guarantee, and even voted against it. They do not mention that, but given that pension credit uptake is so poor, if they drove it up they could lift 440,000 older people out of poverty.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I very much agree with the point that my right hon. Friend is making. Pension credit, introduced in 2003, has been a powerful lever for tackling pensioner poverty. Does he agree that the Government should set an ambitious target for increasing the take-up of pension credit so that the number of people who benefit substantially increases?
Jonathan Ashworth
Yes, I do. My right hon. Friend, who was a first-class Pensions Minister and Chief Secretary to the Treasury, will remember being at the Government Dispatch Box when shadow Secretaries of State for Work and Pensions from the Tory party criticised pension credit and opposed the minimum income guarantee, saying that it was an extension of means-testing and undermined the universal basic state pension. Now, today, they are using pension credit to justify a £388 real-terms cut in the value of the basic state pension. I hope that the very sensible recommendation by my right hon. Friend, the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, is taken up by the Secretary of State, and that she responds to him when she speaks.
Of course, Ministers should be moving heaven and earth to drive up take-up, but the Pensions Minister revealed earlier this afternoon that, instead, we have a letter writing campaign. Writing to local newspapers—that is his plan to drive up uptake of pension credit. When pensioners cannot afford their heating bills and cannot afford to eat—when pensioners cannot afford the basic necessities of life—rather than taking action, all he does is write to local newspapers. What is he doing? Is he expecting pensioners to burn the papers to keep themselves warm? I am told he has written to the Leicester Mercury. Well, I have been looking at his local paper, the Hexham Courant. I cannot actually see his letter in it, but I can see that it is warning that
“Thousands in the North East to miss out on automatic £150 rebate…MORE than 320,000 households across the North-East will not automatically receive a £150 council tax rebate…and 40,000 in Northumberland”.
Many of them will be pensioners. May I suggest that he sorts out his own backyard before gracing the pages of my paper, the Leicester Mercury?
There is one other area where I think the Minister needs to show greater urgency in supporting the United Kingdom’s pensioners and I would be grateful if the Secretary of State responded in detail to the points I have made. She will know that the underpayment of the basic state pension to around 135,000 pensioners, the vast majority of whom are women, has been a scandal. I pay tribute to the former Liberal Democrat Pensions Minister, Sir Steve Webb, the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) and the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), who have all shone a light on that.
The Department has allocated £1 billion and estimates that approximately 118,000 pensioners will be traced and could receive around £8,900 by the time the payments are made. So far, so good. But the last time Ministers provided updated figures, in autumn, they had paid out just £60 million to just under 10,000 people, so £900 million is outstanding. When we are in a cost of living crisis, should not the Department be showing greater urgency? When will the other £900 million be paid? The Secretary of State will know that there are stories of the DWP helpline giving inaccurate information and false assurances, forcing pensioners to keep living on less. There is no information available as far as I can see on how lump sums will impact on capital limits and the consequent impact on other entitlements, such as to social care. Divorced women have been excluded from the whole exercise on the basis that it does not think there are enough errors to be worth doing, even though there are cases of divorced women where errors have been made and it has had to pay out thousands in back payments.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Two weeks ago, during my absence with covid, a private Member’s Bill was presented which called specifically for divorced women to no longer be excluded and receive more than an apology. Will the shadow Secretary of State indicate whether he would support that Bill?
Jonathan Ashworth
Without having read the details, it sounds like a very sensible Bill. I look forward to reading the details. At first sight, it certainly has my strong encouragement.
Jim Shannon
I was doing some research beforehand and I see that there is an older people’s commissioner for Scotland, for Wales and for Northern Ireland, but not one for England. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the Age UK campaign for an older people’s commissioner for England? Does he think the Minister should do that? It would help older people in England, so does he think the Government should do it?
Jonathan Ashworth
Typically, the hon. Gentleman, my friend and fellow Leicester City fan, makes a very wise and astute recommendation. I hope the Secretary of State takes it up. It would certainly have my strong encouragement.
I hope the Secretary of State can provide an answer for why divorced women are excluded. It seems utterly unfair, particularly given the desperate cost of living crisis. Secondly, when the Department makes a lump sum payment it is normal to pay interest, so why is it not paying interest on those payments? I encourage the Secretary of State to explain when she is going to get on and fix that. The Chair of the Public Accounts Committee said this process has become a “shameful shambles”. Given the scale of the cost of living crisis, can she tell us when Ministers will finally fix this shameful shambles?
Of course, there are other scandals that need fixing, too. We know about the Allied Steel and Wire steelworkers who have not got their full entitlement, or the thousands of members of the British Steel pension scheme, who incurred massive losses because of failures in pension regulation and protections on this Government’s watch. Whether it is working pensioners, women pensioners, steelworkers or anyone who relies on the state pension as their main source of income, the Government have let them down.
Our retired constituents worked hard all their lives, paid their national insurance, served our country and contributed to our communities. They deserve security and dignity in retirement. Instead, what we get is the state pension cut in real terms, the triple lock abandoned, energy bills unaffordable, pensioner poverty increasing and retirees robbed. We need a plan to get energy bills down and halt the tax rises that are coming, and a plan to ensure that all pensioners are protected from this devastating cost of living crisis. I commend our motion to the House.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. To be clear, there have been no U-turns. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) was not intentionally misleading the House when he suggested there was. I am again happy to put on record that the triple lock will be honoured in the future.
The Government have always supported pensioners and will continue to do so, whether through the significant increase in pension rates since we took office in 2010, or the creation of a new, simpler state pension which is better for women and reduces the need to consider top-ups through pension credit. I recognise the No. 1 concern in many people’s minds right now is the rising cost of living and its impact on their household budgets. The unique set of global circumstances that have come together to drive up inflation are largely factors beyond the control of the Government, such as the knock-on effect of covid on the global supply chain and the impact of Putin’s despicable invasion of Ukraine. These items are set out in a letter from the Governor of the Bank of England to the Chancellor, as the Bank of England is charged with achieving the 2% inflation target.
However, we are taking decisive action to cushion the impact of price rises on people’s pockets, providing £21 billion of support over this year and the next. That is particularly true for people on low and fixed incomes. Help is already on hand through the household support fund, which is still accessible through people’s local council, and we are taking further action on rising household energy bills. The £9 billion energy package announced by the Chancellor last month will benefit the vast majority of households, including pensioners, with a £150 discount on council tax for those living in property bands A to D, or the £144 million discretionary fund that is available through local councils. In addition, the £200 rebate on energy bills this year will help to spread the costs of the expected increase over the next few years. I recognise that that will still need to be repaid.
Alan Brown
Of what the Secretary of State calls the £9 billion package, how much is provided by the Treasury and how much is a loan to consumers that has to be paid back?
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Dr Coffey
No, I will not.
The extra support is on top of a range of existing help for pensioners, including: winter fuel payments, which support over 11 million pensioners’ energy bills and is worth about £2 billion every year; cold weather payments, ensuring pensioners in need keep warm during the colder months; and the warm home discount, which we are extending until 2026, including expanding it to more recipients of pension credit, namely those who receive the savings credit element and live in a home with high energy costs. I am conscious that the warm home discount is a spreading of support towards people in this vulnerable cohort, but nevertheless it is thanks to Government intervention that that is the case. As a result, the number of households benefiting from the warm home discount will increase by almost a third, to 3 million—up from nearly 1 million at the moment—with the vast majority getting their payment automatically with no need to apply. Together, I think that will be welcomed by many people, recognising the extra support that people who are not currently eligible today will receive later this year.
Emma Hardy
I want to raise a point about prepayment meters. A written question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy—admittedly, this Secretary of State represents a different Department—asked how people on prepayment meters would receive the £200 discount, many of whom happen to be pensioners. The answer, given on 25 February, was:
“BEIS will consult in the spring.”
It seems that the Government do not have a plan for how to refund the money to those on prepayment meters, but I hope that the Secretary of State can update us.
Dr Coffey
The hon. Lady asks a valid question. As I have said to the House before, tackling the cost of living and poverty more broadly is shared across Government. Although that may come under our umbrella—recognising our general role in support through the welfare system—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy leads particularly on items to do with energy and fuel poverty more broadly. I will ask him to contact her.
That leads me on to pension credit, which has been highlighted as a passport to a range of other benefits, including free TV licences, help with council tax and NHS dental treatment. Together, those are making a real difference, reflecting the Government’s commitment to supporting pensioners and continuing the work of successive Governments since 2010—when the Conservatives took office—to tackle and alleviate pensioner poverty.
The facts speak for themselves. The latest figures show that 200,000 fewer pensioners are in absolute poverty than in 2010, with levels of material deprivation having fallen from 10% to 6%, a record low. It is because of our commitment over that time and policies such as the triple lock that, from next month, the full yearly basic state pension will be more than £2,300 higher in cash terms than it was in 2010. In fact, no Government have paid more to pensioners than we will this year: £105 billion alone through the state pension. When we include all the other pensioner benefits, that rises to £129 billion a year.
Our aim over the two years of the pandemic has been to give fairness to pensioners and taxpayers, recognising what has happened with covid. For 2021-22, we protected the value of the state pension by legislating to secure and increase the state pension by 2.5%, despite a decline in earnings and inflation rising by just 0.5%. Had we not acted, the state pension, by law, would have remained frozen. Again, through the Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Act 2021, which Parliament passed last November, we legislated to temporarily suspend the earnings part of the triple lock in 2022-23 for one year. As I outlined at the time, that was in response to exceptional circumstances caused by the distorting effects of the pandemic on the earnings statistics.
Pensions will still rise by 3.1% next month. That reflects the inflation index that has been used consistently for many years, so over the past two years, pensions will have risen by a total of 5.6%. Next year, we will return to implementing the triple lock in the usual way for the remainder of the Parliament. I reinforce that full commitment, and whatever the right hon. Member for Leicester South may suggest—he may be trying to score points on politics, which, as the shadow Secretary of State he is absolutely entitled to do—I want to make sure that he avoids scaremongering.
Alan Brown
I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to reinstating the triple lock. Given that the Chancellor said this time that 8% was unaffordable and that that was £30 billion that we could not afford, is she saying that if inflation is at 8% when the Government do the measurement, they suddenly can afford to pay the £30 billion to pensioners?
Dr Coffey
I am not aware of any Minister trying to say to people that we did this because it was unaffordable. As a result of the pandemic, there was a statistical anomaly relating to earnings. We also understand the balance relating to intergenerational fairness, as has been outlined. At the time, however, we very much highlighted the statistical anomaly.
As a result of our actions, I believe that the state pension continues to be a strong foundation from which people can build additional savings for their retirement. We are seeing a thriving private and workplace pensions market, fuelled by the success of automatic enrolment, which transformed pension savings for more than 10.5 million workers. That is creating even firmer foundations for a robust pension system to ensure that not just today’s pensioners, but those of future generations are protected and supported. I know that, as a country, we will continue to build on the progress that we have made over the last 12 years under Conservative Governments, so that in the next 12 years, and in decades to come, pensioners will be able to enjoy a secure and dignified retirement.
We also know that a minority of pensioners choose to stay working beyond the standard retirement age. They do not pay the standard employees’ national insurance on their earnings, even though employers do if they earn above the threshold. As for the NHS and social care levy being introduced through national insurance, it is appropriate for anyone working at all, including pensioners, to contribute, bearing in mind that they will do so only if their earnings are at or above the regular threshold. I believe that will be about £190 a week, which is close to nearly £10,000 in earnings a year.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
My right hon. Friend rightly points out that many pensioners are indeed working. What does she have to say about how the announced increase in the living wage to £9.50 will benefit pensioners?
Dr Coffey
Any uplift in the national living wage is welcome to anybody still working. Our normal practice on standard national insurance for employees is that once someone reaches pension age, their take-home pay will be automatically higher than somebody else under the age of retirement, if they are doing the same job on the same salary. However, this levy is important to make sure that we get the funding for the NHS backlogs and for the future stability of the social care system.
Let me turn to pension credit. We have heard about the success of the private pensions sector and some of the uplift for people who are still working. It is good for those still saving for their futures, but understandably, the House wants to know what we are doing for the poorest pensioners now. We had a bit of a history lesson about how pension credit was introduced under the Labour Government in 2003, as the right hon. Member for Leicester South said. Let us go back a bit earlier in history: it was only a few years beforehand that the Labour Administration raised pensions by 75p. I think the House will probably recognise that pension credit was introduced directly as a consequence of the impact of what happened with that very modest increase in pensions.
Various funds have been open to pensioners in the past year, including the household support fund, and I encourage people to approach their local council for support.
Stephen Timms
As the Secretary of State knows, about a third of those who are eligible for pension credit do not receive it at the moment. She told us earlier that there is an action plan to improve that. Will she publish that action plan and include in it an ambitious target for increasing the take-up of pension credit?
Dr Coffey
The Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee slightly pre-empts where I am heading with pension credit in my speech.
On the household support fund, within the lifetime of the Government, we have introduced a higher basic state pension so that, increasingly, pensioners are not required to resort to applying for pension credit. However, pension credit, the pension financial safety net, is helping to support those with the lowest retirement incomes. Worth on average over £3,000 a year, some 1.4 million pensioners already claim it, receiving collectively an extra £5 billion in support. As I mentioned, given that pension credit is a passport to other financial help, we want to make sure that everyone who is entitled to it claims it.
Our estimate of pension credit take-up is based on a combination of what information we have on pensioner income and analysis from the family resources survey. That suggests that more people can claim than is the case now, particularly for those eligible for the savings credit element, where we have the lowest take-up. The Minister responsible for pensions, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), and my noble Friend the Minister in the Lords—Baroness Stedman-Scott—have been striving to increase take-up. They undertook a big awareness day last year and they are continuing that work. This is the plan, I say to hon. Gentlemen.
We will continue to promote the take-up of pension credit. As has been highlighted, the Minister responsible for pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham, has raised awareness through local newspapers. We will send 11 million leaflets to pensioners with their annual state pension uprating letter and we will continue to work with the BBC, financial institutions, Age UK and many other organisations to raise awareness. The latest estimates show that uptake is increasing. We know from internal management information that the number of new applications last year is estimated to have been 30% higher than in 2019, so our efforts are working. I hope that this latest effort will also bear fruit.
Rachael Maskell
I chair the all-party parliamentary group for ageing and older people, which has just had an inquiry into the matter. One thing we suggested was that, since a lot of older people visit their GP at some point, GPs should be active in asking their patients whether they are eligible for pension credit. That would help them to claim the benefits that they should be able to attain.
Dr Coffey
The hon. Lady raises a valid point. I know that we have had paid advertising in post offices and in GPs’ waiting areas in the past; doctors often tell us that they do not necessarily like to be attached to benefit claiming and similar matters, but I hear what the hon. Lady says, and my understanding is that we intend to resume that contact. I have also asked the leading pharmacy chains to be involved, because that is often a more regular way in which people get help. We will try different outlets, in addition to those we have tried in the past, to make people more aware of the potential opportunities.
Dr Coffey
The hon. Lady has already made one intervention, and I want to make some progress.
The right hon. Member for Leicester South asked about issues relating to state pension underpayment. I give credit to my hon. Friend the pensions Minister, who has rolled up his sleeves and really got stuck in. We have 500 people working on the state payment exercise, and before the end of the year we are aiming to have up to 1,500 people getting on with it. There will be an update after the fiscal statement; we have always said that we would give updates more or less in line with it, so the right hon. Member for Leicester South will have to be slightly patient. This issue has been going on for some considerable time. There was an element of shambles in previous Administrations, which was not helped by the 2008 reforms. I respect the former Minister Steve Webb, but he did not find this element at all in his five years as pensions Minister—not even when he was going through the whole process of creating a brand-new state pension. We are getting on with this element, which was not discovered until recently, and we will get on with the job and sort it out.
When we say that we are committed to tackling pension poverty, we mean it, and we have the track record to back it up. On Wednesday, it will have been two years since we took unprecedented action to lock down the country to protect lives. We invested in vaccines and subsequently rolled out the biggest and most successful vaccination programme in the history of the NHS, prioritising pensioners. Today, as we start inviting the over-75s to get their spring covid booster, we want to encourage pensioners to consider getting the boost to their income that pension credit could provide. With the wider range of financial and other support that we are providing, we are doing our best to help to ease the current cost of living squeeze.
We must unite as a House to get more pensioners to access the support that is available. While I am conscious that many people will think that there is more to do, we can do it only if all MPs in this House make a commitment to their pensioners—I look forward to their doing so—to continue to provide as much information as possible.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Hon. Members can see how many colleagues want to participate in the debate, so from the outset they should be thinking about keeping their contributions to about five minutes.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
It is kind of a pleasure to follow the Secretary of State, but I have to say, not for the first time, that I am a wee bit puzzled, because she seemed to be responding to a different debate from the one we are having. The shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), set out some clear and harrowing examples of people who are really struggling, yet the Secretary of State gave a pre-prepared speech about a secure and dignified retirement tomorrow, ignoring the here and now.
Talking about how this Government have paid the most in pensions ever does not cut it. Those statistics are fine, but they do not help pensioners who are really struggling. That point needs to be taken on board. I asked about the £9 billion package that the Secretary of State cited, but she was not sure how much of it was Treasury-funded and how much was a loan to bill payers. I can tell her that out of that £9 billion, roughly £5.6 billion is just a loan to bill payers that will have to be paid back—bill payers who include struggling pensioners.
On pension credit, the Secretary of State picked up on what the pensions Minister—the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman)—said earlier, bragging about how the Government are writing to local papers. When the shadow Secretary of State called them out on it, however, the Minister shouted, “Oh, we’ve done that for years!” If it has been done for years and there is still £4 billion of unclaimed pension credit, it is clearly not working. It is quite clear that another strategy is needed to make sure that there is a far greater uptake of pension credit, which can then be a passport to other benefits.
I welcome this debate. The motion combines the key issues for pensioners in the ongoing cost of living crisis: rising energy costs, real-terms cuts to pensions and, for older people in work, the health and social care levy. Where I disagree slightly with the shadow Secretary of State, which is why I intervened on him, is that I think that the motion could have been stronger in explicitly demanding the reinstatement of the pensions triple lock.
Earlier today, the pensions Minister stated that pensioner poverty has fallen, but as I tried to point out, the Government’s own statistics on households below average income show that UK pension poverty has risen to a 15-year high under Tory rule. Some 2.1 million UK pensioners—18%—are now living in poverty after housing costs, an increase of 200,000 people on 2018-19. Sadly, that was the figure before the latest energy cap rise was announced, so it will massively increase unless there is proper Government intervention. It is worrying that the Minister is trying to argue something different; either he is ignorant of the facts or he does not care. The Government really need to pay attention and start intervening.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is making a terrific point about the poverty that is affecting pensioners just now. Does he agree that the effect is disproportionately felt by pensioners living in off-gas grid households? Last year, heating fuel was 42p a litre; it is now £1.25 a litre and rising. There is going to be a really dramatic effect on pensioners in those areas.
Alan Brown
I completely agree. I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting that point; he has been at the forefront of the campaign to highlight the effects of increased energy costs on those who are off the gas grid. That threefold increase in fuel costs is completely unsustainable and really does lead people to the choice between heating and eating.
Let us look at conventional households covered by the energy cap. Next month, the cost of energy for the average household will have increased by 75% compared with April 2021, a rise of more than £800 a year. Pensioners spend more time in their homes and are more likely to feel the effects of cold or damp, so increased energy costs disproportionally hit the elderly. Not being able to afford to heat their homes puts their health more at risk. There are already something like 10,000 premature deaths a year due to fuel poverty, and that was before the huge energy cost increases. It is truly shameful that in an energy-rich country, or group of nations, people are dying prematurely because they cannot afford to heat their homes.
National Energy Action has estimated that the cap increase will have caused a 33% increase in fuel poverty rates. If this rise continues without Government interventions, come October we will be looking at some 8 million fuel-poor households in the UK, with perhaps between 2.5 million and 3 million of those households containing pensioners. When we look beyond the phrase “heating or eating”, we see that the grim reality for people faced with that choice is starving or freezing or suffering in damp houses, and that brings us back to the possibility of more people dying prematurely. It is truly shameful.
The interventions that the Government have announced to date clearly do not go far enough. Even worse, the removal of the triple lock is taking more than £500 a year from the pockets of pensioners, as the Government’s own Red Book demonstrates. Earlier today and this evening, Tory Ministers were arguing that wage increases were a false measurement owing to the partial recovery from covid. They have used that to justify breaking the triple lock. Just four months on, however, we have evidence that a much larger pension increase than 3.1% is required. The facts are clear: the spring statement in two days’ time will provide the one opportunity to reinstate the triple lock, or at least, as a bare minimum, to introduce a mechanism for increasing pensions by 6.1% in line with the current rate of inflation and what the Scottish Government are doing with benefits.
It was good to hear the Secretary of State guarantee that if inflation is at 7% or 8% later in the year, at the point when calculations are being made for the purpose of future uprating, pensions will rise by that amount. I hope that the Government stick to that, and it is not just bluster at the Dispatch Box. We all know who pulls the strings; it tends to be the Chancellor, so I hope that the Secretary of State is lobbying the Chancellor, because we know that inflation is not going to go down any time soon.
While I am talking about inadequate measures, let me point out that the £150 rebate on council tax will not catch all pensioner households in terms of bandings; and, as the shadow Secretary of State said, many pensioners living alone or in receipt of pension credit already receive a full or partial council tax discount, and are therefore unlikely to benefit from the new council tax rebate measure unless the Government do something about it. Making others who have avoided debt all their lives take out a £200 loan to pay back later is also morally wrong. That loan should be converted to a grant for all, and certainly, as the bare minimum, for pensioners and those on benefits.
The Secretary of State spoke about the warm home discount, but, as she knows, the Government put no money into that scheme, although too many Ministers do not even understand that; it is actually paid for by other bill payers. While I welcome the extension of the discount to 3 million households, only 10% more pensioners will receive it. The Government should extend it further, but, in doing so, should provide some direct funding rather than imposing the funding on other bill payers. They should also consider extending the energy company obligation scheme so that more homes become energy-efficient, but that too should involve direct funding rather than other bill payers having to foot the bill.
Apart from the £150 funded rebate, the only direct Government intervention to date on energy has been the allocation of £1.7 billion for the development of Sizewell C. Not content with Hinkley Point C being the most expensive power station in the world, the Tories are determined to build another more expensive one. In their own impact assessment for the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill, the upper estimate of the capital and financing costs of the Sizewell C development is £63 billion. How will that help people who need energy costs to come down? And why did Labour vote to commit bill payers to that amount for a new nuclear power station? The money could be spent so much more wisely. There really needs to be a rethink on this nuclear policy.
There are other cost increases to be considered. For instance, the cost of food is rocketing.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
I note the hon. Gentleman’s opposition to the gaining of low-carbon energy from nuclear. He has also told us that this is an energy-rich country. What does he think the Government should do with the Cambo oilfield? Should we open it up to reduce energy prices for pensioners?
Alan Brown
The hon. Gentleman is not comparing like with like. Cambo means more fossil fuel extraction, and there needs to be a proper assessment to establish whether this could be done in a way that is compatible with net zero. That is a test that the Government are refusing to apply. Apart from that, they should be investing much more in floating offshore wind, in tidal stream, in which Scotland leads the world, and in pumped- storage hydro, which is a dispatchable low-carbon technology. That scheme is ready to go, but the Government have not agreed a pricing mechanism. Then there is carbon capture and storage at Peterhead, in which respect Scottish customers have been let down again. So much more could be done in energy, and it would not cover even a portion of that £63 billion that has been allocated to nuclear. More energy efficiency reduces demand, and therefore reduces the need for new power generation. I hope I have answered the hon. Gentleman’s question.
Alan Brown
Yes!
Returning to fossil fuel, obviously petrol and diesel prices have increased massively at the pump. They have gone up by between 35p and 40p a litre compared with a year ago—a 30% increase. That also means that while people struggle to run their cars, VAT returns to the Treasury have increased massively. The current rates compared with last year mean that the Treasury is getting something like £3 billion a year extra in VAT returns, but that should be recirculated to support hard-pressed people, especially pensioners. It seems that the Chancellor may respond to calls to cut fuel duty, but if he does, he will be demonstrating the folly of a 12-year duty freeze. When we had lower prices, that was the time when bolder action could have been taken to raise fuel duty, so that when fuel prices increased in the way they have, fuel duty could have been decreased. That would have created a much smoother curve, instead of peaks and troughs, and the Treasury would have had a far more stable income as well.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
I am just trying to understand the hon. Gentleman’s policy. Is it genuinely his policy to raise fuel duty? That is the impression he has just given.
Alan Brown
I repeat that the time to be bold and increase fuel duty would have been when fuel prices were at a record low. That would not have had the same impact on people’s pockets. The current rise is unsustainable—[Interruption.] The Minister did not listen to what I said. This here-and-now policy from the Government is unsuitable; it should involve bolder long-term planning. Had they raised fuel duty earlier when prices were lower, they could have reinvested the revenue in public transport and in creating money for a rainy day, like right now.
Drew Hendry
Is it not a fact that pensioners and other people could have been helped greatly in this fuel crisis, had the Government listened and introduced a fuel duty regulator, which would have regulated the price and ensured that fuel was affordable for people just now?
Alan Brown
Absolutely. My hon. Friend has made my point much better than I was making it myself, and I appreciate that. A fuel duty regulator is exactly what would have given better stability for the Treasury and for people’s pockets.
Looking at other windfalls the Treasury receives, we see a VAT windfall from the £800 increase in average household bills. That is well over another £1 billion coming into the Treasury coffers. The Treasury is also benefiting from increased oil and gas revenues. The last Budget predicted an extra £6 billion in oil and gas revenues in this Parliament compared with the March 2021 Budget, but given the sustained period of increased prices, that £6 billion will prove to be an underestimate. That is more money that should have been reinvested.
I know that Labour has targeted a windfall tax on the oil and gas companies, but that sounds a wee bit like raiding the one traditional cash cow. Why do we not, as the SNP motion suggested last week, look at this in the round? Why do we not target all sectors or companies that have benefited disproportionately from the pandemic, and in particular the new-start companies and the Tory crony companies that were awarded PPE contracts and that have realised record profits since? That is a real obscenity that should be targeted. Anyone who has read Private Eye and seen the eye-watering sums that those companies have made should be truly horrified.
I want to highlight some additional measures in Scotland where the SNP Government are providing mitigation for pensioners, but even the powers the Scottish Government have are nowhere near enough to make the transformational changes that we want. Older people in Scotland get their bus passes at the age of 60, instead of having to wait until the state pension age. They also have universal free prescriptions and are more likely to have had targeted energy efficiency measures for their homes. All charitable organisations in this sector, as well as the energy companies themselves, want the UK Government to follow the lead of the Scottish Government in making energy efficiency a national infrastructure programme. The low-income winter heating assistance will give around 400,000 low-income households a guaranteed £50 payment every winter instead of the complicated UK cold weather payment of just £25.
Guy Opperman
I am just trying to understand the hon. Gentleman’s speech. Is it still SNP policy that, post-independence, the rest of the UK would have to pay for Scottish pensions? He seems to be unclear on that, and I just want to be utterly clear.
Alan Brown
I am not sure how I can have been unclear when I have not mentioned it. The Minister is listening to a different speech—that is simply not what I have in front of me. This is very interesting. First, on day one of independence, Scotland can afford pensions. Right now, we collect about £11.5 billion in national insurance contributions. Pension payments are about £8.5 billion, so that is a £3 billion surplus right away to cover other payments from national insurance contributions. On day one, we can afford it. If we are supposed to be a Union of equals, it is very strange that we are being told not, “Stay with us because we value you,” but, “Stay with us because we are threatening you.” A DWP official publication from 2014 says that there is an historical precedent for dealing with this, with historical credits being built up in pension payments. So in 2014 the DWP actually stated that there is a solution, but obviously the Minister has conveniently forgotten that.
Perhaps this is a good time to finish. The Minister’s intervention shows that after 315 years of the Union, Scotland needs full independence as a means of counteracting this present-time dystopia, which Labour has also recognised and sought to address today.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. We should reiterate the points we have been making since the uprating orders. It is clear that, for people living on a fixed income like a pension, with no prospect of earning any more, a state pension increase of 3% is not going to be enough to get them all the way through until April 2023. The Government are going to have to find a way to do more to help people over the next 15 months; otherwise, they simply will not be able to make ends meet.
I regret that the motion does not set out specific policies that the Opposition would like the Government to introduce. Instead, it gives a slightly convoluted tour through history, but I think that the Government’s record of support for pensioners over the past 12 years is pretty good, with the new single-tier state pension and the triple lock. Over the past decade, I do not recall there being many calls for more support for people over retirement age. The demands have been, probably quite rightly, on behalf of people of working age. Equally, I am not convinced that it is logical to say that somebody over the state pension age who is still working should pay a lower tax rate than a young person with a young family who is trying to pay a mortgage and all the bills. People who are still earning after retirement should not pay national insurance on their state pension or other pensions, but I am not convinced that it is sensible that they do not pay it on earnings over £9,000 year. We need to find money to pay for bills and for more social care, which will no doubt be used by people over the state pension age before those of working age. I am not sure that that is the right tack to set our face against.
I want to talk about two practical things that the Government could do to help over the next 15 months or so. The first is on pension credit, which has been discussed. We clearly need to ensure that all those who are entitled to it are getting it, but I am not sure why the Government have set their face against a target. In any large organisation, we usually find that what gets measured gets done and that when there is a target, people will try to achieve it. I understand that there is reluctance because we might not hit the target and that that is embarrassing when we measure it, but I think that the embarrassment is far less than the effect of not getting a substantial increase in pension credit take-up. During the pandemic, when the then Health and Social Care Secretary set his target for 200,000 tests a day, it got done by the end of that month, and he himself would say that without having set that stretch target, it would not have got done. Let us have that target. Let us work out what is realistic and reasonable, and then drive the system to achieve it. I think that would help make serious progress.
The second thing that the Government should look at is how to give people on a pension more income before April 2023. The Chancellor seems to like doing one-off payments. I understand that. If we think it is a short-term blip of a crisis, the effects of which might go to into reverse, that can be done quite quickly, with no long-lasting spending effect. The danger, however, is that all those things do not get put on the pension—they do not get indexed every year—and in effect they are worth less money as time goes on. I am afraid that I am not convinced that the increase in bills is going to be a short-term, six-month problem. We all wish that that were the case, but it would probably require a change of regime in Russia, with a new, friendly, democratic and unsanctioned regime giving us free access to their gas at the price we used to pay. I think that assumption is for the birds, so the Government need to have a different plan. On the basis that they probably cannot now increase the pension by more in April, my suggestion is that if inflation is still running at this level in October, they should do a half-yearly pension increase, of perhaps half what is forecast for next April. That would give people a bit more on their pension, up front, for six months. It will cost more money, but it will be only a six-month thing, so it will be an acceleration of the rise people are going to get next year. If they are going to get 8% next April because their energy and food bills have shot up before next winter, give them some or all of that rise before next winter so that they have a fighting chance of being able to get through next winter. That would be a simple thing for the Government to do.
It is tempting to say, “We can wait to the autumn to make that decision”, but part of the reason we are in this mess is that we have had to use September’s inflation number to drive the April state pension increase. If that logic is true and we have to have six months’ warning, we have to use March’s inflation to have a pension rise in October, so we are going to have to make a decision next month. I urge the Chancellor to say to pensioners in the spring statement, “We understand how hard this will be for you. If this problem persists, before next winter we will give you some extra money through a state pension rise of a few more per cent. to give you a bit more money so that you do not have to be saving and penny-pinching. You will have enough to heat and eat through next winter. We will find a way to do that.” I urge the Chancellor to do that on Wednesday.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Thank you for calling me so early in the debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. I want to begin by talking about energy bills and putting on record my thanks to Helen and Joanna at the North Lancashire citizens advice bureau, whom I spoke to today specifically about energy bills for my older constituents. I thank them and all the other staff at the CAB, who support my constituents right across Lancaster and Fleetwood on a whole matter of issues, as people often feel they have nowhere else to go.
On energy bills, one thing that has not been mentioned much is something that affects my rural constituents. I have been approached in the past couple of weeks by a couple in the Ellel area of Lancaster who have turned off their oil-fired heating as there is no price cap on heating oil and with the prices of oil trebling they have been left particularly vulnerable. Often such people are in poorly insulated houses off the grid, and I call on the Minister to do something to support rural pensioners who are feeling this acutely.
These issues are not just being faced in the rural areas of my constituency. A pensioner I was speaking to on Russell Grange Lane in Fleetwood, a much more urban area, is struggling with the rising energy bills. By way of an example, let me say that she lives alone and is receiving the state pension, and her gas bill has risen recently from £85 a month to £114 a month. That is an increase of 34%, but her pension is going to rise by only 3.1%, or about £5.50. She is really concerned about how she is going to be able to afford food, as food prices are going up, and whether she is going to be able to make ends meet. Pensioners spend twice as much of their money on energy bills as the under-30s, so this is a cost felt acutely by pensioners.
Helen told me that we are now in the worst situation since she joined the CAB in 1992. She said that in most cases there was almost nothing they could do to help clients whose benefits or pensions are not enough to live off and that they could only refer them for emergency food parcels. They have then exhausted that limited charitable help available. That is probably reflected right across the country. I do not think that Lancaster and Fleetwood is particularly unique in experiencing that. What has changed in the six years I have represented the constituency is the number of pensioners approaching me to say how much they are struggling. I have noticed that increasing in the past couple of years and, in particular, in the past couple of weeks. A man approached me in Macbeth Road to tell me that he felt utterly betrayed by the breaking of the triple lock on pensions and how it means that his pension will not keep up with rising costs. People feel like this not just about energy costs and pensions, but about, for example, the betrayal on the TV licence for the over-75s, which was a point raised recently with me by a constituent from Agnew Road.
With almost one in five pensioners living in poverty—of course, that will be many more if this Government do not take action—I will continue to support my constituents as best as I can, as will my local food banks, the citizens advice bureaux, churches and charities such as Age UK Lancashire. I will do things such as promote the awareness of pension credit. With around 850,000 older people currently missing out on that benefit, many of them will be in my Lancaster and Fleetwood constituency, and I will do what I can to raise awareness.
As Martin Lewis said on television yesterday, we can only do so much to try to teach people to save money if the amounts are getting smaller, bills are going up and petrol prices are rising, because the rest, frankly, is politics. I wanted to speak in this evening’s debate to highlight the fact that this effect has been felt right across my constituency, from the urban Warren area of Fleetwood right through to rural areas in Ellel just outside Lancaster, which makes me think that it is probably being felt right across the country. We now need Government action to tackle pensioner poverty, which is acute and real.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I will try to get everybody in with relatively equal time, so I am dropping the time limit to four minutes.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
I hope that I can stick to the time limit, Mr Deputy Speaker. I know that you will ensure I do.
The global pandemic and the increase in wholesale energy costs have put an enormous strain on household budgets, and I believe that the Government have provided a strong package of measures to mitigate the effects, delicately balancing support for the economy and for our pensioners. However, I feel that this debate is a little premature bearing in mind that we are hearing from the Chancellor in two days’ time.
We have provided a package of £9.1 billion to help households across the UK with the cost of their energy bills, building on cold weather payments, winter fuel payments and the warm home discount. As the Secretary of State said, that builds on other support, including the £150 council tax rebate, the £200 smoothing payment, and the £150 million being given to local authorities to help those in properties outside bands A to D.
Alongside that, pension credit offers a real helping hand with living costs for people on low incomes, and we know that it is chronically underclaimed. In Darlington, almost £4 million is unclaimed, and I am doing all I can to support increasing take-up. I am delighted to hear that the Minister has written to all the local newspapers, and I hope that he sent letters to the Darlington & Stockton Times and The Northern Echo to ensure that take-up increases in my constituency. Let us not forget that pension credit is the doorway to other benefits, such as a free TV licence and cold weather payments.
Our levelling-up White Paper announced the creation of a new taskforce to look at ways to provide greater security, choice and quality for housing for older people, planning for the future to ensure that pensioners are comfortable in their homes during their retirement. More widely, we have a strong record of delivering for pensioners. Since 2010, the state pension has increased by 35% when, in the same period, inflation measured 22% and wages increased by 27%. This year alone we are spending £129 billion on pensioners—more than any other Government—allowing us to reduce absolute pensioner poverty by 200,000 people across the country. In-work pensioners will also benefit from the increase in the national living wage—a benefit of almost £1,000 a year for nearly 2 million people.
Under the last Labour Government, pensioners suffered. We had the fourth-highest level in Europe of pensioner poverty among the over-65s. The level of the state pension stagnated, and they had no long-term plan for pensioners. This Government are delivering for pensioners, and I know that they will continue to do so long into the future.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
The respected Joseph Rowntree Foundation annual poverty report shows increasing poverty over people’s life course—children, working age adults and pensioners. Both the JRF and the Equality and Human Rights Commission say that the key determinant of this rise in poverty is our inadequate social security system, which has been decimated over the last 12 years. The safety net that should be there for all of us in our time of need, providing dignity in retirement, is failing us—it just is not there—and it was doing so before the energy crisis.
Professor Sir Michael Marmot has identified the declining value of social security support and the lack of protection that this provides as contributing to the fall in life expectancy of those on the lowest incomes. More than 14.5 million people in this country are living in relative poverty—that is more than one in five of us—and using the JRF figures we see pensioner poverty increasing by 500,000 since 2010 to 2 million.
Pensioners living on their own, predominantly women, are particularly at risk of poverty. They account for 1.2 million of the 2 million pensioners living in poverty, and we see an associated decline in women’s life expectancy and healthy life expectancy. I hope the Government will bear that in mind as they embark on their consultation on the state pension age. I know the Pensions Minister feels this keenly, but I offer a gentle reminder that groups representing women born in the 1950s estimate that between 2010 and 2020 more than 80,000 older women died before becoming eligible for their state pension, after their pension age was increased from 60 to 66, catching many unawares.
In the remaining time available to me, I want to talk about disabled people living in poverty. The report published last year by the all-party group on health in all policies, which I was involved in developing, shows the savage impact of a slew of social security policies on disabled people in particular. The EHRC estimates that disabled families have lost £3 out of every £10, and similar figures have been produced by the Disability Benefits Consortium. As we know, we have record levels of in-work poverty—work no longer protects people from poverty—but what about those who cannot work because of sickness or disability? We must never forget that nine out of 10 disabilities are acquired. It could happen to any of us. We could be walking down the road and have an accident, or we could contract an illness. In a civilised society that is one of the richest in the world, one would expect that, just as we have the NHS, we would have the disability protection that that affluence affords, but we do not.
The social security cuts and the extra costs people face by virtue of their disability mean that disabled people are the most likely to live in poverty. Of the 14 million disabled people in this country, a third are living in poverty. Where is the adequate system for them?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Sorry, but we are under pressure of time. The wind-ups will begin no later than 9.40 pm, and anyone who has participated in the debate is expected to be here for them.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
Last Saturday, like many hon. Members across the House, I was undertaking street surgeries and knocking on doors in my constituency. I spoke to several tens of pensioners, and it is absolutely right to say that the cost of living crisis is very much an issue, but it was also noticeable that people understand and recognise the causes of the crisis—the post-covid supply bottlenecks and, increasingly, the price that we all have to pay to support Ukraine and stand up to Russian aggression. I found universal support for the Government’s strong position and recognition that if we do not stand up to President Putin now, we will only make him stronger and ourselves weaker.
Although residents understand the causes, that does not make the cost of living crisis any less real, particularly in rural areas such as mine in Broadland where car transport is a necessity and homes are often heated by oil. People on fixed incomes are most vulnerable to inflation, which is why the Conservative Government over the past decade have done so much to raise pensions from the lows of the last Labour Government. In 2010, Labour spent £70 billion on pensions. The Conservatives have increased that by £35 billion—a 35% increase—while inflation, at 22%, amounts to a 13% real terms increase. Average earnings have been outstripped by pensions growth by 8% during this period. It is the case that state pensions are now at their highest, relative to earnings, for 24 years. It is so different from Labour, famous for its 75p increase in pensions.
Pensions are not just state pensions. Some 88% of all eligible employees are now participating in a private pension. That is not by chance; it is as a direct result of innovative Government policy. Pre auto-enrolment, fewer than 50% of workers benefited from an additional pension. Because of Government intervention an additional £28.4 billion has been saved every year since 2012 and continuing, raising living standards for pensioners of the future.
The Government are not just relying on years of pension increases, but are taking further steps to help pensioners with increased energy costs. We have already heard about the cold weather payment scheme, which provides £25 per cold weather week for those on pension credit, income support, income-based jobseekers’ allowance, income-related employment and support allowance or universal credit.
We have heard about the warm home discount, with an additional payment of £150 increased to 3 million households most in need. We have also heard about a reduction in council tax of £150 this year for council tax bands A to D, and the £200 of delayed payments for energy bills this autumn to help flatten the impact of the spike in energy prices. Then there is £144 million of discretionary fund. The two councils in my patch are considering applying that to oil heating support.
In addition to all those schemes, we know about the pension credits, which are guaranteed to top up weekly income to the equivalent of £9,200 a year. It is very heartening to hear the Government’s strenuous efforts to increase the take-up of that scheme. We have the spring statement later this week. I, like many others, am hopeful that there will be additional assistance with the cost of living, particularly for pensioners and particularly for rural areas, such as the one that I am lucky enough to represent.
I know that the Chancellor will continue to do all he can to support pensioners and others on lower incomes. If he does so, he will be building on a decade of support by Conservative Governments.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
I rise to speak in favour of the motion, which clearly highlights the fact that older people and pensioners are really at the sharp end of the Tory cost of living crisis, and that they urgently need Government assistance. There are 2.1 million pensioners living in poverty, and there has been an increase in older people’s poverty from 13% to 18%, according to most recent data.
We also know that pensioners are more likely to live in fuel poverty. Age UK reported that, by October of this year, pensioners could be using up to 20% of their income on fuel.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point on the impact of energy bills on pensioners. Pensioners in my constituency of Coventry North West are having to spend twice as much on their energy bills compared with those under 30. Does she agree that this Conservative Government need to do much more to support pensioners to weather the storm of this horrible cost of living crisis?
Beth Winter
I fully agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, this Government have an absolutely appalling record. It is financial punishment for older people. I never cease to make reference to the fact that behind these statistics are real people. In my constituency in Cynon Valley, older people are disproportionately affected by the cost of living crisis. We have an older housing stock—terraced housing—and high levels of health inequality.
To add insult to injury, two of the campaigns I am involved with in my constituency show that older people are being short-changed by billions of pounds. I refer to the Women Against State Pension Inequality campaign and the Mineworkers Pension Scheme. I thank in particular Mi Morgan and her husband in Cilfynydd in my constituency, who work tirelessly on the Mineworkers Pension Scheme campaign, and Dilys Jouvenat, who leads the WASPI campaign back home in Cynon Valley.
People who have helped all their lives to build this country and their communities are suffering, and this Government are not responding to their needs. The cost of living crisis is driven by the Tories’ betrayal of their manifesto pledge to maintain the triple lock and by the regressive tax increases on working pensioners. Perhaps most importantly, it is being driven by inflation outstripping salaries, social security and pension payments, and all that is happening on the Tory Government’s watch.
On national insurance, under the Chancellor’s plans, around 1.3 million working pensioners will be asked to pay the health and social care levy through national insurance. Labour is calling on the Government to halt their poorly-thought-through tax rises, particularly when there are people with broader shoulders who could take the burden that must be borne.
Worst of all, the Tories have chosen to impose a real-terms cut to state pensions this April by sticking to last September’s rate of inflation, which was 3.1%. We know the rate of inflation is likely to be much higher than that. That is why last month in this Chamber I warned that the proposed pensioner up-rating order would increase the level of pensioner poverty in this country, and supported the Child Poverty Action Group, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and other organisations that called for a 6% increase—and indeed we need an even higher increase now, given the likely coming rise in inflation. The 3.1% increase in pensions is an absolute insult to older people in our country.
I will quicky refer to what is happening in Wales, where the Welsh Government are trying to take action. In their recent budget, they extended eligibility criteria for the winter fuel scheme to more people, which has been welcomed by groups such as the Bevan Foundation. The Older People’s Commissioner for Wales has announced an action plan: in addition to extending the eligibility criteria, she says we must maintain that for the second payment due later this year, and that we need a plan published for increasing the take-up of pension credit. Recently the Welsh Affairs Committee, on which I sit, published a report on the benefits system in Wales, noting that much greater awareness raising of people’s entitlements to benefits is needed, because a total of £1.7 billion in pension credit went unclaimed last year.
The UK Government must take urgent action. Some of the things they could do include increasing their financial offer to cushion the rise in energy bills through a windfall tax on those who can afford it, cutting VAT on energy bills and cutting the national insurance rise. The 3.1% rise in pensions, when the Bank of England is hinting that inflation may hit 10%, tells us all we need to know. The Chancellor must act this week. I urge hon. Members to support this motion.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
One person has withdrawn unexpectedly, so I think we are able to go back to five minutes. Ian Byrne, it is Christmas.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The fear being felt across this nation is palpable. Millions, including pensioners, are worried about whether they will freeze or starve in their homes. In the fifth richest country in the world, how has this injustice been allowed to happen? That is the position so many face, due to political choices taken in this House. Shamefully, the figures show that one in five pensioners in the UK is living in poverty, 1.3 million retirees are undernourished and 25,000 die each year due to cold weather.
Food and energy bills are rising at the highest rates in 30 years. It is immoral that the Government have chosen this moment to force through a real-terms cut to the state pension of £388 this year—a state pension, let us remember, that is already one of the least supportive by international comparison. In November, I asked the Minister:
“What impact assessment has the Department for Work and Pensions made of scrapping the triple lock, and how many more pensioners in Liverpool, West Derby will be living in poverty and unable to afford food as a result?”—[Official Report, 8 November 2021; Vol. 703, c. 16.]
I was not given an answer, so I ask again on their behalf: what impact assessment has been made? I would like to touch on the impact of the cost of living crisis on the 5,360 women in Liverpool, West Derby who were affected by the changes made to the women’s state pension age by the Pensions Act 1995, 4,000 of whom were further affected by the Pensions Act 2011, which accelerated the increases to ages 65 and 66. It is clear from the correspondence I have received and from speaking to people in our area just how much hurt has been caused by the actions of the DWP, as women who were paying in with the expectation of a set retirement date had that taken away from them without proper notice.
Guy Opperman
I notice that the hon. Gentleman jumped through the 13 years of the Labour Government on state pension age increases when there was the same policy, including a pensions Act that raised the state pension. With great respect, this Government and the coalition Government have increased the state pension exactly in line with the policies of the Labour Government in the 13 years that they were in power. There is no difference.
Ian Byrne
I thank the Minister for that intervention. I will go on to the issue of full restitution shortly.
The harm caused by this situation goes beyond just financial matters. Many women who are facing this unjust situation have faced huge disruption to their lives, their wellbeing, their work and their plans for themselves and their families—and now the cost of living crisis has worsened this dire situation even further. I would like to read out some of the correspondence I have received from women affected. One said:
“As a single parent with a dependent child and caring for elderly parents, it was terrible to discover the huge financial loss caused by the Government removing my state pension for 6 years with no notice. Near destitution was the result, despite me and my employers paying National Insurance contributions for 45 years.”
Another email said:
“I like millions of other 50’s women never received an official letter from the state informing me that the pension age was changing and allowing me time to build up a private pension, which I never had. All my money went towards paying a mortgage as no council houses were ever available. Rightly or wrongly, I chose not work when my children were born so that I could spend as much time with them as possible while they were young. My plans for the future were to retire at 60 and finally spend time with my Mother, time that my siblings and I never had growing up as she was always working. The Government robbed me, not just financially but in so many other ways.”
It is unacceptable that the Government have so far refused to act to right this wrong. I urge Members in all parts of the House to support my early-day motion 906 on providing full financial restitution to women born in the 1950s.
Pensioner poverty is a political choice, fuel poverty is a political choice, and hunger is a political choice: all choices made by this Government that could be reversed if Conservative Members had the political will to do so. Let us hope they start this week with the Chancellor’s spring statement.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
When I was little, I grew up next door to a wonderful couple called Marg and Ray. Marg was like a grandma to me. Sometimes when Mum was busy with my younger sister, she used to send me with a box of toys through the hole in the fence to Marg and Ray’s for the day to be looked after by Marg. I remember very distinctly a few times walking with her to the post office where she would go and get her pension, in cash, then coming back and sitting chatting to her in the room where we spent most of our time. There was a big sideboard in there and she would put different parts of cash into different areas of it. When I asked what she was doing, she would say, “That’s the money for my electric bill and that’s the money for this other bill”, separating out all the cash into the different compartments. She was terrified of getting into debt. Although she did not have much money, she never owed anybody anything, and she was fiercely proud of that.
When I was out recently talking to residents in the Pickering ward in Hull, I met some people who reminded me exactly of her. I talked to one elderly lady who told me the same thing about how she had never owed anyone anything. She was fiercely proud of the fact that she would never owe anyone a penny. I was trying to talk her into setting up a direct debit. I said, “If you set up a direct debit for your council tax and your bills, you get them cheaper.” She said, “No, I’m not setting up a direct debit. I couldn’t be owing them that money—I wouldn’t know what was going out each week or each month.” She was absolutely opposed to the idea of having a direct debit even though I was saying that she was paying more for her energy bills because she had a prepayment meter.
I have brought to the Minister’s attention before the issue of people with the least money paying the most—the poverty premium—and I will talk about it briefly now. I have spoken to many elderly people who have prepayment meters because they have a traditional and, I have to say, probably quite right idea that people should not owe money and should pay for what they want up front. It is not a fair system, however, as I have discussed with the Minister in the Treasury Committee; I hope that those conversations will be ongoing about how we can fully address the poverty premium.
A study by Fair By Design has shown that the poverty premium costs the average low-income household an extra £490 a year—that is how expensive it is to be poor. For more than one in 10 of those households, however, it costs an extra £780 a year. It is not a fair system. To give other examples of the poverty premium, it is why people end up paying more for car insurance or life insurance in areas of greater deprivation and why people pay more for credit and for all financial services when they have the least money. Our system is set up at the moment so that the poorer someone is, the more they pay. That is not fair and it is a huge contributing factor to the cost of living issues that pensioners face.
The highest poverty premium in Hull West and Hessle is area-based insurance. Constituents currently pay in total £1.3 million more for their insurance if their postcode is considered higher risk. As I say, I have mentioned that to the Minister before and he acknowledged that there is more to be done. When he comes to the Dispatch Box, I hope that he will talk more about what exactly will take place.
I intervened on the Secretary of State earlier to draw attention to concerns around the prepayment meter and how exactly people will get the £200 back, but there is also an issue with the direct debit. We have a situation in Hull where the money back on council tax was meant to be paid to people through reductions in their direct debit, but, of course, families who are in insecure work—not just pensioners—will face problems: they do not set up direct debits because they cannot guarantee how much money they will have each month.
Although I believe that the Minister is trying to take some actions to address the issue, there is a failure to really understand what life is like for many people who do not have direct debits and who are still scared of debt and use prepayment meters. The failure to design policies that address the poverty premium mean that, once again, the poorest pay the most.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Increasing numbers of pensioners in my constituency have been reaching out to me in recent weeks, because they face the real choice of heating or eating. It seems unfair that while some businesses have made enormous profits from the pandemic and the energy price hike, individuals face financial ruin for exactly the same reasons.
A retired couple in my constituency wrote to tell me that the combined impact of removing the triple lock on pensions, the increase in energy prices, and the Conservative-led Shropshire Council’s maximum 4.9% council tax rise this year means that they can no longer afford to heat and eat. They worked throughout their adulthood before retiring, but their energy bill has increased from £960 a year to more than £2,400. Every week, there are stories of people from all parts of society reporting the same issues, such as that they can afford to heat only one room of their house and they are experiencing damp inside. Citizens Advice has even told me that it has had someone who is afraid to boil the kettle for a cup of tea because their financial situation is so precarious.
In more rural parts of Britain, as hon. Members have said, there is an additional element to the energy cost crisis: people whose homes are off grid or rely on oil or liquefied petroleum gas to heat them are not protected by the energy price cap. They have to pay huge amounts up front to fill their tanks and in addition, there are now shortages of heating oil and rationing. I have constituents in their 70s who have no access to heating or hot water, let alone the means to pay for the fuel if it were available. We desperately need the energy price cap to be extended to heating oil and LPG to protect people who live in isolated areas.
It is not all about energy either. Elderly residents in rural communities are most likely to be isolated without access to a car or public transport and without a computer to shop online. Research by Citizens Advice Shropshire shows that a basket of essential items is up to two and a half times more expensive in a local village shop than in a town-based supermarket, so our pensioners are being hit really hard by this cost of living crisis. It is so extensive this time around that it is hitting households who have not previously faced fuel poverty, and those who, sadly, are only too used it are seeing a crisis like never before.
It is just not right that this is being allowed to continue while companies that extract oil and gas reap billions as a result of what, for them, are purely lucky circumstances. It is desperately unfair. Tax, benefits and pensions should be fair, and should be used to protect the vulnerable. That is why I support, among other measures, a windfall tax on oil and gas companies and a temporary reduction in the rate of VAT, and I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement earlier that the Government will honour their own manifesto commitment to reinstate the triple lock on pensions.
It is also essential for the Government to take more effective action to ensure that those who are eligible for pension credit are aware of that fact and are able to access it. As many people have mentioned, it is estimated that more than £1.5 billion goes unclaimed every year, and yet it is a key to unlock all sorts of other essential benefits. Surely it should now be a priority to ensure that all of those who are eligible are accessing all of the help available to them. Every day that goes by is another day of deep concern for our pensioners. I think the time to act for them was months ago, but I hope the Chancellor has a set of meaningful measures to announce in his statement on Wednesday, because although it may already be too late, I hope it is not too little for North Shropshire’s pensioners.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I do apologise, Wendy. I hinted that you would have come in a bit earlier, so you may as well come in now—my error.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
That is very kind of you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Before Christmas, a constituent reached out to me to tell me about his mother. She had recently died, and when dealing with her affairs, he was distraught to discover that she had died with no money in the bank and with unpaid bills stacking up. She had worked hard, paid into the system and raised her family, and what she was left with was not enough. Of course, there was nothing I could do for his mother, though he was obviously extremely distraught to think that she had experienced that anxiety in the latter days of her life, but he wanted me to be aware of the cost pressures that pensioners face and to do what I could to stop older people ending up in the same position.
We know that my constituent’s mother is far from the only pensioner to have had to live in poverty and make the choice between heating or eating. That sounds like a cliché, but I am the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on ending the need for food banks, and we hear in our inquiry sessions of people going without. They do not have the patience or the time to wait for the Chancellor’s statement. For many, the Government’s recent actions have pushed them over the edge, with the real-terms cut to the state pension by abandoning the triple lock and the failure to respond to the cost of living crisis.
In her opening remarks, the Secretary of State said two things. She said that the triple lock had been paused because the pandemic had caused an unexpected, unplanned or out-of-the-ordinary increase in inflation, but that the cost of living crisis was due to multiple factors. Can we just accept that covid is one of multiple factors that has caused the cost of living crisis?
I have always said that the state pension is not just about pensioners now; it is about people in the future. Young people who cannot get on to the property ladder, cannot get a mortgage or are in insecure employment need to know that there is a state pension for them in the future that will support them. This evening, I was at the Gingerbread single-parent family reception downstairs, and it was pointed out to me that many single parents do not qualify for auto-enrolment because they do not earn enough. That is another reason why it is even more important that the state pension is viable if private pensions are not going to be there to support people in the future.
Research by Independent Age has shown that, in 2018-19, only 60% of those entitled to pension credit were receiving it. If those extra 40% of people were reached, 440,000 pensioners would be lifted out of poverty, as others have mentioned. I was pleased that a recent DWP response to a written question of mine said that it was currently estimating that there had been a 30% increase in new claims in 2021 compared with 2020, or approximately 31,000 new claims. However, that figure does not tell us if any of those claims come from pensioners in older age groups who were already missing out on pension credit, or if they are from people newly reaching pension age. We know that there are 80,000 more people reaching pension age each year than the year before, so a figure of 31,000 could just mean that 49,000 are not receiving it when they are entitled to do so. There does not seem to be targeted awareness-raising. We have agreed across this House that we must do as much as possible to ensure that those who qualify for pension credit get it. I want to understand what the Department for Work and Pensions can do to upgrade its systems and identify those who might be eligible or potentially assess broad geographical areas where there are low take-up rates. What is it doing to ensure its messaging is reaching those it needs to reach, and is it conducting any critical analysis?
We know some groups are especially likely to be in poverty in later life and that is linked to underpayment of pensions. My friend and former colleague the former Liberal Democrats pensions Minister Steve Webb has been mentioned this evening and I am grateful to him for his work around that. However, as has been mentioned this evening, divorced women are explicitly being excluded from the LEAP—legal entitlements and administrative practice—exercise. Dealing with pensions on divorce is incredibly complicated—such as the allocation of one person’s potential future pension rights to another’s. It is hard to understand why the Department thinks there can have been no error in the payment of pensions under these complicated arrangements considering some of the basic errors made in other areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) presented a private Member’s Bill on my behalf just two weeks ago while I was off with covid; it would include divorced women in this exercise. I ask the Minister to consider supporting my Bill, or to set out either this evening or in the fiscal statement why he will not do so.
Bills are increasing dramatically now. It has taken 35 years for underpayments of some state pensions to be identified, but pensioners on the poverty line cannot wait that long. The Government must now act to address this crisis both historically in terms of their own failings and given the current cost of living crisis.
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind)
Older people and pensioners are being disproportionately affected by the Government’s cost of living crisis. Office for National Statistics research shows that pensioner households are having to spend more per week than other age groups. With the energy price cap increasing and protections decreasing, a typical pensioner household’s bills will be fourfold what they were, just to keep warm. The ONS also found that a higher proportion of older people live in the least energy-efficient houses.
In September 2021, the Government announced that they intended to remove the earnings link to the state pension triple lock and downgrade to a double lock of prices or 2.5%, as they say they are unwilling to increase the state pension given the economic pressures of the pandemic being felt by other sectors of society. Today the Government say there will be no U-turn. They should properly clarify their position; they should commit to the triple lock now—not next year, now.
The Government uprated the state pension this April by 3.1%, less than half the forecast rate of inflation for this year. For an individual in receipt of the full state pension the reduction is nearly £400 a year in real terms. Rather than levelling down the state pension due to the cost of living crisis that they themselves are responsible for, the Government should abandon their zero-sum economic mindset, reinstate the triple lock and level up their economic support to all demographics, including full restitution to women born in the 1950s who have lost their pensions from the age of 60. And of course all of this should be funded through taxation on corporations and the super-rich.
From the 2023-24 financial year, around 1.3 million working pensioners will be asked to pay the health and social care levy, a 1.25% tax hike. Across the UK, there are around 1.3 million working pensioners who could face paying the levy, including 91,100 in the east midlands. This Government only raise funds by squeezing the struggling many, while allowing the astronomical wealth of the few to grow continually. The Government should scrap the national insurance hike and replace it with a wealth tax. Shamefully, after 12 years of Conservative government, there are half a million more pensioners living in poverty; the figure increased from 1.65 million in 2010 to over 2.1 million in 2020. The rate of pensioner poverty rose from 14% in 2010 to over 18% in the year before the pandemic. Age UK has also warned that an estimated 150,000 additional pensioner households are likely to be pushed into fuel poverty this winter, taking the number of fuel-poor older households to over 1.1 million this spring.
It is intolerable that the Government have presided over the normalisation of widespread pensioner poverty. They must act now to end the cost of living crisis and prevent the further impoverishment of older people and pensioners.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
It is clear from the absence of Conservative Members that this Government do not care about pensioner poverty, but even before the pandemic, people in Liverpool, Riverside and constituencies across the country faced significant financial difficulties, with the roll-out of universal credit, the impact of the bedroom tax, the increase in unscrupulous employers using precarious zero-hours contracts, and the stagnation in welfare benefits and pensions. It is a sad indictment of this nation that our pensioners now face the prospect of real-terms reductions in their state pension, with cuts of hundreds of pounds a year.
The Government, having failed to take action on household energy bills, now propose to make people take out a loan—to be spread over five years—to cover the spiralling cost. That is wholly unacceptable. Pensioners face the prospect of a crippling cost of living crisis, with petrol, food and energy bills skyrocketing, and an increase in food banks.
While inflation is set to increase to over 8% and home energy bills to skyrocket by more than 50%, what have this Government chosen to do? Have they chosen to go after the billionaires, or the oil and gas giants, which tell people to wrap up in layers or hug a cat to keep warm? No, they have chosen to place the burden on those least likely to be able to afford it. This Government have once again chosen to attack the worst off, offering a pitiful 3.1% increase to pensioners and those on benefits.
Twelve years of austerity cuts—a political decision—have meant that one in five pensioners is living in poverty and half a million more are living in debt. They are living in poorly insulated homes and paying more for energy on prepayment meters, which means that the small amount of money they have has to stretch further. My constituency has some of the highest levels of in-work poverty in the country, and almost one in five people in my constituency is over 60.
The cost of living crisis is impacting constituents in Liverpool, Riverside, with 85% experiencing more expensive energy bills and nearly 70% paying more for fuel and transport. Nearly one third of the constituents I represent have lost income due to the cut in universal credit. The 54% increase in fuel costs will push more constituents into financial crisis at a time when the profits of gas and oil giants have soared. Can the Minister tell us what is stopping the Government capping energy price rises, as France has, at 4%?
The condition of housing stock is a real concern. One in five homes headed by someone aged 60 or older is so poor that it impacts their health and wellbeing. Last year, almost 9,000 people died in England and Wales because their homes were too cold and damp. We are the fifth richest country in the world; elderly people should not be dying because they are unable to heat their homes. Everyone deserves to grow old in dignity, but here, in the fifth richest country in the world, we are forcing the oldest generations into desperate poverty and making them choose between heating and eating. The Government must choose to protect the people they are here to serve, and not the wealthy companies that have benefited financially through the pandemic. Will the Minister commit to Labour’s plan for a windfall tax on energy giants to ensure the cost of living crisis is borne by those with the broadest shoulders?
The Minister mentioned earlier that the Government are doing their best, but their best clearly is not good enough. They need to accept the catastrophe they are causing, tax the billionaires and energy giants to cushion the living costs of those most in need, and reinstate the triple lock immediately. The ugly truth of the matter is that thousands of people will not survive the cost of living crisis unless the Government act immediately.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
Pensioners across the country are on the brink of financial hardship. Currently, nearly one in five pensioners—2 million people—live in poverty and over half a million have been forced into debt over the past decade. The number of older people renting rather than owning their homes has reached an all-time high. At its heart, this is a class issue. The most vulnerable people are left to suffer. It is a class issue exacerbated by over a decade of Tory rule. The public share the utter indignation of those of us on the Opposition Benches: more than 80% of respondents to a YouGov poll commissioned by the Centre for Ageing Better stated that the Government are failing to ensure a decent life for older people.
My constituents and the wider public recognise the increased hardship for what it is: a political choice by this Conservative Government. Spiralling inflation, soaring energy bills, rising petrol prices, a real-terms cut to the state pension and a tax rise on working pensioners—this toxic combination will have a devastating impact on pensioners’ living standards, and threaten the health and wellbeing of those most vulnerable. The Government’s state pension real-terms cut alone will mean that individual pensioners will be £222 worse off per year and couples £335 worse off per year.
Abandoning the pension triple lock in the midst of the cost of living crisis is irresponsible policy making. That is before we even consider the energy crisis, which will disproportionately impact older people as they are more likely to live in the least energy efficient homes. According to House of Commons Library estimates, the energy price cap, which has already gone up by 12%, may increase significantly more to 29% in April. This would mean energy bills increasing by around £341 a year per person for a typical household aged 65 and over. Working pensioners are likely to be £1,400 worse off over the next two years due to a mix of soaring prices, a tax hike and a lower state pension. That is 1,170,000 working pensioners across the east of England out of pocket. Even before the pandemic, 40% of over-50s had savings of £3,000 or less. What are the Government doing to ensure that older people will not be forced to run down their savings during this cost of living crisis?
The Conservative party seems incapable of devising solutions to fix the cost of living crisis. Older people across the country need concrete action in Wednesday’s spring statement. Without a plan, the Government will knowingly leave older people exposed to the crisis. They must consider measures like those in Labour’s plan, which would cut household energy bills by up to £600, scrap the unfair tax hike and commit to protecting pensioners’ financial situations in the long term. After a lifetime of contributing to our country, older people deserve security and prosperity.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to sum up in today’s important debate on behalf of the official Opposition.
I would like to start by thanking Members from across the House who have spoken in today’s debate. I thank the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) for pointing out the pressure on pensioners. The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) spoke about the need for more Government help, which I thought was telling from a Government Member. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) spoke movingly about the high energy costs for residents living away from the gas grid. The hon. Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) talked about the need for a long-term plan for pensioners. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) talked about the pressure on disabled people—obviously, many pensioners are disabled. The hon. Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) talked about the cost of living crisis. My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter)—I hope I have pronounced her constituency correctly—spoke about the need for urgent help for pensioners.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) talked clearly about the way that pensioners are living in poverty in his seat and across the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) spoke particularly movingly about a whole generation of pensioners. That brought to mind figures from my childhood, and I am sure that we were all touched by her speech.
The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) spoke about her local pensioners, and the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) talked about pensioners having to choose between heating and eating. The hon. Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe) spoke about pensioners having to pay more to keep warm, and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) mentioned the real-terms cut to the state pension. Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) spoke about the most vulnerable people being left to suffer by the Government.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), the shadow Secretary of State, said, pensioners who have worked hard and paid in all their lives now face an unprecedented cost of living crisis. Food prices are up, energy prices are up and the cost of living is going up. The cost of living is a crisis made in Downing Street, but, sadly, it is felt on every street across this country. Pensioners are at the sharp end, facing the inevitable choice of having to pay for heating or eating. Not since the 1970s have pensioners faced a fall in their standard of living as great as the one that faces them in the next few months.
As I am sure we all agree, the recent events in Ukraine have been absolutely shocking. However, this cost of living crisis predates Putin’s war and his vicious attack on the Ukrainian people. The atrocities unfolding in Europe have brought into stark relief the need for the UK to radically address our energy security. However, it was clear in the autumn that food and fuel prices were rising steeply, yet the Government actually made matters worse, despite all the warning signs. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor decided to break the pension triple lock, breaking their manifesto commitment and betraying the people who are now struggling to pay their weekly food bills.
To add insult to injury, the Government failed to cut energy bills even when it was clear that a windfall tax would have provided the cash to ease heating bills for pensioners. Energy giants are enjoying record profits and see their companies as a “cash machine” at the same time as pensioners face the toughest of choices. We have to ask ourselves: what do the Government have against pensioners? Why is the plight of our pensioners not worthy of intervention by the Government? How can they do so little when we know the consequences will be so dire for so many older people?
Perhaps the Prime Minister and the Chancellor were distracted by the Government’s internal instability following the revelations about parties at No. 10 during last year’s lockdown. Or perhaps they just failed to grasp what it is like to cope on a modest income, as many colleagues mentioned so eloquently today. For whatever reason, I am afraid that the Government have simply failed our pensioners at the very time when pensioners most needed their help.
My right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State summed up well the sorry state that we find ourselves in today. Two million pensioners are living in poverty and that number will only grow because of the choices made by this Government. Some 1.4 million older people are fuel-poor. The scrapping of the triple lock has robbed pensioners of £30 a month, which is a significant amount for people on a fixed income. Energy bills are rising by 54% already and are likely to increase by a staggering further 25% in October. Some 1.3 million working pensioners will be dragged back into taxation though a national insurance rise that will pick their pockets to fund a health and social care levy.
Pensioners are being hit very hard.
Today’s debate has been an important opportunity to raise the very serious cost of living crisis now facing our pensioners.
Matt Rodda
I am afraid that I am out of time. Every Member of the House will have constituents for whom the next few months will be filled with worry about bills. We owe so much to our pensioners. They have worked so very hard and paid in all their lives, raised their families and given so much to our communities. So far, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have failed to listen to pensioners and they have failed to take any meaningful action to help them at this very difficult time. Theirs is a record that they should be ashamed of: the state pension cut; the triple lock abandoned; energy bills up; food bills up; and pensioner poverty up.
The Minister now has a chance to set out what real help the Government are going to offer our pensioners. I hope that he takes this opportunity to show that the Government listen and understand. He has the opportunity, here and now, to give pensioners peace of mind in their most desperate hour of need. Pensioners need to know that help is available. We need urgent action now—please. It is clear that only Labour will help older people, and I commend the motion to the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I have heard “Cynon Valley” pronounced in so many different ways over the past 30 years. You pronounced it perfectly.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
With a mother who was a Llewelyn by birth, I am under tremendous pressure with this speech. I will attempt to address in some detail the points that the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) made.
This year, we will spend more than £129 billion on the state pension and the benefits accrued for pensioners in Great Britain. We have never supported our pensioners with more in this country. That figure includes more than £105 billion on state pension, £5 billion on pension credit, £2 billion on winter fuel payments, £325,000 on cold weather payments so far this winter and £144 million on the warm home discount payments last year.
Before I get into the meat of the debate, may I address one key point? The spring booster campaign was announced today. It is utterly vital that Ministers send out the message from this Dispatch Box that we really want the 5 million people at whom the campaign is targeted to take up the vaccine, which is being offered to adults over the age of 75, care home residents and the most vulnerable over-12s—those who, like me and several other Members of this House, are immunocompromised. Approximately 600,000 people will be sent invitations over this coming week, as I understand it, and 5 million people will ultimately be contacted. I urge everyone, primarily the pensioners with whom we are all concerned today, to apply and to come forward when asked.
Jonathan Ashworth
In a cross-party spirit, may I endorse what the hon. Gentleman says? I shadowed the Department of Health and Social Care for many years, and I completely agree. I want the message to go out across the country that there is no division: everybody who needs the vaccine should get it. I encourage my constituents, his constituents and all hon. Members’ constituents to come forward for the vaccine.
Guy Opperman
The right hon. Gentleman does himself credit with what he says. Much as he did as shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, he seeks cross-party ground where it is right and proper, which I support and really appreciate. We need to get that message across.
I thank all colleagues who have contributed today. As the Secretary of State set out, we are experiencing a period of increasing consumer demand that, together with disruptions to global supply chains and the impact of the war in Ukraine, is definitely placing a strain on household and other finances. The Government recognise that inflation is rising; together with the Bank of England, we are closely monitoring the situation.
I applaud the many Members across the House who have put in detailed recommendations to the Chancellor for the spring statement. I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench have been listening most carefully. In the intervening period, we have taken significant steps to ease the financial pressures by providing a support package worth billions of pounds during this fiscal year and the next.
The state pension is clearly the foundation of support for older people. Over the last two years, the basic and new state pension will have increased by more than 5.6%, taking into account the 2.5% rise this year and the 3.1% rise from this April. There has been much discussion of pension credit, which continues to provide invaluable financial support to approximately 1.4 million vulnerable pensioners. We want all pensioners to claim it.
Peter Gibson
My hon. Friend has had the opportunity to raise the matter of pension credit at the Dispatch Box on several occasions today. What advice can he give Members across the House on engagement with our constituents to raise the profile of that valuable benefit, which opens up the gateway to other benefits and help for pensioners? What help is available from the Department to Members across the House?
Guy Opperman
My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue. A bit like with the jab, we are all responsible for making the case to our constituents that there is huge benefit in what is in reality a passport to several hundred pounds a month—potentially £3,000-plus a year. The stats are extraordinarily good. When we took office in 2010, the take-up was 70%; it is now up to 77%. Obviously we want it to go higher. The take-up figure for guarantee credit is up to 73%, and internal management information suggests that in the 12 months to December 2021, the number of new claims for pension credit was about 30% higher than the figure for the 12 months to December 2019.
My hon. Friend specifically asked what the Government could do. There are a number of things that we have been doing for some time. We set up the pension credit taskforce to work with key stakeholders such as charities—including Age UK, which many Members rightly mentioned and whose representatives we have met several times—the Local Government Association, Virgin Money, and several of the banks. The energy company Centrica is involved, and ITV and the BBC have a key role to play in raising awareness, ensuring that we have greater knowledge of pension credit and that our constituents are aware that the opportunity is out there.
As the Secretary of State said, 11 million letters about the state pension uprating were sent out—that has never been done before—along with copies of the pension credit information factsheet containing information for pensioners so that they could apply. That, too, seems to be making a difference. There was a pension credit awareness day last June, when we worked with the BBC throughout the country. We also worked with the other stakeholders, including Age UK, with which we formed a specific partnership. We have been making the case to local papers: we wrote to all of them on three occasions last year, we did it again this year, and we will continue to do it. Individual Members of Parliament can do a fantastic amount in making the case to their local communities, working with their citizens advice bureaux and Christians Against Poverty groups. Mention has been made today of the older persons fairs, which have been very successful in individual constituencies and have made a big difference to pension credit take-up.
Guy Opperman
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, because he allowed me to intervene on his speech.
Alan Brown
How much extra money do the Government set aside each year on the assumption that there will be a greater uptake of pension credit, and what happens if that sum is not used? Does the Minister agree that any money that is not used for pension credit should be recirculated to support elderly people?
Guy Opperman
I can answer that question easily. There is no limit whatsoever. This is a means-tested benefit which was set up by Gordon Brown. If there were a 100% take-up, the Government would pay. If the take-up is 70%, the Government pay.
I was going to address some of the comments made by the hon. Gentleman in his interesting speech. I genuinely felt that it was the policy of his party to raise fuel duty, which is certainly an interesting approach to cost of living difficulties. He made no mention of the powers conferred by sections 24, 26 and 28 of the Scotland Act 2016 and the capability of his Government to intervene if they should choose to do so—which, to be fair, they have done. The hon. Gentleman shrugs his shoulders and heaves a sigh, but he probably does that when he tries to analyse and understand the policy of that humble merchant banker-crofter the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), whose approach to the state pension is something that we all struggle to comprehend.
I did test the hon. Gentleman by asking him what genuinely was the Scottish National party policy on the state pension in the unlikely event that the Scottish people were unwise enough to choose independence. Is it the old policy that was agreed previously, or is it the new policy of his leader in Westminster that the rest of the UK should pay for this? I genuinely do not understand, and I think one of the reasons why the popularity of independence is falling in Scotland is the fact that the leadership that the hon. Gentleman so strongly supports are not making the case in any way whatsoever.
The arguments of the hon. Members for Cynon Valley, for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) and for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe) centred on the issue of the state pension age. Let me say, with respect, that that is a matter that has been determined by successive Governments. As I pointed out earlier, this Government continued, as did the coalition Government, the policy of the Labour Government under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. I realise that no one is a Blairite any more, but those 13 years saw exactly the same policy. The arguments put forward on that issue were comprehensively rejected by the Court of Appeal.
The situation in respect of energy prices has been addressed in detail by the Secretary of State, but it is right to make the point that the key intervention was announced by the Chancellor on 3 February with a £9.1 billion energy bill rebate, and there is in excess of £12 billion of support over this financial year and the next to ease cost of living pressures. We have set out in sufficient detail the £200 rebate for households, the £150 non-repayable council tax rebate for all households in bands A to D, and the fact that local authorities will in addition have access to £144 million of discretionary funding to support households in need, regardless of their council tax band.
Alex Sobel
I spoke to my constituent Maggie Stead today. Maggie has been diagnosed with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. She told me that she cannot afford her rising bills on her state pension, and that she sits at home in her hat, scarf and gloves and eats only one meal a day. I am doing everything I can to help Maggie. What can the Minister tell me to tell her about how we can support her, given the ever-increasing energy bills that she cannot afford?
Guy Opperman
Quite clearly she should be contacting her local authority, because several million pounds has been set aside for individual councils up and down the country so that they have the capability to intervene for such constituents. Obviously I would hope the hon. Gentleman has advised her to apply for pension credit, which could unleash £3,000-plus for her, and although I cannot comment on individual circumstances, I presume she will qualify for the winter fuel payment, which runs to £2 billion, the cold weather support payment and the various other supports that exist, including the warm home discount scheme, where payments will increase from £150 in 2022-23, with spending rising from £354 million to £475 million. Pensioner households are able to access the £144 million of discretionary funding from local authorities to support households who need support but are ineligible for council tax rebates.
My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) rightly defended the record of the coalition and of this Conservative Government. I will just briefly remind the House that the change to the state pension that has been taking place under the coalition—to be fair to our Liberal Democratic colleagues—and the Conservative Government has been absolutely transformational. There has been a 35% increase in the state pension, with massively enhanced figures going forward. Without a shadow of a doubt the triple lock, which the right hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) never mentioned, has had an impact. Not once in any of the 13 years of the Labour Government did they have a triple lock—not once. Gordon Brown famously raised the state pension by 75p in 1999, so I will take no lessons on that from Labour.
My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) is a brilliant champion for his local area, and he was right to say that pensioner poverty has decreased under this Government—
Guy Opperman
Yes, it has. I am terribly sorry to have to point out that on this particular point the hon. Gentleman is utterly wrong. The number of pensioners living in absolute poverty has fallen. There are now 200,000 fewer pensioners in absolute poverty, both before and after housing costs, than there were in 2009-10.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) made a very good speech and was right to mention the impact of the Ukraine conflict. He was also right to talk about automatic enrolment, which has transformed private pensions in his constituency, with 2,150 employers supporting 9,000 employees who are saving 8%. That is a cross-party, cross-Government implementation of real impact to address pensioner poverty on a long-term basis. It is a 20-year policy that is transforming this particular situation.
This Government are committed to ensuring that people have security and dignity in retirement. We have recognised and acted on the concerns of pensioners struggling with the cost of living, and we will continue to spend £129 billion on pensioner benefits this year, which includes the £105 billion on the state pension. Obviously there is also the £9.1 billion energy rebate pack and the £2 billion on winter fuel payments and the warm homes discount scheme. I strongly urge the House not to accept this Labour motion.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved.
That this House is concerned that older people and pensioners risk being at the sharp end of the cost of living crisis as a result of spiralling inflation, a lack of Government action on household energy bills, a poorly thought-through tax rise on older people in work and a real-terms reduction to the state pension; notes that the state pension is being cut in real-terms by hundreds of pounds a year and that working pensioners will begin paying the Health and Social Care Levy from next year; regrets that levels of pensioner poverty and pensioner debt have risen over the last decade even before the current cost of living crisis with almost one in five pensioners now living in poverty; and calls upon the Government to cut home energy bills, halt the planned tax rise on working pensioners and ensure older people are protected from the cost of living crisis.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Minister, your pronunciation of “Cynon Valley” was very good as well.
Business without Debate
Delegated Legislation
Petitions
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Earlier this morning I was at Bannerman High School in Baillieston to sign its anti-racism charter. I am delighted to stand with them on this UN international day for the elimination of racial discrimination. I pay tribute to Ms Morton and Ms Mulholland, who organised today’s signing event.
The petition states:
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to adopt the principles of United Nations International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Notes that pupils in Bannerman High School in the constituency of Glasgow East have adopted an anti-racism charter which will be signed by everyone who studies and works in the school; further notes that the charter will be signed by pupils and staff on the United Nations International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; further notes that the charter includes the commitments ‘we will respect everyone’, ‘we will challenge all racist slurs, discrimination, and abuse’, ‘we will report any of the above to a member of staff’, and ‘we will be allies in the fight to end racism for good’; and declares that the charter adopted by students and staff at Bannerman high school should set an examples for other institutions to commit to anti-racist principles, this should include the House of Commons.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to adopt the principles of United Nations International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002720]
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition alongside a corresponding online petition signed by over 50,000 people. People face a cost of living emergency, the worst in decades, due to soaring energy bills, falling wages and universal credit cuts, yet the Government are about to make this even worse with their national insurance hike.
The petitioners request that the House of Commons urge the Government to cancel the proposed National Insurance increase and commission an investigation into the feasibility of a wealth tax on the richest 1%.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that the Government must scrap its plans to hike National Insurance on ordinary working people from April 2022; further that people are already facing huge increases in energy bills, high inflation, real-term wage cuts and cuts to Universal Credit; further that they cannot afford a further tax hike; and further that investigation over the feasibility of a wealth tax on the richest 1% of the UK population should be commissioned by the Government.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to cancel the proposed National Insurance increase and commission an investigation into the feasibility of a wealth tax on the richest 1% of the UK population.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002721]
Jack Ritchie: Gambling Act Review
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I am grateful to have been granted this debate.
Jack Ritchie was a constituent of mine; an outgoing young man, popular and bright, with lots of friends; a teacher, just starting his career, with everything to look forward to. But in 2017, at the age of 24, he took his life, driven by his addiction to gambling.
I did not know Jack, but I have come to know his story because of his inspirational parents, Liz and Charles, who are with us in the Gallery this evening. They have made it their mission to stop gambling addiction claiming the lives of others, as it does too often—more than 400 people in England alone each year; around 8% of all suicides.
Jack became addicted at the age of 17 when he started playing fixed odds betting terminals at a local bookies with a group of friends in his school lunch hour. Sadly, he was soon hooked, and we know that it is an addiction that comes quickly. Jack moved to online gambling, with products licensed by the Government. When he recognised his addiction, he struggled to break it. He managed to stop for long periods. When he died, he had been pretty much free of gambling for more than a year and a half. He had not gambled at all for five months, but he slipped back on 19 November 2017 and took his life just three days later, after a single day of intense gambling. Although he had lost money through gambling, he died with hardly any debts and with money available in one of his bank accounts. Until I heard Jack’s story, I had always thought the financial consequences of gambling addiction pushed people to suicide, but I learnt that it was the addiction itself that does this; the clinically recognised impact it has on the brain destroys that sense of self. Jack felt that he had lost control of life and would never be free. He felt ashamed and he blamed himself, which is what the industry-promoted responsible gambling model seeks: putting blame for gambling disorder on the individual, convincing them it is their fault, their weakness and their problem to solve.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for holding this debate. Northern Ireland has the highest rate of gambling disorders in the whole UK, with some 2.3% of the adult population addicted. Gambling with Lives is a great charity set up to work with secondary school pupils by grieving parents in Fermanagh who lost their son to suicide. Such charities are wonderful, yet they do not negate the duty on this House to get this right, through the legislation.
Paul Blomfield
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He makes a point I will be reflecting on throughout my contribution. I was saying that the industry promotes this idea of blame on the individual, but when the coroner looked at the evidence at Jack’s inquest he pointed the finger at us, saying:
“Jack didn't understand that being addicted to gambling wasn’t his fault.”
The coroner went on to blame a failure of diagnosis, of treatment and of regulation. That is hugely important, because it resets the approach we have to adopt. It finally moves us away from the vulnerable individuals model of regulation. I welcome the fact that a few days later the Minister recognised that, by saying that
“everyone is at risk of developing”
a gambling disorder.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
The coroner also said that the services available to Jack were “woeful”. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that until we ringfence a statutory levy that can properly fund, through the NHS, the help, support and education that is required, the services will continue to be woeful and more young men such as Jack could be forced into taking their own lives?
Paul Blomfield
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and pay tribute to the work he does on this issue. He is absolutely right about that and it is a point to which I will be returning.
I joined Liz and Charles to hear the coroner’s verdict on the last day of the inquest. They had secured the first article 2 inquest into a gambling suicide, examining whether any arm of the state had breached its duty to protect Jack’s life. The coroner found multiple failures spanning three Departments, those responsible for regulation, for education and for treatment. These are failures we have the opportunity to address in the review of the Gambling Act 2005. I know that the Minister shares the concern. He has met Liz and Charles, and others, and he has spoken powerfully on the issue, but there will be powerful forces trying to stop him, just as there were when we took on the tobacco industry.
As I said, Jack was still at school when his addiction started, and the coroner highlighted the following:
“The evidence was that young people were the most at risk from the harms of gambling yet there was and still appears to be, very little education for school children on the subject.”
According to research by the University of Bristol, 55,000 children aged 15 and under have a gambling addiction. That is shocking and it is not by chance, as a generation of gamblers are being hooked before they understand the harm. The industry cannot legally aim its advertising at children, but that is the effect. In 2020, Ipsos MORI and the University of Stirling found that 96% of 11 to 24-year-olds had seen gambling marketing in the previous month and were more likely to bet as a result. Nowhere is this more pervasive than in sport and, particularly for young people, in football. Gambling advertising on shirts, in stadiums, on TV and on social media has merged sports and gambling into a single integrated leisure experience. The industry knows what it is doing, and so do the public, over 60% of whom want a total ban on gambling advertising. We could at the very least return to the approach before the 2005 Act, so I hope the Minister will share his thinking on that, particularly in relation to children.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
As my hon. Friend rightly points out, the regulations are out of touch with the online age. For young people gambling marketing is all-pervasive online in video games and streaming services. We need regulation that is up to date and protects young people from that marketing, including free credit offers, VIP clubs and the whole range of things that bring them into the mechanics of gambling early and powerfully.
Paul Blomfield
My hon. Friend is right. The 2005 Act was flawed, but it did not anticipate how the terrain would change and it is now completely out of date given the challenges we face. Meanwhile, the industry is using every opportunity to exploit people to maximise profits.
The Minister may also reflect on the coroner’s suggestion, as endorsed by the CEO of GambleAware in her evidence, to provide warnings on products saying, “Gambling kills”—just as we did with tobacco. The coroner was also damning of the regulations, saying:
“Despite the system of regulation in force at the time of his death, Jack was able to continue to gamble when he was obviously addicted.”
Despite small changes since 2017, the coroner insisted that “significantly more” needs to be done by the state to protect people. The inquest also revealed the failures in the regulation of dangerous gambling products—some with addiction and at-risk rates of 50%—and the inadequate requirements on operators to intervene and prevent harm. The Gambling Commission must step up its game and take a proactive role in testing and licensing new products, which should be allowed only with safeguards and warnings, and the commission needs to be funded to do that job properly.
The industry must not be given the job of policing itself, and that is a powerful lesson from the inquest. Eighty-six per cent. of its profits come from just 5% of its customers—those who are addicted or at risk of harm. The conflict of interest is clear. Effective regulation starts with protecting those facing harm by tracking their activity across multiple operators, but the industry has been given responsibility for developing a technical solution—the single customer view—to protect those at risk or addicted. The last time the industry was tasked to develop a similar harm reduction tool, GAMSTOP, it dragged its heels for six years, and it failed.
The Betting and Gaming Council has been told to deliver data from its first pilots of the single customer view at the end of March—not far away—so I hope the Minister will update us on what progress, if any, has been made. He should also commit that the single customer view will be put in the hands of a properly resourced and independent body if the BGC fails to deliver what has been demanded by next Thursday.
Linked to that, affordability checks are vital to help addicts and those at risk of harm. Affordability checks for those who lose more than £100 a month gambling would make a profound difference. Some have questioned whether £100 a month is proportionate, but research by the Social Market Foundation found that any affordability checks above that level would continue to allow high losses. Crucially, it would not pick up addiction early enough. Liz and Charles believe that Jack would be alive today if such checks had been in place, flagging his behaviour much earlier and allowing meaningful intervention. He did not lose large sums of money until later, by which time his addiction was entrenched. I ask the Minister to look carefully at affordability checks.
We could also place a duty of care on operators to make them active partners in harm reduction. It would change the landscape, requiring companies do all reasonably possible to avoid harm and allow redress for those who experience it. As well as his thoughts on that, I hope the Minister can share what other regulatory action he is exploring.
As the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) said, the coroner described the warnings, information and treatment as “woefully inadequate”. His prevention of future deaths report states:
“The treatment available and received by Jack was insufficient to cure his addiction—this in part was due to a lack of training for medical professionals around…diagnosis and treatment.”
The coroner highlighted that Jack did not know that his addiction was not his fault. As we move away from the individual responsibility model to a public health approach, we need to change the Gambling Commission’s objective 3 so it has a clear responsibility to minimise gambling harm by protecting the whole population.
Jack was told by health professionals that he had an addictive personality that he would have to learn to live with. He was not diagnosed with gambling disorder. If it had been recognised sooner, if more information had been available to him, to Liz and Charles and to the healthcare professionals he saw, Jack would be alive today. The inquest heard from Dr Matt Gaskell, who leads an NHS northern gambling clinic, that the treatment Jack received was insufficient and that this contributed to his death. Dr Gaskell spoke about the impact gambling has on the brain, causing major changes as addiction develops—and develops quickly. He also underlined that the whole public are at risk, not just a vulnerable few.
We need a new approach that recognises that the problem is with the product, not with the patient, and corresponding public health messaging—an approach that provides early diagnosis and treatment pathways that build on the excellence that exists in the NHS, but make it available to everyone across the country. I recognise that that would require significant additional resource, and there should be no suggestion that the NHS or the taxpayer should have to find that money. We need to adopt the polluter pays principle on this issue as we have on others—that those who create the harm must deal with the damage. The current voluntary arrangements are not up to the task; they will not guarantee the funding we need. We need a statutory levy, independently collected and channelled to the NHS, so that the industry does not have undue influence over its allocation. I hope the Minister agrees.
The coroner’s statement painted a clear picture that gambling led Jack to his death. Jonathan Marron, the director general of the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities at the Department of Health and Social Care, agrees. He told the inquest:
“I don’t think there’s any dispute that there’s an association between gambling and suicide.”
That changes everything. The responsibility to make the change falls to Government and to Parliament. We have it in our hands to prevent more deaths.
Given the seriousness of his findings and the multiple failures he identified, the coroner’s prevention of future deaths report was issued to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, the Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care. The Departments have to respond within 56 days giving details of action taken, or proposed to be taken, and setting out the timetable for action. I do not expect the Minister to speak for them all today, or to provide insight into all the discussions in Government, but I hope he will demonstrate that the Government are ready for the scale and pace of action that we need to stop this industry gambling with lives.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Chris Philp)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) on securing this important and moving debate, inspired by a young man, Jack Ritchie, whose life was tragically lost as a result of gambling addiction. I join him in paying tribute to Jack’s brave and determined parents, Liz and Charles, who as he says are with us this evening and whom I have had the privilege of meeting on at least three occasions since becoming the Minister responsible in this area, about six months ago, for their campaigning and work to bring something constructive and positive from their son’s tragic death. They have pursued their campaign with great vigour and have succeeded in getting the attention of Government and Parliament, as this evening’s debate clearly demonstrates.
The coroner’s report into Jack’s tragic death is very powerful, and I will turn to its contents in a moment. Clearly, the coroner’s report lays out, as the hon. Member said very eloquently and powerfully, a number of inadequacies and failings. I have in front of me a copy of the coroner’s Regulation 28 report, which says that
“the system of regulation in force at the time of his death did not stop Jack gambling at a point when he was obviously addicted to gambling.”
That was a point that the hon. Member cited in his speech. The second point that it makes, under its section “Matters of Concern” says:
“The warnings Jack received were insufficient to prevent him gambling.”
The record of inquest, a separate document, says:
“The evidence was that gambling contributed to Jack’s death.”
It makes it very clear that there was a link between the two.
I thank the senior coroner for the South Yorkshire West area, David Urpeth, for the time and trouble that he took in preparing this thoughtful report and in writing to us. He said in his report:
“I issue this preventing future death report in the hope that Government finds the concerns raised informative and of assistance, especially at a time they are considering the whole issue of gambling and its regulation.”
We do find the report informative and of assistance, and I am grateful to the coroner, to the family, Liz and Charles, and to everyone who played a part in that inquest for their work in bringing this report to the attention of the House and to the attention of Government.
It is worth putting it on record that there have been some positive changes since 2017, but, clearly, these do not go far enough. Just for the record, it is worth emphasising what those changes are. Clearly, this House voted a couple of years ago, after a powerful public campaign, to reduce the stake on fixed odds betting terminals—the B2 machines—from £100 down to £2 because of the overwhelming evidence that they were causing and fuelling gambling addiction. Gambling on credit cards has now been banned, online slot games have been made safer by design, the age limit for the National Lottery has been increased to 18, and there are tighter restrictions on the VIP scheme. In addition, there are currently two, about to be five, and there will be 15 gambling addiction treatment clinics funded by the NHS long-term plan, but, as I will say in a moment, these measures are not enough by a long chalk and we need to go further.
Ronnie Cowan
I welcome all those measures, but the Government have brought every single one of them to the table kicking and screaming. They have all been from pressure groups outside looking in and saying, “You must change this.” What I want to see is the Government leading by example, particularly when it comes to the entire review of the Gambling Act 2005.
Chris Philp
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I hope that he has heard me speak on these topics relatively frequently, including just a week or two ago, and I hope that he will gather from those comments that he has heard me make—families will say the same thing, as I have spent time with many families over the past few months—that there will not be any kicking or screaming required when it comes to the Gambling Act review, which is now imminent. The evidence that we have seen, including from this coroner’s report and from many other sources, makes the case that we need to go significantly further to make sure that people are appropriately protected.
As Members will appreciate, I cannot pre-announce all the proposals on which we are working that will form part of the White Paper, the Gambling Act review. Clearly, a great deal has changed in the 17 years since 2005 when that Act was passed, not least the explosion of internet gambling, which was not really a phenomenon back in 2005. Since then though, it has exploded. It now represents about half of all gross gambling yield. The nature of the online games, the fact that people can access them 24/7, the fact that frequency of play is very high, and the look and feel of some of the features make them significantly more risky than other forms of gambling, such as gambling in person at a racecourse, playing bingo or playing the National Lottery. All those things can be addictive, but the online games have a much higher risk.
Of course, when the 2005 Act was conceived, that was not appreciated or understood, but it is appreciated and understood now. That is why the gambling review will take the significant additional steps needed to protect people like Jack and to protect everybody who is gambling. We want to be proportionate in taking those steps—we do not want to prevent people who want to gamble on a leisure basis from doing so or put unreasonable obstacles in the way—but we do need to take action.
Another piece of evidence we should all consider in making the case for action is that of the failures being committed today by gambling operators. For example, just a couple of weeks ago one of the major operators —I think it was 888—was fined £9.4 million by the Gambling Commission for a series of failures. Those failures included allowing someone to lose £37,000—not to gamble £37,000, but to lose it—in a very short space of time without any checks or intervention. Obviously, that is an unaffordable amount for almost anybody. It also allowed an NHS worker to have a loss limit set at approximately 90% of their monthly salary.
There was another case where a gentleman was eventually jailed, I think, because he had stolen £15 million to fund a gambling addiction. How can it be possible that someone can be allowed to lose £15 million without appropriate checks? It is just absurd. A further fine was levied against a major gambling operator, which I think was owned as part of the Flutter Entertainment group, which had sent marketing material actively promoting gambling products and promotions to recovering addicts.
Ronnie Cowan
The Minister is correct to point out that 888 was fined £9.4 million for its tardiness, but the point behind this is that the operators decide what rules they implement, because they are governed by their own body, the Gambling Commission, which they fund. 888 is a gambling firm—a bookmaker. It will have weighed up the odds: “Fine me £9 million? I’m making £29 million. I’m making £200 million. If you’re going to fine me £9 million for breaking the rules, I’ll do that anyway.” 888 is a bookie. That is what it does.
Chris Philp
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The reason I highlighted those failings was to make the point that proportionate reform is needed. I agree with him that it is no good the Gambling Commission’s identifying some of those cases after the event—and it by no means identifies all of them; these are just the cases it finds. They are just the tip of the iceberg. The fact that these examples were found after the event is further evidence of the need for appropriate reform. It needs to be proportionate, as I say, but reform is needed.
One area where we can go is using data. I mentioned that online gambling is one of the areas that carry higher risk, unlike betting at a racecourse, for example, which carries a risk, but a significantly lower one. Data should and will enable the Gambling Commission to do a much better job at identifying what the operators are really doing and getting a complete picture of whether they are intervening when people’s gambling patterns of behaviour indicate that there is a problem, which clearly did not happen in Jack Ritchie’s case.
I take the point about the single customer view that the hon. Member for Sheffield Central made. We are watching that extremely carefully and will be commenting further on that in the White Paper. I also take his points about timing and about the need for it to be effective and appropriately overseen and governed.
I also take the hon. Gentleman’s point about the importance of affordability checks. They need to be proportionate and pitched at the right level, but they have a really important role in making sure that some of the situations that I have mentioned, and situations like Jack Ritchie’s, do not occur. The data is available if operators properly use it and if the Gambling Commission has proper access to it to deliver that result. That should be a very significant area of attention in the Gambling Act review that is coming up very shortly.
I repeat my thanks to the hon. Gentleman for convening this debate and for speaking so powerfully and eloquently on this topic. I look forward to working with him, with the shadow Minister and with other colleagues across the House on this issue, which I think commands cross-party support. As we seek to reform our country’s gambling legislation through the review, we do so with cases like Jack Ritchie’s in mind. I know that all of us in this House will be profoundly and powerfully conscious of our duty and our obligation to protect young people like Jack Ritchie and many, many others to make sure that we learn the lessons from his tragic death and so protect our fellow citizens. I conclude by saying once again how grateful we all are for the campaigning and courage of Charles and Liz in bringing this important issue to the attention of the Government and of the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2022
Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 5) Regulations 2022
Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 6) Regulations 2022
The Minister for Europe and North America (James Cleverly)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2022 (S.I. 2022, No. 203).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 5) Regulations 2022 (S.I. 2022, No. 205) and the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 6) Regulations 2022 (S.I. 2022, No. 241).
James Cleverly
Good afternoon, Mr Twigg. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Copies of the statutory instruments were laid before the House on 1 and 8 March this year. The instruments before us were laid under the powers provided by the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, also known as the sanctions Act. These instruments came into effect under the affirmative procedure.
Side by side with our allies across the world, the UK has executed the largest package of sanctions ever imposed. These new regulations ratchet up the pressure to further isolate Russia and degrade its economy in order to starve Putin’s war machine. With your permission, Mr Twigg, I will tackle each of these statutory instruments in turn.
I turn first to the maritime statutory instrument. On 1 March, befitting our maritime heritage, we led the response and were the first country to turn any Russian vessels away from our ports. We introduced new restrictions barring all ships that are Russian-owned, Russian-operated, Russian-controlled, Russian-chartered, Russian-registered or Russian-flagged. The regulations go further, providing new powers to direct Russian vessels out of British ports and to detain Russian vessels already in port. This is a powerful new tool against oligarchs and wealthy individuals closely associated with Vladimir Putin’s regime.
Finally on this statutory instrument, anyone connected with Russia can no longer register a vessel and will have any existing registrations terminated in the UK. This strips away the competitive advantage provided by being a member of the UK’s ships register, and we are working closely with the ports sector to support it in upholding the regulations. We have issued detailed guidance to support that on the ground.
The second of the regulations is the Russian central bank statutory instrument, which was also laid before the House on 1 March. It introduces restrictions that prohibit any UK individual or entity from providing financial services relating to foreign exchange reserves and asset management involving the Central Bank of Russia, the Russian national wealth fund and the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation. This action, taken in close co-ordination with the United States and the European Union, prevents the Russian central bank from deploying its foreign reserves in any way that undermines the impact of the sanctions imposed by the UK and our allies. It undercuts the bank’s ability to make foreign exchange transactions to support the Russian rouble. Alongside the existing draft of financial sanctions, this locks down the most severe of our other restrictions.
The third and final SI concerns aviation, space and insurance products, and it was laid before the House on 8 March this year. We introduced a new suite of aircraft sanctions and established new Government powers to detain Russian aircraft in the UK. At the same time, we extended the existing ban on Russian aircraft from the UK, making it a criminal offence for any Russian aircraft to fly here or land here. The ban includes any aircraft owned, operated or chartered by anyone connected with Russia and any individuals operating in UK airspace.
The new powers will also allow the Government to remove aircraft belonging to designated Russian individuals from the UK aircraft register. The statutory instrument builds on the critical industry trade prohibitions that came into force on 1 March this year. It will go further by extending those prohibitions to cover all aviation and space goods and technology, and related services, as well as the provision of insurance and reinsurance services. Together with similar actions taken by our partners, these measures are designed to severely constrain Russia’s commercial air operations and logistics, and that will have an impact on its economy.
The regulations represent some of the most significant sanctions implemented by the UK, but we have imposed, and will continue to impose, further sanctions on Putin and his regime, as promised. We will continue to ratchet up our sanctions until Putin ends his outrageous, unprovoked attack on Ukraine, which represents a clear breach of international law and the UN charter.
We are grateful to organisations from banks to oil companies, from football leagues to singing competitions, for making it clear that Putin and his allies must be isolated from the international community for their actions. On 10 March, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary announced a full asset freeze and travel ban against seven of Russia’s wealthiest and most influential oligarchs. The following day, we sanctioned 386 members of the Duma for their support for the Ukrainian breakaway regions of Luhansk and Donetsk, and for their complicity in Putin’s war of choice. On 15 March, my right hon. Friend announced more than 370 new sanctions, made possible thanks to our new, urgently passed Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022. Those designations take the UK’s total number of designated persons, entities and subsidiaries to 1,000.
Together with our allies, we are making Putin and his allies pay the price for their aggression. Our unity demonstrates the strength of opposition to Russian aggression. I end by reiterating our unwavering support for the people of Ukraine. We hold them in our hearts and minds at this most terrible moment in their nation’s history. As a free and democratic country, Ukraine has the right to determine its own future. It is clear that the Russian Government were never serious about engaging in diplomacy; they were only ever focused on their territorial ambitions. The UK and the international community stand against this naked aggression, and for freedom, democracy and the sovereignty of nations around the world. Our new and upcoming sanctions regulations and measures will continue to show Putin that his abhorrent war is a massive strategic mistake. We pay tribute to the Government and people of Ukraine. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Twigg. I thank the Minister for the points that he has set out; indeed, I thank the whole team at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, and those in other Departments who are working on bringing in these sanctions measures. I do not intend to detain the Committee long; in line with the approach that we have taken on these matters to date, we wholeheartedly support the Government’s efforts to target the Putin regime in response to its unjustifiable, unprovoked attack on Ukraine, and the heinous aggression and atrocities that we see almost daily.
I have a number of questions for the Minister, which I hope he can answer. Let me begin by reiterating that we Labour Members stand in utter condemnation of President Putin’s invasion, and in complete solidarity with the people of Ukraine, who are showing extraordinary courage and resilience, and are making extraordinary sacrifices, in resisting this onslaught. I am sure that the Minister met, as I did, the four Members of the Ukrainian Parliament who came here. They are remarkable women who are speaking up, and who undertook the journey here at great risk to themselves. They had powerful messages for all of us in this House about what is needed. I hope he has taken on board many of the issues that they raised with him and others on all sides of the House.
We have pledged to work with the Government at speed to ensure the House can pass the necessary legislative measures. We urge the Government to continue to go faster, further, broader and deeper, not least because as Russian forces encounter the courageous Ukrainian defence, the fighting has got bloodier and increasingly indiscriminate. We have seen absolutely appalling scenes in Mariupol in the last few days—utterly horrific attacks on civilians and the attack on the shopping centre in Kyiv overnight. Let us remember that we are here passing these sanctions because of the Russian regime’s unprovoked and indiscriminate aggression against the people of Ukraine.
We cannot afford to have a sanctions gap. At some points during this process, we have been critical of the speed with which the Government have introduced measures. The Minister gave some details of the number of measures that have been brought in, but they were all lumped together in one group. It would be helpful if the Minister set out the exact number of measures that have been introduced and the exact number of individuals and entities that have been targeted, perhaps with a breakdown by date. He mentioned that things had sped up since the introduction of the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act, which we supported, but I am keen to see details on how quickly that has happened. The reason we made those changes in the first place was to give the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office more legal ability to sanction individuals without challenges such as it has experienced.
I want to ask the Minister about the resourcing of that unit and the other implementing units. Passing the sanctions is one thing, but we must inform all the relevant sectors, some of which are complex, and enforce the sanctions across all those sectors. They will affect many companies and individuals who may have had interactions with individuals or companies linked to the regime. What is being done to staff up the FCDO and, crucially, the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation? I understand that it has only 37 full-time equivalent staff. What are the Government’s plans to increase that number urgently and ensure we have the maximum amount of resources for drafting and, crucially, implementing these measures?
Will the Minister update us on the situation in the overseas territories and Crown dependencies? I draw attention to my declaration of my recent visit to Gibraltar, where I asked questions about implementation in the overseas territories. They are crucial to ensuring that we tackle the individuals who have sought to hide their money and move their assets around. Is it his understanding that all the OTs and CDs have implemented these measures all in their different legislative and constitutional ways? That is critical, not least when it comes to measures on financial services and shipping, given the role that OTs and CDs play in those things.
On shipping, I welcome the measures that are being taken. This issue has been raised repeatedly by MPs in Ukraine and others—a number of Members have received briefings on it in recent days. Could the Minister clarify what is being done about maritime insurance for cargoes? I understand that nine out of 10 of the main shipping firms operating in and out of Russia are now not undertaking operations there, although the Chinese shipping firm COSCO is still doing so. Given the role of the UK, and particularly Lloyd’s of London, in maritime insurance, can the Minister explain whether insurance companies are providing insurance for Russian cargoes? Without those crucial insurance and reinsurance services, it will not be possible to transport those cargoes. It would be helpful for the Committee to understand that.
The Minister mentioned the measures relating to aerospace and space activities. Could he provide an update on the reports over the weekend of an aircraft that was allegedly seized at Biggin Hill airport? I know the Transport Secretary was dealing with that, but has there been any resolution? Have there been other examples of aircraft or air transport trying to use UK airspace, particularly at general aviation airports and others away from the main cargo hubs, or of oligarchs attempting to flee from the measures we have introduced? What implementation has there been? Implementation is critical.
We will have all seen the remarkable scenes of the cosmonauts boarding the international space station, and we have all raised concerns about the company OneWeb and the proposed launch of its satellites from the Russian facilities. I understand that there have been updates in recent hours about plans to move that launch. Does the Minister have any information about that? Given our role in space activities, and in satellite technology in particular, it is crucial that we are not subtly funding Russian space activities through our own commercial ventures. Of course, we have co-operation with the European Space Agency, with its spaceport in Guiana. It is crucial that we are using that, and other American launch facilities. We should not be using an agency that may have had some incredibly proud cosmonauts, but whose own head has said some frankly appalling things in recent days.
The Minister mentioned a range of companies affected by the sanctions. While a number of the big name companies—especially those with UK links—have stopped operating in Russia, which is welcome, we are aware of a substantial list of major brands located elsewhere in Europe. I will not name individuals; I am sure that the Minister is aware of whom I am referring to. What discussions is he having with our allies in European Union member states, and indeed non-European Union member states that are allies none the less, about what pressure is being put on some of those big brand names to cease their operations in Russia? Quite rightly, many Ukrainians have been raising the matter with Members of this House, and asking how some of those organisations are still operating and bankrolling the Russian regime by the back door.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. The Treasury Committee recently received evidence from a number of experts about sanctions. One of the issues that has come up is that some of the companies need further guidance and advice. They are self-sanctioning, which is welcome, but they could do with more advice, guidance and support from the Government. It would be great if the Minister could pick that up, in terms of next steps.
Stephen Doughty
I thank my hon. Friend for making an important point, which relates to the questions I raised about enforcement and implementation bodies, and particularly the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation. They have got to be resourced to engage not only in enforcement, but in the provision of education and information to companies that want to do the right thing. These are incredibly complex matters that are moving at speed.
On countries that are not currently sanctioning, some of which we have alliances and relationships with, can the Minister provide an update about what diplomatic efforts we are making to bring them into the global coalition against the Putin regime? The Minister will be aware—we raised the matter in Westminster Hall the other day—of threats to a number of the countries that are sanctioning, including in the western Balkans. What steps are we taking to reassure and reinforce them?
I have two final questions. The Government have previously referred to an intention to limit the deposits that can be made by Russian nationals. I raised the matter with the Minister on 1 March. Is that now included in these measures, or is it a further measure to come? There is also a constant question, which other Members may raise, about Scottish limited partnerships. Can the Minister provide an update on how that issue is being dealt with?
The Opposition’s broad intent is to support the Government on these measures and to support them in acting in the toughest way possible against the Putin regime. We will not seek to divide the Committee, but I hope that the Minister will be able to provide some important clarifications.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I am conscious when making any speech that nobody ever criticised a speech for being too short, so I too do not intend to detain the Committee. We support the measures. We have called for them, we urge the Minister to greater efforts and he has our support.
The SNP stands foursquare with the people of Ukraine—an innocent people who have suffered a terrible act of aggression from their neighbour. It really is poignant that we are debating the technicalities of legislation while they are fighting for their lives and homeland. It is a moment when we should all stand together.
While we support the measures, I would like to make a couple of general points. I am concerned about the British overseas territories and the territorial extent of the measures. I am concerned that we could be creating loopholes that will be taken advantage of really quickly, unless the approach is really comprehensive. Particularly given the extreme mobility of planes, boats and money, I think there is a real risk. Again, the Minister has our support in closing those loopholes, but they should be on our agenda.
On the complementarity of the sanctions that the UK is implementing, vis-à-vis the EU and the US sanctions, different places obviously have proceeded at different paces, according to their own domestic legislative circumstances—I understand that—but could the Minister assure us that the aim is to mirror exactly the EU and US efforts, and that we will get there in due course? It is an open question as to how different places have dealt with this, but the aim surely has to be a global coalition in which we are doing the same stuff, and the same people should be sanctioned by everybody, regardless of who did it first.
On the general sanctions, I support this package, but I am concerned about its extent, and the lack of sunset clause for any of this. A huge amount of power is being given to the Executive to sanction individuals. I would be grateful for an assurance that the Government’s view is that these measures will be time-limited. I am not asking for a date at the moment—that would be irresponsible—but an assurance that these measures will not be a permanent addition to the armoury would be very welcome to those of us who are concerned about long-term overweening consequences.
I echo the comments by the Labour spokesperson, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, on compensation, particularly in relation to the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 6) Regulations 2022, on financial measures. I note that a full impact assessment has not been produced for that instrument, but it says that costs are likely for UK businesses. Where is the thinking on compensation? I am thinking particularly of the smaller operators. Some organisations just should not have been doing the business they were doing—they can suffer the consequences—but a number of smaller operators will be in deep trouble because of this. An assurance that there will be more advice available and a flexible approach to compensation—I am asking not for the details of it but for a commitment to that principle—would be useful today.
Beyond those points, I reiterate that we are happy to support these measures. I suspect that they will not be the last ones that we see, but the Minister has our support in these endeavours. We should all stand together at this time.
James Cleverly
I am very glad to put on record the Government’s recognition of the constructive tone that has been taken by both Her Majesty’s Opposition and the SNP, not just in today’s statutory instrument debate but throughout this process. I recognise that there is a duty on Opposition parties to push the Government and to hold the Government to account, and in this instance, it has been done in a genuinely constructive way that is designed to reinforce what we are all hoping to achieve, which is to put meaningful pressure on the right bits of the Russian system, so that we close down the financial freedom of those individuals who are propping up Putin and his regime and helping to fund his war effort. I recognise that sometimes in opposition it is easier to be completely focused on opposing for the sake of opposition, and that sometimes supportive opposition is harder to execute, but the tone that the Opposition parties have taken has been noticed and recognised.
In relation to specific details—times, dates, locations and so on—if the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, my shadow, does not mind, I will write to him on that. Actually, I will rephrase that: I will either write to him or ensure that the information is deposited in such a way that the whole House can see it, because that is important. On his point about enforcement, which was brought up on the Floor of the House, there are institutions, businesses and individuals who want to do the right thing, but we are indeed in uncharted waters and unprecedented times; they want to ensure that they do not inadvertently fall foul of our sanctions system, and we want to help them with that.
Ultimately, enforcement of the sanctions will be done by different bits of Government. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation; I will return to the staffing numbers, and whether they are secondments or permanent posts. It is part of the enforcement regime, as are HM Treasury and the Home Office. Obviously, the Department for Transport has a big role to play in relation to both aviation and ports. We will continue to liaise closely with ports and airports to ensure that they understand exactly what they need to do. The hon. Gentleman mentioned a specific instance about small airfields. We are conscious that elite air travellers tend not to use Luton, Gatwick or Heathrow so much. We are very focused on smaller airfields, and will be working with them to ensure that people do not use them to slip through the net. I will not go into the details of that incident, but we are absolutely aware of what he is talking about, and we are seeking to take effective action.
Both hon. Gentlemen asked in various ways about overseas territories and Crown dependencies. The sanctions regime applies in all UK Crown dependencies and overseas territories, either by Orders in Council or through the jurisdictions’ own legislative processes. We are working with them to ensure that the regime is put in place quickly, and that there are no loopholes or opportunities to move between regimes.
Stephen Doughty
Will the Minister tell us, or perhaps write to us about, where that has got to? I understand that for some jurisdictions, the changes were effectively automatic—in fact, some of them were ahead of us—but for some, the changes took longer. Obviously, we cannot allow loopholes in this process, particularly within our British family.
James Cleverly
As the hon. Gentleman says, there are different processes in different parts of the Crown dependencies and overseas territories. I assure him that they all have a genuine desire to get things done quickly. As he says, in some instances, they moved ahead of the UK. I have no doubt that the process will be quick enough to prevent any leakage of the kind that he suggested.
The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) spoke about working with the financial and business sectors to help implementation. I have covered that, and we will continue to work with those sectors.
Rushanara Ali
While the Minister is at it, can he look at how we can bolster the staff make-up in the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation? I appreciate that things are happening very quickly, but can we ensure that expertise is brought in as quickly as possible, and that we learn lessons from other countries, such as the United States, on this issue?
James Cleverly
We are looking to make sure that the implementation is effective, because we have seen that in most instances, sanctions have a deterrent effect. People do not attempt to breach the sanctions, because they know that we are keeping a close eye on them. We need an effective enforcement regime, and we will make sure that it is as effective for these sanctions as for the initial sanctions regime.
The hon. Member for Stirling spoke about close co-ordination with our international friends and allies. I am glad he raised the point that our various legal jurisdictions and processes are not identical, so the initial responses were necessarily slightly different. At all stages, we have worked very closely with our international partners. Indeed, at the meeting of G7 Foreign Ministers in Liverpool in December last year, we agreed what our collective sanctions response would be in the event of an invasion; it feels like a lifetime ago, even though it was only a few weeks ago. However, the initial action, and vote in the Duma, fell short of the threshold that had been discussed.
Internationally, we all responded in our respective ways, but there was absolute unanimity of purpose. Since then, we have relatively quickly, and with the help of the Opposition parties, taken Acts through Parliament. We can now co-ordinate even more tightly. We can take our allies’ preparatory work on sanctions and use it to bring forward our own, which massively speeds up the process and increases co-ordination. My right hon. colleagues at various levels of Government will be working once again with their G7 counterparts later this week, examining what pan-G7 sanctions packages would look like.
The hon. Member for Stirling raised the question of how we de-escalate from this, which is a legitimate point. At the moment, we are not speaking much about what a de-escalation process would look like—understandably, I think. Our message is very clear: the sanctions will bite harder and get more painful the longer this continues, and if the Russian regime wants sanctions to ease, it has to cease its invasion and its attack against Ukraine and remove its troops. Then we will consider how we de-escalate. As for what protections will be in place in future, as the hon. Gentleman said, these sanctions powers are rightly powerful, and the House will of course want to make an assessment of what enduring level of power is appropriate for a Government. That is a very important argument, but it is an argument for a different point in time.
We will continue to apply more pressure to Putin’s regime, including through further sanctions.
Stephen Doughty
I sense the Minister may be coming towards the end of his remarks. Before he sits down, could he say something about the crucial question of maritime insurance of cargos? If he is less well equipped to respond to that question, perhaps he could come back to us in writing. It is a critical issue, particularly given the role of the UK in the maritime insurance market.
James Cleverly
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point and, ever the gentleman, has allowed me the elegant “get out of jail free” card that is the option of writing to him on this important subject. Let me check very quickly—[Interruption.] No, that is not the right answer. I will write to the hon. Gentleman on this issue, because I do not want to get “nearly but not quite”; I want to absolutely nail it.
When it comes to applying sanctions, the unanimity of voice from those across UK politics, in every part of the UK, and in the international community should send a very clear message to Vladimir Putin: he cannot, and will not, be successful in his attack against Ukraine. He should now cease that attack and withdraw his troops, and I am glad that the UK’s sanctions will increase the pressure on him until he does so. I thank the Committee for its contributions, and for its support for the sanctions.
Alyn Smith
I am sure the Minister is about to deal with the question about compensation.
James Cleverly
Again, I do not want to run ahead of what has been publicly committed to, but I take the point the hon. Gentleman has made about supporting businesses and, indeed, countries that are doing the right thing. Those countries will perhaps feel a much greater financial impact than we will in the UK. We will ensure that we stand in solidarity with not just the Ukrainian people at this difficult time, but with the companies, individuals and countries that have chosen to do the right thing, knowing that it will bring them a degree of financial and economic pain. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will look at that issue very seriously. I commend the regulations to the Committee, and hope that Members will support them.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2022 (S.I. 2022, No. 203).
RUSSIA (SANCTIONS) (EU EXIT) (AMENDMENT) (NO. 5) REGULATIONS 2022
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 5) Regulations 2022 (S.I. 2022, No. 205).—(James Cleverly.)
RUSSIA (SANCTIONS) (EU EXIT) (AMENDMENT) (NO. 6) REGULATIONS 2022
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 6) Regulations 2022 (S.I. 2022, No. 241).—(James Cleverly.)
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Badger Culling
(2 years, 1 month 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
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 333693, relating to badger culling.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. Given the recent events in Ukraine, it feels odd to be standing here talking about badgers. That is not to say that they or any other issue discussed in Westminster Hall debates are unimportant, but when a war breaks out on the other side of Europe, that puts everything we do here into perspective.
At the same time, the war has shown that these debates are more important than ever. What are Ukrainians fighting for if not the right to continue having a democratic Government who listen to them? Petitions are one of the most direct ways that citizens in the UK can interact with Parliament. They draw our attention to issues that the public feel strongly about and require a response from the Government. In this case, that issue is badger culling.
It would be an understatement to say that the policy of badger culling has caused considerable controversy in the near decade since it was announced. Anti-cull campaigners such as Wild Justice, who started the petition, believe that badger culling is cruel and, most importantly, ineffective. For example, last week a peer review study by three anti-cull scientists found that rates of bovine tuberculosis did not differ inside and outside cull zones, and that rates in high-risk areas began to fall before culling began.
On the other hand, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and farmers say that culling is an important part of England’s overall strategy to achieve official bovine tuberculosis-free status by 2038, and that it has helped reduce bovine TB rates by half in some areas. Despite the reduction of bovine TB rates, some 30,000 cattle are still slaughtered each year. As the Government’s response to the petition noted, that represents a significant loss to farmers. If not controlled, bovine TB could also pose a danger to the UK’s agricultural sector.
Managing bovine TB has been a challenging issue for farmers and DEFRA for many decades, with no easy solutions. In the early 1970s, badgers were first identified as a potential wildlife reservoir of infection for cattle, but we still do not fully understand what role badgers play in transmission to cattle. Throughout the ’70s, ’80s and ’90s, the Government implemented a series of strategies to reduce bovine TB. Following the 2011 pilot in two areas of south-west England, badger culls were extended to other high-risk areas in the region in 2013. Last May, the Government announced the next stage of their plan to reduce bovine TB in England, which will see badger culling phased out.
As I mentioned earlier, culling is only one part of the Government’s strategy for achieving official bovine tuberculosis-free status for England by 2038. The strategy also includes measures to strengthen biosecurity on farms and increase bovine TB testing for cattle. Vaccination of both badgers and cattle might also have a role to play, although I understand that it is not ready for widespread use yet. Nevertheless, after the past two years we are all more familiar with vaccines and know what a difference they can make in reducing infection.
Since last May, over 1,400 badgers have been vaccinated. Of course, badgers are responsible for only a portion of the infections in cattle, but reducing infections in badgers is expected to cause a subsequent fall in cattle TB incidences. The early results of field trials for badger bovine TB vaccinations are encouraging, with one study showing that vaccinated badgers are between 54% and 76% less likely to test positive for bovine TB. It also found that vaccinating a third of a group of badgers reduced the risk of infection to unvaccinated cubs by nearly 80%. Two other studies reviewed by DEFRA indicate that badger vaccination after culling could help maintain a lower level of bovine TB as effectively as continuous culling in the long term.
So far, bovine TB vaccines for cattle have been used only in research studies. I am aware that the Animal and Plant Health Agency began field trials of a cattle vaccine and skin test last summer, with a view to its eventually receiving market authorisation in the UK. Will the Minister ensure there are no delays once the results of the study are published, so that vaccines and accurate tests can be used on any farm where there is a risk of bovine TB?
I have spoken to the petitioner, Mark Avery, and his main request is whether, should the Government continue with culling, it can be carried out more humanely. The Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill has just gone through Parliament. Surely that attitude to improving animal welfare should be reflected in our approach to TB reduction. Trapping and then killing is far better than wounding a badger and then letting it die a slow, painful death.
I recognise the steps that the Government have taken so far on controlling bovine TB without badger culls. Last year, DEFRA announced that no new licences for intensive badger culls would be provided after this year. That is not exactly what the petition is asking for, but it is certainly progress. DEFRA has also said that the length of existing licences could be reduced from five years to two years, without the option to renew them.
Most importantly, the Government are developing a monitoring system to track the badger population and disease levels, which will enable future policy decisions to be made based on better information than was available in the past. Nobody wants to cull badgers unnecessarily, but we must also think of the cattle and the livelihoods of our farmers. We all want the same outcome—the eradication of bovine TB—and hopefully by 2038, if not sooner, we will achieve that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Order. The debate can last until 6 o’clock.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve once again under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and to speak in a debate on this important topic, secured by petition. I also declare an interest, because I have sponsored a badger. I named it Dennis, after the former hon. Member for Bolsover, who was an excellent help to me when I first arrived in this place. He gave me some tips about its peculiarities and how to try to get on top of it and do my best by my constituents. He was respected across the House.
It is a shame that we are not allowed to bring props into Westminster Hall, because alongside my sponsorship of Dennis I have received my very own personal fluffy Dennis, who now watches over my constituency office while I am here down in London. I will post a picture of Dennis at some stage today. He is a kind beast of Cheshire and a law unto himself at times, and he is passionate about scurrying around Cheshire. People will see a picture of him in his natural habitat.
I sponsored Dennis after visiting the Cheshire badger vaccination programme—or CBVP for short—a volunteer group that, after receiving professional vaccination training, works with landowners and farmers to map locations of badgers and trap them over a 10-day process. It is labour-intensive and includes some very early mornings—my office manager had the pleasure of going on one—but it means healthy badgers, healthy cattle, which is vital, and humans happy in the knowledge that they are avoiding badger culling in favour of a more humane approach.
Badgers, unfortunately, do not respond well to national public health campaigns to get them vaccinated. We do not see them marching down to their local vaccination centre; the CBVP informs me that peanuts placed in traps works much better. The CBVP does excellent work, working together with farmers and landowners to protect livestock and create a long-lasting, stable population of TB-resistant badgers in the Cheshire area. Bovine TB is an incredibly difficult disease to counter, as the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) mentioned, and we lose tens of thousands of cattle to it every year.
I represent a semi-rural constituency in Weaver Vale, with many farmers as well as many wildlife lovers, and I am keen that we should work hard to find a solution that protects cattle, livelihoods and local ecosystems, as well as protecting wildlife welfare. We also need to be mindful that the evidence points towards direct transmission from badgers to cattle making up only a minority of transmissions—I think the hon. Member said about a quarter. Ensuring that cattle are vaccinated, as well as healthy, will ensure that we rid the countryside of TB. Not only does culling not respect animal welfare, but it disturbs the overall composition of badger communities, meaning that badgers are likely to move more frequently and over longer distances, which risks higher disease transmission between badgers and cattle.
We need to take into account the cost of culling, which was £6 million in 2020 alone. The Derbyshire badger vaccination programme estimated that killing a badger costs £1,000, compared with £82 for vaccinating each badger that they trap. It is clear from the amount of support that the Cheshire volunteers receive, as well as the number of constituents who have contacted me and other hon. Members who are in the Chamber, that there is support for the badger vaccination programme, and more than half the public oppose culling. There are even deeper concerns, particularly about the shooting of badgers. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us specifically how the Department plans not only to phase out culling quickly, but to stop the use of culling licences altogether.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate and to follow the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury). I was delighted to listen to his speech. I also pay tribute to and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for bringing the petition to Westminster Hall for debate.
The debate is about banning the shooting of badgers immediately. That is an important point to note because, although the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 already prohibits the shooting of badgers, section 10 of the Act outlines where licences can be issued by Natural England in specific circumstances. We are in Westminster Hall to debate and share views on one of those specific circumstances, and that is the culling of badgers mainly for the purpose of eradicating bovine tuberculosis.
My constituency is West Dorset. It is a south-west constituency, and I am very much aware of those constituents who signed the petition and shared their views on it. It is also important to note that the south-west is one of the areas with the highest rates of bovine tuberculosis, not just in the county of Dorset but in the wider south-west and up towards the west midlands. My contribution is not to support the petition, but to emphasise the work the Government are already doing, given these circumstances, and provide a voice in the debate for the farming community.
In 2020, 38,000 badgers were culled. Also in 2020, the Wildlife Trusts estimated that 50,000 badgers were killed on or near roads. The agriculture and farming communities are significant, and their role in animal welfare is often underestimated. That is why I wanted to share these thoughts this afternoon. I am sure that regardless of where we stand on the issue, we have two shared objectives. The first is to eradicate tuberculosis completely both in badgers and in cows. The second is to stop the intensive culling as a result.
My understanding is that it is the Government’s intention to eradicate TB by 2038. I was pleased to hear from the Minister’s colleagues that the stopping of intensive licences will take effect this year. I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will not mind if I take a little bit of her thunder, but it is important to note that the Government are making good progress.
I want to emphasise the point made by the hon. Member for Weaver Vale about vaccination, and I think few people would disagree with him. The difficulty of vaccination is that it does not deal with or cure the cases that we already have. I am afraid that, often, members of the public do not see that in the same way. The AHPA says that 64% of new TB cases in cattle are transmitted from badgers, but that is in high-risk areas. That statistic is a little different from that mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, as it is specific to high-risk areas such as the south-west. That statistic leads to 28,000 cattle being slaughtered every year. I am not saying that badgers are completely responsible for bovine TB in cattle in this country, but they have a significant role to play. The cows culled may be cows that are in calf, which we see all too often.
It is important to note that the whole experience is extremely distressing for the farming community—not just at the point where slaughter is required but through the whole testing process. Mr Hollobone, I hope you will forgive me as I should have declared at the beginning of my speech that I am a farmer’s son. Although I am no longer active on our family farm, I have a clear understanding of the area. I have personal experience of how deeply distressing and worrying that whole period often is for our farmers in this country.
To those who genuinely believe in an immediate stop to badger culling, I would say that, in the long-term, it will be worse not just for cattle but for badgers. The priority is to reduce the number of TB cases in badgers and cattle. We know that vaccinations do not work for badgers that already have tuberculosis, but they work for those who have not had it yet. If we stop culling immediately, the threat could, in due course, be existential.
World Tuberculosis Day is this week, which puts into stark contrast the number of TB cases and deaths across the world. It is important that we understand and recognise that TB is the most deadly infectious disease. Although I have not come to the debate furnished with the statistics about transmission between badgers and humans, it is important to note—particularly this week—that that is an important matter.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for introducing this e-petition debate. I want to adopt a similar attitude to that of the hon. Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder), as I have the same point of view.
I declare an interest, as the owner of a farm—not worked by us but by our neighbours—of beef and dairy cattle. As a representative of a rural constituency with a large number of farms, I am very well acquainted with this topic through my farm, my neighbours’ farms and farms all around the Ards peninsula. We have the second largest milk production in Northern Ireland—second only to East Antrim. Across the Ards peninsula, mid-Down and my constituency, we have a large number of farmers who depend on having a bovine TB-free herd to be able to progress their business. That is why I adopt the same attitude as the hon. Member for West Dorset. I respect and understand the reasons for the petition, but it would be remiss of me not to put on the record that I support the control of badgers.
I represent a constituency where the control of badgers is very important for the farming sector—it is crucial. My farmers tell me regularly that they have had tests done. Hopefully, in most cases, the reactor test is not inconclusive, and they do another test and get the free rein that they hoped they would have. On occasions, however, it has not worked that way. Therefore, it is very important that the dairy and beef sectors are protected. Given that 276 cows are slaughtered every week in Northern Ireland after reacting to a bTB test, this is a matter of great interest. I know it is not the Minister’s responsibility—this is a devolved matter for the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs—but we in Northern Ireland would like DEFRA to work in tandem and partnership with DAERA back home.
Although it is true that farmers receive a financial payment for the market value of their reactor cattle, there is no compensation paid for the loss of any production. We should not think that the financial end of things compensates totally for what is lost, because it does not. Some farmers who come to me to regularly have some of the most incredible pedigree herds in Northern Ireland, so if they lose stock, they do not just lose that animal; they lose production and the pedigree of that animal, perhaps for a generation. I also have many farmers who take their cattle across to the mainland to sell—I know that the Northern Ireland protocol has made that a wee bit more difficult but, by and large, farmers have been able to manage the system over the last period of time—so I am conscious that bovine TB strikes fear into them.
Many hon. Members represent constituencies with farmers, and farmers love their animals with a passion and want them to do well. Ultimately, their cattle will either produce milk or end up in the food chain in one way or another, but my point is that farmers look to protect their animals, and they need to protect them from bovine TB.
Lakeland Dairies in my constituency is probably one of the largest producers of milk powder, which it exports all over the world. In my constituency, and across the neighbouring constituencies of Lagan Valley, South Down and North Down, we need to have a good product that is safe, so that we can export it. Some 80% of our agrifood products are exported across the world. My farmers are heavily involved in dairy and beef cattle and want to protect their herds from bovine TB, and it is important that we do everything we can. Although I respect the petition and understand the reasons behind it, I respectfully say that we also need to have control. It is a bit like how we control the foxes so that they do not kill all the birds. We also control magpies, greyback crows and so on. We do those things to keep the balance in the countryside and, hopefully, to help our stock to progress and do well.
Much of Northern Ireland has been running a vaccination and selective elimination programme. The disappointing 2021 data saw an increase in the number of bovine tuberculosis reactors removed from farms in Northern Ireland. In total, 14,355 reactors were compulsorily slaughtered because of a reaction to a test. We should be under no illusion how much of an impact that can have on our farmers and the job they do.
Our agrifood exports from Northern Ireland are so important. We export 80% of what we produce—we cannot use it all in Northern Ireland—so it is important to have a top-class, bovine TB-free herd. Worryingly, however, the figures have increased by 11% since 2021, and almost 9% of herds in Northern Ireland had the disease by the close of 2021.
As I said earlier, I declare an interest as a member of the Ulster Farmers Union, and I want to quote it:
“The movement trends of these figures continue to demonstrate that despite the current programme to control/eradicate bTB that the current measures are at best treading water or dare we say”—
this is the UIster Farmers Union talking, not Jim Shannon—“sinking slowly.” It continues:
“For the first time in generations, there has been a story of hope given to our members over the last number of months.”
It is always good to recognise something to hold on to—some hope—and to see farmers, and the Ulster Farmers Union, which represents them, encouraged. The Ulster Farmers Union goes on:
“The revised bTB strategy brought about the suggestion of change of approach. This detailed document, although containing some points which are not acceptable to our members, showed intent to tackle the burden of bTB on our farms. Meaningful wildlife intervention has been proposed as a precursor to entering a vaccination phase in later years, within the preferred method.
UFU’s goal is ultimately to deliver to farmers a healthy cattle population alongside a healthy wildlife population.”
There is a balance to be struck, and the farmers are committed to that as well.
The Ulster Farmers Union continues:
“Having witnessed the success of wildlife intervention in England firsthand, UFU continue to support this proposal”,
and it urges our DAERA Minister back home, Edwin Poots, who is the equivalent of the Minister here today,
“to deliver an announcement on the intended way forward with the upmost urgency.
For generations, our members have presented their animals for testing within the required timescales to comply with regulations. Reactors have been and continue to be taken from farms in all corners of NI. Despite this, distress and heartache still continue to burden farming families because of bTB. The time for change is now.”
I reflect that opinion of my farmers back home and across the whole of Northern Ireland. The Minister always responds—I mean this honestly—to an issue. It is my hope that we in Northern Ireland can work alongside her here at Westminster, because, when it comes to addressing this issue, I believe that it is something that we can do together better.
I am very pleased to represent my farmers and my neighbours—farmers across the Ards peninsula, Ards, mid-Down, Strangford and indeed the whole of Northern Ireland. Although I will never advocate cruel and barbaric mechanisms for TB control, I do advocate very strongly that the farming industry must have a part in finding the solution to the problem, and any discussion on this topic must take in the needs of those who provide our food in an environmentally sustainable and cruelty-free method.
We have an issue with TB; that cannot be denied. It can be detrimental to our farming sector, and that, too, cannot be denied. Although badgers are important and must be handled compassionately—I think that is the thrust of what we are all saying today—so, too, must the cattle, and we must get this right. One of the major agrifood sectors in Northern Ireland must be able to continue to deliver jobs and an economic boost for Northern Ireland. As I said, 80% of our produce is sent overseas. That indicates the importance of this petition. It also indicates the importance of our farmers and our farming sector being protected. For me, that is the most important thing.
Sir Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) on securing this debate on behalf of the petitioners. I took one of his sentences to heart, which was that we should at all times avoid a “slow, painful death”. I quite agree with him on that.
I would also pick up the point my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) made about tuberculosis. This whole debate started with tuberculosis in human beings, and it is helpful for people to be aware that there are 10 million cases of human TB annually around the world and that 1.5 million people died of TB in 2020. This disease is a killer.
I then listened to the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), who talked about his pet, Dennis and said that it was lucky he could not bring his pet here. At that point, I felt that I should share with this august body the death of my pet on Thursday. His name was Free Fallin’, after the Tom Petty song. He weighed about 1.25 tonnes. He was the best bull in the UK for estimated breeding values—or certainly one of the best. I am not going to cry or anything, but it is upsetting. I lent my bull to a friend who is serving abroad with the Army. His neighbours got TB and it soon spread to my friend’s herd. He could not have artificially inseminated his cattle, because he was not here. Unfortunately, the TB spread to my bull. The Government rightly insist that any animal coming back to a farm from another should be tested, so I insisted that before my bull left he be tested. He failed. I think he is still alive, but he will not be for much longer. It is really upsetting. That was the first time it happened to me.
When we talk about our pets, it is helpful to recognise that as owners we have a responsibility to our animals. If they get a fatal disease—which tuberculosis certainly is—we have to do the right thing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley said, no animal should have a “slow, painful death”, be it a cow, badger, deer or sheep. We must do the right thing by our pets, whatever they are. The right thing is to put them out of their misery before they suffer. I am sure the hon. Member for Weaver Vale would do the same if his badger were ill with an incurable, fatal disease.
In this debate, the emotions escape from the realities. Every year, around 30,000 cattle and about 24,000 badgers are culled in the high-risk, high-infection areas. Last year, 28,000 cattle were culled, of which 1,400 were in Herefordshire and Worcestershire. The last Labour Government were reluctant to use gassing, but recognised that sick creatures need to be put down, out of their misery, and that the spread of TB could not be halted without some form of culling. Shooting by qualified marksmen was deemed by the last Government to be the most humane option. The alternative was gassing, and I do not think that anybody would like us to go there. I support the Government’s 25-year eradication strategy and their goal to be free of TB by 2038, but I would like it to be sooner.
The Government must learn lessons from the covid-19 pandemic. There are valuable lessons to be learned in how we deal with TB. We cannot beat this bacteria. It is not a virus; it does not respond as well to vaccinations as viruses do. We will not beat it unless the R number is below 1. We have all learned this from watching TV the last couple of years. Work is being done to approve the proposed deployable vaccine, with field trials starting soon. That is nice, but we have been talking about this for years. When is this vaccine going to be rolled out? With covid, we did not unlock until the vast majority of the population was protected. Stopping the cull now, before the necessary protections are in place, would be counterproductive, irresponsible and impossible to justify.
The evidence shows that the cull is working. My constituency is in a high-risk area for TB. It received its first licence to cull in 2015, and 80.5% of the land in the county is now covered by licences. That is funded and supported by local farmers—not by DEFRA or the civil service or the taxpayer. It is funded by local farmers who think this is the right thing to do because of the point I made earlier that animals, whether badgers or cattle, must not be allowed to suffer from this disease.
Data shows confirmed breakdowns to be the lowest they have been in the county since 2006. Importantly, fewer animals are being slaughtered—down from a high of 3,505 in 2005 to 1,341 last year. This shows that the cull is working—it is not necessarily helpful to people who love badgers, but it does work. It also stops illegal culling. That is critical for perturbation, which is when badgers are frightened and so leave their traditional areas. If they are infected, they spread that disease to healthy badger populations. The healthy badger populations on the eastern side of the UK need to be protected, just as much as healthy cattle. The evidence from Somerset and Gloucester shows, respectively, falls in disease of 37% and 66%, so this works.
The whole House agrees that TB needs to be eradicated, but the majority of respondents to the Government’s consultation felt that revoking, or reducing the durations of, the badger disease control licence would reduce the effectiveness of the strategy and result in regression in the progress made over the years. The problem is that the people doing the culling are volunteers—local people, not civil servants. They cannot be switched on and off; they cannot be re-employed. When they stop, they will stop, and it took an enormous amount of effort to set up those groups. They are doing a tremendous and extremely difficult job for which they have to be highly trained.
Paragraph 5.6 of the Government’s response states:
“Responses from Natural England (NE) and the British Veterinary Association (BVA) broadly supported the decision to retain culling as an option.”
The people who did not accept it were the conservation groups, and it is worth pointing out that including the cost of policing the cull zones distorts the credibility of some of the sensible points that have been made. We cannot add the costs policing of protesters and then acknowledge that the protesters have got the figures right—it does not seem quite right.
The Government have promised a cattle vaccine, which is not approved. They have monitored the data from the cull area and proved that culling is working, so until other viable alternatives are place, we cannot change the policy without doing untold damage to cattle and badgers. Bovine TB is a serious disease for people, as well as for badgers and cattle, and my fear is that, without proper control, sick badgers will infect the healthy badger population. I do not see why we should allow badgers to die slowly and in agony from consumption—that was the old word for TB, because it consumes your body. As these badgers become ill, they are driven out of their social groups and move into other badgers’ territories, where they will fight. Of course, a scratch from an infected badger can pass on the disease, so it is critical that we keep the badgers in the high-risk areas, away from the healthy badger population.
It is important that we look forward to a time when culling is no longer needed—I look forward to that very much. There will be a time when both badgers and cattle can be vaccinated effectively in a proven campaign to defeat M. bovis, but sadly, today is not that moment.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair again, Mr Hollobone. I thank the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) and the Petitions Committee for bringing this important debate before the House. I do not think this subject has been debated in this Chamber for some time and it is clearly of considerable public interest, as we can see from the numbers who signed the petition, which the hon. Gentleman introduced in a very sensible and balanced way.
We have had some good contributions to the debate. I enjoyed the account from my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury); I am not sure I have ever quite seen Dennis Skinner as fluffy, but I am sure my hon. Friend’s badger is suitably fluffy. The points he made about perturbation were important, and were of course picked up by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Sir Bill Wiggin).
I am not surprised that there are differing views on this issue; clearly there are strong views, which are represented in the debates taking place across the country. The one thing we can agree on is that we all want the same outcome, which is for bovine TB to be eradicated and the badger cull to be brought to an end. It is a truly horrible disease, as hon. Members have described, and no one should underestimate the stress, hurt and financial hardship it causes farmers. The accounts from the hon. Members for West Dorset (Chris Loder) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and indeed the account from the hon. Member for North Herefordshire about his favourite bull, were very moving.
There is also a significant cost to all this. DEFRA and the Welsh Government found that the median bovine TB-related cost for cattle farmers was £6,600; for farms with herds of more than 300, it rose to £18,600. It costs farmers in cash and mental anguish, and it costs the taxpayer many millions a year in compensation payments. However, the crux of this afternoon’s debate is, “What is the solution?” The sad truth is that the answer is less than clear, and I do not think it is quite as clear as the hon. Member for North Herefordshire suggested, as I will come to in a moment.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Badger Trust has been calling for significant investment in cattle vaccination for more than 10 years. The trust feels that the delay in vaccination investment is unnecessarily being paid for with badgers’ lives.
Daniel Zeichner
I will come back to that point. As has already been said, it is amazing what can be done quite quickly when scientists really get behind something. I suspect many would agree with the point made by the hon. Lady.
The argument is frequently polarised: those who believe that culling badgers is the answer and those who disagree both believe that they are following the science. The problem is that the science is not entirely clear; statistics that appear to back both sides of the argument can be found and quoted. It is worth putting on the record that the Godfray review, commissioned by the Government back in 2018, set out this issue in its opening statement:
“The deeply held beliefs of people who cannot countenance culling badgers deserve respect, as do the beliefs of people who argue that sacrificing badgers is justified to reduce the burden of this disease on livestock and farmers. The decision whether or not to cull badgers must be informed by evidence which provides important information on likely outcomes. However, final decisions have to take into account the irreconcilable views of different stakeholders and so inevitably require judgements to be made by ministers”—
and different Ministers will make different judgments.
Labour would stop the culling of badgers. Our bovine TB control strategy would be based on vaccination, testing and better biosecurity measures, and we believe we have public support for that position. However, no one should be in any doubt that we are absolutely determined to put an end to the spread of bovine TB.
Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
If we had a vaccine that allowed us to differentiate between a vaccinated animal and an infected animal, that policy would stand up. However, until we have that vaccine, the only alternative is to continue culling, which has proven successful in getting on top of the disease in areas such as the one mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Sir Bill Wiggin).
Daniel Zeichner
I was very pleased to see the right hon. Gentleman walk in because I expected him to make exactly that intervention; we had a similar discussion during the passage of the Agriculture Act 2020. As I am sure he will appreciate, the DIVA test is well advanced. He is right to say that we need to make progress, exactly as the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) said. Science moves; I am, perhaps, more optimistic about the pace of that movement than others.
The petition has a significant number of signatures. It focuses on the killing of badgers rather than the bovine TB issue, which I shall return to. The view expressed is that the shooting of badgers is poorly monitored and inhumane. Anecdotally, one is certainly told of cases where badgers are not shot cleanly and are left with injuries. According to Natural England’s compliance monitoring report for 2020, badgers were shot at but not retrieved in 11.4% of cases, but only one case of a badger being shot at but wounded and lost was reported; presumably some of the rest may not have been found. As with all such figures, the situation is not clear. I suggest that there is some cause for concern.
Can the Minister say why the number of badgers culled through free shooting rather than cage-trapping has changed so dramatically? According to the figures in the very good briefing prepared by the House of Commons Library, those numbers have increased from rough parity in 2014 to around four in five in 2020, creating a greater risk of inhumane culling. What is the reason for that? It seems that that is directly relevant to the question raised by the petitioners.
The wider question is about the future of shooting badgers in general and the continuance of the cull. I remember when the Government finally responded to the Godfray review while we were sitting on the Agriculture Bill Committee. By complete chance, they responded on the very day that Labour happened to have tabled an amendment addressing this very question—it was one of a number of cases when Government statements appeared miraculously on certain days during the course of the Agriculture Bill’s passage through Parliament. What we took from the Government announcement, the headlines and the spin was that the cull was to end. However, what we have seen since has shown that that was not the whole story.
Despite the points made by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire, given that the cull has been going on for 10 years or so, it is worth asking what the Government’s policy on badger culling has done to get this horrible disease under control. One thing we know for sure is that it has killed a lot of badgers—more than 140,000. That is not in doubt. Every year since 2015, the number culled has grown, with more than 38,600 killed in 2020. Last year’s figures are due any time; they are expected to be larger still.
The Badger Trust tells me that in some areas of Gloucestershire and Somerset, badgers are now all but extinct. It also predicts that, by the end of the cull, the number of badgers in England will have been halved. As I reflected on earlier, the sad truth is that some of those badgers will have had unpleasant deaths. There are then the financial costs. Again, the Badger Trust estimates that, between 2013 and 2019, the cost of the cull was around £60 million—although I hear the points made by Government Members.
Sir Bill Wiggin
I was thinking about what the hon. Gentleman said about how half the badgers in the UK will have been lost. If he looks at a map of the country, the western side is where the cattle and badgers live, and that is where the infection is. It is not about losing half the badgers in the infected area, but protecting the other half on the eastern side of the country.
Daniel Zeichner
I hear the hon. Gentleman’s point. However, he will know, full well, that others will disagree that that is what is actually going on. The worry expressed by the petitioners today, and by many others, is that this looks like a massive cull of an iconic species in our country.
Jim Shannon
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise the economic boost that comes off the back of cattle no longer being lost? Protections should be taken to ensure that they are not lost. I know the hon. Gentleman has a love of and interest in farming, but there really must be a methodology to protect the cattle, the industry, the sector, and the jobs. Sometimes, that has to mean the culling of badgers.
Daniel Zeichner
I will come to the hon. Gentleman’s points, because I think that the crux of the question is, “Does the culling of badgers achieve the desired result?” That is one of the points at issue. I find it slightly surprising that there are no tests once badgers have been culled, so we do not really know the ratio of infected to healthy badgers being killed. Perhaps the Minister could explain why those are not done.
Staggeringly—to many of us—the current system is set up so that, in some instances, badgers that have been vaccinated will then go on to be culled. A couple of years ago, I visited the Derbyshire Wildlife Trust and its volunteers to see just how badger vaccination works, and to meet a badger. I am grateful to Debbie Bailey and her colleagues for letting me join them—I must say, very early in the morning—to see how it is done. It is painstaking work, carried out by volunteers, and with financial support from the Government. However, as I say, incredibly, those very same badgers, vaccinated at taxpayer expense, are then sometimes shot as part of the cull. Can the Minister explain how that makes sense?
I warned earlier that the statistics can be read in many different ways, but I would also point out that, during the past decade, the number of cattle slaughtered due to TB has remained fairly consistent, at between 26,000 and 33,000 per year. In 2021, the number of cattle slaughtered decreased by only 1% on the previous 12 months to 27,581, with more cattle slaughtered in 2021 than in 2013, the year that the culls started. Herd incidence was at 8.8% in 2021—down only 0.6% on the previous year—and has also remained fairly static throughout the cull, at between 11% and 8.6%.
As I have been at pains to point out, different people will read those figures in different ways. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire will perhaps see them as a great success, while others will look at them and say that there are many other variables, and that there has not been sufficient progress to justify a Government policy costing millions of pounds and resulting in the deaths of close to 150,000 members of a protected species.
I would appreciate it if the Minister explained what she takes from those figures and whether she considers the cull to be a success so far. To mix my metaphors, I would say that the Government have placed too many of their eggs in one basket—each year, ramping up the killing, licensing more and more cull areas, but to insufficient avail. The science around this has long been contested. I think we have heard accounts of that. It has been looked at on a number of occasions.
Sir Robert Goodwill
Would the hon. Gentleman agree that, if one looks at New Zealand and the Republic of Ireland, where culling the wildlife vector was so effective, we can see how the policy is based on clear science and clear examples, from other countries around the world, of how effective it can be?
Daniel Zeichner
I always bow to the right hon. Gentleman’s superior knowledge on this, but my recollection from reading the Godfray review is that other factors were involved as well.
Part of the problem with the whole debate is trying to separate out the different issues with the governance structures, the New Zealand example and so on, so I suspect we are not going to agree on this. But from the evidence I have seen and had explained to me, cow-to-cow infections are far more significant than those from badger to cow. Indeed, the Godfray report described the benefits of the cull to the farming industry as “circumscribed” and raised a range of other potential ways forward.
In 2020, Labour welcomed the Government’s announcement that they were finally planning to phase out culls, with the end date set for 2025. Despite saying that no new licences would be granted after 2022, in late 2021 seven new licensing zones were announced. In answer to a written question, the Minister said the culling of badgers will remain an option
“where epidemiological assessment indicates that it is needed.”
Can the Minister clarify that the Government do not intend to allow a perpetual culling of badgers by the back door and that the commitment to end the cull by 2025 remains in place?
Our Labour view is that we are more likely to beat bovine TB through better vaccination, better testing and better biosecurity, particularly when it comes to testing pre and post movement of cattle between farms, together, as I have already suggested, with a much bigger push into researching and administering effective TB vaccines for both cattle and badgers.
To conclude, I return to the Godfray review of 2018. Can the Minister say what happened to some of its other proposals? It queried the current governance arrangements, saying that, in its view, too many Government bodies were involved, and it suggested a single bovine TB authority. What is the Government’s view on that? To some extent, the review was looking at the New Zealand example. The review recommended moving to using a more sensitive test in the high risk and edge area. Does the Minister agree with that? It argued that a key problem is the high level of cattle movements in England, and that risky trading should be disincentivised. Again, does she agree? If so, what does she plan to do about it?
The review recommended mandatory post-movement testing and using the most sensitive test; the Minister’s comments on that would be welcome. It describes the number of “no regret” biosecurity options being taken up by farmers as “disappointingly low”. That was back in 2018, so can she tell us if there has been any progress since then?
As always, there are many questions, but there are many ways to tackle bovine TB. The Government and Members on the Government side clearly believe that shooting badgers is the preferred option, but in our view the evidence of efficacy is unclear. On the Opposition side, we would take a different path, as I outlined earlier—but let me clear that we will be absolutely steadfast in our resolve to eliminate bovine TB.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Jo Churchill)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for bringing forward the debate, and I thank all the right hon. and hon. Members who took part in it. We have aptly demonstrated how difficult this issue is, and I gently say that we cannot have a solution to a problem until that solution is available.
Our beef and dairy industries contribute billions of pounds to the UK economy, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) laid out. We want them to continue to do so, and have to ensure that they can—particularly as the UK enters a new trading relationship with the world. As arguably one of the most pressing animal health problems in the UK today, bovine TB represents a constant threat to that success. We heard about the difficulty that we have here.
I appreciate both sides of the argument, as the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) did when he laid out the challenge. Bovine TB continues to be both emotive and controversial, but what is not controversial is that badgers are implicated in the spread and persistence of bovine TB and in its particular prevalence in certain areas of the country, such as the south-west. We have set out how we are going to deal with that.
I would agree with much of what has been said. Badger culling has led to a significant reduction in the disease, but, as the Godfray review laid out, and as I think every single Member has said—both those who farm animals and those who represent those who farm animals—nobody wants to see the cull carry on longer than necessary. However, we need the right tools in the toolbox to ensure that we can deal with the situation, because nobody wants to see the disease take hold, particularly in areas with animals that not only add to our economy, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Sir Bill Wiggin) laid out so poignantly, are valued members of the family as well.
One of the most poignant things I ever did in this place was to watch a farmer who had had his entire herd destroyed. He had his arm around his 10-year-old and he wept because his father had entrusted the farm to him, and he no longer had the farm to pass on to his son. We need to protect the badger and the farmer, and we need to make sure that we have the tools available to do so.
Every year since the first badger cull in 2013, Natural England has closely monitored and reported on the accuracy of shooting activities through direct observations in the field. Annually, we disclose those details. I am very sorry that the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) doubts that, but we need to be transparent, and shooting activities are directly observed. We know that the cull has reduced bovine TB, as demonstrated by the publication of independent, rigorous research and past studies.
National statistics show how a holistic TB eradication strategy is working, but we do not want to see a protected wildlife species culled for longer than necessary, so in 2021 we started phasing it out. The next stage of the bovine TV strategy will include replacing culling with badger vaccination and disease surveillance. My hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire said, “When?” Well, in 2021, DEFRA awarded funding of £2.27 million for a five-year badger vaccination programme in the TB-endemic area of east Sussex. The project features vaccination by the farming community, because, as has been pointed out, they are the people who know both the badger community and their herds. They are working on the frontline to help develop and refine future developments of the models so that we can vaccinate on a large scale to protect badgers, because that is where we want to get to.
Mike Amesbury
On that point, in Cheshire it is farmers, landowners, volunteers and the general public who support vaccination. It is exactly right that that important mix has to be behind the programme.
Jo Churchill
The hon. Gentleman is right. The Government have invested over £40 million in vaccines and tests. As set out in the Godfray review—again, this is in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire—our aim is to have a deployable cattle vaccine by 2025. Field trials began last year. My right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir Robert Goodwill) mentioned that the challenge is having the sensitivity to make sure that we deal with the matter properly.
Sir Robert Goodwill
May I share my disappointment that the oral vaccine that DEFRA was keen to roll out proved too unpalatable were it to be made abrasive enough for it to work on the badger, and now we are stuck with having to trap and vaccinate badgers? Unfortunately, some badgers are too clever to get caught. It tends to be the same badgers getting in the traps all the time because they know there is food there.
Jo Churchill
Indeed. As every Member said, we need to approach this issue in the most humane way possible.
Sir Bill Wiggin
I am interested in what the Minister said about 2025. The Labour party would need to win the next election to bring in its policy: it sounds like it will not be able to do that by 2025. She also mentioned East Sussex, which is the perfect place for a test because it is not surrounded by infected badgers, but that is not an alternative to the culling regime. The alternative is the DIVA test and a cattle vaccination. Is she sure that 2025 is the date that we will get that?
Jo Churchill
That is the date that I have been directed to. As my hon. Friend knows full well, as do I as somebody who worked in the Department of Health and Social Care during the pandemic, these things have a habit of not always coming through. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby said, something might be deemed unpalatable or it may not have the degree of sensitivity we need, but it is right that we try to ensure that the vaccine for both cattle and badgers is where we are getting to, so we can drive down and deliver on what the Godfray review said—that we should replace culling with vaccinations and disease surveillance.
We are developing several schemes and initiatives to make it simpler for those who are suitably trained to start vaccinating badgers. There is no single measure that will eradicate bovine TB in England by 2038. That is why we have to continue to have a wide range of interventions. We need to strengthen cattle testing and movement controls, which the hon. Member for Cambridge mentioned. We have to improve biosecurity on the farm and when trading, and we need to develop that cattle vaccine, in addition to building our support of badger vaccine. Cattle controls and measures continue to be the foundation stones on which our TB eradication strategy is based.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for her positive response and for clearly charting a way forward, which hopefully will address the issue. Has the Minister had the opportunity to speak to the devolved Administrations, in particular Edwin Poots, on this subject matter?
Jo Churchill
I was, in fact, due to go tomorrow, but I am now unable to. I dare say those conversations will happen in short order. I know that my Northern Ireland equivalent is looking at this issue at the moment, and it is hoped that we can learn from one another. We can certainly get those conversations where we can all be enabled to make the right decisions as swiftly as possible.
The hon. Member for Weaver Vale pointed out that culling causes badgers to move, and perturbation, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire said. Taking that into account is important. That is why we need a gradual, monitored, evidence-based approach, so we do not risk perturbation and the disease getting a hold. We need the areas that can cull to do so while we build the vaccination capability and a vaccinated population.
The strategy is rooted in routine and targeted testing of herds, movement restrictions on infected herds, rapid detection and removal of cattle testing positive. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) said that it is particularly stressful when a calf is involved. We do have an isolation policy so that a positive cow is pulled out in order that the calf can be born.
Measures such as the statutory testing of cattle, movement between farms and surveillance at the slaughterhouse also apply. Over the last 12 months, we have compulsorily slaughtered more than 27,000 individual head of cattle in England to control the disease. Many of us represent rural constituencies, and we have heard today from virtually every Member about the misery that both sides of this bring to people. The cost to Government of dealing with the disease is about £100 million a year; it is a huge burden for the taxpayer.
One of our top priorities, as I have said, is to develop the vaccine for cattle so that it does not interfere with the TB testing regime. We hope to get that introduced within the next five years. It is expected to be a game changer in providing a strong additional tool to help to eradicate the disease. It is important that we look at the trials that are ongoing at the moment and we get the evidence base. There is not a single answer to the scourge of bovine TB, but by deploying a whole range of policy interventions, we can turn the tide on this insidious disease and, we hope, achieve the long-term objective, which I think everybody shares, of ensuring that we make England officially TB free by 2038—sooner if we can make it, but definitely not much later.
Sir Robert Goodwill
May I remind the Minister that in North Yorkshire we have very healthy badgers and very healthy cattle? Contrary to what many people think, the badger is not an endangered species; indeed, I think that in our part of North Yorkshire there are probably four or five times as many badgers as there have ever been before. It is the hedgehogs, bumblebees and ground-nesting birds that are feeling the pressure, from the high numbers of badgers, and that is having an effect on the ecosystem as well.
Jo Churchill
I did not ask my team how they knew that there were 424,000 badgers in this country, because as far as I am aware, we do not do a census, but we probably do a fair assumption of how many are out there, and we do have one of the highest populations of badgers in Europe. It is important that we protect them, and I think we are all of one mind about that. But it is also exceedingly important that we put our shoulder to the wheel and allow all the tools in the toolbox to be used for the next few years to ensure that we can keep this insidious disease under control.
Nick Fletcher
It has been a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I thank the Minister for her response and thank all hon. Members for taking part in the debate. There is a wealth of knowledge in the room, and I have learnt much myself. I thank the petitioners for bringing forward the petition. I hope that they believe that they have seen a good debate; I certainly think that it has been. The simple thing that has come out of it is that we all want to eradicate bovine TB, and 2038 is definitely a goal for us to reach to. Obviously, if we can bring that date forward, we should. It seems to me that testing and vaccination may definitely be the way forward. We have said that quite a few times in the past couple of years, so hopefully we can learn from that.
The story that we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Sir Bill Wiggin) was devastating—I am sorry that he had to go through that. The personal responsibility that my hon. Friend has shown is an example to everybody who has to go through it. Obviously, nobody wants to see the culling of animals or the slaughtering of cattle like that, but for the farmers, it is also about their livelihood. We heard this from the Minister. Livelihoods are literally being taken away.
I think that this has been an excellent debate. I thank all hon. Members again. We just all need to work together to do all we can to eradicate this terrible disease.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 333693, relating to badger culling.
Support for New Adoptive Parents
(2 years, 1 month 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
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 601323, relating to support for new adoptive parents.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. The prayer of the petition states:
“Ensuring statutory adoption pay is available to a self-employed parent in the same way that maternity allowance is available for self-employed new mums would promote an equal and fair society inclusive of all routes to parenthood. A parent taking statutory leave regardless of it being adoption or maternity should be both recognised and supported fairly. Expecting self-employed parents to take unpaid adoption leave whilst supporting their child during a critical transitional period is unfair. This current policy is not inclusive of adoptive families and to many, reads as an act of discrimination. I wish the Government to introduce an Adoption Allowance comparable with the Maternity Allowance for the Self-Employed.”
I thank the petition creator, as well as the multiple campaigners, parents, charities and organisations—including many who are in the Public Gallery—who have come forward to share their experiences of the adoption process, for reaching out to me and all hon. Members present to help us prepare for today’s debate. I also put on the record my gratitude to the Petitions Committee Clerks and the team behind the scenes for conducting an online survey to ask the petitioners about their experiences of adopting a child. As expected with a topic of this importance, there was a lot of passionate feedback from petitioners, which has helped us to better understand the policy on adoption. I am grateful for their assistance.
The petition has amassed almost 15,000 signatures, including 37 from my constituency of Carshalton and Wallington. On behalf of the Petitions Committee, I should explain that although the petition has not reached the 100,000-signature threshold that would normally trigger a debate in this place, the Petitions Committee has discretion to schedule debates of this nature. This topic is a perfect example of where we might want to use that discretion, because it is an issue that not many people come across directly. It might be a bit niche for some, but it is something that is very important. We therefore felt that it was important to bring it here today.
The issue of financial support for self-employed adoptive parents was raised by the Petitions Committee in our October 2021 report, entitled “Impact of Covid-19 on new parents: one year on”. The report expressed disappointment that the Government had not acted to close the disparity in access to support between employed and self-employed adoptive parents when it was first raised during the pandemic by the Committee’s report on new parents in July 2020. Our report also highlighted an apparent lack of departmental ownership of the issue within Government, with confusion over whether it sits with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy or the Department for Work and Pensions. Ultimately, we concluded that the
“benefits available to self-employed birth parents should be extended to self-employed adoptive parents”.
Before we delve into the detail, I want to set out the context in which we come here to hold today’s debate. There are around 1,870 children waiting to be adopted in England alone, and 52% of them—over half—have been waiting longer than 18 months. Our country currently faces a shortage of adoptive parents who have the right skills and background to meet the needs of the children waiting.
I welcome last year’s new national adoption strategy. As part of it, the Government’s vision was to ensure that:
“All adoptive children are found permanent loving families as quickly as possible where they will be safe and secure.”
The strategy stated:
“Prospective adopters from every walk of life are warmly welcomed and supported in a system that is never threatening or judgemental. Unnecessary barriers and bureaucracy placed in the way of those seeking to adopt are removed, systematically, across the country…Children and families get the support they need when they need it.”
In summary, our country faces an adoption problem, and the Government are taking steps to ensure that appropriate prospective adopters are supported to adopt a child in need, as per their strategy.
Women in employment having a baby are, of course, usually entitled to statutory maternity pay. For those not entitled—because they are self-employed, for example—there is the fall-back benefit of the maternity allowance. Employees who are adopting a child are also eligible for statutory adoption pay, which is modelled on statutory maternity pay. However, there is no equivalent for people who are adopting a child and do not meet the qualifying conditions—that is, those who are self-employed.
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making some very good points, pointing out the importance of the Government addressing this issue. Will he reflect on the fact that the Government have proactively encouraged people to be self-employed over the past 10 to 12 years, and ever-increasing numbers of people are self-employed or on flexible contracts that mean they would be considered self-employed? Does he agree that the encouragement the Government have given to self-employment makes it all the more important that this issue is looked at as a priority?
Elliot Colburn
As ever, my hon. Friend is amazing in his psychic abilities, having seen ahead to where I will make that very point further on in my contributions. It is a very important point, and he makes it even more eloquently than I will.
In the Government’s response to our Committee’s report on this issue and to the petition, they restated that local authorities can already provide discretionary financial support to self-employed adoptive parents where affordability is a barrier to them taking time away from work. It is also noted that
“Prospective adopters…are also entitled to an assessment of their family’s needs”,
which could result in further offers of support including
“discretionary means-tested financial support, advice, information, counselling, and support services.”
In response to this petition, as well as a written parliamentary question tabled by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell)—who is in her place—the Government also stated that support for employed parents have been prioritised, as they
“do not generally have the same level of flexibility and autonomy over how and when they work as self-employed parents do.”
However, there are a number of concerns about this approach that need to be better understood, and in my view, the approach should be rethought. First, while local authorities should consider making payments equivalent to the maternity allowance to self-employed adopters, there is no legal requirement for them to do so—it is merely guidance. This creates inconsistencies across the country, because a particular problem for prospective adopters is that many search for an adopted child through national agencies rather than local ones, and indeed many local authorities are combining their adoption pathways. I have also heard from multiple adoptive parents that the guidance is unclear and confusing, including unhelpful signposting on the gov.uk website. That is not a surprise, considering the issue of departmental responsibility that I touched on earlier.
Secondly, linked to the first concern, inconsistencies in funding create uncertainty for families hoping to adopt. Conversations with social workers and agency staff are limited to ifs, buts and maybes, and financial planning therefore becomes difficult, if not impossible. There was agreement among the majority of respondents to the Petitions Committee’s survey that access to adoption support needs to be simplified, with multiple complaints about the role of local authorities. Of course, the very nature of the process of adoption is uncertain, but adding further stress and uncertainty to that process may not be the best policy to ensure stability for the newly adopted child and their new family.
Thirdly, the Government’s understanding of self-employment when it comes to adoption seems outdated and unrealistic in many cases. As part of my research for this debate, I heard from a prospective adopter who is self-employed. Unfortunately, like so many others, that individual is unable to hit the pause button on their work whenever they feel like it and press play again when they are free. The individual in question works full time, teaching in a school, and has the same amount of flexibility as an employed teacher. One of the key takeaways from the Petitions Committee’s survey on this issue was that adoptive parents feel they need more time to bond with and care for their child than the average birth parent. That is, of course, understandable, because adopted children have often suffered trauma from years of neglect and loss.
The survey found that just 61% of self-employed adopters were able to take time off work following adoption, compared with 78% of employed workers. Furthermore, 95% of self-employed adoptive parents agreed that more financial support would allow them to take the time off they needed to support their new child’s adjustment to their new family and new life. Contracts and work patterns have changed a lot in recent years, but adoption support has not reflected that. Self-employed adopters need support to take leave from work, so they can put time into ensuring their new child is safe and settled.
Fourthly, coming at this from a Conservative point of view, I feel the Government should be supporting and encouraging entrepreneurialism rather than repelling people from it. There are currently 4.8 million self-employed people in the UK, making up to 15% of the workforce. That is a 12% increase since 2001 and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) said, we are doing much to encourage people to become self-employed.
The self-employed are our country’s business owners, job creators and wealth creators. They are the backbone of our economy, and we need them. We have debated support for the self-employed many times, and I led debates in this place on support for the self-employed and business owners during the covid-19 pandemic. Throughout the peak of the pandemic, like many Members of this House, I was contacted by dozens of constituents who were unable to receive substantial financial support, many of whom were self-employed.
Finally, the Government’s position on support for the self-employed is not consistent with the aims of the national adoption strategy. One responder to a Petitions Committee survey on this issue explained how they had changed jobs shortly before adopting and, as a result, could not adopt a child for the first six months that they were in their new post. Self-employed adopters are penalised and children are waiting longer in care.
I absolutely support the aims of the Government’s national adoption strategy, which states that prospective adopters from every walk of life should be supported, including the self-employed. The vision is to ensure that all adoptive children are found permanent, loving families as quickly as possible—unless, of course, their prospective parent is self-employed, or so it seems.
It is difficult to gauge the full extent of how many individuals, children and families are impacted by this disparity. Nevertheless, I hope this debate will highlight the need to address it and pave a path that will ultimately unlock future adopters and support the creation of safe, loving and happy families.
In my research for this debate, it sounded very much like this is a loophole that no one had noticed. I seriously hope the Government see things in the same way and will look to close this loophole as soon as possible. I draw my remarks to a close, as I know other Members are eager to contribute. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments and hope he is able to address the five concerns I have raised, as well as the many other concerns that will doubtless be raised by other Members.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (in the Chair)
If people wish to contribute with a speech, they must stand at the appropriate times so we can see that they wish to speak. Thank you so much.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Ms Ghani, for calling me to speak. It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair.
I thank the Petitions Committee for selecting this topic for debate, particularly given the number of signatures, because we know that everyone who has petitioned will either have personal experience or know of others with personal experience of what it is to be self-employed and to adopt, and the challenges that brings.
Before I home in on the petition itself, I want to pay tribute to the families who provide safe, loving, forever families for children. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on adoption and permanence, it is a privilege to engage with the whole community involved in adoption, from young people themselves, birth parents and adoptive parents to those in health and social services, the professions working around the child and our secretariat, Adoption UK and Home for Good.
We strive to make the adoption journey one of the most supported and safe journeys around the child: one that puts a young person very much at the centre; one that ensures that funding and services are there; and one that looks at good family making and good family building, with secure foundations. We recognise that many challenges can arise. When we identify those barriers, we need services to respond and Government to use their agility to fix the challenges.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a very important point about how we need to support adoptive families and children. I have been campaigning on the rather niche issue of regulating the sale of sperm online. Colleagues might be horrified to learn this is widespread in Facebook groups and on other social media. It is causing children to seek alternative means of finding out where they come from—via AncestryDNA, for example—which causes a lot of problems.
Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to look at all the services that support adopted children and their families in the long term, especially in the online and regulated space?
Rachael Maskell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue, on which she is probably more of an expert than I am. We have recognised the role of digital and the fact that many children in adoptive settings can be traced or can trace their birth parents without having support around them. We have to recognise the digital age in which children are growing up in order to keep them safe and to protect them. I am sure we will talk more about this subject.
The Minister for Children and Families, the hon. Member for Colchester (Will Quince), is committed to building stable families and providing the care and support that young people and their parents need. He has a sizeable task. Over 80,000 children are in care. I trust that, with the imminent publication of the review by Josh MacAlister, he will simultaneously fix the gaps in the adoption journey. We welcome the commitment of £144 million for the adoption support fund and £19.5 million for the implementation of the adoption strategy over the next three years. It is a sound investment, on which we will see a return.
We need a workforce plan to support children in the care system and their families. There is a deficit in timely support for families, and the scars of trauma emerge in various expressions. Three quarters of children experience abuse or neglect prior to adoption. They need support to be in place at the right time. In our APPG’s “Strengthening Families” report published last year, we identified the importance of aiding parents in the matching process. It has been more challenging through the pandemic, but we cannot let a recovery period delay the process of family building. We are particularly concerned about black and minoritised children in the care system, as well as older children and young people who have been in care the longest. As an APPG, we have more work to do, but so do the Government.
Self-employed parents need help, too. The crucial period of bonding as a family forms is vital in forming attachments and a new rhythm in a child’s life. The self-employed need the same opportunities as other parents to dedicate time to this. Denying statutory adoption pay is nonsensical. I trust that the Minister agrees. We await the legislative response to the Taylor review. I ask that the Minister ensures that the voice of adoptive parents is not lost in that process.
The right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) made a powerful plea for other parental rights to emerge in such a Bill. I ask that adoptive parents do not suffer any detriment either. If we, as a society, value parenting and recognise its importance, there is no excuse for exclusion. I hope the Minister will forgive me, but I am impatient. Self-employed parents need support now. We know how hard self-employed people work to make their businesses a success.
We heard from the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) about the challenges of the pandemic and how hard people worked to make their businesses thrive. They cannot juggle work around bonding with their child. Ensuring that the right attachments are made is a full-time task. That is why we need to ensure that the self-employed get the financial underpinning to not have to worry about paying their bills, not least at a time when the cost of living is such a challenge to all families.
Adoptive parents should not have to go cap in hand to their local authority either. Special guardians, kinship carers and adoptive parents need recognition that they, even more than birth parents, need to be 100% focused on family building. There is time for the Government to carry out a consultation on the Taylor review prior to their promised employment Bill. I ask the Minister to commit to that consultation today.
The 2013 statutory guidance on adoption states in paragraph 9.38 that
“The local authority should consider making a payment of financial support equivalent to the Maternity Allowance to adoptive parents who are ineligible to receive”
statutory adoption pay. Why is it that adoptive parents continually have to chase everything, and dedicate their time to feeding into the bureaucracy and trying to get it to work for them, as opposed to the Government addressing the issue?
Statutory pay will aid the recruitment of potential adopters and will assist in the success and stability of others. We know that 3,000 children are in need of a family. A full consultation was committed to by the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), who has responsibility for parental pay and leave, during his evidence to the Petitions Committee in 2020, but we must include adoption pay, too. The Government have committed to improving adoption, so this is yet another opportunity for them to do so, and I hope the consultation will therefore be inclusive. He said,
“it is crucial to the success of an adoption placement that an adopter takes time off work to care for and bond with their child.”
That must apply to the self-employed as much as to the employed. There is no difference in the eyes of that child, or in that child’s needs.
Dr Poulter
I am sure the Minister will find it difficult to disagree with the hon. Lady. She rightly mentions the barriers to adoption more generally. The coalition Government did a lot with my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson), in a previous guise, to reduce some of those barriers. He also highlighted the failure of previous Governments to have joined-up thinking, such as joining up the fiscal and financial incentives to support people in adoption. I hope the take-home message for the Minister is that it is time to do that. I hope he will commit to doing so at the Dispatch Box, and I hope the hon. Lady agrees.
Rachael Maskell
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Normally it is the parent who does the joining up, and that is clearly not right. The Government need to make sure that the adoption strategy looks at every aspect of an adoptive parent’s journey and ensures that the facilities, support and services are in place to give the child the best possible start in life. It is exhausting for parents, who find themselves having to negotiate—this is where the law stands at the moment—with a local authority to see if they fit any of the criteria, on which there is no guidance. We know that cash-strapped local authorities may not be minded to pay specific attention to what is a very small cohort of parents.
The Government recognise how necessary statutory maternity entitlements are for parents to bond with their child, and they must recognise how much more important such support is for a child who has experienced multiple forms of trauma and who could have complex needs that need addressing. Life is often exhausting for an adoptive parent who is trying to form a new family and working to give their child the safest home possible. The services need to be there in a timely way to support and nurture that child, and to ensure they have the best start in life when perhaps their first start was not the right one.
The “Good Work” review does not accept that there should be a differentiation in the support received. On statutory adoption pay for the self-employed, we are not talking about a lot of people. It is not a high cost to the Government in the scale of things and, as well as the savings to the Government from ensuring that self-employed parents have the support around them, statutory adoption pay would be immeasurable for parents and for the child. Now is the time to act, and I trust that the Minister agrees.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (in the Chair)
Mr Jones, you arrived a tad late. If you wish to contribute, I am sure we can find time to accommodate you.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
That is kind, but I assumed that I would not be called. I am here just to listen.
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for opening the debate. He made a cracking speech, and I agree with pretty much everything he said. I join him in thanking the Petitions Committee for its work on this issue and, of course, I thank the families who have contributed to this discussion and the petition, as their work is incredibly important.
Adoption is very close to my heart and, like many people across this country, my own family understands it well. Whether or not adoption is part of our family, I think we all have an instinctive understanding of the value of adoption to our society. Before this debate, I was contacted on this incredibly important issue by many people in my Scunthorpe constituency—some who have adopted children, and some who have not. I thank all those who took the time to raise it with me and to share their experiences and views. I have constituents sitting in the Public Gallery today, and I thank them for taking the time.
I was surprised to learn that self-employed parents are not able to access statutory adoption pay. We all know, as do all the petitioners, that employed adoptive parents are able to access adoption leave. This is a fantastic system that provides the same access and rights as maternity leave and puts adoption on exactly the same footing as other ways of building a family. That is exactly as it should be, and it is right that the Government support parents who adopt.
The benefits of taking adoption leave are huge. It gives time for a new family to settle in and bond, as we have heard today. Especially for new-borns, the developmental benefits of the family being able to take that time off are invaluable.
I was shocked when I started to look into this issue after it was brought to my attention, because it seemed like the most obvious thing in the world. Why would self-employed people not be able to access statutory adoption pay? The benefits to new families that I have just described are reason enough to extend statutory adoption pay, as the petitioners have asked. I support them in their desire to see statutory adoption pay extended. Beyond that, we should be helping prospective parents to adopt. We should be making it as easy as possible for the right people to do so, regardless of their financial situation.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington mentioned, 1,870 children in England are waiting to meet their family, and more than half have been waiting for longer than 18 months. We have a shortage of adoptive parents. Not having access to statutory adoption pay is a potential barrier to self-employed future parents. Without it, people face a considerable time away from work. If they are the only person driving their business, this is a massive financial hit that not all families are able to absorb on their own. I worry that any self-employed person who wants to adopt may not be able to do so, simply because they cannot afford to take time away from work. If that applies to just one person, it is one too many.
I am not under the illusion that lifting this barrier will mean that every single child who needs a family will get one. However, making adoption a viable option for more self-employed people will help some of the children who are waiting to find their family, which should be our priority. This ultimately boils down to fairness; we should provide the exact same support to all adoptive parents, regardless of their employment status.
I know, from raising it with the Government, that this situation is not intentional. The system was not actively designed to favour one set of parents over another. It is an anomaly, and I welcome the commitment to review this situation. Similarly, I know that some local authorities, as we have heard, are able to make discretionary payments to support adoptive parents. We have a very good local authority in North Lincolnshire Council, but parents should be sure of getting the same support, regardless of whether they live in Scunthorpe or Southport.
I want to highlight an incredibly important issue that we must keep in mind, because many families are not publicly visible and are not able to fight on this issue. We understand the reasons for that difficulty, which makes it even more important that we do all we can to give a voice to those who, through no fault of their own, are not able to shout as loudly as they would like for their families. I spoke to a woman in my constituency just a couple of weeks ago—the mum to a gorgeous little boy—and she made that point to me. I am mindful of her words as I speak today.
Support that is provided to one parent must be made available to another; there should be no anomaly because of how the person became a parent. In the reply I received from the Government, I was told they are fully aware of the issue and are considering what options are available for equalising rights and entitlements given to adoptive parents, and I am very encouraged by that.
I hope the Minister will commit to looking again at this issue and to considering how we can extend statutory adoption pay to all eligible families who adopt a child, and show that the Government stand behind families and are committed to helping children who have sometimes had a very difficult start in life. I hope the Minister will strongly consider the requests in the petition, the strength of feeling on the subject and the support for it that I believe will be forthcoming in all our communities.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I am delighted to be here and hon. Members will realise why shortly. I congratulate the hon. Member for Colchester on his speech, his presentation and the case he made. I hope we hear a similar speech from the Minister in a moment or two, and that the Minister accepts everything his hon. Friend said; I did not find anything that I disagreed with. I also agreed with the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft).
As always, my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) made an impassioned case in support of adoption. She knows, even if others do not, why the issue means so much to me. I say to the hon. Member for Colchester that it is not just the Conservatives who think that we should support our self-employed people; that is what the Labour party thinks, too. I speak from personal experience, because I was self-employed and started and grew small businesses for many years.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (in the Chair)
Order. Mr Esterson, I do not wish to stop your flow, but I think you are getting the constituency name wrong, as Mr Colburn represents Carshalton and Wallington.
Bill Esterson
I apologise to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) and to the constituents of Carshalton and Wallington for moving them to Essex—that will get me into a whole heap of trouble. I will get into trouble at home for that as well. Not only was I self-employed, but I adopted two children with my wife in 2007, while we were growing our businesses, so I completely understand why the issue is so crucial for so many people and my personal experience means I support the case. My children were from Essex and were born in Southend, so I will now be in deep trouble for having slighted them.
We found it incredibly difficult to build relationships with our children when we adopted them, which is a common experience. The challenges of children who have been neglected and faced trauma, including the trauma of having been removed from their birth parents, have been described. That trauma can be there in the youngest of children, not just among older children who have conscious memories.
As well as giving a chance for parents and children to bond, those of us who have done it appreciate, sometimes much later on, that there is a huge need for us as adoptive parents to learn from experience, preferably with support, about what is required in looking after children with significant additional needs. Sometimes those needs come out much later, when children are older. The very least we can do is ensure we reflect the response to the needs of parents who give birth to their own children and the arrangements for adoptive leave for people who are employed. There seems to be an oversight and an inconsistency, which I hope the Minister will address.
We have heard about the situation where a self-employed birth parent has the right to paid adoption leave, which was introduced by a Labour Government nearly 20 years ago. The rationale was that it gave time to adjust to the new relationship and reduced the number of disrupted placements. As we heard from a number of hon. Members, sadly more than 80,000 children are in care, a number which is at a record high. Anything that we can do to get permanence for those children must be to their benefit and to the benefit of society as a whole.
We heard about the figures from Home for Good and the Federation of Small Businesses. The FSB estimates that £5 million a year would fund self-employed adoption leave, while Home for Good estimates a figure of £34,000 a year for each child in care. It does not need very many more children to be in a position where self-employed prospective adopters can adopt them to make a financial saving for the Exchequer. The numbers work.
It is absolutely clear that this is the right thing to do for children. As the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington correctly said, the support should be available to self-employed people as well. I got his constituency wrong because I was thinking about the Children’s Minister, who has spoken previously on the issue.
I hope that we will make some progress and that we get a good response from the Minister. Ultimately, providing such support is right for adopters, entrepreneurs and the Exchequer; above all, it is right because it will provide a better chance for children and families. Sadly, self-employed people were excluded far too often during covid. Far too many of them are excluded from the opportunity to make a difference to children’s lives through adoption. Come on, Minister—let us include the self-employed and change lives for the better.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lee Rowley)
I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate and for the contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn), for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft) and for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter)—who is no longer present—and from the hon. Members for York Central (Rachael Maskell), for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) and for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson). This is an important debate that should be treated with the seriousness that colleagues have shown this evening, in accordance with the importance it clearly holds for those in the Public Gallery.
As many other hon. Members have already done, I pay tribute to the incredible work that adoptive parents do every single day. I am utterly and completely in awe of those who take on that responsibility and do so for a lifetime. It is incredible to see people’s willingness to do that and to support vulnerable young people in very difficult circumstances to ensure that they build a better life.
I have never spoken about it in this Chamber, but this is something that my partner and I have looked at on a personal level. I have not done it; I have not taken the leap from the springboard that some in the Gallery have done. I am trepidatious—it is very challenging, and we are still working it through. From looking at it, I know how difficult it can be and how much it impacts on people’s lives. The Government are immensely grateful for all the work done on a daily basis by adoptive parents up and down the country, whether in my constituency or any other represented here today.
The Government recognise that it is also a big endeavour for someone to be willing to go out and set up their own business, be an entrepreneur and think about how to support individuals and undertake private enterprise. It is another leap in the dark and another thing that takes time to do. We want to be supportive of self-employed people—those who want to set up their own businesses and who have the desire to go out there and innovate.
The debate covers two very important areas of policy. It is important that the Government think through the potential implications and the challenges that have been highlighted through the petition and by hon. Members today. Before I come to the substantive point, I want to say one more thing. I think the creator of the petition is in the Public Gallery. I was looking at their blog in preparation for this debate, and I read a post they wrote in December, when they were talking about why they had created the petition and why it was so important to them that Parliament consider the issue. At the time, the person was talking about how they had got 4,000 signatures—obviously it went much higher than that. In their blog they said:
“We want to have our voices…heard. To be visible, accepted, recognised and supported. In a nutshell, we want…rights…I don’t think we are asking for all that much. Although I know next to nothing about politics…I’ve managed to work out an e petition”.
I want to say to that person, who might be in the room, that although I cannot speak for my colleagues, I think most of us here did not come from political backgrounds. I certainly did not. My dad was a self-employed milkman, so I did not expect to be here, either.
This place is often very difficult for people who have no experience of it, as most of us did not before we came here. It is hard to understand and work out. We have weird, very strange approaches to things. We say things that we would never say down the pub. Most of us are quite normal people. We are not properly normal—we are in politics—but we are not far off. Ultimately, we understand the challenges and we recognise that there are issues out there. We know that parts of our broad legislative canon are sometimes challenging and do not make immediate sense, and are sometimes in tension with each other. If nothing else, I hope that from coming to Westminster Hall today you will recognise that and feel that you are being heard—
Ms Nusrat Ghani (in the Chair)
Order. The hon. Member must speak through the Chair and not say “you”.
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to you for pulling me up on that, Ms Ghani.
Moving on to the substantive point, as hon. Members will note, the Government have responded to the petition. It is on the website and those who take an interest in the issue will have seen it. No doubt there will still be a continuing conversation and people will continue to push the Government, but I want to spend a few minutes explaining the reasons behind the response. There will be people in the Chamber, and people watching, who have different views, but I hope at the very least to be able to explain the rationale for why we are here. The Government should always listen and always think through such issues in detail. They should always try to understand the tensions between different policies, and I will take a few moments to outline the situation.
The Government want to support all adopters, including new adoptive parents, to ensure that they can access the support that their children and family need at the early stages of adoption. As has been mentioned by hon. Members already, in July 2021 we published our national adoption strategy, which highlights the key improvements that we expect to see in the adoption system. There is an incredible amount in it and an incredible amount of ambition, and it will take time to get there, but that is the direction that the Government and my colleagues in the Department for Education want to go in.
The strategy sets out commitments to improve services in three main areas, the first of which is the recruitment of sufficient adopters. Hon. Members have already highlighted the importance of ensuring that children who need adoptive parents can be matched with them, and we also have commitments both to match approved adopters with waiting children and to provide support to adopted children and their families, which is exactly what we are talking about today.
Earlier this month, we announced that the adoption support fund will continue to offer important support to adoptive and eligible special guardianship order families up to March 2025—to the end of the spending review period that we are in at the moment—through providing access to therapeutic services. When that was launched in 2015, it was a unique programme that provided funding to local authorities and regional adoption agencies so that they could access a range of support for families and tailor it, including psychotherapy and creative therapies following a review of locally assessed needs.
Supporting and ensuring permanency for children is a priority. I hope that it has been demonstrated that since 2015, through measures such as the support fund, we have been able to offer support to nearly 40,000 children. The additional funding just announced will take that to 10 consecutive years of funding. It is £144 million between next month and March 2025. I hope that demonstrates that the Government are committed to stabilising placements. It recognises the importance of the Government in that approach.
Today’s debate has been very reasonable and important, and the level of cross-party support, interest and gentle pushing—quite rightly—of the Government on such important issues demonstrates the willingness of Members from all parties to take the issue seriously and move it outside the normal bounds of party political knockabout that we often fall into in this place. I hope hon. Members and those in the Gallery recognise that there has been progress in recent years in trying to create a more level playing field for adoption and on making the processes easier and simpler, although there is still much to do in the future.
Let me turn to the specifics on maternity allowance. As colleagues know, there are two types of maternity pay available to pregnant working women and new mothers: statutory maternity pay and maternity allowance. Historically, both were primarily health and safety provisions that related specifically to people being in the workforce but needing safety and support for pregnancy prior to giving birth, for childbirth itself, and for breastfeeding. I recognise that the area is in tension, and I understand the clear arguments that have been made by Members from all parties, but because that support is based on the original principle the challenge is in recognising how we apply it. I am not saying, I would not dare to say, that there are not different challenges. The hon. Member for Sefton Central highlighted the challenges that adoptive parents go through at different times, but the principle behind the benefit that the petition seeks to equalise starts from a different proposition and a different perspective. That is why the Government are not coming forward at this time with the change that is being proposed.
Rachael Maskell
The Minister is right to say that the circumstances of an adoptive family are different from those of a birth family. However, the fact that there are different circumstances means that the Government should look at those circumstances specifically. My ask today is that the Government go away and consult on that, to have a better understanding of why these measures are so important.
Lee Rowley
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s comments, and she makes an important point. I am not in a position right now to talk about any future consultation. I know that this is an area where the Government are always keen to get views and that my colleagues in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and across Government elsewhere, such as in Education, will continue to look at the issue and take views from colleagues in the House and outside, and from those who have strong views. I understand and acknowledge the hon. Lady’s point.
Let me turn to a few points that have been made in the Chamber today. My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington, who introduced the debate so well, highlighted a number of issues that he was keen to put forward. He highlighted some challenges with guidance and clarity, and I am happy to confirm that I will take those away. I am keen to speak to him about them in more detail, so that I can pass them on to my colleagues to see whether there is anything that might be possible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington talked about variation around the country. As he and other hon. Members know, there is an inherent tension about where and how we structure our policies, and about where and how we put national requirements at the centre, versus local discretion. One answer to the question we are debating is that, as outlined by the hon. Member for York Central—I accept her challenge on this—there is a recommendation and an indication that local authorities should be able to provide discretionary funding where it is necessary and proportionate to do so. Although I understand her point about the challenge of going through the process—such processes can often be challenging—it is there. I hope it is used and that people watching out there who are thinking about adoption and who may be self-employed contact their council, should they feel that that would be beneficial.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd talked about a specific area of the policy on adoption, and I am happy to take that back. I am afraid I do not have an answer for her today, but given the importance of the point, and the profundity of it, it merits being given back to my colleagues, and I hope they will take her points seriously.
My hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe highlighted the challenges and opportunities of self-employment, as well as articulating clearly her support for this change. It is something I understand on a personal level—I think I mentioned a few minutes ago that my dad was self-employed as a milkman for 30 years, and one of the reasons he was doing that was to look after me and my brother when we came home. It was not that common in the 1980s for dads to make the tea, clean the house and things like that, but he did it, and that is a demonstration of how self-employed people try to keep all these balls in the air, try to juggle things and try to make it work. I understand and accept why we are debating this issue today, and its importance to a group of people within that community.
The hon. Member for Sefton Central made his characteristically very direct appeal to the Government on this, as he does on a range of other issues. I am grateful to him for sharing his personal experiences. I completely understand why this matter is so important to him on a personal level, and I respect and am grateful for those experiences being shared in public.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
Thank you, Ms Ghani, for letting me intervene, given that I could not be here for the start of the debate. On the one hand, I have heard the Minister say that, personally, he agrees with what everyone in the Chamber has said today, but on the other, I think I have interpreted that the Government have not given him the authority to say that he will do anything about it. Is this therefore a question of policy or of money? If it is a question of money, has the Department quantified how much it would cost to extend these benefits to the people in question? If so, who would pay it? Is it an issue for the Treasury or for his Department?
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his characteristically incisive intervention. My answer is that we continue to look at all the different elements of how we can structure support for new parents, whether birth parents or adoptive parents—not that that should matter in any way, shape or form—and to work through the most appropriate interventions possible. There will be opportunities later in this Parliament to look at this issue again. I am keen for people to continue to highlight their challenges and personal situations.
I hope I have articulated in my contribution so far the challenge of working through the intentions of every single element of different policies brought in for very good reasons at different times, but the fundamental point is that this particular benefit, which this petition seeks to extend, was ultimately brought forward for a different purpose from what is being talked about here. That does not take away from any of the important points being made by colleagues and the petitioners at large.
I would like to draw to a close, if I may—
Bill Esterson
The Minister has made the point, which I accept, about how, for health reasons, benefits for parental leave and maternity benefits were decided on for employment and self-employment. The principle seems to have been established for adoptive parents in employment, too. What I have not followed from his argument—I waited until the end to ask, to see whether he fleshed it out—is the rationale for saying that the principle has not also been established for adoptive parents in self-employment.
Lee Rowley
The principle is that while we recognise that the world of work changes—the hon. Member for York Central highlighted the moving parts around the Taylor review and other things around how work is changing—there is a difference between employed work and self-employed work. The cohort of self-employed, who we want to support, grow and help, is very diverse, and there are groups within it who have additional flexibilities as a result of self-employment. Some have the ability to work around their personal lives in terms of their work issues and the rest of it, and we accept that there is a group that does not. It is a question of recognising that the cohort is very diverse.
One reason for the recommendation and advice to local authorities about being able to give consideration to support for specific circumstances is to acknowledge the diversity within that cohort and to try to ensure support where people need it. However, it is also a recognition that this diverse cohort has different groups and different people with different needs.
In terms of the overall position, I recognise that there are strong feelings here and that there are significant views on this issue, both in the Chamber and in the Public Gallery.
Lee Rowley
Allow me one more moment and then I will happily give way.
I hope that I have been able to articulate that, although a number of people in this place will remain at odds with it, the rationale for the Government approaching this issue in the way we have and for why the policy is in place comes originally from a different prospectus—a different proposition—and we think there is some flexibility in the system to support those who need it.
Darren Jones
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way a second time and indulging me. I am just conscious that those in the Public Gallery may wish to know what might happen after this debate. Earlier in his closing remarks, the Minister said that there would be a further opportunity to push this issue in this Parliament. Could I probe him to give a bit more detail about that? For example, are we expecting a Bill in the Queen’s Speech—perhaps an employment rights Bill—where we might be able to see amendments or suggestions on this issue, or did he have something else in mind?
Lee Rowley
I am grateful for the request for clarification, because my point was about the general parliamentary process and the general opportunity for people to continue to campaign, to continue to make their voices heard and to continue to highlight things. I cannot give any commitments on behalf of the Government about what we will or will not do, other than what I have already said. At this stage, we believe that the position is as outlined in the response to the petition.
Lee Rowley
If I can just say a couple more sentences, I will be happy to do so. I just want to draw towards a conclusion, before giving way to the hon. Lady.
We recognise that this is an important area of policy, we understand the challenge and we understand why the petition has been brought forward. I hope I have been able to articulate today the reason why the policy is the policy and to outline some of the discretion in the system, which hopefully has the potential to cover those who have concerns. I do understand the challenge, although I am sure the hon. Member for York Central is about to tell me about it for a final time.
Rachael Maskell
I just seek another commitment from the Minister. Will he meet the Children’s Minister to discuss this issue further, not least in the light of the Government committing to respond to the Taylor review in legislation? I would have thought that that would be a great opportunity to take this issue further and to ensure that we have the support in place for self-employed adopter parents.
Lee Rowley
I am very happy to give a commitment that I will meet the Children’s Minister and pass back the strength of feeling in the Chamber today. I hope the hon. Lady recognises the position I have outlined, which aligns with the petition response. I have set out the rationale for why the policy is the policy, the reason why we think discretion is in place and the hope, on that basis, that it covers sufficient scenarios, sufficient individuals and sufficient challenges, such that it is a reasonable and proportionate place to be.
Before I conclude, I again thank the petitioners and all those who have a significant interest in this issue. I also thank hon. Members for their willingness to debate it in such a serious and proportionate manner. The Government are grateful to people for continuing to raise these issues, even if at this time we think that the current situation and the current discretion should cover most of the challenges that we see on this policy.
Elliot Colburn
Thank you for calling me to sum up, Ms Ghani—I promise that I will not take the remaining half-hour to wind up the debate. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for taking part in this important debate. I reiterate my thanks to the petitioners—not only those from Carshalton and Wallington but those from around the country—and to those who have made the journey here today to watch this debate from the Public Gallery. Most importantly, however, I thank those who do one of the most selfless things anyone can do, which is to adopt a child in need—I forgive the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), for mispronouncing my constituency, given that he is one of those people.
I hope that the Government will commit to go away and look again at this issue. I was pleased to hear that there will be further opportunities throughout this Parliament to revisit it, and I seriously hope that it will be given the attention it deserves. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft), who articulated the point so well, I was surprised when I learned about the current situation. I thought, “Surely this can’t be right. This seems like a weird anomaly to me.” I do not believe that the policy has got to that place intentionally. It sounds like an anomaly that was created when legislation went through, and no one saw the glaring gap until we reached this point. I hope that there will be a chance to look at this issue again and hopefully to close this loophole. I really do not believe that the cost to the Exchequer would be very much, but the return on that investment in our children will be huge and well worth it.
I hope we can all bear in mind that this is ultimately about those often vulnerable children who need long-term loving families. I hope we can get the bureaucracy out of the way to give them just that.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 601323, relating to support for new adoptive parents.
Written Statements
Platinum Jubilee: Licensing Hours Extension
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
The Government have consulted on and will be proceeding with the proposal to make a Licensing Hours Order under Section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003 to relax licensing hours in England and Wales to mark the Her Majesty the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee and to celebrate the longest reigning Monarch in the United Kingdom.
The Order being laid before the House today will apply to premises already licensed until 11pm for the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises, for the provision of late-night refreshment (only where there is also the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises), and for the provision of regulated entertainment in England and Wales. The Order will extend the licensing hours for such premises from 11pm to 1am the following day, on Thursday 2 June, Friday 3 June, and Saturday 4 June.
An Impact Assessment is being prepared and will be published alongside the Order on legislation.gov.uk.
[HCWS701]
Merchant Shipping (Safety Standards for Passenger Ships on Domestic Voyages) (Miscellaneous Amendmen
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
I am making this statement for the purposes of paragraph 14 of Schedule 8 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The instrument to which this statement relates does not substantively amend EU standards, but the provisions of Schedule 8 apply to a consequential amendment proposed to be made by the instrument to a definition contained in the Merchant Shipping (Fire Protection: Small Ships) Regulations 1998.
The proposed regulations implement the findings of the review of standards for older passenger ships carried out by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency in conjunction with the Domestic Passenger Ships Steering Group (DPSSG) which is a group on which both Government and industry representatives sit to discuss safety matters relating to domestically operating passenger vessels.
The review of standards for older passenger ships was driven by recommendations from:
a) the Thames Safety Inquiry, which was Lord Justice Clarke’s investigation into the Marchioness tragedy, in which 51 lives were lost. The investigation and resultant recommendations considered scenarios wider than just that of the Marchioness tragedy itself, and covered a range of possible circumstances anticipated for passenger vessels more generally;
b) the Formal Safety Assessment Study of Domestic Passenger Ship Safety, published in 2005; and
c) the Marine Accident Investigation Branch.
The relevant recommendations from the Thames Safety Inquiry were implemented for newer non-seagoing passenger ships in 2010, but the more challenging task of doing a similar thing for older passenger ships has been carefully considered over subsequent years.
The proposed regulations cover aspects of the following subject areas:
Damage stability (survivability): The main purpose of this measure is to keep vessels afloat long enough to evacuate them in an emergency;
Lifesaving equipment: Except in the lowest risk areas, this is to ensure there are sufficient spaces in life rafts, and lifejackets for all onboard. Vessels operating at night to carry lifejackets with lights;
Fire detection: Unmanned engine rooms on passenger ships and any passenger sleeping accommodation to be fitted with fire detection to the standard of BS EN54;
Fixed firefighting: Engine rooms to be fitted with fixed firefighting equipment;
Powered pumps: Passenger ships to have a means of pumping out bilge water without reliance on hand pumps. Following consultation, a requirement for powered fire pumps was dropped; and
Bilge alarm: Bilge alarms to be fitted in all compartments containing propulsion machinery, and in any other compartment where bilge water can accumulate.
One of the potentially most significant aspects of these proposals is the damage stability, or survivability, element. The reason vessels need to meet adequate standards in this area is that in the event of an incident, it is vital to keep vessels afloat for long enough for persons to ascend to the upper deck, don lifejackets, and remain above the surface of the water while awaiting rescue services. Vessels which do not meet the modern standards can sink in literally seconds, resulting in persons being cast into the water, and possibly trapped beneath a submerged hull. The death toll is expected to be high in such a situation, as passenger vessels can carry anything from 13 to 250 persons. This is a tragedy waiting to happen.
The other measures combat the risks associated with fire and flooding, and provide more robust standards for life saving equipment.
This is a package designed to provide a safety regime which ensures a high level of consistency in safety standards across the range of passenger vessels, so that the public can be assured that on whichever passenger vessel they choose to travel, safety standards on that vessel are fit for the 21st century.
It has been suggested that these measures target historic vessels, and even those vessels known as “Dunkirk Little Ships” (DLS). However, the proposals focus on passenger vessels, i.e., those carrying members of the public, regardless of age. A few of these are historic in nature—others are simply old—and a very small proportion of DLS are included are subject to the measures. No more than 2% to 3% of the pool of DLS are affected, as most DLS do not operate as passenger vessels.
The draft regulations are an important step forward to ensure standards for all UK passenger ships are suitable for the 21st century, and to protect members of the travelling public. I am not prepared to see another tragedy on the scale of the Marchioness. A similar disaster, or one greater, would have an unacceptable social cost, and have a damaging effect on the reputation of the tourist industry, which is so important to many areas of the United Kingdom.
The regulations are being published in draft 28 days before they are due to be laid for approval by both Houses of Parliament. This is required under paragraph 14 of Schedule 8 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 because they make a consequential amendment to a definition that was substituted in the Merchant Shipping (Fire Protection: Small Ships) Regulations 1998 by the Merchant Shipping (Marine Equipment) Regulations 2016, which were made, in part, under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. Further details are set out in the annex to the accompanying draft explanatory memorandum.
The draft regulations, the accompanying draft explanatory memorandum and the impact assessment can be found on gov.uk https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/revised-safety-standards-for-older-passenger-ships
[HCWS702]
Merchant Shipping (Additional Safety Measures for Bulk Carriers) Regulations 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
I have today published as a draft the Merchant Shipping (Additional Safety Measures for Bulk Carriers) Regulations 2022, along with an accompanying draft explanatory memorandum. The draft regulations revoke and replace the Merchant Shipping (Additional Safety Measures for Bulk Carriers) Regulations 1999 (SI 1999/1644) and the instruments that amend them and implement the most up to date requirements of the international convention for the safety of life at sea, 1974 (“the convention”), affecting bulk carriers.
The draft regulations are being published for 28 days. Following the conclusion of this period, and once any observations on the draft regulations have been taken into account, they will be laid for approval by each House of Parliament. This procedure is required under paragraph 14 of Schedule 8 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 because these regulations revoke an instrument that was amended under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. The amendments were made by the Merchant Shipping (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendments etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018 (SI 2018/1221). Further details are contained in the annex to the draft explanatory memorandum.
The draft regulations implement requirements for bulk carriers in chapter XII of the convention, including previously unimplemented requirements for bulk carriers of double-side skin construction constructed on or after 1st July 2006, standards and criteria for side structures of bulk carriers of single-side skin construction and standards for owner’s inspection and maintenance of bulk carrier hatch covers.
The updated measures in chapter XII are in force internationally, but the measures must also be incorporated into our national legislation to enable them to be enforced effectively, most notably to discourage non-compliance by non-UK flagged ships in UK waters, which would be detrimental to the safety of shipping in UK coastal areas. The proposed regulations will ensure that UK law includes increased safety standards for bulk carriers and seafarers on UK flagged bulk carriers and non-UK flagged bulk carriers operating in UK waters by implementing updates to improve vessel stability and strength.
The draft regulations also include an ambulatory reference provision to ensure that future amendments to the convention referred to in the draft regulations will automatically become UK law when they enter into force internationally. As required by these regulations, a ministerial statement will be provided to both Houses of Parliament ahead of any amendment to chapter XII, or other provision, of the convention referenced in the regulations, prior to it coming into force in UK law by way of the ambulatory reference provision.
The draft regulations and the accompanying draft explanatory memorandum can be found on https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulations-for-bulk-carrier-safety.
[HCWS703]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, it seems a little unnecessary to make the following observation, but I will make it none the less: Members are encouraged to leave some distance between themselves and others, which everybody seems to have done. If there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume a few minutes later, having allowed time for Members to record their votes.
Direct Payment to Farmers (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
That the Grand Committee do consider the Direct Payment to Farmers (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2022.
Relevant document: 30th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
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, I hope it will be useful to your Lordships if I speak to all the instruments, beginning with the draft Direct Payment to Farmers (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 3 February 2022. The matters in these instruments are closely related. Made using powers under the Agriculture Act 2020, they implement important aspects of our new agricultural policy, as set out in the agricultural transition plan published in November 2020 and updated in June 2021. The three instruments apply only in relation to England.
The Direct Payments to Farmers (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2022 apply progressive reductions to direct payments to farmers in England for the 2022 scheme year. By doing so, it continues the process of phasing out direct payments in England which began in the 2021 scheme year. The Government remain committed to phasing out direct payments in England over the seven-year agricultural transition period. We are doing so as area-based payments are unfair: they go primarily to larger landowners, artificially inflate land rents, stand in the way of new entrants to farming getting access to land, and offer little return for the taxpayer.
To help farmers plan, we initially committed in 2018 to phase out direct payments. The specific reductions provided for in this instrument were announced in November 2020. As was the case for 2021, higher percentage reductions will be applied to payment amounts in higher payment bands.
Although direct payments are reducing, total funding to farmers is not. We will make money from the reductions available to targeted schemes, which will increase farm productivity, improve the health and welfare of animals, and enhance the natural environment. In the coming year, that reallocated money will be used to meet the rising demand from farmers for countryside stewardship, our current environmental offer, which has seen a 40% increase in applications. That funding will also be used in the launch of the first of our new environmental land management schemes: the sustainable farming incentive. Further, we will also fund the initial wave of the landscape recovery scheme, with projects focused on supporting native species and restoring rivers.
We are also making available free business advice to farmers and will continue to offer a range of popular grant offers so that farmers can invest in their businesses and become more efficient and sustainable. We will also be offering a new suite of opportunities for farmers, supply chains and researchers to collaborate on researching and developing innovative but practical solutions to the challenges and opportunities that farming faces. This is an essential reform that puts England on track to meet its legally binding environmental and net-zero targets, while creating a thriving and self-reliant farming sector.
The Agriculture (Financial Assistance) (Amendment) Regulations 2022 amend the Agriculture (Financial Assistance) Regulations 2021, approved by this House on 22 March 2021. Those regulations put in place financial data publication and enforcement and monitoring requirements for four new financial assistance schemes established under the Agriculture Act 2020. This amending instrument extends the range of financial assistance schemes covered by the 2021 regulations to ensure that any new financial assistance scheme launched in 2022 and thereafter is subject to the same checking, monitoring and enforcement requirements that applied to the original schemes launched in 2021.
The 2021 regulations gave Defra the opportunity to test, refine and develop these new requirements. The amendments made by this instrument will now allow the Government to move on to the next stage of agricultural policy set out in the agricultural transition plan.
This instrument also strengthens the investigative powers in the 2021 regulations to ensure that where there are suspicions of offences in connection with financial assistance —for example, fraud offences—the Secretary of State can, where appropriate, fully investigate the matter. The amendment will allow the Secretary of State to investigate not only agreement holders but applicants, and in certain circumstances the employees or agents of an applicant or agreement holder. These investigative powers mirror powers Defra holds in relation to CAP schemes, while allowing Defra to use them in a more proportionate manner, reflecting the objectives of the Agriculture Act.
This instrument also removes a reference to grants in Regulation 13 of the 2021 regulations. The amendment will ensure that “financial assistance” is not limited to grants and can include other forms of assistance, as provided for in Section 2(1) of the Agriculture Act.
In drafting the 2021 regulations, Defra engaged with key stakeholders in a targeted consultation exercise between 4 August and 1 September 2020, giving stakeholders the opportunity to review Defra’s proposed approach and express their views. Feedback gathered during the consultation exercise was used to inform the content of the 2021 regulations and this amending instrument.
I turn to the Agriculture (Lump Sum Payment) (England) Regulations 2022. As part of our wider agricultural reforms, we want to support farmers who wish to leave the industry, as well as those who want to stay. We know that some farmers would like to retire or leave farming but have found it difficult to do so for financial reasons. That is why this instrument allows a scheme to be introduced in 2022 which provides lump sum payments to farmers in England who wish to leave the sector. These payments will be in place of any further direct payments to the recipient during the remainder of the agricultural transition. This is not new money and will not impact the funding of other schemes. This scheme should also free up land, creating more opportunities for new entrants and farmers who wish to expand.
These instruments implement provisions in the Agriculture Act 2020. They continue the transition away from the inefficient direct payments model of the CAP and they build upon the already implemented financial assistance framework to cover new schemes, in line with the agricultural transition plan. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I thank my noble friend for introducing these regulations. I would like to put one or two questions about each in turn.
Could my noble friend the Minister clarify an issue that has been raised? The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said at Blackpool, if I have understood correctly, that farmers have more than made up for any income lost since these new provisions came in—or, in fact, since we left the European Union. My contacts told me over the weekend that is anything but the case. It would be welcome to know the basis for the Secretary of State’s remarks; perhaps there is something I am misunderstanding.
Regarding direct payments to farmers, the subject of the first regulation before us, as my noble friend said, this is putting us on the path to reducing the direct payments until we eventually come into ELMS. What has been identified, I think by the CLA especially, is that there will potentially be a 50% gap in the funding that farmers have been receiving between the regulations before us this afternoon and the end of the transition period. If that is the case, and I am sure my noble friend’s department will be aware of that, I would like to understand how that gap will be filled so that farmers do not lose out.
I am concerned that there is a lack of understanding. We are meant to be levelling up the economy and unleashing the rural economy. I think, at the moment, the rural economy is performing below par. One reason is that we simply do not have the tools.
I will take the North Yorkshire moors as an example, or the Yorkshire Dales, where my brother lives: we still have woeful broadband internet connections there and the mobile signal contacts are often potentially extremely dangerous. We learned at a recent meeting that masts have apparently been put in by two providers—I believe it is O2 and EE—but these have not been linked up in this rather broad area of North Yorkshire. My noble friend’s department is responsible for rural affairs—it is in its title—so perhaps he could use his good offices to ensure that, as we leave direct payments and move to an alternative form, farmers will be given the tools to do the job.
To conclude on the first regulations, there is also a lack of understanding that tenants are unable to qualify under the new schemes. I would be interested to know to what extent that is reflected in contacts that the department has had with tenants. I know that our honourable friend the Farming Minister in the other place, Victoria Prentis, is aware of this. I commend the work of the Rock review on tenant farmers, but tenants are being evicted as we speak. There simply will not be that many of them left, if we carry on at this pace, when we reach the end of the transitional stage for direct payments to farmers.
I make a plea to my noble friend: will he help me to understand how, when it is gone, the direct payments relief will be replaced for those tenants who cannot claim for anything other than farm schemes owing to the nature of their farm tenancy agreements? Those are enshrined in a great many agricultural Acts, not least the 1947 Act. Can he put my mind at rest on the plight of tenant farmers?
I add that on common land graziers and those with shooting rights are trying to compete side by side. I am sure my noble friend will be aware that there is currently an issue with food security, not least because we understand that Ukrainians have been picking most of our fruit and vegetables in the last two or three years. It appears that, added to the cost of wheat, we may perhaps soon have in this country a local shortage of such staples. I wonder how my noble friend expects to address that.
I turn briefly to the Agriculture (Financial Assistance) (Amendment) Regulations. Paragraph 7.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum says that the department will perhaps try to look more favourably and proportionately on how the offences are to be inspected; I think my noble friend alluded to this. However, the first sentence does not entirely fill me with confidence. It states:
“The instrument also expands the power of the Secretary of State to investigate suspected offences in connection with applications for, or receipt of financial assistance.”
That will not go down well, particularly with the owners of small family farms, who have said at every turn how they are finding that, if anything, the administrative burdens are increasing. I would like to hear a little more detail from my noble friend about how these regulations will applied. How will the full force of Defra be applied more proportionately?
The third and final instrument before us states clearly that direct payments are to be replaced. My noble friend referred to a lump sum payment. This might seem very attractive, particularly to older farmers. I refer again to my experience of North Yorkshire in this regard. The difficulty they have asked me about is: if they apply for this lump sum grant, how will that affect their tax situation? Did I understand my noble friend to say that it could be up to £100,000?
We have a shortage of affordable homes in the countryside. Very few new houses being built across North Yorkshire—and, as far as I can see, in other rural areas of England—are one- or two-bedroom, which would be ideal for farmers who have moved off the farm and want to stay in a village. If we do not make it more attractive for them, we will prevent newer, younger farmers coming in, which is a desire of Defra. With those few remarks, I look forward to my noble friend’s responses.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a farmer and landowner, as set out in the register. I am broadly supportive of the Agriculture Act and the introduction of the new system of public funds for public goods, but I need to hear what the Government have to say about the very different circumstances that apply today from when the Act was passed.
Like other noble Lords, and this was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, I am most concerned with how the Secretary of State is reported to have said that rising input prices will be matched by rising output prices. This demonstrates a lack of understanding, particularly of businesses. The consultant Andersons has calculated that, whereas the average rate of inflation for consumers is 5.5%, it is 10% for farmers, when it is recognised that their principal inputs are fuel, feed, fertiliser, seeds and labour.
The Financial Times reported yesterday that the European Union is
“reviewing the bloc’s sustainable food strategy after a concerted push against the planned reforms by national governments, farmers and the agriculture industry.”
Is this debate happening here? Surely, in the unfolding circumstances of inflation and Ukraine it would be sensible, as a minimum, to delay the planned cuts in BPS payments for this year and maybe next. This would not involve additional government funding, only a delay to the introduction of the new schemes.
The new sustainable farming incentive support is, after all, a fraction of what farmers are due to lose in the BPS. This is important for smaller farmers with weaker balance sheets, as the stronger cash flow provided by the BPS would enable them to purchase inputs, such as fertiliser, on a more timely basis.
In this country, the Food and Drink Federation is now calling for a national food security council, which could work alongside the industry to enable a collective response to supply chain disruptions caused by immediate issues such as rising energy, CO2 and fertiliser prices. Please could the Minister give us some indication of what the Government are doing to address all these important issues?
Finally, on the regulation on lump sum payments, I believe the payment is totally inadequate to encourage farmers to retire. It is also a disincentive for new farmers to enter the industry. A payment of up to £100,000 is attractive only if the farmer owns his own house, particularly in the south of England. This excludes most tenant farmers. Nothing is achieved if the farmer rents from the landowner the farmhouse he has been living in, at an open market rent, as this could be the same or more than his farming rent.
As a means to free up land for new farmers, this scheme suffers from the basic problem that the BPS is not available any more, while the other funding that is available is much smaller. The only likely “beneficiary”—in inverted commas—both from the reduction of the BPS and from the lump sum scheme is the well-financed larger farm. From a farming, environmental and social point of view, this is not what we want to achieve.
The Duke of Montrose (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for galloping us through these measures. The challenge for us in this Committee is not to detain him too long, so as to allow him to resume all the work he is doing. I echo much of what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said. I declare my peripheral interests; my agriculture and land are all in Scotland so I am not directly involved.
The rationale for this process of cuts is the same as when this was carried out in New Zealand. All input costs and other things—my noble friend the Minister mentioned rents—dropped in parallel with the cuts in government funding. In the current economic situation, there is no way that fertiliser companies have the slack to cut prices. They are being forced up, as my noble friend the Minister will know, by 200% or more. Will the Government be monitoring how this works out in practice and will they create powers to delay the introduction? It will stretch the lump sum payments if they are the only remedy that is available, and people are going to be forced out of business.
My noble friend the Minister has promised that there will be no reduction in payments to farmers, and I am sure he believes that, but what proportion are the Government expecting to go to conservation projects that are not related to farming? Will that considered to be part of the payment or are they going to be financed from elsewhere?
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
My Lords, I declare my agricultural interests as detailed in the register, although they are not particularly relevant to the point I want to make.
I do not think the Minister was in this House when we considered the Agriculture Bill in 2019—I cannot quite remember but I hope I am right about that. During the passage of that Bill, there was quite a lot of comment from many parts of the House about the position of smaller farmers, particularly hill and livestock farmers, most of whom are marginally profitable, if at all, and nearly all of whom depend wholly or almost wholly on the public subsidy that they receive. I made a plea at that point for the Government to consider not reducing the lowest band of the direct payments because those are directed only at the relatively small farmer.
I see in the regulations in front of us that, in fact, the smaller farmers—that is, those receiving £30,000 or less—are to receive a cut of 20%. That seems rather harsh. Although I am perfectly aware that there is no possibility of this regulation being amended, I wonder whether the two Ministers here would discuss with their ministerial colleagues the state of the small farms in this country. I do not believe that this Conservative Government really want to see small farms eased out of business. I am really worried about them.
The larger farms will get by. They have efficiencies, they are usually better capitalised; they will probably be all right under changed circumstances. But the small family farms, in many cases tenanted farms and/or livestock farms, are struggling and will struggle even more with these proposed cuts. I just do not feel that Ministers are sufficiently sympathetic to the position of small farmers at the moment. I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on that.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to these three statutory instruments dealing with proposals for the transition to the new financial support payments for farmers in England post Brexit.
The first SI, which deals with direct payments and reductions, has been well publicised since Brexit and during the passage of the Agriculture Bill. Farmers’ payments under CAP have already started to decrease and this year will see a further reduction in their payments, from 20% for those on £30,000 up to 40% for those in receipt of more than £150,000. This sliding scale has been well trailed and there should be no surprise among farmers about its further reduction. What is more problematic for them is the lack of the implementation of ELMS to replace this lost income. Small farmers will be hit particularly hard.
Consultation on the transfer took place back in February to May 2018 and the new arrangement is now beginning to bite. Are the Government considering a further consultation on the actual effects of the sliding scale of reduction in direct payments, especially as the implementation of ELMS is only slowly coming into effect during the transition period? Meanwhile, food security is moving rapidly up the agenda.
While it is to be welcomed that the Government are focused on biodiversity and carbon sequestration targets, the knotty issue of food production is somewhat ignored. The British farmer is very disillusioned at the trade deals with countries on the other side of the globe which have a very different landscape in which to produce their livestock and huge economies of scale that are not open to British farmers. They also have less stringent animal welfare rules than those which operate here. It is, therefore, much easier for Australian and New Zealand farmers to undercut our own hard-working farmers. Does the Minister agree that farmers are angry about the way they are being treated by the Government and undercut by cheaper imports?
I turn to the financial assistance amending SI. This seems to be all about monitoring of farmers’ financial assistance and enforcement. Over the five pages of the Explanatory Memorandum to this short SI, there are no fewer than nine references to monitoring and enforcement. The whole instrument gives the impression that the farming community is systematically and deliberately attempting to defraud the Government out of money.
There is reference to the tree health pilot scheme and annual health and welfare reviews being exempt from the publication requirements which apply to all other payment schemes. Can the Minister say why this is?
Under paragraph 6 of the Explanatory Memorandum, bullet point 5 refers to the Secretary of State being able to investigate suspected offences. Given the general tenor of this SI, what is the current level of offences? Paragraph 7.1 again refers to checking, monitoring and publication of information. In paragraph 7.3, the fourth bullet point refers to
“investigation of breaches and suspected offences in connection with applications for, or the receipt, of financial assistance”.
Can the Minister say whether wholescale fraud existed in the farming community over payments?
Paragraphs 7.5, 7.6, 7.7 and 7.9 refer to suspicion of fraud, breach of conditions, investigative powers and, again, suspected offences. It would appear that farmers are being accused of wholesale fraudulent activity over their payment claims. The whole statutory instrument wields an awful lot of stick and hardly any carrot in its treatment of farmers. Can the Minister please give the Grand Committee some clarity on just what the basis is for the tone of this statutory instrument, which I find offensive?
Paragraph 7.10 states:
“The instrument does not impose duties that are significantly more onerous than before”.
Can the Minister say, however, whether he thinks a family farmer would be likely to agree with this statement?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to these SIs, which, as he said, follow on from the detailed debates we had during the passage of the Agriculture Act, and indeed previous SIs which began to roll out the detailed proposals.
First, addressing the SI which introduces year 2 of the basic payment scheme reduction, as has been said, this is not a surprise, as the plan for this reduction in 2022 has been set out in previous documents. Nevertheless, even for the lowest category of claimants, a drop from 5% to 20% is significant. Already the farming press is reporting significant cases of hardship, and the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, recently admitted in the Chamber that it was hard to see how many upland farmers could continue to make a living under the new regime. We know, for example, that pig farmers have been particularly badly hit by what Victoria Prentis, the Minister in the other place, has described as an “exceptionally challenging period.” I therefore share the concern that several noble Lords raised about the Secretary of State’s comments last week, in which he said that the reductions in the basic payment scheme for farmers would be more than recouped by their increased income from the sale of produce. I do not think anyone of us felt that that was a reality, and indeed I very much share the comment of Minette Batters, who said
“one of us is … living in a #ParallelUniverse”.
I think she summed up the views of many when she said that. Perhaps the Minister could comment on what seems to be an unrealistic comment of the Secretary of State and say whether he agrees with it.
Of course, the Welsh Government have de-risked the changes by postponing the basic payment cut for a year to allow the farming community to adjust to the new arrangements. Can the Minister say what the impact of this is, with farmers receiving different subsidies throughout the devolved nations, and what is the impact on the internal market from the phasing out happening at different timescales?
I am conscious that this SI is for one year only, as was the previous year’s SI. In the current climate that probably makes sense given the huge traumas that are going on in the sector. As noble Lords have said, we are seeing the impact of unforeseen world events causing massive increases in the cost of fuel and gas, and shortages of feed and fertiliser. The Explanatory Memorandum in paragraph 14 makes it clear that these arrangements will be kept under review, saying that
“Defra and its agencies will monitor and review the impact of this instrument as part of its standard policy-making procedures.”
Can the Minister shed more light on what these monitoring arrangements are? I would have thought that in the current climate that is exactly what such flexibility was designed to address, and presumably at this moment risk analyses are taking place as to the impact of these huge world events. Can the Minister say what tests would have to be met before the Government agreed to deviate from the rollout of the basic payment cuts? If not now, when would they ever agree to do it?
Can the Minister also give more information about the savings being made from the first year of the basic payment cut? Again, as noble Lords and the Minister said, it has been said that no money will be lost from the overall pot of money if it is not reallocated via other ELM schemes, but we know that many of those other ELM schemes are not fully up and running yet. Can the Minister reassure us that none of the unallocated money in that first year has been reclaimed by the Treasury? We know what the Treasury is like, and it is hard to imagine that it has allowed that money to sit in a pot awaiting its allocation for future years—it is very generous if it is thinking like that. I think we would all like to be reassured that the cuts in one pot are there and can be shared and made available for this and future years. Just so that we can have some further reassurance on that, when will we be able to see the accounts to give us some factual information?
The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, raised the split in the distribution of the ELM schemes. Can the Minister say whether it is still the intention to split it evenly between the three pillars so that a third will still be available to go to individual farmers rather than the larger projects that were also envisaged under the ELM portfolio?
The second SI tightens up the rules for checking, monitoring and enforcing the applications for financial assistance. I do not have a great deal to say on this, although I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, that the tone is rather unfortunate. Obviously, it is important that schemes are watertight and not open to fraud, but it is also important that we have the right degree of flexibility in terms of the investigations that take place. However, I point out the irony of Defra deciding to go its own way on leaving the EU, only for it to concede in paragraph 7.7 of the Explanatory Memorandum that the changes that it is now introducing
“will bring Defra’s investigative powers closer to those … previously created under Common Agricultural Policy … rules”.
I turn to the third SI on the arrangements for lump sum payments; again, noble Lords have raised a number of concerns about this. My first reaction on reading this SI was: is this it? Is this all we are going to get? I had expected a much more detailed document setting out the criteria, any exemptions and much more detail about how and to whom the land could be transferred. We understand the need for and potential benefits of having a scheme that allows farmers to retire with some dignity if they do not want to participate in managing their land for environmental benefits, but we also need to be confident that these retirement payments will transform the way that the land is subsequently managed and owned. This was very much our ambition during the passage of the Agriculture Act.
The Minister may have seen the briefings that we have been sent by Sustain, which echo many of our concerns about this proposal. A fundamental concern is that there is no priority for the land that becomes available to be offered to new entrants. In the Commons debate, the Minister, Victoria Prentis, said:
“The lump sum exit scheme sits alongside extra support to help new entrants into the industry.”—[Official Report, Commons, Delegated Legislation Committee, 15/3/22; col. 13.]
But these two schemes are not linked up. There is currently no incentive for a retiring farmer to offer the land to a new entrant. It is far more likely that, as we have always feared, the land will be gobbled up by the large landowner next door, who will have an inside track on details of the sale and will use it as an opportunity to expand their landholdings. This was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who also made a good point about these sums of money simply not being sufficient for people who want to move off the land to be able to buy a house away from the farm.
Another alternative is that the land will be bought up by large corporations that have no farming background but are keen to offset their carbon emissions or to use it for biodiversity net gain to offset developments elsewhere. We know that the Government are encouraging this, and in many ways those schemes have merit, but we need to know where the land will go and who will be making use of it.
If we are not careful, both those depressing scenarios —the landowner and large corporations—are very likely unless the provisions in this SI for disposal of the land on retirement are tightened up. The end result is that we will see small family farms squeezed out of the sector, which was the point made by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington.
Will the Minister look at this again and provide some reassurance about new entrants and where that land will go? Will he also look again at the very narrow definition of “connected person” in Regulation 7(1) of the Agriculture (Lump Sum Payment) (England) Regulations 2022, because, as it stands, you can transfer the land to any family member as long as it is not your partner or spouse. I ask again whether this been fully thought through, because it seems likely that the payments will be made within a family—maybe to the father—with other members of his family carrying on farming much as before. Again, we are facing a scenario where new entrants will find it very difficult to make headway in coming on to the land.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. I will do my best to answer the many questions that have been put to me without exceeding my time slot.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, asked a number of questions in relation to the reduction of direct payments. We do not plan to consult further on the reductions, but the Government have published an evidence paper, updated in September 2019, setting out the expected impacts of removing those direct payments, and that included an analysis by sector, location and type of land tenure. It provided an analysis of how farm businesses across all sectors can offset the impact of reductions in direct payments. An update to that analysis was due to be published shortly, and it has been delayed—only slightly, I hope—in light of what is happening in Ukraine and the impact this will have on farm business incomes; that point was made by a number of noble Lords. We are reviewing this to ensure that the analysis remains fit for purpose.
All funding released from reductions in direct payments in England is being reinvested into delivering other schemes for farmers and land managers in this Parliament. I hope that is some reassurance to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, as well.
The noble Baroness raised other issues about reductions to direct payments. A small number of farmers leave the industry each year; that has been the case for some years now. They do so for a whole variety of reasons. According to the data we have from the Rural Payments Agency, in 2020 around 1,000 basic payment scheme claimants in England can be assumed to have exited the industry. It is too soon to produce equivalent data following the 2021 scheme year, but for the basic payment scheme 2021, the reductions for most farmers were modest. Around 80% of claimants would have received a reduction of around 5%, which is within the scope of the year-to-year variance experienced historically in any case due to currency fluctuations.
On the impact on the internal market from phasing out direct payments, these payments are largely decoupled from production and therefore they should not be trade distorting. Within the UK, there are already significant differences in the implementation of direct payment schemes, and while direct payments currently form an important contribution to farm income, as the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, said, in many cases it is critical—the reason they are still in business. They can nevertheless hamper productivity growth in the agriculture sector and drive up land rental prices. Removing them should raise our agriculture sector’s productivity across the board, leaving our farmers in a better position to compete.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, also asked what tests would have to be met before the Government agreed to deviate from the rollout of the basic payment cuts. Defra regularly gathers and publishes statistical data on the current state of the industry; for example, the results from the 2021-22 Farm Business Survey, which will cover the first year of progressive reductions, will be published this autumn. Data is also gathered through bodies such as the Animal and Plant Health Agency and the Rural Payments Agency, and that includes information on various aspects of the sector, such as the impact of reductions in direct payments. That allows the Government to monitor the sector and to make better decisions on the future of farming.
The Government are committed to phasing out untargeted direct payments. We do not believe that they are the best way to support farmers, as I tried to explain in my introductory remarks. The noble Baroness also asked about the savings being made from the first year of the basic payment reductions. For 2021, approximately £178 million was freed by reductions to the payments. This is being redirected into delivering other schemes for farmers.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, also asked for reassurance, as I think did my noble friend Lady McIntosh, that none of the allocated money from direct payment reductions has been reclaimed by the Treasury. All the funding released from reductions in the direct payments is being reinvested into delivering other schemes for farmers and land managers during this Parliament; it is not being hoarded for long-term future use. That amounts to an average of £2.4 billion a year over the period 2021-22 to 2024-25.
We have been clear all along that we will spend money where it delivers for the environment, alongside food production, and we need to support changes across the entire farm landscape to deliver those broad and connected ambitions. That is why we have increased the countryside stewardship payments by an average of 30% and introduced the sustainable farming incentive. Direct payments are not about food production. The decoupling of payments from food production took place around 15 years ago. Our evidence suggests that the removal of direct payments in England would have only a marginal effect, if any, on overall food production.
With regard to the Agriculture (Financial Assistance) (Amendment) Regulations 2022, a shared enforcement framework was previously established by the Agriculture (Financial Assistance) Regulations 2021, ensuring that powers of entry will be exercised, and inspections carried out consistently across the schemes. This instrument extends that framework to cover additional new financial assistance schemes and broaden the investigative powers of the Secretary of State, in a manner consistent across the different schemes. Training and guidance will also be provided to those authorised with powers of entry or to carry out inspections to ensure that these are exercised in a consistent way.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, asked about the tree health pilot scheme and the annual health and welfare reviews being exempt from publication requirements; she wanted to know why that was the case. Specific location details and personal information identifying a land manager or landowner in relation to tree pest and disease findings will not be published. This information is considered to be sensitive and potentially damaging to the individuals or businesses concerned. It could also inhibit the reporting of future cases of pest and disease outbreaks. We will, however, publish aggregated data for these payments.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, also asked about the level of fraud in the farming community and overpayments. These regulations offer a range of enforcement measures to deal with fraud or breaches of scheme rules, including the withholding of financial assistance, recovering financial assistance previously awarded, and prohibiting a person from receiving financial assistance for up to two years. Appropriate sanctions will be available and applied where there are clear cases of misuse of public funds; for example, through neglect, serious cases of non-compliance or fraudulent behaviour. The noble Baroness asked for specific numbers but I am afraid I will have to get back to her on that because I do not have them, but the point she made, echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, will have been heard loud and clear.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, asked when the guidance will be published for each financial assistance scheme. I understand the importance of giving farmers as much time as possible to plan. Detailed guidance for stakeholders will be published in good time ahead of each scheme being launched, giving farmers support to implement the standards and understand the new rules. This guidance will be written in plain English, which will set out and explain the detailed scheme rules and requirements. Some schemes, such as countryside stewardship and landscape recovery, are already live and appropriate guidance has been published. For other schemes, guidance will be published in good time ahead of their launch. For example, for the SFI scheme, we will publish final details of the offer for 2022 and scheme information later this spring—some might say we are in spring now, so shortly—ahead of opening for applications later in the year.
Without the Agriculture (Lump Sum Payment) (England) Regulations 2022, we will not be able to meet our public commitment to offer farmers a lump sum exit scheme this year. This would limit the options we can provide farmers as direct payments are phased out; it would also limit structural change in the farming sector. We believe that the calculation of the lump sum payment is fair. Our calculation means that, for most farmers, the lump sum will be approximately equivalent to the amount they might otherwise receive in direct payments for the years 2022 to 2027, as these are phased out over the remaining years of the planned agricultural transition.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, asked about the rationale behind the stipulation to retain five acres. Well, farmers will be able to keep up to five hectares of agricultural land. This allows, for example, a farmer to keep some land around or near their farmhouse. We feel this flexibility will help with uptake of the scheme, which will create more opportunities for new entrants and expanding farmers. In relation to the question that she asked about trees, all publicly subsidised planting has to comply with the UK forestry standards. They are based on a UN-sanctioned approach to sustainable forest management. The UK forestry standards are, in effect, a live document that is being updated all the time. At the moment, the emphasis is placed heavily on the need to use public money to deliver the maximum possible public good. This means not just having monoculture conifer plantations, but ensuring we have a genuine yield in biodiversity and numerous other public benefits, such as flood management and flood prevention. As it happens, the overwhelming majority of woodland creation supported by the Nature for Climate Fund grant schemes will be native broadleaf. That can be judged by the applications coming in, even though this very new fund is in its first year.
Returning to a question put to me by the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Jones, which I realise I did not answer, we think that the lump sum exit scheme will free up land for new entrants and expanding farmers. It is about providing opportunities for farmers, rather than aiming for a particular balance between those entering the sector and existing farmers who wish to expand. We recognise the importance of providing additional support for new entrants alongside that lump sum exit scheme. Attracting new talent into food and farming is vital, if we want a sustainable and productive agricultural sector.
As set out in our agricultural transition plan for 2021 to 2024, we will provide funding to create lasting opportunities for new entrants to access land, infrastructure and support to establish successful and innovative businesses. In January this year, the Secretary of State announced the development of incubator pilots for new entrants, with council farms playing a key role. The details of the pilots are currently being designed and we hope to launch the pilot scheme later this year.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh made a number of comments and raised questions, some of which overlapped with points made by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, particularly on small and tenant farmers. At the end of January this year, the Secretary of State announced an independent review, chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, dedicated to looking at how Defra schemes can better support the tenanted sector, as farming in England is reformed to be more sustainable. The review period is expected to be six to nine months, and it will publish its findings and recommendations later this year. I will not go into all the details on the group of experts—who has been selected and how, or who they represent—but it is a broad range and I am happy to provide that information if the noble Baroness would like me to. I could tell her now, if she asks, but I am worried about the time.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I have that already. I am just slightly disappointed that the working group will not now report for nine months; it was meant to report within six months.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I said six to nine months; I am afraid that is the answer I received. I shall check on the timescale, but I assume six to nine months is correct, since that is what my colleague, my noble friend Lord Benyon, has told me.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, raised a broader point beyond tenant farmers, about small farmers. He is right: small farmers are the backbone of our countryside, and any policy that results in a reduction in the diversity, breadth and viability of our small farmers is not a good one. They are critical to the future sustainability of our countryside. Farmers will be supported throughout the seven-year transition period to the new system. We are reducing direct payments, as the noble Duke said, but that will be gradually over the seven years, which will give farmers time to adapt and take advantage of the new offer. Money saved by direct payment reductions will be reinvested directly into English farming and agriculture through our new schemes. The Government are committed to providing the same cash total to the sector in each year of this Parliament. Some £10.7 million of funding has already been awarded through the interim phase of the future farming resilience fund. That provides, among other things, free business support to farmers and land managers to help them navigate the changes during the early years of the agricultural transition period.
Upland farmers have a particularly important role to play in addition to that of food production, and that is in land management. In their contribution to alleviating the threat of floods, which blight so many communities in this country, there is almost no one in a more important position than those farmers. They are absolutely in the mix when it comes to the new system that has been designed.
I turn to the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and my noble friend the Duke of Montrose. My noble friend asked what proportion of the money would be spent on schemes which are not related to farming and are purely conservation. Again, I cannot give him a direct number, but there are schemes beyond the system being described today which are designed to support, for example, natural regeneration or tree planting, most of the funding for which comes from the nature for climate fund. We are talking here about a slightly different system which the nature for climate fund supports, but ultimately this is all about good land management.
The Government published a paper, which was updated in September 2019—I may have mentioned it earlier—setting out the impacts of removing the direct payments. That paper is being updated as we speak. The delay is caused by the conflict in Ukraine.
My noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, talked also about the impact on consumer food prices. The analysis that we have made in Defra suggests that any effect of direct payments on consumer food prices is limited. However, we are doing a full impact assessment on food security up to 2024, and the results will be made available and will inform future policy design.
It is important that we continue with the transition as planned. Applying reductions to direct payments frees up money which we can use to pay farmers and land managers to encourage environmental protection and enhancement, public access to the countryside, and the safeguarding of livestock and plants. We must also provide opportunities for farmers who wish to leave farming to do so in a managed way. These instruments will allow the Government to ensure that this can be done. I hope that I have answered the key questions put to me today. I beg to move.
Agriculture (Financial Assistance) (Amendment) Regulations 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
That the Grand Committee do consider the Agriculture (Financial Assistance) (Amendment) Regulations 2022
Relevant document: 30th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Agriculture (Lump Sum Payment) (England) Regulations 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
That the Grand Committee do consider the Agriculture (Lump Sum Payment) (England) Regulations 2022
Relevant document: 30th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Electricity Supplier Payments (Amendment) Regulations 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the Grand Committee do consider the Electricity Supplier Payments (Amendment) Regulations 2022.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, this statutory instrument amends regulations concerning the levies used to fund the operational costs budgets for the Low Carbon Contracts Company and Electricity Settlements Company. 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 administers the capacity market scheme. Those 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.
The contracts for difference—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, which is the fourth to date, opened in December and we are seeking to secure more capacity than all the previous auctions combined. It will allow a broad range of renewable technologies to come forward, while delivering the best deal for bill payers. To date, only projects located in Great Britain have been awarded CfDs. However, BEIS and the 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 the LCCC to undertake some preparatory work in case a final decision is made to enable Northern Ireland to join the scheme.
I turn to the Electricity Settlements Company—ESC. The capacity market is tried and tested and 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 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 auctions, scheduled for early 2023, will secure most of the capacity we need out to 2026-27. In the CfD and capacity market schemes, participants bid for support via a competitive auction, which ensures the 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. It is in part for this reason that the LCCC has been working with BEIS to develop new schemes for incentivising the deployment of more low-carbon technologies. For example, the LCCC has supported BEIS in the development of dispatchable power agreements, or DPAs, under the Energy Act 2013. These agreements, which are based on CfDs, have been designed to instil confidence among investors for power carbon capture and storage projects and 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 carbon capture and storage project by the mid-2020s. The LCCC is expected to be the counterparty for DPAs, and funds have been included within the budgets to support this role. It is anticipated that the LCCC will also work with BEIS to develop incentives for bioenergy with carbon capture and storage. Although this has not yet 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 this option, the LCCC would need to undertake activity to prepare for acting as the counterparty during the next three years. Consequently, funds have been included within the budget for this purpose.
It is of course important that the LCCC and the ESC are sufficiently funded to perform their roles effectively, given their critical role in administering the schemes that I have just outlined. However, the Government are clear that both companies must deliver value for money and, with this in mind, we have closely scrutinised their operational cost budgets to ensure they reflect the operational requirements and objectives for the companies.
Both the LCCC and the ESC are themselves 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 actions such as this that CfD operational costs per contract are falling, despite the growing size of the CfD portfolio. There is a similar narrative for the ESC. The company currently manages 200.8 gigawatts of capacity agreements with 1,335 capacity providers under the capacity market. For the delivery year 2022-23, this equates to 52.9 gigawatts of capacity and 350 capacity providers, an increase of 78 capacity providers compared to the 2021-22 delivery year. Despite this increase, operational costs are expected to be lower in 2022-23 than in 2021-22.
The operational cost budgets for both companies were subject to consultation, which gave stakeholders the opportunity to scrutinise and test the key assumptions in the budgets and, more importantly, to ensure that they represent value for money. The response received to the consultation noted the significant increase of budget for the LCCC but was generally supportive of the Government’s rationale for the increase. BEIS is satisfied that the operational costs budgets for the LCCC and the ESC should remain as consulted upon. Subsequently, the budgets remain unchanged as a result of the consultation. The proposed operational costs budget for the LCCC in 2022-23 is £24,210,000, in 2023-24 it is £26,978,000 and in 2024-25 it is £29,051,000. For the ESC, the proposed operational cost budget is £6,954,000 in 2022-23, £7,382,000 in 2023-24 and £7,734,000 in 2024-25.
The amendments revise the levies currently in place to enable the companies to collect enough revenue to fund these 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 cost levy for the ESC is due to come into force the day after the day on which these regulations are made and the operational costs levy for the LCCC by 1 April in each of the relevant financial years.
Finally, I assure the Committee that the Government are also mindful of the uncertainties involved in setting a budget for the next three years, such as any world events that we are witnessing now which could of course impact energy demand, and in policy 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, as always, that the costs to consumers are minimised.
I commend these draft regulations to the Committee.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches support these regulations so I will not take up too much of the Grand Committee’s time, but there are a number of questions which I hope the Minister will be able to address.
I fondly remember discussing these regulations—the previous, equivalent regulations—back on a cold afternoon last February. At that time, I asked the Minister why the review of the operation of the electricity market, which under Section 66 of the Energy Act 2013 is required after five years and so was due in 2018, had still not been completed and reported three years after it was due. The Minister said:
“We expect it to be laid in Parliament shortly.”—[Official Report, 23/2/21; col. 811.]
The Explanatory Memorandum accompanying these regulations says almost exactly the same the thing, stating that
“the findings for the review are expected to be laid in Parliament shortly.”
Can the Minister tell us what the Government’s definition of “shortly” is, and give us some reassurance that we will actually see the outcome of this review? Has it been completed? If it has, why has it not been laid yet? Had it been completed when we discussed it last year, when the Minister said it would be laid shortly? I hope that he can give us some reassurance on this matter. The reasons given were Covid and Brexit. Obviously, we understand that Covid was a big blow—although Brexit was due two years after we had voted to leave—but we really need some reassurance about when we will see the review.
I will make just a few other points. When we discussed forecasts last year, we were discussing only one year’s levy because of Covid uncertainties. The Government now say that they are confident that they can forecast electricity demand with sufficient accuracy to reinstate the multiyear format. I note that the Minister has explained how the Government expect to see demand falling, albeit modestly, over that period. I wonder whether he could say something about how the Government are factoring in all the complexities of the massive price spike, and what that might do to demand, alongside the new demands of electric vehicles and heat pumps, et cetera.
As has been noted, the operational costs are up 40% over the levy period, and that is on top of the 19% increase that we debated last year. I recognise that there has been an expansion in the CfDs that the organisation is responsible for overseeing, and we welcome it, but I hope that the relentless pressure down on costs which the Minister talked about really will be applied continuously. I wonder whether some further economies of scale can be achieved, because both these organisations, as I understand it, operate from the same address. Are there functions that could be merged to save more money?
On the subject of the expansion of CfDs, I wonder whether the Minister can tell us where we are on the CfD for hydrogen. I note that it is the number two request on the CBI’s call for measures from the Government in terms of growth—number one, incidentally, is to close the public investment gap in terms of retrofitting commercial and domestic buildings. Perhaps the Minister could tell us whether that CfD on hydrogen will be forthcoming soon.
In terms of costs on bills, the Explanatory Memorandum estimates that these will be 50p on domestic consumers’ bills and between £30 and £1,200 on business bills, depending on their electricity usage. Obviously, 50p may seem a small amount, but I am slightly confused because I believe that the Explanatory Memorandum for the last levy-setting regulations said that it would be increased by 40p. It seems odd that this is only 50p over the period. Clearly, although these are small amounts, they all add up. People are facing crippling bills at the moment, so it is important that we keep an eye on that and on how we can drive down costs.
Another point I want to ask the Minister about relates to page 5 of the Explanatory Memorandum—which was presumably prepared some time ago—which talks about inflation of 5% having been allowed and discusses omicron and so on. However, this was clearly before some of the price spikes happened, and obviously before the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The CBI and other commentators expect inflation to peak somewhere around 8% to 9%, and there is increasing feeling that that level of inflation may be sustained for a longer period than was initially anticipated. In his reply, can the Minister tell us whether these new inflationary pressures in the system have been taken into account? If they have not, as some of them are fairly new, can he tell us how things might be adjusted over the period of the levy?
Finally, if there is a surplus and the money is paid back to consumers, can the Minister tell us whether there is a way of ensuring that the electricity supply companies deliver that rebate back to consumers if they effectively have to pay the charges in the beginning?
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the regulations before the House. They are essentially non-controversial and, on this lonely side of the House, we do not take issue with them. As we have heard, the regulations update the rates for the operational costs levy and settlement costs levy, which fund the operational costs of the LCCC and the Electricity Settlements Company, respectively. As these two private companies share staff and facilities, these levies are set together.
After a single year of unpredictably and reduced electricity demand during the pandemic, first, it is welcome that this process has been able to return to a three-year system, allowing stakeholders greater visibility of the estimated operational costs, as well as reducing the administrative burdens on the two companies and on us here. Given the situation, it was sensible to reduce the periodicity, and I am glad that we have returned to normal.
Both the LCCC’s contracts for difference and the Electricity Settlements Company’s capacity market are measures that encourage low-carbon electricity generation and ensure security of supply, which is a noble intention. As my colleagues in both Houses have argued whenever these issues have arisen, since these arrangements came into place in 2013, a levy system, which will be passed on to customers by the electricity firms, is possibly the most regressive way of making these arrangements. The figures involved are certainly not large, as the noble Lord, Lord Oates, said, especially when looking only at the impact on the yearly changes, as is the case with the explanatory notice, but with energy bills increasing substantially amid a wider cost-of-living crisis, it is certainly the case that every little bit helps. Has the Minister therefore given any consideration to other methods that could facilitate the costs of these arrangements not falling on the customer?
I would also like to ask some questions about the consultation that took place ahead of the laying of this regulation, both on questions coming from it and the consultation itself. The consultation ran for four weeks and received only one response, from Scottish Power. While the perspective of this large stakeholder was welcome, I am sure the Minister would agree that having a single response to any consultation is not ideal. It is no fault of Scottish Power, but there were gaps in the responses leaving questions mostly unanswered, and inherent biases from a single respondent were unavoidable. Perhaps when this is revisited in three years’ time, the Minister could consider a longer consultation for a broader spectrum of responses to be generated.
One aspect of Scottish Power’s response that I would like to pick up upon surrounds budget lines related to providing policy support to BEIS, which Scottish Power recommended be kept under review. In their response, the Government committed to returning funds allocated here to suppliers. As this is the case with any unused funds, will unallocated funds from this aspect be ring-fenced for return, and, more importantly —as the noble Lord, Lord Oates, has said—will steps be taken to ensure that this is passed on to customers, given that any adjustment to their bills will have already been enacted?
It was also pointed out that the year-on-year budget rises are not insignificant, reaching approximately 40% over the four years from this financial year to the last of the three years this regulation covers. The Government rightly say that this is not unprecedented, given that at least in the case of the Electricity Settlement Company, the Explanatory Memorandum suggests that the body has only become more efficient, but I would be grateful if the Minister could elaborate a little on where the cost increases come from.
I look forward to the Minister’s responses to these questions.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Lennie and Lord Oates, for their contributions to this brief debate. The noble Lord, Lord Oates, is of course quite right to raise the issue of the publication of the five-year review, especially since I told him last year that it was going to be ready shortly—I am sure there could be a big debate on what “shortly” means in the context of government. If I may fill in a little more detail for the noble Lord, I understand that updated advice on the matter is currently with my colleague Greg Hands, the Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change. I think he intends to publish the review in due course—I hope, shortly.
The noble Lord also, rightly, asked for an explanation of why the review is so delayed. I can certainly say that it has of course been a government priority to deliver on our commitment to open the largest ever CfD allocation round—I am sure that is something he would agree on—and it has been announced that the rounds will be running annually from March 2023. A lot of work has gone into the preparation behind that. Schemes such as CfD are vital in developing domestic sources of renewable energy to reduce our exposure to volatile global fossil fuel markets, which are of course peaking at the moment, and to protect consumers in the longer term. Delivering on those priorities has had an unfortunate knock-on impact on the publication of the review, but we will endeavour to get it out as quickly as possible.
The noble Lord also asked for an update on the hydrogen business model. Of course, it is not part of this statutory instrument, but I would be very happy to write to him separately. I can certainly confirm that we are not intending to fund hydrogen under this particular mechanism or under the Energy Act 2013, so it falls outside the scope of today’s debate.
On the noble Lord’s questions on inflation, we have used a somewhat optimistic assessment of 5% inflation for each year of the proposed budgets. That was after careful consideration of the forecasts produced by the Office for Budget Responsibility. They probably looked very sensible when it put its advice together, but it suggested that, on balance, an assumption of 5% was appropriate.
Food and Feed Safety (Miscellaneous Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kamall
That the Grand Committee do consider the Food and Feed Safety (Miscellaneous Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2022.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
My Lords, the Government’s priority is, as always, to ensure that the high standard of food safety and consumer protection that we enjoy in this country continues to be maintained now that the UK has left the European Union. This instrument follows the 18 EU exit instruments in the field of food and feed safety made during 2019 and 2020. It addresses two deficiencies identified in retained EU law, and provides transitional arrangements for labelling changes introduced as a result of EU exit. Since the instrument is technical in nature, I hope noble Lords will allow me to briefly summarise the changes we are making.
The instrument serves three key functions. First, it will ensure that emergency powers can be applied equally to all food and feed entering Great Britain. Retained EU Regulation 178/2002, on the general principles of food law, provides Ministers with emergency powers to suspend or restrict the placing of food or feed on the market. This can be used where food or feed presents a threat to human health. Legal analysis of Article 53 of that regulation identified that, as worded, it is not possible for a Minister to exercise those emergency powers on third-country food and feed entering Great Britain via Northern Ireland. To correct this operability issue, this proposed regulation includes a technical amendment that will enable all Ministers to apply, equally, the same emergency controls to all food and feed destined for our market. The amendment does not extend the remit or gravity of the controls that may be introduced, but will ensure that emergency controls are exercisable equally across all parts of the UK.
Secondly, the statutory instrument ensures that authorising provisions for feed additives and for GM food and feed authorisations will be made by legislation. Legal analysis of fixed and retained EU law identified that retained law on feed additives and on GM food and feed contained certain omissions. The regulations did not sufficiently make it clear that Ministers’ authorisation decisions will be prescribed in legislation. While this does not prevent Ministers from taking decisions to authorise these products, provision for those decisions to be implemented through legislation makes certain their enforceability in law. It also ensures consistency with other retained EU law in this area.
Thirdly and finally, the amendment provides a period of adjustment for changes to labelling requirements made necessary by EU exit legislation. In preparation for EU exit, changes were made to the legislation on extraction solvents and quick-frozen foods to reflect the fact that the UK would no longer be part of the EU. As a result, relevant food placed on the market is required to be labelled with the name and UK address of the legal person responsible for it, rather than an EU contact and address. This statutory instrument provides a period of adjustment in those sectors, allowing for the continued use of existing labels until 30 September 2022.
I should be clear that this instrument does not introduce any changes that will impact the day-to-day operation of food businesses, nor any new regulatory burden. The essence of the legislation is unchanged. However, it provides benefit for certain businesses by enabling a period of grace in the introduction of labelling changes.
It is also important to note that we have engaged positively with the devolved Administrations throughout the development of the instrument. I take this opportunity to note that their ongoing engagement has been warmly welcomed.
I reassure noble Lords that the overarching aim of this regulation is to provide continuity for businesses and to ensure that high standards of safety and quality for food and feed regulation will continue across the UK. The changes do not affect the essence of existing legislation. Having effective and functional law in this area is key to ensuring the high standards of food safety and consumer protection that we enjoy in this country and to make sure that they are maintained in the immediate and long term. I hope that noble Lords will feel able to support the amendments proposed in this instrument to ensure the continuation of effective food and feed safety and public health controls.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. She is speaking as the Liberal Democrat Front-Bencher but, as there are no Back-Benchers to speak, I invite her to speak.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to the Food and Feed Safety (Miscellaneous Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2022, which propose three very differing amendments to existing food safety measures. He was right to start by saying that ensuring the highest levels of food safety is absolutely vital.
The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has pointed out that the second and third regulations come into force on the day after the day on which these amendments are made, so once again they breach the 21-day rule. It is such a shame that SIs and regulations seem always to be dealt with as emergency items, because this reduces the time available for Parliament to effectively scrutinise legislation.
The first amendment is to Article 53 of the retained general food law, to manage a problem that has arisen as a result of the Northern Ireland protocol. I note that the Explanatory Memorandum calls it a “deficiency”. It might perhaps be more honest to call it a problem of the Northern Ireland protocol and the practical effect it has had on border issues for those living in Northern Ireland—how they have to juggle the tensions of a border in the Irish Sea when third-party goods come into Great Britain via Northern Ireland and where a serious risk to human health has been identified with those goods.
It is right that the UK Government must correct regulations that are not fit for purpose, and we note that these amendments to Article 53 do not change the purpose or function of the original provision but there is now full protection for such emergency measures, regardless of where the goods have come from.
The second amendment relates to the authorisation of provisions for feed additives and for GM food and feed, which will now be through legislation, bringing them into line with other retained EU food and feed law. That is particularly welcome. There is a lot of suspicion about GM food and feed, and it is important that there is a vehicle through which it can be scrutinised carefully. Parliament is the right place for that to take place.
The third and final change is a sensible step to ensure that businesses have a slightly longer period to move from EU to UK labelling requirements, until 30 September this year. For some time, food businesses have been asking for a longer period, as well as for labelling requirements to be as close as possible to the EU requirements. The latter is not covered by this SI, but I hope that the Minister will continue to listen to UK food businesses which want to continue to sell into the EU and which must also abide by the EU labelling requirements. I thank the Government for the extension to the period during which the EU ones can be used.
The SI brings us back to the wider issues of the Northern Ireland protocol. That is obviously not on the agenda for today, but I want to say that, from these Benches, we always warned that there would be problems for goods travelling into Great Britain via Northern Ireland and for businesses there, which continue to express real concerns about the UK’s decisions and legislation between 2018 and 2020. Whether one agrees with them or not, it is good that these three corrections and amendments will at least sort out some of those minor problems.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the rationale behind this eminently sensible statutory instrument, which deals with a number of significant technical issues relating to the Food Standards Agency, some of which have come about because of the Northern Ireland protocol. They need to be resolved, and from these Benches we are of course happy to support this statutory instrument.
I add that the Explanatory Memorandum is very helpful in outlining the approach that the FSA is taking. I will just pick up on a few points. First, paragraph 7.7 refers to
“An analysis of the emergency powers for”
food and feed control, which revealed that these powers could not be deployed as effectively as required. I am interested in exploring the context. It would be helpful if the Minister could advise on whether this analysis was through a hypothetical desk-based exercise, or whether the situations referred to actually occurred. For example, did goods identified as presenting a serious threat to human health enter Great Britain through Northern Ireland or did that not happen in reality?
I welcome the clarification that the GM and feed additive authorisations will be dealt with through an SI. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm whether this will be through the negative or affirmative approach. Also, are there any implications for the Government’s longer-term strategy for GM products, given the recent statutory instrument that changed some of the rules on research and gene-edited crops?
On the issue of labelling, it would also be helpful if the Minister could comment a bit on whether he feels that the date in place is the right one. I say that because the food production sector finds itself under pressure, of course, and we want to ensure that this is a practical step.
Throughout the consultation, the National Farmers’ Union has sought clarification on the UK’s relationship with the European Food Safety Authority. The NFU has stressed the importance of the UK’s close collaboration with the EFSA on equal terms. Can the Minister comment on the Government’s intentions for their relationship with the EFSA in the context of this statutory instrument, given its importance to our food industry? I would be most grateful.
I have a final point to raise. With regard to the consultations, one observation by the sector was about the expectation that these changes to the regulations could be read through in under an hour, such that businesses, regulatory agencies and councils would be able to work out in that short period how to apply the changes to their organisations. I know that this was regarded as somewhat overoptimistic, but has any further thought been given to an assessment of just how easy it will be to work with these regulations? With those comments, I offer our support for these regulations and thank the Minister in advance for the reply that I know he will give.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I thank both noble Baronesses for their contributions and for their general positive response. Once again, I can only apologise for the fact that that some provisions are late. That is an issue that I constantly raise internally and I understand the criticisms.
I will try to address as many of the questions asked by the noble Baronesses as I can before I conclude. On the Northern Ireland protocol, one thing we are looking at is the United Kingdom Internal Market Act and its purpose of promoting the functioning of the internal market, given that we have the Northern Ireland protocol. The Act specifically serves to strengthen and maintain Northern Ireland’s position in the UK internal market. In terms of the bigger picture and how the Northern Ireland protocol works in future, we are hoping that will be done via the UK internal market Act, taking account of that protocol.
The SI makes provision for a specific transitional period to allow the industry to use up existing labelling stocks. A period of 12 to 24 months is indicated as being sufficient time to use up labelling stocks; some quick-frozen produce can also have a shelf life of up to two years. However, if there are still concerns from industry, no doubt we will look at them. We are in constant conversation with industry and a whole range of sectors related to health and other issues.
I hope that covers some of the questions that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked. Once again, if I have not answered all the questions, we will check Hansard and make sure that we sweep up any answers to both noble Baronesses.
The noble Baroness, Lady Merron, asked how the issue was identified. It is hypothetical; nothing has happened, there was no breach of standards. The procedure will be a negative procedure for authorisations. We have had the first group of applications for authorisations, which have progressed through the risk analysis process, and advice has been prepared for Ministers. This amendment is required to empower Ministers to prescribe the authorisation by regulation.
The wider question of the future of GM and gene editing is not considered by this SI, and really it is a matter for the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Of course, if the noble Baronesses want more information, I am very happy to contact that department. For now, the commercial cultivation of gene-edited plants and any food products derived from them will still need to be authorised in accordance with existing GMO rules.
The UK has developed an enhanced risk analysis process, through the FSA, and we will seek close co-ordination with the EFSA. It does not mean we will always align, but it is really important to make sure that we have a strong relationship. Quite often, clearly, the issue of food safety is something that is shared by a number of jurisdictions, not just the UK and the EU, but in fact globally. So we will be looking at that.
In closing, I am grateful for the noble Baronesses’ contributions today. As I have said, if I have not answered questions, I hope, after a quick read of Hansard, I will try to sweep them up. I grateful to the noble Baronesses for their support. We want to make sure that there is a smooth transition for certain businesses in adjusting to the new labelling requirements. I take on board the comments made and I beg to move.
Commissioner for Patient Safety (Appointment and Operation) (England) Regulations 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kamall
That the Grand Committee do consider the Commissioner for Patient Safety (Appointment and Operation) (England) Regulations 2022.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
My Lords, patient safety remains a top priority for the Government, and we continue to place enormous emphasis on making our NHS safer and as safe as possible for patients. This builds on earlier measures including, for example, the first ever patient safety strategy launched by NHS England in 2019. This aims to improve the way the NHS learns from avoidable harm and to create a safety and learning culture across the NHS. However, we know that more work needs to be done.
The First Do No Harm report by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege highlighted and effectively exposed a healthcare system that failed to listen to and disregarded the experiences of women. In my noble friend’s absence, I pay tribute to her for the work and to the review team for their diligence and dedication in conducting the review. I should put on record that my noble friend Lady Cumberlege cannot be with us today but did send her apologies.
The Government published their formal response to the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review’s recommendations in July last year, setting out an ambitious programme of change. This included accepting the recommendation to appoint a patient safety commissioner with a remit covering medicines and medical devices. We are making progress towards fulfilling this important commitment. We included provisions in the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021 to establish the commissioner and set out their core duties. We also held a public consultation between June and August last year on the detail of the commissioner’s appointment and operation. In January, we started the process to recruit the very first patient safety commissioner. The job advert closed on 1 February and we hope to make an appointment this spring.
As well as establishing the patient safety commissioner, the Medicines and Medical Devices Act allows the Government to make legislative provisions about the appointment and operation of the role. Our public consultation set out nine proposals, covering details such as term of office, reappointment arrangements and remuneration. We are grateful to all those who took the time to engage with our proposals and share their views.
I can inform noble Lords that each proposal was supported by more than half of those who responded, ranging from 59% to 91% of respondents being in agreement. Having considered all the responses carefully, we have laid before the House this statutory instrument that will implement the proposals put forward in our consultation. This instrument will enable the patient safety commissioner to function effectively by providing a clear legislative framework within which they can operate. It allows for the commissioner to serve an initial term of three years. This received strong support during our public consultation, and we believe it provides sufficient time for the postholder to become established and develop the role.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. She speaks as the Front-Bench Liberal Democrat spokesman but as there are no Back-Benchers, I invite her to speak.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction. He will know that across the House there have been considerable discussions, not just in recent months but recent years, on the role of the commissioner for patient safety in various Questions, debates and Statements since the First Do No Harm report of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, was published in 2020. I join the Minister in paying tribute to her, not just for her report but for her absolute persistence in holding the Government to account to deliver as many of her recommendations as possible. I too am sorry that she cannot be with us today but I know that she is pleased that this SI has been published.
This SI specifically covers the appointment of the commissioner but, once again, government actions are happening before Parliament has had a chance to scrutinise this SI. This SI sets up the role of commissioner, but the Minister has just told us that not only is the advert out, but it is closed and an imminent announcement is due. I do not think that there is anyone who does not want the commissioner to be put in place, but once again, this seems to be putting the cart before the horse in that the SI is being dealt with after the advertisement has gone out.
However, for the first time there will be an independent commissioner whose role is to stand up for the rights of patients when they have suffered avoidable harm. The three main parts of the report of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, covered HPTs, sodium valproate and vaginal mesh but there are other issues as well, and unfortunately there will be more in the future. That is why the Minister is right to say that the creation of a learning and safety culture is absolutely vital, as is an environment in which people working inside the NHS and other organisations associated with delivering medicines and medical devices can speak without fear. That is why some of us had concerns over the initial period of appointment. While the possibility of a second term is welcome, the concerns related to that first period of setting up the commission. This is not just somebody who will walk into the job and everything will be ready to go. The difficulty is that, having established themselves in the post, they will then have to gain the confidence of everybody who they might be investigating, which can take a while. It will be quite difficult to judge whether it is appropriate to appoint them for a second term if they have had probably only about 18 months when they have been able to do the job properly.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, the first thing I did when preparing for this debate was to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, if she was content—of course I did. Since her shocking and moving report First Do No Harm, mentioned by the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and during the passage of the Medicines and Medical Devices Act, there has been active cross-party support for the recommendations in that report and a determination in this House to bring about change. This SI is another step along that path.
As one would expect, the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, is involved in the appointment—and will, I suspect, be involved in the work—of the new commissioner. I join the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, in asking why we are discussing this SI when action has already been taken. The reason this SI and the commissioner’s job are important is that when people, often at their most vulnerable, put their trust in the hands of healthcare professionals they do so in the expectation, quite rightly, that their safety will be of paramount concern. Sadly, that is sometimes not the case. Even worse, sometimes the patient is not heard. Where those incidents have taken place, patients have been made to jump through hoop after hoop in their fight for recognition and voice. The independent patient safety commissioner will take steps to ensure that patient safety is a top priority and will act as a voice for patients.
There is no question that the noble Baroness’s report was a landmark in the fight to improve patient safety, so I praise her but also honourable and noble Members of both Houses for their work, whether on sodium valproate, Primodos or surgical mesh, who have stood up for the thousands who have suffered because patient safety was not taken seriously enough. My honourable friend Sharon Hodgson MP, for example, was at the forefront of championing these women.
Despite this, there remain several outstanding ways in which this Government could further improve patient safety. I welcome that, in this instance, the Government have taken on board the recommendation to provide an independent patient safety commissioner, but I would like to know from the Minister what progress has been made on the remaining recommendations in the review. I think all are agreed that that full package of reforms is essential.
I would also like the Minister to explain why the tenure is only three rather than five years. I realise that it is allowed to roll over for another term but, when you are setting up a new office with a new role and getting an organisation up and running, three years is too short a time. The Children’s Commissioner has five years. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline how and why that decision was taken.
We welcome the obligation on the commissioner to lay an annual report before each House of Parliament. There is an additional obligation for the commissioner to publish a business plan at the start of each year, which is not mentioned in the SI. What is the point of the commissioner providing a business plan if they are not held accountable for its contents?
Finally, I draw the attention of the Committee to the advisory panel that
“must consist of persons who (taken together) represent a broad range of interests which are relevant to the Commissioner’s functions.”
Will that include the patient voice? Will patients have representation on this board?
Of course, this SI has our support and we welcome it, but the Government should see it as a beginning, not an end.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Baronesses who spoke today. Once again, I would like to echo their gratitude to my noble friend Lady Cumberlege, but I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, that a number of politicians in both places across parties raised a number of these issues. We have read some horrifying stories about some of the victims of the three issues that were raised. They are really heartbreaking in many ways.
My Lords, we are determined to deliver meaningful change in our response to the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review. We see the safety commissioner playing a key role in that change. I know there are concerns about the three-year and three-year-plus extension. When I was asking questions, right at the beginning of my awareness of this when I first became a Minister, I was told that three years is standard for a number of offices. So I was interested to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, talk about the term of the Children’s Commissioner being five years. The initial advice I was given was that three years is standard. There were also some concerns from other quarters about what happens if we appoint an ineffective commissioner; do we then have to wait five years to get rid of them? We think three years is the right balance, but it continues to be a subject of debate and I completely understand that.
I also take on board the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that it is not only about women who have had mesh complications or valproate or the other issue; there will be other issues we come across, but this was set up as a result of the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review. We completely agree that patient safety must remain a top priority and we hope that this will not be the only way to improve safety. There is a statutory duty of candour, regulated by the CQC, which requires a trust to tell patients if their safety has been compromised and to apologise. There are protections for whistleblowers and “freedom to speak up” guardians; provisions in the Bill to establish, as the noble Baroness will be aware, the Health Services Safety Investigations Body; the implementation of the first-ever NHS patient safety strategy in 2019 with substantial programmes under way to create safety and learning; the implementation of medical examiners across the NHS as a critical reform, so that all deaths not involving a coroner are scrutinised by an independent medical practitioner; and of course legislation for the patient safety commissioner.
I am also in conversations directly with my noble friend Lady Cumberlege who, quite rightly, keeps pressing the department on the issues of valproate, vaginal mesh and the other issue, where we need some form of redress. I have mentioned to my noble friend where the concerns are and that, if we continue those conversations, I hope to close that gap as much as I can. I make no promises, but I hope noble Lords recognise that I do try to close the gap whenever I can, and I am in constant conversation with my noble friend Lady Cumberlege on that.
On top of this, we hope the patient safety commissioner will play a key role in that change, championing the view of patients in relation to medicines and medical devices. It is not particularly party political; this is important across the House. When the NHS performs brilliantly, of course it should be praised, but when things go wrong, we should find out. That then clearly makes it a patient-centred NHS, but it also means we can learn to make sure we have a better health service in the future. These things should not be swept under the carpet.
We hope the regulations before us will help us support the success of this new role, providing a sensible and clear legal framework within which to operate. In case I have not answered any of the questions, I will read Hansard and try to sweep them up and write to the noble Baronesses. Before that, I commend these regulations to the Committee.
House of Lords
Introduction: The Lord Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich
Prisons: Releasing Women into Safe and Secure Housing
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in releasing women from prison into safe and secure housing; and what assessment they have made of what constitutes a satisfactory accommodation outcome for women released from prison.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, and at her request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in her name on the Order Paper.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)
My Lords, our vision is that no female offender who is subject to probation supervision will be released from prison homeless. Building on the success of our Covid emergency scheme, last July we introduced a transitional accommodation service for prison leavers in five regions, and we are expanding it further. We hold the system to account through ambitious accommodation targets set out in the target operating model that we introduced last year.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, that is well and good—I am grateful to the Minister—but while it is good to know that some progress has been made, there are still problems. The accommodation service is in place in only five of the 11 probation regions of England and Wales, and there has been no commitment to timelines or to safe and secure housing specifically for women. Some 77% of women left one prison without any safe and secure housing; one was provided with a tent. The service provides temporary housing for only 12 weeks. Can the Minister give some commitment on timing for rollout and on what the Government will do for vulnerable prison leavers after 12 weeks? Can he indicate how support will reflect the particular needs of women?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
There was quite a lot in that question. I acknowledge that it is a very important topic. I will pick up on a couple of the points made. The 77% figure comes from the recent IMB report for HMP Bronzefield, and it refers to safe and secure accommodation. That is a different approach to what we use, which is to determine whether people are actually homeless. Do they have somewhere—a roof over their head—for that night? We are very aware of the particular needs of women prisoners. Our accommodation programme is targeted at all prisoners, but we have particular people working in women’s prisons to ensure that women’s needs are specifically met.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, as my noble friend has just illustrated, there are wide discrepancies in the ways in which homelessness is measured for women leaving prison between the Prison Service and the independent monitoring board at Bronzefield. I am grateful that the Government recognise that something needs to be done about this to give confidence in the figures. Can the Minister say when we can expect a set of robust categories to be in place, on which everyone can agree?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I think that robust categories are in place. We define homelessness, in accordance with the legal definition, as being where the individual does not have any accommodation available and reasonable for them to occupy, including where they may be rough sleeping, squatting or in a night shelter, emergency hostel or campsite. It is very important to ensure that we are all looking at the same data. We publish the data annually and I invite all noble Lords to look at those figures.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, the disparity between government figures and those of the independent monitoring board is because we do not have one standard measure of what acceptable accommodation for prison leavers looks like. It is not a sofa, and it is not a tent. Will the Minister commit to facilitating the production of one standard measure? What we do not measure, we cannot manage.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I absolutely agree with that point. I have said from this Dispatch Box, on a number of areas, that data is absolutely critical. We need to ensure that we are looking at the same thing. I set out the legal definition of homelessness, and we publish statistics on this. I am pleased to say that there has been an improvement in the figures recently. The percentage of prison leavers recorded as either homeless or rough sleeping has fallen from 16% to 12%. We want to make that even better.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, Friday releases from prison, in particular, are hugely problematic. This is particularly the case for geographically dispersed women’s prisons, because women cannot travel home in time to make a housing application with their local authority before the office closes. Are the Government aware of this specific problem, and can they offer any solutions as to what can be done to overcome it?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am more than aware of this problem, because we debated it both in Committee and on Report for legislation which was going through this House. It is a real issue, and particularly for prisons which are in more disparate parts of the country where it can take people longer to travel back to where they originally came from. Prison governors are aware of this. The figures—which I do not have at hand—are getting better in this regard. Perhaps I can write to the right reverend Prelate further on this point.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, we have a virtual contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I wanted to ask my question on the next Question.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, it is very clear that many women end up in circumstances where perpetrators of abuse exploit and take advantage of them if they are not in safe and secure housing. One recent study has shown that, overwhelmingly, a number of those women in prison have previously been subjected to abuse and, therefore, suffer trauma. Is not the priority, therefore, to ensure that there is more trauma-informed work available to work with women, so that they do not enter the criminal justice system?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right, but we have seen a significant reduction in the number of women prisoners in the past three to four years. There will always be some women in prison, but the figures have gone down significantly. In addition, as we are talking about housing, four of the housing specialists that we have put into prisons are specifically in women’s prisons, so they are acutely aware of the particular needs of women prisoners. They are in Styal, Bronzefield, Peterborough and New Hall.
Baroness Sater (Con)
My Lords, we know that, sadly, a large number of women in prison were victims of domestic abuse before they started their sentence. This makes leaving to live in safe and secure housing vitally important—but equally important is psychological support. What are the Government doing to ensure that specialist mental health support and mentoring are available for all women leaving prison for as long as they need it?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, this is obviously a very important issue. We have tried to join up the dots between the Prison Service and the NHS. The problem in the past was that women left prison, and the NHS did not know about them; the Prison Service had, so to speak, passed them on to nobody. The GP is the best way in which to access mental health support, in particular, in the community. Therefore, we are working with the Prison Service to make sure that the links between the Prison Service and the NHS are stronger and better.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister in answer to my noble friend’s question said that his vision was that no women prisoners should be homeless. We have seen from the questions of noble Lords, and from the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, my former colleague, the breadth of the problems that women prisoners face when they come out of prison. Can the Minister say something about how he will monitor the impact of the Government’s policy to see that this integrated support, which is the only way in which to prevent reoffending, is actually working?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, integrated support is absolutely key—I agree with the noble Lord on that. We have done a number of things; we have set up a scheme to offer 12 weeks’ accommodation to prison leavers with support to move to settled housing and, by 2024-25, we will be investing £200 million per year to transform our approach to rehabilitation. But of course we need to be held to account on this, and we hold the Prison Service to account on this. We publish data, and the data is meant to be clear and transparent. There has been an improvement in the figures, and I want to see them improve even more.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as head of the Sikh prison chaplaincy service. Prison chaplains can play an important role in rehabilitation. Does the Minister agree that smaller faiths should have the same access to prisoners, in education, pastoral care and so on, as the larger faiths?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I disagree with the noble Lord only on one point, when he said that prison chaplains can play an important role for prisoners, including in rehabilitation. I think that underestimates the point; I would say that prison chaplains can play a crucial and fundamental role in prison life, in and outside prison. As to smaller faiths, maybe I should declare my interest, because I agree.
Mental Health Services for Rough Sleepers
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effectiveness of the £30 million programme to provide specialist mental health services for people sleeping rough, as detailed in the NHS Long Term Plan; and what plans they have to publish an evaluation of the outcomes of that programme.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
This Government are committed to ending rough sleeping by the end of this Parliament. The long-term plan set a target of 20 high-need areas to receive new specialist mental health provision for people sleeping rough by 2023-24. In fact, the NHS has exceeded that target, with 23 sites. There are plans to share learning from these sites to identify the key successes and effective approaches, and NHS England plans to undertake a formal evaluation before the end of the programme.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin (CB)
I thank the Minister for that Answer and look forward very much to the publication of that work. We know that common mental health conditions are twice as high among people who have experienced homelessness, and psychosis is 15 times as high. Obviously, I commend the Government’s commitment to end rough sleeping. Does the Minister know what figure has been settled on for the number of people sleeping rough with specialist mental health services needs? If one has been settled on, is that the criterion that will be used to review progress with the NHS long-term plan when that is refreshed?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her Question and for her continued conversations with me on a number of different health-related issues; I am learning quite a lot from those. I understand that the data will be collected at some point, and I hope that that will be done regularly. If the noble Baroness will allow me, I write to her with more details, but I know that the top-level answer to that question is that we are about to get the data.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, about two-thirds of people who are homeless cite alcohol misuse as one of the reasons that first made them homeless, and for about one in 10 people who die homeless, alcohol is the main cause of death. Can the Minister assure us that all this work will include a proper alcohol treatment programme, so that the underlying problems are dealt with in addition to the other mental health problems?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The noble Baroness makes the very important point that a number of people who are homeless suffer from alcoholism and alcohol abuse—and indeed drug abuse. For some of these people, the issues they are suffering from are often interrelated. Therefore, in the joined-up thinking we are looking at, charities, civil society organisations and the NHS are making sure that we treat the various symptoms in an integrated way.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, given the success of the Everyone In campaign, through which 15,000 rough sleepers were given accommodation to protect them from Covid, does my noble friend agree that that progress must be maintained? Given that many rough sleepers have mental health issues, can my noble friend say whether the specialist funding for mental health services for rough sleepers will be extended beyond the next two years?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank my noble friend for raising that important point. The new rough sleeping strategy from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities will set out how departments will work together to end rough sleeping. This will build on the recent success to which my noble friend refers to ensure that rough sleeping is prevented in the first instance and responded to when it occurs. We are going to work closely with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and other departments, as well the voluntary and social enterprise sector and others, to make sure that we are all joined up.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, the most common health problems among homeless people are substance abuse, as the Minister just mentioned, and mental health problems; often it is a combination of the two. Given this correlation, can the Minister say what the Government are doing to reconnect addiction services with health services in order to treat homeless people with multiple health problems? Does the Minister agree that specialist addiction services should be jointly commissioned by the NHS and local authorities to ensure full integration?
Lord Kamall (Con)
Like many other noble Lords, the noble Baroness has raised a very important aspect of this issue. She is absolutely right that people with drug addiction often have physical and mental health needs as well. Mental health problems and trauma are often central to an individual’s dependence on drugs, alcohol or other forms of abuse. As set out in the drugs strategy, we are working with NHS England to ensure that there is joined-up service provision between specialist mental health services and substance misuse services for people with co-occurring issues, including those who are experiencing rough sleeping. We are also going to make sure that the next phase of integrated care system development includes leadership on drugs and alcohol to integrate both physical and mental healthcare and substance misuse services.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, we now have a guaranteed virtual contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I commend to the Minister’s attention, if he is not already aware of it, the work of Art and Homelessness International and its 500 or so member organisations. In working with the NHS and local authorities on ways to support people sleeping rough, will Ministers take into account the impressive evidence that enabling them to engage with creative and cultural programmes— I think of The Choir With No Name, Streetwise Opera, Museum of Homelessness and the work of the Booth Centre—leads to improved well-being, resilience, agency and skills and thus to improved prospects for sustaining tenancies and employment?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I am sure we are all grateful that the noble Lord was able to ask his question on this issue. I pay particular tribute to the noble Lord for all his work and for raising awareness of the creative sector across a whole range of health and social care issues. I am not aware of the projects to which he refers, so I will be happy if he writes to me about them. In a previous political career as a Member of the European Parliament for London, I would meet lots of civil society organisations right across London, including homeless projects, and I was amazed by the diversity of provision. It was not a simple matter: they were tackling a number of different issues because often, the needs of homeless people are complex and there is not just one simple solution to the issue.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend will know that the people who are still sleeping rough after a year are generally those who started off with mental health problems. What action are the Government taking to prevent people hitting the streets in the first place? Is there a co-ordinated approach with the housing sector?
Lord Kamall (Con)
My noble friend raises the very important issue of prevention. When we look at the causes of homelessness, they are often complex, and we might consider that all of us—including noble Lords, perhaps—are only one or two steps away from homelessness. Someone loses their job, their relationship breaks up and they then lose their home—or it is the other way around: their relationship breaks up and they lose their job, and after a while of relying on a friend’s good will, they stop sleeping on their sofa and they end up homeless. So, it is really important that we understand all the different steps by which people become homeless and make sure not just that they get accommodation but that we tackle the underlying problems that led to them being homeless.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, with a health audit by Homeless Link showing that some four out of five people experiencing homelessness need support with their mental health, how will the Government ensure that they get the help they need in areas that do not have the necessary specialist mental health services that are being funded through the long-term plan? Further to this, will the Minister commit to a continued expansion of specialist homeless healthcare services throughout the NHS as part of a renewed rough sleeping strategy?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for those questions on what are very important issues. Our plans to transform NHS mental health services as part of the long-term plan include investing an additional £2.3 billion a year by 2023-24, which we think will enable an extra 2 million people in England to access NHS-funded mental health support by 2023-24. On targeting much further down, we are hoping that some of the work we do through community mental health frameworks will give 370,000 adults with serious mental illness greater control over their care and support. We have to look at this in a multifaceted way, and we are looking at psychological therapies, improved physical healthcare, access to employment support, trauma-informed care and support for those with self-harm and substance misuse problems. We announced £30 million to establish these specialist mental health provisions, and we want to learn from those to see what the best way is of rolling out more in the future.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, have the Government carried out an analysis of why there has been a massive increase in the number of people rough sleeping on our streets? What does the analysis say, and what are the Government going to do about it?
Lord Kamall (Con)
Indeed, in some measures, the number of rough sleepers in every region of England have actually decreased. There were 2,440 people expected to have been sleeping rough on a single night in autumn 2021, which was an eight-year low. We have also seen some of the problems associated with experiencing homelessness, such as suicide, fall, but that is not a sign to get complacent. That is why we want to roll out this programme. We have exceeded the target of 20, and we will continue rolling it out.
Constitutional Reform
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have for constitutional reform.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill, the Judicial Review and Courts Bill and the Elections Bill are in the advanced stages of their passage through Parliament. The Government have consulted on proposals to overhaul the Human Rights Act and replace it with a Bill of Rights. The Government also remain focused on working with devolved Administrations to make sure our system of devolution works effectively for all citizens.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
I thank the Minister for that response, but may we take it from the absence of any reference to a presidential system that the suggestion made on 22 January by Mr Rees-Mogg on the “Newsnight” programme will not now be pursued? If so, does the Minister understand that that will come as a great relief since given the verbal damage caused by the Prime Minister over the weekend, think just how much he would cause were he the President.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I think I answered on the first point a few weeks ago in the House. We do not have a presidential system in this country—thank God. We have a constitutional monarchy and our present monarch.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, when will the Government realise that the SNP is not interested in making devolution work effectively but only in the break up of Britain? Are the Government aware that in Scotland—on the right as well as the left—there is growing concern at improper expenditure by the Scottish Government on areas for which they have no responsibility, particularly in preparing for a referendum that no one wants? Why do the British Government not step in and make sure taxpayers’ money is spent properly?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, this is slightly outside my direct brief. Obviously, the Government’s intention is to work with the Administrations that we have and that is why we have pushed forward the work on intergovernmental relations, which has been welcomed in your Lordships’ House. As to the political comments of the noble Lord, I might well agree with some of the things he said. Certainly, a federal approach does not guarantee good government.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, have my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, had a chance to read the latest report from the Constitution Committee called Respect and Co-operation: Building a Stronger Union for the 21st Century? I declare an interest as a member of that committee. The very positive message of that report was that with our very flexible, uncodified and evolving constitution, we can devise a far better and stronger United Kingdom, possibly more amenable to all the sensible views in Scotland, as well as the other devolved nations, in a way that does not involve getting into the deep quagmire of full constitutional reform, which could take years and achieve little.
Lord True (Con)
Yes, my Lords, I think your Lordships’ Constitution Committee makes outstanding contributions to all thinking on constitutional matters. As I indicated in my previous answer, we are seeking approaches to always create good relations—as far as we can—between the different Administrations of these islands. That means good will, and every party has to show that good will.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, the measures that the Minister referred to were for the most part unilateral initiatives on the part of the Government. What has happened to the proposal in the Conservative Party manifesto—and of other parties—for a commission on the constitution, which would involve much wider consultation?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I have indicated previously to your Lordships’ House that the Government are determined to take the various aspects of constitutional consideration forward; I gave the House examples of the different workstreams. I simply do not agree with the noble Lord that there is not cross-party agreement on certain things. For example, the removal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act was agreed across the House and the principle of it was subject to very extensive consultation and examination.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, as the Minister is aware, there is currently a parliamentary by-election taking place in this House, the result of which is to be declared a week on Wednesday. I have the documents here: we now know that all nine candidates and all 46 voters are Conservatives. If the Minister was an election observer at this election, would he describe it as free and fair?
Lord True (Con)
It is certainly a secret ballot. The noble Lord is well known in the House for his assiduous pressing of this point—he almost qualifies as the elder Cato on Carthage—but the system remains enacted by Parliament, and it will remain until Parliament decides otherwise.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, could the Minister tell us who is responsible as Minister for the Constitution? I looked it up this morning on the government website, and it said that Chloe Smith had been the Minister for the Constitution in 2020-21 but gave no successor. She was responsible to a Cabinet Minister, Michael Gove, who was then the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. He is now, in whatever his department is called, also Minister for Intergovernmental Relations, and one of his junior Ministers, Kemi Badenoch, is handling the Elections Bill in the Commons, but I cannot quite see who is in charge of the constitution. Perhaps it is the noble Lord, Lord True, himself—in which case, I congratulate him. If so, to which Cabinet Minister does he think he is responsible for discussions and policy on constitutional matters?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, so far as the elements of constitutional policy that remain within the Cabinet Office, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is the responsible Cabinet Minister—and, yes, I report to him as Minister of State. Other aspects of the constitutional brief—for example, policy in relation to the union, elections and local government—lie with my right honourable friend Mr Michael Gove and DLUHC.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, will the Government carry out meaningful consultations with the devolved Governments to reduce conflict in dealing with such matters as the pandemic, and recognise the inadequacy of the Barnett formula for providing for Welsh finances?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I repeat that we seek ongoing friendly and close relations with the devolved Administrations. Indeed, even in this regard, I know that the Secretary of State for Wales and the Minister for Levelling Up, the Union and Constitution met with the commission set up by the Welsh Government on constitutional matters. I can assure the noble and learned Lord that these contacts will continue.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, given that under the Barnett formula, Scotland receives very substantial amounts of taxpayers’ money from the rest of the United Kingdom, why are we not allowed to ask Questions in the Table Office about the huge losses—in ferries, airports and all kinds of weird and wonderful schemes—of hundreds of millions of pounds by the SNP Government? Why are they not accountable for taxpayers’ money in this House?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I cannot answer that question: it is a matter of procedure. As to the Table Office, that is a matter for the House authorities. I agree with my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, that the politics of the current Administration in Scotland leave a lot to be desired. It is notable that the Scottish nationalists do not send Members to your Lordships’ House, so we cannot hold them accountable in this Chamber, which is regrettable.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister referred to the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. That Act is a prime example of how, when legislation is made in haste, it creates more problems than it seeks to solve. Does the Minister accept that any further reform of, or changes to, the constitution would benefit from a period of pre-legislative scrutiny? That would at least have the benefit of fully examining both the intended and the unintended consequences.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I certainly think that scrutiny, consideration and listening are important in our affairs—I gave the example of the Human Rights Act and its potential replacement, on which the Government have issued a consultation. Sometimes, it is an exaggeration to say that the Government do not listen or ask.
Trade with the European Union
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Quin
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what their priorities are for future trade between the United Kingdom and the European Union.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Department for International Trade (Lord Grimstone of Boscobel) (Con)
My Lords, Her Majesty’s Government are focused on implementing the trade and co-operation agreement, which is the world’s biggest zero-tariff, zero-quota, free trade agreement. We are making good progress. Teething problems have largely been dealt with, and I am pleased to say that trade flows are stabilising. Where delivery of the agreement needs to be accelerated, we are engaging with the European Commission. We are also helping businesses to trade effectively with Europe, including through one-to-one advice offered by my department’s free to use export support service.
Baroness Quin (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will no doubt have seen the recent report published by the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee. It showed how our trade with the EU has declined and how British businesses have had to contend with increased costs, increased paperwork and increased border delays. However, when the Prime Minister announced the trade deal two years ago, he said that there would be no non-tariff barriers. In the light of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is it not clear that the Prime Minister’s claim was completely untrue?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, with all due respect, I sometimes feel that perhaps noble Lords hope that these arrangements will not work smoothly. However, I can confirm that we want a positive relationship with the EU and that we want this to be underpinned by trade and, of course, by our shared belief in freedom and democracy.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, if we want these things—and I am quite confident that my noble friend does—would it not be wise to cease making stupid analogies, such as comparing those who, by a narrow majority, voted for Brexit with those who are today laying down their lives for democracy?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, I of course respect my noble friend’s opinion on that, but it is not something with which I agree.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the Government have vaunted freeports as one of the benefits of the new EU-UK trading relationship. The owners of P&O, who sacked 800 workers in one go, Emirati-based DP World, has been given the operation of Solent and Thames gateway freeports. The Prime Minister said that we were in a transition. Does the Minister agree that it is regrettable that it is towards an awful, potentially illegal, and unacceptable face of capitalism?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, perhaps it goes without saying that we are deeply concerned about the news from P&O Ferries. Ministers are speaking to the company to try to understand the impact on workers and passengers, and to do all we can to ameliorate it. Speaking personally, having formerly been a chairman of some of Britain’s largest companies, I would never have behaved in the way that P&O has.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, I declare that I am co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on trade and investment. Judging from the Minister’s previous response, do figures indicate that the UK has aligned its trade interests away from the EU, with businesses calling for a reset along the more advantageous terms that Norway enjoys, such as, for example, the British Chambers of Commerce underlining the impediment of requiring a fiscal representative based in the EU for VAT-related issues? Alongside trade sits investment. Could the Government outline their strategies to strengthen investment flows to and from the European Union specifically?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, the noble Viscount includes a number of points in his question. As Minister for Investment, one of my top priorities is securing increased investment flows with Europe. On trade, I am pleased to say that he is right: over the past two years, there have been noticeable changes in UK trade. Of course, factors associated with the Covid pandemic, global recession and EU exit do not always make it easy to disentangle that, but I am confident that both trade and investment will increase in due course.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, given that the EU committee found that the significant barriers that remain despite the trade and co-operation agreement will particularly affect smaller businesses, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that their trade priorities take these businesses into account?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, one of the reasons the Government have launched the export support service is to support UK businesses—it turns out that is primarily SMEs—with one-to-one advice on exporting to Europe. They can find all this information in one place. It is working well. There is a good volume of inquiries coming through, but I agree with the noble Lord that we have to do all we can to help SMEs in this important area.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
My Lords, will the Minister please reassure the House that he is going to take into account Brexit freedoms as part of his negotiations and ensure that we maximise the opportunities in this country?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, to mark the two-year anniversary of delivering Brexit, the Government have set out new plans to maximise the benefits of Brexit. I mention my right honourable friend the Minister for Brexit Opportunities; I think the House will recognise that this is a subject extremely close to his heart. A Brexit freedoms Bill will be brought forward to end the special status of retained EU law and ensure that it can be more easily amended or removed. This is very much to be welcomed.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, the Department for International Trade did a fantastic job in rolling over the 66 bilateral trade agreements the EU had with other countries. It is now starting to make them bespoke to our country. Does the Minister agree that, with the TCA with the EU, we have the opportunity to build on the agreement we have now? There is a “but”: when does the Minister think we will resolve the issues with the Northern Ireland protocol? The sooner we do, the sooner we can build on the TCA.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord for referring to the hard work being done by officials in the department. As to Northern Ireland, the Government’s absolute priority is to protect stability and the peace process. We believe that there is a deal to be done with the EU that protects the sovereignty of the UK and the integrity of the EU single market. This would deliver the stability that business and communities in Northern Ireland need. I know this is a subject very close to my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary’s heart.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, the Minister talks about exports and I am sure he would like to recognise the challenge facing our energy-intensive industries. They are competing internationally on an entirely different playing field, as the cost of their energy is substantially higher than that of their competitors. Will the Minister recognise that and undertake to once again go back to the Chancellor before this week’s Statement to make sure something is done about it?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, I absolutely recognise the issue that the noble Lord refers to, and we have the energy-intensive industries scheme to help certain industries. This is important, and I believe the longer-term solution is more renewable energy in this country; we are working very hard to achieve that.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, the north-east of England is the region which has had the most trade per head of population with the European Union. It is still largely a manufacturing economy. The chamber of commerce tells us that companies in the region are having real problems with supply chains and levels of bureaucracy.. Has the Minister been to the north-east to discuss with them how to make sure that manufacturing can prosper in future? It feels constrained at the moment.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
In my capacity as Minister for Investment, I regularly visit the north-east. I am very proud that we are now reindustrialising parts of the north-east which lost their industry some time ago. We should welcome that across the House. The only sustainable levelling up is through the creation of sustainable private sector jobs in regions such as the north-east, and I am pleased that we are making good progress with this.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, a moment ago, when referring to Northern Ireland, the Minister said that there was a deal to be done. I thought we had a deal—one which we negotiated for years. What is this new deal he is talking about?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, sometimes pragmatism is needed once these agreements are worked through in practice. Pragmatism is now the watchword. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary is making good progress in achieving a pragmatic answer to some of the issues that we all know that we face.
Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Disabled Persons) Bill
Monday 21st March 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Disabled Persons) Act 2022 View all Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Disabled Persons) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text
British Sign Language Bill
Monday 21st March 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate British Sign Language Act 2022 View all British Sign Language Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 23 February 2022 - (23 Feb 2022)
Subsidy Control Bill
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order: Clauses 1 to 9, Schedules 1 and 2, Clauses 10 to 78, Schedule 3, Clauses 79 to 92, Title.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Callanan, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Repeal of EU Restrictions in Devolution Legislation, etc.) Regulations 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greenhalgh
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 25 January be approved.
Relevant document: 30th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 16 March.
Energy Performance of Buildings (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greenhalgh
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 31 January be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 16 March.
Combined Authorities (Borrowing) Regulations 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greenhalgh
That that the draft Regulations laid before the House on 31 January be approved.
Relevant document: 30th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 16 March.
Local Government (Disqualification) Bill
Monday 21st March 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Local Government (Disqualification) Act 2022 View all Local Government (Disqualification) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 14 January 2022 - (14 Jan 2022)
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Elections Bill
Monday 21st March 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Elections Act 2022 View all Elections Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 96-V Fifth marshalled list for Committee - (21 Mar 2022)
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I shall wait for just a minute while those who do not wish to hear my exciting speech absent themselves.
Those who heard the remarkable speech by the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, on Thursday will know that the case for this clause to be included in the Bill is very weak. He said it all, in effect. First, this is an extremely small problem; secondly, it will disfranchise the poorer and more marginalised elements of the electorate; and, thirdly, the larger problems of our electoral system lie elsewhere. The PACAC report, which has been much quoted in Committee so far, states:
“There is very limited evidence of personation at UK elections.”
These proposals represent
“a disproportionate response to a problem that appears not to be widespread.”
Paragraph 96 states:
“Introducing a compulsory voter ID requirement risks upsetting the balance of our current electoral system”—
that is a real constitutional reform in the wrong direction—
“making it more difficult to vote and removing an element of the trust inherent in the current system.”
The more urgent problems facing our electoral system include some things we will discuss later today, such as intimidation, of which I have experience, but above all the missing 8 million to 9 million citizens who are not on our electoral register. The Bill leaves to one side the issue of the incompleteness of our electoral register. As it happened, last week, I turned up in my pile of Cabinet Office publications one from December 2017 entitled Every Voice Matters: Building a Democracy that Works for Everyone, introduced by Chris Skidmore, then the Minister responsible. As we were discussing in Questions, there have been several changes of responsible Ministers since then, which has no doubt contributed to the incoherence of the Bill. Skidmore argued very strongly in that document for citizen engagement, greater participation and a more complete register.
Here is a major weakness in the integrity of our elections. Previous Conservative Ministers thought it important, but the Bill instead chases after other imagined problems—ones that US Republicans also chase for reasons not concerned with election integrity. The Bills that Republican-controlled state legislatures have passed under the title of election integrity have been concerned with pushing people—marginal, poor, black and others—off the register. The Minister will be well aware of the wide suspicion of the degree of Republican infiltration of the Conservative Party and of Conservative imitation of right-wing Republican enthusiasms and campaigns, most recently illustrated in the remarkable and awful speech which the chairman of the Conservative Party gave to the Heritage Foundation only two weeks ago.
Perhaps the Minister would like to argue that the absence of evidence of a serious current problem should not deter us from turning to the precautionary principle—introducing this in case there turns out to be a larger problem in future than there was—but he has told us that he does not accept the precautionary principle. After all, it is a European principle disliked by all true Anglo-Saxons.
The cost of introducing voter ID across the entire electorate could instead be spent on citizen education and engagement, to encourage more young people to play an active role in our electoral system and its campaigns. We could experiment with moves towards automatic registration—that is, automatic entry on to the register, which we will discuss later in Committee.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and agree with everything he said; that is hardly surprising, of course, because I have added my name to the list of those opposing the Question that Clause 1 and, effectively, Schedule 1 should stand part of the Bill.
The noble Lord put it so well: compulsory voter ID, and in particular photo ID—this needs to be teased out a little—is a solution looking for a problem. It is a bit like compulsory ID before it but, again, as the noble Lord pointed out, there would be a greater logic—it was a position that I opposed for many years, along with many others in this Committee, in your Lordships’ House and in political life, particularly to the centre-right of politics—in the current Government’s position if, when in opposition, they had not been so opposed to the notion of compulsory identification and compulsory photo identification for their citizens. Pretty much every argument that was put against compulsory ID, particularly the more libertarian arguments about this being a country of free-born people who should not need to identify themselves before the exercise of the most fundamental rights and freedoms, applies here. I am afraid that it leaves many people in this country very concerned about the true motivation behind this policy at this time.
This is the clause stand part debate so, necessarily, it reintroduces some of the points that were made in previous sessions of this Committee in relation to various amendments to do with public cost, private cost and various aspects of the argument against.
Once more, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, has pointed out, this is a solution looking for a problem, compared with other solutions that are, some would argue, quite urgently required in relation to real problems, such as voter intimidation and the oppression of some women, in particular, including within their families. That point was at least intimated by the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, when we last met. She is not in her place, but her noble friend Lady Noakes is in hers, and I think there was a consensus in the Committee that there are issues there about women, in particular, in certain families and perhaps in certain communities, and that there is work that could be done there.
It would involve some public expense to really empower some of those women, to be sure that they felt truly liberated and empowered to exercise their vote truly independently. But this is not an issue of proof of identification; it is a much more holistic problem of the way in which they live and, perhaps, their lack of support and a certain level of alienation from wider society. The problem could be addressed in many ways with some of the resources which, as we said last time, will instead be diverted towards this untested, new, radical requirement of compulsory photo ID, and all that comes with it.
We have a problem already. I think it was broadly agreed, by consensus, in Committee last time that there are nowhere near as many people registered as there could be, and should be, for them to have at least the potential to exercise the right to vote. We could be using public resources to have truly cross-party, non-party voter registration campaigns. Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Woolley of Woodford, cannot join us today—he is detained in Cambridge with his students—but he spoke last time about the importance of such campaigns for voter registration. Resources could have been targeted towards that, rather than this.
Some of us have argued, and will argue on later groups, that we should really be moving towards automatic voter registration, as happens with automatic registration for taxation. Why is it that in this country we are capable of automatically registering people for taxation purposes on their 18th birthday—quite rightly, in my view, because that is not only a right but a duty, and it is an ethical duty, at the very least, to think about voting—but we cannot do that for the purposes of representation and voting? That would no doubt cost some money, at least. But we are spending the money on this, the Government’s intention, and not on that.
There are general levels of disengagement and disenchantment, in some communities more than others. There are so many things we could be doing there to engage people in civil society, political parties and voting. Some of that could be done quite creatively, and some resources would no doubt be involved. But we are not choosing to do that; we are choosing to do this instead. I would argue, as I have done all my adult life, that there is still insufficient constitutional and political literacy in our mature democracy. Yes, that is more the case among some groups than others, and it would take some resources to engage in that kind of voter and citizenship education—not just among school-age children but among new migrants, including refugees who come to our country. There is so much more we could be doing with the resources, but we are choosing—or at least, the Government are currently proposing—to employ resources on this compulsory ID instead of on that.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that this is an expensive solution looking for a problem. Worse than that, it will do more harm to our democracy than any possible good. It is not unusual, when the precautionary principle is used to justify everything from detention without charge to compulsory ID, that we end up with a policy and a law liable to do more harm than good. Whether by accident or design, what some of us fear in this case is nothing short of voter suppression, or at least voter discouragement, on a level that is not what we need at this moment, nearly a quarter of the way into the 21st century, after some really difficult years in a very divided country. Whichever side people were on in the referendum campaign, with suspicions of interference in elections by foreign powers—including foreign powers now tempting people possibly into another great European war—and during the difficult times of the pandemic and the difficult times now, with yet another refugee crisis, this is not the moment even to whisper a policy, let alone to legislate for one, that will lead people to feel that we are going in for a period of voter suppression.
We do not want to go down the American road on this. There are wonderful things that come from the United States. Many of us who are constitutional lawyers have, when studying, looked in admiration to many aspects of American notions of citizenship, but we should avoid voter suppression or putting hoops in people’s way, particularly those from more vulnerable communities, whether they are more recently arrived Britons, minority groups, the disabled or poor people. Putting any hurdle in the way of registration and voting will smack of voter suppression, whatever the true intentions. Clause 1, married with Schedule 1, makes the photo aspect compulsory, and it is that which I have a principled objection to, and would have whichever party was in government and whichever party was proposing it.
Lord Hayward (Con)
Given that the noble Baroness has a principled objection to the introduction of photo ID, why is photo ID used in Labour Party selection meetings?
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My noble friends, who have more experience of being selected to stand for elected office in the Labour Party are muttering that it is not—
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am being told that it is an option. Perhaps my noble friends can speak of what they know and I do not.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Perhaps I may clarify, as this has come up before. When you go to selection meetings you are asked to take a membership card in case anyone wants to check it, but it is not compulsory. I have never had my card checked.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I should say, for the record, that I have never stood for election to a parish council or a PTA committee, let alone to high elected office. I should say that with some embarrassment, given that I am in this revising Chamber, but being a member of a political party is a privilege. It is based on a shared understanding of more than just the broader values of a political project, whereas to be a citizen entitled to vote is a fundamental right, and that is the distinction. It is also a distinction with various commercial transactions, which we understand require a certain element of identification. I would be more persuaded by the point that the noble Lord is making by his probing if we had heard, in response to some hours of debate on previous occasions, evidence of a significant problem with identity fraud in our elections.
As with many things in life, there is a balance of risk to be judged here. The noble Lord, Lord Woolley of Woodford, who is unable to be here today, pointed out the one conviction for voter identity fraud. That is not enough evidence to introduce this level of hurdle, hoop or requirement when balanced against the research that has been ventilated in this Committee and that has been sent to all Peers about the likely outcomes of putting further obstacles, hurdles or disincentives to register in people’s way.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, I agree that Clause 1 should be struck from the Bill, if the Bill itself is not withdrawn. The clause is a dangerous solution to a problem that, as has been said, does not even exist. Requiring photo ID to vote will not strengthen democracy; it will weaken it. There is no doubt in my mind about that. It will damage the democratic rights of millions, disproportionately disfranchising poorer and ethnic minority voters, who, as we know, tend to lean towards Labour in elections.
There is no evidence that voter personation, which is what the clause is supposed to tackle, is a problem in this country. On the contrary, in 2020 there were just 139 allegations of voter fraud, which led to one conviction and one caution for personation. In 2019, although there were local, European and general elections, there was again just one conviction for personation out of 60 million votes—no problem there, then.
If this was not so serious it would be laughable. I am somewhat sceptical. It is not a coincidence that this Tory scheme for voter ID to suppress working-class voters is a mirror image of what has been done to black, Latino and American workers by the Republicans, as has been said. You would almost think that the ruling class was organising across the Atlantic to change the rules of the game itself. Surely not.
It is important to highlight the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee’s warning that Clause 1
“risks upsetting the balance of our current electoral system, making it more difficult to vote and removing an element of the trust inherent in the current system.”
We should not forget that.
Then, of course, there is the financial cost of compulsory voter ID: £120 million over 10 years according to the Cabinet Office. No election in British history has ever been undermined by mass fraud, so why are the Government spending millions of pounds to fix a problem that does not exist?
I believe the answer may simply be that the Government are worried that many working-class voters are starting to realise they were hoodwinked at the last election. Workers and their families are watching this Government take decision after decision that make the very rich richer while the rest of society is squeezed dry by the escalating cost of living crisis that we are confronted with now.
The Government’s total capitulation to the big energy firms has led to eye-watering bills that are rising higher and higher. The national insurance hike next month is a tax on jobs that will hammer the working poor most of all. Real-terms cuts to social security are driving millions into despair and destitution. All this pain and misery is against a backdrop of rampant inflation and crony Covid contracts for the chums of the Prime Minister, who mostly, in my view, likes to party.
Workers are waking up to the Government’s ideological assault on trade unions, the last line of defence against the bad bosses and a system that has attacked them, including this very Bill, especially Clause 27 on gagging trade unions, which we debated last week. Let us look at the Government’s much-hyped Employment Bill. I repeat: let us look at the Government’s much-hyped Employment Bill—except we cannot. It is nowhere to be seen, despite the manifesto pledge to
“make the UK the best place in the world to work.”
It would be scandalous if this promised legislation was again absent from the forthcoming gracious Address. Perhaps, the Minister would like to share his thoughts with us all on this subject.
Faced with the reality that the Tory party is not on their side, many workers and their families who lent the Prime Minister their vote to get Brexit done now want their vote back. This Bill as a whole, and especially Clause 1, looks like a blatant attempt to limit the damage this will cause the Conservatives at the next election.
In this place, we are privileged to play a key role by helping to improve legislation and holding the Government to account. We would not be doing our job properly if we did not challenge bad Bills, and this is a very bad Bill indeed. The Minister will deny it, but Clause 1 is a key component of a backwards, Trumpian attempt to rig democracy in favour of the Tories. That is why I support the cross-party call by my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti and others to strike it out. I urge the whole House to do exactly the same.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I support this proposal that the clause stand part but I have some caveats. A high-profile Guardian commentator alleged:
“The Tories are introducing voter ID purely because they know the people lacking relevant ID are most likely to vote Labour, and they want to prevent them from voting.”
One Labour MP described it as
“a cynical and ugly attempt to rig the system to disempower the poorest and most marginalised.”
I do not believe that at all. It seems to me those arguments—we have heard some here—are concrete evidence that cranky, conspiratorial thinking is alive and well across left and right. I am not convinced that this is a Trumpian plot, an attempt by the Republican Party to take over the Conservatives or anything else. The view that everything is a sinister international plot—and goodness knows I see a lot of that on social media—is itself in danger of fuelling a cynicism and nihilistic distrust in institutions and politics. We should not necessarily resort to it to oppose voter ID. I do not think we need to.
I am prepared to take at face value that the Conservative Government are trying to fulfil their manifesto pledge to tackle potential voter fraud. There certainly has been concern about it although, as it happens, that has largely been confined to postal votes, which are being dealt with separately. But even if I take it in good faith that they are trying to shore up trust in the electoral system, my big problem is that voter ID is a wrongheaded way of doing it; it is likely to backfire and stoke up mistrust.
Let me explain a few of those points. The voting system in Britain is the outcome of centuries of struggle and civic engagement, and often, indeed, class struggle. The degree of trust that allows us as a country to allow citizens to vote on the basis of just showing up and giving their name—it is as simple as that—is a real success story. That is something that the Government and all of us should be proud of and celebrate; and—guess what—there is no evidence that it has been subverted in any way. We should have the same pride that we do not live in a “produce your papers” society, based on constant official checks by authorities. It is important to maintain that distinction between citizens and the state.
That is why so many of us campaigned against ID cards in general when the Labour Party tried to bring them in, and more recently balked at vaccine passports pushed by the Government and backed by the Opposition. Even fully vaccinated enthusiasts for the jab such as myself worried that saying, “You have to show your papers”, was an egregious, divisive encouragement to look at one’s fellow citizens with suspicion. We are now talking about showing your papers when you go to vote. General ID cards are a barrier to being able to go freely about our business, while voter ID is a barrier to being able to vote freely. In that context, voter ID is not just a technical matter; no matter what method is used, it creates obstacles to voting.
I do not think that it will lead to mass disfranchisement and, to be honest, I find it slightly awkward when people say that poorer people and the marginalised will not be able to cope with filling in the forms or getting the ID; that is potentially rather patronising and is not our objection. Let us imagine what it will do to a bond of trust, however, if you go along to vote and witness numerous people being turned away from polling stations; we know that people will be turned away because we have seen pilot schemes in which that has happened. Surely that would put a question mark over those electors, as though they were somehow a bit dodgy, when in fact they have just got the wrong paperwork.
Then there are other kind of nightmare scenarios that I dread. There just needs to be a handful of officious, jobsworth local officials overzealously treating people as though they are would-be cheats with the paperwork, and chaos will ensue. Anyone who has had to go to a government department and deal with the paperwork will know that that is all completely feasible. What is more, the more the Government double down on this—I do not understand why they are doing so— the more they send the message that the voting system itself is a major problem. It gives the misleading impression that large-scale fraud is going on that needs to be tackled, which is just so negative. In fact, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, pointed out, there are positive ways of talking about engaging voters rather than this negative view that somehow we have to stop all those people who are trying to sneak in and cheat.
Democracy is based on trust. At its heart lies the belief that all people should be treated equally at the ballot box regardless of any social or educational inequality. Your status is irrelevant when you get to that polling booth. The most lowly person is equal to the highest person in the land—every vote is equal. That is based on the belief that everyone can be trusted to decide on the future direction of society and to vote in good faith. That is what democracy is all about.
When a very few bad apples—maybe only one, according to the evidence—become the focus for a Government to reorganise the election practice, or when there is a greater problem of distrusting democracy and democratic institutions, which I talked about at Second Reading, it is a bigger problem, but I do not think that this solves it. When that bigger problem of distrust in democratic institutions is narrowed down to take the form of a managerial, bureaucratic solution, I fear that democracy itself will be damaged. I fear that it will fuel only a climate in which future election results will be open to suspicion and in which the integrity of the system is undermined. However, I appeal to those people who agree in principle with this to avoid cheap sectarianism in making their case.
Lord Desai (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have been somewhat orthogonal to this whole debate for a long time. I feel that whether Clause 1 stands part or not is neither here nor there—but there is an important point here. If voting is my right, it is the Government’s duty to deliver the instruments that will make it easy for me to vote. I should not have to go out there and register; the Government ought to be at my door, knowing that I have attained the appropriate age of 18, or whatever it is nowadays, to register me and give me my identity card. I do not know what the fuss is about. Why do we put the burden on the voter all the time? We really ought to make it easy for the voter to vote.
As I have said before, at Second Reading, we should not even have to go to the voting booth to vote; people should be able to vote on their smartphones, as long as it is a valid, encrypted method.
I am not at all worried that the great unwashed and coloured people like me will not be able to handle literacy. That is not the point. The point is that the Government are not doing enough on their own to make good and allay the fears they have that lots of people are going to cheat.
It is very simple. As I have said before in your Lordships’ House, in India they have 900 million-plus voters, and everyone has an identity card. I do not know what the fuss is about. It is not expensive and it is very convenient. After all, when people go out, they have their debit card, and they can give their phone to identify themselves, and so on.
My grandchildren laugh about our system of voting, because it is a very old-fashioned system. I do not think that is anything to be proud of: it is a voting system that puts all the burden on the voter and none on the Government. Whether or not Clause 1 stands part is another matter, but if the Government want identity cards to be introduced, they should introduce them and provide them, and they should make it easy for people to vote.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I hope that I have displayed to the Committee an independence of spirit on certain parts of this Bill, including in my comments on this clause stand part debate previously, but I am absolutely 100% behind the Government in introducing photo ID. It is for the reasons that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, touched on, and actually for the reason that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, accidentally touched on last week—and I am pleased that he is here. He raised the question twice in relation to the last general election, about the uncertainty of our democratic institutions.
If one looks at the surveys undertaken by the Electoral Commission, there is serious doubt about the validity of the ballots that take place, persistently. The trials that were undertaken, and then followed up by research thereafter, showed that there was a marked—
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am so sorry to interrupt mid-sentence; it was just due to my hesitation. In the moments which follow, will the noble Lord give some thought to, and reflect on, his comment that there has been some serious doubt about our recent polls? That is quite a serious thing for anyone to say in this House. It may just be a question of rephrasing that point. For the reasons given by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, it is quite serious to now suggest, at this moment in 2022, that there is serious doubt over recent elections. We have had some pretty seismic elections and electoral results in recent years, and it is serious for a noble Lord of any party to suggest in this Chamber that there is serious doubt about the validity of those polls. That may not have been the noble Lord’s intention, but he might want to clarify this.
Lord Hayward (Con)
I did not say those polls, I said some polls. In fact, the noble Baroness actually referred to the disagreement in society in relation to the EU referendum and the closeness of that result. It was that, and others, to which I am referring. Clearly, the noble Baroness has not actually read the Electoral Commission report and the research undertaken associated with the trial ballots which took place in a number of locations in 2018 and 2019. Had she done so, she would have seen that there was serious concern among large parts of the electorate—not a majority—about the validity of the voting process. The noble Baroness is looking at me somewhat quizzically. I suggest that she actually reads the report.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
It is just my mask which makes me look suspicious.
Lord Hayward (Con)
In which case, I apologise for misinterpreting the noble Baroness’s expression below her mask.
If noble Lords look at the most recent poll undertaken by the Electoral Commission, it is striking that concern about recent ballots and votes diminished quite markedly, despite the fact that there had been no change in electoral law. It is my contention that one reason for this is that we are moving further away from the Brexit vote, which generated large concerns among large numbers of people about the validity of certain votes.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
Has not the noble Lord just undermined his own argument, then? If things are moving in the right direction, with what problem is this legislation seeking to deal?
In addition, the noble Lord said that we have not read the report—I have read the report. There is a huge difference between an expression of concern and evidence of concern. If we sought to change the law of the land for everything about which people expressed concern when responding to opinion polls and surveys, this House would never stop sitting. The issue is evidence of concern. What evidence of concern—beyond that which has already been indicated to the Committee and which is extremely limited—can the noble Lord point to?
Lord Hayward (Con)
The noble Lord is misinterpreting the data within those datasets and what the Electoral Commission and an individual research team undertook to do. They were trying to establish the level of concern. Had the noble Lord allowed me to continue for a few more sentences, I would have identified why I am concerned about that. It is not about a particular election; it is about when elections or referendums become close and contentious.
I speak here as a remainer—I was not a Brexiteer. When a referendum, or some form of ballot, becomes both close and contentious, the way in which the ballots have been conducted comes out as a matter of concern. As a result, it is precisely for those reasons that I am concerned that we should have certainty and security in the process.
I do not regard it as a process of voter suppression. President Trump—or Donald Trump, whatever you like to call him—had a basis of foundation for his arguments against the result at the last presidential election because there were uncertainties about the way in which it was conducted. As far as I am concerned, I want to see certainty in this country.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
In my Second Reading speech, I said that I recognised the sense in which we have a problem of people withholding loser’s consent. I made the point that that was one of the problems we had in America with Donald Trump withholding it. Loser’s consent is a fundamental part of democracy. For many years following the referendum result, there was a substantial number of people who wanted to withhold loser’s consent for a majoritarian vote. That is complicated and there is a political issue going on about why people no longer accept that.
My argument—and this is what I want to ask the noble Lord—is that it is not a technical matter. It has absolutely nothing to do with impersonation. Nobody accused anyone of impersonating anyone. All sorts of accusations have flown but not that one in the UK. Therefore, does this technical way of trying to tackle a problem imply that there is a big problem of impersonation when there is not and therefore fuel the very sentiments that we are trying to reassure people around? It just does not make any sense as a way of dealing with a problem that I agree exists.
Lord Hayward (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention. She and I clearly recognise that there is a problem and there are different problems and you can tackle them in different ways. I happen to believe that photo ID is a way of tackling the issue.
Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, is not present. I was present on the Select Committee when he gave evidence. The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, was also present but, unfortunately, he clearly is not able to be here today. The noble Lord, Lord Woolley, dealt with issues way beyond the question of voter registration and voter ID when he gave evidence to the Select Committee. It was an incredibly powerful submission then and it was last week in his contribution here. He was essentially talking about alienation from society in a much broader sense, and I recognise that. I live in the ward which I think has the largest proportion of voters of west African origin of any ward in the country—Camberwell Green. In Camberwell Green, if you want to collect a package from the Post Office—and I did last week—you are required to produce one of six items of ID, four of which are photo ID, two of which are not and one of those I do not think anybody would use in this day and age. In terms of general—
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. He spoke about the alienation of voters and earlier he spoke about the validity of the process. Does he agree that concern about that validity of the process surely reflects the fact that people look at the composition of the other place—or, indeed, this place—and feel like it does not represent them? They maybe even know that 44% of votes went to the Tories and they got 100% of the power in the other place. People’s deep feeling of alienation and lack of validity does not relate to voter ID; it is much more deep-seated.
Lord Hayward (Con)
I agree with the noble Baroness, but I am not sure that it is specifically or solely related to this particular Bill. There are much broader issues on paths down which I will not go at this stage. I see it on a daily basis. I see it from where I came this afternoon to be in this Chamber.
There have been references to the question of personation and the quantities of that. The police have not pursued personation in some cases. I refer here to Richard Mawrey QC’s judgment in the petitions in relation to Tower Hamlets. He refers to a former Labour councillor, Mr Kabir Ahmed, and I quote from paragraph 326 in his report:
“Applying the statutory test of residence set out above, I am quite satisfied that 326a Bethnal Green Road was not such a ‘residence’ as would entitle Mr Ahmed to be registered to vote from that address”.
That is part of the judgment of an elections court. The police did not pursue it. I am not arguing that there are large numbers of cases, but there are far more cases than are being cited. The police, for a number of different reasons, do not pursue them.
Equally, as I cited in passing at Second Reading, the Electoral Commission makes it difficult to access electoral rolls. If you are going to be able to produce proof of false registration—that is, personation—you have to refer to past electoral rolls. However, the Electoral Commission has quite specifically said that EROs
“should not provide access to any register other than the current register”,
so that makes it very difficult indeed for people to prove personation.
Lord Hayward (Con)
I appreciate that correction from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman.
But the concentration has been on the problems associated with certain social groups. It was said earlier that it is not necessarily the case that certain groups can or cannot participate in one form or another. The Liberal Democrats will point out that this is a failing of our first-past-the-post system, but selection meetings held by political parties in many constituencies are, in effect, choosing the Member of Parliament. For the selection of the Labour Party candidate for Poplar and Limehouse at the last election, the note that Apsana Begum sent to party members said, “Bring photo ID”. That is a specific instruction. It goes on to say,
“Bring your membership card or another proof of address”—
in other words, at her selection, you had to produce two forms of ID: one photo ID and one proof of address.
You can go on the web for other examples. One of the most racially diverse constituencies in the country—the reason that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, may be aware of this is that it is right next door to his borough—is Tottenham. Again, I quote from the web: for the Haringey shortlisting and selection meetings in 2018, people were told,
“You need to bring ID”.
They were told to bring proof of address—a utility bill or council tax bill—and named photo ID. The types of accepted photo ID were identified as a passport, driver’s licence, et cetera. I willingly give way to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way again. I understand where he is going: he is drawing analogies with a number of other situations in our country where photo ID is being required, either in law or in practice. Earlier, before everyone started intervening on him and he very graciously gave way, he gave the example of having to prove that you are the person associated with a package when you go to collect it at the Post Office. I could go further and say that if I am going to take money out of a hole in the wall, I will be required to demonstrate that it is me who is entitled to access that bank account, as otherwise someone else could steal my money. But he must surely understand the distinction between my right to specific property and millions of people’s right to go and vote. We could go back to a system where everyone just has some indelible ink put on their finger once they have voted. There is not the same degree of risk of theft and impersonation with universal suffrage as there is with people’s property—whether it is their cash property in the bank or whether it is with their pass.
On the Tower Hamlets example, I know that at one stage the Labour membership amounted to the biggest political membership in western Europe. I do not know the position at the moment, but the noble Lord would concede, would he not, that most people in the country are still not members of the Labour Party and, therefore, in a very contested and slightly toxic selection, people might get very anxious about whether people are actually members of the Labour Party. Therefore, it becomes much closer to the property example than to universal suffrage, does it not?
Lord Hayward (Con)
On the noble Baroness’s first intervention, I knew that people would raise objections. I was citing the Camberwell Post Office example as an indication of the fact that people now live with producing ID, including photo ID. She cannot get away from the fact that a series of selection meetings within the Labour Party, which will be choosing the councillors and the Members of Parliament, actually require not one but two forms of ID, one of which is photo ID. If it is so impossible to produce a photo ID to vote at a polling station, how come it is acceptable to require people to produce photo ID at a selection meeting of the Labour Party, which, in the case of Poplar and Limehouse, was almost certain to produce the new Member of Parliament for that constituency? Haringey Labour Party uses the phrase
“each of the wards at the selection which required photo ID will take place.”
I am quite willing to give the noble Baroness a copy of this, although she can go on the web, search “Haringey Labour Party” and she will find it.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
What I am struggling to understand is this. There is a fundamental difference between belonging to an organisation—be it any political party—to which you opt to belong and for which you might be expected to provide ID, and being able to vote as a citizen of the country. Those are totally different things.
Lord Hayward (Con)
The right reverend Prelate identifies the difference, but I have drawn the parallel, and it is a parallel, between selecting an MP at a constituency meeting and selecting them at a polling station.
As far as the process is concerned, I conclude with a final question, which I put to the Labour Front Bench. I have quoted from documents regarding the requirement to produce photo ID to select an MP. I ask whichever of the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, replies to the debate to address this question. I have cited cases where people have been required to produce two forms of ID. Can the Labour Party please say whether, on occasion, at selection meetings they have actually required three forms of ID, two of which were photo and one was the address?
Lord Grocott (Lab)
Has the noble Lord finished? I am sure my noble friend will deal with his query, which has been dealt with thoroughly already. The Labour Party is a voluntary organisation which you can choose to be in or not, and if you choose to, you abide by the rules thereof—rules that are democratically determined within the party itself. It is totally different, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out, from a clear right to vote, which should apply to everyone, irrespective of the degree to which they wish to become involved in daily politics, which is of course a matter of choice.
I wanted to speak now because I did not quite understand what it was that the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, did not understand about my previous intervention on this subject. I shall not discuss any individual details, because we have sundry debates on those coming up. The silence of the Government Front Bench on two or three issues in the whole of this discussion seems to have permeated the Back Benches as well. One of the crucial questions for me is whether the Tory party, which is investing an awful lot of time and effort in the Bill—and money; £180 million at least and rising—is doing so on the basis that somehow, we should be disturbed by the result of the last general election, which, I sadly remind everyone, it won with an 80-seat majority.
The Government are saying—by their actions, if not by their words—that the election is a bit dubious, a bit dodgy. Every contribution from that side is more or less implying just that. If it is not dodgy at a global level—the 80-seat majority—it must surely be dodgy in respect of a number of individual constituencies. So, I would like to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, who is an expert on these things, which of the 650 constituencies he thinks should probably be declared invalid on the basis of serious doubts and misgivings about the authenticity of the voters in those constituencies?
Having fought numerous elections and, on one occasion, having won by 360-odd votes in an electorate of 90,000, I can only say to the noble Lord and to all those who say that people do not accept our election results because the system is first past the post, that no one in the ballots in individual constituencies argues for a moment with the idea that the person who was first past the post was the winner and should be declared the winner, even if it was by a short head. But the point I am making now is that no one contested that result. My opponent, to his credit, although he called for a couple of recounts, did not doubt the validity of the result any more than I did when, prior to that, I lost by rather more, it must be said—by 1,500. Likewise, I did not contest the result.
I really do want to know the answer to this, because we are in a very odd situation. You would think we would be on different sides of the argument. You would expect the Opposition to be saying that they were really worried about the last election result and that it looked very dodgy that the Tories got an 80-seat majority, with the Government saying that it was the finest election they have ever been privileged to take part in. But in this Alice in Wonderland world, it is the Government who are raising serious questions about the validity of the election result. So, I repeat that point, which is hanging in the air, and if the Minister would share with the House his deep anxieties about the last general election, I would like to hear them.
I would also like to hear from the Minister precisely what the Government’s estimate is of the effect on voter participation of the proposals in Part 1 of the Bill, which introduce a substantial new requirement for people to exercise their right to vote. This is the biggest change in the electoral requirements in my lifetime. I suppose the voting age has changed and there have been other changes of that sort, but this is a substantial one that says to electors that what they have done in the past is not good enough and there are too many risks associated with it, so they must jump over these additional hurdles.
Our contention—I say ours, but I think it is a pretty broad contention—is that the one thing you can be sure of is that introducing a brand-new requirement such as this will have a completely neutral effect on election turnout, which, I remind the House, has been going down rather badly, certainly since I first started fighting elections. I looked up the figures for a few—1970 was the first one I fought. In February 1974, the turnout was 79% and for the last five or six elections, it has been down in the 60s. That is bad news for anyone who cares about democracy. I was proud of the fact that we used to beat lots of other countries substantially on turnout at major elections. That is no longer the case. It is not credible to say that this big change in voting requirements for voters will have no impact whatsoever on turnout. I will give the Minister three options: is he saying it will have no impact whatsoever; that it risks reducing turnout; or that it is going to increase turnout? That would be an interesting intellectual case to develop.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My noble friend might be interested to know that at the end of the last day in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, pointed out that no analysis of turnout has been done. Indeed, the noble Baroness the Minister said:
“I can confirm that we have not done that impact analysis. The important impact will be after.”—[Official Report, 17/3/22; col. 568.]
So I am afraid my noble friend will not get an answer to his question, because they have not done the research.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
Well, I do not suppose that surprises me. I bet one bit of research they have done and been careful to check on—I cannot be as generous as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, on this—is whether this change will have a serious adverse effect on the number of Conservatives voting at the next election.
We know roughly the demography that is most likely to be affected—and, by the way, it is not being patronising to people on low incomes to say that we know as a matter of fact that, in general terms, the wealthier the area, the higher the turnout. That is not because people in lower-income areas do not understand what is involved. There can be all sorts of practical reasons. If you live in rented accommodation, you may not get your poll card as easily. I know you do not have to have a poll card to vote—you will need a lot more in future—but, if people do not have photo identification, clearly they are more likely to miss out on voting at subsequent elections. If, in proposing this change to the requirements on voters, the noble Lord, Lord True—a lifelong Conservative, as I am lifelong Labour—had found in his research that it was going to really cost his party something, I very much doubt he would be bringing it forward, let alone bringing it forward with such enthusiasm.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. What he and the Committee are addressing are the potentially very serious but unknown and unquantified ill effects of this reform. Normally when a measure which could have an enormously detrimental social impact of this kind is proposed in these circumstances, the proposal is to pilot it. My noble friend will remember, because we were both in government at the time, that, when this House wrecked the ID card Bill, it did so led by Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, a former Cabinet Secretary, on the grounds that, if such a major piece of legislation was being proposed, even though it was in the Labour Party manifesto, it should be piloted. It was on that basis that we lost a large part of the legislation. Does my noble friend not think that it is highly appropriate and indeed necessary that a change of this magnitude should be piloted to see what the effects are before it becomes the universal law of the land?
Lord Grocott (Lab)
I absolutely agree. I would add only one point to my noble friend’s observations. If we regard the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust as a reputable research body, it is saying that something like 1.7 million people are without voter ID—I do not have the notes here, but it is a very substantial figure—and they are overwhelmingly people on lower incomes. So there is a lot that we do know, but it would certainly be a lot better to have a pilot study before this kind of change was introduced.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Before my noble friend Lord Hayward sat down, the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, rose to intervene. Perhaps we could allow the noble Lord’s intervention.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
Thank you very much. I certainly have not come across any evidence to suggest that ID cards are an answer to the problem of voter fraud. I would like to broaden the debate a little and think about the consequences. I grew up in east London, where it was not unusual for people of certain backgrounds to be stopped in the street by the police and asked to show ID, when you are not required to carry any ID. What would happen in this brave new world when the police stopped people and said, “By the way, you now have an official ID. Have you not got it? Can you not bring it from home and report to the police station?” What would be the consequences for the young people who are unwilling or unable to produce those officially sanctioned ID cards? Would that drive a wedge between the police and the community? Would that criminalise people? Would that fuel more dissatisfaction with our parliamentary system? Would that fuel social instability? I would like to hear from the Minister where this ID concern will stop. What would be the broader social consequences? It seems to me that we would be opening up American-type social problems. They would be imported here, because people simply do not have or cannot produce officially sanctioned ID cards.
It is minorities who will be targeted. It is well known and well documented that the police target minorities. They would have a new authority to wield to criminalise minorities. I would love to hear the Minister’s views on that.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, voter ID is not something dreamed up by the Government with the express intention of suppressing voter turnout, as various noble Lords have come perilously close to suggesting in both today’s debate and our debates last week. I am sure that, as parliamentarians, we all share a belief in the centrality of elections to our democracy and a desire to achieve the highest standards of integrity and participation. I believe that it would be a unworthy slur to suggest that my party believes anything else. The plain fact is that the Electoral Commission has recommended voter ID, as have international election observers. Most European countries require it; Northern Ireland has had it for nearly 40 years.
Lord Scriven (LD)
Can the noble Baroness explain where the Electoral Commission by itself said that voter ID was required? Or was it responding to options that were put before it in terms of what it saw as the best form of voter ID? Does the noble Baroness have the evidence to say that the Electoral Commission has said of its own volition that voter ID is required?
Baroness Noakes (Con)
I am sorry that I do not have chapter and verse with me, but the Electoral Commission has called for voter ID since 2014. As I said, Northern Ireland has used it for nearly 40 years.
I find it quite extraordinary that polling station procedures in Great Britain are virtually the same today as they were when I started voting 50 years ago. It is quite remarkable.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
If the system works well, why change it? I thought it was a good Conservative principle that, when it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
The world has changed very considerably in the past half a century.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Would the noble Baroness concede that this House and the other place have changed very little in the 100 years since women got the vote in the way we operate at Westminster?
Baroness Noakes (Con)
That is an entirely irrelevant observation, if I may say so.
I have heard many noble Lords say that this is a solution to a problem that does not exist, but I believe that that is looking at this through the wrong end of the telescope. I invite noble Lords to read my noble friend Lord Pickles’s report on election fraud, which was published after the disgraceful events at Tower Hamlets. He found that there were risks of electoral fraud in our current system. The fact that relatively few people have been convicted of election fraud is not the point. It is clear that there are real risks; we owe it to the electorate to minimise those risks.
I am astonished that noble Lords can oppose the simple concept of voter ID. As my noble friend Lord Hayward said, voter ID is required if you go to a Royal Mail depot, or indeed the Post Office, to collect a parcel. Let me give a more mundane example: last Friday, I collected a birthday cake from a supermarket and was required to show some ID. It is just part of the way we carry on our lives now. We require ID for all kinds of things. From my perspective, requiring voter ID is a reform that is long overdue.
It is also obvious that, if you go down the route of voter ID, the most secure way of proving identity is photo ID. That is why the Labour Party has required it at some of its conferences—unless the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, is going to countermand that, that is what I believe to be the case. If we go to a meeting at the MoD or the Bank of England, we have to show photo ID, because it is part of the way we live our lives now.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way, because it is worth addressing this point. It came up earlier with her noble friend Lord Hayward, who said to me, “You collect your parcel”, et cetera, and I suddenly looked down and saw myself, of course, wearing a badge around my neck, as I and most noble Lords do. I notice that my noble and rebellious friend Lord Grocott is currently not wearing his, but that is presumably for the TV cameras, and he will put it on later. Are noble Lords suggesting that, by complying with sensible security practices within this Palace and wearing this thing around my neck as I walk around every day, I am conceding that I should be prepared to wear such a thing on the street and in my life for other purposes?
Surely that concession is not made, because we are not comparing like with like. If anything, when I leave the Estate, if I still have this badge around my neck, a police officer will say to me, “Please take that off”, because it is not appropriate. Something that is of security value in here becomes a security risk out there. We are, therefore, not necessarily comparing like with like. The most sensitive and valuable ID that I possess is probably the card that gives me access to taking cash out of the wall, and it has no photographic evidence on it whatever. These are different purposes, different levels of risk and different levels of ID or not. Is that not the case?
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness says we are not comparing like with like, and I completely agree. I drew no parallels with the wearing of identity badges in this building or, indeed, many other buildings; many corporate organisations require this for their own internal security purposes. That is completely different from engaging in certain acts, whether it be going into certain buildings as an outsider or carrying out daily tasks such as collecting parcels. I am suggesting that it is perfectly ordinary to propose using it when going to election polling stations to cast one’s vote.
Northern Ireland has used photo ID for more than 20 years with no problems. Indeed, Northern Ireland electors are happier with their elections than the rest of the UK. To the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, I say that there has been no harm done in using voter ID in photo form in Northern Ireland at all—no recorded harm whatever. The issue that we should focus on is how to facilitate voting by those who do not already possess the kinds of photo ID that are allowed for in the Bill. The Government’s latest estimate—there are higher estimates from earlier studies—is that this applies to 2% of the population. That is roughly a million electors, which is a lot of people, but the Government have already successfully piloted a scheme of voter cards.
There is no evidence from the pilots of an impact on different communities, although there has been a lot of speculation throughout today and our previous Committee days on which particular groups will be affected. I am sure that there will be local issues in local areas, which is why—
Lord Scriven (LD)
The Electoral Commission’s analysis of the 2019 pilots showed that people in the compulsory voter ID pilot, after the ballot, had a 69% satisfaction rate with the poll, compared to 77% of those outside the photo ID pilot. Why, if it did not cause a problem, does the noble Baroness think that satisfaction was less in the pilot area than in the non-pilot areas?
Baroness Noakes (Con)
I cannot answer that question, but the purpose of pilots is to find out what practical problems there are with major policies, and it was good practice on the Government’s part to have various different pilots to find out the sorts of issues that might arise.
Lord Scriven (LD)
But if the basis of this, as the Government keep saying, is to increase the public’s satisfaction and the ballot integrity, why is it that 69% versus 77% think that that did not happen?
Baroness Noakes (Con)
I do not think the only metric is how satisfied people were. The most important thing is how comfortable people are with the integrity of the voting system. Just being satisfied with the first rollout of something is not going to give you the final answer. It is right to let local authorities, who know about their local electorates, work out how to reach these hard-to-reach communities. It is right to enlist civil society groups to do the same, as well as political parties, which should know their local areas and know how best to do it.
We know there will be some teething problems, and some voters may not bring the right voter ID with them the first time they come. But according to both the Electoral Commission and the Association of Electoral Administrators, this happened to a very small degree during the pilots. As I said earlier, pilots are there to find problems so that they can be overcome. I hope that noble Lords will stand back and look at these reforms—
Baroness Noakes (Con)
I am just about to finish, if the noble Baroness does not mind. I hope that noble Lords will stand back and look at these reforms through 21st-century eyes and see them as sensible and proportionate, and as a reflection of how we live our lives on a daily basis.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak in support of these clauses not standing part of the Bill. I do so primarily for the reasons we debated on Thursday, and I will not go over all those again in terms of the differential impact on marginalised groups. In particular, I spoke about people in poverty, and about Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, that this is not about those groups not understanding paperwork and so forth. As my noble friend said, there are all sorts of reasons why marginalised groups may find it harder to vote. If the noble Baroness reads that debate she will see that the very work that goes into getting by in poverty can itself act as a barrier to sorting out alternative ID cards.
We have talked a lot about trust. One of the Government’s arguments—it has been put today—is that the measure is essential to increase trust in the electoral system. However, the Electoral Commission public opinion tracker found that when asked what would increase voter satisfaction, twice as many people replied proportional representation—which we shall discuss on Wednesday—as said increased security against fraud. Worse—here I do agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley—there is a real danger that the Government themselves are eroding trust by suggesting that fraud is a problem that could be addressed by these provisions. The more it is said that there is a problem of fraud, the more the general electorate are likely to think that there is a problem of fraud. The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee warns that this could damage trust between the individual and the state. It was also pretty scathing about the quality of the evidence put forward to justify the move, saying that it was “simply not good enough”.
Various concerns have been raised about the evidence provided by the pilots that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, talked about—such as, in particular, that none was carried out in a large urban metropolis, and that we know nothing about the people who were turned away because they lacked the requisite identification and did not return. Nobody bothered to find out what happened to them.
As we heard on Thursday—there has been mention of this today too—one line of defence is that voter ID is used in most EU countries. When it was pointed out that some form of general ID is mandatory in most of those countries, the Minister said that this was neither here nor there. Actually, it is very much here and there. Whatever people think about it, if they have to carry ID around with them anyway, there is no great difficulty in taking it to the polling station. If people are not carrying it around with them anyway, that is a lot more difficult.
Both the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights have raised questions about the Government’s claim that the measures are proportionate—a test they need to meet to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights. On the one hand, as we have heard, there is very little evidence of fraud—even allowing for the fact that it is difficult to produce such evidence. On the other hand, there is pretty overwhelming evidence that the measures are likely to have a disproportionate impact on marginalised voters and potential voters. But of course we do not know—because, as I have said, the Government have not done the research. Far from being essential to the protection of our democracy, as the Minister in the Commons claimed, these provisions are a threat to inclusive democracy and citizenship.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett. I agree with everything she said.
I offer Green support for Clause 1 not standing part. We would have attached a signature to the opposition to the clause had there been space. I am well aware that we have already had a very long debate, so I will make three key points that have not quite been made elsewhere, and echo the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, in introducing the group, on the power of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, last week. Anyone who wants to see it will find it on my Twitter account, handily captioned and shared. I urge people to share it because it deserves a wide audience.
The first of my three points builds on the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, who suggested that people were saying there might be a sinister plot with the Republicans. There does not have to be a sinister plot for people to copy what they see happen in other parts of the world. Indeed, the inspiration for voter ID, which I believe is voter suppression, comes from the other side of the pond. I quote the American Civil Liberties Union, because if that is where the inspiration comes from it is instructive to see the context:
“Voting should be as easy and accessible as possible … But … more than 400 anti-voter bills have been introduced in 48 states … The result is a severely compromised democracy that doesn’t reflect the will of the people. Our democracy works best when all eligible voters can participate and have their voices heard.”
That is a message from America, but it is one we should also listen to here.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
Does the noble Baroness not understand that voting systems in the US are a state matter? The problem is not what she says it is; it is that every state has a different methodology. That is what leads to confusion and difficulties, particularly in some states which adopt particularly regressive and repressive measures. The point she is making about photo ID is nothing to do with that.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I disagree with the noble Lord, in the sense that I am talking about the rhetoric, and the context and reason for this, whether it is happening on a state-by-state basis or nationally. What is behind it is in my second quote, from Max Feldman at the Brennan Center for Justice, who says that
“claims of widespread fraud are nothing more than old wine in new bottles. President Trump and his allies have long claimed, without evidence, that different aspects of our elections are infected with voter fraud. Before mail voting, they pushed similar false narratives about noncitizen voting, voter impersonation, and double voting”.
To pick up the noble Lord’s point about people’s concerns about the voting system, these days we see a great deal of sharing and cross-fertilisation of concerns on social media. Rhetoric spread by powerful, well-funded forces will have an impact on people’s views, as we have seen in other contexts.
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, suggested that people were coming perilously close to suggesting that the purpose behind voter ID was voter suppression. I am not going to come “perilously close” to it; I believe that that is the case.
The second point I want to make concerns history. I do not believe that we are guaranteed to gradually progress positively into the future, but look at the trends. In 1832 and 1867, the Great Reform Acts spread the right to vote among men. In 1918 and 1928, women got the right to vote. In 1969, and implemented in 1970, the voting age was reduced from 21 to 18. That is all heading in the direction of greater engagement. In Oral Questions earlier we saw some fairly severe attacks on democracy and devolution in the UK, but Scotland and Wales have gone further down this road, with votes at 16. Democracy has been on a long-term trend of engaging more people. We have to ask why we are suddenly heading in the opposite direction with voter ID.
My final point is a practical one. Most of this discussion has focused on the estimated 2 million people who do not have any ID. I do not think we have talked enough about the people who do not have ID on them at the point where they go to vote. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, pointed out, none of the pilots was in a large urban area.
I was in a large urban area—Sheffield—telling on a polling station in one of the years when the pilots were being conducted. I saw a large number of people who had seen the reports and thought that they had to have ID.
Lord Hayward (Con)
The noble Baroness is citing where the pilots took place. Earlier on, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, did not seem to be aware that pilots had taken place. Was it not the case that a number of local councils refused to participate in the pilots? It is not that those places were chosen by the Government; it is that those were the places which were allowed to participate by the local authorities.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I respectfully respond to the noble Lord that, whether it was the choice of the local authorities or not, it harms the quality of the evidence before us.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
If I may intervene, I knew where the pilots had taken place, but they were not nearly proportionate to the scale of the reforms being introduced. We do not know anything about their likely impact on voter turnout or the administrative issues that will be raised by the nationwide introduction of this reform. The very small, selective pilots were not even in representative areas. The issue of piloting is still very much there. If this is to be a nationwide reform—we are talking about parliamentary elections—this should be piloted in many constituencies before we move in this direction.
Lord Scriven (LD)
Is it not the case that this has not been piloted before a general election? The Electoral Commission specifically says that there should be a pilot before it is ruled out for a general election.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
That is a fundamental point. They were piloted in local elections. The scale of the pilots has not been nearly proportionate to the scale of the proposed reform.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I thank both noble Lords, who have contributed greatly to my argument.
I come back to the question of people who own voter ID but do not happen to have it on them and to the experience of Sheffield on this particular occasion. One of the people I spoke to was a man who came speed-walking up to me, puffing slightly, and said: “Huh, do I have to have voter ID?” I said, “No, it is all right; you do not need it here.” He said, “Okay”, and dashed into the polling station.
What if I had had to say yes to that man? He was obviously having a very busy day, as many of us do—some people have to maintain two or three jobs to put food on the table and keep a roof over their head, and some people have caring responsibilities. Voting is on a Thursday, which is a working day for very many people. All these are reasons why voting can be difficult to access. Maybe a little window has opened up in your day—say you are a care worker who moves between different houses, and suddenly you have an opportunity to go past the polling station but you do not have your passport on you. Say you are a student, not living at home; perhaps you have left your passport with your parents for safekeeping because you do not travel overseas very often. You go to vote where your student residence is. Did you remember from when you heard two months ago that an election was coming? Maybe you did not even know that an election was coming, and two months ago you left your passport at home.
We have not looked enough at the facts. It is not just about people who do not own this ID. People do not have to. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, made a very powerful point that the European case studies do not match up. If you live in a country where a police officer or other official can stop you at any time and ask where your ID is, you will always have your ID on you. That is not the case in the UK.
My concluding point covers this group of amendments and many others. A lot of this Bill and the direction of the Government suggests that we have a problem with voters in the UK. I do not think we have any problem with the voters; we have huge problems with our failed political system.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, at Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Rennard, who unfortunately cannot be here today, drew attention to the Government’s negligence in trying to assess the scale of the problem that they say they seek to address. He pointed out that anyone attending a polling station who finds that their vote may have been claimed by someone else is issued with a replacement, known as a tendered ballot paper. He has been pressing the Government for some years to collate and publish the information about how many of these ballot papers are issued, and tried again recently with a Written Question.
Unfortunately, the Government would not answer, even though they know the figures. Fortunately, the independent Electoral Commission publishes them. There are several reasons why such tendered ballot papers might be issued, apart from someone impersonating a voter. The most common reason is probably a clerical error in the polling station when the wrong name is crossed off by mistake. At the last general election, 32,014,110 ballot papers were issued across the UK in 38,812 polling stations. The total number of tendered ballot papers was just 1,341. That is 0.004% of the total number of ballot papers issued—just two tendered ballot papers for each of the 650 constituencies, or one for every 30 polling stations. Most are probably issued because of clerical error or for reasons other than personation.
Clause 1 is all about a supposed solution to a problem that simply does not exist, or that the Government have been unable to show exists. At Second Reading, the Minister clearly stated that this was not about the precautionary principle to prevent voting error. I asked the Minister to reiterate: is this not the precautionary principle? If not, where is the evidence that the problem is so big that the clause’s provision is proportionate to deal with the problem?
I have also looked back at the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord True, at Second Reading. He said:
“Voter ID is used across the world, including in most European countries and in Canada.”—[Official Report, 23/2/22; col. 2228.]
He did not say that those European countries had compulsory national ID cards, meaning that no additional ID is required other than that which citizens have to carry as part of being citizens of those countries. We do not have such national ID cards and the Government are opposed to them. In Canada, a photo ID card is issued to Canadians who do not have a driving licence, thereby serving as a national ID card, and in Canada you do not need that ID to vote if you do not have it to hand, provided someone with such ID is also present at the polling station and vouches for you.
The Government have pointed to Northern Ireland, which requires voter ID, although it has a significantly different political culture that made that necessary. Northern Ireland introduced mandatory ID in 1985 in response to what happened in the 1983 general election. Nearly 1,000 people arrived at polling stations there only to be told that a vote had already been cast in their name. Police made 149 arrests for personation, resulting in 104 prosecutions. In contrast, in Great Britain, in two national elections in 2019, there was only one conviction for personation and one caution, both of which related to the European Parliament election of that year.
It should also be noted that Northern Ireland did not move immediately to require photographic ID. Elections took place there for almost 20 years with a less stringent ID requirement. The first election there to require voter ID was the 2003 Northern Ireland Assembly election. Estimates have shown that about 25,000 voters did not vote because they did not have the required ID. That is more than 1,000 per constituency. Furthermore, almost 3,500 people, 2.3% of the electorate, were initially turned away for not presenting the required ID. It took more than 12 years—I repeat, 12 years—for turnouts to return to previous levels; other factors were, of course, involved relating to political controversy in Northern Ireland.
We have very limited information about the effects of introducing any form of voter ID from pilots in just 15 out of over 400 local council elections in England, but all the information suggests that many more legitimate voters were unable to cast votes than there were people who needed replacement ballot papers. Extrapolating from these 15 pilots to around 450 local authorities suggests that perhaps 30,000 legitimate voters could have been turned away from polling stations, to say nothing of the number of people who did not attempt to vote because of the requirements.
The proposals in Part 1 of the Bill are in response to one conviction and one caution in 2019, with hardly anyone finding that their vote could have been stolen and, in any event, all were compensated with a replacement ballot paper. After the voter ID pilots, the independent Electoral Commission said that more work was needed to make sure that an identification requirement did not stop people who are eligible and want to vote in future elections. That is why Clause 1 should not stand part of this Bill.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, the speech that we have just heard from the noble Lord was utterly compelling. Indeed, he gave the House a detail that I was not aware of about the impacts of compulsory voter ID in Northern Ireland; I do not think that the House was aware either. In the case of Northern Ireland—I remember the discussions that took place in government at the time—the evidence of voter personation was at a level completely out of proportion to what we are dealing with here in the case of elections in Great Britain. But if, as the noble Lord says, it took 10 years to get voter participation up—
Lord Adonis (Lab)
That should be a matter of huge concern. In an extraordinarily un-Conservative statement earlier, the noble Baroness said that voting in the way that we used to vote 50 years ago is somehow bad and means that we are not keeping up with modern times. If we applied that principle to every other aspect of life that works well we would be seeking to change everything for the sake of it—something I imagined she thought this side of the House was seeking to do.
A combination of those two great Gladstonian reforms, the Ballot Act 1872 and the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Act 1883, has maintained a level of integrity in the conduct of elections in this country that most of the rest of the world finds awe-inspiring. The idea that people look at the United Kingdom and say that, among all the democracies—let alone other regimes—there is great doubt about the integrity of our election outcomes and people are constantly concerned that ballots might be being stuffed and all that, is so far removed from reality that it is obviously a farcical proposition.
Lord Hayward (Con)
I am sorry to intervene again but is the noble Lord aware of the report of foreign observers who watched the elections in Tower Hamlets? He seems to display complete ignorance of what overseas observers said about what they saw going on in Tower Hamlets.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
The big issue in Tower Hamlets, which the noble Lord referred to earlier, was electoral registration. What happened there was clearly improper registration. If the issue of registration had been dealt with, these further issues would not have arisen. This is not just an issue of principle, though many issues of principle have been raised. Rather like the Blair Government’s move to introduce ID cards, I suspect this will become a matter between the two Houses. The fact that photo ID was not in the Conservative Party manifesto will be significant; I do not think the Salisbury convention will cover the reform as proposed in this Bill. On matters of deep constitutional import such as this, how far we can press our concerns is always a fine judgment for this House. We have these debates and send amendments to the other place, and then they come back.
If this Bill gets through in this Session, the issue of compulsory photo ID might be one where we insist on our amendments, particularly in the context which the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, referred to, about how at constituency level and on a substantial scale there have been no pilots.
I have two other points, since I want to add to the debate rather than to repeat other points. This Bill is one of the most substantial that I have addressed in my entire time in Parliament, with 171 pages, 22 of which are Schedule 1, which governs the arrangements for the introduction of photo ID. Most of the legislation that this House passes is shorter than Schedule 1 of this Bill, which introduces some element of these requirements. There are 22 pages of very dense and complicated legal reforms, and I pity the electoral registration officers who will be implementing them—there will be a host of problems over the implementation. Yet despite it being 22 pages long, huge issues are not even properly addressed in Schedule 1. We are being asked to give Henry VIII powers to the Government to produce further changes in due course. Paragraph (2)(4)(a) of Schedule 1, on page 66, says that regulations may make provision about
“the timing of an application for an electoral identity document”
and
“about the issuing or collection of an electoral identity document.”
These are fundamental issues, and they are not even on the face of the Bill. They will all be subject to regulations in due course which this House, in practice, does not have the capacity to influence or to reject.
On a fundamental and crucial issue which I hope that the Minister can help me with, is there now effectively to be one point of electoral registration or two—the first when you apply to go on the electoral register and the second when you apply for your photo ID? I see that my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock has tabled amendments on this precise point, which is of huge importance and has not been addressed in the debate at all so far, of whether there should be provision for you to apply for the photo ID when you complete your electoral registration form. The Minister may have addressed this point in earlier debates, but I could not see it in Hansard. This fundamental issue may be worse than just ambiguous. I look forward to the Minister explaining this, but my reading of paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 is that you cannot apply for the two at the same time.
New Section 13BD in Schedule 1, which amends the Representation of the People Act 1983 by inserting these new provisions, says:
“An application for an electoral identity document may be made by (a) a person who is or has applied to be registered in a register of parliamentary electors”,
It does not say “is applying”. There is a fundamental difference between the two. Can the Minister help the Committee on this, since we are discussing the clause at large and it will pave the way for my noble friend Lady Hayman’s amendment in due course?
Is it the case from my reading of the schedule—I am a non-lawyer—that you cannot apply for both at the same time and therefore that it would not be legal for electoral registration officers to send one form enabling you to fill in your name and details on the register of electors and to make your application for a photographic identity document, but you must do them separately? I may be wrong, in which case I am very happy for the Minister to intervene, but if I am correct, it is a fundamental massive additional issue with this Bill. It effectively doubles the electoral registration requirements. Whereas until now it has been the accepted practice that you register once, you will now have to register twice. My noble friend Lady Lister said that in continental countries, ID cards are the norm, but, of course, there you have them by the time you register to be a voter, and do not have to go through any separate process, nor must you turn up with a separate identity card in due course.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I intend to be brief, because I do not want to repeat all the excellent arguments that have been made. I think the important part of this debate is the issue of proportionality. Of course, as we have heard elsewhere in the Bill, it is incredibly disappointing that the key problems our electoral system faces—underrepresentation, low turnout, lack of registration—are not addressed, as referred to by my noble friend Lord Woolley. Also, I am going to keep to my record in referring to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, because this House’s Select Committee report on civic engagement showed that it is really important to address this issue in terms of education—better understanding our responsibilities and the role of the citizen.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Yes, the report of the committee that I chaired said that we needed a statutory ability to learn about citizenship throughout primary and secondary education—but nowhere did we talk about voter ID or the methodologies by which people would be identified for voting. So, with great respect, would the noble Lord please not pray me in aid for that particular?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I hear what the noble Lord says, but it will not stop me—because in the argument about proportionality the question is, “What is the most important problem that we seek to address?” At the end of the day, we are focusing on this issue of voter ID to address a concern over fraud. As we have heard from the debate, it is not the evidence of fraud that we should be concerned about but the concern about concern, which actually undermines the argument completely.
I come back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Woolley. What evidence do we have? Of course, we have heard about the pilot schemes in the local elections of 2019. What the noble Lord highlighted well was that the Electoral Commission noted that between 3% and 7% of those who engaged in the election were turned away because they did not have the right form of voter ID, including non-photographic ID. As the noble Lord said, those small pilot schemes were not reflective of a general election. If you extrapolate that to a general election, the Electoral Commission and others have suggested that between 50,000 and 400,000 people could show up at a general election and then be turned away. What is that going to do to confidence in our electoral system? Not much, I would suggest. It is pretty appalling that we are focusing on that issue, when there is a desperate need to focus, as the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, said, on civic engagement, how to encourage young people to participate and to register, and how to get that understanding of the need to vote.
I was sorely tempted to intervene on the noble Lord, Lord Hayward. Of course, I am fully aware of the rights and responsibilities of membership organisations, having had the responsibility of ensuring that the rules of the Labour Party were properly upheld. But that is not the same as what the right reverend Prelate was talking about: the universal right to vote. I have to pay for my Labour Party membership, and I have responsibilities to abide by its rules. That includes a whole host of requirements that the noble Lord has not mentioned—but what has that got to do with the universal right to vote? Not much, I beg to argue.
It has to come back to this whole point about what problem it is that we are seeking to address. It is a very, very small issue that we seek to address here, and we are taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I support all noble Lords who seek for this clause not to stand part.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
Well, my Lords, I thank all those who have taken part in what has been quite a lengthy debate—but why not? It is an important issue.
I will try to answer the various points which have been made. The proposition in Clause 1, which is before us, is part of a whole series of measures which this Government are putting in the Bill to strengthen the security and integrity of elections. These include matters we are coming on to in relation to postal votes, the handling of postal votes and so on. There is a consistent overall desire in the Government to ensure that votes are cast, and cast with integrity. I submit to the Committee that there is no distinction—no “one or the other”—between wanting more people to vote and trying to secure the integrity of the vote. This is a false antithesis that has run through the debate. All of us should want to do both things: to ensure that all votes are honest and honestly handled, and that as many people vote as possible. We are able to do both; it is not one or the other.
Last week, on the first technical amendment in what was a lengthy series of amendments relating to voter identification, we had a wide-ranging clause stand part-style debate on many aspects of Clause 1, and on the assessments done on costs for voter identification and its potential impacts. I acknowledge that, as has happened again today, the Benches opposite have made it abundantly clear that they do not support this policy—or Clause 1 or Schedule 1 of the Bill. The Government disagree. In our submission, this policy is necessary and proportionate. It also implements the Government’s manifesto commitment to voter identification to protect the security and integrity of our ballot, so that our elections will remain secure well into the future.
The idea floated by some, including the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, that this was not a manifesto commitment because the word “photo” was not in the manifesto, is wide of the mark. As I said in our last session, the Government clearly declared their policy in the Queen’s Speech in October 2019, set out in detail in the briefing what that would mean, and referenced that in the manifesto. Manifestos briefly often reference established policy. Indeed, there was much debate at the time about the proposition that the Government had put on the table, including the photographic aspect.
I must tell the House that the Government regard this proposal as fully covered by the conventions of your Lordships’ House on manifesto commitments—as they would apply under the Government of any party. The process for voting in polling stations—
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I am sorry, but can the Minister clarify why the Government chose not to put the word “photo” into the manifesto? No one is disputing that there was a manifesto commitment; what we are disputing is whether that commitment was for photo ID.
Lord True (Con)
The Government had an established and declared policy on voter identification which was referenced in the manifesto. Not every aspect of every policy goes into a manifesto. We do not normally put 177 pages—or whatever it was that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, mentioned—into a manifesto. However, the specific details—not only the photo identification, but also the fact that we would offer, as part of this, a free card to anyone who is not covered by any of the aspects of the policy—were declared public policy. That, too, remains the Government’s policy.
My noble friend Lady Noakes said that the process for voting in polling stations in Great Britain has seen no significant changes in its security since the Ballot Act 1872. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, mentioned another Gladstonian reform. None the less, the system used in the Victorian era, in a confined franchise in smaller communities, is in our submission simply not fit for the 21st century. There are undeniable vulnerabilities in our system—covered not only in this Clause 1 measure but in others as we track through the Bill—which let people down because they can lead, and have led, to votes being stolen by unscrupulous individuals. The introduction of photographic voter identification as a solution to such vulnerabilities is supported by the independent Electoral Commission. As we have heard, it is also backed—
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt. I do not want to delay proceedings any more, but the noble Lord just referred to the Electoral Commission. It suggested in its briefing to noble Lords that the Government should also consider options on polling day for those people who have lost their ID and have not received their voter card to ensure that no one loses the opportunity to vote. This could include using a vouching system as the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, referred to, which applies in Canada. Is the Electoral Commission’s recommendation going to be considered by the Government when they introduce voter ID?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, applications for the free card will be available up to 5 pm on the day before, as has been said. I note what the noble Lord has said, and I will take away what he and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, have said but our submission is that the time to apply for the card is satisfactory at the moment and anyone who is turned away initially on the day of vote can return. As a matter of fact, at the last election in which I took part, which certainly was not a general election, I was turned away. The returning officer said: “We are too busy at the moment. We have a technical problem, can you come back later?” I went back later in the day. People can return, and I did.
It was also pointed out, and this is correct, that the provision is backed by leading international election observers such as the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. It has repeatedly called for its introduction, saying its absence is a security risk. Many people would question why it is not already the case. In fact, as my noble friend said last week, the 2021 Electoral Commission winter tracker report was clear that the majority of the public—66%—say that a requirement to show identification at polling stations would make them more confident in the security of the voting system.
The choice of photographic identification as the model has been questioned by noble Lords. Put simply, it is the most secure and familiar way of confirming that someone is who they say they are. It is true that a number of different models of voter identification were trialled as part of the pilots undertaken by the Government in 2018 and 2019. However, when evaluating the security strengths and weaknesses of each pilot model, the Electoral Commission found that
“the photo ID only model has the greatest security strengths compared with the other models.”
On the basis of those evaluations, it was clear that the most secure and appropriate approach was photographic identification.
Many noble Lords in the debate raised questions about the practical implications of selecting this model. Obviously, as we go forward in co-operation into the face of implementation, the Government will carefully consider all the points that have been raised. The Government understand this and want to prepare the system as well as possible. This is why we considered the absolute maximum range of identifications that could be accepted for the policy. Using the Government’s Verify security scale, we opted for level 2 and then considered this against the widest possible range of documents which would meet that assessment. Should other forms of photographic identification meet that level of security in the future, the Government will be able to add them through the power inserted into Rule 37 by paragraph 18 of Schedule 1 to the Bill. This will ensure that the list remains up to date and is as accessible as possible going forward.
We commissioned a nationally representative survey of over 8,500 electors in Great Britain. This found that 98% of people have access to an accepted form of photographic identification, including 99% of people from ethnic minorities and young people aged 18 to 29. We need to reach all those others, which is why a free card is being offered and the Electoral Commission will be entering into a publicity process to ensure, with the Government, that that is known. Some 94% of the people surveyed felt that having to present a photo identification at the polling station would either make it easier to vote or make no difference.
Voter identification is a proven approach and although I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, said, in addition to the provision made for Northern Ireland by the last Labour Government, it is in place in most European countries and also in countries such as Canada which do not have compulsory national identity cards. Whether noble Lords like it or not, Northern Ireland is a comprehensive empirical example of the introduction of photographic identification in the UK. We know that it operates there with ease. It has brought real benefit to the democratic process, and Northern Ireland consistently reports high rates of confidence in the outcome of elections. The 2019 Electoral Commission post-election questionnaire reported that 83% of voters in Northern Ireland found it
“very easy to participate in the elections”
as opposed to 78% in Great Britain.
I trust that that sets out some of the underlying principles, but when developing this policy we of course completed all the required impact and equality impact assessments. A team of analysts produced detailed cost and benefit modelling, published in the impact assessment, as is typical for such a government programme. They incorporated high and low ranges to account for uncertainty and conducted sensitivity analysis to test the most sensitive and impactful assumptions, such as the percentage of the electorate requiring a voter card. If any noble Lord would like to explore details of the impact assessment with officials who have been involved in doing it—I know the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, is interested in that—I would be very happy to arrange for them to meet the Bill team to discuss it.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I do not need to meet the Bill team. The impact assessment that the Minister signed off on 20 January this year says very clearly on page 30, paragraph 18, on this specific policy, on Clause 1 on mandatory photo ID:
“The analysis does not assess the impact of the policy on voter turnout.”
There has been no assessment in the impact assessment of the voter turnout and this clause.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord does not wish to meet members of the Bill team and I am very happy to repeat that offer.
So far as the noble Lord’s point is concerned, my noble friend answered that point explicitly—indeed, the noble Lord referred to it. An impact assessment is an economic assessment. It did not deal with turnout. As the noble Lord well knows—he has campaigned often enough, as I have—turnout is affected by a very large range of factors. I will give way once more to the noble Lord.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I think it is important for the Committee to understand this because the noble Lord has said something at the Dispatch Box which they will find is slightly different when they look at the impact assessment. The impact assessment looks at non-monetary and non-economic issues to do with policies all over this Bill. It specifically says about this policy that it has not looked at voter turnout. This is not just an economic assessment—it is an assessment of the monetary and non-monetary effects of the Bill, including voter turnout.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, it covers economic, equality and other assessments. If I misspoke, I apologise. I say for the third time what my noble friend said last week and I have said—the Government did not cover turnout. I have not sought to hide that fact because the factors that affect turnout are very wide and cannot be distinguished. Of course, analysis should not remain static, and I take that point. As we move towards implementation, I say to the Committee that we will continue to make sure that the evidence base remains up to date in terms of costings and will refine the modelling and assumptions. This is standard practice and will address the economic points.
I repeat that year-on-year turnout comparisons cannot be accurately estimated due to the volatility of the electoral cycle. As I have said, a huge variety of disparate factors play a part in whether someone chooses to vote in any particular election, from the appeal of candidates standing to personal circumstances on the day. An attempt to draw conclusions would be difficult.
In this vein, I note Amendment 142 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, on post-legislative scrutiny, which has not been addressed in this group yet. I appreciate that she has not had the opportunity to speak to it, but I will reply to the amendment. The Bill already provides for an evaluation of the impacts of voter identification at the first two general elections to which it applies and the first stand-alone set of local council elections. I am pleased to say that we intend to go further and produce a process and impact evaluation of the programme and its implementation across all policy measures. I hope that this reassures the noble Baroness that our aims on this are aligned. However, I repeat what I said in an earlier group: I remain open to further conversations on this point in relation to post-legislative scrutiny. I give that undertaking to the Committee.
Finally, in the same spirit of increasing participation in our democracy and empowering those eligible to vote to do so in a secure and effective way, Clause 2 introduces an online absent vote application service and an online voter card application service. As it stands, there is no facility for electors to make an online application to get a postal vote or proxy vote. Electors must have a paper form which they complete and submit to the electoral registration officer. Here the Government are seeking to encourage participation, because in an increasingly digital world, providing an online service for applications must increase accessibility. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, that his fears are unfounded. It will certainly be possible to apply for the voter card and the registration at the same time, just as one can in applying for a postal vote.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
Does the Minister therefore intend to accept my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock’s Amendment 64, which says that explicitly?
Lord True (Con)
No—we do not believe that the amendment is necessary, but the noble Lord is anticipating the next group. I am replying to noble Lords and assuring the Committee that I am advised that the noble Lord’s fears are entirely unfounded and that voters will be able to apply for both at the same time.
Lord Scriven (LD)
That is very well and good but coming back to the impact assessment, on applying for absent votes, paragraph 117 says:
“The requirement for identity verification as a part of the online application process for absent votes could deter some voters from voting … This may impact the integrity of the elections as it may lead to lower turnout”.
Why would such a policy be implemented, with that in the impact assessment?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I repeat that we believe that, in an increasingly digital world, where the introduction of digital services can be done securely, providing an online service for applications increases accessibility. That is our submission, and I think that would be regarded as logically correct by most people who turn on their internet in the morning.
These powers will enable the identity of applicants using the new services to be verified, as well as identity checking for other absent voter applications.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
There is a fundamental issue. The Minister has said that it will be possible to apply for the two at the same time, but paragraph 2(4) of Schedule 1 says:
“Regulations may make provision … about the timing of an application for an electoral identity document”.
Is the Minister saying to the Committee that those regulations will provide that applications for the electoral identity document can be made at the same time and as part of the same form or digital process as electoral registration itself?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am not sure whether it is under that specific rubric. Obviously, a lot of this material will come forward in regulation, including precisely the last hour at which you can make an application, et cetera. I will say to the noble Lord only that his comments were heard and I have been advised that they are not founded. There is a later group during which we can come back to this point, if we must. I can write to the noble Lord, but I think it would be helpful if I was in a position to give that assurance to the Committee, in public, on the next group.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, this has been a long and often confused debate. I have to say that I am as confused at the end of it as to what the rationale for Clause 1 is as I was at the beginning.
We have touched on a range of issues which we will return to on later occasions. The noble Lord, Lord Hayward—for whose expertise I have the highest respect—talked about the uncertainties of our electoral system and the problem that, in many constituencies, local and national, the selection meeting is the important one because we all know who is going to be elected. That is actually a gross abuse of our electoral system, to which perhaps one might consider either the introduction of primaries or a change in the electoral system to give the electorate a wider choice. I mark that in passing.
I have much sympathy with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, on the point about the failure to modernise the pencil on sacking style of polling stations and the very antique business of local registers and local registration, which is totally unsuitable to the digital age. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Desai, on that.
What we should have had here was what page 48 of the Conservative manifesto—which I think I know almost off by heart—refers to: that the time has come for a “broader” approach to our constitution. That is one of the aspects the noble Lord told us that they have now abandoned. We could have discussed some of these issues together.
The noble Lord, Lord True, said that all of us should want to do both things at once: security and engagement —and I assume, therefore, proper modernisation of our electoral system. The problem with the Bill is that it does not do both things at once. It does this but not the other things. That is why I find this such an unsatisfactory half set of measures. It is a Bill which does things that help the Conservatives but does not address some of the evident inadequacies of our electoral system and electoral campaigns, and does not modernise, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, rightly says. Therefore, it seems to me that the Bill fails the test of appropriate legislation. This is a disproportionate attack on one small part of the inadequacies of our electoral system, which leaves untouched many of its other inadequacies. On that purpose, we shall therefore wish to return to this on Report. I beg leave to withdraw my opposition to Clause 1 standing part.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
“Statement on guidance given to registration officers
The Secretary of State must publish a statement on guidance given to registration officers in relation to the implementation of Schedule 1.”
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, there is a large number of amendments in this group, all of which refer to Schedule 1. As my noble friend Lord Adonis said, Schedule 1 is pretty enormous—there is a huge amount of information in it. It is concerning that there is a lot of very detailed information but that quite a lot of it is perhaps not pinned down in a way that would be helpful when making such huge changes to our electoral law.
It may well be a large section of the Bill but, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said, when you look at the balance between securing the integrity of the ballot and encouraging participation, unfortunately there is simply not enough in the schedule to encourage participation and increase registration. I find that disappointing, because if the Government bring forward an elections Bill, encouraging more people to use their right to vote and take part in civil society in that way should be an absolutely integral part of what such a Bill tries to achieve.
As I say, all the amendments refer to Schedule 1. I will batch them into three groups, which seems sensible, given their focus. First, I will speak briefly to my Amendments 63 to 69, 79 and 81, which concern the electoral identity document. Amendment 66A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and Amendment 80 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, are along similar lines. My noble friend Lord Adonis asked the Minister a number of questions about Part 2 so I will not go into detail on that, but it would be useful if the Minister could do as he said he would in the previous debate and give some more detailed answers to the relevant questions that were asked.
My Amendment 63 would require the Secretary of State to
“publish a statement on guidance given to registration officers in relation to the implementation of Schedule 1.”
In the previous debate in Committee, I talked about the importance of guidance and training when introducing voter ID. As was said in the previous debate this afternoon, an enormous amount of information will be provided to electoral registration officers, local authorities and the people who will man the polling stations. It is incredibly important that everybody knows exactly what they are supposed to do, what will be allowed and what will not, and how they can support people who may have come in with the incorrect documentation, so that they do not lose their votes, which is another issue we will talk about later. It is also incredibly important that we understand how guidance is being managed and implemented. Having a regular statement on where we are with it is important in making sure that our democracy is not undermined and that we have the best response possible to these proposals. Whether you agree with them or not, if they come in, they need to be implemented as well as possible.
I know the Minister said that he would explain why my Amendment 64 is not necessary, but we should do everything we can to increase participation. Providing an option so that someone can apply for an electoral identity document as part of the same process as registering to vote seems a straightforward, easy, sensible thing to do. I do not understand why the Government do not want to make this explicit in the Bill; it just seems terribly sensible to me.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
The issue that I hope the Minister will address, and which goes to the heart of my noble friend’s Amendment 64, is that he said when he replied to me earlier that, under paragraph 2 of Schedule 1, it will be possible for people to apply at the same time. However, if we want to minimise bureaucracy, surely, we want to make it a requirement that they be able to apply at the same time, which certainly is not part of that paragraph. My reading is that it could be covered by the regulations
“about the timing of an application for an electoral identity document”
in new Clause 13BD(4), as proposed by paragraph 2 of Schedule 1. But obviously, the way to ensure that it is possible, that we minimise bureaucracy and that we do not have an impact on turnout is for the Minister to accept my noble friend’s amendment or give an undertaking from the Dispatch Box when he comes to reply—so that he has time to commune with his officials—that the regulations will provide that electors can apply at one and the same time to register to vote and for the electoral identity document.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
To save multiple interventions on my noble friend, I just want to say this: it is all very well to say “Perhaps this will all be dealt with in regulations” so long as the vires—the power—in the schedule is broad enough to allow for regulations enabling people to apply to be registered and have one of these government-provided ID documents. However, I have read paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 and what it proposes. New Clause 13BD(1)(a), which is headed “Electoral identity document: Great Britain”, says that an application for an electoral identity document may be made by a person who
“is or has applied to be registered”.
That begs the question of whether these things can be done simultaneously. If these regulations will allow for an application only when someone is already registered or has already applied to be registered, that appears to leave out the group to which my noble friend Lord Adonis refers: people who are applying to be registered but know that they do not have a relevant document and want to make one application, rather than two applications at different times.
I am sorry to labour that point but I think it might be helpful to the Minister to hear that concern so that he can deal with it in one go later on.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank both my noble friends for their contributions and support for this amendment. As I said, this measure seems simple and straightforward to me. On the basis that it is important for people who do not have the right document to be able to vote, it seems a simple and sensible proposition that, when they register to vote, a little box comes up that they can tick if they need an identity document. It would then all be dealt with and sorted. I hope the Minister will seriously consider the importance of having that spelt out in the Bill, or, if he is not going to accept my amendment, of making sure that this works in the legislation as drafted, as my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti said.
I have two further amendments, Amendments 65 and 66, which are about the issuing of the documentation. The first amendment refers to
“the issuing of digital electoral identity documents.”
We are in a digital age, after all, so it seems sensible for people to have that option. I get my train tickets digitally, so it is not beyond the wit of man to come up with that. The other amendment is
“about the distribution of an electoral identity document by post.”
At the moment, that is not in the Bill; the regulations provide for the timings, issuing and collection but they do not go into any detail about whether a document could be issued digitally or sent through the post.
Amendment 66A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, is interesting. It would change
“the deadline for applying for a Voter ID card to 5 days before the day of a particular election. This is in line with the practice in Northern Ireland.”
We have had a lot of discussion in our debates on voter ID about the way things are done in Northern Ireland, so I am interested to hear more on this from the noble Lord and from the Minister.
Amendment 67 is very straightforward: it is just about ensuring that every electoral identity document should have the date of issue, which again seems pretty sensible so we all know where we are with it. Amendment 68 would delete new subsection (9) in paragraph 2 of Schedule 1. The reason for this is that it says, fairly vaguely:
“Regulations may require an electoral identity document to include other information.”
Why is this necessary? What kind of “other information” are we looking at? It would just be interesting to have further detail and clarification on what that part of the schedule is intended to do.
Baroness Greengross (CB)
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of Amendments 64, 78, 79 and 81. On Second Reading, I expressed concerns that the new voter identification requirements in the Bill might disproportionately impact the youngest and the oldest voters. As others have already highlighted, we need to balance, on the one hand, that we ensure we have a secure electoral system that is not open to abuse of fraud with, on the other hand, removing possible barriers to voter participation. The fact that someone does not have a driver’s licence or a passport or cannot lay their hands on their passport on voting day should not mean that they are unable to participate in the electoral process, which is a very significant part of our democracy.
Amendment 64 gives someone the option, when registering as an elector, to apply for an electoral identity document as part of the same process. This ensures that, at the point of registering, people can get the ID needed to vote. Amendment 78 would enable a voter without satisfactory ID to have their identity confirmed by another voter at the polling station who does have acceptable ID. Amendment 79 expands on the list of documents that can be used as ID, again at least reducing the risk that someone is turned away from a polling station due to them not having satisfactory identification on them. Amendment 81 would include the senior railcard as a form of ID that can be used, as older people tend to have it on them at all times. These amendments help mitigate the risk of eligible voters being turned away for not having identification, but they do not eliminate it completely.
Lack of participation, especially by younger people, is by far a greater problem in this country than voter fraud. Can the Government please outline what safeguards they plan to put in place to ensure that eligible voters who lack identification documents are not disfranchised by what is proposed in the Bill?
Lord Willetts (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 80 in my name has the support of other Members of this House, including—he asked me to indicate this—the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, who sadly is not with us now. This amendment adds to the list of voter identification documents that are accepted for the purpose of being able to vote. It is carefully framed so as to be consistent with the statement in the Conservative Party manifesto, because I understand the importance for us in this House of working within the conventions of the respect we give to manifesto pledges. I will share with the Committee the exact words of that manifesto:
“We will protect the integrity of our democracy by introducing identification to vote at polling stations, stopping postal vote harvesting and measures to prevent any foreign interference in elections.”
My view on that list—and I think it is the view of almost everyone in this Committee—is that there is indeed an issue of postal vote harvesting, and we do indeed need measures to prevent foreign interference. I do not believe that the challenge of voter ID is a significant risk in the British electoral system and I do not think anyone has presented any evidence that it is; nevertheless, it is clearly within the framework set out in the Government’s manifesto and we should respect it.
So my amendment tries to do two things. First, it adds some more photo IDs to the current list of photo IDs—such items as the student identity card, the 18-plus student Oyster photocard and the national railcard. I am trying to add, as far as possible, to the list of photo IDs.
But the amendment goes further than this. It includes other documents that are not photo IDs. Here, I am very influenced by the second document, to which I pay almost as much attention as the Conservative manifesto; namely, the report by my noble friend Lord Pickles. In his important report Securing the Ballot, recommendation 8 says:
“The Government should consider the options for electors to have to produce personal identification before voting at polling stations. There is no need to be over elaborate”—
we hear the authentic voice of my noble friend there—
“measures should enhance public confidence and be proportional. A driving licence, passport or utility bills—
I emphasise “utility bills”—
would not seem unreasonable to establish identity. The Government may wish to pilot different methods. But the present system is unsatisfactory; perfection must not get in the way of a practical solution.”
So, at the stage at which my noble friend produced his report, which has been widely cited throughout the debate on the Bill, he clearly envisaged that it should not be just photo ID.
The Minister, in his response to the earlier debate, took us through the subsequent process, where there was piloting of a range of measures, and said that the pilot with photo ID had strengthened security the most. I accept that point. The question is, to what extent is security the key consideration? Given that voter personation is such a minor problem compared with other genuine issues around security, going for maximum security by requiring photo ID to tackle a problem that is not itself a major issue in our electoral system seems to me to be disproportionate compared with the disadvantages of photo ID. That is why I am trying, within the spirit of the report of my noble friend Lord Pickles and the Government’s own election manifesto, to provide as long a list of documents as possible, so that we will not face that challenge of people who are legitimately entitled to vote finding that, because they do not possess an ID, they are turned away from the polling station.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
The noble Lord is implicitly saying that he does not regard the Conservative Party manifesto as extending to photo ID. Indeed, there is a very good reason for not regarding it as extending to photo ID, because it does not say “photo ID”. It is all very well for the Minister to say that he intended it to mean that, but, as I know from having piloted controversial legislation through this House, when it comes to invoking the Salisbury convention on matters of first-rate constitutional importance such as this, what the manifesto says is absolutely crucial.
His proportionate principle is that we should start from a long list. Just from quickly scanning Amendment 80, it looks to me as if about half the items on his list do not require photographs; they give the identity of the person but not the photo. That would seem to me to be exactly the kind of position which this Committee should take—and insist on, if need be—to see that the Government’s manifesto commitment is introduced in a proportionate way and not in a way that is likely to have serious deleterious consequences.
Lord Willetts (Con)
Well, it will be up to the Committee to decide. I very much hope the Minister will be able to provide some welcome to my amendment, because it is certainly drafted in a way that is intended to be consistent with both the Conservative manifesto and the important report from my noble friend Lord Pickles.
I shall end by painting a picture of a scenario which several noble Lords opposite have hinted at. It is a scenario that concerns me; I think it is unlikely, but it is possible. It is that we go into the next election and in the course of election day we have, for the first time in British political history, a significant number of voters being turned away from polling stations on the grounds that they do not possess a photo ID. We would then have an election won—and I hope it will be an election won by my party—by a party with a small majority, including quite small majorities in a range of marginal seats. We will find ourselves in an extremely difficult political and constitutional crisis if people are saying, “This is an election where a Government has won by a very small majority after we have seen, for the first time on our TV screens, voters being turned away”. I think that would be catastrophic for trust in our electoral system, and everything that we agree in this Committee must be proportionate, given that there are, in the background, risks such as that. I therefore hope that, within the spirit of the Conservative manifesto, it will be possible for the Government to accept my amendment.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
Before the noble Lord sits down, I will ask a question specifically addressed to his amendment. By the way, I wholly commend the thrust of what he is trying to do with the amendment and his incredibly bipartisan remarks about our constitution. I looked through his list on the basis of what I readily have to hand myself. Did he ever consider the simple bank card, as opposed to bank statements, mortgage statements et cetera? I understand that he is trying to make the list as broad as possible. For myself, I find the debit card or whatever the most ubiquitous and quite a sensitive form of identity. I would favour it over, for example, a cheque book. I cannot remember the last time I wrote a cheque.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I make no comment about that, but people increasingly use debit and credit cards. They carry them around on their person. In fact, some people now use their phones for everything. People are paperless even in relation to their statements and so on. I wonder whether that was something the noble Lord considered, because I am so with him in the thrust of what he is trying to achieve.
Lord Willetts (Con)
I take that point; this is not the perfect list. Indeed, there is a rather different agenda behind it. I shared at Second Reading my concern about lower rates of participation in voting and the difficulty of voter registration, especially for younger voters. It is odd that a Government driving forward a digital reform agenda in so many other areas are not doing so in this one. I believe in modernisation; I think digitisation is coming. It is very odd that we are not taking the Bill as an opportunity to introduce it in the electoral register. I also do not believe in lots of red tape and disproportionate burdens from it. By adding to the list, I am trying to reduce the amount of red tape as a barrier to people legitimately voting in elections.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to support the amendments to which I added my name: Amendment 80 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Willetts—he made a very strong case for the amendment, possibly modified to take account of what my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti said—and Amendment 78 in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayman. Again, my motivation in supporting these amendments stems mainly from my concern that the photo ID requirements will disproportionately exclude marginalised groups, including people in poverty and members of the GRT communities, who are also less likely to apply for a voter ID card, to some extent for the same reasons they do not have photo ID in the first place. The additions suggested by the noble Lord are much more likely to be held by these groups. For me, that is the key test: are these forms of identification that members of marginalised groups are more likely to have?
The noble Lord quoted the Pickles report. I will repeat the quote, because he rather rushed over it and it is worth emphasising:
“perfection must not get in the way of a practical solution.”
My fear is that perfection is getting in the way of not just a practical solution but, as I have said, inclusive democracy and citizenship. I am yet to hear a convincing justification for why this should be accepted as a proportionate response to the supposed problem of personation. Again, the noble Lord spoke eloquently about that.
I am also unclear why the Government are so opposed to a vouching system, as proposed in Amendment 78—they made it very clear in the Commons that they are opposed to it—not least given the fact, as my noble friend Lord Collins pointed out, that the Electoral Commission has supported the idea. Once again, it smacks of a worrying lack of trust in the electorate.
Finally, once again, I welcome the commitment to continued consultation with civil society groups to maximise accessibility for those most likely to need to apply for a voter card and/or who will find it most difficult to apply. Once again, will that include groups working with people in poverty and GRT communities? Will it include those who bring the expertise of experience to the table? That expertise will be of particular value in this context: who will know better what will work, or not, about applying for a voter card than the people who will make those applications? I am grateful to the Minister for promising last week to send me a list of those being consulted, but I would welcome an answer to this specific question about whose expertise will be taken into account in rolling out these provisions, because it is quite important.
The Lord Bishop of Coventry
My Lords, I offer your Lordships an apology for not being able to contribute to Committee for all sorts of reasons, but I said at Second Reading that I would support amendments that introduced mitigating factors to reduce the risk of unintended exclusion, particularly for that group of people the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, referred to: those on lower incomes. There is real risk that that could happen through this immediate introduction of photo ID.
That is why I was very glad to add my name to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, which, as he said, seeks to widen the forms of photo ID available and extend the list to include other forms of ID that do not include photographic ID. I was going to make similar points to say that the amendment is consistent with the approach taken in the local council pilot scheme in 2018-19. As has been said, it is entirely consistent with the earlier report from the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, and the gradualist introduction, if I may put it that way, of photo ID in Northern Ireland.
It seems that the purpose of the amendment is to reduce the risk of people living on lower incomes—a significant proportion of whom we know do not possess the acceptable photo ID—being disfranchised, which is my particular concern. That would simply be a form of non-recognition, which would be a moral injury to them and an injustice that would damage the UK’s traditions of democratic participation. The amendment seems to follow the logic of the inclusion of 60+ Oyster cards and blue badges, allowing for greater accessibility to particular groups of the electorate by making provision for those on lower income and other potentially marginalised groups to retain the highest chance of inclusion in the democratic process.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendments 63 to 69 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, to which I have added my name. I was surprised that we had a very long debate on Clauses 1 and 2 standing part but there was very little mention of any concern about the impact of this change on the overall turnout in elections, and the potential skewing of election results. I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, focus on elections that might be quite tightly fought with quite close results. You really might question those results, particularly in those constituencies where you might have a very tight result.
Before today, it struck me that this is really the big issue: there does not seem to be an issue about trust in our elections, certainly in relation to people who turn up at polling stations. I understand that there has been a problem with postal votes, but this reform does not touch that at all. I do not get it; I do not understand why there is this tremendous focus on photo ID for people who go to polling stations.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I agree with almost all of the previous contributions. I wish I had joined in on the previous group, but I was not here for all of it—although I certainly feel that I was. The debate covered a lot of the territory that we are going to talk about now.
For clarity, the Green Party opposes the whole premise on which the Government build their case for requiring voters to present ID. There is no real voter fraud. It is no good to keep bringing up Tower Hamlets, because that argument has been demolished already. This will disfranchise the most marginalised people in our population. It is voter suppression; there is absolutely no doubt about that.
Suppose we pretend for a moment that the Government are sincere in wanting to reduce election fraud. If that was so, they would accept a lot of the amendments in this group—for example, Amendment 64. Why on earth should that not be included? The Government could be absolutely clear by putting it in the Bill, so that we know exactly what they are thinking. Why not accept Amendment 78? If somebody has voter ID, they are accredited, so why should they not support somebody else who might have forgotten their ID?
I do not do anything where I have to show ID, although I know the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, says that she has to show it for a lot of things. The last time I was asked for ID was when I used my passport. I do not do anything that needs ID and there are a lot of people like me.
Personally, I think this is Trumpian and Putinesque. We have heard a lot about integrity and trust. I spoke to the Minister about the Government we have at the moment, our Prime Minister, No. 10 and the Cabinet Office, who quite honestly do not understand what integrity is about. They are happy to take money from dodgy Russian donors and happy to break the rules when it suits them. So please do not talk to us about integrity and trust on something like this, when it is clear that it is going to stop some people voting. That is a bad thing.
Of course, we did not hear an answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. Why are the Government so exercised about this when they have an 80-plus majority? Surely it should be this side of the Chamber that is concerned about voter fraud. The Government are bringing forward some terrible legislation. We sit here and listen to the Ministers—I have a huge amount of respect for most of them—and I just do not understand how they can back this Government. They are a terrible Government, with terrible ideas, and this is another of them.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, I want to return to what the Minister said in the last group, because it is going to be of great importance as this House proceeds with the Bill. I totally and completely refute his proposition that the Bill in its current form is covered by the Salisbury convention. My contention, which I will elaborate at greater length in future if need be, is that something as significant and of such great constitutional import as a requirement on all voters to have a wholly new form of photo ID is not covered by the Salisbury convention. What is covered is the requirement that there should be some form of voter ID—that is why I would not support the removal of Clause 1 in its entirety—but not photo ID. That is a fundamental distinction. Indeed, the conflict between the Blair Government, of which I was a member, and this House, which led to the loss of a substantial part of the ID cards Bill, was precisely that this House contended with a significant majority that there was not sufficient manifesto cover for the proposition being put forward.
I say this very directly to the Minister now, because I think this is going to be a very significant issue in due course. It is going to be particularly important that my noble friends on the two Front Benches of the Labour and Lib Dem parties—I am speaking to them as much as to the Minister at this point—do not fall for the argument that, simply because this Bill has come from the House of Commons and has photo ID in it, and because it is asserted that it is covered by the Salisbury convention, it is covered by the Salisbury convention. It is a particular tradition of this House, which goes to the heart of the constitution, that the occasions on which we are prepared to assert our power against the Government where they do not have manifesto cover particularly relate to constitutional issues, where we have a special role as guardian of the constitution to see that one particular party cannot gerrymander it at will, claiming a general manifesto commitment for something that specifically has a very big impact.
The noble Lord, Lord Willetts and I—I hope he does not mind me saying that he and I are old friends—both approach public policy from a fairly centrist perspective, applying rationality and so on. Not only was his speech on Amendment 80 brilliant and very compelling but he went to the absolute heart of this issue in his analysis of the distinction between the Government claiming that their manifesto contained, and gave a mandate for, an identity document requirement, and it being a photo-identity document requirement. Those are two fundamentally different propositions. The proposition that they are fundamentally different is made by the content of Amendment 80 itself, because although the noble Lord did not deconstruct his amendment, I have had time to deconstruct it since he moved it.
In Amendment 80 the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, lists 21 forms of personal identification. By my calculation, only five of them are necessarily photo IDs: driving licence, student ID card, 18+ student Oyster photocard, National Rail card and, I assume, the Young Scot National Entitlement card, because young people’s documents require photos. Of the other 16, only another three may—and I think it depends on who the issuing authority is—require a photo: a trade union membership card, a library card, and a workplace ID card. That varies very much between local authorities and trade unions, and so on. All of the rest are non-photo ID documents: birth certificate, marriage or civil partnership certificate, record of a decision on bail, bank or building society cheque book, and, and, and.
The noble Lord from the Conservative Benches made the argument that this is completely consistent with the Conservative Party manifesto. That point will be of huge importance as the House takes forward consideration of this Bill, passes amendments and then gets into what I assume will be—is very likely to be, if there is time in this Session; the sand is going through the hourglass quite rapidly—a significant standoff between this House and the other place. I have no doubt at all that not only is it within our powers but it will be our duty to resist the mandatory introduction of photo ID requirements. I suspect that Amendment 80 may well be the fundamental amendment that we take forward in some form in later stages of the Bill.
I will quickly deal with Amendments 78 and 64. We have dealt with Amendment 64, and I hope the Minister will be able to give us satisfaction on it. It is an absolutely crucial point. It is not enough for it to be possible to apply at the same time; it has to be a requirement that people can apply at the same time, or else it will become a matter of postcode lottery across the country as to whether you can apply for your identity document at the same time as you apply to register to vote.
One point that has been made which we have not debated enough is covered by Amendment 78. When I first came to the Bill, not being an expert in the evolution of the Government’s thinking, I thought that they were going to propose that people needed to turn up at the polling station with some form of ID. I thought that that alone was going to be off-putting. It never occurred to me until I read the Bill and heard what they were doing that not only were they going to have to turn up with some form of ID but it was not even sufficient for them to have an existing photo form of ID. Over and above that, even if you were going for a photo ID requirement—which, as I said, is not even covered by the Conservative manifesto—surely it would be proportionate for you to turn up with your passport or driving licence that is an existing form of photo ID. What is the great security risk of saying that people can turn up at a polling station with a passport or a driving licence? Why on earth can the Government not regard that as adequate?
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
The noble Lord made a thoroughly compelling speech, as did the noble Lord, Lord Willetts. As he is from my side, so to speak, I point out that I have a more fundamental objection than he does to a compulsory ID of whatever kind for our citizens. Because he has been supportive—to some extent, I am tempted to be of the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Willetts—can I put to him the question that I tempted the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, with earlier? If we are looking at safeguarding on the face of the primary legislation some categories that we believe will be accessible to people, but also looking at broadening these categories so that no one is deliberately or accidentally disenfranchised, what about simple debit cards?
I am playing devil’s advocate against myself because I spoke against clause stand part, but I am playing the game and trying to be constructive. It seems to me that there would be two tests—would there not?—for broadening the types of identification that we would put on the face of the legislation so that people could relax as we go forward.
The first test would be that this is documentation—a card, or whatever—that is ubiquitously available, and people have it already. Therefore we would not be putting in too many hurdles or obstacles. People have it already; ideally, they carry it around rather a lot, and it is not buried away in the attic or some other place so safe that it would be annoying to go looking for it. The second test would be that it is a reasonably secure document or object. Otherwise, if it is too easy to forge with a photocopier, what is the point?
If I am right about those two tests of security and broad availability, it seems to me that the simple banking card comes first on both criteria. It is, by definition, a very secure thing. That does not mean that it cannot be forged or stolen, but it is so ubiquitous—and used by people daily—that if someone loses it or it is pinched, they will report that immediately. They will not fail to notice that their bank statement, which was sitting on the doormat for three weeks, was lifted by their flatmate—if we really think that is going to happen. The bank card is very secure and is treasured by people, it is in ubiquitous supply in the broad community, and it is taken everywhere, whether to vote or not. There are also all sorts of incentives to protect its security. I put that to my noble friend, as I did to the noble Lord, Lord Willetts—and of course I am putting it to the Minister as well. If we are really serious about saying that this is nothing to do with putting hoops and hurdles in people’s way, why would this not have been thought of at the very outset?
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My noble friend makes a compelling point, which is really a point for the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, as he constructs that amendment that I very much hope he will bring back on Report, having taken account of this debate.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, I shall dial down the rhetoric a little here. First, I want to pick up what the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said with great conviction —that it was beyond the wildest imagination that this could be a deliberate attempt at voter suppression. The Minister made the same point in responding to an earlier group. The Committee owes it to both of them to take that in good faith. So I shall move on and say that I also take in good faith what the Minister has said at least twice during our proceedings, which is that he rejects the concept of the precautionary principle. I shall make an assumption, based on a fair amount of evidence—although that is not collected from these debates in particular—that he is also against the gold-plating of legislation.
I shall speak particularly to Amendment 80, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts. All the other amendments in the group have great merit and require careful consideration by the Minister, but Amendment 80 is what has attracted my attention for further comment. Incidentally, I was originally going to say that I did not believe it encompassed parliamentary passes—but I notice that item (q) in the list is “a workplace ID card”, so possibly we may qualify under that. It would be ironic, would it not, if a busy Member of Parliament seeking re-election, dashing to the polling station at 9.55 pm on realising that they had failed to vote, was turned away because their parliamentary pass was not sufficient identity to get into the building? I see that I am going to be intervened on by another noble Lord, who, like me, has a pass that does not qualify him to vote—but that is a separate issue.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
The point is that the MP would be turned away, because that pass does not mean that someone can turn up and vote. The pass is an accepted document with which someone could apply for a photo electoral ID card. If the noble Lord tries to turn up at the polling station at 9.55 pm with his parliamentary pass he will get very short shrift, because the Government will not regard it as a secure document.
Lord Stunell (LD)
The noble Lord makes an interesting point. At the 2017 election, when I was present at the normal polling station that I attend, I had some difficulty in preventing the polling clerk issuing me with a ballot paper. He was not deterred by the fact that I was disqualified by virtue of my membership of this House. I assure your Lordships that I rejected his tendered ballot paper—“tendered” with a small “t”, obviously.
The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, made a powerful point on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, and his report. He referenced the Pickles report recommendation 8, and further parts of the report have also been read into the record in this debate. Recommendation 8 said that there was no need to be over-elaborate, and utility bills would do. My two years of junior ministerial office were in the then Department for Communities and Local Government, whose Secretary of State was the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, and I am pretty sure that, unless the noble Lord has changed his tack very considerably, he will remain fundamentally opposed to gold-plating. He was an enthusiastic pursuer of the red tape challenge, which was designed to reduce the amount of legislation and regulation, and I do not even have to consider whether he would regard the spending of £180 million on fulfilling his report as a sensible use of public money, or proportionate. I do not even have to imagine whether he regards the present arrangements as over-elaborate. I am sure that in due course the noble Lord will speak for himself. No doubt he is wisely keeping out of the way at the moment, but at some point, when his memoirs are published, we shall get to the truth.
The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, talked about which demographic would be hit the most. We can debate that, but there is clearly a proxy, which has been mentioned already. Some parts of the population do not have bank accounts. I would just say to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, that for them, adding a credit or debit card to the list would not help. People who do not have bank accounts, and therefore do not have bank cards, are people who are very likely to be unable to produce evidence of other things either. But they nearly all have utility bills, and that seems to be a route that the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, recommended to the Government when he drew up his report.
The Minister should remember his own first principle, which is “No precautionary principle: don’t do anything unless there’s evidence to show it is needed”. There is no evidence to show that this is needed. His next principle is “Don’t gold-plate”—and he should remember the red tape challenge. The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, has provided the Government with the solution they are looking for, which would allow them to say to whoever they have to give an account to, “We’ve fulfilled our manifesto pledge, and we have a scheme that doesn’t strip out electors and reduce their propensity to come along and vote”. I support all the amendments in the group, but Amendment 80 ought to be the foundation stone for the Government to do a diplomatic and nuanced U-turn.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak first to my Amendment 66A and, in so doing, I draw the Committee’s attention to my entry in the register, particularly my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I see this as what I call a “two Ps” amendment: a probing amendment about the practicalities of what the Government are suggesting. I thank Solace, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives, for the wide and helpful briefing that it sent about this. It is important that we consider this briefing, because many of those chief executives are the returning officers in constituencies up and down the country.
The briefing talks about the impracticality of suggesting that the voter ID card can be applied for and supplied if people apply by 5 pm on the day before the poll takes place, which, as it points out, is inconsistent with every other form of voter application—whether it be for a postal or a proxy vote—unless it is a medical emergency. We talked about the practicalities of Northern Ireland and it is also inconsistent with Northern Ireland, where this is not allowed to happen until 5 pm on the day before the poll.
It is impractical because it places extra burdens on those administering an election at their busiest time: the week before the election. Anybody who has seen what happens in an electoral office a week before an election will understand that the administrators are already under great pressure to ensure the security and integrity of the election. To suggest that people can turn up until 5 pm on the day before the poll to seek one of these voter ID cards is impractical. The Government’s impact assessment suggests that 50% of people will apply by post and 50% will apply in person. It states that the closer you get to an election, the more people will apply in person. So people could be trying to sort out postal votes and ensuring that the ballot boxes and everything else are in place with queues of people seeking this ID.
In this respect, the Government’s impact assessment is detailed. It suggests that the cards will take approximately five to 10 minutes to produce, assuming that everybody has the things that they need to produce one. It suggests that there be one machine per constituency, which I think works out at just over two on average per local authority.
It is inconceivable that this requirement is practical. So I ask the Minister: why was the stipulation of 5 pm on the day before the poll selected; why is it not consistent with Northern Ireland; and, specifically, what discussion took place with Solace and other returning officers, who would have pointed out that this was impractical? If the Government did consult those who administer elections, what advice came back on the practicalities of delivering this?
I will now speak to some of the other amendments, particularly weighing in with my support for those to which my noble friend Lord Rennard has put his name. I will talk specifically about Amendments 64, 68, 78 and 80.
On Amendment 64, as the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, has mentioned on a number of occasions, it is absolutely vital that when people register to vote, they should be able at the same time, as an automatic right laid down in the Bill, to apply for the voter ID card. I see no practical reason why that should not happen. There is no practical reason why returning officers, Solace or anybody else who administers elections would say that is not consistent. So what would stop the Government allowing that to happen as an automatic right and including it in the Bill?
Amendment 68 is important because it comes back to the powers of the Secretary of State, which we have talked about a lot. The Secretary of State could, by decree, by the stroke of their pen, decide what documentation is or is not available. I shall come in a second to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, which is really important. I see no reason for that provision.
Amendment 78 is also important. The noble Lord, Lord True, has on many occasions referenced Canada having voter ID. It is absolutely not true to say that to vote in Canada, you have to have voter ID. If you turn up without voter ID, there is a system called vouching. Somebody can vouch for you, if they have some ID, to say that you are the person who you say you are and they vouch for your identification.
I see no practical reason why that should not happen if this clause stands part of the Bill. It is sensible, it is not unknown across the world, it is practical and it happens. In Canada, it does not happen significantly, but it happens. As many people have said, if somebody turns up without their voter ID at 9.55 pm with their spouse, friend or loved one, I see no reason why that person could not vouch for them.
The Minister mentioned people turning up to a polling station and being asked to return, as he was. For some people, that is impractical. If you work 12-hour shifts and are going just before you start work, you cannot turn back. For people with childcare responsibilities, it may be impractical or impossible to do that. That is why, if you turn up without your ID but with somebody else who has some ID, vouching on the Canadian system should be allowed. I see no reason why it should not. It does not undermine the integrity of the ballot. Somebody who has the appropriate ID could vouch for somebody who has not whom they know. There is then a way of checking, if there is personation by the second person, who the person has vouched for—but there is no evidence in Canada that that actually happens.
I come to the most powerful and important intervention in the debate on this group, which was from the noble Lord, Lord Willetts. He made it very clear as a member of the Conservative Party who sits on the Conservative Benches exactly what was in both the 2017 and the 2019 Conservative manifestos: that voter ID would be required. Neither manifesto used the word “photographic”. That is key in terms of the Salisbury convention and the Conservatives being able to carry out their manifesto commitment. In terms of providing extra ID, the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, showed a practicality and pragmatism that I would expect his Front Bench to replicate. If not, the cat is out of the bag. The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, is trying to make it as easy as possible, if this provision comes in, for people to exercise their democratic right to vote.
If the Government, from the Front Bench, refuse to accept that mandatory photographic ID is not required to vote, then they will be saying that they will be making it as difficult as possible for people to exercise their vote. This is the litmus test. We must all listen to the answer to this particular set of amendments.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, not just for his amendment but for making it very clear that the Conservatives would be carrying out their manifesto commitment without introducing photo ID.
Lord Desai (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I shall make a very short point about Amendment 80. The noble Lord should look carefully at whether many of these indicators are male-oriented. Women do not have their names on documents such as mortgage statements and utility bills. It would make more sense to have one particular card, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, suggested. It would be personal, in the name of the man or woman.
I want to add that I have my Freedom Pass in London. It is a very good thing. I could show it around.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, again I thank all those who have spoken in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, outside what he imagined to be the walls of Jericho, sounded a very loud trumpet call to lead his Front Bench into a battle over the Salisbury convention. I will not pursue this. It is for everybody in the House to decide to what extent the opinion of the other place and the Government’s manifesto should be respected or not. I made a statement about that at the beginning of our proceedings.
I was asked about the card and the words “is or has”. I shall come to this shortly because it is important. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, that any voter who does not have one of the forms of identification listed in the Bill will be able to apply for a voter card. There is a wide range. I know that my noble friend Lord Willetts wants to extend it. The card is supplementary. All the other types of identification are listed. Expired identification will also be permitted. Not every elector will be required to have the voter card. People will be able to apply for it at the same time as they register to vote, so the process will be as easy and accessible as possible. If they are already registered and need a voter card, they will be able to apply online, on paper or in person. It is our ambition that they will be able to do so until 5 pm on the day before polling day. That was challenged by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. I will come back to it. The Government would regard that as unnecessarily restrictive.
I am not a parliamentary draftsman, but I am advised that the wording,
“is or has applied to be”
is there because, on the wording of Amendment 64, it could be construed that someone who is applying should be able to get it. You obviously have to be on the register to get the voter card. Either you are on it, or you have applied to register. You send your letter or your online application in. With both applications, the process will be that the registration officer will check the correctness of the application to register. When someone is on the register, they will be able to have the voter card. It is sequential, but the application can be done at the same time. This is the purport of why these words are there.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
The Minister has been extremely helpful on this point. An extremely important statement has been made from the Front Bench. To close the point completely, in the regulations that the Government are going to produce, will the Minister undertake that this will be made an explicit requirement of all electoral registration officers? Making available the facility to apply for both at the same time is not just something that they can do; it is something that they must do.
Lord True (Con)
Certainly, I would hope and intend for that to be the case. I am not writing the regulations personally. I am not the Minister in DLUHC which administers this. I shall certainly pass on the views of the Committee. I reassure the Committee that this is absolutely in the spirit of making life simpler for registration officers. It is certainly the Government’s wish that people should be able to do this. It is not necessarily their intention that everyone should get a voter card—only those who need one. All the other types of identification currently listed in the Bill will be accepted.
Of course, we have undertaken extensive engagement with the electoral sector about this, including with Solace, with civil society organisations, and with those representing the kind of groups to which the right reverend Prelate referred. This is a rolling engagement in order to inform them of the proposals, to gather feedback on the plans and to identify ways to ensure our implementation plans are clear, comprehensive and inclusive for all electors. This engagement continues as officials refine implementation plans. They will be listening to what is said in your Lordships’ House, with a focus on exploring many of the aspects that noble Lords have raised, such as the needs of particular groups and the best ways of communicating.
New Section 13BD is worded specifically so that a person does not have to wait until a registration application has been determined before applying for the card. They can do both at the same time, but they have to be on the register first. In practice, this means that the applications can be put in at the same time.
I turn to the specific amendments. I have partly addressed Amendment 64. I understand precisely where the noble Baroness is coming from. I fully accept that she was quite right to raise that point. I hope that I have been able to give some reassurance.
We do not believe that Amendments 65 to 69 are necessary. They provide for powers that are already in the Bill and make suggestions that are already part of the policy, although not ones requiring legislative definition. I set out some of the policy intentions earlier. They were clearly stated in the voter identification policy statement, published on 6 January.
On Amendment 65, new Section 13BD(10)(a) enables the Government to make provision about the form of a document, including digital. I note that this probing amendment says that it should be in digital form.
On Amendment 66, new Section 13BD(4)(b) enables the Government to make regulations about how cards will be issued, including by post and so on and so forth. We will make sure that this is in the record. I fully accept that these things need to be covered.
Amendment 67 asks about date of issue. The card would have a date. New Section 13BD(9) is about the power to make regulations on what information will be on the document. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, is not in her place. The additional kinds of information referred to in that section of the schedule is precisely to allow for something like the date or name of the issuing local authority. They will have different local authority names, so one cannot have a single card. These are the kinds of additional points. In reply to Amendment 68, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, it is certainly envisaged that the date of issue of the card will be on it.
I thank the noble Baroness again for putting forward Amendments 70 to 73. For noble Lords who are not sure which amendments I am talking about, these are probing amendments concerning the arrangements that will be in place for anonymous electors. I can certainly confirm that officials have carried out extensive engagement with various civil society groups that highlighted their interest in anonymous voting arrangements. This is important. In developing the clauses, an extensive consultation has also been carried out with the AEA on how we could make the provision work effectively for anonymous voters.
I assure the noble Baroness that we share a joint aim. There may be a relatively small number of people here but they are very vulnerable, important people. We share a joint aim that those who rely on anonymity—including some people who have been subjected to the most vile abuse and violence imaginable—will not be negatively impacted by the changes. The Government recognise that there are electors who need to register and vote anonymously for a variety of reasons; I have referred to the kinds of circumstances in which other vulnerable electors may not wish for their name or location to be available on the register.
Anonymous electors who wish to vote in person at a polling station will be able to apply for an anonymous elector document, which will enable effective verification of identity while also protecting the voter’s anonymity. We believe that the changes proposed by Amendments 70 and 71 might undermine the objectives of the voter identification policy. Removing the photograph from the anonymous elector document, for instance, would make anonymous electors, often some of the most vulnerable members of society, potentially an easier target for anyone seeking to commit fraud.
Amendments 72 and 73 propose regulation-making powers relating to the application process for anonymous elector documents and to the exact materials used in the manufacture of those documents. The powers that Amendment 72 provides for are already in the Bill. I have not been advised on which particular clause but I will let the noble Baroness know; I did say to my faithful team, who are absolutely wonderful, that it would be helpful to the House if I were able to give details of clauses when responding. For the reason I have given, the Government do not think that taking an inflexible approach to the production of documents, as set out in Amendment 73, is desirable. With those assurances, I ask that those amendments are not pressed.
Amendment 78 would introduce an attestation process for those without necessary identification. This was given very considerable thought by my colleagues during policy development. However, there is a risk that, if someone brings another elector to the poll, these provisions could be exploited by unscrupulous individuals and might allow a ballot paper to be issued to a person who claims to be somebody else, or who is ineligible to vote in an election. The issues are balanced but we have concluded that any form of attestation would be an unacceptable avenue for this kind of fraud, undermining the core aim of promoting electoral integrity; so, after reflection, it is not something that the Government can support.
As I said earlier, photographic voter identification is, in our submission—and as agreed by the Electoral Commission—the most secure way to prove that someone is who they say they are. On Amendment 66A from the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, our aim is that electors without accepted photographic identification will, as he says, be able to apply for a voter card from their local authority until 5 pm the day before polling day. The noble Lord wishes to have a cut-off date four and a half days earlier. We do not, on the basis of our discussions, think that that is desirable or necessary. Given the great importance that the Committee rightly attaches to the ability to vote, we would like to be more liberal in our approach to making the voter card more readily available. Agreeing to restrict the amount of time for which it was available would not be a step forward; I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press that amendment.
Lord Scriven (LD)
Will the Minister clarify one issue? Why is the provision to allow an application up until 5 pm on the day before the election considered to be consistent with Northern Ireland? It is not consistent with Northern Ireland. when speaking to electoral officers, what factors suggested that having those extra four days would make it practical to deliver this in the way that the Government are suggesting?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, we believe on the basis of our discussions that it is, and should be, practical. Whether or not you agree with the policy, it should surely be desirable that the card be made available up to the latest possible moment.
Amendments 79 to 81 relate to the range of identity documents; my noble friend Lord Willetts came out with a very long list. As I said on the previous group, the list of acceptable documents in the Bill was drawn up against the widest possible range of documents that would meet strong standards of security. That is the conclusion that we have reached. The Electoral Commission said that photo-only identification had the greatest security value but, as I said on the previous group—and it is there on page 81, lines 24 and 25 of the Bill—other documents may be added. However, for the reasons of security that I gave on the previous group and give again, we do not believe that the list should be extended in the way that my noble friend suggests, and we therefore cannot support this amendment.
We also see little merit in Amendment 63—which I should have referred to—proposing an annual statement from the Secretary of State on numbers of documents issued. Only individual local authorities will have the complete set of cards issued, as they will not be issued centrally. When the Electoral Commission does the post-operative examination of what happened, I am sure that it will consider those figures.
On Amendments 83 and 84, I am pleased to say that, as set out in paragraph 22 of Schedule 1, we already intend that returning officers, through their polling station staff, will record and collate information on anyone who applies for the issue of a ballot paper and is refused. This will be set out in secondary legislation, and we are working on the details with the Electoral Commission and returning officers. Of course, the polling station will already have informed the person concerned that they have been refused a ballot paper and why, so we think that a letter is an unnecessary further step. As I said, secondary legislation will cover this point.
In the light of this, these amendments would ultimately either duplicate or extend processes which are provided for in the Bill—making them either unnecessary or unacceptable to the Government—while only increasing the administrative burden on the electoral sector; for example, an enormous list of documents might do that in itself. For this reason and the other reasons mentioned, I beg that these amendments are not pressed.
I gave a long response, as this is quite a large group. I hope that I have managed to address at least the main points that were made.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
The Minister is making important new points in his closing remarks that are of significance to the Committee. He has drawn our attention to new paragraph (IQ), inserted by paragraph 18 of Schedule 1, on page 81, which says:
“Regulations may make provisions varying paragraph (1H), (1I) or (1J)”,
which give the list of acceptable documents,
“by … adding a reference to a document to any of those paragraphs”.
He has just said to the Committee that that could allow the Government to extend it to any other documents. My reading of that is that it could allow for the extension to a document which is not a photo ID document. Have I correctly construed that new paragraph?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the Government’s policy position is clear. I will probably get wrapped over the knuckles as I may not have construed the Bill correctly because of feeling hungry at 7.29 pm. If I did not then, once we come back, I will correct the record. Certainly, the provision is there. As I said in my speech on the previous group, if the Government consider that there are other documents which can meet the security standards required—some photographic documents currently do not and are therefore excluded—then that is why we were taking that potential power in the Bill. Regarding the type of document, the Government’s policy remains as stated. We are for photographic identification.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, I am sorry to labour the point, but can the Minister write to us on this? It is one thing for him to say what the Government’s policy is but what the law says is another. The issue here is whether that power would require documents which are added to be photo ID documents or whether they could be any other item on the list by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, in his Amendment 80. I am offering the Minister a possible way out in due course for accepting the noble Lord’s amendment by the back door.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this lengthy debate, and the Minister for his detailed responses. I am sure that there are areas of these amendments that we will return to on Report but for now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
(1A) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(b), “relevant provision” means— (a) where the person is or will be registered in a register of parliamentary electors in Northern Ireland, section 10(4A)(b), 10A(1A)(b) or 13A(2A)(b), and(b) where the person is or will be registered in a register of parliamentary electors in Great Britain and does not also fall within sub-paragraph (a), section 8(7A) of the Representation of the People Act 1985.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the requirement relating to preparation of date of birth lists for polling stations in Northern Ireland, so far as that requirement relates to date of birth lists for proxy voters.
“the form must include details of the documents the voter needs to bring to the polling station, namely—(i) in the case of an elector (other than an elector with an anonymous entry) or a proxy, any of the forms of identification for the time being referred to in rule 37(1H);(ii) in the case of an elector with an anonymous entry, the elector’s official poll card and an anonymous elector’s document showing the same electoral number as the electoral number shown on the official poll card.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that, in inserted paragraph (3ZA) for rule 28 of Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983, the reference to rule 37(1H) catches documents listed in rule 37(1I) and (1J) of that Schedule (as amended by the Bill). The amendment also makes separate provision about the details to be included in poll cards sent to electors with anonymous entries.
“(a) details of the documents the voter needs to produce when applying for a ballot paper, namely—(i) in the case of an elector (other than an elector with an anonymous entry) or a proxy, any of the forms of identification for the time being referred to in rule 37(1H);(ii) in the case of an elector with an anonymous entry, the elector’s official poll card and an anonymous elector’s document showing the same electoral number as the electoral number shown on the official poll card, and”.Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment amends inserted paragraph (4A) for rule 29 of Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983 by requiring the large notice displayed inside each polling station in England, Wales and Scotland to contain information about the relevant proof of identity requirements for electors with anonymous entries as well as for others voting in person.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in Lord True’s name at page 72, line 12.
Member’s explanatory statement
The definition of “electoral number” in the inserted paragraph (1L) of rule 37 of Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983 means that the word “current”, in the inserted paragraph (1K), is not needed. This amendment therefore leaves it out.
Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement and give it a partial welcome, 12 years into this Government. A year ago, the independent Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities published its report, which within hours was unravelling. It has been discredited by many prominent experts and individuals.
As my honourable friend Taiwo Owatemi MP said in the Commons:
“If both the Sewell report and the strategy fail to identify the root causes of racial and ethnic disparities, how can either possibly hope to tackle them? That is why the strategy was always going to be hopelessly ineffective and short-sighted, and that is why it will fail to deliver for black, Asian and minority ethnic communities.”—[Official Report, Commons, 17/3/22; col. 1073.]
The answer that she received from the Minister there was that:
“A rhetorical trick is happening around this question.”—[Official Report, Commons, 17/3/22; col. 1075.]
Perhaps the Minister can explain why her Government find it so hard to accept that we still have a country where there clearly is discrimination and that racial disparities are the result of historic, endemic and still existing structural racism. Unless we accept that and build from that understanding, both individually and organisationally, we will not solve the terrible racial disparities, many of which are described in the original report.
Although I partially welcome this statement, it is based on the wrong premise. It has some good ideas but quite a few half-baked ones. Let us take employment, for example. It has failed completely to implement mandatory ethnicity pay-gap reporting, despite repeated calls from the CBI, the TUC and the Labour Party to do just that. Unlike with gender pay gaps, there is currently no legal requirement for UK businesses to disclose their ethnicity pay data. Will the UK Government follow the recent recommendation of the Women and Equalities Committee and introduce mandatory ethnicity pay-gap reporting by 2023, including urging employers to publish a supporting action plan?
The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has previously called for mandatory reporting, similar to the rules in place for the gender pay gap, to apply to all large employers. Commenting on the Government’s decision not to adopt mandatory reporting at this stage, Ben Willmott, head of public policy at the CIPD, said:
“The Government has missed an opportunity to tackle racial discrimination and inequality in the workplace by failing to introduce mandatory ethnicity pay reporting. Unfortunately, we know from previous schemes that a voluntary approach will not help drive the changes that are needed in many organisations.”
For example, if the pay gap is non-existent at entry level but significantly skewed at more senior levels, that can help inform the areas of focus. Employers might decide to, for example, invest in mentoring, with a focus on supporting particularly under-represented groups to progress, or in assessing the progression path to interrogate and root out baked-in bias. The TUC recently warned that insecure work is tightening the grip of structural racism in the labour market, with ethnic minority workers overrepresented on zero-hour contracts. Will the Minister urge the Government to introduce the long-awaited employment Bill to tackle zero-hour contracts?
Health, with a long section in the report, brings one of its major suggestions: for the establishment of an office for health disparities, to look into the issue and to work alongside the NHS to reduce differences in areas such as healthy life expectancy, and the propensity to develop some conditions. There are two issues regarding the NHS, and I declare an interest as a non-executive director of a health trust who has been on the workforce race equality course in the last month or so.
One issue is health inequalities, most starkly demonstrated in the pandemic in the unequal way that it affected and cost lives in our ethnic minority communities, but we know this to be the case over a whole range of health matters. How does the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities intend to change this? What levers will it pull to create the culture change and the investment change which will be necessary? The other issue is employment, concerning the treatment and promotion of ethnic minority employees in the NHS. White applicants are 1.6 times more likely to be appointed from shortlisting, compared with BME applicants. This figure has got worse in the last year or so.
BME staff are 1.6 times more likely to enter formal disciplinary process compared with white staff. The number of BME board members in trusts has increased —we should be very pleased about that. The workforce race equality indicators used in the NHS, which are very powerful tools indeed, will have a significant impact over a period of time. What they say relating to perceptions of discrimination, bullying, harassment and abuse—and on beliefs regarding equal opportunities in the workplace—is that they have not improved over time for BME staff.
It is astonishing that there is so little reference to policing in the Minister’s Statement. It was the actions of the police in the United States which sparked the protests here and led to the commissioning of the Sewell report. Trust and confidence in policing are absolutely fundamental to communities feeling safe and secure, and for addressing disadvantage and racial disparity in every other area of life. What action will the Minister take in the action plan to address a transformation in the culture of our policing which so desperately needs to address racial disparity? The report says that it wants to
“bridge divides and create partnerships between the police and communities”.
Will the Minister explain how she thinks that we can possibly bridge that divide when black schoolgirls are being strip-searched? Is she aware that this is not an isolated incident? The Metropolitan Police’s own figures show that, in 2021, 25 young people under 18 were strip-searched. Most were black or from other ethnic minorities. Some 60% were black, and only two of the 25 children were white.
The Conservative Government have had 12 years to act. Instead, they have failed to deliver and failed to acknowledge the genuine reasons for racial and ethnic disparities in Britain today. Britain and its communities deserve better.
Lord Dholakia (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for this Statement. There is progress is some areas of disparities, while questions arise on other matters which need clarification. The first major question relates to the Covid pandemic and the Government’s disregard for the disproportional impact on ethnic minorities. Many workers have lost their lives. The pandemic showed how heavily we depend on our diverse communities to serve our NHS. Will the Minister commit to including the impact of the pandemic on ethnic disparity in the terms of reference for the Covid inquiry?
I had to enter a local hospital for a procedure recently, and throughout the seven days I was there I did not meet a single white person. All the services were provided by minorities from various parts of the world. How can we adequately thank them—instead of criticising their appearances as postboxes, as the Prime Minister once said? The actions set out by the government plan do not go nearly far enough to create a more inclusive society. They kick the can down the road on most issues with the creation of new strategies and frameworks in the years to come.
The new framework for stop and search will not build trust between the police and the ethnic communities they serve, unless they end suspicionless stop and search due to its disproportionate impact on minorities. On policing, I was shocked to hear from some crime commissioners that they do not intend to appoint additional police officers. Underrepresentation of police in recruitment, retention and promotion still remains a concern after over 50 years. This is not going to help the adversarial relations between the police and black communities. It is a shame on our police that a young, black student was stripped and searched intimately last week. How are the Government to put these matters right? The Government must be held to account for their actions.
It is worrying that the Government have set out an action plan to tackle inequality based on recommendations from a commission which concluded that there was no systemic racism in Britain. The Inclusive Britain strategy, published on Wednesday evening, was developed in response to a controversial report by the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities last year. The commitments in the action plan include revamping the history curriculum for schoolchildren, a cash injection for school pupils who have fallen behind during the pandemic, and clamping down on online racist abuse through new legislation. On this, we do not need to look far: simply examine a football match on a Saturday afternoon to see how much we hate the extent of racism which is perpetrated on football grounds, and the action taken by many football players by taking the knee.
Moreover, I understand that the Department for Education will invest up to £75 million to deliver a state scholarship programme for students in higher education. The Government aim to improve maternal health outcomes for ethnic-minority women, a disparity which experts have linked to systematic racism. I trust that the Minister will have answers to some of these questions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for the points they raised. I will try to deal with them as best as I can, one by one. I thank the noble Baroness for her limited support for the report. The report has, in many cases, gone down well. There are clearly things with which people do not agree, and we are listening to them. Should any noble Lord have anything which they would want to write to me about the report, I will give an undertaking to discuss it with the Minister in the other place, Kemi Badenoch, and get back to them.
The noble Baroness asked me about structural racism. I cannot rule out that some organisations in the UK may be institutionally racist. Of course, that is why we are funding the Equality and Human Rights Commission to strengthen its investigative work. I also believe that the term should be applied based on evidence. Often, the causes of racial disparity are complex, and not rooted in discrimination or prejudice. As the commission said, they did not find clear evidence for it in the areas it examined. This does not mean that people do not experience racism, but institutional racism is deeper, and we need evidence to say that it is there. I understand that there are structural reasons why some ethnic groups have better or worse outcomes than others. The new strategy aims to deal with those root causes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, raised the issue of the ethnicity pay gap. We are publishing guidance to employers on voluntary ethnicity pay reporting by summer 2022. No one should have to worry about why they are not being given the same opportunities as their colleagues. Ethnicity pay gap reporting is one of the tools which employers can use to build transparency and trust among their employees. It may not be the most appropriate tool for every type of employer seeking to ensure fairness in the workplace. It is also a complex measure and can be affected by many factors—meaning that it is easy for the data to be misinterpreted or misunderstood. We want to help those employers who want to use ethnicity pay gap reporting to ensure that their approach allows for meaningful comparisons to be made between employers. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has extensively consulted with experts and employers to identify these issues. We will be using this consultation, and robust evidence, to design a trustworthy reporting system which helps employers to identify causes of pay disparities. However, we reserve the right to introduce legislation at a future point, if and when the reporting tools are sufficiently developed, effective in driving positive change and accessible to more businesses.
The noble Baroness asked me why we had not mandated ethnicity pay reporting. A meaningful pay gap reporting standard for ethnicity will necessarily need to be very different from the one for gender reporting—which uses just two categories and we were discussing last week. We will not be legislating for mandatory reporting at this stage; rather, we will support employers with voluntary reporting. However, we reserve the right, as I have already said, to introduce legislation at a future time.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, talked about the NHS Race and Health Observatory, which found widespread ethnic inequalities across a range of health services, with some communities found to have particularly poor access, experiences and outcomes. Why are the findings in our report so different? We welcome the NHS Race and Health Observatory’s examination of health disparities in the UK today. The Government are committed to reducing unacceptable disparities in health outcomes and experience of care, including by ethnicity, many of which have been further highlighted and exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic. The Department of Health and Social Care will publish a health disparities White Paper later this year, which will set out impactful measures to address ill health and health disparities, so that a person’s background does not dictate their prospects for a healthy life ahead of them.
We got to the point of asking about low trust in police among the ethnic minorities, particularly among young people. Recent events have raised serious issues with the police, and it is right that the Government ask those difficult questions to drive positive change. The Government, with policing partners, remain committed to driving forward good progress and improving trust in policing and crime. Our police are more diverse than ever before. Forces have worked hard to improve community engagement and we have seen major improvements in how the police deal with racist crimes, but we know that there is more to do. That is why attracting more officers from a wide range of ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds is a core ambition of our drive to recruit an extra 20,000 officers. The government response to CRED, along with wider activity being delivered across government and policing, remains vital to ensuring that we create safer streets and neighbourhoods for all our community. Our plan is to improve training to provide police officers with the practical skills that they need to interact with communities. That is a matter for the Home Office and, if there are any particular questions that noble Lords would like me to raise with the Home Office, I am happy to do so and report back.
Both the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, raised the issue of the outrageous case of a black 15 year-old Hackney schoolgirl who was strip-searched. I cannot comment on this case, as I am not familiar with its details, but it raises issues of serious concern, and I shall raise them with my ministerial colleagues in the Home Office and the Department for Education. I believe that there is an Urgent Question tomorrow, when noble Lords will have the opportunity to put their questions to my noble friend the Minister at the Home Office. Let me be absolutely clear: the behaviour of the police in this case was totally unacceptable. The Metropolitan Police apologised on Tuesday for the child’s truly regrettable treatment, and it is vital that the IOPC concludes its investigation into this case and that any findings are acted on swiftly.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, raised the issue of the Government being committed to an inclusive Britain, when the powers of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill are used in a discriminatory manner against ethnic minorities. These powers are not discriminatory. When making use of public order powers, the police must ensure that their use is balanced, proportionate and in line with human rights and equalities legislation. Through their training, authorised professionals practise continuous personal development in the police to strive for their management of any protests getting the right balance. The Home Office, again, has conducted an overarching equalities impact assessment for the Bill to consider the impact the measures will have on those with particular protected characteristics.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, raised the point about the impact of Covid-19 on ethnic minorities. On 3 December 2021, we published the final report to the Prime Minister on progress to address Covid-19 health disparities. The report summarises government work to address those disparities since the end of May 2021 and considers the Government’s overall approach to tackling Covid-19 disparities since the review commenced in June. Thanks to our award-winning analysis and new research, backed by more than £7 million in government funding, we now have a much better understanding of the factors that have driven the higher infection and mortality rates among ethnic minority groups. To reduce the health disparities we have seen during the pandemic, the Government will accept and implement the recommendations from the final Covid-19 disparities report.
Stop and search is one of the many vital tools used by the police. It is very important that it is used proportionately and not in any discriminatory way. The police will continue their training to understand how best to use that tool, which in some cases is quite appropriate.
Baroness Warsi (Con)
My Lords, for all the criticism that this report has rightly faced about its findings, many of which are flawed, I tentatively welcome parts of it, not least because it has among its stated intentions a clear acknowledgment that the Government must build trust and a sense that every individual in our society must be treated fairly. As the report says, we must acknowledge failings, improve actions, behaviours and systems that led to the loss of trust, and the Government and other stakeholders must do so with honesty and transparency.
In this spirit, can my noble friend explain why, despite the Government’s commitment to adopt a definition of Islamophobia, they have failed to adopt the APPG cross-party, non-legally binding, agreed definition, which has been adopted by all political parties, including the Conservative Party in Scotland, local authorities, universities, the NUS, charities and numerous other organisations? It is supported by over 800 British Muslim organisations and underpinned by more than 100 academics who are experts in this area. Why is the definition accepted by large sections of the community that it seeks to protect not acceptable to government?
Why, despite promising to appoint two advisers to review the definition nearly three years ago, has only one been appointed? Even he has yet to be engaged by government or given any clarity as to his remit; he has not even been given terms or reference or any resources to support his work. I know that my noble friend will be appalled to learn that he has not even had the decency of a response to his correspondence with No. 10 and from two separate Secretaries of State. Can my noble friend therefore say how many times in the last three years a Minister has met their own cross-government working group on anti-Muslim hatred? When did the meeting last take place?
I am sure my noble friend will agree that this Government’s commitment to equality should be judged not by what they say their intention is or what they intend to do but by what they actually do.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I am grateful for my noble friend’s broad support for the report and the actions. I am alarmed by the other points that she raises about meetings and resourcing et cetera, and I hope she will allow me to take this back to the Minister and write to confirm the position.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I totally endorse the remarks of the noble Baroness—I was about to call her my noble friend, as she is my friend—Lady Warsi. It really is time that we all, on a cross-party basis, gripped the Islamophobia definition. If we do not, we are in danger of having a hierarchy of racisms in this country, with some groups feeling less represented than others. None of us wants that.
I welcome the Minister’s tone and sensitivity, as always, and some aspects of the Statement and the document that goes with it. We are told that there will be new attention to history in the curriculum, but I hope that, when the noble Baroness goes back, as she promises to do, on our behalf to her colleagues in government, she addresses the fact that some Ministers, even in the last couple of years, have said really insensitive things about the Black Lives Matter movement and even about Black History Month, which feeds the so-called culture wars but do not feed the kind of conversation that we all want to have about inclusion.
On pay and other issues around enforcement, I welcome the fact that the action plan talks about reinvesting in the EHRC in enforcement activity and having a landmark new fund of £250,000 to help victims seek enforcement. I am afraid that, legal fees being what they are, £250,000 is not enough. I suggest to the Minister that, if any form of regulation is taken seriously by the Government, there should be some centralised state and government responsibility and it should not all be left to individuals to take up cases.
Finally, on policing, I am sure we welcome what the Minister said about encouraging black and other minority police officers to join the force. But every time we create, in this House and the other place, a new, broad, draconian police power, existing biases will mean that, by accident or design, it is used to the detriment of race equality and against certain marginalised groups in particular. I welcome the Minister’s invitation to a meeting with some of us on a cross-party basis, if she would not mind.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I hope my track record speaks for itself, in that I am very happy to meet noble Lords on a cross-party basis. I am pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, is pleased with the EHRC investment. I take the point about legal fees, and of course I will discuss that with the Minister—without any promises. On the definition of Islamophobia, which the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and my noble friend Lady Warsi raised, I am afraid that we cannot accept the APPG definition of Islamophobia because we do not want to adopt a definition that would conflict with the Equality Act.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I have two questions. How will the new community consultation arrangements differ from the Section 106 police-community consultative groups established following the Scarman inquiry? And how will the Government counter the inevitable accusations that the new geographic stop and search data will give the police the excuse they need to target innocent black people?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I will need to go back to my colleagues in the Home Office to see how the consultation will differ, and I will provide an answer to the noble Lord. On the issue of stop and search and the targeting of and focusing on young black people, that is not what we want and that is not what we are striving to do. But the question the noble Lord asked is relevant, and again I will feed that into the system, get an answer and write to him.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the Statement. I am celebrating that, finally, we are discussing race across all parties in this House and the other place. My noble friend said that it is difficult to get employers to put reporting on a legal footing. Maybe my noble friend would suggest that we start with the public sector, where a lot of entrants come in from minority communities but, as they progress through the organisation, they become less and less. I want to give a tiny example from my home city. I know I bang on about my home city, but it is quite relevant. It used to have better representation within the public sector 15 or 20 years ago than it has now. How do we monitor progress being made through organisations, particularly through the public sector, where people come in in large numbers at entry and then disappear when they get towards middle and top?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My noble friend raises a very interesting question. On the issue of how we monitor the recruitment and attrition of ethnic minorities, I might start with the Department for Work and Pensions. I will talk to our HR team and see whether I can glean any information there. I know it has data, and I will be very pleased to see it. I would like to take the point about starting with the public sector back to Minister Badenoch and see what we can do.
I am pleased we are discussing race without feeling intimidated in any way. As I said on Thursday, in the International Women’s Day debate, we should be free to speak and tolerant of each other’s positions. I hope that, as the work unfolds on this action plan, which is a marathon and not a sprint, we will do it within those parameters.
Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon (Lab)
My Lords, the talk about race has been going on for decades now and all we seem to do is keep repeating ourselves. Reports have been published time and again, but we have not really got to the end of it. The Minister talks about having evidence; I would have thought that there was enough evidence in the Macpherson report, which came out in 1999, to show what the experience of the black community has been and continues to be—including police treatment, especially of young black men. There is enough evidence over decades on race relations between the police and the community. It is there. We do not need any more reports; all we need is to see what the Government are going to do. Actions need to happen.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I take the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence. She has every right to speak in the way she does, with the experiences she has had. Our hearts go out her, even as the years have gone on, for what she has had to experience.
In this report, we want to look back and see what we have learned and gleaned. However, as I said on Thursday, it is not what you say, it is what you do, and it is not what you promise, it is what you deliver. I had a session with Minister Badenoch before this Statement. She asked me to make it absolutely clear that she is prepared to meet anybody and hear any points that they wish to make. I know that the noble Baroness has met and spoken with her before, but the door is open. This is my first appearance at the Dispatch Box on this issue. I would like to think that I can help the noble Baroness by making sure that we do what we say.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I had the privilege of chairing the House’s Select Committee on youth unemployment last year; we reported in November. I draw the Minister’s attention to paragraphs 276 to 278 of that report, which make a number of very positive recommendations for addressing some of the issues that have been identified in the Chamber tonight.
Specifically, is the Minister aware of the report of 29 June last year from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which said:
“Second-generation ethnic minorities are achieving great success in education, but this does not translate into equal success in the labour market … they are less likely to be employed, and some … are less likely to reach managerial/professional occupations, than the white majority.”
A sentence appears in the Statement claiming that
“access to high-quality education from an early age will set a child up for success later in life.”
However, there is a lot of evidence that that is not the case. So can I draw the Minister’s attention to the recommendations, which we have not yet debated on the Floor of the House but which make a number of positive suggestions for addressing that issue?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I wholeheartedly endorse and agree with what the noble Lord says. It is crucial that we ensure everyone is treated fairly in the workplace so that they can thrive and reach their full potential. We recognise that employers stand the best chance of achieving this when they focus their efforts on effective actions that have a proven track record of improving diversity and inclusion. I have spent the majority of my life trying to get people into work, focusing very much on people from ethnic communities. There was a point when we were not doing terribly well on it, but the situation has improved. I am absolutely at one that the best education is the best way for people to get a good start in life. I know that my colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions, our work coaches, are working day in, day out to get people into jobs, to get people into better jobs and to help people have a career, regardless of their ethnicity.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I welcome the Inclusive Britain action plan, but I thought the Sewell commission struck a good balance by acknowledging that racism is a real force in the UK while avoiding framing every racial and ethnic disparity as products of institutional discrimination and systemic racism. However, that was quite controversial, and noble Lords will know that there was a backlash against it. I wonder, therefore, whether the Minister could, rather than having meetings, organise a fuller debate on this new report now so that we can discuss the action plan in some detail. There are lots of myths and misinformation; maybe we could contribute to enhancing the public debate. I was really shocked at the abuse that the original commissioners got, but only last week the University of Nottingham withdrew its offer of an honorary degree to Dr Tony Sewell, the chair of CRED, because, it said, he was too politically toxic. People were saying that he had normalised white supremacy, that he was an establishment black guy, and all that sort of thing. Can we, here, help turn this into a constructive discussion, as well as having an action plan?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
Forgive me if I have got this wrong, and I am sure the noble Baroness will tell me, but it is up to any noble Lord to put down for a debate or raise Written Questions. So, if I may, I turn the question on the noble Baroness and suggest that she makes the running in getting a debate on this.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I will follow on from where the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, left off and commend the Sewell commission for its work. I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister would agree that it is perhaps worth quoting directly from the Statement made by my honourable friend the Minister, Kemi Badenoch, last week. She was quite clear in saying that the report “conclusively showed something” that she and others
“know to be true: disparities do persist in the UK and racism and discrimination continue to shape people’s experiences. But it also showed that most of these racial disparities are not driven by individual acts of prejudice committed by people behaving, either consciously or subconsciously, in a racist way. What the report’s analysis shows is that, for the most part, negative disparities arise for reasons not associated with personal prejudice. That is why so many disparities stubbornly persist even in this progressive age when there has never been such an acute awareness of racism and so much action and policy against it.”—[Official Report, Commons, 17/3/22; col. 1070.]
Reflecting on that point, will my noble friend the Minister say how the Government are supporting stronger families? That seems to be important to all of us in terms of reaching our potential, and I know that it was a strong feature in the original Sewell commission report.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I thank my noble friend for her contribution. I agree wholeheartedly with the words that she read from Minister Badenoch. Family life in the UK needs to be strong and resilient, and it needs to ensure that young people grow up knowing that they are supported and cared for. This does not always happen, so I am pleased that our Government have put around £650 million—I think; do not quote me—into supporting families and, more importantly, into the family hubs and the reducing parental conflict programme, which, I hope, based on the evidence thus far, is making a huge difference to the lives of people who struggle to maintain good family relationships.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, may I draw the Minister’s attention to the very end of this report, on the impact of AI and algorithms? Action 72 says that the Government will address
“potential racial bias in algorithmic decision-making.”
The only word I would disagree with is “potential”, because there have been some shocking examples, such as in facial recognition technologies, where the algorithms used and the data that is fed to set them up has been overtly racially biased. May I invite the Minister to tell the House a little more about what the Government intend to do in this area? I think they are going to need expert help. Would the Minister, for example, consider contacting the Council for the Mathematical Sciences, which is an umbrella body comprising a range of different mathematical experience and expertise? In the world in which we live now and the algorithms which in great part determine our lives, the potential for racial bias is enormous, and I invite the Government to take the advice that will be needed to fix that.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I thank the noble Viscount for that question. I did not catch the name of the council that he referred to, but if he could let me have that afterwards, I will certainly pass it on. The space of decision-making algorithms and AI is fast-moving, and they are increasingly embedded in all our lives. Greater understanding and transparency from those building these systems is crucial to ensure that the public trust the decisions being made. Our first priority is understanding what it means to improve transparency in the use of AI. We want to build the most trusted AI governance system in the world. We also want to ensure diversity of thought and experience in the sector, as this is the best way to avoid in-built bias. To achieve this, up to £24 million of funding is being put towards attracting early career talent into digital and tech roles.
Elections Bill
Monday 21st March 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Elections Act 2022 View all Elections Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 96-V Fifth marshalled list for Committee - (21 Mar 2022)
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
“(2) Before laying before Parliament any regulations under Schedule 2, the Secretary of State must provide the legislation in draft to any committee of either House of Parliament which the Secretary of State deems relevant.”
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, my Amendment 85 is about providing legislation in draft to any committee of either House of Parliament which is deemed relevant by the Secretary of State. The reason for tabling this amendment is the same as in previous debates: with very little pre-legislative scrutiny, we really need to see the detail of the legislation ahead of debate. So, this is about seeing that legislation in good time so that we all know exactly what the expectations are and what detail is going to be provided.
The other two amendments are about private renters and private tenants. I briefly draw the House’s attention to some analysis published by the Mayor of London’s office in 2019 which demonstrates that private renters are less likely to register to vote and so are missing the opportunity for their voice to be heard at national and local level. City Hall analysis of the electoral roll and housing in London found that boroughs with the highest number of private renters had some of the capital’s lowest levels of voter registration.
That analysis is backed up by national estimates from the Electoral Commission which show that 94% of owner-occupiers are registered to vote, compared to just 63% of private renters. The reason for this seems to be that many private renters move home frequently, often due to insecure tenancies. Across London as a whole, 25% of households were privately renting at the time of the most recent census and only 86% were registered to vote, which is a lower rate than other areas. One of the reasons for this is the stability of people in private rented accommodation.
I come back to the point that there is nothing in the Bill to help increase the number of people on the electoral register, which I think will be a theme throughout its passage. I know that this Bill is not about housing, but housing is in the same department—both areas are covered by DLUHC—so it would be good if the Minister could point out to his department that private renting could be reformed to increase stability for tenants, so that they are not constantly on the move. In that way, we could increase the number of people registered to vote and try to keep that more stable. I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 85 in this group would require the Secretary of State to publish any secondary legislation under Schedule 2 of the Elections Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny. My officials are working at pace on the secondary legislation and it will be shared with Parliament in due course. Any legislation under Schedule 2 will be subject to the affirmative procedure and therefore will have to be laid in draft, debated and approved by each House of Parliament, thus giving opportunity for sufficient scrutiny.
Amendments 86 and 87 seek to place a requirement on the Secretary of State to publish reports and hold a public consultation on measures to increase registration levels among private tenants. I agree with the noble Baroness opposite that the high turnover in this type of accommodation sometimes raises questions. She will know that the Government are seeking to improve the position of private tenants in other legislation, but I certainly take note of her point.
Registering to vote is extremely easy and it takes about five minutes to complete an online application. Since its introduction the register to vote website has revolutionised the ability of electors to participate, with over 60 million applications to register since 2014. In the last election a record number of people registered to vote—47 million. The Government are pleased that the register to vote service has the highest available accessibility rating for a website—a triple A rating—under the web content accessibility guidelines, for those noble Lords who are particularly interested.
I should add that it is for EROs to ensure that their registers are as complete and accurate as possible. It is the Electoral Commission’s duty to promote electors’ participation in our country’s electoral events. The commission runs an annual voter registration campaign encouraging those eligible to take the short time to make an application to register. I am sure it will have taken note of what the noble Baroness has said. Supporting registration in this way is a responsibility of the commission at national level and of local authority EROs at local level. It is our role to ensure that the EROs and the EC have the tools necessary to fulfil these functions.
Therefore, it is not clear to the Government that any specific strategy to increase the registration levels of private tenants is necessary. I acknowledge the points the noble Baroness has made, and I beg her to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his response and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hayward
“Evidence of full name
In Rule 6 of Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983 (nomination of candidates), in paragraph (2)(a) after “full names” insert “, as evidenced by a birth certificate or passport”.”
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, this is a small group of technical amendments, and I will speak to Amendments 88 and 91 first. When I quoted Richard Mawrey of the elections court on Tower Hamlets earlier today, I referred to Mr Kabir Ahmed. He had actually changed the spelling of his name to ensure that it was impossible to trace him from his previous electoral background from one borough to another. It is not a common case. I checked with the AEA, and it said there was no requirement that people should use a standard name. This is a probing amendment to establish how we can go about ensuring that people validly put in genuine nominations and do not try to hide their background.
Equally, Amendment 91 concerns an anomaly which has already been dealt with by the Senedd in Wales—the use of commonly used names. It makes sense as it stands but in this regard I give credit to the noble Lord, Lord Norton, my colleague in room 23. Where somebody uses their given name, as per christening, they are not entitled to use it in terms of nomination papers. For example, Harold Wilson would not have been allowed to give his name as Harold Wilson and James Callaghan would not have been entitled to give his name as James Callaghan, because they were not “commonly known as” names but their middle names, and this is currently illegal. Therefore, all I am trying to do is to set right an anomaly which I am sure was never intended.
Moving on to Amendment 89, as my noble friend the Minister knows, during Covid we reduced the requirement for nomination signatures from 10 to two. I wrote to him on 17 January raising the possibility of extending this allowance—that we stick with two signatures rather than 10. If there are objections based on the fear that there will be large numbers of candidates because you have reduced the required signatures from 10 to two, first, it did not happen last year, and secondly, a better way of imposing a restriction would be to require a deposit rather than 10 signatures. I am dealing with these amendments briefly because I am conscious the House wants to make progress.
Of the two other amendments in this group, one deals with the curious anomaly of incorrect declarations. If, by chance, an inaccurate declaration of a result is made and the wrong person is declared elected, it is necessary to hold a by-election. That happens surprisingly regularly, virtually every year, even though people are aware of it. It is an unnecessary expense, and I am working on the basis that all parties would come to an agreement at the count that there had been a declaration error. I am conscious that even in a general election—as in West Bromwich at the last election, where we came very close to an error—incorrect declarations are regularly made. It is an anomaly that these declarations cannot be corrected at a count where all parties are in agreement. I just wanted to put on record that there ought to be a solution to that.
My final amendment in this group concerns something I touched on at Second Reading: the mess we have in electoral law, in that there are exclusions for police and crime commissioners which do not apply to local councillors, and which do or do not apply to Members of Parliament when standing for election. It seems logical to me that we should have the same exclusions for any election, not just a hotch-potch in terms of the requirements of exclusions.
I have covered the five amendments very quickly, and I hope I have done it sufficiently satisfactorily for people to understand the objectives. As far as I am concerned, most of them are probing amendments, but on Amendment 89, I really do believe that the reduction in the number of signatures from 10 to two for local government elections should continue to apply. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I would like to comment on Amendments 88 and 89 because for me—and I have read quite a lot of the background—I fear they represent solutions in search of a very significant problem.
Amendment 88 requires the production of a birth certificate or a passport to secure nomination as a candidate. It is not clear to me what widespread problem is being solved by this, nor what problems might actually be created by introducing such requirements. The noble Lord, Lord Hayward, has given one or two specific examples, but it seems to me that a solution which then requires every candidate to produce a birth certificate or a passport when they put in a nomination form is excessive. It is also not clear to me why a passport and a birth certificate have been selected as forms of identification but not a driving licence, which contains a name, or a national insurance number, behind which exists a name. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, because it does seem to be a proposed solution to a problem which is not that significant.
Amendment 89 would reduce the number of signatures for local nomination from 10 to two. I understand the circumstances in which, during Covid and the pandemic, the reduction to two was wise, because there were difficulties with people speaking to each other. However, in general terms, reducing the total number of signatures to two seems insufficient for nomination to elected positions that carry substantial responsibilities. I remain of the view that 10 is a better number than two.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, these amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, the bulk of which are new clauses to be inserted after Clause 2, relate to the administration of elections.
Amendment 88 deals with the nomination of candidates. At present, the Representation of the People Act states that the nomination papers must include the candidate’s full name. The effect of the noble Lord’s amendment would be that a candidate must provide a birth certificate to evidence this. Although I understand the noble Lord’s concerns that the process currently lacks this kind of specific identity check, there is currently a safeguard in the sense that candidates must be registered to vote, and identity checks can take place during the process of registering to vote. None the less, the noble Lord raises valid points on what checks take place on candidates, and I hope the Minister can provide assurances.
Amendment 89 also deals with nomination papers but focuses on the number of electors who must assent to the nomination. The noble Lord has the full support of these Benches for that amendment. Under the current system, regulated by the Local Elections (Principal Areas) (England and Wales) Rules 2006, a candidate must collect the names of a proposer, a seconder and eight other electors. In total, this means that 10 electors must be found.
Amendment 91 also relates to nominations but instead would have the effect that a candidate might select their commonly used name. This seems an entirely sensible step, but I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether this is already possible under current regulations. The Committee will no doubt appreciate that many candidates do not use their full name. For example, in Uxbridge and South Ruislip, ballot papers do not list the Prime Minister as Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson.
Amendment 90 has a different focus and relates to the declaration of a result. Under this amendment, where a result is incorrectly declared in local elections and there is agreement between all candidates, a revised declaration may be made. I would be interested to hear what recent examples there have been of an incorrect declaration. Although it seems entirely right that there should be a means of challenging this, we should also consider whether there is a role for the returning officer in the process.
Finally, with Amendment 208 the noble Lord draws attention to the variation in criteria used for excluding candidates for certain elections. In its guidance to prospective candidates, the Electoral Commission warns that the full range of disqualifications is complex. There would certainly be merit in increasing the understanding of those exact disqualifications. As always, I look forward to the Minister’s response to see whether he can give any assurances in this area.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Hayward seek to make a number of changes concerning aspects of the electoral process. I thank my noble friend for his continuing engagement on and interest in electoral matters, which is respected across the House. I will address his amendments in turn. I recognise the intention behind them; the Government share his interest in clarifying and streamlining electoral regulation, but we must be mindful of the length of the changes already contained in the Bill, which has been subject to consideration. In that context, I hope he will understand if they are not all changes we can take forward in this legislative vehicle, but we will continue to work with him and others to undertake the consideration needed for the changes to electoral law separately where appropriate and where there is an opportunity to do so.
Amendments 81 and 91 concern the naming aspect of nomination rules. I understand the noble Lord’s intention to ensure there is no room for confusion for voters on the personal identity of a candidate standing for election. However, in relation to Amendment 88, I am advised that candidates are already required to state their full name in their nomination paper. I can confirm also that it is already an offence for a person to give a name in their nomination paper that they know to be false. This includes giving a name with a different spelling. We do not therefore consider it necessary to make the changes set out in the amendment. I hope my noble friend is reassured that the law already includes appropriate safeguards against candidates providing false information.
On Amendment 91, under the current law, a person who is nominated as a candidate must give their full name but may also provide a commonly used forename or surname, which must be different from any of the names already given, which they would like to have included on the ballot paper. However, this does not facilitate the use of a middle name where someone is commonly known by such a name. The suggestion of my noble friend that a middle name might be allowed as the “commonly known as” name has some merit and I remain open to further discussions on it.
Similarly, I and the Government remain open to further discussion and collaboration on the proposal in Amendment 89 for the numbers of subscribers for local election nominations to be reduced from the 10 currently required. Minister Badenoch has written to my noble friend to set out the Government’s position; we are supportive in principle, but we must remember that the decision to reduce temporarily the number of signatures required to stand for certain polls for May 2021 was taken in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic. It was only ever intended to be a temporary solution and the Government have not yet consulted on or conducted research into the impact of making the change last year.
As signatures are presently seen as a necessary check—the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, spoke about this—to ensure that candidates have some level of support within the local electorate, and the policy seeks to avoid having candidates with no real hope of being elected on ballot papers, which can increase the burden on administrators and cost to the public purse, the Government wish to consult further with the Parliamentary Parties Panel and others to identify views and issues. As I say, we heard dissent from the Liberal Democrat Benches on that. This is not to undermine in any way the statement in principle made by the Minister to my noble friend, but to ensure there is careful consideration of the consequences of such a change. Subject to the outcome of that consultation, we will look to start the necessary work to put any new arrangement in place for elections in May 2023. I have asked my officials to keep my noble friend updated on progress.
Amendment 90 proposes to reform the process around incorrect declaration of results. Once a result is declared and made public, the result stands and can be undone, as my noble friend explained, only through a formal election petition process, a court process which serves as a safeguard against elections being improperly run or adversely affected by illegal activity. The law purposefully sets clear requirements and a short timeline in which to bring a challenge. I recognise that this has led to issues in the past where an incorrect name has been called out as winning a seat and then a petition was required to resolve it. Fortunately, in recent years such a problem has been addressed by the returning officer, with the agreement of candidates, correcting the initial mistake before they have finalised their declaration process, although that does not cover all the instances my noble friend was talking about. While we are sympathetic to the issues he has raised, any statutory changes in procedures for the certification and declaration of results have the capacity to have an impact on the outcome of elections. This requires careful consideration. We will consider it further, but there is no time to complete such consideration effectively within the time allowed for passage of the Bill.
Finally in this group, Amendment 208 would require the Government to consult on the variations in criteria to stand at different polls. We hold elections to a wide variety of offices and bodies in this country, which necessarily perform a wide variety of functions. Consideration is given to the criteria for disqualification of candidates on a case-by-case basis to suit the functions of the role for which the person seeks election.
There are good reasons for having different disqualification rules for different offices. For example, the rules governing who can be a candidate in police and crime commissioner elections and hold the office of a police and crime commissioner are the strictest of all those for elected roles in Great Britain, because the role is focused on direct oversight of the police, and because of the need for public trust in the management of police forces.
I am sorry to disappoint my noble friend on this, but the Government’s view is that a consultation on the requirements for standing at different elections and on disqualification rules is not an immediate priority. For this reason we cannot accept the amendment, but I can assure my noble friend that—as he knows from the engagement we have had—he has put these points on the table for consideration, and they will not be lost for consideration even if they cannot be addressed in the Bill. In the light of that, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hayward (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his positive replies to a number of the amendments, and I apologise for the fact that, in my need for haste earlier, I did not give credit to both him and his officials for having taken the time to discuss these issues with me. I should therefore put that on the record now. In light of his broadly positive approach to the amendments —as I said, they were primarily probing amendments on technical matters—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Collins of Highbury
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would probe the expiration period of postal votes.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I will move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock. At the outset I want to make it clear that we support steps to ensure that the use of postal votes has integrity, and we want to ensure that any evidence of abuse is properly dealt with. So there are issues in the Bill on which we concur. But I will make the general point that, certainly from 2001 to 2005, when there was a push to open up postal voting, I have been on the register for a postal vote. That was mainly because my job at that time involved travelling all around the country, campaigning in other constituencies, which meant I was rarely able to vote in my own.
If my noble friend Lady Quin had been here, she would have given us some specific examples from Tyne and Wear, where used to be her constituency. She saw turnout go from an average of 20% to 50%, and she points out that eight of the top 10 constituencies for postal voting were in the Tyne and Wear area. So there is clear evidence that, in terms of engagement, involvement and trying to increase turnout, postal votes have a very important role.
That is why we want to probe a little more, particularly with Amendment 92A, on why postal votes expire after three years when Parliaments last longer. We would prefer five years, as we have put down in our amendment. I would like to hear from the Minister why the Government have set the limit at three years, and what the conditions for that are, when five years might be more appropriate. We would be pleased to hear his arguments.
The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, has raised other issues, and I want to ask again why the number of postal votes that may be taken to a polling station is in secondary legislation. If there is an issue of principle, why is that not in the Bill, rather than in secondary legislation? Those are my brief comments, in particular on Amendment 92A. We really just want to probe why the Government have set a period of three rather than five years. I hope we can ensure that postal votes remain an important feature of our electoral system.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I wish to speak to the amendments in my name in this group, namely Amendments 96A, 96B, 96C and 96D. The Government have proposed limiting the number of postal votes a voter can hand into polling stations or to the returning officer to two. This would be specified in secondary legislation and is not on the face of the Bill in Clause 5. Secondary legislation could also require that the person must complete a form if handing in a postal vote. While we on these Benches recognise that there have been cases of postal vote fraud reported at some elections, the rationale for the limit of two has not been set out. In any case, whatever limit is specified may be easily circumvented.
Clause 5 ultimately derives from the recommendation in the report from Sir Eric Pickles—as he then was; now he is the noble Lord, Lord Pickles—on securing the ballot in 2016. It said:
“Completed postal ballot packs should only be handed in at a polling station by the voter or a family member/designated carer acting on their behalf—a limit of two should be applied for any one person handing in completed ballots and require an explanation as to why they are being handed in and signature provided.”
The justification offered in the report, that postal votes handed in on the day might be subject to less scrutiny and checking than postal votes arriving sooner, is simply inaccurate. All returning officers perform the same checks on postal votes regardless of when they are received. Placing a limit on the number of postal votes that could be handed into a polling station might be an effective tool in deterring people from turning up at polling stations with a higher number of postal votes. However, it would not stop industrial-scale vote harvesting. This is because, under the Government’s proposals, a person could still collect any number of postal votes and post them prior to polling day, although any political campaigner who did so would certainly commit an offence under the new Section 112A of the Representation of the People Act 1983 inserted by Clause 4.
It is unclear how the secondary legislation will be cast in respect of council offices, where returning officers are usually based. For example, does using a postal box in the wall of the office constitute returning by hand to the returning officer? If it does, it would mean posting boxes at council offices would have to be sealed during the election period, or a member of staff would have to be stationed at said postal box 24 hours a day in order to prevent people returning more than the prescribed number of postal votes. This would create unnecessary difficulty in delivering other items to a council. Perhaps legislation is intended to capture only the handling of postal votes, at a reception desk for example. Moreover, there seems to be no reason why someone who posts a voting pack back in a posting box at council offices should face any additional hurdle compared with a person posting in a post box elsewhere.
So Clause 5 will not prevent postal vote harvesting and could easily be circumvented. Yet the Government’s proposal will cause additional complexity and delay, for example if a form has not been filled in, or a voter turns up at an office or a polling station with too many postal votes. Potential lengthy or adversarial discussions about the fact that the postal vote would be rejected could take place.
The reason I am asking for an amendment to Clause 5 to include a limit of five and not two, notwithstanding the problems I outlined, is that it would enable family households to hand in votes more easily, as there are fewer households with more than five adult members. I also think that any limit should be set out in the Bill, rather than the Secretary of State being able to determine it in secondary legislation. I ask the Minister to clarify how these provisions will operate at council offices, where returning officers are based, and to give a justification for the limit of two, particularly in light of the fact that many households have more than two adults living there.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, these amendments investigate some of the safeguards for postal ballots introduced in the Bill. I welcome the underlying sense of the comments made: the Committee recognises that, as we move through the suite of arrangements which the Government suggest to protect electoral integrity, there is more support here than there was for the first measure.
Clauses 3 to 7 require voters to apply more frequently for a postal ballot, ban political campaigners from handling postal ballots, introduce, as the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, just explained, new limits on the number of postal ballots that can be handed in, limit the number of electors for whom someone can act as proxy and increase secrecy protections for absent voters. As has been said, all these changes implement recommendations in the report by my noble friend Lord Pickles into electoral fraud, which suggested addressing weaknesses in the current system. We submit that they are sensible safeguards against known vulnerabilities and, taken together, they will reduce the opportunity for unscrupulous individuals to exploit the process and steal votes, as we have seen in Tower Hamlets—often referred to in your Lordships’ House—but also in other locations mentioned during debates in the other place, such as Peterborough, Birmingham and Slough.
I noted the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, on her amendments and her amendment probing the expiration period of postal votes, in which the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, also expressed an interest. Currently, an elector may have a postal vote on an indefinite basis as long as they provide a signature sample every five years. The noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, has benefited from this.
The Pickles report recommended that voters should reapply for a postal vote at least every three years as a safeguard to prevent postal voter fraud. More frequent applications would not only enable EROs to regularly assess a person’s application and confirm whether they are still an eligible elector but give an opportunity for someone who was initially pressurised—that is obviously not the case for the noble Lord—into having a postal vote to break out of that situation and thus not have their vote influenced on an ongoing basis. Additionally, ensuring that electors’ details are kept up to date and that each postal voter’s signature is refreshed more frequently will reduce the likelihood that their postal vote is rejected should their handwriting change over time. You have only to ask my wife to hear how illegible mine has become in recent years.
The Government consider that the timeframe of three years still enables a person to have a postal vote for a reasonable length of time, while ensuring the person normally replies during every Parliament.
Lord Stunell (LD)
I thank the Minister for giving way. I understand the logic he is setting out. Do the Government intend that that this three-year renewal process will also apply to overseas voters added to the list to assess their eligibility and so on?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, had the noble Lord not made a very legitimate intervention, I would have read the next sentence. While an indefinite postal vote presents a significant security concern, we must also recognise that annual applications for overseas electors goes too far in the other direction and creates an excessive burden for administrators. That was perhaps the implication of his intervention.
Therefore, in order to ensure that arrangements remain harmonious across domestic and overseas electors, we will extend the registration period for overseas electors from one up to three years and tie the three-year postal vote cycle in with the new three-year cycle for renewal of overseas electors’ declarations. Overseas electors will be able to reapply or refresh their absent vote arrangements as appropriate at the same time as renewing their declaration. This alignment between absent vote and renewal arrangements will encourage overseas electors to remain on the register.
We recognise that this means more time spent on processing by electoral administrators. To balance that, we are working to introduce an online application process. This will benefit electors and is very much welcomed by administrators in reducing handling of paper and enabling automation.
Of course, the Government recognise the importance of having transitional provisions in place for existing long-term postal voters, so under the Bill those voters will continue to be able to vote by post until either the 31 January following the commencement of the provision or, if this is sooner, the 31 January following the commencement date by which the postal voter would normally be expected to provide a fresh signature. These arrangements will ensure that the change is phased in over a reasonable period of time. Electoral registration officers will be required to send a reminder to existing postal voters in advance of the date they cease to have a postal vote and provide information on how to reapply for a postal vote.
The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, to Clause 5 seek to prevent the powers of the clause to limit the number of postal votes that can be handed in from being used to impose any limitations on handing in via a council posting box and set a minimum of five for any limitation imposed in secondary legislation. There is significant concern that permitting a high number of postal votes to be handed in could facilitate electoral fraud and undermine the integrity of elections. This has been a long-standing issue in elections and has undermined confidence in the system. It does a disservice to many legitimate electors who make use of postal votes for valid reasons. Setting a limit on the number of postal votes that can be handed in is therefore necessary in our judgment. This clause will allow regulations to require persons handing in postal votes to complete a form giving details of the numbers they have handed in, which will help promote compliance with the new requirements and aid investigations into allegations of fraud.
However, I heard the point the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, made about the number, and his suggestion of five. We will keep his suggestion in mind as we continue to work with the Electoral Commission and electoral stakeholders on the issue as we develop the legislation. However, we will maintain the position that the permitted number should be confirmed in secondary legislation, giving time for further consultation. This is the right place for such details and allows flexibility for change should it be needed later if the figure initially established does not prove to be right in practice. I hope that with those assurances noble Lords will feel able to withdraw or not move their amendments.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his explanation. In light of those comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Collins of Highbury
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would mean that an offence is only committed if the person knowingly handles a post voting document.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I stress that this is a series of probing amendments to try to better understand the sort of guidance that might be issued and ensure that people engaged in campaigns and the electoral process are not caught out by some genuine error or mistake. I know from when I have been out campaigning that somebody will often say, “Do you mind taking this postal vote to the postbox?” or something like that. People ask for all kinds of assistance innocently, so it is really important that we do not catch people out. We have also raised the question of how families and households may operate. Again, clear guidance needs to be provided.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, these probing amendments seek to test the defence for political campaigners set out in Clause 4, which bans said campaigners from handling postal votes issued to other persons. Clause 4 is designed to address activities and behaviours that have been a cause for concern at previous elections, such as the practice of postal vote harvesting whereby voters are coerced or tricked into completing their postal voting statement before handing over their papers with the ballot paper unmarked to campaigners to be taken away and filled in elsewhere.
Amendment 93 seeks to provide that a person commits an offence only if they knowingly handled a postal vote issued to another person. The clause currently provides that it is a defence for a political campaigner charged with the offence to show that they did not dishonestly handle the postal voting document for the purpose of promoting a particular outcome at an election. This Government entirely share the concern that no offence should criminalise innocent behaviour. For this reason—
Lord Stunell (LD)
I thank the Minister for her explanation. In preparing for this particular debate, I looked at the defence that is set out on page 2 of the Bill—I thank the Minister for reading that into the record. It further says, in new Section 112A(5), inserted by Clause 4, that
“the court must assume that the defence is satisfied unless the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that it is not.”
The burden of proof there is upon the prosecution. I mention this because, as a political campaigner who quite often gets asked to take a postal vote and hand it in on behalf of an elector, it is clearly of considerable importance to know that we are—if you like—excluded from the purview of this particular offence.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I think that all of us campaigners have been asked the same question many times on the doorstep.
This Government entirely share the concern that no offence should criminalise innocent behaviour. We have been especially careful to target the wording of the new offence to ensure that it is reasonable and proportionate where somebody acts with honest intentions. For these reasons, the Government consider that the offence provisions are appropriately worded and are therefore unable to accept that amendment or the others in this group.
In fact, against the concerns of Amendment 94, new Section 112A(2) of the Representation of the People Act 1983, inserted by Clause 4, already provides that a person who handles a postal voting document for use in a relevant election does not commit an offence if they are responsible for or assist with the conduct of that election and the handling is consistent with the person’s duties in that capacity.
Amendment 95 seeks to exempt legal guardians from the offence. There is an exemption in the clause for a political campaigner, if they are close family—
“spouse, civil partner, parent, grandparent, brother, sister, child or grandchild”—
of the other person whose postal vote they are handling. Legal guardians are not included, as they do not have the relevant powers when acting for adults, and their powers are primarily to do with decisions about a person’s medical care and their finances.
Amendment 96 also seeks to change the definition of political campaigner for the purposes of postal vote handling offences to include those who have donated to a campaign. The definition in the Bill is comprehensive and includes candidates, electoral agents and members of a registered political party who carry on an activity designed to promote a particular outcome at an election. Donating to a campaign is not the same as actively canvassing. Therefore, I am not persuaded that it should be amended to such a disproportionate extent. For this reason, I beg that the amendment is withdrawn.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her response and, in light of her comments, beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
“(2) Schedule 4 must not come into force until the Secretary of State has made a statement to Parliament on the impact on people with disabilities.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would probe the impact of proxy vote limitations on people with disabilities.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I have tabled Amendments 96E to 96J. Similar to the last group, these are probing amendments on the proposals for proxy votes. During the progress of the Bill, the Government have given a number of instances to demonstrate where proxy voting has been abused in the past. It was notable in the PACAC oral witness evidence that Helen Mountfield QC said that, in her view,
“It is uncontroversially a good thing to stamp down”
on people holding multiple proxy votes. PACAC agreed with the Government that it is sensible to limit the number of proxy votes that can be exercised by individuals to two for domestic electors and four for overseas electors.
My Amendment 96G is the same kind of probing amendment on proxies as that just spoken to by my noble friend Lord Collins on postal votes. What happens if somebody accidentally voted on behalf of four or more electors, without appreciating that this was no longer allowed? It is just about ensuring that people are given proper guidance and information by local authorities and that the local authorities have the proper guidance and information, so that these sorts of mistakes do not happen.
I have just mentioned PACAC. The Electoral Commission also made a few points, because proxy voting is clearly an important option for people who cannot vote in person. It said:
“Changes to limit the number of voters for whom a person may act as a proxy could disadvantage some people who need someone to vote on their behalf.”
That comment was the reason behind tabling Amendment 96E, which probes the impact of proxy vote limitations on people with disabilities. Clearly, people with disabilities often need some support or someone to vote on their behalf.
As we know, when a voter applies to appoint a proxy, to protect against fraud, they are already required to state their relationship to the proposed proxy and the reason they cannot attend the polling station. My Amendment 96H is because I thought it would be interesting to draw attention to economic crime and election fraud, and to probe whether there is any evidence or information of any connection between the two. That is the purpose behind that particular amendment.
In the 2019 UK parliamentary general election, we know that some overseas voters struggled to find a proxy in their constituency. Tightening the limits on the number of people for whom a voter may act as proxy could potentially make it harder for overseas electors to cast their vote. This is where my Amendment 96F comes in. It probes why the number of four electors was chosen. Has the impact on overseas electors been taken into consideration?
Finally, Amendment 96J looks to probe the application of this particular schedule to parliamentary by-elections. Do Ministers have any information as to whether there has been any kind of impact assessment? Has any thought been given to the impact on different kinds of elections, in particular by-elections? I beg to move.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. These Benches concur with a lot of what she had to say. When I asked why the number of postal voters should not be in the Bill, the Minister replied that it was better to deal with it flexibly, under secondary legislation. I note that the Bill states that the number of proxy votes which can be used by an elector is four. What is the difference between having this in the Bill for proxy voters but not for postal voters?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I have a question more out of ignorance than expertise. I am old enough to have gone round as a young man in the days when different parties competed in treating the matrons of care homes, and relying on them to collect all the votes up and make sure that everyone voted in the right direction. I am sure that that no longer happens—let us hope that it is something that we left behind in the 1960s. However, this raises questions about care homes. How are people assisted to vote? Who posts their votes for them or holds their proxies? I wish for a little assurance about this.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, in answer to that question from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, keeping the numbers at four and not allowing anybody to have as many proxy votes as they like will help control this sort of behaviour. We all know that it happened in the past.
I will get an answer on why postal votes are to be in guidance and proxy votes are in the Bill, and write to the noble Lord, Lord Scriven.
I turn to the amendments concerning the measure in the Bill designed to strengthen the current arrangements for proxy voting. Currently, somebody can act as a proxy for up to two electors and for an unlimited number of close relatives in any constituency in a parliamentary election, or any electoral area at a local election. This can give rise to situations where somebody could cast an extremely large number of proxy votes, over which they could also exercise undue influence. This is where the issue of care homes and such like comes into play.
The Bill introduces a new limited of four on the total number of electors for whom a person may act as a proxy in UK parliamentary elections or local government elections in England. Within this figure, no more than two may be domestic electors—that is, electors who are not overseas electors or service voters. All four may be overseas electors or service voters. This approach will tighten up the rules on proxy voting, while also providing appropriate support for overseas electors and service voters wishing to appoint a proxy.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her comprehensive reply. I was particularly pleased to hear that disabled people will be able to apply for a permanent proxy vote; that is very useful to know. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Khan of Burnley
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment expands the offence to include attempting to communicate the number or other unique identifying mark on the back of a ballot paper sent to a person for voting by post at a relevant election.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, the amendments in this group all relate to the secrecy of the ballot. Amendment 97 from my noble friend Lady Hayman would expand the offence to include attempting to communicate the number or other unique identifying mark on the back of a ballot paper sent to a person for voting by post at a relevant election. Amendment 100, meanwhile, expands the offence to include those who obtain or attempt to obtain information or communicate at any time to any other person any information as to whether a person voting by post at a relevant election has spoilt their ballot.
The purpose of these amendments is to draw attention to the various ways that an individual could circumvent the secrecy of the ballot for nefarious purposes. I am sure the Minister would agree that legislation must cover each of the possible intrusions. Given that this is not the only legislation that deals with voting in private, I hope the Minister can assure the House that this amendment is not necessary and that this is already an offence.
Government Amendments 83, 99, 101 and 102, meanwhile, each make minor changes to inserted Section 66(3A) of the Representation of the People Act 1983. These all appear to be technical amendments which I have no intention of opposing, but I look forward to the Minister explaining their purpose in more detail.
Government Amendment 103 ensures that no criminal liability arises where information is sought from, or given by, a postal voter at an election for the purposes of an opinion poll or exit poll. Again, this amendment seems to be a technical clarification which has been rightly introduced.
Finally, Amendment 109 from the noble lord, Lord Hayward, allows for a more general debate on the secrecy of the ballot. It would mean that the Secretary of State could issue guidance on steps that presiding officers or clerks should take to ensure the secrecy of the ballot in polling stations, including debarring anyone accompanying the elector into the polling booth, unless on grounds of infirmity. This raises issues similar to those raised in earlier amendments from my noble friend Lady Hayman regarding how we can ensure that votes remain private. The noble Lord is right to table this amendment and to draw attention to further ways that this principle could be compromised. I hope the Minister can allay the House’s concerns ahead of Report. I beg to move.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, earlier this evening the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, made reference to the original secret ballot of the 19th century. To a large extent, what we have seen over the last 150 years is what should happen: a ballot should be secret, in that one person goes into the polling booth alone, marks their vote and then casts it in the ballot box. Unfortunately, because of a series of interventions, with the Electoral Commission and others denying who is interpreting the legislation in whichever way, this issue has been called into question. I am going to cite Tower Hamlets again, but I know that this problem is broader than that. Too regularly, presiding officers in polling stations are faced with a problem whereby people attempt to accompany somebody else into the polling booth, effectively to influence the casting of that ballot.
I can do no better than to quote research undertaken in 2018 by Democracy Volunteers, an organisation of lawyers who operate a system of reviewing the processes of elections, within Tower Hamlets and other similar locations. I make no apologies for quoting the research in full:
“QUESTION 9. Was there evidence of ‘family voting’ in the polling station? … In 58% of polling stations our observer teams identified so-called ‘family voting’. OSCE … describes ‘family voting’ as an ‘unacceptable practice’. It occurs where, generally, husband and wife vote together. It can be normalised and women, especially, are unable to choose for themselves who they wish to cast their votes for and/or this is actually done by another individual entirely. It is a breach of the secret ballot. We identified this in 58% of polling stations (74 separate occasions). As family voting, by definition, includes more than one person this means that we observed this 74 times in the 764 voters we observed. This means that over 19% of all the voters who we observed were either engaged in, or affected by, this practice.”
This is the key qualification:
“We would, however, like to add that the vast majority of cases of this were prevented, or attempts were made to prevent it. However, we believe that this constitutes an unacceptably high level of family voting in an advanced democracy and further steps should be taken to discourage and prevent it. However, this activity is generally not the fault of polling staff, in fact we commend the staff for being so active in their attempts to prevent it.”
As one of the observer teams said:
“Family voting is a definite concern in Tower Hamlets. At the best-run polling stations, the Presiding Officers kept an active watch for potential cases and took steps to prevent it happening. They took care to issue ballot papers to family members one at a time, and then direct them to polling booths in different parts of the room. With three members of polling staff, this meant that while two clerks checked the register and issued papers, the”
polling officer
“could remain vigilant for possible family voting or other problems. All the observed cases of family voting took place when the”
polling officer
“was absent or distracted, or their attention was elsewhere.”
There is no criticism here of the polling staff; they try to do their best. But I am afraid, as this report from Democracy Volunteers identifies, that this is a far too pervasive problem, and we need clear guidance. Most people believed that we had clear guidance for a century and a half, but because of varying interpretations, my amendment is an attempt to ensure that we move away from this practice and back to what was originally intended.
As the noble Lord, Lord Khan, identified, I have tried to allow for those people who need accompaniment. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, in a previous debate, there may be other people in similar circumstances who need assistance. Generally, the assistance will come from a polling officer, but there may be special reasons why somebody needs accompaniment from a member of the family. However, these should be virtually unique occasions, not—as the report from Democracy Volunteers identified—a pervasive problem. I therefore believe that my amendment is attempting to tackle a problem which is quite widespread and needs clarification, and that it is in the best interests of conducting elections across the country.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hayward. As an aside on families and secrecy of the ballot, I have had to ask somebody to be a proxy only once: during the very fraught referendum on Brexit, I had to ask my husband. I can tell your Lordships that, to this day, I still do not know which way I voted. I think I know which way I voted, but the secrecy of the ballot is absolutely sacrosanct, and I do not know.
On a more serious point, these Benches support the raft of amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and those in the name of the Minister that support the secrecy of the ballot. The only difference we have with the noble Lord, Lord Hayward—this has been an ongoing issue with him—is that if guidance has to be given on such issues, it probably would be better coming from the independent Electoral Commission rather than the Secretary of State, although we do not dispute that such guidance would be helpful. However, we understand from previous discussions and debates with the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, why he seeks the Secretary of State giving such guidance, but if it was to come, we feel that it should come from the Electoral Commission. With those points, we support these amendments.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, the figures that the noble Lord gave will of course be of concern to the Committee and to any reasonable person following our proceedings. I have just been reading the Ballot Act 1872, Section 2 of which makes it clear that the vote shall be secret. It makes no reference to anybody conducting a voter and is particularly scrupulous, because of the great concern that there might be intervention by public authorities, that the presiding officers and staff in polling stations are kept completely apart from the act of voting; all they can do is check that the official mark has been made. The noble Lord’s point is well made, whether it is the Electoral Commission or the Secretary of State—although one would hope that the Secretary of State would be acting on the Electoral Commission’s advice on this matter anyway.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, as has been said, these amendments are to Clause 7, which concerns the important issue of the secrecy of the ballot for postal and proxy voters. The clause extends the requirements currently in place to protect the secrecy of voting for persons voting in polling stations to postal and proxy voting. These sensible change implementations are an important recommendation from the Pickles report.
First, in bringing forward government Amendments 98, 99 and 101 to 103, we have listened to feedback from political parties about the scope and effect of the provisions as drafted. Currently, the clause includes provisions that make it an offence for a person to obtain, attempt to obtain or communicate to anyone information about whether a postal voter has voted or about the candidate for whom they have voted. As drafted, this applies for the whole period that the elector is in possession of their postal ballot paper, which could be up to three weeks.
We now recognise that this approach goes beyond what is helpful to protect the voter and strays into unnecessarily criminalising not only legitimate political activity to engage electors in campaigns but important public information, such as opinion polling. The amendments would limit the scope of these provisions by providing for it to be an offence for a person to seek information about for whom a postal voter has voted at the time they are completing their ballot paper, or to communicate such information obtained at that time. Campaigners could therefore seek and communicate information that they obtain outside this period. This is in line with the protection for voters in polling stations, who are protected when they are in that polling station.
The amendments would also remove the restriction on asking whether a postal voter has voted so that campaigners can ask a postal voter whether they have voted, to encourage them to do so. Further, under the amendments, the offence would not apply to opinion-polling activity asking how a postal voter has voted, or intends to vote, to avoid criminalising opinion pollsters. The amendments seek to address the unintended consequences that the provisions, as they stand, would have. They would narrow the scope of the provisions so that they do not prevent legitimate campaigning by political parties and candidates outside the time when a person completes their postal ballot paper or legitimate opinion polling at any time.
I reassure noble Lords that the measures will improve the integrity of the postal vote process by reducing the opportunity for individuals to exploit the process and coerce other voters. They will give greater confidence in the integrity of absent voting; I therefore urge the Committee to accept these amendments.
The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness seek to provide that attempting to communicate information about a person’s postal vote as well as actually communicating the information is covered in the secrecy offence. Also, the amendments seek to include in the offence obtaining or attempting to obtain information or communicating information about whether a person voting by postal vote has spoilt their ballot. The Government consider that these amendments are unnecessary, as I have explained. The amendments that the Government have tabled seek to bring the protection for postal voters into line with that for those voting in polling stations.
The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness would mean that there would be inconsistency in the requirements for voters in polling stations and postal voters, which would not favour them. I note that, currently, it is an offence for a person to obtain or attempt to obtain information or communicate information as to the candidate for whom a voter has voted in a polling station, and we are applying this to postal voters.
Spoilt ballot papers are not included in the existing provisions, which relate to the time when a voter is casting their vote. It is for the returning officer to decide if a vote has been spoilt and cannot be counted. That cannot be done before it is cast. To try to include such a provision could lead to uncertainty about the scope of the offence and the role of the statutory independent returning officer in making any such determination. The Government therefore cannot accept these amendments.
I turn to the amendment from my noble friend Lord Hayward, which would provide the Secretary of State with a power to issue guidance on the steps that presiding officers or clerks should take to ensure the secrecy of the ballot in polling stations. I reassure noble Lords that the Government take this and the concerns that have been raised very seriously. The Government’s view is that the secrecy of the ballot is fundamental to the ability of voters to cast their vote freely, without undue pressure to vote in a certain way. The Government fully endorse the principle that someone’s vote must be personal and secret, and that no elector should ever be subject to intimidation or coercion when voting. There are already provisions in place in electoral law to ensure the secrecy of voting in polling stations. The current legislation requires that voters should not be accompanied by another person at a polling booth except in specific circumstances, such as being a child of a voter, a formal companion or a member of staff.
Returning officers and their staff in polling stations are responsible for making sure that these requirements are upheld. In this way, they are supported by the Electoral Commission, which issues guidance to returning officers and polling station staff to help them to undertake their duties.
I note that the Electoral Commission guidance specifically advises polling station staff that they should make sure that voters go to polling booths individually, so that their right to a secret vote is protected. Therefore, I do not consider that it is the role of government to issue such guidance as provided for in the amendment. However, given the important concerns that have been raised on the secrecy of voting, Minister Badenoch will be writing to the Electoral Commission and the Metropolitan Police to confirm our common understanding of the position set out in legislation—that the only people who should provide assistance at a polling booth are polling station staff and companions who are doing so only for the purpose of supporting an elector with health and/or accessibility issues that need such support. We are confident that the Electoral Commission will be able to respond promptly, and I reassure the noble Lord and the rest of the House that we will report back on this matter.
For these reasons, I hope that the amendments from the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will not be pressed.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and the noble Lords, Lord Hayward and Lord Scriven, for their contributions. I want to say how impeccable the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, was in reading the Ballot Act 1872 in the space of this debate, and I congratulate him on his reading skills. In doing so, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment leaves out paragraph (c) from inserted section 66(3A) of the Representation of the People Act 1983.
“(d) obtain or attempt to obtain information, in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (3AA), as to the candidate for whom a person voting by post at a relevant election (“V”) is about to vote or has voted;(e) communicate at any time to any other person information obtained in contravention of paragraph (d).(3AA) The circumstances referred to in subsection (3A)(d) are where V is about to mark, is in the process of marking, or has just marked, a ballot paper sent to V for voting by post at the election.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment inserts, in substitution for paragraph (d) of inserted section 66(3A) of the Representation of the People Act 1983, provision clarifying the scope of the prohibition on obtaining or communicating information about the candidate for whom a postal voter has voted.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment updates cross-references in consequence of the amendment in Lord True’s name at page 9, lines 21 to 24.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment updates cross-references in consequence of the amendment in Lord True’s name at page 9, lines 21 to 24.
“(3BA) Subsection (3A)(d) and (e) does not apply where the purpose (or main purpose) for which the information is sought or communicated is its use for the purposes of—(a) a published statement relating to the way in which voters intend to vote or have voted at the relevant election, or(b) a published forecast as to the result of that election which is based on information given by voters.(3BB) In subsection (3BA)—(a) “forecast” includes estimate;(b) “published” means made available to the public at large or to any section of the public, in whatever form and by whatever means;(c) the reference to the result of the relevant election is a reference to the result of the election either as a whole or so far as any particular candidate or candidates at the election is or are concerned.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that no criminal liability arises where information is sought from, or given by, a postal voter at an election for the purposes of an opinion poll or exit poll.
“(1) After section 114 of RPA 1983 insert—“114A Undue influence(1) A person is guilty of a corrupt practice if the person is guilty of undue influence.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment inserts section 114A into the Representation of the People Act 1983, which contains a new undue influence provision that applies in relation to parliamentary elections and in relation to local government elections in England.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 106A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
Well spotted. The amendments are the wrong way round on Today’s Lists—apologies. The Marshalled List takes priority over the printed list so we will go back and take Amendment 106ZA.
Amendment 106ZA
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would expand the list of activities which may constitute undue influence to probe whether causing or threatening financial loss to a political party should be included.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I shall move this amendment very swiftly because I was intending to spend most of this speech discussing what the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, said about his amendment, but I have missed my opportunity on that.
Amendment 106ZA is about expanding the list of activities which may constitute undue influence to probe whether causing or threatening financial loss to a political party should also be included. At the moment, it just refers to financial loss due to persons, but clearly undue pressure could be put on political parties, particularly the smaller political parties, around potential financial loss if they go down certain policy routes, for example. It is just to probe that, so I beg to move.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 106A. As I have already said to the Minister, this is very much a probing amendment. Clause 8 is an important clause. We all recognise that it has to be in any elections Bill. I note that in various references to the clause the statement is made that there is a need to clarify the law on undue influence. One of the things I asked the Minister in advance was whether he could tell us how often there have been successful prosecutions for undue influence, because it is not that easy to prove.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I will follow on from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, on undue influence. I think that a large part of this stems from Richard Mawrey’s judgments in the Tower Hamlets case. Anybody who has not experienced what the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, has clearly seen in places such as Bradford and Kirklees and I witnessed in Tower Hamlets will not appreciate what one is talking about, which is a serious problem. The first time I went to an election in Tower Hamlets a friend of mine, Councillor Peter Golds, to whom my noble friend Lord True referred, identified this: “See those people there? See that person there?” We are talking about people standing 100 metres to 150 metres away from a polling station. They walk alongside people going to vote. They stop people going into the polling station. When complaints are made to the police, the police feel that they are powerless to intervene. Anybody who has not experienced that sort of undue influence cannot appreciate the intimidation involved. I welcome the clause and the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, because it is an important change to electoral law.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, the underlying issue here clearly might lead to concern in certain circumstances, but the point I took the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, to be making is that this is a very new category of injury. I have never seen in legislation before the concept of “spiritual injury” or individuals being placed under “spiritual pressure”. Could the Minister give us any precedents for these terms in legislation so that we can get some idea as to what other matters they have referred and how they might actually be applied?
Although we can understand the issue, how do we define what counts as spiritual pressure? If, for example, a religious group put out literature supporting one candidate or another, as often happens, would that count as undue spiritual pressure? There could be a freedom of speech issue here, which I do not think we want to get into, so it would be useful if the Minister could explain to us other contexts in which this has been used so that we can get some idea of what a proportionate judgment on “spiritual injury” and “undue spiritual pressure” might be.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I want to follow on from the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, because his concerns were also mine. I am not clear what the definition of some of these issues would be in law and how they would be taken by the courts. Are there issues like this in legislation elsewhere and has there been interpretation by the courts, particularly regarding spiritual injury? For example, if someone was to stand up in a Catholic church and ask for people not to vote for candidates who supported abortion, would that constitute spiritual injury? Would that be undue spiritual pressure in determining which way people vote?
This is a very finely balanced issue, and I have not come across it before. Therefore, the Minister needs to explain very specifically where the lines and the boundaries are. It is a balance between people having the right to freedom of speech and of faith—I say that as somebody who does not have a religious faith—and the issue of them not being unduly influenced or forced to go against what they believe in. It would be really interesting to hear a clear definition and clear examples from the Dispatch Box for us to be able to determine exactly what this means in legislation.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
I shall give my noble friend an American example, which has been debated in the United States very recently. There have been Catholic bishops who have suggested that President Biden should be denied communion, as a Catholic, because he is not prepared to be sufficiently anti-abortion. That, it seems to me, would be undue spiritual influence—although the spectacle of a Catholic bishop or archbishop being prosecuted for undue spiritual influence would be quite an interesting one.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
I will elaborate on the noble Lord’s point. There is a difference here, in the ordinary reading of the words, between pressure and intimidation. I took the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, to be referring to intimidation, which is clearly something that we want to guard against. But what constitutes spiritual pressure? As noble Lords have just said, would a sermon in a church constitute pressure? A reasonable person might think that it would; after all, it is not serving much of a purpose if there is no pressure. This is a lay man speaking, but I think there is a difference between pressure and intimidation. We want to guard against intimidation, but we absolutely do not want to curb freedom of religious speech.
Lord Stunell (LD)
This is unexpectedly lively, but the focus really is on new sub-paragraph (3)(e). I think most of us would say that there is, if you like, a simple lay person’s interpretation of new sub-paragraph (3)(a), (b), (c), (d) and, for that matter, the catch-all of new sub-paragraph (3)(f), which is
“any other act designed to intimidate a person”.
In the light of new sub-paragraph (3)(f), it may be that the difficulties of new sub-paragraph (3)(e) are best avoided by their omission, because if such spiritual injury was demonstrated, it would come under new sub-paragraph (3)(f).
I just point out that the preceding activities have “using or threatening”, “damaging or threatening”, “causing or threatening”, but new sub-paragraph (3)(e) has “causing spiritual injury”; not “threatening” to cause spiritual injury. Obviously, it depends on one’s personal understanding of what spiritual injury might consist of, but the threat is surely going to be offered far more often than the reality will be delivered, if I may put it in those terms, although it does not mean that it is not effective. There are some problems in the straightforward interpretation of what new sub-paragraph (3)(e) really says, why it does not say “threatening” to cause, as does new sub-paragraph (3)(c) and (d), for instance, and why it is necessary, separate from the catch-all of new sub-paragraph (3)(f):
“doing any other act designed to intimidate a person”.
I want to bring a little bit of local colour to new sub-paragraph (4)(e). In 1992, I stood for the Liberal Democrats in Hazel Grove. On the Sunday before polling day, every Catholic church in the constituency had a letter read out from the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, which clearly expressed the view that a vote for me would be a major spiritual error. I failed to win that seat by 923 votes. I do not attribute the result to that letter, but noble Lords will understand that I had a sense of grievance for some time afterwards that this letter had been read out.
This brings me to my second critique of new sub-paragraph (4)(e)—it is a little bit in the eye of the beholder. If that provision had been there in 1992, I would have gone straight to the returning officer to say that this was a clear case. It would be an invitation for people to complain about things which were in fact simply within the bounds of free speech, fair comment, and so on—even if it was unfair in the opinion of the recipient.
There is a double problem. First, what is “spiritual injury”? Secondly, do we mean causing it, or threatening to cause it? Do we think that the injury is to the voter who is deterred from voting for a candidate, or to the candidate by virtue of the voter not supporting them? I suggest that we are not very clear what we are trying to pin down. The Minister might like to carefully consider what the disbenefit would be of removing new sub-paragraph (4)(e) and simply relying on new sub-paragraph (4)(f) to deal with cases where “spiritual injury”—or threats of it—was part of the reason there had been intimidation.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, in Christian teaching, the alpha comes before omega, so I was a bit puzzled, like others, that Z comes before A. I was set up to answer the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, first, and I hope that the noble Baroness will not be offended if I do that.
In any case, both are seeking to probe the reference to “spiritual injury” and “undue spiritual pressure” in the clarified offence of “undue influence” of “an elector or proxy”. The “undue influence” offence is intended to ensure that all electors and proxies are able to cast their vote free from intimation and malicious interference. It is true that the 2015 Tower Hamlets petition, about which my noble friend Lord Hayward spoke eloquently, demonstrated that protection from undue influence remains highly relevant and important in 21st-century Britain. However, the existing offence of undue influence dates back to the 19th century. Indeed, the freedoms of religious authorities and priests to hold and express political views were first set out in a judgment in 1870, and those freedoms remain. However, the complexity and outdated terminology of the current offence makes it difficult for the police or prosecutors to apply it, leaving electors and proxies without necessary protection.
I was asked about convictions. According to our data, between 81% and 86% of allegations of undue influence lead to no further action at all, with only one court case initiated in the last eight years. While the defendant was found guilty of undue spiritual influence in the Tower Hamlets petition, Commissioner Mawrey highlighted insufficient clarity in the law, as well as the high bar which was required to convict someone of intimidation. The commissioner recommended that the offence of
“undue spiritual influence … be more clearly articulated”
and brought in line with 21st-century language and society, to ensure that it remains enforceable. The Law Commission, in its 2016 report into electoral law, similarly called for the offence to be restated more clearly. All respondents in the Government’s public consultation in 2018, entitled Protecting the Debate: Intimidation, Influence, and Information, agreed that the offence required greater clarity.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, I was not absolutely clear from what the Minister said whether the phrase “undue spiritual pressure” exists in existing legislation. He may not have the answer to that, but could he write to us about it?
Lord True (Con)
Yes, I had better write at this hour. I had it somewhere, but I have lost it in the folder. I will certainly write to the noble Lord. I tried to answer the question. If I have not, I will write; sorry.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I think it is the sense of quite a few of us that it might be wiser to remove the phrase “causing spiritual injury to” because that is, I think, the most difficult element of it. I think most of us would understand
“placing undue spiritual pressure on”.
I respectfully suggest that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, might be a useful person to consult on this. Some of us may remember the occasion when, as Lord Chancellor, he attended a requiem mass for a Catholic judge in Glasgow and was threatened with exclusion from his own church, very clearly threatening to use spiritual pressure. He has presumably thought all of this through extremely well.
I thank the Minister for explaining the efforts that have gone into defining “undue influence” rather better. I still feel that we are looking at something which we all know is there but we are not at all sure that the police, let alone the Crown Prosecution Service, are going to want to take on very much. This is an area involving the boundaries between campaigning, free speech, improper behaviour and downright offences which we will probably have to live with, unsatisfactorily, because that is part of the nature of democracy.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, it has been a particularly interesting debate on the definition of spirituality and so on. We need to get more definition and clarity in order to move forward, so that there are no unforeseen or unfortunate consequences.
I thank the Minister very much for his clarification. It makes perfect sense to me now and, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“(7) This section does not have effect in relation to a local government election in Scotland or Wales.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the inserted section 114A does not apply in relation to local government elections in Scotland or Wales.
“(1A) In section 115 of RPA 1983 (undue influence)—(a) in subsection (1), after “influence” insert “in relation to a local government election in Scotland or Wales”;(b) in subsection (2), after “influence” insert “in relation to a local government election in Scotland or Wales”;(c) in the heading, after “influence” insert “: local government elections in Scotland and Wales”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment confines the existing undue influence provision, section 115 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, to local government elections in Scotland and Wales.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment confines the amendment to section 80(1) of the Local Government Act 1972 so that it does not cover incapacity where the holder of a devolved office in Scotland or Wales is reported guilty or convicted of undue influence.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes the amendment to section 80A of the Local Government Act 1972.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment confines the amendment to section 4(1) of the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 so that it does not cover incapacity where the holder of a devolved office in Scotland or Wales is reported guilty or convicted of undue influence.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes the amendment to section 31 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment confines the amendment to section 21 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 so that it does not cover incapacity arising where the holder of a devolved office in Scotland or Wales is reported guilty or convicted of undue influence.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes the amendment to Schedule 1A to the Government of Wales Act 2006.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment confines the amendment to paragraph 9(1) of Schedule 5B to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 so that it does not cover incapacity arising where the holder of a devolved office in Scotland or Wales is reported guilty or convicted of undue influence.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment confines the amendment to section 66(3) of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 so that it does not cover incapacity arising where the holder of a devolved office in Wales is reported guilty or convicted of undue influence.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes the consequential repeals made by paragraph 11 of Schedule 5.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
“(a) in paragraph (3A)(b), for “a device” substitute “equipment”;(aa) after paragraph (3A)(b) insert—“(c) such equipment as it is reasonable to provide for the purposes of enabling, or making it easier for, relevant persons to vote in the manner directed by rule 37.”;”
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 118A on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, who cannot be in his place today. I am doing this to allow for debate at this time on Amendment 122A, which is on the same topic. Amendment 118A is a retabled version of Amendment 120 and this has been done in order to place it in the correct part of the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, has already spoken to his amendment on an earlier day, he has nothing further to add.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 122A, on an issue that I do not think has received sufficient attention for a long time: the significant group of voters who lose their votes at each election because they inaccurately fill out the verification forms to be enclosed with their postal vote forms. The problem is that, depending on the whims of a particular returning officer, a voter could be doing this, year in and year out, at every election, without realising that the vote they thought they had cast has not actually been validated because of an error—perhaps on the voting paper itself but, in my experience, it is far more likely to be an error on the verification form required to go with it.
I have listed certain categories of voters in my amendment—for example, those with failing eyesight or those with limited or no literacy. To fill in the paperwork that allows one to complete a postal vote form can be incredibly complex. There is a range of options open to returning officers. My own personal experience of filling them in is that some are straightforward and some are mind-bogglingly difficult. Those voters who are particularly vulnerable ought to have an automatic right, whereby an agent of the returning officer should, if requested, be able to visit them and assist them in the completion not of the voting paper itself—the experience I have is that that is rarely spoiled—but of the verification form that goes with it.
The percentages are very high indeed. In a local election in the area I once represented, one could easily see 300 postal votes that were lost because of this. In a general election, one is multiplying that, and anything up to a thousand votes could be lost, purely because people have been unable to accurately complete the paperwork. Some will do that carelessly, but there is a whole range of more vulnerable voters who, given the opportunity for assistance, would complete the verification form accurately and then vote and have their vote counted.
It seems to me that, whether it requires legislation or clearer guidance to returning officers, this is a rather important point in ensuring that maximise the actual turnout in elections, rather than the theoretical turn out of those who have returned postal votes but do not have them counted. The numbers are significant if we multiply across the country those that I have seen locally. It is a significant group of voters, and it is through no specific fault of their own—other than, for example, their literacy or their failing eyesight, which is the example I am most familiar with.
Better advice from returning officers would be appropriate. I put this forward as an option, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for speaking on behalf of my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond. We did debate his Amendment 118A, and we are in contact with him on the issues he raised, so I am happy with that.
Amendment 122A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mann, would require that the returning officers consider whether to appoint designated people to assist electors in completing their postal votes at home or at other locations for various reasons. I commend the spirit of this amendment in looking to improve the accessibility of elections for people who may struggle to mark their vote. We know that there are people who, for many reasons, do that, but I contend that it is not necessary, given the existing assistance avenues already in place.
When voting by post, it is important that the postal vote is completed by the person to whom it is given. When someone is unable to sign the postal vote, as is required, they may get a waiver of their signature. If they need help from the returning officer, they may attend a polling station where staff are empowered to assist electors to vote, or a companion can assist them in a supervised environment. If the person cannot attend a polling station, they may appoint a proxy to vote on their behalf. This proxy may themselves choose to vote by post. An elector may also appoint an emergency proxy to vote on their behalf up until 5 pm on the day of the poll in certain unforeseen circumstances.
For these reasons, while I understand everything that has been said, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As the Minister said, we had an extensive debate on this at our previous Committee sitting, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.