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 ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)
Among a range of measures, the Chancellor recently announced a £200 energy bill discount for households across the whole of the UK, including Wales, as well as £180 million to the Welsh Government in recognition of the council tax energy rebate in England.
Richard Thomson
About 1.5 million households across the UK depend on heating oil for their domestic energy needs. Last September, households could have expected to pay about £250 for a 500-litre delivery. Last week, those prices had risen to anywhere between £600 and £900 for a delivery of the same volume. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with his Cabinet colleagues, particularly the Chancellor of the Exchequer, about how that burden could be mitigated for households at the mercy of that unregulated section of the energy market?
Simon Hart
I am glad the hon. Gentleman has raised this question. I am in that particular bracket myself, so I know exactly what he is talking about. There have been some interventions already. As far as conversations with the Chancellor and his team are concerned, they have been numerous up to and including this morning, but I think the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I ask him if he can possibly wait till roughly 12.30 this afternoon, when the Chancellor will spell out exactly what his own proposals are.
Chris Stephens
With rising inflation and a cost of living crisis, a recent YouGov survey of Welsh voters found that 71% felt that their personal financial situation is set to worsen over the next 12 months and 27% said that they will struggle to pay their next energy bill. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Chancellor should turn his energy loan into a grant and reverse the £20 universal credit cut?
Simon Hart
Again, I can only say that it would be unhelpful and inappropriate for me to predict and prejudge what the Chancellor will be saying in the Chamber in a matter of minutes. All I can say is that these are conversations—[Hon. Members: “Go on!”] I would like to, but I am not going to. These conversations have been a regular part of—have dominated—the Wales Office’s connection with the Treasury in the last few days and weeks. As I say, the hon. Member has not got long to wait, and I hope he can bear with me.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
The boss of oil giant BP said last month that it had more money than it knows what to do with, which is completely the opposite situation to that of households right across Wales that cannot cope with record inflation and astronomical energy bills under the watch of the right hon. Gentleman’s Government, so why will he and the Chancellor not agree to a one-off windfall tax on oil and gas producers?
Simon Hart
There are two points I would like to make. The first one I have already made, which is not to prejudge what the Chancellor is going to say in his statement in a few minutes’ time, which will address this and I hope numerous other issues that are occupying the minds of Members across the House, in fact. As far as the second point is concerned, I am afraid a slightly well-trodden path of the Opposition is to confront every possible problem by finding somebody and taxing them. We do not believe that is necessarily the answer, because we want energy companies to be part of the solution and also to be part of future and ongoing investment in energy infrastructure, and they will not do that—and will not be able to do that—if all the Government’s responses are simply, as I say, to identify them and tax them. It may be a populist gesture, but it is not actually going to solve the problem that we both wish to try to resolve.
Jo Stevens
I am afraid the Secretary of State is completely out of touch with public opinion on this. Polling this week, published by 38 Degrees, shows that 69% of the Welsh public say that the Government’s energy bill loan package is not enough to help those struggling with their energy bills, and 67% support Labour’s windfall tax because it would mean £200 off energy bills now and £600 off energy bills for the hardest-hit households in Wales. This would be a tax on the unexpected profits of oil and gas companies, so why is he on the side of those oil and gas companies, not on the side of the Welsh public?
Simon Hart
I think that just defaulting to a 38 Degrees petition as if that is some kind of solution to a very complex and long-standing problem is a cheap and populist way out of this. We are taking a more responsible view, as I hope she will hear from the Chancellor later. There have already been numerous interventions—for example, we have provided an additional £180 million to the Welsh Government in this particular context—so I urge the hon. Member not just to press the petition button and think that that is all the Opposition have to do. We have to do a lot more than that if we are serious about addressing the long-term challenges that face us all. None of us is without this: we all have constituents with these problems and we all know exactly the challenges she refers to.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)
We have had constructive discussions with the Welsh Government on the importance of establishing our freeports programme, and we continue to work closely on that as a matter of urgency.
Mark Fletcher
The east midlands freeport will see nearly £9 billion of new investment, and tens of thousands of new jobs created in our region. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the Welsh Government really cared about the people of Ynys Môn, they would support the efforts of our colleagues to deliver a freeport, and bring more jobs and investment to the island?
Simon Hart
If nothing else, I think the Wales Office Parliamentary Private Secretary has won a bet in getting her constituency up in lights again on the question of freeports. My hon. Friend makes an interesting point about something we have been campaigning on for some time, and this fantastic scheme will create long-lasting sustainable jobs across the whole UK. I hope he will forgive me, however, for not trying to prejudge what that process may conclude regarding the actual venues. We are expecting a number of very enthusiastic bids into the scheme once it is launched. I think we can describe that announcement as “imminent”, so my hon. Friend, and the residents of Ynys Môn, do not have long to wait.
Alexander Stafford
The flow of goods through free trade is a critical priority for prosperity, whether in the village of Wales in Rother Valley, or in the great nation of Wales. What role does my right hon. Friend see for freeports in that, and how might a freeport in north Wales—for example in Anglesey—help to improve the problems associated with a central corridor and the working of the Northern Ireland protocol?
Simon Hart
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The concept of freeports is indisputably positive, and others who have gone down that route with the launch of English freeports are already able to report inward investment, and good sustainable jobs that will contribute to our economic recovery as well as our net-zero ambitions. As I said, in Wales there will be a number of very high quality bids. We have committed in the manifesto to at least one freeport in Wales, and hopefully we may be able to expand on that over time. The long wait for a decision, and the many months of wrestling with the Welsh Government to reach a conclusion that we can all live with, are nearly at an end.
Jacob Young
A freeport in Wales, especially in Anglesey, sounds like a great idea, just like in Teesside, where the UK’s largest and first post-Brexit freeport has already led to the announcement of thousands of future jobs in new green technologies. Does the Minister agree it is vital that we all get behind our freeport policy, which will help to level up and deliver the change we need in our areas?
Simon Hart
My hon. Friend makes a good point, which gives me the opportunity to highlight that freeports are already a resounding success in his area. We do not need to go any further than that, because the work that he and the Mayor, Ben Houchen, have done in that area is fantastic. Anyone who had any doubts about what freeports can bring to a region need only look at my hon. Friend’s area to see that they make a serious and positive contribution to future economic prosperity.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
The Secretary of State extols the virtues of a freeport in Wales, but will he assure the House that he will not allow DP World, which is responsible for the shameful sacking of 800 P&O workers, anywhere near the construction or operation of any freeport in the United Kingdom?
Simon Hart
The hon. Lady raises a timely point, and I hope that the comments made by the Transport Secretary, and others, will reassure her that we are deeply disturbed by the way that action was taken. As she knows, it has been referred to the Insolvency Service, and if there are demonstrable transgressions in that process, that could lead to criminal prosecutions. I can give the hon. Lady the assurance she needs as far as freeports in Wales are concerned.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
In the ongoing work and discussions on freeports with the Welsh Government, does the Secretary of State agree with the Welsh Government’s three basic and rather easy requests: parity over decision making; fair funding between freeports across the nation so that Welsh Government funds do not have to be diverted away from vital projects in Wales; and that the ethical standards of the Welsh Government—which are certainly higher than those of the UK Government—will be met if any freeport is delivered in Wales?
Simon Hart
I hope I can assure the hon. Gentleman. The fact that we are, I hope, imminently to make an announcement that involves the UK and the Welsh Governments, means that both parties in this long-running negotiation are satisfied. As I said, I do not want to prejudge the announcement or what the bidding process may conclude, but we can absolutely agree that there are a number of important issues. We have taken more than two years to reach this point, and I hope the Welsh Government, and everybody else involved in the process, will be satisfied by the outcome.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
The Secretary of State has said that freeports in Wales will create 15,000 jobs, but where is his evidence that any of the economic benefits that flow from that will reach ordinary Welsh workers rather than the usual fat cats, such as DP World?
Simon Hart
The answer to that question, if the hon. Gentleman does not want to believe me, comes from port authorities, local authorities, stakeholders and others around Wales—people, including in his constituency, are looking at the evidence for freeports and the kind of upsides that my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Jacob Young) mentioned for Teesside a few moments ago. It might be a step too far for the hon. Gentleman to believe me, but he should believe his constituents and his community who believe this to be long overdue and are very anxious that we conclude it as soon as possible.
Hywel Williams
From welcoming Ukrainian refugees to safeguarding seafarers’ rights, the Government consistently disappoint. The Welsh Conservatives have now joined Welsh Labour and Plaid Cymru to call for an expedited visa process to ensure simple, fast, safe and legal routes to sanctuary in the UK and to remove the requirement for Ukrainians to provide biometric evidence prior to leaving Ukraine. The Secretary of State is Wales’s man in the Cabinet: what is he doing to ensure that those jointly agreed Welsh humanitarian aims are achieved?
Simon Hart
I hope I can reassure the hon. Gentleman. Numerous conversations have been ongoing between the UK Government and the Welsh Government about the Ukraine refugee position. I stress that this is not a competition. We are working together to try to get the best outcome in a severe humanitarian crisis, and that means that we are putting our political differences to one side, and I hope that he can join us in that endeavour. We are incredibly grateful to local authorities, charities, the public in Wales and, of course, the Welsh Government for making this happen at the pace that it has. I spoke to the Ukrainian ambassador only last week, and he is also incredibly grateful for the way in which Wales, in all its different forms, has stepped up to the mark to try to resolve the problem. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support in our attempt to achieve those ambitions.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
Most of the focus on the freeport opportunity has understandably been on maritime ports. Can I draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to the merits of Barry port? In addition, can I ask him to pay particular attention to Cardiff airport, which is closely associated with Barry port, and assure me that it will be central to his thinking?
Simon Hart
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising that. He is right to point out that freeports are not necessarily confined to coastal areas: some of the best examples of freeports in the UK are inland freeports. They are also not all identical, and there is not a one-size-fits-all solution for the whole of the UK. We are trying to be as flexible as we can in looking at all the different dynamics, including Cardiff airport, to make sure that when the bids come in we are not too prescriptive and we look at all the issues with the most open mind that we can.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
On levels of crime, Office for National Statistics data for the year ending September 2021 show that crime levels per capita in Wales are below the national average across England and Wales. As for funding, this Conservative Government will always be the party of law and order, and that is why I am pleased to be able to say that we are putting £820 million into policing next year, an increase of £40 million.
Liz Twist
In the nearly 13 years the Government have been in power, police staffing has fallen by 25,000. Across the UK, there are 7,000 fewer police community support officers on the streets than there were in 2010. In Wales, the Welsh Labour Government, which does not have jurisdiction over policing, have stepped in and funded 500 PCSOs and will fund a further 100. Does that not show that the Tories are happy to see rising crime and an increase in victims, and it is only Labour which is taking action to keep our communities safe?
David T. C. Davies
What it shows is that the Welsh Government will have had a record increase in spend of around £2.5 billion over the next couple of financial years. What I can also tell the hon. Lady is that 603 additional police officers are being allocated for Wales, 479 have taken that opportunity and there are still 100 vacancies. As somebody who spent nine years as a special constable, I recommend to anyone who wants to serve their community that they should consider joining a police force in Wales.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
English police forces are fully reimbursed by the Government for the cost of training police officers. In Wales, the Home Office has reimbursed only half the cost, leaving Welsh police forces with a shortfall of over £2 million. Will the Minister and the Secretary of State persuade their Cabinet colleagues to meet the historical funding shortfall in full, so that Welsh police forces are no longer penalised and are in future treated equally with English ones?
David T. C. Davies
This is actually a quite complex problem, and far more complex perhaps than we have time for in this forum. The real problem is that the Welsh Government are failing to discuss with the Home Office how the apprenticeship scheme works. I urge the hon. Gentleman to talk to his colleagues in the Welsh Labour Government, get them to recognise the apprenticeships schemes and ensure that police officers are properly trained and police forces fully refunded.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I discuss regularly with Cabinet members and members of the Welsh Government a range of transport matters. It was a pleasure to meet the hon. Gentleman last week to discuss cross-border connectivity in north Wales. The Union connectivity review recognised the importance of the north Wales transport corridor and the Government are carefully considering the recommendations before reporting back.
Christian Matheson
I thank the Minister for meeting me last week. He will understand that if north Wales is to get the full benefits of HS2, the line from Crewe to Chester and on to north Wales will need to be upgraded, including work at Chester station. Will he get on to his Transport Department colleagues and get them to get a move on with making a decision on that upgrade work?
David T. C. Davies
Yes. I thought the hon. Gentleman made a very powerful case last week about the importance of improvements in Chester. I think he would agree that improvements to the rail service in some parts of England will benefit passengers in Wales and vice versa. I fully agree with him about HS2. It will have an enormous impact and deliver improvements not just for passengers in England, but for passengers in Wales and especially north Wales.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
Levelling up is all about places like Aberconwy. From our investment in a new tourism and innovation hub in Llandudno to improving digital connectivity for over 60 public buildings across Aberconwy, we will give everyone in Wales the opportunity to flourish and ensure that no place is left behind.
Robin Millar
I thank the Minister on behalf of residents for his answer and for the UK Government’s interest. The UK Government have funded a book for every schoolchild in the UK to commemorate the platinum jubilee. A bilingual version has been printed for schoolchildren in Wales. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that schoolchildren in Wales and Aberconwy—and even in Ynys Môn—will receive a copy of that book?
David T. C. Davies
My hon. Friend is correct. The UK Government wanted to celebrate the enormous achievement and the enormous commitment to public service that has been made by our monarch, and have produced the book bilingually to ensure that schoolchildren across Wales are able to read bilingually about the contribution made by Her Majesty the Queen. I am sure they all look forward eagerly to receiving their copy. The UK Government are working with the Welsh Government to ensure that that can happen imminently.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)
The Wales Office has regular discussions with the Welsh Government on cross-border connectivity. I am afraid that Labour’s plans are more of a roadblock than a road review. I urge the Welsh Government to focus more on investment and on delivering their 2016 manifesto commitments to sort out the M4 relief road and various other vital links.
Dr Davies
Five years ago, the A55-A494 network resilience study, commissioned by the Welsh Government, recognised the strategic importance of the route and the fact that it is often above capacity and vulnerable to disruption. How does my right hon. Friend believe the roads review may impact on plans for UKNET, a high-performing strategic transport network for the whole of the United Kingdom?
Simon Hart
I know both the roads that my hon. Friend refers to—I travel on them regularly—and I am well aware of their importance to his constituency and the region’s economic future. The UK Government’s contribution to the road infrastructure is second to none. Some liaison is clearly necessary with the Welsh Government about certain aspects of that. We hope that they will publish their strategy soon and look again at their road strategy, because a simple moratorium on road improvements and new roads is not the way to restore economic prosperity in his area or anywhere else.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)
The UK Government recognise the importance of the steel industry in Wales and the UK. The £30 million loan secured for Celsa is a demonstration of our commitment to the steel sector. Our response during the pandemic helped to secure more than 1,000 steel jobs in Wales.
Jessica Morden
While he was campaigning for Brexit in 2016, the Prime Minister told steelworkers in Wales that it was:
“Mad that we can’t cut steel energy costs because of EU rules”.
Now that we have left the EU, is it not madder that the Government have still done little to cut sky-high energy bills, which are a massive burden on our steel producers in Wales?
Simon Hart
I thank the hon. Lady, who has been an unbelievably effective campaigner for the steel industry in her area and in Wales more widely. The Business Secretary and I met the steel sector the other day at the Steel Council. The issue she has raised was an important part of that and the Business Secretary was able to offer some reassurance. I do not want to prejudge today’s statement from the Chancellor, but as we have the opportunity, I hope that the hon. Lady will join me in thanking the International Trade Secretary for her overnight success in lifting steel tariffs between the US and the UK. That will make a significant difference to everybody involved in the steel industry in the UK.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)
There have already been more than 10,000 Welsh registrations of interest in the UK Government’s Homes for Ukraine scheme. Wales is opening its arms to the people of Ukraine, proving that we are all now super-sponsors.
Simon Baynes
I am glad to have been able to help some families leaving Ukraine and I congratulate the many people and communities in Clwyd South who have been fundraising and giving practical help in the Ukraine crisis. Will the Secretary of State give further details on the Homes for Ukraine scheme, with the 10,000 registrations from Clwyd South and across Wales, and on how that is helping the situation at present?
Simon Hart
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the way in which he has been campaigning on this issue; it is a great example of what Members across the House have been able to do. I repeat my earlier answer about meeting the Ukrainian ambassador last week and expressing his gratitude, as well as mine, to local authorities, charities, the public in Wales and, in particular, the Welsh Government. This has been a joint effort—a superb all-round effort, involving all the stakeholders I have mentioned and more. As I stressed earlier, this is not a competition, but a collaborative effort, in which the early uptake has been superb. I think that we will be able to offer help to the necessary number of people on the timescale that we need because of that level of co-operation. [Interruption.]
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I hope that the House will want to listen to this question. Liana, my constituent, is from Ukraine and is in Cardiff on a global talent visa. Liana’s mother-in-law is depending on the kindness of strangers in Dublin for her accommodation, but the Home Office is not letting her in from Dublin even though there is a home waiting for her in Cardiff. I notice that the Home Secretary has joined Members on the Front Bench. Will the right hon. Gentleman have a word with the Home Secretary and ask her to look into why someone who is here on a global talent visa for science cannot bring their mother-in-law to stay with them in Cardiff?
Simon Hart
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I suspect that many Members have similar examples of people who, sadly, have slipped through the net or are in a difficult position. I absolutely give him an assurance, as I know the Home Secretary will, that we will look at each and every one of those individual cases and, hopefully, we will deliver to him the answer that he needs.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
The UK Government are committed to supporting the development of the floating offshore wind industry in Wales, with £160 million of funding available for floating offshore wind ports and factories across the UK. That funding will ensure that Wales capitalises on the huge opportunities that floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea presents.
Selaine Saxby
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the Celtic sea, may I ask my hon. Friend to detail what steps are being taken to progress floating offshore wind so that the supply-chain benefits are felt all the way around the Celtic sea’s shores, from Pembrokeshire across to North Devon and Cornwall?
David T. C. Davies
I commend my hon. Friend’s commitment to championing this opportunity through her role as chair of the Celtic sea APPG. Under this Conservative Government, with this Prime Minister, we will continue to see huge increases in the renewable energy that we produce and supply-chain benefits that will be felt across the UK.
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
I hugely welcome offshore wind on the basis that it is not onshore. Will my hon. Friend meet me to ensure that we put more of this wonderful renewable energy offshore and stop industrialising the landscape of Montgomeryshire?
David T. C. Davies
It is always a pleasure to meet my hon. Friend. I assure him that this Conservative Government will continue to support floating offshore wind in a way that will have the support of the public.
Mr Speaker
Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I would like to point out that the British Sign Language interpretation of proceedings is available to watch on parliamentlive.tv.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Helen Hayes
The degrading strip-search of Child Q two years ago, in a school that should have been a safe place, at the hands of police officers she should have been able to trust, has caused anger and distress across the country. On Monday, the Minister for Crime and Policing failed to answer four separate questions in this Chamber about when he first knew about Child Q and what urgent action he took in response, so I ask the Prime Minister: when did he first hear about the strip-search of Child Q in her school? Does he believe that the characteristic dither and delay of his Government in responding to this appalling case is remotely acceptable when it comes to the safety of children?
The Prime Minister
I think that that is a completely ridiculous characterisation of the response of the Government, because of course the reports of the incident are deeply distressing and deeply concerning—everybody shares the hon. Lady’s feelings about that—but the Metropolitan police have rightly apologised and the Independent Office for Police Conduct is investigating. For that reason, it would not be right to comment further.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend and all those involved in the two big schemes that we have now for welcoming people from Ukraine. The Homes for Ukraine scheme is now open; I think that about 40,000 have already applied and 150,000 families across the country have said that they want to welcome Ukrainians. That is a fantastic thing, and I thank Baldock and District for helping to lead the way.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
Eight hundred loyal British workers fired over Zoom, instantly replaced by foreign agency workers shipped in on less than the minimum wage—if the Prime Minister cannot stop that, what is the point of his Government?
The Prime Minister
We condemn the callous behaviour of P&O. I think it is no way to treat hard-working employees, and I can tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we will not sit by. It looks to me as though, under section 194 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, the company concerned has broken the law, and we will therefore be taking action, and encouraging workers themselves to take action under the Employment Rights Act 1996—and both those Acts were passed by Conservative Governments. If the company is found guilty, it will face fines running into millions of pounds. In addition, we will be taking steps to protect all mariners who are working in UK waters and ensure that they are paid the living wage.
Keir Starmer
When Owen Paterson was on the ropes, the Prime Minister was prepared to rip up the entire rule book to save his jobs. P&O workers want him to show the same fight in relation to them. The Government had advance warning of these mass sackings—a memo was sent to the Transport Secretary and to the Prime Minister’s office—but they did not lift a finger to stop them. Did the Prime Minister not understand the memo, or did he just not bother to read it?
The Prime Minister
I think what the right hon. and learned Gentleman needs to rip up are his pre-scripted questions, because I just answered that question. The point at issue is whether or not the Government were properly notified. It is not about what happened previously. I knew about it on the Thursday when it became public, but the company concerned has a duty to notify the Government 45 days before taking action of that kind, which is why we are taking the action that we are taking to protect hard-working people. What we are also doing this month, by the way, is lifting the living wage for all workers across our country by a further £1,000, so it is up by £5,000 since 2015.
Keir Starmer
I think the Prime Minister just said that he knew about it on the day. I take it from that answer that the Prime Minister did not read his WhatsApp briefing. Let us test his rhetoric. Since he came to office, P&O has received more than £38 million-worth of Government contracts, and the parent company, DP World, is lined up for £50 million of taxpayers’ money under the freeport scheme. The Government are apparently reviewing these contracts, but reviews do not save jobs. Can the Prime Minister guarantee that those companies will not get a penny more of taxpayers’ money, or a single tax break, until they reinstate the workforce?
The Prime Minister
I think what the House has already heard is that we are taking legal action—
The Prime Minister
Yes, we are—against the company concerned, under the 1992 and 1996 Acts. That is the right thing to do, because it seems to me that that the company has broken the law. But if the right hon. and learned Gentleman is asking this Government to do what Labour usually wants us to do and actively pitchfork away investment around the country from overseas, that is not what we will do. We will take ’em to court, we will defend the rights of British workers, but what we will not do is launch a wholehearted campaign against overseas investment, as Labour would want, because that is completely wrong—and wrong for those workers.
Keir Starmer
Those at DP World must be quaking in their boots. The Prime Minister says how disappointed he is in them, while handing them £50 million.
The Prime Minister has referred to the law. Speaking of hollow reviews, as the law stands it is not illegal to pay seafarers less than the national minimum wage, even if they are working out of UK ports and in UK waters. Two years ago, the Prime Minister’s Government admitted that that was unjustifiable, and promised, two years ago—you’ve guessed it—to review it. Two years on, despite what the Prime Minister says today, nothing has been done, which has left the gate wide open for P&O. British workers do not need another empty review; they need action, so when will the Prime Minister fix that gap in the law?
The Prime Minister
With great humility, I must ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to listen to the answer that I gave to his first question. That would help him to scrap his third or fourth question and try another one. We are going to address the defects in the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, and ensure that everyone working in the UK exclusive economic zone is paid the living wage as people are in the rest of the country.
Keir Starmer
The problem is, that is what the Prime Minister said two years ago. It did not happen, and P&O took advantage of the gap left wide open by this Prime Minister. P&O’s behaviour comes off the back of a string of fire and rehire cases, with profitable companies threatening to fire workers unless they accept a pay cut. The Prime Minister keeps telling us just how opposed he is to fire and rehire, but as we saw on Monday, he does not have the backbone to ban it. While he sits on his hands, more and more workers are having their lives turned upside down by this appalling practice. What good to them is a Prime Minister who is all mouth and no trousers?
The Prime Minister
The most notable practitioner of fire and rehire is, of course, the Labour party itself. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may be interested to know that we will be vindicating the rights of British workers—UK employees—under UK law, but I can tell him that the law that P&O itself is allegedly relying on was introduced as a result of EU directives. Never forget—[Interruption.] He may not like it, but that is the reality. He would have kept us unable to change it and unable to get out of it. He would have made it impossible for us to protect UK employees in the way that we are going to do. What we are doing above all is ensuring that workers in this country have the best protection of all, which is a job. Under this Government, thanks to the steps we have taken and thanks to the stewardship of the economy by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which you will be hearing about a little more, Mr Speaker, we have 600,000 more people in payrolled employment than before the pandemic began.
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister can complain all he likes, but on Monday he ordered all of his lot to abstain on a vote to ban fire and rehire. And they all did! Then, to add insult to injury, after the vote his party posted a message saying that, where possible, they will look to find P&O workers new jobs. Pathetic! They do not want new jobs; they want their old jobs back. They do not want a Prime Minister hoisting the white flag; they want him to fight for their livelihoods. There are 82,000 seafarers in this country. I have spoken to dockers, engineers, deckhands and sailors, and they are all worried about what this means for them. This morning, one of them said to me: “If P&O can get away with this, other companies will get rid of us too and replace us with cheap labour from abroad.” Why does the Prime Minister think that they will take a crumb of comfort from his half-arsed bluster and waffle today?
The Prime Minister
P&O is plainly not going to get away with it any more than any other company that treats its employees in that scandalous way. This is a historic moment for this country, actually, because it is now two years to the day since we went into lockdown. That plunged this country into the biggest, deepest loss of output than we have seen in our lifetimes. Thanks to the Chancellor, who protected the economy, jobs and companies, we have now been able to come out faster and more effectively than any other comparable economy. We have unemployment back down to 3.9%, we have 600,000 more people on the payroll and the best assurance we can give workers around the country is that the economy is now bigger than it was before the pandemic began. We will continue to get the big calls right, as we got the big calls right during the pandemic. Labour got the big calls wrong. They would do absolutely nothing to protect workers, let alone P&O workers, because not only would they have kept us in lockdown, but they would have kept those ships in port, unable to move. That is the reality. There has never been a Labour Government that left office with unemployment lower than when they began. That is the reality and that is their record on jobs.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend very much, and he is absolutely right about smoking; it is the biggest single cause of preventable death in this country. As he will know, Javed Khan OBE is undertaking an independent review of smoking, and I am sure he will want to take my hon. Friend’s suggestions into account.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
In a matter of seconds, at 12.16 pm, a Virgin Atlantic aircraft is due to depart Heathrow airport to go to Warsaw to pick up 50 young orphans who have left Ukraine and are coming to spend the next period of their life in Scotland, with the sanctuary we can offer them. I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has helped to make sure that we can offer a new start to these young people, away from the war. I thank the Governments in London and in Edinburgh, and in particular the immigration Minister, the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), and the refugee Minister in the House of Lords, Lord Harrington. This is a good day for those 50 young people, but let us hope that it is the beginning of something much more significant for many more young people we can offer sanctuary to.
This morning, we have official confirmation that inflation is at its highest level in 30 years, but families do not need official confirmation to know that the cost of food and energy is now at a price they simply cannot afford. The very people who bore the brunt of the health pandemic are now being hammered by the poverty pandemic. This is not just a cost of living crisis—this is an emergency. That is why, in Scotland, the SNP Government are doubling the Scottish child payment and raising the benefits they control by 6%—that is double the rate the Chancellor has proposed for the benefits that he has control over. So this is a very simple question for the Prime Minister: if he truly understands that this is an emergency, will he match the Scottish Government’s commitment and lift all benefits by 6%?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman very much. We all recognise that global inflation is causing a real cost of living crisis, not just here, but around the world; in the United States, inflation is now running at more than 8%, and we are at the levels in other European countries. We are doing everything we can to help people. The Chancellor has put another £9.1 billion into reducing the costs of energy for families. [Interruption.] I do not know quite what Members are shouting out, but we want to do more. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that Scotland is in the lead in helping this country to solve its energy problems, not just with more offshore wind, but by abandoning the phobia of our own hydrocarbons, which I think are going to be vital for transition and to avoid our being blackmailed by Putin’s Russia.
On the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the orphans, I am grateful to him for his efforts and I thank him. If I may say, without embarrassing him further, it is another example of the burgeoning co-operation between us.
Ian Blackford
Of course, we want to make sure we open our doors in Scotland and welcome refugees, and that we have that generosity of spirit—but we will leave that there for now.
I say to the Prime Minister that inflation is at 6% and increasing. We need to make sure that those who are the most vulnerable have that increase in benefits that they need in order to pay for fuel. The Chancellor needs to ditch the official photographer and listen to Martin Lewis. Family finances are at breaking point; they cannot tighten their budgets any more. These families have no room to manoeuvre, but the truth is that the Chancellor does. Lower borrowing and increased taxes mean that he is sitting with £20 billion to spend today. But instead this Chancellor is making a political choice: the choice to push people further into hardship by hiking taxes, cutting universal credit, and giving companies free rein to slash workers’ pay through fire and rehire. So the test for the Prime Minister is this: will the Government use the full £20 billion they are sitting on to scrap the national insurance tax hike and put money into people’s pockets, or will he simply make this Tory poverty pandemic even worse?
The Prime Minister
I just advise Mystic Meg over there that he has only 10 minutes to wait before he will have the answer to that question.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right that we will see many more people coming here. He is right that the instincts of this country are to be as generous as possible. That is why we have made sure that applications can now be processed online very quickly, so people can come here with their passports. Under the family reunion scheme alone, I think the numbers are now running in excess of 16,000 people coming here.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
While Ofgem can cap rising gas and electricity bills, other fuels such as heating oil, liquefied petroleum gas and solid fuel remain unregulated. Many households in rural Scotland depend on such fuels. There are also areas awash with energy, both on and offshore, yet with huge and rising numbers of people in fuel poverty. Will the Prime Minister regulate and cap such fuels, to alleviate hardship and end the perversity of energy-rich Scotland but fuel-poor Scots?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is right that energy-rich Scotland and the hydrocarbons that we have in this country should be used to help the British people. We should not be needlessly reliant on oil and gas from Putin’s Russia. I think that is the policy of Alba but, unfortunately, is not yet the policy of the SNP.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank the Ukrainian community in Yorkshire for everything they are doing and, of course, Ukrainian communities up and down the country and the people of this country as a whole. I am proud that we are the biggest bilateral donor, I think, other than the United States, of aid to Ukraine. I am also proud, as I know the whole House is, of the work that is being done continuously to give the Ukrainians the tools they need to defend themselves.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman very much. I am not going to comment on the travel arrangements for the particular match—[Interruption.] The deputy Leader of the Labour party shouts for me to secure her a train. I am sure the FA will have heard the message that the hon. Gentleman has given.
What I can say is that I do agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), who has just conducted a review on the matter, that we should indeed have an independent regulator for football.
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I agree with my hon. Friend passionately, and I think that it is vital that we undo the damage done by the insane policies of the previous Labour Government, which whacked up the cost of energy for British industry, including steel. I will be bringing forward a British energy security strategy that will address the needs of British steel, British ceramics and the whole of British industry.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I congratulate Bradford on being shortlisted in the way that that wonderful city has been, but I think the hon. Lady is wrong about what the integrated rail plan said, because already it commits to cutting the journey times from Leeds to Bradford from 20 minutes to 12 minutes, if I remember correctly. And we continue to look at ways of making sure that high-speed rail goes direct to Bradford.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
The horrifying effects of events in Ukraine must be central to our focus, and we should do all possible to stand together in support. A war in Europe also has challenging domestic outcomes, with higher energy costs, rising food prices and effects on supplies and inflation and across the economy in general. Does the Prime Minister agree that this is a time when we need to come together as a nation common and that anyone seeking to weaponise Putin’s deliberate and calculated consequences of the war will only undermine the unity of our nation at a time when Europe is in crisis?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend very much for what he has said. One of the most important things that has confounded Vladimir Putin has not only been the heroic resistance of the Ukrainians but the unity of the rest of the world and, I must say, so far, the relative unity—the important unity—of this House.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member very much for bringing those facts—new facts—to the attention of the House, and I know that my office has already been in touch with the group concerned to make sure that we have a proper meeting. I hope very much that she will be there, and we will be able to discuss all the issues that she has raised.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
May I begin, as chair of the all-party group on surrogacy, by thanking the Government, and the Home Secretary in particular for her work in bringing Ukrainian surrogates to safety here? Sadly, in my role as chair of the all-party group against antisemitism, the news is not so positive. We have recently heard from Jewish students who are suffering record antisemitic attacks on university campuses, including allegations of their work being marked down by their own professors. This is completely outrageous, and one would expect the National Union of Students to be on their side, but instead of helping the students it has been inviting somebody who is engaged in antisemitic conspiracy theories—a rapper—to a conference. Will the Prime Minister do everything in his power to ensure that campuses are a safe place for British Jewish students?
The Prime Minister
Our universities have, for far too long, been tolerant of casual or indeed systematic antisemitism. I hope that everybody understands the need for change—for rapid and irreversible change—but it is also important that we have an antisemitism taskforce devoted to rooting out antisemitism in education at all levels.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I renew my sympathies with the case of the P&O workers, and I have explained to the House what we are doing, and we will do that. What we are also doing is helping the workforce up and down the country to get the coaching they need. We have doubled the number of work coaches, and what we are seeing is employment climbing and vacancies growing. We are helping this country into work, which is what Conservatives do.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I have a growing number of constituents who are struggling to go about their lives or even get to work because their driving licences are stuck at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. Will the Prime Minister make it clear at the Dispatch Box that the service from the agency falls significantly below what we expect, and will he ask the Transport Secretary to meet me, and any other Members of this House—we may need a big room—to explain how we can help the agency out of the hole in which it has put itself?
The Prime Minister
Yes. Like everybody in this House, I have read some surprising things about what has been going on at the DVLA. We need to make sure that it is given every possible encouragement and support to expedite the supply of driving licences to the people of this country.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Last week, I was not here to benefit from one of the hon. Gentleman’s elaborately confected questions. I admire his style, but I am afraid that I simply fail to detect any crouton of substance in the minestrone of nonsense that he has just spoken.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
Wrexham is a town based on brewing, mining and football. It is a town evolving in aspiration, prosperity and creativity while retaining its Welsh identity. Will the Prime Minister congratulate Wrexham on being shortlisted for the city of culture, and on being the first Welsh town to be so?
The Prime Minister
Not only is Wrexham shortlisted for the city of culture, with all the distinctions my hon. Friend mentions, but it is the city of vaccines. Without the AstraZeneca vaccines bottled in Wrexham, we literally would not be where we are today.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
I remember the hon. Gentleman when he was doing planning at Islington Council, and a complete cock-up he made of that. What I can tell him is that this Government made sure that we got the personal protective equipment and the supplies that were needed in record time. That was absolutely vital, at a time when the Opposition were calling on us to go further and faster. Never forget that under the last Labour Government, there was £23 billion lost in fraud every year.
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
I welcome the important interim report from Dr Hilary Cass in which she highlights the need for more research into why so many young girls are presenting with gender distress. Will my right hon. Friend agree to meet me and other concerned colleagues to discuss how we can constructively support those young people who are experiencing gender distress?
The Prime Minister
I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend. This is one of those issues that the whole House is coming to realise requires extreme sensitivity, tact, love and care. We must recognise that when people want to make a transition in their lives, they should be treated with the maximum possible generosity and respect. We have systems in this country that allow that and have done for a long time, and we should be very proud of that, but I want to say in addition that I think, when it comes to distinguishing between a man and a woman, the basic facts of biology remain overwhelmingly important.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Mr Speaker
Order. We need to use more moderate and temperate language in this Chamber.
The Prime Minister
I have one overwhelming interest, which is to protect and preserve the jobs and livelihoods of the British people. That is what we are doing. That is what we will do with the P&O workers, but we will also ensure that we continue to attract overseas investment in the record ways we currently are. The Opposition would drive it away—we will not.
Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
This year marks the 50th anniversary of the expulsion of Asians from Uganda, the country where I was born. Under Ted Heath’s Government, people across the country opened up their homes for many of those Asians, who then settled and became part of the fabric of our great nation. That British generosity is again being seen as people open up their homes for those fleeing Ukraine and coming to our country. May I urge the Prime Minister to pick up those files from 50 years ago, wipe off the dust and take on board those positive lessons, so that we can ensure that the Homes for Ukraine scheme has maximum success?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I think the whole country can be proud of the way the UK welcomed people fleeing Idi Amin’s Uganda. Several Members of the House, including the Home Secretary herself and her family, were beneficiaries of that scheme and that moment. This country is overwhelmingly generous to people fleeing in fear of their lives and will continue to be so.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
Eight hundred British workers were sacked over Zoom by P&O, owned by the Government of Dubai, to be replaced with foreign exploited agency workers on less than two quid an hour. The Prime Minister can pass an instrument now to close the loophole so that the national minimum wage applies on UK international routes. Is he going to stand up for British workers or the oil state dictator Dubai?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s question. I knew he was going to ask it and he was right to ask it. I anticipated his question earlier on. We are going to make sure that everybody working in the UK exclusive economic zone gets paid the living wage, and we will do it as fast as we possibly can with the Opposition’s assistance.
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to take legal action to hold P&O Ferries and DP World to account. I again call on them to reverse their action and reinstate the workers. Dover and Kent are already badly affected by this business, including on the roads and in the business community. Will he meet me to discuss specific support for our affected area, including the A2 upgrade for national transport links and an east Kent enterprise zone to cover and include the port of Dover?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right in what she says about P&O and about the 800 workers. I will make sure that she gets all the meetings she needs to make sure that we continue with all our fantastic investments in Dover, whether transport, education or otherwise.
Financial Statement
(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)
As I stand here, men, women and children are huddled in basements across Ukraine seeking protection. Soldiers and citizens alike have taken up arms to defend their land and families. The sorrow we feel for their suffering, and the admiration for their bravery, is only matched by the gratitude we feel for the security in which we live—and what underpins that security is the strength of our economy. It gives us the ability to fund the armed forces we need to maintain our liberty, the resources we need to support our allies, the power to impose sanctions which cause severe economic costs, and the flexibility to support businesses and individuals through crises as they emerge. We should be in no doubt: behind Putin’s invasion is a dangerous calculation that democracies are divided, politically weak and economically insecure, and incapable of making tough long-term decisions to strengthen our economies. This calculation is mistaken. What the authoritarian mind perceives as division we know are the passionate disagreements at the heart of our living, breathing democracy. What they see as chaos we know is the freedom to be dynamic and innovative. What they call the inherent weakness of open societies and free economies we know is the source of our strength.
We will confront this challenge to our values not just in the arms and resources we send to Ukraine, but in strengthening our economy here at home. When I talk about security, yes, I mean responding to the war in Ukraine, but I also mean the security of a faster growing economy, the security of more resilient public finances, and security for working families as we help with the cost of living.
Today’s statement builds a stronger, more secure economy for the United Kingdom. We have a moral responsibility to use our economic strength to support Ukraine and work with international partners to impose severe costs on Putin’s regime. We are: supplying military aid to help Ukraine defend its borders; providing around £400 million in economic and humanitarian aid, as well as up to $0.5 billion in multilateral financial guarantees; launching the new Homes for Ukraine scheme to make sure that those forced to flee have a route to safety here in the UK; and imposing sanctions of unprecedented scale and scope. We have: sanctioned more than 1,000 individuals, entities and subsidiaries; frozen the assets of major Russian banks; imposed punitive tariffs on key products; restricted Russia’s access to sterling clearing, to insurance, to the UK’s capital markets and to SWIFT; and we have targeted the Russian central bank, too.
Be in no doubt, these sanctions, co-ordinated with our allies, are working. The Russian rouble plummeted to record lows. The Moscow stock exchange has been largely suspended for a month, and the Central Bank of Russia has been forced to more than double interest rates to 20%. We warned that an aggressive, unprovoked invasion would be met with severe economic costs, and it has. I am proud to say, as the whole House will say: we stand with Ukraine.
But the actions we have taken to sanction Putin’s regime are not cost free for us at home. The invasion of Ukraine presents a risk to our recovery, as it does to countries around the world. We came into this crisis with our economy growing faster than expected, with the UK having the highest growth in the G7 last year. But the Office for Budget Responsibility has said specifically:
“There is unusually high uncertainty around the outlook”.
It is too early to know the full impact of the Ukraine war on the UK economy, but its initial view, combined with high global inflation and continuing supply chain pressures, means that the OBR now forecasts growth this year of 3.8%. The OBR then expects the economy to grow by 1.8% in 2023, and 2.1%, 1.8% and 1.7% in the following three years. The House will take comfort that the lower growth outlook has not affected our strong jobs performance. Unemployment is now forecast to be lower in every year of the forecast. It is already at 3.9%—back to the low levels we saw before the pandemic.
But the war’s most significant impact domestically is on the cost of living. Covid and global factors meant goods and energy prices were already high. Statistics published this morning show that inflation in February was 6.2%. That is lower than the US and broadly in line with the euro area. Disruptions to global supply chains and energy markets, combined with the economic response to Putin’s aggression, mean that the OBR expects it to rise further, averaging 7.4% this year.
As I said last month, the Government will support the British people as they deal with the rising costs of energy. People should know that we will stand by them, as we have throughout the last two years. That is why we have announced a £9 billion plan to help around 28 million households pay around half the April increase in the energy price cap. People should be reassured that the energy price cap will protect their energy bills between now and the autumn, but I want to help people now, so I am announcing three immediate measures.
First, I am going to help motorists. Today I can announce that for only the second time in 20 years, fuel duty will be cut. Not by 1p, not even by 2p, but by 5p per litre—the biggest cut to all fuel duty rates ever. While some have called for the cut to last until August, I have decided it will be in place until March next year—a full 12 months. Together with the freeze, it is a tax cut this year for hard-working families and businesses worth over £5 billion, and it will take effect from 6 pm tonight.
Secondly, as energy costs rise, we know that energy efficiency will make a big difference to bills, but if homeowners want to install energy-saving materials, at the moment only some items qualify for 5% VAT relief and there are complex rules about who is eligible. The relief used to be more generous but from 2019 the European Court of Justice required us to restrict its eligibility.
Thanks to Brexit, we are no longer constrained by EU law, so I can announce that for the next five years, homeowners having materials such as solar panels, heat pumps and insulation installed will no longer pay 5% VAT; they will pay zero. We will also reverse the EU’s decision to take wind and water turbines out of scope and zero rate them as well—and we will abolish all the red tape imposed on us by the EU. A family having a solar panel set installed will see tax savings worth £1,000 and savings on their energy bill of over £300 per year.
This policy highlights the deficiencies in the Northern Ireland protocol. We will not immediately be able to apply it to Northern Ireland, but we will be raising it with the Commission as a matter of urgency, and I want to reassure Members from Northern Ireland that the Executive will receive a Barnett share of the value of the relief until it can be introduced UK-wide. The Prime Minister will bring forward further measures to reinforce our long-term energy security in the coming weeks.
Finally, I want to do more to help our most vulnerable households with rising costs. They need targeted support, so I am doubling the household support fund to £1 billion with £500 million of new funding. Local authorities are best placed to help those in need in their local areas, and they will receive this funding from April.
We can only afford to provide this extra support because of our stronger economy and the tough but responsible decisions we have taken to rebuild our fiscal resilience. Today’s forecasts confirm that even after the measures I am announcing today, we are meeting all our fiscal rules. Underlying debt is expected to fall steadily from 83.5% of GDP in 2022-23 to 79.8% in 2026-27. Borrowing as a percentage of GDP is 5.4% this year, 3.9% next year, and then 1.9%, 1.3%, 1.2% and 1.1% in the following years.
At a time when the OBR has said that our fiscal headroom could be
“wiped out by relatively small changes to the economic outlook,”
it is right that the central fiscal judgement I am making today is to meet our fiscal rules with a margin of safety. The OBR has not accounted for the full impacts of the war in Ukraine, and we should be prepared for the economy and public finances to worsen, potentially significantly.
The cost of borrowing is continuing to rise. In the next financial year, we are forecast to spend £83 billion on debt interest—the highest on record and almost four times the amount we spent last year. That is why we have already taken difficult decisions with the public finances, and that is why we will continue to weigh carefully calls for additional public spending. More borrowing is not cost or risk free. I said it last autumn, and I say it again today: borrowing down; debt down—only the Conservatives can be trusted with taxpayers’ money.
Our response to the immediate crisis in Ukraine has been unwavering, but we must be equally bold in response to the deeper and more fundamental challenge Putin poses to our values. We must show the world that freedom and democracy remain the best route to peace, prosperity and happiness. We will do so by strengthening our economy here at home. To that end, we are helping families with the cost of living, creating the conditions for accelerated growth and productivity, and making sure that the proceeds of growth are shared fairly. That is not the work of any one statement, but it does begin today, and with one of our most important levers: the tax system.
I told the House last autumn that my overarching ambition was to reduce taxes by the end of this Parliament, and we will do so in a way that is responsible and sustainable. Today, I am publishing a tax plan. We will take a principled approach to cutting taxes: maintaining space against our fiscal rules, as I have done today; continuing to be disciplined, with the first call on any extra resources being lower taxes, not higher spending; and, of course, carefully considering the broader macroeconomic outlook.
With those principles in mind, our new tax plan will build a stronger economy by reducing and reforming taxes over this Parliament, in three ways. First, we will help families with the cost of living; secondly, we will create the conditions for higher growth; and thirdly, we will share the proceeds of growth fairly, ensuring people are left with more of their own money. Let me take each in turn.
There is now a dedicated funding source for the country’s top priority, the NHS and social care, providing funding over the long term as demand grows, with every penny going straight to health and care. If it goes, then so does the funding, and that funding is needed now, especially as my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary’s plans to reform healthcare will ensure every pound of taxpayers’ money is well spent. When I said the Conservatives were the party of public services—the party of the NHS—I did not just mean when it was easy; it is a total commitment.
So it is right that the health and care levy stays, but a long-term funding solution for the NHS and social care is not incompatible with reducing taxes on working families. Over the last decade, it has been a Conservative mission to promote tax cuts for working people and simplify the system. That is why Conservative-led Governments raised the income tax personal allowance from £6,500 in 2010 to the new level of £12,570. But the equivalent thresholds in national insurance, which define how much people can earn NICs-free, are still around £3,000 less.
The Prime Minister pledged in the 2019 election that we would increase those thresholds. We made a big step towards that goal in my first Budget in 2020, increasing the national insurance threshold to £9,500. Today, we take the next step. Our current plan is to increase the NICs threshold this year by £300, but I am not going to do that. I am going to increase it by the full £3,000, delivering our promise to fully equalise the NICs and income tax thresholds—and not incrementally over many years, but in one go this year. From this July, people will be able to earn £12,570 a year without paying a single penny of income tax or national insurance.
That is a £6 billion personal tax cut for 30 million people across the United Kingdom, a tax cut for employees worth over £330 a year, the largest increase in a basic rate threshold ever, and the largest single personal tax cut in a decade. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has called it
“the best way to help low and middle earners through the tax system”.
It creates what the Centre for Policy Studies has called a “universal working income”. It is a tax cut that rewards work, and around 70% of all workers will have their taxes cut by more than the amount they will pay through the new levy, once again showing that it is this Conservative Government delivering for hard-working families and helping with the cost of living.
The first part of our tax plan for a stronger economy is to support families with the cost of living, but as I set out in last month’s Mais lecture, to lift our growth and productivity, we need the private sector to train more, invest more and innovate more. People, capital, ideas: that is how we will create a new culture of enterprise—the second part of our tax plan. The plan sets out tax-cutting options on business investment and innovation, with final decisions to be announced in the autumn Budget, but these are significant and complex questions, so we will work with businesses over the summer to get the answers right. Let me explain to the House the direction of travel.
First, on people, we lag behind international peers on adult technical skills. Just 18% of 25 to 64-year-olds hold vocational qualifications, which is a third lower than the OECD average, and UK employers spend just half the European average on training their employees. We will consider whether the current tax system, including the operation of the apprenticeship levy, is doing enough to incentivise businesses to invest in the right kinds of training.
Secondly, on ideas, over the last 50 years, innovation drove around half the UK’s productivity growth, but since the financial crisis, the rate of increase has slowed more than in other countries. Our lower rate of innovation explains almost all our productivity gap with the United States. Right now, we know that the amount that businesses spend on research and development as a percentage of GDP is less than half the OECD average, and that is despite us spending more on tax reliefs than almost every other country. Something is not working, so we will reform R&D tax credits so that they are effective and better value for money; we will expand the generosity of the reliefs so that they include data, cloud computing and pure maths; and we will consider, in the autumn, whether to make the R&D expenditure credit more generous.
Thirdly, on capital, weak private sector investment is a long-standing cause of our productivity gap internationally: capital investment by UK businesses is considerably lower than the OECD average of 14%, and it accounts for fully half our productivity gap with France and Germany. Once the super deduction ends next year, our overall tax treatment for capital investment will be far less generous than that of other advanced economies. We are going to fix that. In the autumn Budget, we will cut the tax rates on business investment, and I look forward to discussing the best ways to do that with businesses. People, capital, ideas—three priorities for business tax cuts this autumn.
But I want to help smaller businesses right now, so let me remind the House of our plan. Our business rates discount will take effect in April for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses. They will get a 50% discount on their business rates bill, up to £110,000. A typical pub will save £5,000. That is a tax cut for hundreds of thousands of small businesses, worth £1.7 billion, taking effect in just a week’s time. Our Help to Grow Management scheme offers businesses mini-MBAs, 90% funded by Government—a benefit worth several thousand pounds—and Help to Grow Digital gives businesses a 50% discount on buying new software, up to £5,000. We have also increased the annual investment allowance to £1 million, so that small and medium-sized businesses will feel the benefit of full expensing.
I want to respond to the specific calls from small businesses with one further announcement today. The employment allowance cuts small businesses’ tax bills, making it cheaper to employ workers. In my first Budget two years ago, I increased that allowance. Today, I am going further. From April, the employment allowance will increase to £5,000. That is a new tax cut worth up to £1,000 for half a million small businesses, starting in just two weeks’ time. Future tax cuts on business investment and innovation; a business rates discount worth £1.7 billion; Help to Grow schemes worth thousands of pounds per business; an annual investment allowance worth up to £1 million; and a new tax cut on the costs of employment, worth £1,000 per company—once again, it is this Conservative Government delivering for British business.
The tax plan I have announced today will help people and businesses to deal with rising costs, and will help raise the future growth rate of this country, but we want the proceeds of growth shared fairly—the third objective of our tax plan. The knowledge that people can keep more of what they earn is a powerful incentive for people to work hard. It means greater economic security, and we know that individuals spend their money better than Governments do. We have already announced today the equalisation of personal tax thresholds, giving over 30 million workers a tax cut worth over £330, and over time I want to go further; but tax cuts must be paid for, must be prioritised, and must fit the economic circumstances of the time. A clear goal for Conservative Chancellors, and even some Labour ones, has been to cut income tax. The fact that this has happened only twice in 20 years tells us how hard it is to do. Covid and the war in Ukraine have only added to the difficulty of achieving this by the end of this Parliament. I am sure that all Members of the House recognise and understand those challenges. It would clearly be irresponsible to meet that ambition this year, yet I refuse to let it wither and drift.
By 2024, the Office for Budget Responsibility currently expects inflation to be back under control, debt to be falling sustainably, and the economy to be growing. Our fiscal rules are met with a clear margin of safety, so my final announcement today is this: I can confirm that before the end of this Parliament, in 2024, for the first time in 16 years, the basic rate of income tax will be cut from 20p to 19p in the pound—a tax cut for workers, for pensioners, and for savers, and a £5 billion tax cut for 30 million people. Let me be clear with the House: it is fully costed and fully paid for in the plans announced today. Last year, I told the House that I would cut taxes for hard-working families, but I would do so in a responsible and sustainable way, and today I am delivering on that promise.
Cutting taxes is not easy. it requires hard work, prioritisation, and willingness to make difficult and often unpopular arguments elsewhere. It is only because this Government have been prepared to make difficult but responsible choices in order to fix our public finances that I can stand here and tell this House not only that taxes are being cut, but that debt is also falling while public spending is increasing. That does not happen by accident. We can deliver for the British people today and into the future because, unlike the Labour party, we have a plan—a plan that reforms and improves public services, a plan to grow our economy, a plan to level up across the United Kingdom, a plan that helps families with the cost of living and, yes, a tax plan that cuts taxes for working families by over £330. It cuts taxes on fuel by 5p per litre. It cuts taxes on business and, yes, for the for the first time in a long time, it cuts income tax. Let me end by simply saying this: my tax plan delivers the biggest net cut to personal taxes in over a quarter of a century, and I commend it to the House.
Mr Speaker
Order. The House heard the Chancellor, quite rightly, and I want the same respect shown to the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Today was the day that the Chancellor could have put a windfall tax on oil and gas producers to provide real help for families, but he did not. Today was the day he could have set out a proper plan to support businesses and create good jobs, but he did not. Today was the day that he could properly have scrapped his national insurance hike, but he did not. Labour said it was the wrong tax at the wrong time, and the wrong choice; and today the Chancellor has finally admitted that he got that one wrong. Inflation is at its highest level for 30 years, and rising. Energy prices are at record highs, and people are worried sick. For all his words, it is clear that the Chancellor does not understand the scale of the challenge. He talks about providing security for working families, but his choices are making the cost of living crisis worse, not better.
The situation following Putin’s criminal assault on Ukraine remains gravely serious. Just one month after the invasion, so much has changed, and there will be repercussions for years to come. The Chancellor has today failed to explain why he chose to sign off on a reduction in our country’s armed forces last October. Will he confirm whether the Government’s target Army size is still being reduced by 10,000 troops? I say this to the Chancellor: Labour will support whatever is needed on defence and security, in order to keep our country safe.
The tremors following Putin’s aggression will impact Britain, including economically, but the cost of living crisis predates Putin’s attack on Ukraine. In October, inflation was already forecast to be double the Bank of England’s target, yet the Prime Minister said that fears of inflation were unfounded. Today we learn that inflation has reached 6.2%, and it is expected to go higher in the coming months. People are rightly looking to their Government to help them weather this storm. Labour will support sensible measures to ease the pressure, but what the Chancellor has announced today says everything we need to know about his priorities.
The cost of living crisis is hitting people particularly hard because incomes have been squeezed during the past 12 years of Conservative Governments. Ordinary families, disabled people, and pensioners are facing difficult choices. Mums are skipping meals so that their children do not. Families are struggling to buy new school shoes and uniforms for their children. Older people are hesitating to put the heating on, because they are worried about the cost.
At the weekend, the Chancellor was asked about fuel poverty, and he did not even know the numbers. That is shameful, because when Martin Lewis predicts that 10 million people could be pushed into fuel poverty, the Chancellor should sit up and listen. We know that pensions and social security will not keep up with inflation, and pensioners and those on social security will be getting a real-terms cut to their income. What analysis has the Chancellor done on the impact of benefits being uprated by less than inflation? How many more children and pensioners will drift into poverty because of the choices of this Government?
Who does the Chancellor prioritise? He continues to defend the record profits of oil and gas producers, who themselves admit that they have more money than they know what to do with. BP describes this crisis as a “cash machine” for it, but it is British people who are paying out. It is deeply regrettable that the SNP has joined the Tories in wanting to shield oil and gas producers from Labour’s progressive measures. When I set out Labour’s plans for a windfall tax in January, we estimated that it would have raised £1.2 billion. Because of the continued rise in global oil and gas prices, it would today raise more than £3 billion. That money could be used to help families, pensioners and businesses, with a cut to VAT being a real Brexit dividend that would help working families and pensioners across our country. A targeted warm home discount would see families and pensioners on the lowest and modest incomes supported by £600.
Today the Chancellor comes along, after 12 years of failure on energy efficiency, and announces a VAT cut on building materials. That is wholly inadequate. A proper energy efficient scheme, such as that set out by Labour, could cut bills by £400 for people from next year. The silence from the Chancellor about our energy intensive manufacturing industries is appalling. At this time of national crisis, people and businesses need a Government who are on their side.
The Chancellor spoke of difficult choices, and I agree. There are always choices to be made, such as who to tax and who to shield. Despite his reluctant measures, he is still taking money out of people’s purses and wallets with an increase in national insurance contributions. The changes he is making today prompt a question about why he embarked on them in the first place, despite warnings from the Labour party and from many, many others. It is one thing for the Prime Minister and Chancellor to disagree with each other, but the centrepiece of the Chancellor’s statement today is based on a disagreement with himself. For all his tax rises for millions in the middle, where is the increased tax contribution from the wealthiest in society? A landlord with a large number of properties will not pay a penny more in taxes, but their tenants will. Someone with significant income from buying and selling stocks and shares will not be paying any more in tax, but those people powering our economy will be. The Chancellor has made the wrong choices.
The Chancellor says that we cannot help everyone, which is absolutely true. But who has he been helping out? Those who have been swindling the taxpayer. The Chancellor left open the vaults for widespread waste, crony contracts, and a frenzy of fraud. It was, as his former Tory Treasury Minister put it,
“happy days if you were a crook.”
Seven billion items of personal protective equipment—not usable—are now being burned. Taxpayers’ money is literally going up in smoke, and £3.5 billion worth of contracts were awarded to friends, donors and pub landlords. And it gets worse. The Chancellor has been signing cheques to fraudsters, including organised criminals and drug dealers. Let us put the Chancellor’s fraud failure in context. He has lost a staggering £11.8 billion of public money to fraud. That is twice the amount that a previous Conservative Government lost on Black Wednesday. As a result of—let us face it—that jaw-dropping incompetence, the Conservatives have been funding crime instead of fighting it. Now the Chancellor has the audacity to come to British taxpayers to ask them to pay more to fill his black hole. There can be no cover-up to hide political embarrassments, so let us call in the National Crime Agency to investigate. We need answers and people to be held to account, because—let us be clear—taxpayers want their money back.
The truth is that people can no longer afford the Conservatives. Working families cannot, pensioners cannot and businesses cannot. The weak growth forecasts we have seen today should be flashing red on the Chancellor’s desk. The Chancellor said, in his statement, that the work starts today. Is he serious? The Conservatives have been in government for 12 years, not 12 hours. What has taken them so long? Since his party entered government, the UK has experienced the biggest downgrade in growth of any major economy. Under the last Labour Government, economic growth was 2.1% a year. In the last 12 years under the Conservatives, it has averaged 1.5%. Now we know that growth has been downgraded this year too. Growth is essential for funding our public services, keeping taxes under control and keeping a handle on public finances too. That is why Labour has announced a tough set of fiscal rules to get our debt and our deficit down. The truth is that, because of the Government’s failure to get the economy growing, the Chancellor has had to put up taxes on families and businesses a staggering 15 times.
The Chancellor has raised taxes more in the last two years than any previous Chancellor in the last 50. He says it is all down to the pandemic, but the truth is that the Conservatives have become the party of high taxation because they are the party of low growth. I understand that the Chancellor has a portrait of Nigel Lawson above his desk. Well, today we have an energy price crisis, record prices at the pumps and inflation is back. The truth is that he is not Nigel Lawson: he is Ted Heath with an Instagram account.
Labour would get the economy firing on all cylinders, ensuring that we buy, make and sell more in Britain, scrapping business rates and replacing them with a fairer system fit for the 21st century, something that small and high street businesses are crying out for, and the Chancellor mentioned not at all in his statement today. Labour would make a climate investment pledge to decarbonise the economy, create good jobs in every part of Britain and strengthen our energy security too. Businesses are seeing unprecedented increases in their costs right now, but all we hear from the Chancellor today is the promise of jam tomorrow, not the support that is needed now. Today’s statement lacks the long-term plan for productivity, skills and growth. Where is it?
I cannot help but feel that in both the Chancellor’s recent Mais lecture and his statement today we are presented with increasingly incredible claims. Perhaps the Chancellor has been taking inspiration from the characters in Alice in Wonderland or should I say, Alice in Sunakland? Because nothing there is quite as it seems. It is the sort of place where a Chancellor celebrates giving people £200 to help them with their spiralling energy bills, before explaining that he needs it all back. In Sunakland, the Chancellor proclaims, “I believe in lower taxes”, at the same time as hiking Alice’s national insurance contributions. So Alice asks the Chancellor, “When did lower taxes mean higher taxes? Has down become the new up?” The Chancellor follows Humpty Dumpty’s advice and says,
“When I use a word…it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
Alice knows that under the Conservatives taxes are at their highest level in decades, as a result of the policies of this very same Chancellor. In fact, he was the only G7 finance Minister to raise taxes on working people during this crucial year of recovery. Curiouser and curiouser. As Alice climbs out of the rabbit hole to leave Sunakland, she recalls the words of the White Rabbit and concludes that perhaps the Chancellor’s reality is just different from hers.
The actual reality is that the Chancellor’s failure to back a windfall tax, and his stubborn desire to pursue a national insurance tax rise, are the wrong choices. In eight days’ time, people’s energy bills will rise by 54%. Two weeks today, the Chancellor’s latest tax hike will start hitting working people and their employers. His national insurance tax rise was a bad idea last September, and he has admitted that it is an even worse one today. The Chancellor is making an historic mistake. Today was the day to scrap the tax rise on jobs. Today was the day to bring forward a windfall tax. Today was the day for the Chancellor to set out a plan to support British businesses. But on the basis of the statement today and the misguided choices of the Chancellor, families and businesses will endure significant hardship. The Chancellor has failed to appreciate the scale of the challenge that we face and, yet again, he is making the wrong choices for our country.
Rishi Sunak
I thank the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) for her reply. She raised several points that I will come to in due course, but listening to her speech it sounded as though covid, and the huge damage it did to our economy and public finances, had never actually happened. It sounded as though we did not have to introduce furlough, support businesses and provide emergency funding to schools, councils and, yes, the NHS. While her party supported all those policies at the time, it now seems unwilling to pay for them. There is a pattern there. Labour is always happy to spend taxpayers’ money, but not to take care of it.
On some of the hon. Lady’s specific points, it was telling that she opened her statement by yet again calling for a windfall tax. On this side of the House, we want to encourage more investment in the North sea, and we want more domestic energy and more jobs for the UK. A windfall tax would put that off, which is why the Prime Minister will bring forward a comprehensive energy security strategy in the coming weeks to address that.
The hon. Lady talked about business rates and supporting businesses. In just a week’s time, small businesses in the retail, hospitality and leisure sector will get a 50% discount on their business rates bill. It is the biggest cut to business rates outside of coronavirus since the business rate system was created—£1.7 billion. I know that she has said that she would like to abolish business rates. She also says she has some fiscal rules, but I have not quite figured out how she will pay for the £25 billion of tax cuts that that would involve—I look forward to hearing it. She talked about defence spending. It is all very well to talk about the size of the Army. At least Labour now seems to think that we should actually have an Army, which is a welcome conversion. It is because of how seriously we take the nation’s security that in 2020, when we had decided to do short-term spending settlements for most Departments, we singled out one Department for special treatment and gave it a four-year settlement in advance of everyone else—that was the Ministry of Defence. In that settlement it received £24 billion of new cash, the largest uplift to defence spending since the end of the cold war, ensuring that we are not just the second-largest spender in Europe in NATO but the fifth largest in the world, a record of which we on the Conservative Benches are very proud.
The hon. Lady talked about pensions. Again, thanks to the actions of Conservative-led Governments since 2010, we put in place the triple lock—not something the Labour party ever did when it was in power. It means that pensions are now £2,300 higher than they were in 2010 and £700 more than if the triple lock had not been in existence during that time. I am pleased to say that the state pension, relative to earnings, is now at its highest level in over 30 years. This party will always be on the side of pensioners.
Turning briefly to the hon. Lady’s comments on tax—fair enough, it is a short time in which to have to respond, but I am not sure if she fully understood the implications of the tax cut announced today. The increase in the national insurance thresholds to equalise them fully is a £6 billion tax cut for 30 million UK workers. It is the largest increase in thresholds ever, the biggest personal tax cut in a decade, and it is worth £330 for those workers. I do not know whether she realised this, because she talked about the levy and making sure that we direct our policy at those who need our help, but there is a reason the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies called this increase the best way to help low and middle earners through the tax system: 70% of workers will pay less tax, even accounting for the levy. It is more generous than the policy she is advocating. Combined with the other tax cuts we have announced today, this plan represents the biggest net cut to personal taxes in a quarter of a century.
Let me conclude by saying this. The plan we have announced today has only been possible because we have taken tough decisions with the public finances. They have not always necessarily been popular, but they always been responsible and always honest. It is two years to the day that the country first entered lockdown and suffered the biggest economic shock in over 300 years. An unprecedented collective national effort was undertaken and two years later this Government have not only fixed the public finances but people are back in jobs, debt is falling and taxes are now being cut. No Government can get every call right. We learn from our mistakes and we strive to improve. But even if they will not admit it, Labour Members will recognise this day as an achievement that we all can celebrate. I have said it before to the Labour party and I will say it again: there is a fine line between reasonable criticism and political opportunism, and in my experience the British people can always tell the difference.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I think the shadow Chancellor’s remarks will be best remembered for pointing out that the Conservatives won the 2010 election and the 2019 election. It is probably a very good thing for the country that we did.
The Chancellor has met the major obligations on public spending which helps the economy to grow and which allows for more jobs and more Government revenue. As he pointed out just now, the changes to national insurance do the things that Martin Lewis, as well as the institutes, would applaud. Those three sources of support—he has my support, too—are very welcome.
May I ask the Chancellor to remember that pensioners do not just have the state pension? Many have fixed pensions on top and getting inflation down as fast as possible is vital to them. They cannot go for a bigger pay increase if they are not at work.
Finally, some areas of public spending do not make it easy to have efficiencies. If teachers’ salaries make up most of the cost of education, it is very important to ensure that we do not squeeze education and wreck our schools and our pupils’ future.
On cladding, when amendments to the Building Safety Bill come from the other place, can my right hon. Friend please not keep his purse completely shut? If money needs to be advanced so that homes can be safe and saleable, will he please consider that openly?
Rishi Sunak
I thank my hon. Friend for his support and he is right to highlight some of the independent commentators who have supported the policies announced today. I will touch on one of the things he said, which was about education spending. I agree that it is vital for our country’s future that we support our teachers and children. That is why the Prime Minister announced, in total, £5 billion of catch-up funding to help children to recover the learning they lost during the pandemic, why we are raising per pupil cash amounts by £1,500 over the Parliament, and why we are raising teachers’ starting salaries to £30,000, as our manifesto committed to doing.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
This tax plan that the Chancellor has announced is very thin. It is lightweight and it is superficial. It is exactly what we have come to expect from this Chancellor. What we heard today from the Chancellor was not enough. It was utterly detached from the needs of our constituents up and down these islands.
This cost of living crisis has been a decade in the making, layer upon layer: austerity, which stripped back public services and punished people through brutal social security cuts; Brexit, which has driven away skilled workers and increased costs for businesses and individuals; covid, where we saw public money splurged in its billions on crony contracts while some people were entirely excluded from support, and now those who got support under the self-employment income support scheme are expected to pay tax on it, just to add insult to injury; and now home energy costs, which were already soaring before the increase in hostilities in Ukraine, are forcing households to the brink. Inflation running at 6.2%, its highest rate in 30 years, is hitting the poorest the hardest. Food prices are rising, especially for the basics, and foodbanks are seeing record numbers of people coming through their doors. The Chancellor says he is going to increase the household support fund, but is that it? Is that it? People are desperate and they need a good deal more help than that.
We know that sanctioning Russia is not cost-free, but the Tories cannot use that as a sleight of hand to distract from the layers of pain that lie beneath the current crisis. Each of those layers has seen political choices and opportunities for change squandered by this UK Tory Government and their predecessors. We see it again today. This Chancellor has increased taxes more in two years than Gordon Brown did in 10, while people are struggling. The Treasury Committee issued a report this morning, which states that the UK Government
“must take further action to support UK households, in particular those on lower incomes to manage the subsequent rise in energy and other costs.”
The Chancellor’s announcement on national insurance contributions is welcome. We have been calling for it for years. It is not something that the Chancellor should have brought today; it is something he should have brought to the House a long time ago. Hiking national insurance is a tax on individuals, but it is also a tax on jobs. Employers are already facing increased costs in energy and materials, and many businesses will not be able to bear such pressure. Small and medium-sized enterprises in particular need more support. Hospitality and tourism have struggled through the pandemic and now the Chancellor is moving VAT from 12.5% back to 20% at a time when consumers have much less money in their pockets. We on the SNP Benches called for the cut before the Chancellor brought it in, and we support UKHospitality’s “VAT’s enough” campaign.
Universal credit has been cut by £20 a week at a time when people need it the most. Carly, a single mum, spoke at the Gingerbread reception on Monday and told us all how important it was that that money was there, because things are tighter than they have ever been. There is no further support for people on legacy benefits and disabled people who often face higher energy costs and have no option on those costs. A taper has been put in place that helps only people who are in work. Benefits are just not going far enough, as they do not keep pace with inflation, and the welfare cap punishes people for their circumstances. There has been an end to the triple lock on pensions and there is nothing for the WASPI women, who are campaigning outside today, who are still losing out on what should have rightfully been theirs.
The Scottish Government, by contrast, are doing what they can within their limited budget, to support people: uprating the eight Scottish social security benefits we control by 6% and increasing the Scottish child payment to £20 a week—a lifeline to families. This UK Government should be doing the same. Taking 5p off fuel is something, but it does not help those who are paying for trains and buses. The Chancellor cut air passenger duty during COP26 but he still offers nothing for the millions of commuters who use public transport every day.
I do not know if the Chancellor has ever had a prepayment meter—I do not think they fit them for swimming pools. However, 4.5 million people—[Interruption.] Hon. Members say it is “pathetic”, but 4.5 million people across these islands experience the stress and despair of watching the money on their prepayment meters run out. Prepayment customers already pay higher bills than those on direct debit and they may struggle even to access the Chancellor’s “heat now, pay later” loan—if it does not automatically go to pay back the debts on that meter. The Fuel Bank Foundation, which provides top-ups to those on prepayment meters who are struggling, has seen a 75% increase in demand already. That was before the prices that we are seeing now.
There was nothing either from the Chancellor for customers using heating oil or LPG, who must fill up by the tank. Those on heating oil have seen their tank costs—for 500 litres in a tank—go from £250 to between £600 and £900. They have no choice about how to get that energy. Where are they in the Chancellor’s priorities today?
Nuclear energy—which the Government touted an awful lot before today and which, interestingly, was missing from the Chancellor’s statement—is not the answer to reducing people’s bills. It is slow and eye-wateringly expensive. We know from the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill that the Government’s proposals will add £63 billion to people’s energy bills. They should instead fix the long-standing inequality of grid charging, invest more in onshore and offshore wind, tidal and solar, and bring carbon capture and storage in the north-east of Scotland off their reserve bench. They should make it a real net zero transition worthy of the name.
The Government could invest in a national programme of heat pumps, retrofitting and insulating. I was glad to see the Chancellor’s announcement on home energy efficiency and repairs, because we have called for that for a long time. However, this paltry announcement does not go nearly far enough and does not even meet the significant home energy interventions that Scotland is making.
The Chancellor has choices. He could have looked at a windfall tax on profits. The shadow Chancellor, the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), was right about oil and gas, but why should Amazon, Serco and Netflix not have to pay up for their mega-profits during the pandemic?
The Chancellor has had a windfall of his own. Tax revenues are higher than expected and the deficit is £30 billion lower than planned. If we look at the OBR report that came out today, we see that VAT has gone up by £21.7 billion—that is £21.7 billion extra in the Chancellor’s coffers—and that the amount from self-assessment is up by £5.2 billion more than was forecast late last year. That could have been used to cushion the cost of living crisis and to invest in renewables and wean us off fossil fuel.
MoneySavingExpert’s Martin Lewis was stark in his warning on Sunday morning:
“As the ‘Money Saving Expert’ who has been known for this, I am virtually out of tools to help people now.”
He said, while watching this statement, that his “head …sunk”. There is no help for people on energy.
In conclusion, people face a crisis that the Chancellor could have done more to avert. In so many ways, he has made the choice not to act. There is nothing for Scotland in his announcement today. We on the Scottish National party Benches look forward to the day when Scotland has a Government with the full fiscal powers to make sure that all our people can have a decent standard of living, and that no child goes to bed with an empty tummy in a cold home.
Rishi Sunak
The hon. Lady said that there is nothing for Scotland in this statement, but maybe she missed the part about the UK-wide fuel duty cut, which, together with the freeze, will save a typical driver £100 and a typical van driver £200 this year. Perhaps she missed the part about the largest increase to personal tax thresholds ever. That £6 billion tax cut will help 2.4 million people in Scotland, starting in just a few months’ time. Indeed, 75,000 businesses will benefit from the employment allowance—again, that £1,000 tax cut for Scottish businesses will come in very shortly.
The hon. Lady mentioned that Scotland, as ever, wants more fiscal autonomy. Scotland already has a considerable degree of fiscal autonomy, and I did not hear whether the SNP will deliver the same income tax cut for Scottish taxpayers that the UK Government will deliver—as paid for in these numbers—in 2024. I look forward to hearing from her that the Scottish Government will cut taxes for their taxpayers with the powers and funding that they will get.
I always want to make sure that we look after the most vulnerable in our society. The hon. Lady mentioned a single mother she knew. I am pleased with and proud, in fact, of this Government’s actions, because by increasing the national living wage in April by 6.6%, by cutting the UC taper rate and through the increase in personal thresholds today, we have ensured—if we take all tax and welfare changes together—that a single mother of two children working full time on the national living wage will now be £1,600 better off.
The hon. Lady made a point about businesses. We are providing a business rate discount for business, and Scotland has received a Barnett share of that money. A business rate discount will come in here for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses in just a few weeks, and I know that the Scottish Government will have the resources to do the same thing.
Lastly, the hon. Lady made a comment about prepayment meters. I am acutely aware that millions of families rely on prepayment meters. That is why, when we designed the energy support package that we announced in February, we had particular care for those people to ensure that they would receive the same benefit. Indeed, we made sure that 40% of them will automatically get the £200 rebate in October. For the remainder, we are working with BEIS and the industry to ensure that all those people get the same benefit as well. They will receive a voucher, a cheque in the post or something called a “special access message” on their phone, by SMS, so that when they go to one of the retailers that they use to top up their meter, they will also benefit from our actions, because this Conservative Government is on the side of everyone.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
I broadly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Of course, the devil will always be in the detail and we look forward to seeing him at the Treasury Committee next week, along with the OBR and various economists, including from the IFS, which he mentioned.
I welcome the cut to fuel duty. That will help motorists and consumers and be important for businesses. The VAT reduction relating to energy efficiency and solar is very important in the context of the sanctions on Russia and energy self-sufficiency, where we can achieve it. The hardship fund will be a very targeted measure, which is important, and small businesses will be delighted to have heard about the increase in the employment allowance to £5,000, which was a key ask of the Federation of Small Businesses.
Along with many others in the House, I would have liked the NI increases for next year to have been scrapped in their entirety. However, the threshold increase that my right hon. Friend announced today has been very significant—far more significant than I imagined it would be.
This is the big question that my right hon. Friend will be asked: in the context of the fiscal targets, which I think we all agree that we need to meet, has he used enough of the headroom now as opposed to having that as a hedge against future uncertainties, to which he alluded and which are very real, in terms of inflation, interest rates and the effect on the cost of Government borrowing? Will he say a bit more about the fiscal headroom—he will have had the advantage of seeing the OBR figures, which I have not—and his assessment of that, particularly around the deficit target?
On growth, my right hon. Friend pointed out the OBR downgrades, which are not surprising in a high inflationary environment, and the dampening effect that they will have on consumer demand. I was very pleased that he referred to his Mais lecture, because it will be essential for us to focus on innovation, people and driving up capital investment.
My right hon. Friend referred, I think, to a consultation on how to improve capital investment, on which we lag behind our G7 competitors. Will he tell us more about the timeline for that consultation and when he expects to be able to provide important certainty for businesses in that respect?
Rishi Sunak
I thank my right hon. Friend for his words of support. Let me briefly address his two substantive questions.
The tax plan published in the spring statement document today has a range of options for cutting taxes on investment. I look forward to having a conversation with my right hon. Friend, with colleagues and with the business community about the right way to achieve the outcomes that we want. The final decisions will be announced in the autumn Budget and will take effect in spring 2023 after the super deduction ends; I will not get into the detail now.
We have about 1% of GDP as headroom against both the stock and the flow rules on debt falling and on borrowing. On the borrowing side, that is approximately in line with previous Chancellors. On the stock rule, it is a bit less: the average over the past decade has been about 1.7%. The headroom includes the tax cut in 2024, which has been fully paid for and costed in these numbers. I believe that we are taking a responsible and pragmatic approach, but my right hon. Friend is right to point out the risks. The OBR has said that relatively small changes in the macroeconomic outlook could wipe out the entire headroom. That is why it is right that we continue to be disciplined on public spending.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I would like to try to get everybody in. That will mean Members not making short statements, but asking just one question so that the Chancellor can give one answer.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
At Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister batted away a question about fraud during covid by suggesting that it was just about delivery, but it was the Chancellor who gave the ministerial direction for the bounce back loans to be paid at such speed. With a check that was even 48 hours longer, the Government might have avoided the fraudulent duplicate claims that were not stopped until a month later. The £4.7 billion that was lost to fraud could have mitigated measures such as the national insurance increase. Does the Chancellor now regret that he did not pause for thought and that he was not more cautious about fraud?
Rishi Sunak
I have a lot of respect for the hon. Lady, but on this matter I believe she is wrong. She has incredible hindsight to point out now issues that neither she nor anybody else raised at the time. Quite the opposite, in fact: I was told daily in this Chamber to get money out not in weeks and months, but in hours and days. Putting longer fraud checks in place would have taken weeks, so I stand by the decision that we made.
We have put various safeguards in place. We have blocked £2 billion of bounce back loans—60,000 because of the checks at Companies House. The National Investigation Service and the National Crime Agency are in the process of successfully prosecuting dozens of people. We are striking people off from Companies House and we are investing more today in the NCA, NATIS and the British Business Bank so that they can work on the interventions that we know are doing very well. I think it is wrong for hon. Members to pretend now that they wanted to do something at the time, when they did not.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
I congratulate the Chancellor on a tax-cutting, deficit-cutting, tax-simplifying statement that is very much in the tradition of Nigel Lawson. He mentioned research and development tax credits. Are we on track for our target for investment in R&D across the economy to reach 2.4% of GDP by 2027? When will the changes to R&D tax credits come into effect so that further progress can be made?
Rishi Sunak
I thank my right hon. Friend for his support; I know that this is an area of particular interest and concern for him. The 2.4% comprises two things: what the Government spend and what private businesses spend. I can reassure him that we are more than on track for the Government bit of it: we already spend the OECD average on the 2.4%, and that spending will go up by 50% over this Parliament, so the Government are doing our bit. As I said in my statement and in the Mais lecture, the private sector lags significantly internationally in how much it spends.
The changes that we are making to R&D will all come into effect in the spring next year and will be announced finally in the autumn Budget. My right hon. Friend wrote the foreword to a very helpful report on this topic. I look forward to working with him, with his Committee—the Select Committee on Science and Technology—and with others so that we get these changes right and drive up private sector investment in R&D.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
May I draw attention to two stories in the Sheffield Star today? Sheffield is still a city of steel. Ben McIvor, president of Forged Solutions Group, which employs 400 skilled workers in the steel industry, is begging for help with the rise in energy costs, because the company simply cannot pass on those costs to its customers. Workers at Liberty Steel are protesting about the Prime Minister’s broken promise that if we left the EU, he would cut energy bills for steel companies. Why has the Chancellor chosen to break the Prime Minister’s promise?
Rishi Sunak
No, we have provided over £2 billion-worth of support for energy-intensive industries over the past several years—including, I believe, over £600 million for the steel industry. That support comes in a variety of ways, including free allowances and compensation for the emissions trading scheme and other carbon price mechanisms. We also announced hundreds of millions of pounds in the spending review to support the industry to make the transition to using cleaner energy.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
In the spending review, the Chancellor gave a lifeline to maintained nursery schools by confirming supplementary funding, but not all schools qualify for that funding. May I appeal to him to work with the Secretary of State for Education to identify the modest additional funding needed to put all maintained nursery schools on a stable financial footing for the future?
Rishi Sunak
My right hon. Friend has championed the issue consistently since I have had this job, and she deserves enormous credit. I would be very happy to talk to her and to take her proposals up with the Department for Education.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
It would be churlish not to accept that the Chancellor has sought to deal with many of the issues that working families today face, but given the windfall in taxes that he has experienced, I believe that more could have been done to help with fuel costs, energy bills and other cost of living increases. It is significant that the Chancellor could not apply all his tax cuts to Northern Ireland because of the Northern Ireland protocol: that shows that the protocol needs to be dealt with.
At the start of his statement. the Chancellor referred to Ukraine, but surprisingly there was no mention of additional resources for defence—for the defence of this country, the defence of democracy and the defence of values in the face of Putin’s aggression. Why was that absent today?
Rishi Sunak
On fiscal windfalls and headroom, I refer the right hon. Gentleman to my answer to the Chair of the Treasury Committee. Our headrooms are relatively small by historical standards and could be wiped out very easily by small changes in the macroeconomic outlook, so I think that it is wrong to say that there is a huge windfall. Indeed, borrowing for the forthcoming year will be higher than was forecast in October.
On defence, I refer the right hon. Gentleman to my answer to the shadow Chancellor. We increased the defence budget by £24 billion in 2020—the largest increase since the cold war. The Ministry of Defence was the only Department that got a four-year settlement when all the others got just one year. That is how seriously we take the issue.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I congratulate the Chancellor on the statement and particularly on the 5p reduction in fuel duty, which I note is temporary. Will he remind all Members of this House that temporary does not mean permanent, and that as the reduction costs £5 billion, if it becomes permanent we will not be able to reduce income tax, which also costs £5 billion, if we are to meet our tests of fiscal responsibility?
Rishi Sunak
I thank my hon. Friend, as ever, for his support. He is right: the fuel duty cut will benefit all our constituents, particularly those in more rural areas and on lower incomes. He is also right to make the point that we need to remain disciplined on public spending. We have fully accounted for the income tax cut in our plans, but it will require collective discipline to deliver those tax cuts and others that we want to see over the remainder of this Parliament.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
The Government have been warned privately and publicly not to make up employment statistics, so alarm bells rang when the Chancellor of the Exchequer glossed over the employment numbers in his statement just now. The small print reveals that unemployment is forecast to rise next year and then plateau, so may I ask him what the Department for Work and Pensions is playing at?
Rishi Sunak
Unemployment is at an almost record low level of 3.9% at the moment. The OBR’s forecasts overall are lower than its October forecasts and are still at very low levels of 4.2%-ish throughout the forecast period. We are very proud of this Government’s track record on jobs, with record numbers of people on payroll. Despite the forecasts of millions of people unemployed, we have managed to successfully get everyone back to work, with a record number of job vacancies, and we will continue to focus on that.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
With the world economy facing unparalleled challenges from at least two of the four horsemen of the apocalypse—death from plague and war—and with all the challenges that the Chancellor faces, I wonder whether anybody seriously believes, after a decade of unfunded spending promises, that tax would be any lower under a Labour Government. That is a question that I think the Labour party should answer.
May I ask a question on behalf of people of pensionable age? More and more of them are having to wait a long time—up to two years—for so-called minor operations, which can be very debilitating and very painful. More and more people on middle incomes are dipping into their savings or going into debt to pay for private operations. Will the Chancellor keep an open mind about helping those people with some sort of tax relief—if not on insurance, on the cost of operations that are delayed for up to two years?
Rishi Sunak
I am always happy to take suggestions from my right hon. Friend. He has identified a pressing problem faced by all our constituents who are waiting longer than we would like for elective treatment in particular. Every penny of our new health and care levy will go to the NHS and social care so we can make a start on that backlog. We are backing the NHS to help it to reduce its backlogs, and my right hon. Friend is right to raise this issue.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Households are facing the biggest hit to living standards on record, and they were looking to the Chancellor today to offer them some hope. We know from the OBR forecast that the Treasury will take an additional £13 billion in VAT thanks to inflation. Will the Chancellor tell us why he has not announced the emergency cut that the Liberal Democrats have called for, which would put £600 back into the pockets of the average family? VAT is an unfair tax that puts up prices for every single family in the UK, and makes up half of all the taxes paid by the poorest households compared with less than a fifth of those paid by the richest.
Rishi Sunak
I think it wrong to suggest that there has been a VAT windfall. If the hon. Lady looks at the numbers in the OBR forecast, she will see that its projection for VAT receipts in the forthcoming year is lower than its previous projection in October. We are helping working families, with a £6 billion tax cut which will put £330 into the pockets of 30 million workers across the United Kingdom.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
I think that when my right hon. Friend gets back to his office, that portrait of Nigel Lawson will be looking down at him admiringly. This is a Conservative plan that we can all get behind. It rewards work, it gets the deficit down, and it incentivises investment from businesses rather than penalising them with windfall taxes.
As my right hon. Friend knows, energy prices are very volatile, so he is right to stand by the £9 billion package that he introduced previously and wait until the next update on the energy price cap in the late summer. If it does indeed show that energy prices are going to rise substantially, that will have a big impact on the poorest households. Will my right hon. Friend assure us that he will keep this matter under review, and will consider further measures if necessary to protect those households?
Rishi Sunak
I thank my right hon. Friend for his warm words of support, and I can reassure him that we keep everything under review. We have stood by the British people over the past few years, and we will continue to stand by them. It is thanks to the responsible decisions of this Government that we are able to provide the support that is required when the times call for it.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Consumer spending is vital to the growth of our economy in the aftermath of the pandemic, but with inflation at its highest level for 30 years—the Chancellor has seen the data—consumer confidence is declining, hitting our small businesses hard and setting back their recovery from the pandemic. Why on earth is the Chancellor not fully U-turning on his rise in national insurance contributions at this time—a rise that the Government themselves have admitted will increase inflation and decrease spending power?
Rishi Sunak
The hon. Lady may not realise that for 70% of people, this is more generous than doing what she suggests. Those people will pay less tax as a result of this policy as opposed to the one that she advocates, and I believe that it is the right policy. We are on the side of hard-working people, and this will help them at a time when they need that help.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
I thank the Chancellor for his statement, which has been warmly welcomed by the people and businesses of Wimbledon, and commend him for his analysis of some of the challenges to the economy. One measure that he could move from temporary to permanent is the super deduction, so will he consider that as part of his consultation? I think it is already evident that this would be the most effective way of changing behaviour and securing greater R&D and capital expenditure.
Rishi Sunak
I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said, and look forward to discussing those topics with him over the coming months. The document outlines a range of options for cutting taxes on investment. Hopefully he will have a chance to digest those, and I look forward to discussing them with him.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
The Conservative party introduced universal credit, but instead of uprating it in line with current inflation, the Chancellor has chosen to increase the size of the household support fund. Those who have heard of it have to go to their local councils to receive it. What evidence, if any, does the Chancellor have that the fund is effective in delivering help to the families who need help most?
Rishi Sunak
The feedback that I receive from colleagues suggests that it has been effective, and I trust councils to know who are the people in their areas who most need our help. I used to be a local government Minister, and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have enormous respect and regard for local authorities. However, we did not just do that: in the autumn Budget, we gave a £2 billion cut through the tax rate on universal credit to nearly 2 million people on the lowest incomes.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend heartily for the cut in fuel duty, and for waiving the national insurance threshold. I hope I can now retire from campaigning on that issue; it would make my life a lot easier! My right hon. Friend has stood up for workers and for people on low incomes, and we should not forget that. As he said, it is this party that is the true workers’ party of the United Kingdom.
When my right hon. Friend considers a reform of the apprenticeship levy, will he ensure that at its heart is a focus on enabling more disadvantaged young people to take up apprenticeships, including degree apprenticeships?
Rishi Sunak
I thank my right hon. Friend for his support, and I can give him that reassurance. Apprenticeships are fantastic and we want to ensure that they are continually supported, but we will look at all aspects of this to ensure that we also provide incentives for the training that we want to see. My right hon. Friend is right to emphasise that this is the party of the workers, and that is in no small part thanks to his campaigning. I congratulate him on making the case so well.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
It is clear from the Chancellor’s statement that he wanted the buzzword to be security, but one of the issues that did not appear in the statement was food insecurity. Given that 60% of Glaswegians do not possess a car and many of my constituents do not own their homes to put solar panels on them, what does the Chancellor say to the people whose children will go to bed hungry tonight, and why was there no mention of that in his statement?
Rishi Sunak
We have already created the holiday activity and food programme, which provides both food and enriching activities for children outside term time. There is also the household support fund, and Barnett consequentials will enable the Scottish Government to provide the same support for vulnerable families in their communities.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I warmly welcome the Chancellor’s statement and, in particular, the rise in the national insurance threshold. It will not only help low earners, which is important, but bring a welcome simplicity to the system. I also welcome the reform of the apprenticeship levy, but will the Chancellor look at the amount that can be transferred through the annual levy transfer? It is currently capped for larger organisations, and that restricts the amount that they can give to smaller organisations. A reform would see much better use of the apprenticeship levy, which would help small and medium-sized enterprises, local authorities and others.
Rishi Sunak
I thank my hon. Friend for his support. He is right to point out that the significant increase in personal tax thresholds is particularly well targeted at those on lower and middle incomes, and I look forward to discussing with him, over the coming months, potential reforms in the way in which we tax training and apprenticeships.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
I have just received a message from Michael, who is a carer for his disabled wife in Hull. He says:
“So no help for the disabled. I guess I’ll have to put my wife into hospital next winter so she can stay warm”.
What would the Chancellor say to Michael, who does not drive a car and is not planning to install solar panels on his rented home?
Rishi Sunak
Obviously it is hard for me to comment on individual circumstances, but in general I am proud of this Government’s support for those who are disabled. We have spent some £58 billion on disability welfare. When I last checked the figures, the OECD ranked us higher than many other countries, including the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Germany and Austria, so we are generous and compassionate in our support for those who are disabled.
We are taking a range of measures, not least spending £1 billion to help people with disabilities into work and providing £1.5 billion for the disabled facilities grant to improve the conditions of their homes. Today we announced a small amount of extra funding to improve the provision of Changing Places toilets across the country, an issue about which I care passionately. That funding will increase their number by 40%, so that the quarter of a million people with complex disabilities who need access to such facilities will now find one closer to where they need it.
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)
I thank the Chancellor for what I thought was an excellent spring statement, and look forward to seeing how it will benefit my constituents. I was particularly pleased to hear about the cut in fuel duty. However, I was a bit disappointed not to hear anything specific about an increase in funding for mental health. Is that something that the Chancellor will consider in the future?
Rishi Sunak
I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that we announced a significant increase for the NHS back at the spending review in the autumn, with a record NHS spending settlement including big increases for mental health. The Department of Health and Social Care will be able to provide him with the exact split, but he can rest assured that we are making good progress with dedicated funding for the cause that he rightly champions.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Let us be absolutely clear that benefits and pensions are going to rise by 3.1% while inflation is predicted to be between 7% and 10%. That is a cut for some of the poorest in our society. I want to make this specific appeal to the Chancellor. The people I am desperately worried about in my constituency are those who are forced to live on benefit, largely through disability or ill health, and the poorer pensioners. We know that energy prices are rising rapidly, and that the assistance provided so far will not enable them to cope. When we get to November, those people will be freezing in their own homes and lives will be put at risk. One simple solution is to double the winter fuel allowance. Can I appeal to him to go away, think about that and come back sooner rather than later to give vulnerable people some confidence in the future?
Rishi Sunak
All the people the right hon. Gentleman mentioned will benefit from the proposals we put forward last month, with £9 million to help everybody. The doubling in size of the household support fund is there for his local council and others to use to support those most in need, and he is right to highlight the winter fuel payments, which are payments of up to £300 for those pensioners. Many of those on pension credit will also have access to the warm home discount, which is an extra £150.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
As a member of the Treasury Committee and chair of the Conservative Back-Bench Treasury committee, I congratulate the Chancellor on this spring statement’s tax cutting and tax simplifying, with many measures to help hard-working families make ends meet and to promote economic growth. I also very much welcome the publication of the tax plan. Too often, Governments are tactical about their tax policies, leaving great uncertainty for businesses about what will happen next. We now have a strategy for the years ahead. Tax policy must be informed by a strategy; it also needs to be credible and fair. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, in all the measures the Treasury has introduced since 2019, it is the poorest households that have benefited the most and the wealthiest that have contributed the most?
Rishi Sunak
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his new appointment and look forward to working with him in both his committees over the coming months, particularly to flesh out the business tax options that we want to finalise by the autumn Budget. He is right to say that the distribution analysis published today, which looks at all tax, welfare and spending decisions, shows that this Government have been highly progressive in their actions and that those on the lowest incomes have benefited the most.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Once again, quite incredibly, there is climate-shaped hole at the heart of this statement. Once again, the Chancellor did not even mention the word “climate”. That is all the more unforgivable as the measures we need to tackle the climate crisis and those we need to tackle the cost of living crisis are the same. With 6 million people now facing fuel poverty, where is the home retrofit revolution and the investment that we need to make 19 million homes warmer by 2030, saving families £400 on their bills and creating hundreds of thousands of jobs in the process? How many more people will have to freeze in their homes before he will act?
Rishi Sunak
We already acted in the spending review last autumn to outline billions of pounds to improve the energy efficiency of hundreds of thousands of homes across the country. The hon. Lady is right to say that that saves £300. We have grants available of up to £20,000, depending on the scheme, that will do that over the remainder of this Parliament. Also, the energy company obligation does the same thing for hundreds of thousands of people in fuel poverty through their energy bills. So we already did it; we are getting on with it. And I think she missed the fact we have just cut VAT today on energy-saving materials.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
I welcome the statement from the Chancellor today, and in particular the way in which the most support is being provided to those who will need it most. Can I ask specifically about the section on the research and development review? Much of our economy is going digital and we are seeing an increasing focus on the knowledge economy and the creative sectors. Will that be at the core of his investment plans for the future, since that is how we will secure future growth?
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend, as ever, makes a thoughtful point. Innovation, broadly defined, along with multi-factor productivity, accounts for about half our productivity growth. The pace has slowed recently and we need to reinvigorate it. I set out a strategy to do that at the Mais lecture, and key to that will be driving up private sector investment in R&D and innovation. The tax cuts and reforms we will put in place in the autumn will help us to achieve that end.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Can the Chancellor confirm that someone in employment who is on universal credit will see an increase in the taper between £9,500 and £12,500—a £1,290 clawback to the Chancellor? What is he doing to address that issue, which will involve the poorest workers in the country facing a £1,290 increase in their taxes?
Rishi Sunak
I think the hon. Gentleman is describing how the taper works. It withdraws benefits as people’s incomes rise. That is how the system is designed. However, I can tell him that, because we took action to cut the universal credit taper rate last autumn, we delivered a tax cut of £2 billion for almost 2 million people. I gave the example earlier of a single mother with two children who is renting and working full time on the national living wage. As a result of all our tax, welfare and wage changes, that person will be £1,600 better off.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend for his statement, as far as it went. He is right to say that he cannot print more money, borrow more money or spend more money. Can I ask him to bring forward the tax cuts, particularly for the lower earners, because as he rightly says, they spend their money far more wisely than the Government do? That will put more cash in their pockets to meet the increasing bills.
Rishi Sunak
That is exactly what we are doing. The increase in the personal tax threshold in July was brought in far quicker than these things normally are, but we wanted to do it as quickly as possible. This will put £330 in the pockets of 30 million people up and down the country.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
This year, the Chancellor is delivering the largest fall in living standards since Office for National Statistics records began in 1956-57. Will he tell us how many more people will fall into poverty as a result of his failure to ensure that increases in social security match inflation?
Rishi Sunak
The hon. Lady is describing the impact of inflation on people’s incomes. Of course that will have an impact; we have been very clear and honest about that. That is not just happening here; it is happening everywhere across the world as we grapple with higher inflation, but the measures we are taking today will make a significant difference to support working families in weathering some of the challenges ahead. Again, for those who are most vulnerable, we started this journey in autumn with a tax cut to universal credit, and we are doubling the household support fund today to £1 billion.
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
I welcome the Chancellor’s statement today. It will do a lot to help many of my constituents in Rushcliffe. Can he reassure me and my constituents that the tax-cutting measures announced today will continue to be the focus of this Conservative Government and that they are just the start of what is possible if we continue to build a stronger, greener economy?
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We started in October, and we have made progress today. The tax plan published today shows that we will continue to make progress, cutting taxes for businesses and people over the remainder of this Parliament.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
The Chancellor is of course the Conservative and Unionist Chancellor for all of the United Kingdom, but is it not a fact that because of the deficiencies in the Northern Ireland protocol, none of his flagship programmes will apply to Northern Ireland until he goes cap in hand to the European Community and seeks its permission to apply these VAT differentials to Northern Ireland? If the European Community says no, what is the Conservative and Unionist Chancellor going to do for our part of the United Kingdom?
Rishi Sunak
The hon. Gentleman is right, and I have specifically highlighted the deficiencies of the protocol. I look forward to having those discussions with the Commission. Obviously these are not particularly traded goods, because they are installed, so there ought to be a strong argument that they are included, particularly as we are all now collectively grappling with an energy crisis. However, I do not want to pre-empt the Foreign Secretary’s conversations on the protocol. It is not right to say that the flagship policies do not apply to Northern Ireland. The increase in the personal tax thresholds, the income tax cut and the fuel duty cut will apply to Northern Ireland, and I know that they will benefit his constituents and millions of others across Northern Ireland.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I welcome the announcements that my right hon. Friend has made about national insurance thresholds, fuel duty and the increase in the household support fund. The past two years have been very challenging for the poorest and most vulnerable, and it is going to get a whole lot tougher. As we saw with his swift and right decision to raise universal credit at the start of the pandemic—this was too hastily reduced—the best way of targeting support for those who need it is through the benefits system. May I urge him to look closely in the coming days and weeks at the levels of UC and other benefits, and the means of uprating them?
Rishi Sunak
I thank my hon. Friend for that. I strongly believe that the best way to help people sustainably is to move them off welfare and into work. That is what this Government are doing. Our record on doing so is incredibly strong, and we are throwing the kitchen sink, in terms of both money and policies, which the International Monetary Fund has described as “well targeted”, at supporting people as they make that transition and putting more money in their pockets.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
The Chancellor really has not helped those in greatest need. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation says that the current uprating of working-age social security benefits will mean 400,000 people falling into poverty this year. With inflation now forecast to average about 8% in 2023, will he reflect on the very different circumstances the country finds itself in and uprate benefits by the inflation rate forecast in the OBR’s economic and fiscal outlook?
Rishi Sunak
The way that benefits and indeed pensions are uprated is the same every year, and it has been done in the same way for more than a decade. We are making sure that we support people from welfare into work, which is the most sustainable way to help them. Someone moving from UC into full-time work at the national living wage is £6,000 better off. That is why I am pleased that because of our management of the economy there are now record numbers of job vacancies and the support to help people get those jobs.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
Thousands of people across my constituency will welcome the targeted measures announced by the Chancellor today. Will he reconfirm for the House that he agrees that the best way to tackle the cost of living issues that people face is through the dignity of a job and the security of a regular pay cheque? That is why it is so important that unemployment—[Interruption.] I ask Opposition Members to listen. It is why it is so important that unemployment has fallen every month for the past year, and they should welcome that.
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend is absolutely right and puts the point eloquently: the best way to help people is to get them into work. That is why we are creating record numbers of jobs and then making sure that not only are those jobs well paid, but people keep more of the money they earn. That is the approach of this Conservative Government.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
There appears to be no plan from the Chancellor, glossy or otherwise, for farming and food security. Is he aware that hundreds and hundreds of farmers are leaving the industry because of the botching of the transition from the old basic payment scheme to the new system? If he were to peg the basic payment scheme at its current rate, rather than halving it over the next two years, he would at least give time for farmers to be able to catch up and get into the new schemes. As it stands, farmers are leaving the industry just at the moment when we are facing an international food security crisis. Will he rethink and back British farmers?
Rishi Sunak
As the hon. Gentleman knows well, given that we are constituency neighbours, I also represent plenty of farmers and I listen to their concerns. The Agriculture Secretary is doing an excellent job of transitioning from the old system to the new. The overall funding for farming has been protected by this Government and the same level of funding is available, as we promised it would be. I want to see more British food grown here and to see us supporting British food—of course I do, and I think the British public will as well.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
The shadow Chancellor quoted Money Saving Expert Martin Lewis’s comments from before the spring statement, but since the statement he has written:
“That £3,000 rise of threshold to £12,570 is a gain of £330 a year and more than offsets the…rise for many on lower incomes. Good call.”
Just what proportion of workers will now be getting more money from the higher threshold than they pay in the health and social care levy?
Rishi Sunak
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for sharing that helpful tweet with the House, but I would say to him that the number he is looking for is 70%—70% of workers will pay less because of the increase in thresholds, even taking into account the new levy. That is why this Government are on the side of hard-working British taxpayers.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I do not think the Chancellor understands the depth of despair and fear among the very lowest-income households in this country, for example, those whose incomes were already below the thresholds for national insurance or tax—those who have to rely on social security benefits as they are not able to work because of caring responsibilities, health or disability. To uprate benefits by less than half the rate of inflation at the same time as families face particular pressures on paying for the basics of energy and food will simply leave those families destitute. Will he please heed the calls from around the House this afternoon and look again at his benefits uprating policy?
Rishi Sunak
As I have said, for those who are most vulnerable we are providing an extra half a billion pounds, and we are doubling the size of the household fund—local authorities are best placed to direct that funding. But we do want to support people into work, which is why I am proud of the record we have.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
I warmly welcome the tax cuts announced today, especially with the focus on low and middle earners. I note that the OBR has said today that interest payments on debt will quadruple next year. Does my right hon. Friend agree that with interest payments on our debt at £80 billion we need to maintain discipline on spending going forward?
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. She is absolutely right; the increase in debt payments is historic and it gives a glimpse of some of the risks facing us going forward. That is why it is right that we maintain headroom against our fiscal rules, and the best way to do that, in order to deliver a lower-tax economy, is to remain very disciplined on further public spending.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
The Chancellor has detailed a small number of fiscal interventions and they will be a small mercy for the poorest in our society. May I ask his advice on what families with a child suffering from a life-shortening condition will receive as a result of his measures today? Children suffering from life-limiting conditions are often at home, where they need to be kept warm 24 hours a day, seven days a week, often with specialist equipment running. The Children’s Hospices Across Scotland charity is receiving alarming calls from people whose energy bill estimates are going up in the region of £268 to £720 a month. What hope for them, Chancellor?
Rishi Sunak
In the autumn spending review we announced record funding settlements, not just for health, but across the board. That resulted in Barnett consequentials of, if I recall it correctly, about £4.5 billion annually for the Scottish Government. Obviously, they can use that to support their local communities in the way that they feel is best. Again, there have been further Barnetts today as a result of the household support fund.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
With a 5p cut in fuel duty, the lifting of the national insurance threshold and a plan to cut income tax, will my right hon. Friend reiterate that this Government are a tax-cutting Government? On the Government side of the House, we trust people on how best to spend their own money.
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point and he is absolutely right: we want people to be able to keep more of their own money. The tax plan announced today represents the biggest net cut to personal taxes in a quarter of a century, proving that we very much are on the side of hard-working British people.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
Many of my constituents are having to choose between putting food on the table or heating their homes. At my local food bank last week, staff told me that they were facing levels of demand that they had never seen before. Meanwhile, the boss of BP’s salary has increased to almost £4.5 million. Surely the Chancellor must see that it is time for a windfall tax on oil and gas, to tackle rising energy bills.
Rishi Sunak
I have already addressed this and I urge the hon. Lady to wait for the Prime Minister’s forthcoming energy security strategy, which will ensure that British people have affordable, secure and reliable energy and, most importantly, in the process will support British jobs and British investment.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
I welcome this statement and I agree with the Chancellor that this is a statement for the Union, because in these uncertain and unusual times it is the strength of our economy that helps us in positions on defence, trade and more. We are maintaining generous levels of support for devolved Administrations, in Scotland, in Wales and in parts of England. So it is vital that UK taxpayers can be assured that they are receiving value for money for expenditure behind devolved curtains. Will the new Cabinet Efficiency and Value for Money Committee be paying attention to that?
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I look forward to taking up his suggestion and having further conversations with him about it. I am glad that over 1 million Welsh taxpayers will benefit from the announcements we made today.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
The richest Member of Parliament just spoke about how he understands the impact that the cost of living crisis is having on millions of people, but what he said will sound like a cruel joke to people across the country. Energy bills are rocketing, while fossil fuel giants BP and Shell are set to make £40 billion in profits this year. Why has the Chancellor refused to introduce a windfall tax on those companies to fund the restoration of the old, lower, energy cap? Is it because he would rather squeeze the livelihoods of ordinary people than the profits of the super-rich?
Rishi Sunak
With regards to the livelihoods of ordinary people, they have just received a £330 tax cut today and a discount on their fuel bill, with more tax cuts to come. This Government are on the side of hard-working British families.
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
I want to ask about the national insurance threshold change—the one that Martin Lewis described as “the big one”. Can my right hon. tax-cutting Friend confirm that this will result in an actual tax cut for more than 30 million people—in fact, for anyone who earns less than £35,000?
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour is absolutely right, and I thank him for his support. This change will put £330 in the pockets of 30 million hard-working British families, including many in Stockton South, and it means that 70% of workers will be better off, even accounting for the new health and care levy.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
In his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) on steel, the Chancellor talked a lot about the steel compensation that has been paid. While that is, of course, welcome, the fact is that British steelmakers are still paying 61% more than their German competitors. Steel is a foundational industry that is about good jobs, decarbonisation and our sovereign capability, so why is there absolutely nothing in the statement for our steel industry?
Rishi Sunak
We have programmes in place to support our energy-intensive industries, and we remain in close dialogue with all companies in all sectors. Our track record on supporting industry is strong, and we continue to create jobs and make sure that British workers are well supported.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
I welcome the Chancellor’s announcements today, which will help people across Old Bexley and Sidcup with the cost of living, and support local businesses as our local economy recovers. However, in stark contrast to these announcements, people in outer-London areas such as Bexley are facing an eye-watering 8.8% increase in the Labour Mayor of London’s council tax precept, which we continue to see little benefit from. Even worse, drivers and local businesses face the prospect of paying more than £4,000 a year as a result of the ultra low emission zone expansion. That is clearly a tax raid that will have little proven environmental impact on outer London. Does he agree that this tax raid by Sadiq Khan on hard-working people across Bexley should be stopped?
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Even if the Labour Mayor of London is not standing up for his constituents, I know my hon. Friend will stand up for his hard-working constituents in Bexley and Sidcup. He will have seen today that we are on their side; we are cutting their taxes.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Chancellor is still not agreeing to a windfall tax on the super profits of the oil and gas giants. Such a tax would hit the shareholders, not workers and their jobs. It would not hamper business from operating successfully. Why is he protecting wealthy shareholders?
Rishi Sunak
I fear this is getting a little repetitive. I believe that we will see more investment in British industry, more investment in the North sea, more energy security and more jobs created. I look forward to companies bringing forward their plans for that in the coming weeks and months.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
I am old enough to remember when levelling up was the centrepiece of the Government’s domestic policy. People will be incredulous that we did not hear a single mention of it from the Chancellor this afternoon. He talks of low growth; we have low growth because we are not unleashing the potential of the regions of this country. It is time for the Chancellor to just admit that levelling up is a sham.
Rishi Sunak
The White Paper from the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities was in fact warmly welcomed by many colleagues from across the House. More broadly, is backed up with tens, if not hundreds, of billions of pounds of extra funding. The results are seen in our employment growth, which has been strongest in those regions outside London and the south-east.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
The Chancellor confirmed a business rate discount for businesses up and down the country, to a rateable value of £110,000. A number of businesses in my constituency do not qualify for that. A number of businesses across London did not get any benefit during the pandemic. One of the key ways that the Chancellor could help many businesses—not just those in Vauxhall—is through VAT cuts for tourism. People are not coming back to the tourism sector; we have seen record low numbers. Does the Chancellor agree that a permanent cut to 12.5% will help those businesses get back on their feet?
Rishi Sunak
All statistics show that the hospitality industry is recovering very well: cash balances are healthy, and business insolvencies are down. That is in part thanks to the support that we have put behind that industry. The uncapped business rate discount will provide support to hundreds of thousands of businesses. It is right that we target support at those who need our help most, whether they are businesses or families and individuals.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Is the humanitarian funding that the Chancellor announced for Ukraine in addition to aid flows already planned within the 0.5% budget, or will it squeeze planned expenditure elsewhere in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office?
Rishi Sunak
All official development assistance announcements are handled by the Foreign Secretary. Within the overall budget, there is always contingency, and space annually for responses to humanitarian disasters that cannot be foreseen. It is not a question of squeezing other things out at all; this is part of planned spend.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I commend the Government’s action on Russian sanctions, but we cannot possibly think that this is “job done.” Mariupol still burns; children are fleeing the bombing of their home. We still have not even introduced a sanction regime that is as tough as the sanction regime on Iran. Can I urge the Chancellor to go a bit further? We need to sanction all the Russian banks, not just 60% of them. We need to tackle the trust funds, such as that recently set up by Alisher Usmanov to protect his assets in the UK. We need to tackle the families and the hangers-on, such as Lavrov’s family, who are in the UK, and we need to tackle shipping. We must do all these things for the people of Ukraine as fast as possible.
Rishi Sunak
I have been working very closely with my counterparts in G7 economies and beyond to co-ordinate our financial and economic sanctions, which I am more responsible for. I am highly confident that what we have done is world-leading, particularly with regards to acts on bank freezes. We are constantly in dialogue with our partners to make sure the action we take is effective when it is co-ordinated.
Rishi Sunak
No, it is not remotely, actually. There has been good unity in the House on this topic. The hon. Gentleman claims that somehow we are behind other countries when it comes to sanctioning Russian banks; it is simply not true. This Government are taking a leading role in this. We are ahead of most of our peers. He does not know, but I know, because I am in the conversations with Finance Ministers about where else they are prepared to go. I am very confident that we have done a lot and have played a leading role internationally in bringing others along with us.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
We have heard the Chancellor try to excuse his failure to increase benefits in line with inflation. He has referred to the universal credit taper and the national living wage, which help those people on benefits who are in work. However, does he recognise that the majority of people on benefits in the UK are not in work, and there is nothing in this budget to help them?
Rishi Sunak
I think the hon. Gentleman missed the household support fund announcement, which is specifically for local councils, so that they can help those who are most vulnerable. Many of those people who are not currently in work can, with the right support, care and attention, be supported into work. That is something that this Government are spending a lot on doing.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
Today, the Welsh Government announced a £500 payment to unpaid family carers, to recognise their commitment during the pandemic. Unpaid carers in Scotland receive the carer’s allowance supplement. Meanwhile, carers in England get a miserly carer’s allowance, which is increasing by only £2 this year. That means not only that the sacrifice and commitment of unpaid carers in England is going unrewarded, but that carers are being driven further into financial hardship. How many more need to be pushed into poverty before this Government act to value carers, and give them the targeted support they deserve?
Rishi Sunak
We do value carers. There are fewer people in poverty today than when we first came into office—1.7 million people fewer in absolute poverty than in 2010, after housing costs. Also, today we have topped up the household support fund, in order to provide support to the most vulnerable who need help.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
This week it was revealed that 75% of people in my constituency are struggling to pay for basic groceries. The OBR’s analysis following today’s statement has said that we face the largest fall in disposable incomes since the 1950s. Will the Chancellor visit my constituency, sit down with the people who use the local food bank, many of whom are in work, and see just how little the policies announced today will do to support them, to get them into work, and to allow them to live with dignity in their community?
Rishi Sunak
The hon. Gentleman is simply wrong. Those in work, particularly on low incomes, will benefit disproportionately from the policies that have been announced today. I have given plenty of examples already, but a single mother with two children who is renting, on universal credit, and working full time, earning the national living wage, will be £1,600 better off as a result of all the policies we have announced on taxes and welfare. We are supporting exactly the people the hon. Gentleman talks about.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
The Climate Change Committee’s estimates suggest that the overall price tag for retrofitting the UK’s homes—considered some of the most leaky and energy-inefficient in Europe—is £27 billion a year over the next 25 years. Will the Chancellor recognise that this issue needs real commitment and investment, not just tinkering around the edges?
Rishi Sunak
No. In the spending review, we announced the largest investment in upgrading home energy efficiency that this country has ever seen—billions and billions of pounds across a range of different schemes, helping hundreds of thousands of households with the costs of upgrading their energy.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
Can the Chancellor explain why, in the fifth-richest country in the world, and under his stewardship of the economy, this morning’s news reported that a mother would not accept potatoes from a food bank because she did not have enough money to boil them?
Rishi Sunak
I am very sorry to hear that, and I am hopeful—in fact, confident—that the policies we have announced today will help those who are most vulnerable. We have made sure, as we have over the last two years, that we are standing by the British people, and that is what the policies announced today do.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
I am old enough to remember the rampant inflation of the 1990s, when I started my career. I am old enough to remember when, under Ted Heath’s Government, we had to go to the local café because we had no lights on in the house. However, I am not old enough to remember Anthony Eden and the 1950s. What does the Chancellor have to say today to pensioners who worked through the 1950s about the fact that he is presiding over the greatest fall in living standards since that time?
Rishi Sunak
I am pleased that, because of the actions of Conservative-led Governments since 2010, the state pension is £2,000 higher today; 700 of that is specifically because of the triple lock. That shows that this Government are on the side of pensioners.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
The Chancellor is proposing to cut the value of state social security payments by at least 4% and putting up tax rates for those on average and below-average incomes, yet he refuses even to countenance asking those who have extreme wealth, or the corporations that are making obscene profits, to pay a little more. Is not the truth, Chancellor, that this is just a plan to increase inequality in the United Kingdom?
Rishi Sunak
We are asking companies—especially large successful companies—to pay more. That was announced last year and legislated for, and it will come into force next year. The corporation tax rate will rise from 19% to 25% to ensure that we do spread the burden fairly in recovering from coronavirus.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
The household support fund exists only because, thanks to this Chancellor, people do not have enough income to eat or to pay their bills. With pensions and benefits set to rise by a measly 3.1% and the minimum wage by 59p, and with inflation peaking at over 7%, today’s uplift to the fund is more evidence of his continued failure to protect the hardest hit, isn't it?
Rishi Sunak
The national living wage is actually going up by 6.6%—it is one of the highest increases we have seen in the national living wage, and it will mean that someone working full time on the national living wage earns £1,000 more this year.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The village of Altnaharra in my constituency is the coldest place in the UK every single winter. A great number of households in my constituency rely on domestic fuel for their heating—they have absolutely no choice. Right now, they are faced with crippling bills landing on their doorsteps. I do not want the Chancellor to feel that he has to repeat himself, but could I ask in the spirit of good will and co-operation whether he will agree to my meeting some of his ministerial team to look at different ways in which we could tackle this problem, which is hurting my constituents, in the coldest part of Britain, very badly indeed?
Rishi Sunak
I am always happy to hear suggestions from the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, to arrange a meeting for him. I wanted to make sure that those off the gas grid still benefited from the energy package that we put in place in February, and it will work on electricity meters, so that will happen. As a rural MP myself, I appreciate the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises, and I will happily arrange the meeting for him.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
Oil and gas giants are making £900 profit per second, while millions of people are having sleepless nights worrying about whether they will be able to heat their homes. Does the Chancellor think that the right of these firms to make these super-profits is more important than the right of people to stay warm? If not, surely now is the time for a windfall tax on these profits to fund lowering people’s energy bills.
Rishi Sunak
I just remind the hon. Gentleman that we already have a supplementary corporation tax on oil and gas companies. They pay 40% corporation tax—twice as much as the rate paid by all other companies—and it is right that they do. Going forward, as the Prime Minister’s strategy will outline, we want to see more investment in the North sea, more British energy security and more British jobs.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Private sector tenants on low incomes in my constituency face ever-rising rents, which in many cases are well above local housing allowance levels. These are people on universal credit, and over half are working families who are having to make the choice of whether to heat or eat. What assessment has the Chancellor made of the levels of local housing allowance so that my constituents do not have to take £200, £300 and £400 from their non-housing element to pay their rent?
Rishi Sunak
Because of the increases to local housing allowance that this Government put in place for the pandemic, and that they have maintained, about 1.5 million people—the poorest in our society—will have £600 a year more in local housing allowance, which will help. The hon. Lady talked about a family on low income. Just so that she is aware, as a result of all the tax and welfare changes we have made, including to the taper and the national living wage, a family with two children that is renting, with one parent working full time and the other working part time on the national living wage, will be about £3,000 better off. I know that that will help them through the challenging months ahead.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Brownings the Bakers makes and sells products and distributes them right across the UK through some of the major UK supermarkets. I wrote to the Chancellor highlighting the fact that its electricity costs have increased from £4,000 a week to £11,000 a week. If it wants fixed costs, it has been offered an eye-watering £17,000 a week for a two-year contract. Obviously, the Treasury makes more money in VAT returns out of these eye-watering increases, so rather than the Chancellor having to write back to me, can he confirm to me here and now that I can tell John Gall, the managing director, that he is doing nothing to help businesses such as Brownings the Bakers?
Rishi Sunak
The hon. Gentleman is simply wrong on VAT. If he looks at the figures published today, he will see that the OBR’s estimate of VAT receipts in the forthcoming year is actually lower than the amount it had expected in the autumn. We are providing a tax cut for small businesses today—£1,000 due to the increase in the employment allowance, and that will kick in in just a couple of weeks.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
As always, the Chancellor has forgotten the poorest—those claiming pensions, those claiming social security and those living below the minimum income threshold, who have been hit by the cost of living crisis. All that my poorest constituents want is food, warmth and shelter against soaring house prices. All they got was 6p a day from the housing support fund on average. Will the Chancellor go back again and review the rise in social security payments? Those people need that money, or else they will go hungry, they will experience hypothermia and they will be homeless.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. It is important that the questions are very brief at this stage if I am going to get the last few people in.
Rishi Sunak
With regard to supporting those who are homeless, the spending review in the autumn increased support for homelessness by 85%, compared with 2019 levels—to over £640 million, I think, a year. We are currently seeing the number of rough sleepers at very low levels, compared with the last several years, and hopefully at the lowest level in a decade by the end of this Parliament.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
I have asked this of the Chancellor on numerous occasions. On Monday, I led a delegation to Downing Street to deliver a letter urging him to grant a right to food. With millions having to choose between starving or freezing in their homes because of the cost of living crisis, when will the penny drop with the Chancellor that hunger is a political choice, and it is he who controls the levers to eradicate it? Does he agree that it is a dereliction of his duty to the security of every household that we all serve not to enshrine into UK law access to food for all?
Rishi Sunak
We have actually invested more than £200 million a year in the holiday activity and food programme to provide both food and enriching activities to hundreds of thousands of children across the country.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
In Putney, 31% of children live in poverty. The biggest measure that the Chancellor could bring in is scrapping the two-child benefit cap, which is cruel and leaves children in poverty. Has he assessed the two-child benefit cap, and when will he scrap it?
Rishi Sunak
I am pleased that there are now 300,000 fewer children in absolute poverty compared with 2010. The best way to make sure that children do not grow up in poverty is to ensure that they do not grow up in a workless household, and there are 700,000 fewer of those today as a result of the actions of this and previous Conservative Governments.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
The National Audit Office has found that, in a single year, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs allowed more than £300 million of fraudulent claims for research and development tax relief. We also know from other NAO reports that the Treasury is woefully bad at producing evidence to demonstrate that any of the tax relief policies actually deliver the required objectives. With that in mind, what assurance can we have that the announcement that the Chancellor has made today will lead to a genuine real-terms increase in R&D spend, and will not just become yet another taxpayer-funded get-rich-quick scheme?
Rishi Sunak
Government spending on R&D is increasing considerably over this Parliament, but the hon. Gentleman is right to point out some of the issues with our existing relief schemes. They do not work as well as they should. We are committed to tackling them. The final announcement will be made in the autumn for effect in the spring.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
Figures from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research have shown that destitution has more than doubled from 197,400 to over 400,000. Destitution is defined as two single people living on £100 a week after housing costs. Is the Chancellor happy that none of the announcements today will benefit those who are in destitution?
Rishi Sunak
That is categorically not the case. The policies that we have announced today will help British families up and down the country in all sorts of circumstances: we are making sure that work pays; we are supporting people into work; we are cutting the cost of fuel; and we have a plan to let our people to keep more of their own money in the years ahead. It is the right way to help people, and all the distribution analysis published today supports the fact that we are doing most for those on the lowest incomes.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Unpaid carers are increasingly worried about how they will afford to pay their bills. I am sure that the Chancellor will agree that they make an essential contribution to the UK. Will he set out whether he is considering any further measures to support unpaid carers?
Rishi Sunak
We are grateful to carers everywhere for the fantastic job that they do. I am confident that they and their families will benefit from the policies that we have announced today.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Chancellor for the help that he has given to my constituents. However, a constituent of mine has recently been in touch to say that the removal of red diesel would see her business experiencing an unsustainable increase in the cost of sales by some £400,000 annually. I am not being churlish, but does the Chancellor agree that this increase has come at a breaking point for businesses, and will he make allowances for the continuation of red diesel until the economy gets back on its feet?
Rishi Sunak
These changes were announced two years ago. They were consulted on and there are various exemptions in place, particularly to protect agriculture, which I know will be important to the hon. Gentleman. None the less, it is right that we go ahead with the changes as legislated.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Chancellor for his statement.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to use this opportunity to allow the Chancellor to hear a clarification. He suggested that the Scottish Government might want to follow the UK Government in eventually introducing a 19% rate of income tax. Would it be possible to get the Chancellor to correct the record? There is already a 19% rate of income tax for the lowest earners in Scotland, so in fact it is the UK Government who have to play catch-up with the Scottish Government.
Madam Deputy Speaker
As the hon. Lady knows, the Chair is not responsible for the speeches of Ministers. I am sure that, if any incorrect information has been given, the record will be corrected. Obviously, the Ministers on the Front Bench have heard her point.
Daniel Morgan Independent Panel Report
(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the publication of the report of Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services into the Metropolitan police’s counter-corruption arrangements.
In June last year, the Home Secretary came to the House to report on the findings of the Daniel Morgan independent panel. The panel’s report detailed a litany of historical failings by the Metropolitan police in respect of multiple investigations—failings that irreparably damaged the chances of a successful prosecution for Daniel Morgan’s brutal killing. My thoughts, and I am sure all Members’ thoughts, remain with Daniel’s family. I first met them over a decade ago.
As part of the Government’s response to that report, the Home Secretary commissioned the inspectorate to undertake an inspection of the Metropolitan police’s current approach to counter-corruption arrangements. I should note at the outset that the inspectorate did make some positive findings. The Metropolitan police remains an exemplar in investigating serious corruption and has good arrangements in place to support whistleblowers. It has also almost eliminated the backlog of officers awaiting security vetting, which was identified as a problem in a previous report. The inspectorate found no evidence that the force deliberately sought to frustrate the work of the Daniel Morgan independent panel, but the broad thrust and overarching conclusions of the report are troubling.
This inspection was commissioned to provide assurance for Daniel Morgan’s family and the wider public that the force had learned from failings in the past and had robust arrangements in place to prevent, identify and tackle corruption in its ranks. I am afraid that it is deeply disappointing that, in the light of the findings of this report, I cannot provide this assurance to the House. Indeed, the inspectorate felt that the Metropolitan police approach suggested
“a degree of indifference to the risk of corruption”.
This is alarming.
Corruption poses a significant threat wherever it rears its ugly head. If it is allowed to take root and wrap its tentacles around organisations and people, the potential impact is profound. This is especially true for policing—an institution that relies so heavily on public confidence and trust. The inspectorate’s report outlines a range of issues across all the systems that police forces employ to identify and manage corruption risks. This includes a failure to properly monitor recruits who could pose risks and to routinely share routine intelligence on officers.
The report paints a worrying picture of the Metropolitan police’s approach to exhibit and property management, creating opportunities for those tempted to abuse their position, and posing a risk to investigations.
The inspectorate found that there were more than 2,000 warrant cards unaccounted for. This is particularly concerning, coming as it does just over a year after a police officer abused his position to murder a young woman in a heinous crime that shocked our country to its core.
The report concludes that the Metropolitan police is not able to confirm whether officers working in the most sensitive areas of policing have the right levels of vetting. Furthermore, despite repeated recommendations and good progress made in this area in other forces across England and Wales, the force cannot proactively monitor its IT systems—a crucial tool in identifying corruption. In total, the report contains five causes of concern, two areas for improvement and 20 recommendations for change.
Yesterday, the Home Secretary wrote to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and the Mayor of London to set out her expectation that they respond to her with a clear action plan to remedy these failings. I welcome the deputy commissioner’s statement yesterday, recognising the need for comprehensive action. I put particular emphasis here on the responsibilities of the Mayor of London. Beyond the statutory responsibility on the Mayor to respond to the inspectorate’s report within 56 days, it is incumbent on City Hall to hold the Metropolitan police’s leadership to account for responding to past failings. This clearly has not happened here, and I urge the Mayor to work with the Home Office to ensure that a new commissioner can address these failings.
As she said in her statement to the House last year, the Home Secretary intends to update the House on the progress made in responding to the wide range of issues raised in the Daniel Morgan independent panel report. The Met Police published their response last Friday to the recommendations directed at them and, now that we have the inspectorate’s report, we expect to provide our overarching update soon.
Finally, I remind the House that the Home Secretary has also commissioned HMICFRS to undertake a wider inspection of vetting, counter-corruption and forces’ approach to identifying and tackling misogyny in their ranks. That is looking across England and Wales and will provide a crucial evidence base for part 2 of the Angiolini inquiry and inform any broader policy or legislative changes that might be required.
The report comes at a time when the Metropolitan Police are under intense scrutiny. I have found myself at the Dispatch Box discussing the force’s culture and standards all too frequently in recent months. As someone who over the years has worked alongside the Met and seen at first hand the incredible things that they are capable of achieving, I know there are thousands of officers, staff and volunteers across the organisation who perform their duties with skill, professionalism and pride every day. However, when things go wrong, it is vital to acknowledge that fact and take every necessary step to ensure that the failings of the past are not repeated. I commend this statement to the House.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement—three hours’ advance sight, which is very good.
Yesterday, some of us gathered on Westminster Bridge to remember the Westminster Bridge attack five years ago. We remembered how our police ran into danger to protect us, and we remembered PC Keith Palmer, who lost his life. It is with great sadness that we go from a day commemorating the very best of policing to discussing a report which, I am afraid, contains some very significant criticisms of the Metropolitan Police.
It is now 35 years since Daniel Morgan was murdered in a pub car park in south London—35 years for his family to wait for justice. I pay tribute to them, as the Minister has done. Daniel Morgan’s son lives in my constituency, and I know this report will be deeply upsetting for him and his family. The report lays bare issues of real concern. It is highly critical and tells a damning story of police corruption, of lessons not learned and of flawed procedures. The inspector noted with dismay that no one,
“had adopted the view that this must never happen again”.
The Met must accept all the recommendations included in the report and implement them in full with all possible speed.
As the Minister rightly noted, there was praise too in this report. For example, it was clear that the Met’s homicide investigation arrangements bear little resemblance to those of 35 years ago. The force solves the vast majority of homicides it investigates, as I can testify to in my own patch in Croydon.
Londoners need and deserve a police service they can not only trust, but be proud of. Whether on racism, homophobia, violence against women or corruption, we need to see the urgent reforms that will make that a reality. The outgoing commissioner must begin the process of implementation, but it must be a top priority for the new commissioner, who will carry forward the work.
However, the issues raised have national consequences. The Home Office must not stand back. Real leadership is needed. The Home Secretary and her Department must commit to engaging seriously with the issue of police reform, to avoid repeating such a scandal and to avoid a lifetime of pain and hurt for families like Daniel Morgan’s.
Labour has called for an overhaul of police standards, including reviews of vetting, training, misconduct proceedings and use of social media. It is vital that the Minister takes steps to identify whether the problems highlighted in the report are systemic in other forces across the country. The report shows that 50 people a year who had committed offences were recruited to the Met, including some who had connections to known criminals.
Given the seriousness of that finding, has the Minister asked all forces urgently to inform the Home Office of the number of new recruits every year who have committed offences? If he has, will he publish that data now? If he has not, why on earth has he not? We know that 2,000 warrant cards are unaccounted for. Has he asked all forces to inform the Home Office immediately how many of their warrant cards are unaccounted for? If he has, will he agree to publish that data?
In addition, the report notes that the Met does not know whether all those in sensitive posts have been cleared to the level needed. Is the Minister checking that nationally? The report also notes serious concerns about the storage and security of firearms in the Met. That is very worrying. Will the Minister commit to looking into that nationally?
We have a Home Office inquiry into culture and standards in the Met, which the Home Office has refused to put on a statutory footing. How can the Minister be sure that the Angiolini inquiry will not fall foul of the same stumbling blocks encountered by the Daniel Morgan inquiry and mentioned in this report?
The original Daniel Morgan inquiry recommended a statutory duty of candour for police officers, but the Government opposed Labour’s amendments to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill to achieve that. Given the challenges faced to get information during the inquiry that we see in the report, will the Government change their mind and back our proposal?
The Home Secretary has promised a review of vetting standards, but the terms of reference have only recently been published and we do not know when the review will report. What is the Home Office doing in the meantime to ensure that vetting across the country is being carried out to the highest and most rigorous standards?
The Minister highlighted the role of the Mayor of London. The report clearly states that the joint MPS and Crown Prosecution Service review of the Daniel Morgan case in 2011-12 identified opportunities for organisational learning, but it is clear that the MPS paid little, if any, attention to the joint report when it was published. Why did the previous Mayor of London totally fail to ensure that action was taken after that 2012 report?
Finally, the Minister has said he will provide an overarching update in response to both this report and the recommendations in the panel report. That is welcome, but can he give us a concrete timeline for it?
I end by saying that the role of the HMICFRS was not to reinvestigate the murder, but to consider the lessons to be learned from what has happened. The family of Daniel have not seen justice done for his murder, and it is with them that our thoughts must remain.
Kit Malthouse
The various points that the hon. Lady raised in the first half of her remarks will be addressed by Her Majesty’s inspectorate as it looks at vetting procedures across the whole country. The purpose of the investigation commissioned by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was to show the leadership that she is looking for and to expose what we now know to be the systematic failings of the organisation and its failure to address the problems of the report over recent years. We will know more on the questions that the hon. Lady rightly asks about the worrying issues raised by this report when HMI concludes its national inspection, which I hope will be shortly.
On the hon. Lady’s point about the duty of candour, as I explained during the debate on the consideration of Lords amendments to the Policing Bill, we changed the regulations to make it a disciplinary offence, subject to dismissal, not to co-operate with an investigation, which we believe is a stronger sanction. The inspection report said that the Metropolitan Police had co-operated with the independent panel.
I am disappointed at the hon. Lady’s lack of attention to the oversight mechanism of the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime. Over the past five years, the Mayor of London has been in control of an entire organisation whose job it is to hold the Metropolitan Police to account and to drive standards up. Certainly, in the four years between 2008 and 2012, when I was Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime, that was exactly what we tried to do. We initiated a race and faith inquiry that looked more widely at culture across the whole of the Met Police to try to drive improvement.
I would hope that the Mayor—[Interruption.] Madam Deputy Speaker, is there any chance you could ask the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) to stop barracking from a sedentary position? This is a very serious matter that must be addressed and taken seriously by all levels of Government, and that includes the Mayor of London. Given that that is the entire purpose of the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, I am afraid I am not willing to ignore the fact that the holding of the organisation to account is primarily the function of City Hall.
We at the Home Office have our part to play in setting national standards, and we will absolutely do that, whether that is reviewing with the College of Policing the professional practice around vetting, as we are doing, or changing the regulations if we need to do so. In the immediate short term, however, the statutory obligation to respond lies with the Mayor of London and I hope he will fulfil his obligations within the 56 days set in law by this House.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
As the son of a retired police officer, I know the incredible work that the majority of police do to fight crime and keep us safe. When officers breach the high standards expected of them, it fundamentally undermines the trust that their work relies on. Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the behaviour revealed in this report, and send a clear message that this kind of behaviour cannot be tolerated in any police force anywhere in the country?
Kit Malthouse
I applaud my hon. Friend’s sentiment. As someone who, like me, has an intimate knowledge of policing, I am sure he will acknowledge that there will be thousands of police officers up and down the land who are as disappointed and distressed by the revelations today as we are. They want to work in a profession—a vocation—of which they can be proud and which they know is trusted by the public. Making sure that this kind of corruption and behaviour is rooted out will be as much a part of their motivation as it is ours.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
I was six years old when Daniel Morgan was murdered in my constituency just round the corner from where I lived. His brutal murder shocked our community, and it was made worse by the fact that no one was convicted and that last year’s inquiry cited institutional corruption in the Met. Daniel’s family have campaigned for justice for 35 years. No other family should ever have to go through this, yet yesterday’s damning report found that not nearly enough has been done to ensure that it does not happen again. Will the Minister personally ensure that the next Met commissioner cleans up this failing force?
Kit Malthouse
I will certainly do my best to make sure that that is the case. As I say, the Home Secretary has written to the Mayor of London and the current commissioner asking for an assertive action plan to bring about these changes. I am sure the hon. Lady will have noted that HMI has put a limit of 12 months on the 20 improvements and changes that it needs to see, and it will require really assertive action by the Met police to get all that work done within that 12-month period. Many people in this House will have had involvement or contact with the Morgan family. I myself was privileged to meet his mother on a number of occasions when I was deputy Mayor for policing, and indeed, along with other Members across the House, I pressed for the original inquiry. Given our commitment to their campaign and the incredible dedication they have shown, we now have a duty to do exactly as the hon. Lady says and make sure it does not happen again.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
As the Minister himself has said, the regularity with which he has had to come to the Dispatch Box to answer questions about the culture, standards and misjudgments of the Metropolitan police is alarming. Yesterday’s shocking report is just the latest in a long list of recent failings. Thousands of dedicated rank and file police officers work very hard and put themselves at risk every day to protect us. They, and millions of Londoners, deserve leadership in the Met that they can trust and have confidence in, not leaders who have “indifference” to the risks of corruption. Will the Minister confirm today that the new Metropolitan Police Commissioner appointment will not just be made by the Home Office and a Prime Minister who is himself under criminal investigation but will secure the approval of the Mayor of London and be subject to a cross-party vote of the Home Affairs Committee and the London Assembly’s police and crime committee?
Kit Malthouse
The process and appointment of the Met commissioner are established in law, and we cannot obviate that, but we are all, I hope, committed to making sure that the person we appoint will bring about the changes that we are all seeking as well as continue the fight against crime in the capital. In the meantime, as the current commissioner exits, I believe that in the proposed acting commissioner and current deputy commissioner we have an individual of integrity and commitment who has already made very welcome public statements about driving forward change.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing convention to be waived so that I can speak from the Back Benches on this matter. Alastair Morgan, Daniel’s brother, has been campaigning for some justice for his brother for 35 years and I have stood alongside him for the past 17. The Minister referred to the “original report”. It was not the original report. There have been many, many inquiries. There have been inquiries into inquiries. This has been going on for years and years, with corruption layered upon corruption and nobody ever telling the truth. It is no wonder, in those circumstances, that Alastair has said that the Metropolitan police
“cared more about its own tatty reputation than solving my brother’s murder.”
Now what do we see? We see an official report that states that it has
“found no evidence that someone, somewhere, had adopted the view that this must never happen again.”
Nobody even cares if it happens again. What is the Minister going to do about that? What are we going to do about the Met?
Kit Malthouse
I congratulate the right hon. Lady on her commitment to the family campaign as well. As I explained, we have written to the Mayor and the commissioner demanding a plan of action and that they respond, as they have to in law, to the inspectorate with exactly that—an assertive, committed plan for change. Certainly the public statements that I have seen from the deputy commissioner indicate his personal commitment. Pleasingly, he made a particular point of saying that the police have not given up on the investigation and their attempt to try to catch Daniel’s killers. I hope that we will see a conclusion to that investigation as soon as possible.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Daniel Morgan case is one of those that I am most familiar with as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on miscarriages of justice. If it were not for a Welsh solicitor called Glyn Maddocks, who has tirelessly followed this and never given up on it, we would not be where we are today. I pay tribute to him, his work, and the support he has given to the miscarriages of justice group. This is a very important occasion. I am a little sad that the Minister has made it a bit party political in blaming the Mayor. The fact is that we are faced with a tremendous crisis in the Met and in any police force where the relationship between the police breaks down and becomes sloppy, and we see—I did the research on this and I was astonished by it—the close links between senior Met police and organised crime. Surely that was wrong and it has to be sorted out.
Kit Malthouse
I also pay tribute, as the hon. Gentleman has, to the entire team that have supported the family. I met them when I was deputy Mayor for policing. I have to confess that when I heard the story I was open-mouthed at what was revealed, hence the strong support I gave to the then Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), for an inquiry. Admittedly, as the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) said, it is not the first, but hopefully it will bring us to some kind of conclusion on this matter. I was not seeking to make a party political point, merely to point out that there is a direct responsibility at City Hall—one that I took when I was doing the job—to drive forward the conclusion to this matter not only to reach some kind of closure for the family, but to ensure significant change in the organisation that will mean that this can never happen again.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
We are back here again discussing the police. Some of the issues in this report about the vetting of police officers and the fact that some had links to known criminals will be quite shocking for a number of my constituents, who continue to be stopped and searched. Some of those constituents are on the gangs matrix, which had such a massive impact on their life in terms of finding jobs, access to benefits, and ability to rent. The Minister will know that in 2019 a freedom of information request revealed that a person as young as 13 was on the gangs matrix. How will he help to restore confidence in our communities who want to work with the police in addressing some of the issues, when we have known criminals involved, people not being vetted properly and some of my young people continuing to be on the gangs matrix?
Kit Malthouse
The solution to the problem of building trust between London’s various communities and the police is complex, but there are a variety of tools that we can deploy. First, we can make sure that the force better reflects the population of London. I am pleased that we are working closely with City Hall and the Met on their recruitment and diversity agenda, which is an important one that has been ongoing for some time. At the same time, we need to make sure that we are recruiting the right people, and this investigation has unearthed problems in our doing that. We need to make sure that the vetting net is as tight as possible so that we are getting in the right people with the right values who are able to deal with the hon. Lady’s constituents and others with integrity and respect to achieve the end we want to achieve, which is lower crime in the capital. That does require, as she says, that people know that when they meet a police officer in the street, or they are dealt with even under stop and search, they are dealing with somebody who has been through a rigorous process. Over the next 12 months we will monitor this closely and work with City Hall to make sure that that is exactly what it introduces.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
We have to rely on an efficient and effective police service that has the trust of all its communities, and we know from recent reports that the Met in particular has taken an absolute battering. Over the past decade, we lost 20,000 police. In the past couple of years, there has been a rapid ramping up to get back those police numbers and to deal with the issue of natural wastage. This is an incredible pressure on recruitment and vetting. What assessment has the Minister made of the capacity—not only within the Met, but nationwide—to ensure that speed of recruitment is not leading to the inclusion of people who have no right to be on the streets of our capital, policing it?
Kit Malthouse
The hon. Lady is right that the rapid recruitment has put strains on the system, but we have been monitoring it very closely to ensure that the system is able to cope, and I believe that it is. I know she is not suggesting that the vast majority of recruits are not right-thinking and correct in their values, and I hope and believe that is the case. One of the improvements that the inspectorate did note that the Metropolitan police has achieved over the past couple of years is an elimination almost of the vetting backlog, which just three or four years ago stood at something like 37,000, astonishingly. That has now been almost eliminated. That is a silver lining to the cloud of this report. As far as vetting is concerned, we have debated that just recently in the House. There are improvements that need to be made, not least on the monitoring of social media, which has just started in the Metropolitan police. It is an area to which we need to pay constant attention if we are to build that trust with London’s communities.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
This review today is rightly about what the Metropolitan police is doing now, but it has resulted from the Daniel Morgan report, and there are still outstanding issues arising from that report, as referred to by the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), who is no longer in her place. Indeed, my constituent, a former serving police officer, approached me for support because he had a complaint in relation to his treatment by the Metropolitan police while he was involved in the Morgan inquiry, and he has had no satisfactory outcome. He has now approached the IOPC. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can get some degree of finding for my constituent?
Kit Malthouse
I am hesitant to intervene in an independent process. Given the hon. Lady’s experience in policing, she will know that. If she thinks a meeting with me and her constituent would be useful once the IOPC has concluded, I would be more than happy to do so.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
It has been a torrid time for the Met, but I am not so concerned about the Met; I am concerned about constituents of mine and those of us all who worry about policing. We had the report just last week about child Q. People in my constituency and elsewhere, and particularly black parents, black pupils and parents of black pupils, are worried about what the impact is on them. I know that the response has to be done in 12 months, and I worry that that will divert the Met to dealing with corruption, which obviously has to be dealt with. Can the Minister give some comfort from the Dispatch Box today that the issues of racism and inappropriate action against child Q will be dealt with much quicker than waiting for an IOPC report? Action needs to happen quicker. Tackling corruption has to happen, but not just that.
Kit Malthouse
As I said in the urgent question on child Q, I am hopeful that the IOPC will conclude its investigation on that matter shortly, and then we can quickly learn the lessons from that, exactly as the hon. Lady says, and hopefully ensure that that does not happen again. Just to be clear on the timeline, the Mayor has a statutory duty to respond to this inspection within 56 days with an action plan. The IOPC has put a 12-month time limit on implementing its 20 recommendations for change. Some may be done quicker than that, and some have already started. For example, my understanding is that inexplicably, the Met police is the only force in the country that does not have the software in place to monitor the inappropriate use of its systems. The work to implement that has started already, and I hope that will done before 12 months. Such is the importance of this issue, I am happy to commit to coming back to the House at some future point, when completion is in sight or done on all these 20 matters, and report that to the Members who are concerned.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
A corrupt network of police officers, including senior officers, and journalists, including their senior management, private investigators and senior management at News International were all involved in the cover-up here. It is one of the biggest instances of corruption and one of the most painful ones we have witnessed in many years. Is it not time that we introduced into statute law a new offence of misconduct in public office? It is a common-law offence that is difficult to prosecute and to lay out the parameters of. We should put it in statute so that those who commit it and those who incite others to do it can be sent to prison.
Kit Malthouse
I cannot comment on the hon. Gentleman’s claims, not least because happily, as the deputy Metropolitan Police Commissioner has confirmed, this is an ongoing investigation. They have not given up, and they should not give up. However, I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making in general. While a number of offences could be committed in a similar hypothetical situation, such as conspiracy, it may be the case that he has a point that we need to consider.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
We have yet another report raising serious concerns about the Met, but also a number of questions that are applicable to all police forces in the country, as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) said. One issue that has been raised with me by a senior officer, and that applies nationally, is that officers who are found guilty of gross misconduct are often not only reinstated, but sometimes promoted. What is the Minister doing with the Met, police forces around the country and the complaints system to address this issue?
Kit Malthouse
I am sure the hon. Lady understands that where the office of constable is concerned, matters of discipline, dismissal or other punishments are effectively an independent process. The punishment is decided by panels that have independent legally qualified chairs. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on the various decisions she has talked about. Having said that, we constantly pay attention to how the disciplinary process is impacting on the integrity of UK policing. If adjustments are required, as they were two years ago, we make them.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Daniel Morgan was murdered 35 years ago, and this whole inquiry has been consistently bedevilled by police corruption. I do not think this report gets us to the bottom of the issue. We have to go much, much further. The report tells us that there has been a loose association with confidentiality and security for evidence, and that has been consistent over all these years that we have been trying to get to the bottom of this case. The Minister now has to accept that we have to have a root and branch inquiry. He has admitted himself that he has had to come to this Dispatch Box too many times to apologise for the Metropolitan police. This single investigation will not get to the bottom of it; we need something much more fundamental, such as an independent inquiry.
Kit Malthouse
As I say, HMI is looking at these issues more widely across the whole of UK policing, and we will learn some lessons from that report. But we should not forget that the Commissioner of the Met herself has commissioned Dame Louise Casey to look at the internal culture of the Met, and that will give us some indications of where we should go next, if at all. Beyond that, similarly, stage 2 of the Angiolini review, which will look at this issue more widely, will be able to give us some information as to where we should go next, if at all.
This is a building picture. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is a very distressing, alarming and scandalous story that has run for far too many years. We have a duty in this House to try to get to the bottom of what happened and to make changes to ensure that it does not happen again, but that will not be a silver-bullet revelation; it will be a building picture, and this report is part of that. The report informs our work for now, and we will look to the future to see where we go next.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his statement. While an apology is, I am sure, welcomed by the family, perhaps what would be more welcome is steps being taken to prevent this from happening again. Does he accept that there is a duty of care, and will he undertake to implement the necessary changes, which the report highlights in great detail, to ensure that the Met police continues to be a premium police service that is respected globally, as it has been for many years?
Kit Malthouse
The hon. Gentleman asks his question very eloquently, and I completely agree with him. My primary concern in this affair is to get justice for the family of Daniel Morgan, who have campaigned for many years on this issue—a truly scandalous story that has involved many of us on both sides of the House. My second concern is to ensure that the Metropolitan police is fit to serve Londoners and that they can have trust in it. As somebody who, I must confess, has great affection for the Met, having worked for it in the past and seen the incredible things of which it is capable, I say to the officers of the Metropolitan police who want to know that they are working for exactly the organisation that the hon. Gentleman describes—one that is deeply respected across the world, not just for its ability to catch every murderer or to stop knife crime in London or to put more rapists behind bars, but for its internal conduct and culture of ethics and integrity—that that is what we have to be about.
Business of the House
(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mark Spencer)
I should like to make a short business statement following the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his spring statement. Tomorrow’s business will now be:
Thursday 24 March—Consideration of a business of the House motion, followed by all stages of the National Insurance Contributions (Increase of Thresholds) Bill.
I shall make a further business statement in the usual way tomorrow.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the shadow deputy Leader of the House.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for advance sight of the business statement.
Even after the changes today, under this Government Britain is facing the highest tax burden in 70 years. The Chancellor confirmed today that £24 billion of additional tax rises are about to hit the British people. He is raising taxes again and again. He proclaims that he believes in lower taxes, but at the same time he is actually hiking national insurance contributions.
What provisions has the Leader of the House made for the rescheduling of the two very important Backbench Business debates tomorrow—one on war pensions and armed forces compensation scheme payments, and the other on the impact of long covid on the UK workforce? Will he confirm when the National Insurance Contributions (Increase of Thresholds) Bill will be published on the parliamentary website and copies made available in the Vote Office? What provision will there be for right hon. and hon. Members to amend the Bill?
Mark Spencer
I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. While it is a pleasure to see her at the Dispatch Box, I hope that the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), makes a speedy return.
I am not going to get drawn into debate today—the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) seemed to wanted to try to draw me in—but I can say that I am very much aware that we are stealing the time tomorrow of the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), and I apologise to him. I will open a channel of communication to try to accommodate his business on the Order Paper as soon as possible.
The business motion tomorrow will set out how the Bill could be amended. My understanding is that the Bill is already published on the Government website.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Is the Leader of the House able to tell the House how much time he proposes tomorrow’s business motion will provide for the House to debate the Bill? It is good to know that we will be able to make amendments, but we need to know how to do that. Knowing the amount of time for debate will help Members to plan for tomorrow.
Mark Spencer
Yes, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we will protect up to five hours for all stages of the Bill under the business motion. Second Reading will be brought to a conclusion after three hours, and remaining stages after a further two hours.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
I echo many of the comments of the shadow Deputy Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden), particularly as I have an interest in this. I was very grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allocating to me the debate on the war pensions and armed forces compensation scheme payments, so I have a personal interest in when that might be reallocated. I am sure we will find out in due course when the Backbench Business Committee will have that time reallocated, because the House will be looking to hear about both of those very important issues.
I am encouraged to hear that there will be sufficient time tomorrow, but I definitely want to hear more about how the Bill can be looked at in more detail and be amended, because that is not yet entirely clear.
Mark Spencer
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. As I say, the business of the House motion will be taken first thing tomorrow morning. It will set out how the Bill can be amended and the time allocation so that the Bill can be fully scrutinised in the House tomorrow.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
Can I thank the Leader of the House for suggesting that he will keep us informed about any potential opportunities for the Backbench Business that has been removed from tomorrow? I would remind the Leader of the House that it is not my business but Back Benchers’ business that has been removed from tomorrow’s Order Paper. All I would ask is that the Backbench Business Committee gets enough notice, so that we can inform the relevant Members leading the debates, if we are to be allowed additional time outwith the normal Thursday sessions.
Mark Spencer
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his question, and I am very keen to try to accommodate him. My office door is open to him this afternoon if he wants to come and try to work that out between us. Let us have a conversation, as I am very keen to try to accommodate him as soon as possible.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Members interested in tabling amendments to the National Insurance Contributions (Increase of Thresholds) Bill, which has been announced for consideration tomorrow, should contact the Public Bill Office as soon as possible.
Points of Order
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. At 7.30 am today, without a court order, the chief executive officer of developer Fruition Properties, Mr Mani Khiroya, seized possession of the premises at 2 Scrubs Lane, NW10—covering my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler)—thereby evicting the City Mission church, its pastor Des Hall, and the nursery and food bank they have run for many years, serving thousands of our constituents. This brutal and despicable act echoes the predatory capitalism we have seen from P&O management, and punishes the poorest people in the middle of the worst economic crisis for 50 years. Can you advise me of how I can use the procedures of this House to highlight the plight of Rev. Des Hall and his congregation, and call to account the people who are destroying our community and its champions?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. I think, to be honest, that he has already achieved his aim through the point of order, but the Table Office can advise him on what other procedures are available for him to take this matter further.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I apologise for not giving you notice, but as this has just happened again, I want to ask your advice about etiquette in the House. I always thought that Ministers addressed Opposition Members as hon. Gentlemen or hon. Ladies and Government Members as hon. Friends. It seems to me that I am constantly referred to by Ministers as an hon. Gentleman, and I am wondering if I am sitting in the right place. Would you give me some advice?
Mr Deputy Speaker
Well, all I can say is that to me you are an hon. Friend, sir. I hope that gives you some reassurance.
Short and Holiday-Let Accommodation (Registration) Bill
Wednesday 23rd March 2022
(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Short and Holiday-Let Accommodation (Registration) Bill 2021-22 View all Short and Holiday-Let Accommodation (Registration) Bill 2021-22 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a national register of short and holiday-let accommodation; to give local authorities powers to require information in association with that register; and for connected purposes.
Over the last 10 years or so, the opportunities offered by the digital economy have transformed the world, much of it for the good. The sharing economy that digitalisation has opened up—from ride sharing to home sharing—has brought many benefits, but deregulation often has its downsides, and the short let and sharing accommodation sector is no exception. From the heart of London, where Government deregulation after 2015 has contributed to an explosion in short lets, to coastal resorts and towns and cities the length and breadth of the country, short or holiday lets—often referred to generically by the name of the largest such company, Airbnb, but actually spreading far beyond it—are an issue that now requires effective management.
This is not, of course, about banning owners from renting out rooms or even their whole properties in line with how the sharing economy was originally conceived. Owners can earn valuable money, put empty space to good use and contribute to their local tourist economies, and all of this is welcome. To give praise where it is due, Airbnb and many short let hosts made a very significant contrition during covid and are now engaging over the Ukrainian refugee crisis, and I absolutely give them credit for doing that. But the sharing economy is not really where we are now, because increasingly we are dealing with a fast-growing industry that is highly commercialised and operating at scale. For example, a report in 2020 found that just 12.5% of Airbnb’s revenue came from the kind of home sharing let that was its original concept. In the face of that, we must take action to manage the sector constructively but effectively.
Three key themes now lead to the pressing need for action, including registration of the sector so that we know who is letting property, where they are letting it, and for how long. The first concerns the impact on housing supply—that is, places for people to actually live. It is clear that the short let tourist accommodation sector is now dominated by whole property lettings in many areas, including owners with multi-property listings. That suggests a significant shift into that market by individuals and businesses who would otherwise be in the residential lettings market, or making property available for sale.
Before the covid-19 pandemic, Westminster—my borough—had the highest proportion of entire homes listed on online short lettings sites, currently standing at 13,039. In his research, academic Tom Simcock of Edge Hill University found there had been a 423% increase in the number of multi-host entire apartment lettings between 2015 and 2019. That equates to just over 4,400 properties in London alone being let by hosts with multiple listings. Nearly four of out every five lettings in my borough were for whole homes, with a similar figure for Kensington, and more than 60% in Camden and Hammersmith. Four out every 10 hosts in my borough listed multiple properties, with the numbers nearly as high in Camden and Brent.
This is, of course, a national issue, although some of the rules on planning permission requirements vary between London and the rest of the country. The House of Commons Library briefing from a few weeks ago referred to a 661% growth in short lets in Cornwall over just five years, and colleagues in towns and cities across the country, from York to Cambridge and from Plymouth to the Lake district, recognise that pattern. What it means in practice is that an ever growing share of properties in a number of locations are unavailable for anyone to live in. No one planned that, or discussed what the implications might be, but it has happened.
The second theme concerns the near impossibility of enforcing the rules that exist. The deregulation of London’s holiday let market from 2015 onwards not only made it substantially easier to let out property on that basis, but made the task of monitoring and managing breaches of the rules harder and costlier for local councils. There is ample evidence that some hosts have engaged in routine short-term letting for longer than the 90 nights a year permitted in London, despite Airbnb’s introduction of a 90-day limit on its platform. The BBC has been among those investigating the extent to which agencies and landlords have bypassed the controls introduced by Airbnb to deliberately flout the 90-night limit and engage in short-term letting activity above 90 nights without planning permission. Research carried out for the Greater London Authority estimated that more than 11,000 properties were let in breach of London’s 90-day-a-year rule, yet in 2019-20 my borough of Westminster issued only 49 enforcement notices.
Local authorities across London—and, I am sure, across other parts of the country—both Labour and Conservative, have faced significant challenges with the funding and technology needed effectively to regulate and enforce measures against short-term landlords in breach of the rules. London councils, the Mayor of London, and local authorities elsewhere, are left to pick up the pieces, spending scarce resources and frustrating residents who bring forward complaints about which local authorities are unable to take any action. Currently, more than 2,000 live short-term lets are being monitored by Westminster City Council alone for suspected breaches of the rules.
That leads to the third dimension of this issue, which is the extent to which short-term and holiday lets can contribute to nuisance, thereby requiring local agencies, from the police to local authorities, to devote time and money to responding on behalf of neighbours. Such nuisance can include, as my own council has indicated, crime and antisocial behaviour, prostitution, noisy parties, housing benefit fraud and drugs trafficking. Indeed, there is a growing consensus that there is a serious problem with criminality at the bottom end of the short let market. Excessive quantities of commercial waste are generated, which is often misclassified as domestic waste and not paid for. Another issue is regular unlicensed music events and noise. In the first six months of 2021, during lockdown, the council identified 83 short lets purely as a consequence of their being locations for unlicensed music events.
Unsurprisingly, the leader of Conservative-controlled Westminster—so this is a cross-party point—says that
“irresponsible short-term lets are making life hell for residents and causing a strain on council resources”.
My own casework confirms that. Residents in apartments and mansion blocks describe noise, nuisance and security fears as the place they used to call home now bears all the characteristics of a hotel, but with none of the safeguards.
Finally, the growth of the short-term let industry has created an uneven playing field in the hospitality sector, with traditional providers such as hotels required to bear the costs of business rates and corporation tax, and comply with regulations, not least in respect of health and safety, whereas short-term let owners do not. My own council points to one striking example: before the pandemic, Park West apartments close to Hyde Park had more rooms available for short-term letting than exist in the whole of the Ritz hotel. The Ritz hotel pays £2.27 million in business rates annually. The combined council tax bill of the Park West apartments that we know are used for short-term lettings is £92,686.
Here we are, seven years after the deregulation of the sector in London—five years after I last introduced a Bill to encourage regulation—and with a generally deregulated sector in the rest of the country, but still no action from the Government. We are promised a consultation on a registration scheme, but we need action. I stress again that I do not want a ban, because there are proven positives to short lets in respect of personal incomes and local economies, but we need a registration scheme so that everyone letting out their property in this way can be identified, and the minority with tenants with problematic behaviours can be held easily to account. As the Mayor of London has proposed, such a scheme would need to be nationwide and mandatory, to track properties being let across platforms, require proof of ownership and proper identification of the letting landlord. Those are not onerous requirements but they would make a significant difference.
Requiring all landlords to be registered in order to provide short-term lets would make recourse to justice easier for victims of crime. If the criminal landlord was not on the register, they would already be on the back foot. It would help ensure councils could monitor breaches of the rules and act swiftly to deal with noise, waste and other nuisance. We have waited too long for a response to this growing problem, and the Government need to act now.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I do not oppose the right of the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) to introduce a Bill because I would defend that right to the utmost, but I wish to show solidarity with the people who are the targets of her Bill—those small businesses that engage in providing much needed holiday and short-term let accommodation. Conservative Members certainly do not intend to allow those businesses to be regulated in the way that she suggests.
Earlier today, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor spoke eloquently in the spring statement about the importance of deregulation and the reduction of burdens on small businesses. The hon. Lady’s proposals call for yet more regulation and interference in a whole sector of small businesses that provide short and holiday let accommodation. The deregulated sector, as she was prepared to admit, responded flexibly and imaginatively to the covid-19 crisis, and that was because it was deregulated—it was free and flexible to do what was needed in the circumstances. Under the regulation she would like, that would not have been possible. When people were deprived of the opportunity of taking holidays abroad, the supply of accommodation in constituencies such as mine would not have expanded in the way that it did to meet the demand.
Small landlords are already fearful that the Government are intent on creating a national register of landlords, going back on previous assurances given to the House by a series of Housing Ministers—most recently the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs Wheeler) when she was a Housing Minister. She and other Ministers before her said that a national register of accommodation would be an unnecessary and costly additional layer of bureaucracy that would do nothing to improve the quality or quantity of such accommodation.
The hon. Member for Westminster North referred to what has been happening in the residential lettings market. It is quite clear that because of fears that the Government are going to introduce more controls in the residential lettings market, a lot of people have moved away from residential shorthold leases. They are fearful that the Government will effectively give retrospective security of tenure to people who entered into agreements to occupy that accommodation on the basis that the landlord could recover possession under section 21.
What are the unintended consequences of what the Government are already threatening to do? They are that the people who are adversely affected by that potential regulation are themselves switching to providing alternative accommodation. Instead of having an additional supply of rented accommodation available for those who want to use it, we are now finding that much more of the supply of rented accommodation is going towards holiday and short-term lets. That is a direct consequence, in my submission, of the senseless regulation that was brought in by the Government and of the threat of further regulation.
It is a principle that bad regulation begets the need for further regulation to deal with the situation that arose because of unintended consequences and good will. The hon. Lady and I served as officers on the all-party parliamentary group for the private rented sector. There is much we share in common about the need to deal with rogue landlords and so on, but I think we disagree about the best means of achieving that. How ironic, therefore, that her proposals suggest that local authorities should be given an additional burden and responsibility, when they cannot even cope with the existing burdens and responsibilities that this House, in much legislation, has placed on them.
We already have a scandal not just in the private rented sector but in the social rented sector. Council houses owned by local authorities have been let to people who then sub-let them with impunity, thereby effectively taking them out of the social housing market. We also have a situation—it certainly extends to my constituency—where there are no council-owned properties but there are housing association-owned properties and the condition of quite a lot of those properties is a disgrace. The local authority does nothing to enforce against that. Local authorities cannot even cope with the current burden of regulation. The hon. Lady says there is an issue about enforcement. There will certainly be even more of an issue about enforcement.
In the end, the hon. Lady’s Bill will be an attack on good, responsible citizens and small businesses who are trying to help meet a need by providing the short let and holiday accommodation she describes. I am glad she praised Airbnb, because so many of our constituents benefit from going to Airbnb properties, both in this country and abroad. Those properties are now introducing more competition into this important sector. I do not wish to divide the House, as that would be a pointless exercise. We have finished all Friday business for this Session, but the hon. Lady will be able to bring in her Bill in the next Session. If she does, I look forward to opposing it vehemently.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Ms Karen Buck, Nickie Aiken, Tim Farron, Rachael Maskell, Lucy Powell, Matthew Pennycook, Tulip Siddiq, Daniel Zeichner, Fleur Anderson, Luke Pollard and Andy Slaughter present the Bill.
Ms Karen Buck accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 May, and to be printed (Bill 290).
Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Bill: Programme (No. 3)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 24 November 2021 (Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Bill (Programme)) as varied by the Order of 12 January 2022 (Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Bill (Programme) (No. 2)):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
Subsequent stages
(2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(3) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Steve Double.)
Question agreed to.
Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Bill
Wednesday 23rd March 2022
(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Bill 2021-22 View all Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Bill 2021-22 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 128-I Amendment for Third Reading - (14 Mar 2022)
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Financial privilege is not engaged by any of the Lords amendments.
Clause 2
“Rent” and “business tenancy”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.
Paul Scully
Before I speak to the Lords amendments, I thank the shadow Ministers—the hon. Members for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) and for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury)—for their constructive and positive engagement during the Bill’s passage through the House. I have been pleased with the support for the Bill across both Houses. The Government made several amendments in the other place to ensure that the Bill is as useful as it can be. To that end, I believe that Members across this House will support the amendments.
I will begin with the Lords amendments that were introduced following extensive engagement with the Welsh Government; I am grateful for their positive and thoughtful discussions about the Bill. Lords amendments 1, 3, 4, 6 to 8, 10, 15 and 17 were introduced to allow Welsh Ministers to have rightful control over devolved matters.
Lords amendment 1 defines Welsh and English business tenancies to allow the Bill to distinguish between business tenancies in later provisions.
Lords amendment 3 clarifies that the power to extend the time limit for making a reference to arbitration could be exercised separately for English or Welsh business tenancies, as well as for both.
Lords amendment 4 removes a definition that is redundant due to Lords amendment 6 to clause 23.
Lords amendments 6 and 7 decouple the moratorium period from the period for making a reference to arbitration. They provide that the moratorium period will end six months from Royal Assent unless extended.
Lords amendment 8 inserts a new clause that means that the consent of Welsh Ministers would be needed to extend the moratorium period for Welsh businesses in respect of devolved matters.
On the power in clause 28—which was previously clause 27—to reapply the Act, Lords amendment 10 enables regulations under the clause to be made just for English or Welsh business tenancies, as well as for both.
Lords amendment 15 requires the consent of Welsh Ministers to exercise the power to reapply devolved provisions in relation to Welsh business tenancies.
Lords amendment 17 inserts a new clause that provides that Welsh Ministers can use the power in clause 28 concurrently with the Secretary of State insofar as it relates to the reapplication, in respect of Welsh business tenancies, of devolved provisions—that is, certain moratorium provisions.
Following those amendments, I am pleased to say that the Senedd has agreed a legislative consent motion, for which I thank them wholeheartedly.
Separately, I thank the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for its consideration of the Bill. The Committee raised concerns about clause 28, which, as I said, was previously clause 27. The clause provides that the Act can be reapplied if there are further closure requirements due to coronavirus.
The Committee’s concerns were about the breadth of the power and the potential for significant alterations to be made for a reapplication. In response, Lords amendments 12 to 16 were introduced to limit the power’s breadth. As a result, the power would still allow for targeted modifications in order to accommodate new dates and make adjustments to moratorium provisions to take account of new timeframes. However, the amended power could not be used to change the operation of the arbitration process or policy.
I am sure that Members will agree that the Committee’s points are important and will be reassured by the appropriate limitations.
Lords amendment 11 ensures that the power can be used in respect of closure requirements imposed after the protected period set out in the Bill, whether that is before or after the Bill is enacted and whether or not the closure requirement has ended when regulations are made. It ensures that the power will be clear and robust for any new waves of coronavirus. Along with Lords amendment 9, it also ensures that the language of clause 27 is consistent with that of clause 4.
We have continued to listen to stakeholder concerns. When the Bill was in the other place, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors gave useful feedback relating to the exercise of the arbitration bodies’ functions to remove arbitrators on the grounds provided for in the Bill. The Arbitration Act 1996 gives arbitration bodies immunity from liability in relation to the function of appointing arbitrators; arbitration bodies were concerned that under the Bill they did not have explicit immunity from liability in relation to the function of removing them. In response, Lords amendment 18 clarifies that approved arbitration bodies have immunity from incurring liability for anything done in exercise of the function of removing arbitrators under the Bill, unless the act is shown to be committed in bad faith.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for the chance to raise issues with him earlier. I also thank colleagues in this House and the other place, as well as staff and all those who gave evidence to the Public Bill Committee.
As the Opposition have laid out here and in the other place, Labour has consistently recognised the need for a fair arbitration process to deal with the significant commercial rent arrears that have accrued during the pandemic. Our amendments were intended to strengthen and clarify the legislation, so that the new regime can be effective, accessible and affordable, and can fairly balance the interests of landlords and tenants.
Throughout the Bill’s passage, we have been clear that no otherwise viable business should face an overwhelming burden as a result of rent arrears that threaten its future. Likewise, commercial landlords must have access to clear mechanisms for recouping appropriate levels of arrears. The guiding principles in the process must ultimately be fairness for landlords and tenants alike, and the long-term interests of British businesses and jobs. I pay tribute to the landlords and tenants who have not waited for the Bill to make it to the statute book, but have used the time to work together in good faith in order to come to an agreement.
We should be clear that commercial rent arrears are just one of the challenges that many businesses face. With today’s announcement that inflation is at a 30-year high, many firms up and down our country face a cost-of-doing-business crisis. Labour recognises how difficult the past two years have been for businesses up and down the country. Sectors of our economy such as aviation, live events, travel and tourism have been hit particularly hard.
The Lords amendments, which are all Government amendments, help to clarify the Bill. In our view, they also give appropriate powers to the Welsh Government; we know that discussions were undertaken. The amendments improve the Bill and we support them all, but there are still a number of areas on which I would welcome clarity and assurances from the Minister on how the Government will move forward.
First, we continue to be concerned that the Bill contains no limits on the costs of arbitration. We cannot let high arbitration fees, or concerns that fees will be prohibitive, deter landlords and tenants from using the processes established under the Bill to achieve a fair solution. That would be a failure of policy and of planning.
We have previously called for a cap on fees, but the Government did not accept that proposal. I note that the Minister in the other place said a cap could be imposed if there was evidence that it was needed, but I should be grateful if this Minister would specify his intentions in that regard. Will he update the House on when guidance on the costs of the arbitration process will be published? Will he also confirm that Lords amendment 18—which relates to schedule 1—effectively limits the liability of the arbitral bodies in the discharging of their duties under the Bill, which is what I understood from his comments?
Ensuring the quality of arbitration is important, and we have consistently called for the Government to explain how they will ensure that there are sufficient numbers of arbitrators to handle the volumes of cases under the scheme. What discussions has the Minister had with the arbitral bodies on their capacity, and on maintaining a sufficient number of arbitrators with the necessary skills and experience, and what quality assurance does he expect will be in place? It is important to have reassurances on these issues, especially in view of the limitation of liability that we have put into the Bill.
Finally on this issue, let me say that the arbitration process will not carry confidence unless the decisions are demonstrably fair and there is consistency of assessment. The Minister will know that business organisations had particular concerns about how the “viability of the business” would be established. Viability is referred to in some of the draft guidance published in February, but what review has the Minister undertaken of that guidance with stakeholders, and when will he finalise the guidance that will accompany the Act?
Let me turn briefly to the detail of the Lords amendments. The Bill, which applies largely to England and Wales, confers a number of powers on the Secretary of State in respect of Wales. Lords amendments 1, 3 and 10 are designed to ensure that different provisions can be made in relation to Welsh and English business tenancies. Lords amendment 3 clarifies that the power to extend the time limit for arbitration can be exercised separately for English and Welsh businesses, which is an improvement, while Lords amendment 10 allows the Secretary of State to reapply the Act to both England and Wales, or to just one of the nations.
Similarly, Lords amendments 4, 6 to 8 and 17 give Wales increased powers to extend the moratorium period, which is the period in which tenants have protection against enforcement action by the landlord in relation to covid rent arrears. This must, of course, be a process that works for both England and Wales, but also, looking at the Bill overall, for Scotland and Northern Ireland, in so far as there are limited provisions that apply to those nations.
Lords amendment 8 inserts a new clause requiring the Welsh Government to consent to any extension of the moratorium period for Welsh business tenancies under clause 23. It states that this moratorium period must be the same length as the arbitration period. Lords amendments 6 and 7 allow for the new clause specified in Lords amendment 8 by proposing that the current moratorium period should be six months long, rather than being tied to the arbitration period. This change allows for different moratorium periods to apply in England and Wales. We support those changes because we recognise that the Welsh Government should have a say in the extension of the moratorium period in Wales.
Lords amendments 12 to 14 were tabled in response to the report by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Lords amendment 12 removes the Government’s power to specify certain parts of the legislation that would not apply if the Bill itself were reapplied. Previously, the Minister would have had the power to pick and choose which parts of the Bill were reintroduced or reapplied, but Lords amendment 13 ensures that the Government can make modifications to a reapplication of the Bill only if they are “necessary”. That is important for the role of Parliament and the Welsh Senedd.
Lords amendment 15 allows the Minister to reapply the Bill in Wales only with the consent of the Welsh Government. Lords amendment 14 allows different provisions to be made in England and Wales during reapplication. Labour supports these amendments, and it is important that the Government have listened to the concerns of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which is a respected voice on these matters.
We are also pleased to see Lords amendments 5 and 19, which ensure that neither the tenant nor guarantors nor previous tenants are liable for any protected rent debt that an arbitrator has cancelled. Similarly, Lords amendment 20 ensures that neither the tenant nor guarantors nor previous tenants can be subject to winding-up petitions or bankruptcy orders for protected rent during the moratorium period. On Second Reading, I raised Labour’s concerns about ensuring that not only tenants but anyone liable for their rent are protected during the moratorium period, so I am pleased that these amendments support that protection.
Lords amendment 2 ensures that the provisions in clause 4, specifying closure requirements, apply to the closure of businesses and premises. On Third Reading, I raised concerns that businesses that no longer occupied the premises—because, for example, the pandemic had made a particular location unprofitable—would not be able to access the arbitration process. We are pleased to see this amendment, which ensures that the Bill explicitly allows such businesses to benefit from the provisions in this legislation.
In conclusion, the Lords amendments make some important changes to the Bill. They rightly increase the powers of the Welsh Government over this legislation, provide appropriate constitutional limits to the Government’s powers on reapplying the Bill, and ensure that tenants, guarantors and previous tenants are all protected during the moratorium period. However, Minister should provide further assurances in connection with these amendments—for example, on the cost of the arbitration process, and on ensuring that arbitrators apply the measures consistently across cases. Nevertheless, Labour supports all the Lords amendments. We support the Bill’s passage to Royal Assent and look forward to its implementation as soon as possible.
Paul Scully
I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution today, and for the way in which she has engaged with me and the Bill team. I also thank other Members across the House for their contributions. The Bill’s passage through both Houses has been a positive and collaborative process, and that is testament to its importance in supporting businesses in recovering from the ongoing impacts of the pandemic. The amendments made in the other place were made for good reason and will serve only to improve the Bill. Let me spend a couple of minutes trying to answer the questions that she has rightly and understandably raised.
The hon. Lady talked about the cost of arbitration. We want to ensure, as best we can, that arbitration fees are predictable and affordable. We have discussed this at length at various stages of the Bill, with good reason. The Bill aims to support both tenants and landlords in resolving rent debt, and it is therefore important that the scheme remains affordable and accessible. Approved arbitration bodies will have the function of setting arbitration fees, and they have the expertise to set them at a level that will ensure that the scheme is affordable while also incentivising arbitrators to deliver the scheme in good time. In the interests of transparency and accessibility, the bodies must publish the details of the arbitration fees on their websites, so that the applicant will know in advance how much it will cost to go to arbitration.
We will monitor the affordability of the scheme by engaging regularly with arbitration bodies, as well as with tenants and landlords. We will be able to judge how things are going by those early cases going through the process. The Secretary of State has the power to cap fees, should they become unaffordable. That power can be used where necessary, but it cannot used prematurely, because we do not want to reduce the number of arbitrators available to act, thereby risking the delivery of the scheme.
The hon. Lady talked about guidance on costs and the viability of businesses. I assured the House that we would bring forward guidance for arbitrators, and we are looking to expedite that, so that it happens within a couple of weeks of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. I am pleased to say that we have published the draft guidance, which is on the Government website, in order to gather feedback from the arbitrators. That addresses viability clearly by setting out a non-exhaustive list of evidence that an arbitrator could have regard to in assessing viability. The final version of the guidance will be published shortly after Royal Assent. Viability is deliberately not defined, because of the vast array of different business models, both within and between sectors.
Energy
(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change (Greg Hands)
I beg to move,
That the draft Boiler Upgrade Scheme (England and Wales) Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 22 February, be approved.
The UK is the first major economy in the world to set a legally binding target to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. We are continuing to advance sustainability through the Prime Minister’s “Ten Point Plan”, the net zero strategy, and the heat and buildings strategy. Currently, heating buildings and industry is responsible for 21% of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions. Decarbonisation of heat is recognised as one of the biggest challenges in meeting our climate targets. The Government’s ambition is to phase out the installation of new natural gas boilers beyond 2035. Heat pumps are a proven scalable option for decarbonising heat and will play a substantial role in any net zero scenario. A UK market with the capacity and capability to deploy 600,000 heat pumps per year by 2028 can keep us on track to net zero. However, the current UK market for low-carbon heat is relatively small and, due to that, these technologies are largely unable to compete on a capital cost basis with conventional heating options. Subsidy is required to mobilise and grow the market, and to bridge the cost gap between fossil fuel and low-carbon systems. The low-carbon heat market has been supported by the domestic renewable heat incentive, which will close to new applications next week, on 31 March 2022.
The boiler upgrade scheme will succeed that scheme, providing capital grants to support the installation of heat pumps and biomass boilers in homes and small non-domestic buildings in England and Wales. The scheme has a budget of £450 million over three years, as confirmed at the 2021 spending review. Grants of £5,000 will be provided for air source heat pumps and biomass boilers, and of £6,000 for ground source heat pumps. Biomass boilers will be eligible only in rural properties that are not connected to the gas grid, to minimise air quality impacts.
The application process will be installer-led and comprise two stages: applying for and redeeming a voucher. This will allow for a simple consumer journey, while maintaining certainty for installers about the availability of budget. To ensure consumer protection through the scheme, consumer consent will be sought as part of the application process. All participating installers must be certified by the microgeneration certification scheme or equivalent, and must confirm membership of a consumer code. That ensures that consumers are covered by schemes governing the products and their performance, as well as the quality of the installation and service they receive from the installer.
The scheme will support up to 30,000 installations in year 1, contributing 2.6 megatonnes of CO2 equivalent of carbon savings, and supporting 2,100 direct full-time equivalent and 1,800 indirect full-time equivalent jobs per annum over its lifetime. This supports the Government’s ambitions for levelling up, as we expect supply chains to be built and jobs to be supported across the regions. With the growth in demand encouraged under the scheme and wider market developments, we expect to see cost reductions in the technologies over the three years. This instrument therefore sets out a provision to allow the Secretary of State to review and adjust grant levels in response to market changes.
Eligible low-carbon heating systems commissioned on or after 1 May 2022 will be entitled to support under the scheme. From 11 April 2022, installers will be able to open an account for the scheme with Ofgem. We expect the draft regulations to come into force and for grant applications to open by 23 May 2022.
The scheme established by this statutory instrument will increase deployment of low-carbon heating technologies, making crucial progress towards our climate targets. Investing in this scheme will reduce our exposure to volatile prices and protect British consumers. It will also grow the retrofit market, put downward pressure on costs and expand the supply chain ahead of the introduction of regulations and market-based approaches later in the decade.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
There is a great deal of agreement between us this afternoon on a number of the issues that the Minister raised about the role that heat pumps will play in the future low-carbon energy economy, including how many heat pumps we will need over the period. We need to ensure that as we transition away from heating systems predominantly run by gas—and in the domestic environment, by boilers—we can look forward to substantial replacement of those high-carbon heating measures by the low-carbon heating arrangements offered by heat pumps.
I hope hon. Members will bear in mind a very important figure that the Minister mentioned: 600,000 heat pumps to be installed a year by 2028. That figure derives from the Prime Minister’s “Ten Point Plan” and is an ambition for the number of installations that we should reach, which will continue after that point at 600,000 or so a year. That, among other things, will get us more or less in line with what the Climate Change Committee has suggested on the roll-out of heat pumps to ensure that our heat decarbonisation targets are realised. That is therefore a key figure, and it should be the yardstick against which this measure is judged.
We heard from the Minister that this is a £450 million scheme—£150 million per annum over three years. That is, by the way, a slight uprating from the initial consultation on what was the clean heat grant and now is the boiler upgrade scheme. However, that is what we have in the pot over the next three years for the installation of heat pumps. By fairly simple arithmetic, that translates—if we assume that the amount of grant per heat pump installation is £5,000—to about 30,000 heat pumps per year for those three years. That is 90,000 heat pumps installed under the scheme by the year 2025 so. So we then have three years to get another 500,000 or so heat pumps installed by 2028-29. On the basis of the report I mentioned, that is just not going to happen. Even if we assume that a number of heat pumps will be otherwise installed in new build properties—this scheme is predominantly about existing properties that can be retrofitted with heat pumps—we can see just how far from the stated ambition this scheme leaves us over this period.
I am not kicking against the scheme as it stands, because it is good that we have some underwriting for heat pumps, but it is woefully inadequate for the task that we have ahead of us. It will get us nowhere near the target figure that I mentioned, and I think we should at least quadruple the scheme to get us on a trajectory that will actually get us to the 600,000 heat pump installations we have been talking about.
However, I am afraid that it gets worse for the scheme as it stands. As the Minister mentioned, the scheme is not just for heat pumps; it is also for biomass boilers—all of that is to be included in that £450 million cash limit. Unless no boilers are installed under the scheme, there will be quite a lot fewer than 30,000 heat pumps installed per year under the scheme.
Of course, the cost of Ofgem administration of the scheme—£10 million a year—is also included in the cash limit. By the way, I am glad that the Government have decided to curtail their interest in Canadian consultancies for energy efficiency schemes and to go with Ofgem as the administrator and manager of this scheme. However, I do wonder who will be responsible for regulating and reporting on the progress of the scheme. I think it may well be Ofgem, so I will be interested to see how that potential circularity plays out in how the scheme proceeds.
Furthermore, the money for the scheme is not new. The scheme replaces the domestic renewable heat incentive scheme. The Government have trumpeted how the scheme is going to turbocharge the installation of heat pumps, sort out supply chains and various other things, but it is essentially trying to do that with no new money at all. The RHI was based not on a levy but on taxpayer funding, and there was a line in the Red Book that allocated RHI funding historically. What was that line? Well, the cost of domestic RHI last year was £150 million—exactly what is available each year for this new scheme. In other words, the same amount of money is being turned over to carry out the same sort of activity that the RHI did. It is only that, as a result of £5,000 grants, we will apparently get far more heat pumps. It was not that the RHI did not support heat pumps—it did, and it also supported biomass boilers and solar thermal, which is not included in this scheme. The scheme also does not include hybrid heat pumps, which could make a real difference in terms of heating off-grid properties.
The interesting figures for installations in 2019-20 under the RHI were 10,400 air source heat pumps, 1,175 ground source heat pumps, and small numbers of biomass boilers and solar thermal systems—in other words, 11,500 heat pumps from a similar level of funding. I wonder whether the Government are as confident as they make out that we can do so much better than those numbers, even assuming that we get near to 30,000 heat pumps in the scheme, from the same amount of money as the renewable heat incentive.
I also question whether it is a good idea to pursue heat pumps in the way that this scheme is doing without having a concomitant drive to uprate the energy efficiency of properties that are likely to be concerned with the installation of heat pumps. That is not an issue with new house building, because new houses are likely to have good enough energy efficiency to take a heat pump, but I am sure that the Minister will be aware that heat pumps simply do not work very well in poorly insulated homes, as they struggle to get the house up to its required background temperature if their long-term slow input is continually leaking out due to the energy efficiency of the property.
The predominant Government scheme for energy efficiency at the moment is the energy company obligation. ECO is moving very shortly from ECO3 to ECO4 at a similar sized budget to when it started—ECO3 at £750 million and ECO4 at £1.2 billion. That was the amount of money that was in ECO when it was first started, so the money in the ECO fund is also standing still. That fund also needs quadrupling in size in order to run alongside the proposal we are discussing, so that whole-house treatments can work for heat pumps. ECO4 also needs putting into general taxation—or at least the difference between the original budget and its new budget, so that the two schemes can work well alongside each other.
Finally, I have a small point concerning the run-on from the renewable heat incentive into the boiler upgrade scheme. The Minister mentioned the timetable by which the new scheme will come into place. At present, it looks as though there will be quite a hiatus, as no new orders under the RHI will be taken and they will effectively stop until the boiler upgrade process—the vouchers, the certification and various other things—comes in. We could lose up to six months of heat pump installation and face various other problems due to that dislocation, with the two schemes not running together seamlessly. It is also pretty bad for installers’ order books to have that hiatus in their order books between their activities under RHI and what they think they may be doing under the new boiler upgrade scheme.
The scheme should come in seamlessly alongside the phasing out of the RHI. I do not know whether the Minister considers it too late to look at running on the RHI a little bit until the new scheme is in place, so that it can have the maximum impact from the word go as it comes in and takes over.
However, as I have said, we will not be opposing this measure this afternoon because of the high degree of agreement that we have on the purpose of the scheme. What we do not particularly agree with the Government on is their low-key response to the imperative of getting those 600,000 heat pumps in by the end of decade. It apparently remains low-key in this scheme. I would be happy to hear from the Minister if he has other plans to get us further up to date with heat pumps in the future, but at the moment that seems not to be the case.
Greg Hands
I thank the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) for his constructive approach and his overall support for the scheme, which is most welcome.
I will deal with some of the points the hon. Gentleman raised. He is right on his first point: the ambition is to have 600,000 installations per annum from 2028. He is also right that there is £450 million allocated to the scheme over three years. It is a £5,000 grant, so he is right that that is a projected 30,000 grants per annum. I think his question, if I may repeat it, is how we get from 30,000 to 600,000 in the intervening three years between the end of the scheme and the start of the target. I think he asserted that that would not happen, so let me try to reassure him. The idea of the 600,000 figure, as I think he knows, is not that the Government will come along in 2028 and provide 600,000 heat pumps per annum; the idea of the scheme for the next three years is to pump-prime the private sector to be able to provide the alternative that we need.
So far, the private sector has responded well. Some companies have said that they welcome the Government grant scheme that is coming in and believe it is enough to allow them to bring down the cost of heat pumps to greater equivalence with conventional heating systems over that time. We believe, therefore, that we are putting in the right amount of funding, while being prudent with public finances, to provide enough support to help us to get to that 600,000 per annum target in 2028.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether biomass boilers were also within the costings. They are, but we expect the number of biomass boilers to be relatively low. We expect the vast majority of the funding to go on heat pumps. He asked about the regulation of the scheme, and he is correct to assert that it will be up to Ofgem to oversee the scheme and the market. I would add that installers also need to be certified under the microgeneration certification scheme.
On the domestic renewable heat incentive, the hon. Gentleman is right that the scheme is closing to new applications next week, on 31 March, as I laid out earlier. It has been a successful scheme: up to January, 100,398 low-carbon installations had been successfully installed due to the DRHI.
The scheme has helped both to raise consumer awareness and understanding of low-carbon technologies, and to raise the quality of low-carbon heating installations, protecting consumers and improving their experiences. It has also supported the development of both product and installer supply chains. We believe that the boiler upgrade scheme will provide a simpler offer than the previous DRHI, and the grant model will directly address the up-front capital cost of low-carbon heat technologies, which is cited as a key barrier to deployment.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether heat pumps were effective in cases where properties are less well insulated. I can tell him that current evidence suggests that heat pumps are technically suitable for most buildings; around 90% have sufficient energy efficiency and internal electrical connection capacity to accommodate a heat pump system, which is encouraging.
I think the hon. Gentleman asked about the gap between the end of the previous scheme at the end of this month and this scheme coming into place in May. We consider that a staggered approach, with installer accounts created in April and applications starting in May, will offer the best overall level of service to installers and ensure that applications can be processed promptly. Installations commissioned from 1 April will be eligible for funding, subject to the other eligibility requirements being met. I hope I have answered all his questions; if there is anything I have missed, he can contact me afterwards and I am happy to write to him.
Heat pumps will play a substantial role in any net zero scenario, so we need to build the market for them now. This targeted support will help to grow the low-carbon heat supply chain to enable the proposed introduction of regulatory and market-based measures in the mid-2020s. Not only will investment in the scheme contribute to carbon reduction targets and increase consumer awareness of low-carbon heating solutions, but the creation of high-quality jobs will help with boosting the economic recovery, levelling up across the country and ensuring that we build back better. I urge the House to support this measure.
Question put and agreed to.
Devil’s Point and Firestone Bay
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
Devil’s Point and Firestone bay are beautiful places to swim. As a keen wild swimmer myself, I have enjoyed swimming there many times. Given the ongoing sewage crisis, we need to make this an official bathing water so that we can be assured that it is safe, with regular water testing. The petition has been signed by 213 people in hard copy and by another 743 online.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport,
Declares that Devil's Point and Firestone Bay in Plymouth is a beautiful stretch of coastline that is of great public benefit to the local community and is frequently used to swim in; further that as it is not classed as a bathing water it does not meet the stricter environmental standards that it should; and further that it should be classed as a bathing water by summer 2022, with testing on water quality conducted all throughout the year.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to support the campaign for Devil's Point and Firestone Bay in Plymouth to be classified as a bathing water, and for the Environment Agency to designate this without delay.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002723]
Bradford City of Culture Bid
(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to be granted this Adjournment debate. I am proud to be able to speak today in support of Bradford’s bid to become the UK city of culture 2025.
Ask anyone who has lived in Bradford or spent any length of time there what they think about the district, and they will tell you of its beauty, its brilliance and its quirks, for there are few places quite like Bradford. They will always rave on about the rich, deep and diverse culture that Bradford has to offer. After all, it was the hills of Bradford that provided not just the home of the Brontë sisters but the backdrop to their novels. It was one of Bradford’s sons, David Hockney, who went on to become one of the world’s most influential painters. It is Bradford that brought up one fifth of the boy band One Direction, winner of numerous musical awards and accolades—Zayn Malik. It is Bradford that is the site of some of the most stunning architecture you will ever see, such as the Alhambra, St George’s Hall, City Hall and the Bradford Odeon, which is finally on the way to being restored. Months spent pestering Ministers have borne fruit and Bradford’s iconic Odeon is now well on the way to restoration.
There is also our vibrant TV and film scene, with Bradford becoming the world’s first UNESCO city of film in 2009, and with our “streets of heritage” buildings such as City Hall and those in Little Germany being stars in their own right in many historic dramas. One of particular interest, as I found out only this morning, is “Peaky Blinders”—a programme that I have never actually seen but am reliably informed has some resemblance to this place. I cannot confirm or deny that, of course, Mr Deputy Speaker. Our National Science and Media Museum is the home of many treasured collections in the media world and an important part of Bradford city centre.
Nor can we forget the rich sporting culture that Bradford has in spades. Bradford City, winners of the FA cup, albeit a while back in 1911, have some of the most passionate fans you will ever meet. I was on the wrong side of that during the 2017 general election campaign when trying to cajole some of my supporters into a much-needed door-knocking session, only to be told in rather salty language where to go by every single one of them because they would much rather watch the final in which Bradford were partaking—quite rightly, I have to say. Bradford was also key when it comes to the founding of what became the great sport of rugby league. I know that intensely, because my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) is perhaps one of its biggest advocates, and I am convinced she will come in on that point.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend first for securing this debate, and secondly for talking so passionately about our great city of Bradford. I have to say I do not think I am the biggest fan of rugby league in this place, because the biggest fan is Mr Speaker, who is not currently in the Chair. It is fantastic to be here, to intervene in this debate, to champion the great city of Bradford and to talk about the brilliant and diverse cultural exports that make it the ideal candidate to be the 2025 city of culture. This is a timely debate, because 2025 also marks, importantly, the 130th anniversary of the founding of the Rugby Football Union in the historical heart of God’s own county of Yorkshire. I am glad that Mr Speaker is not in the Chair to hear that.
Bradford’s rugby league club, the Bradford Bulls, are one of our greatest cultural exports and are known around the globe. Given the return of the Bradford Bulls to Odsal, and the central role they play in our city and our district—not just in my constituency of Bradford South, but right across the UK and internationally—does my hon. Friend agree that the cultural icon of the Bradford Bulls is central to inspiring our local young people, providing exceptional opportunities for our communities and highlighting the essential role that sport and regeneration can play in Bradford’s city of culture bid for 2025?
Imran Hussain
I am always grateful to my hon. Friend, and she makes some excellent points, which is why it was an excellent intervention. She is absolutely right about the Bradford Bulls, and she continues to be a great champion not only for the district, but for them. The Bulls fell on hard times recently, but they have picked themselves back up, and they continue to be a fierce, resilient team in which the city has a great amount of pride, and I know that my hon. Friend will continue to champion them.
Talking about sport, we cannot forget that it was Richard Dunn who took on the great Muhammad Ali. While he might have lost resoundingly, his legacy lives on in a new generation of boxing stars, from Bobby Vanzie to Tasif Khan, and in the grassroots boxing gyms, which are an important part of our inner-city communities and act as a real hub for people of all ages.
Cricket, rather unsurprisingly, is a popular pastime for people in Bradford, driven by south Asian communities who emigrated to this country and play at a professional level, including Bradford’s own Adil Rashid, who plays for the England side. While we may lack turf cricket pitches, which remains a serious issue in the city, many promising cricketers grew up perfecting their game on urban cricket pitches, also known as “the road outside your mum’s house when there was no traffic”. Many a great star was born on those roadsides.
I cannot get away with talking about Bradford’s culture without mentioning our food culture and our love of a good dish, whether it is cooked at home with friends and family or at one of our many outstanding restaurants. Let us be clear: Bradford is the curry capital of Britain, if not Europe, as demonstrated by the fact that Bradford’s curry festival is the one to beat. While I have to accept that our near neighbours, including my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), will often try to challenge us for that title, I think even he would accept that it is an utterly ridiculous notion that Leeds would come anywhere near Bradford when it comes to food.
Imran Hussain
I will on the point of food when it comes to Bradford and Leeds.
Richard Burgon
The biggest and perhaps only disagreement that I and my hon. Friend have had is about whether the best curry houses are in Leeds East or Bradford East. I congratulate him on securing this debate. Although obviously I prefer my home city of Leeds in general, Bradford is a fantastic place, steeped in diversity and culture—everything from the fantastic Waterstones bookshop in that wonderful gothic architecture, to the historic music venue the 1 in 12 Club, to the history of politics in the city. Of course, the Labour party founder, Keir Hardie, stood in a Bradford East by-election. Unlike my hon. Friend, he was not successful—in that sense, at least, my hon. Friend achieved more than Keir Hardie.
Will my hon. Friend accept these congratulations from Leeds in the spirit of breaking down boundaries? Bradford is a fantastic city. As one of its neighbours, I love to visit it, and I wish my hon. Friend and the whole city of Bradford all the very best in their application.
Imran Hussain
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend and neighbour from Leeds. He is absolutely right. Bradford is the only city in the area—West Yorkshire and slightly further afield—that has been shortlisted, and all the support we have from our near-neighbour cities is very welcome. I thank him for his kind words.
In Bradford, we are slap-bang in the middle of the country, pretty much as far away from the sea as it is possible to be, yet I firmly believe that there is no better place to get a decent plate of fish and chips, whether it is from the award-winning Towngate Fisheries in Idle, Leeds Road Fisheries in the heart of Bradford, one of the other outstanding chippies across the district, or even down at the Eccleshill Mechanics Institute with Terry and the team—I have to confess that that is a secret haunt of mine for lunch.
We sometimes forget that culture means far more for people than just art, sport, film, TV and music; it is something that goes to the very core of who we are as people and communities. That is why I firmly believe that the richness of Bradford’s culture is best represented not by our art or even by our heritage but by the diversity of our district. After all, Bradford is one of the most diverse places in the country. We are home to someone from practically every corner of the world who has fled war, persecution or oppression, or simply came here to build a better life.
One of those people was my grandfather, who came to this country 70 years ago, like tens of thousands of others, as part of the generation invited to the UK to rebuild the country after the devastation of the second world war. Like many, he eventually settled here permanently to raise a family of his own. While he maintained his links with Pakistan and Kashmir, as many in the diaspora communities continue to do to this day, it was Bradford, before anywhere else, that was his home.
While the Pakistani and Kashmiri communities make up a large proportion of Bradford’s diversity, we are far from the only minority groups in Bradford. We are home to a sizeable Rohingya community, who fled genocide in Burma—interestingly, it is the largest Rohingya community in the whole of Europe—as well as to Bangladeshi, Indian, Afghan, Kurd, Slovak, Roma and many more communities, which come together like a bouquet of flowers to make Bradford the wonderful place it is.
Historically, Bradford has also had a large Irish population, as well as having been home to European refugees fleeing persecution on the continent, with Little Germany symbolising that historic time. Following the Kindertransport policy of the 1930s, Bradford became the home of many Jewish people who escaped the horrors of the holocaust, including my dear friend Rudi Leavor, who is sadly no longer with us.
Without being too big-headed, let me say that given the national, racial and religious diversity in Bradford, we likely have a claim not just to the title of UK city of culture but to that of real capital of the world. Tragically, some on the far right like to paint this rich diversity as a weakness, but let me be absolutely clear that it is anything but. It is our strength, and perhaps our greatest strength too, because Bradford has always stood united in the face of adversity and stood defiantly in the face of those who seek to divide us. This rich diversity has also given us much to be proud of, as it was these strong, resilient and vibrant communities that saw people from all walks of life—young and old, those of all faiths and none—come together to work together over the last two years to get through some of the most difficult times that we have all ever faced.
Because of our diversity, Bradford is also at the centre of demonstrating to others how to successfully turn integration into a powerful bond between communities, with Bradford Council for Mosques in particular acting not just as one of the leading institutions in the country for Muslims, but as one of the organisations to turn to when working across cultural and religious boundaries to bring people together.
Bradford’s welcoming nature is another key strength for our diversity and our culture, as there are no kinder, more generous or more welcoming people than the people of Bradford. Never is this more evident than in our proud status as a city of sanctuary, which I was proud to drive forward in a previous role in Bradford Council, that means Bradford will always offer refuge to those fleeing oppression, persecution and injustice from whatever part of the world they come. I strongly believe that the strongest point of Bradford’s culture is not the stunning architecture of City Hall or the rolling hills of Brontë country, but the fact that our arms are always open to people from around the world, particularly those fleeing injustice. Consequently, winning the title of UK city of culture 2025 would be a celebration not just of Bradford’s culture, but of the positive impact of diversity in our country today.
As the largest mill town in the north of England, Bradford was part of the original northern powerhouse, shipping wool all across the country and indeed all across the world. As a working-class city, our culture—both past and present—is rooted in our history. However, deindustrialisation over the years gone by has not been kind to cities such as Bradford. Today, we have one of the highest rates of child poverty in the country, with around half of the children growing up in my constituency doing so in homes that face tough choices between heating and eating.
We have rampant health inequalities, which mean that Bradford residents have a higher propensity of preventable diseases such as diabetes, and that we live years less than residents elsewhere. We have poor levels of educational attainment, with children growing up less likely to outperform their peers across the region and elsewhere in the country, and we have widespread insecure, low-paid employment, with people in Bradford paid less for more hours. We have suffered from a decade of austerity and decades more of deindustrialisation, and we have also been forgotten and neglected by successive Governments actually, with the decision to snub Bradford on the Northern Powerhouse Rail line being the most recent glaring example.
Nevertheless, let me be clear: we are not beaten, we are not down and we are certainly not out. As home to one of the youngest, proudest and most vibrant populations in the whole country, we still have a wealth of potential lurking beneath the surface. All we need is that extra little push, which is why winning the title of UK city of culture 2025 would mean everything to Bradford and everything to the people who live there.
Some may consider the title of UK city of culture as just a bit of fun or just a bit of recognition, yet it is much more. As we have seen with past winners—including Hull, just down the M62, which is facing many of the same problems as Bradford—it has been transformative and has put them back on the map for a whole host of positive reasons. These past winners have seen considerable investment over their year of celebration, as well as in the years before and the years after, with increased visitor numbers, greater participation in cultural activities, and new jobs and new skill development opportunities. There has been a lasting legacy; the cities were granted new life and had a refreshed sense of energy.
An independent report has found that Bradford is one of the country’s most deprived and left-behind regions, and it has the most to gain from the Government’s levelling-up agenda, if that is seen through, as promised. If it won the title of city of culture 2025, the impact of the investment that would follow is clear to everyone. I sincerely believe that that point should make things much clearer for the Minister. However, the power of Bradford’s bid is not solely in our rich, diverse culture, or in the difference that winning the title of UK city of culture would make; it is also in the strength of the bid. Over the past two years, Bradford has supported a fantastic range of incredible projects, from Summer Unlocked, which hosted a programme of free cultural events including theatre, music, film and more, to the Bradford is #Lit festival, and the fantastic Festival of Lights, which drew more than 20,000 people to a Bradford city square last year. To top it all off, recently there was the spectacular Mills Are Alive show in Manningham. That is a small sample of what is to come when Bradford hopefully wins the title of UK city of culture 2025.
I will leave the finer details—Ministers can see things for themselves when they go to Bradford, as I hope they will—but I promise that Bradford will not hold back in its plans for 2025, and it will definitely not stray from our proud tradition of doing things differently. Bradford is beautiful; Bradford is brilliant. Bradford is a place that people have to see, hear, taste, and experience for themselves. Bradford is the place that I owe everything to, and I could stand here and speak about it for hours—you will be delighted to know I am not going to, Mr Deputy Speaker. Ultimately, there can be no better place to award the title of city of culture 2025 than Bradford. It represents everything. I make my final plea to the Minister. This will make a difference. For all the reasons I have highlighted, Bradford is, and continues to be, the perfect candidate. Minister, this is our time. Give us that chance.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) for securing this debate about Bradford’s bid to become UK city of culture. He spoke eloquently and passionately about his city, of which he is so obviously proud, and I thank him for his contribution to the debate. He is a great champion of the city, and he will of course be delighted that Bradford was recently named one of the four places shortlisted for the title of UK city of culture 2025. It has been a competitive process, with all bidding teams submitting high-quality bids.
UK city of culture is the UK-wide quadrennial flagship competition by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, delivered in collaboration with the devolved Administrations. It invites places across the UK to set out their vision for culture-led regeneration. UK city of culture is about highlighting the role that culture plays in the heart of our communities; the hon. Gentleman mentioned that many times. It demonstrates that culture is for everyone, no matter who they are and where they come from. This is a key part of DCMS’s broader efforts to level up opportunity. It uses culture as the catalyst for investment, in order to drive economic growth and regeneration, promote social cohesion, and instil pride in places, making them even more attractive to live in, work in, and visit.
Derry/Londonderry was the first title holder back in 2013, and Hull won in 2017. This prestigious title has huge benefits; previous hosts have attracted millions of pounds in additional investment, created jobs, and attracted thousands of visitors to the area. Coventry is the current UK city of culture; its term finishes in May. Despite the challenges of the pandemic, the city has developed an extraordinary, year-long programme of events that put culture at the heart of social and economic recovery. As a result of Coventry being awarded the title of UK city of culture, more than £172 million has gone into funding music concerts, public art displays, the UK’s first permanent immersive digital art gallery, a new children’s play area in the centre of the city, the new Telegraph hotel, and improvements to public transport. A further £500 million has been ploughed into the city’s regeneration since it was confirmed as the UK city of culture. More than £150 million of public and private sector investment was invested in the 2013 winner, Derry/Londonderry, and the 2017 winner, Hull, saw a 10% increase in visitor numbers during its tenure.
Bradford and the three other locations—County Durham, Southampton and Wrexham County Borough—were approved by the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport as the shortlist for the 2025 competition. That shortlist was based on advice given to the Government by the independent expert advisory panel, led by Sir Phil Redmond. The finalists were whittled down from a record 20 initial bids to eight outstanding long-list applications. The expert advisory panel will visit the four shortlisted places in May; then there will be a presentation from each of those places before the panel makes its final recommendation. The winner will be announced in Coventry in late May, so there is not too long to wait.
I am impressed by Bradford’s ambition and the way it has embraced the UK city of culture competition. I am sure that Bradford, along with the three other shortlisted places, will continue to robustly showcase its places and the strength of its bid to the panel. The UK city of culture is a proven model for culture-led regeneration, but there is no blueprint for success, and each city of culture has a different character and tackles new and different issues. The expert advisory panel is looking for a fresh narrative for the next UK city of culture—a strong story, a sense of identity and a vision for change. As the hon. Gentleman and others outlined, Bradford is a vibrant city with a rich cultural heritage and a young and diverse population. It has a huge amount to offer local people and visitors, and it is one of the few places in the world to have not one, but two UNESCO designations. Saltaire industrial village is a UNESCO world heritage site, and as the world’s first city of film, Bradford is also part of the UNESCO creative cities network. The area is also known for being the birthplace of the Brontë sisters and David Hockney, and for its strong cultural assets, such as the National Science and Media museum and the Alhambra theatre, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned—as well, of course, for its beautiful countryside.
Alongside all that, the area has recently seen significant investment in the arts and cultural sectors. Between 2018 and 2022, Arts Council England national portfolio organisations in Bradford have received more than £7 million, and organisations in Bradford’s local authority have received £3.65 million through rounds 1 and 2 of the culture recovery fund. The libraries improvement fund has support for Bradford’s libraries, so that they can improve their offer. Bradford is also one of 15 UK-wide locations that StoryTrails, one of UNBOXED’s commissions, will visit this year. Bradford has been successful in securing some £20 million from the levelling-up fund to invest in the Squire Lane wellbeing and enterprise centre, and has received £4 million from the northern cultural regeneration fund to redevelop the Bradford Odeon, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
I understand that Bradford’s bid is the outcome of lots of hard work delivered by the bidding team, and by the Cultural Place Partnership, which includes Bradford Council, the University of Bradford, Bradford College, representatives of the cultural sector and national funders, as well as the hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins), my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore) and many others. The team are focused on using the competition as a platform to showcase Bradford’s strengths to the rest of the UK and the world, to improve opportunities for local people, and to increase access to jobs in the visitor economy and cultural sectors. There is an aim to add to the significant provision already in place and leave a lasting legacy of increased visitor numbers, and to develop a more vibrant, sustainable cultural sector. There is also a focus on ensuring greater community engagement across the district, celebrating Bradford’s diverse communities and increasing public participation in cultural activities.
This is not just about who wins the competition. There are clear benefits to all places that bid. For the first time, the eight long-listed places from across the UK received a £40,000 grant each to strengthen their long application ahead of the shortlisting stage. That has helped to level the playing field, and has encouraged places to develop deliverable plans, even if they do not win the title. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport wants all bidders to leverage the bidding process. We are committed to working with those who do not win, so that they can continue to forge partnerships, develop culture-led change and strengthen cultural strategies; and we are working to signpost upcoming opportunities and funding. Hull, it should be remembered, was unsuccessful in bidding for the 2013 title, but it came back to win the 2017 title. Sunderland’s bid for the 2021 title created the momentum to form a new arts trust, Sunderland Culture. Paisley, which also bid for the 2021 title, has since hosted a range of major events, including UNBOXED’S About Us, earlier this month.
I applaud Bradford’s dedication to winning the UK city of culture 2025 competition. I wish Bradford and, of course, the other three shortlisted places—County Durham, Southampton and Wrexham County Borough—the very best of luck for the remainder of the competition.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
Work and Pensions
(2 years ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Rutley
I recognise that we are in challenging circumstances; that is why the Chancellor has put in place a three-point plan. We have £20 billion set out in this financial year that is designed to help vulnerable people facing challenges and to deal with rising energy costs, £9 billion of which goes to the Chancellor’s three-point plan. [Official Report, 16 March 2022, Vol. 710, c. 362WH.]
Letter of correction from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (David Rutley):
An error has been identified in my response to the debate.
The correct information should have been:
David Rutley
I recognise that we are in challenging circumstances; that is why the Chancellor has put in place a three-point plan. We have £20 billion set out in this financial year and next that is designed to help vulnerable people facing challenges and to deal with rising energy costs, £9 billion of which goes to the Chancellor’s three-point plan.
236 bus between Glossop and Ashton
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
Covid-19: Impact on Social Work
(2 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of the covid-19 outbreak on social work.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. World Social Work Day was on 15 March, so it is perhaps timely to hold a debate in this House on the issue of social work. May I begin by wishing social workers everywhere, particularly in my constituency of Lancaster and Fleetwood, a belated but very happy World Social Work Day?
I see from my casework, as I imagine many other Members do from theirs, the amazing work that social workers do to support our constituents. Social work is one of the lesser-understood parts of our social care sector. Social workers come into people’s lives at difficult and challenging times, and there can be a negative association with them. When social workers are in the headlines, that is often because the worst has happened. When the worst happens, that sadly often means that a child known to social services has died.
When Arthur Labinjo-Hughes was murdered by the very people who were supposed to love and care for him, that was national news. Everyone wanted to know what events had led to that tragic incident and how it could be prevented from ever happening again. Some people were asking why social services could not save him, and why they could not save Star Hobson, who was also killed by the people who were supposed to look after her.
Most of the time, social workers are not in the news. I know an awful lot about social workers. In fact, I was brought up by one. My dad is a retired social worker, but he spent many years working for Cumbria social services in probation, child protection and, latterly, in his longest stint, the youth offending team. Although there are probably many cases in which my dad supported individuals but perhaps did not manage to turn their lives around, I want to tell the anonymous story of a school friend of mine who was in contact with me a couple of years ago. She said, “Your dad was my social worker. I had fallen in with the wrong crowd, but your dad helped me turn my life around. Now I am a mum, I work, and I no longer have a criminal record. I managed to do that with the support of your dad.” The story of my school friend would never make a story in a local paper, let alone a national, but that is the kind of work that social workers do in lots of different sectors. In particular, such cases involve supporting young offenders to turn their lives around.
Every single day, social workers carry out their roles. They support people with learning difficulties and autistic people. They work with unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. They carry out assessments and reviews, protecting people’s liberties and best interests. Social workers are integral to upholding human rights and child protection, but we cannot ignore the sphere in which social workers work.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for securing the debate. Will she allow me to place on record my thanks to those on the frontline of social work in Glasgow? In particular, I pay tribute to the social work team in Easterhouse in the East community addiction team in Parkhead. Before covid-19, many of those social workers had an enormous workload, which has only been exacerbated by several lockdowns. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is important that we listen to the voice of social workers on further support from Government as we emerge from covid-19, as their workload has undoubtedly changed?
Cat Smith
I thank the hon. Member for making that point. As a frequent visitor to his constituency, I know that his social work team in Glasgow do an amazing job supporting his constituents, and he is right to say that the voice of social workers needs to be heard by Government.
I have spent a lot of time with social workers over the years, some of whom have gone on to be elected Members of the House and who were then able to provide a platform for social work issues, and I have huge respect for the Members of the House who come from a social work background. One of the first MPs I met, Hilton Dawson, was a social worker before being elected MP for Lancaster in 1997. After Parliament, he went to work at the British Association of Social Workers, where I worked with him before being elected to the House. There is probably quite a nice symmetry in that, but I suspect that he is probably watching and wondering why it has taken me so long to get a Westminster Hall debate on this important issue. Indeed, given that his most recent political activity was standing in the Hartlepool by-election for the North East party, he has certainly been on a political journey, too.
The British Association of Social Workers is the professional organisation for more than 22,000 social workers in the UK. Its annual survey was carried out at the end of 2021, and the results were published just a few weeks ago. Social workers are on the frontline. They know their own profession and what they need in order to be able to fulfil their statutory and non-statutory obligations to a high standard. The Government should be listening to them.
In the survey, the three biggest challenges facing the workforce were determined to be the demands of administrative tasks, workload demand and adequacy of staffing. Nearly 5,000 family social workers left the profession during 2021—up 16% compared with 2020. How can we trust that we are doing the best by social workers if they are leaving the profession in such numbers and trying to do their job without departments being fully staffed?
High workloads and staff shortages will lead to current staff burning out. In many professions, burnout at work means that someone drops the ball on a deadline and perhaps one or two deadlines are missed, but a burnt-out social worker can be a matter of life and death for a child. It is not the fault of that social worker; the issue is the environment in which they work. Social workers do their very best to support people, so Government must do their very best to support social workers.
The pandemic did not only affect child safeguarding. The challenges facing care homes were also a key focus, but Government failed to bring forward many solutions. They only issued guidance and let care homes make their own decisions about visitors and testing, and that caused a lot of upset. Social workers reported that they were unable to access care homes. Social workers have a key safeguarding role, and residents’ family members and social workers facing access restrictions only heightened the worry about what was going on inside care homes.
How were people coping with the changes? Many care home residents, especially those with illnesses such as dementia, would not have understood why their family members were not visiting. That was never the right approach. I appreciate that the confusion in a pandemic can lead to some rash and ill-thought-out decisions, but it must never be allowed to happen again. Upholding human rights is not an optional add-on; it is a fundamental part of our social care system and should never have been restricted.
The pandemic also had an impact on people with learning disabilities and autistic people. “Do not resuscitate” orders were being issued basis solely on a person’s learning disability. That is a national scandal. Does the Minister understand the distress that those orders will have caused people? People with learning disabilities have, for a variety of reasons, much poorer health outcomes than the population as a whole. Along with other vulnerable and marginalised groups, people with a learning disability and autistic people bore a disproportionate weight of the impact of covid-19, including a greater risk of death.
This cannot be looked at simply in the context of the pandemic, either. We know from scandals such as that involving Winterbourne View care home that people with learning disabilities and autistic people are not always treated in the way they should be. The British Association of Social Workers’ “Homes not Hospitals” group campaigns on this, so will the Minister agree to a meeting with that group to talk about what the Government can do to get people with learning disabilities and autistic people out of hospital and back into the communities where they belong?
Social workers join the profession because they care deeply about society and the people within it, but social workers can do their job properly only if the Government are giving them the resources to do so. There needs to be proper funding for local authorities so that councils can invest in preventive measures. The cuts to local authority budgets affect social work, but also sectors such as youth work. I have secured many debates in the House on youth work and I know that there is sometimes, in some places, a bit of a tension between the youth work profession and the social work profession but, particularly for children in care, a strong working relationship between youth workers and social workers can really make the difference for a young person’s life outcomes.
We do not know whether there will be another dangerous strain of covid-19 or a new virus altogether that may force us into more restrictions on the way we live our lives, but we have to learn the lessons from this pandemic. Social work and social workers must be at the heart of recovery. It is a profession that is often hidden until someone needs the support of a social worker, but it is work that we could not be without.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) on securing the debate. Like her, I have had the opportunity over many years in the world of local government, to see the transformative benefits that social workers can bring to the lives of many of our most vulnerable people. Those are children in the care system, adults with learning disabilities and people facing difficulties in old age, where the professionalism, attention to detail and the care provided by local authorities across the country have enabled people to live the best life they possibly can in the circumstances they face.
The topic of today’s debate makes clear that the pandemic has tested not just the professionalism of our social workers, but our care system’s capacity to respond. We will all have seen amazing examples of how social workers and those connected to them have stepped up to the plate. The local authorities that serve my constituency—the London Borough of Hillingdon and the London Borough of Harrow—both played key roles in the community. Social workers identified the needs of individuals and harnessed support from volunteers, charitable and community organisations, to ensure that, where there were limits to what the state could do to provide for people in a time of acute need, others were able to step in.
I will give the example of H4All, a charitable organisation in Hillingdon that brought together the efforts of several organisations, supported by a local authority that recognised that social workers would be able to do their best work if they were effectively supported. For example, with libraries closed, library staff were redeployed to man call centres for people who needed to raise a concern about someone they knew, a family member, or who were supporting someone and needed to arrange delivery of medication.
They were able to use staff who were redeployed, so that social workers could concentrate on things that only they could do, such as assessments of need to enable people to progress in their care packages, the preparation of people to be discharged from hospital, and acute work in children’s services, such as child protection for those known to be at risk, who might otherwise have missed the opportunity of a regular visit from a professional to ensure they were safe and thriving in their placement. One of my neighbours, a foster carer, was supported through the process of fostering a baby who was placed with her. Social workers were able to continue ensuring that system for supporting the needs of the most vulnerable, despite all the pressures of covid.
In the context of the debate about the future of social work, covid has given us the opportunity, not just in social work but in many parts of our system, to learn lessons and identify what we can do better, based on how covid tested the operation of the system. As the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for social work, I am conscious that, along with other professional organisations, social workers are taking a key interest in how the profession will develop and sit in the context of the care system, of which it is a crucial part.
That is not a new debate. I commend the Department for Education for seeking, through the fast-track programme, to identify ways in which people who want to become social workers could develop their professional standards. They are able to pursue a programme, facilitated by placements in different types of organisations, with different aspects of the social work profession. Having sat in on some of those training sessions, I was fascinated to see how social workers saw things in a different light, through talking to people who managed cases other than the ones they might commonly come across in their day jobs. They were able to support each other to develop their professional judgment. The proposed re-tendering of that programme, although an important part of the system, needs to ensure that it continues to support social workers in developing the highest professional standards, and does not lose the focus it has brought to the system.
Some of those issues are consistent across all parts of the social work profession. We heard, for example, about caseloads, which remain a challenge for social workers whether they are dealing with adults with learning disabilities, very elderly people, or children who are in need for whatever reason. The context of regulation for children’s social workers is different from that of adult social workers, and that also remains a challenge. The work of the Care Quality Commission is perhaps beginning to diverge from the work of Ofsted, so the regulatory framework for the social work profession is becoming more and more diverse, reflecting the fact that the clients that social workers serve are different.
It is worth reflecting on some of the pandemic lessons. We have seen, for example, a move away from significant numbers of family support workers in children’s services, as well as occupational therapists in supporting elderly people, and in the role of youth workers, which was referred to earlier. Perhaps we need to reflect on the structures that we expect from our local authorities and that our regulatory framework drives. Perhaps there should be a greater degree of local flexibility to bring together those different but allied professions so that they focus on the needs of the most vulnerable.
Local authorities will do that for a variety of reasons. I recall Hackney Council’s so-called pod model bringing together youth workers, therapists and social workers. By the time that other local authorities had adopted that model, Hackney had given up on it because it felt it was not working any more, so there is sometimes a risk that, when tested, new ideas prove to be not as effective as we would like. However, we should see the deployment particularly of folks such as family support workers in a way that can really help the social work profession to do what it does best and what only it can do, and the service that vulnerable people receive should be of the highest quality possible.
The greater divergence among the workforces around children, adults and the elderly can be positive, particularly in the context of extra funding, which we expect to see coming into the system through the decisions that the Chancellor and the Government make. Some will say that that is overdue and insufficient, but I can say that from my experience in a local authority it will be most welcome. It will ease a lot of the pressure that has been building up in the system and, because the local authority funding model is so diverse across the country, it can re-base social services departments so that they are more consistently funded through a national programme in a way that putting the burden on council tax payers cannot achieve because of the diversity of how much funding is raised.
The social work profession has an opportunity to consider parallels with what is going on in other professions, especially across the public sector where we see many similar roles. How is the nursing profession developing? How are the lessons from professional development being applied? In teaching and policing we see not just similar salary levels, but often common qualifications and of course a focus often at the most vulnerable end on the same families, so are there things that we can do to improve the way that the training and development across all those professions is aligned so that they can work more effectively together?
The pandemic period, the debate today and the celebration that has been referred to have demonstrated once again that social workers and those who support and work with them remain a key part, often a hidden part, of the social infrastructure of our country. The local authority with the most people coming into contact with any part of social care has less than one in five of its population receiving any form of support from social care during the whole of their lives. Most people will never be touched by social care, but for a critical group in society it is absolutely vital that they receive care to the highest possible standard, and I join the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood in paying tribute to the work that social workers have done in keeping society together during the pandemic.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) for raising such an important issue. I had hoped that we would have more people here today to participate because there is not one MP who does not have regular contact with their social workers on behalf of constituents; it happens in my office every week. I want to mention some of the issues and care packages in place, and I will mention some figures for my constituency.
I am pleased to see the Minister in her place. I always look forward to her response—not just because she is a good friend, but because she always answers with knowledge and help, which I think we all wish to see. That is exactly what the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood is seeking with the debate. I am also pleased to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), in her place—I look forward to her contribution—and my good friend the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day), who speaks on behalf of the Scottish National party. We are pleased to participate in this debate on such an important issue.
It is not the fault of anyone in this room, but the outbreak of the pandemic has cruelly exacerbated the social work situation. How we respond is the subject of the debate and the Minister’s responsibility. There is no doubt those in the profession have faced unprecedented challenges, and it is great to be here today to illustrate some of them and to discuss how we can support our brilliant social workers.
We have mentioned the NHS and many of those who kept the wheels turning and the shelves filled, who visited people and who made everything happen through a pandemic of unprecedented ferocity. All of society gelled together as a team to make that happen. I meet people every week in my constituency of Strangford who make the lives of the vulnerable and those in need better. That is their responsibility, and I have that responsibility on their behalf.
We are sometimes confronted with incredibly difficult cases. I am no different from anybody else, so I suspect that my response is the same as everyone else’s. Social workers are involved in some awful cases: the lives that people are confronted with, probably through no fault of their own, and the impact on children. I have a special place in my heart for children, because I am not only a father, but a grandfather; it is a great stage. Those of us in the Chamber who are grandparents will know that it is a wonderful experience. The great thing, Mr Robertson, is that we can give our grandchildren back at 7 o’clock at night! Whenever they get tantrummy and want to go to bed, or do not want to go to bed—it depends what mood they are in—we can always phone up their mum and dad to say, “By the way, the kids are ready to collect.” We can enjoy all the fun, but for others on the frontline, I am afraid that there are real problems.
As of 2021, 105,000 people were employed as social workers for children, the elderly, and those who are vulnerable and in need. I am not asking the Minister to answer for Northern Ireland as that is not her responsibility, but I want to sew the Northern Ireland perspective into this debate because it echoes what the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood said in her introduction. The Minister always gives me some succour and encouragement in her response, and that is important.
There is predicted to be a mismatch between the supply and demand of social care professionals, with 1 million workers needed by 2025, which is not that far away. We seem to be having anniversaries regularly—whatever they may be for—and I look back and think, “That can’t have been four or five years ago”, but it was. Three years will pass quickly, and it is predicted that there will be a 35% shortfall in social workers. Will the Minister tell us from a UK perspective what has been done to recruit and train social workers, and to have the support at every level that is critical to a good response?
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
My hon. Friend is outlining the extent of the problem and the imminent mismatch between supply and demand, which is just two and a half years away. Does he agree that what we need to see and hear from Government, both centrally and throughout the devolved regions of the UK, is an acknowledgement and admission of an impending problem? Action needs to be taken now, so that social workers and others in the care sector can see that our Governments are looking ahead, planning and preparing for the problems that we will all face.
Jim Shannon
My hon. Friend has summed up in a few seconds exactly what the debate is about, whereas I will take 10 or 12 paragraphs to explain it. His point is that we have to be strategic and visionary, and have a plan of action. Today is all about what that plan of action is.
David Linden
I visit schools in my constituency and speak to some of the kids about what they want to be when they grow up—although I am probably not grown up yet and do not know what I want to be—and it strikes me that we have to look at this issue in the context of schooling, which I accept is devolved in Scotland. We need to encourage young people to think about careers in social work. Looking around the Chamber, I was probably the one in school most recently, but I do not recall being encouraged to look at social work, when we were told in the traditional way, “Here are careers you can do.” Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we can do more to encourage young people to consider a career in social work, and would he be willing to promote that in Northern Ireland?
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Many social workers I deal with are probably of a certain generation. He makes the point that we need to be preparing, and that goes back to my question to the Minister about having a strategy and plan in place.
I understand that many young people do come into social work, because I have met some, but—I say this very gently, and it is not in any way meant to be critical—they need to have experienced social workers to work alongside and gain their knowledge. Young people will sometimes be confronted with cases that they might not have the life experiences to deal with. That is not a criticism; experience is gained over many years. I have been confronted by such cases on behalf of constituents, and I feel that decisions are not always made—in my opinion, as someone who is not a social worker—as they could or should have been.
David Simmonds
I entirely agree with the hon. Member’s point. Does he agree that programmes such as the fast-track ones bring the opportunity, in particular for young social workers who might be graduates straight out of university, to work with people who may have been in the profession for 20 or 30 years? Young social workers would have the chance to learn from experienced people and to see how they dealt with cases with which I, as a lead council member, was sadly familiar—for example, sometimes, the sexual abuse of children committed by professionals who were meant to be caring for them, or elderly people suffering complex financial abuse within a family. It is important that the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Education continue to support that type of professional development, so that we can grow our own highly professional social workers in the future.
Jim Shannon
As my friend, the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), said—and as I am trying to say, in my broken words—people have to start somewhere in life; they have to start their job somewhere and learn about their role.
Social care organisations have revealed that 75% of social workers feel more negative about their work life in 2021 compared with in the first year of the pandemic. People come to us all the time with problems, and I like that because it is my job. Many people say, “I don’t know how you do your job, listening to people’s complaints and always solving their problems, and so on”, but I reply, “That’s what life is about. Life is about making lives better.” We need to be aware that social workers sometimes deal with complex and difficult issues. My question to the Minister is, has any assessment been done of the impact of the pandemic on social workers? If the figures are right—I understand that they are—that 75% of social workers feel more negative about their work life in 2021, we have a potential problem. I hope we do not, but we must at least consider that and respond.
This situation is down to the increasing pressures and challenges that the social work sector has faced. Referrals of children to social services in Northern Ireland have increased every month since February 2020. The highest figure was in April 2021, with 3,616 children being referred. That clearly indicates that parents are struggling to cope, and is a clear sign of the increasing pressure on our social workers, which the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood illustrated very well in her contribution, and as other Members have reported.
We must not forget the impact that the covid outbreak has had on the social sector in relation not just to children, but to the elderly and the vulnerable. The hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) rightly referred to an issue that is on my mind as well: people who depend on family members to look after their financial affairs. I have dealt with a few of those cases, which are always difficult because there are often two sets of family members saying two different things—but there is a person in the middle who is losing out.
The BBC revealed in mid-2021 that almost 2,000 people in Northern Ireland are waiting for care packages, so that they can be supported to live in their own homes. Just this week, a very lovely man who I have known all my life—he is well into his 80s now—has been ill and had to go to hospital. Although he wants to come home, and would be able to, he needs a care package in place before he can come home because, due to the nature of his disability, his wife would be unable to provide the physical care that he needs. That is not the Minister’s responsibility; I am just illustrating the issue.
The wait for care packages could mean an increase of patients to residential care. My constituency of Strangford takes in the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust, which has reported that 282 people were waiting from the end of August 2021. Social workers are a key part of making that a success story. The provision of home care is crucial in taking the additional pressure off of hospitals and care homes. We must ensure that our social workers have the capacity to deal with the increasing amount of care packages needed. I have never seen anything quite like it. I know that we are getting older—we are living longer and our bodies are breaking down, meaning that more people need care packages—but there has to be a strategy and a vision for how we deal with that, as has been pointed out in other contributions.
There is an increased risk of covid infection for those who work in the social work industry, as we have seen happen over and over. That is nobody’s fault; it is the nature of life. It cannot be helped when tests are positive and people must take time off work. However, that is where we can step in to ensure that there is a sustainable number of social workers to cope with the level of care needed by children, the elderly, the vulnerable and the disabled.
We must also take into consideration the impact of the pandemic on our social workers’ mental health. Some 55% of respondents to a survey said that they felt increased anxiety—in an already difficult job—given the risk that they posed to the vulnerable by potentially carrying covid. I am keen to hear the Minister’s thoughts on how we can better deal with that. One way would be to have extra staffing, as the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood mentioned earlier. Social workers are as prepared as they can be in terms of personal protective equipment, as the Government and the Minister have done extremely well in responding to that need, but the Government must step in when it comes to staffing and workload. Many social workers have stated that their casework load has increased by as much as 40% over the pandemic. They are working longer hours—I know that, because they tell me that and I see it—and those longer hours are probably for the same money. Overtime rates will never compensate for the loss of physical wellbeing and mental health.
The Department of Health and Social Care must have provisions in place to ensure that our social workers are not under the most extreme pressure. I very much look forward to the Minister’s response and the encouragement that she will give us. I urge her and her Department to consider the impact of that pressure not only in England, where her responsibility lies, but across the United Kingdom. I know that the Minister, like those in other Departments, regularly contacts her equivalent Minister in the devolved Administrations, be that in Scotland, Wales or, in my case, Northern Ireland, so I know that there is continuity between those Administrations. I say very gently to my two friends, the hon. Member for Glasgow East and the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk, that I very much think that within this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, we are always better together; we can work together and exchange ideas, and we can all benefit from that. I say that gently to my friends in the SNP, because I know that they really do agree with me that we are better together.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
I am managing not to laugh; I will do my best.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) for securing today’s debate, which has been thoughtful and consensual. It is a worthy topic and I start by expressing my own gratitude to social workers for their outstanding work during these difficult times. They have continued to work tirelessly to support children, families, individuals and communities across a range of specialisms and services throughout the covid-19 pandemic.
I am grateful for the comprehensive and measured manner in which the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood outlined and opened the debate. It is a timely reminder to us all that, sadly, lives can be at risk when things go wrong, so it is vital that things do not go wrong and that social workers play a major role in helping to sort out people’s lives.
There are around 11,000 social workers registered with the Scottish Social Services Council. They are part of a social services workforce of over 209,000 people and are aligned to, but a different profession from, social care professions. Most work in local authority settings, across adults, children’s and justice social work. Registered social workers are also employed by the independent sector and may be self-employed independent social workers. They were all classed as key workers and admirably carried out their roles within the additional pressures of the pandemic climate. However, 77.7% of social workers interviewed by the British Association of Social Workers strongly agreed that working under lockdown had increased concerns around being able to safeguard children and adults. Concerns for the safety of women and children experiencing domestic abuse heightened over the pandemic. In some cases, lockdown and social distancing exacerbated already high-risk situations. It is deeply concerning that referrals to domestic abuse services increased during that period.
The Scottish Government are working tirelessly to ensure that frontline services continue to support adults and children experiencing gender-based violence, with £12 million allocated to tackle violence against women and girls. At the beginning of the pandemic, the Scottish Government allocated an additional £5.75 million to various organisations, including Women’s Aid and Rape Crisis Scotland, to support those providing frontline services to people experiencing the violence of domestic abuse, and to ensure that services could meet increased demand. Services, including national helplines, remained open during the pandemic, so that anyone who needed help could access them.
The Scottish Government have also committed to review the funding and commissioning of special services, with an additional twin focus on domestic and sexual abuse services. They recently launched the Delivering Equally Safe fund, inviting applications from public bodies and third-sector organisations. The fund provides up to £13 million a year from October last year to combat violence against women and girls.
Following the Scottish Government’s commitment in the 2020-21 programme for government, they published revised national guidance for child protection on 2 September. The guidance, which incorporates learning from child protection cases, supports improved cross-agency working and outcomes for children at risk. Local implementation of the guidance has been supported by a national group that is chaired by the deputy chief social work adviser. Chief officer groups oversee local public protection arrangements and the assessment and response to risk, vulnerability and protection across the 32 local partnerships.
The Coronavirus (Scotland) Act 2020 provisions were also developed to improve capacity and flexibility of local child protection processes and prioritisation of children at greatest risk. A local authority and Police Scotland data return, collected since April 2020, continues to be key to understanding how the pandemic is impacting on Scotland’s vulnerable children and young people.
While the Scottish Government have worked to protect social workers and those they serve, the UK Government’s requirements for mandatory vaccination of those working in care homes has forced valuable workers from the sector. The British Association of Social Workers issued a statement at the time warning of the dangers of the UK Government’s approach and expressing opposition. In my opinion, the UK Government should have followed the Scottish Government’s “educate and inform” approach to vaccination of care and social workers.
Social work relies very strongly on a human rights regime, which the Scottish Government have championed through working to enshrine the UN convention on the rights of the child and the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities in Scots law. The UK Government’s shameless attempt to prevent the enshrining of the UN convention on the rights of the child does nothing to protect the rights of children, and their plans to overhaul or overturn the Human Rights Act are a direct threat to social work, as has been highlighted in the British Association of Social Workers’ briefing. The UK Government should commit to supporting human rights and end their attacks on the Human Rights Act.
There can be no doubt that poverty is a driver of the need for social work interventions. As I have repeatedly called on the UK Government to make the £20 increase to universal credit and working tax credit permanent, it was disappointing that that was not done. The September cut to the £20 uplift has meant that millions of claimants suffered a £1,000-a-year cut, with only tapering to soften the blow. That cut is estimated to have pushed 60,000 people in Scotland into poverty, including 20,000 children.
Cat Smith
I am very much enjoying the hon. Gentleman’s contribution. I am glad he has raised the issue of poverty; that is one of the things I did not include in my contribution, but not because it is not important. Does he agree that it is important to understand the link between poverty and families needing support through social work, and that eradicating poverty would go a long way in easing many of the issues that we wish to address through social work?
Martyn Day
I agree entirely with the hon. Member. I am bringing my remarks to an end, and she has helped amplify my point, for which I am very grateful. On poverty, the British Association of Social Workers has commented in its briefing that
“it cannot be ignored that poverty will have wider repercussions, such as on social work.”
I will leave that thought as my final remark. I hope it helps focus the Minister’s response.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) for bringing the debate before the House, and for the work she does with the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) on the all-party parliamentary group for social work. The debate has been less well attended than some, but it has been high in quality. As parents, none of us really knows what our offspring think of us or what they will say in future, but it was good to hear my hon. Friend talk about her father, Alan Smith—the work he has done in social work, and what she heard from her friend—and for her to bring that experience here today and have it drive her work. I am sure he must be very proud, and we are grateful that she is doing it. Perhaps Parliament sometimes seems aloof to workers in the social work sector, but we all have our own personal stories and we bring them to this place to inform the debate.
Since becoming an MP, I have realised that my inbox is a fairly good indicator of what is happening in my constituency. In Bristol South, the high impact of violence against women in the home has driven my casework in the six years for which I have been a Member of Parliament, but children’s mental health and family crisis have become an increasingly substantial part of my inbox. Often, those cases have children at their core—those are the most heartbreaking, and are very difficult for our staff to deal with. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, we are not the frontline of those cases; often by the time parents, family members or friends have come to us, things have gone very wrong, and what we see in our inboxes is the tip of that iceberg. Social workers are at the forefront of the response, and what we have heard today and from the representative bodies in their briefing is really alarming.
I will focus my comments on two key issues: the workforce and more complex work. Every debate I have been involved in since taking on my role as shadow Front Bench spokesperson for health and social care has been dominated by one issue, which is the lack of people available to do the jobs we so desperately need. I say gently to the Minister that next week the Health and Social Care Bill will be back in this place after some excellent debates in the Lords, particularly on workforce, following the work done by the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt). It would be good if the Government could come back with some support for a workforce plan that is credible, is funded, and will give hope to all the people who are keeping our society functioning at that level. We know there are some battles to be had with the Treasury, but everyone in this room is right behind the Secretary of State and his Ministers in that battle.
As we have heard, vacancy rates are up to 9.5%, which starts to mirror the workforce crisis across many areas in the health and care sector. Some 5,000 children and family social workers have left a social worker post in England, which is a massive increase over five years. The vacancy rate is at a five-year high with about 6,500 vacancies and that is part of the wider trend, with the pandemic exacerbating the issue. It is important to note that the situation was not caused by the pandemic, but has been exacerbated by it. The wider trend, from high-pressured jobs to the undermining of support services such as Sure Start, has left social workers to pick up the pieces.
As we have heard, burnout is a worrying problem. A survey by the Social Workers’ Benevolent Trust found that throughout the pandemic 75% of social workers were emotionally and mentally exhausted. That is true across much of the workforce, but we are now asking these people to pick up the pieces and go forward. Some good news from the Government on that would be welcome.
We know that the pandemic has increased the complexity of cases that social workers are dealing with, because of what is happening in the rest of society. Again, the situation has been exacerbated by the pandemic. I pay tribute to social workers in my constituency of Bristol South and across Bristol for the work they have done throughout the pandemic. In a survey of the sector, 67% of respondents who worked in children’s services agreed or strongly agreed that they had seen an increase in referrals or their caseload since the return to schools and colleges in autumn 2020. Members of Parliament know from discussions with headteachers in our constituencies that where children, young people and families are presenting in schools, the vacancy rates and the lack of ability to pick up those cases are causing massive problems throughout the sector.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood talked about care homes and the experience of disabled adults throughout the pandemic, which is shocking. The Care Quality Commission’s report about death rates in care homes should alarm us all. I know the Minister is very open to meeting with representatives of the sector and I am sure she will look favourably on my hon. Friend’s request for a meeting. It would be valuable to bring that issue directly to the Government and, I hope, get a more positive response.
The hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner made an excellent point about foster care support, and I know he has a lot of experience in the sector. Where families become most vulnerable, we need that support for the people who are coming forward. People lead different lives from those they led even 10 or 20 years ago, and Bristol City Council has led a lot of good work in encouraging people to come forward for foster care. People should know there is support available for them from the social work sector and that will help those children who we want to see succeed and thrive.
I shall keep my comments short because we want to hear from the Minister. We want to know that the sector has the Government’s support as they take us out of this pandemic, and that hopefully people can start to thrive. It would be helpful if the Minister could outline how the Government will work with local authorities to address the rising vacancy rates in the social work sector. The hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner made some interesting comments about the different ways in which local authorities often lead innovation and how they are prepared to learn and recognise that sometimes innovation does not work out. That is part of the learning cycle, which we need to support and encourage. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that.
Has the Minister assessed the impact of the rising cost of living on social workers? This afternoon, we have the spring statement and it would be good if there were some positive news for people who are living on medium wages and experiencing the cost of living crisis, as well as for the families they support, who are feeling the impact of inflation and fuel costs. That is particularly the case for people who are in their homes and people with disabilities, who are feeling the pinch from the increasing fuel and heating costs. They could do with some good news, too.
I gently take the Minister back to the decision to cut universal credit, which pushed more families into poverty. We have started to have a discussion on that serious issue, which affects all countries of the United Kingdom, causing unnecessary hardship for families who are already dealing with complex social issues and escalating the cost of living crisis. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood said, we could lessen the load if people were not being plunged into greater poverty.
It would be good to hear from the Minister about rewarding the social workers on the front line, who, as we have heard, are a key part of the infrastructure. Thankfully, most people do not encounter them, but for those who do, they are absolutely key to the sort of country that we want to be, and we thank them for their work.
The Minister for Care and Mental Health (Gillian Keegan)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I thank the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) for securing the debate so close to World Social Work Day, and for using her excellent speech to highlight the excellent and varied work that social workers do day in, day out. I had the pleasure of attending the world social worker of the year award ceremony, which was held here in Parliament on World Social Work Day. I know that many Members from both sides of the House enjoyed going along, meeting their local nominees and celebrating the fantastic work of social workers, as well as congratulating the winners of the awards.
Social work is a highly valued vocational profession and we thank all social workers for their important work to support those who are hardest hit, especially during the pandemic when we really relied on their support. Social workers provide a critical model of practice for the health and social care sector. They undertake relationship-based engagement with individuals, their families and communities, and combine emotional support with practical help at a time of great need. Their strengths-based personalised approach in understanding what matters enables them to shape people’s care and support so that they can have the best possible lives. I pay tribute to them all, including the hon. Lady’s father, who obviously contributed to changing many lives during his career.
Importantly, social workers work across agencies and connect people to the resources and the services that they need. They span the boundaries of our health and care workforce, ensuring that people’s human rights are protected and that the individual’s choice and control of their care and support is respected at all times. The pandemic has taught us that co-operation and collaboration across the health and care sectors are absolutely critical, and social workers are central to embedding that way of working. They co-ordinate health and care planning and make vital links to ensure that people with care and support needs do not slip through the gaps in provision.
We have never needed the expertise and insights of social workers more than we do now. As we emerge from the pandemic—into fresh anxieties and tragedies born from the war of Ukraine, the cost of living crisis and other things that we will have to deal with—we will turn to the social work profession for advice, guidance, leadership and support. Covid-19 had a significant impact on health and social care services, including social work, and the response of our workforce was one of dedication and commitment to the people whom they support. Those were unprecedented and challenging circumstances and we stand by the entire workforce and thank them for their vital work to make a difference to people’s lives.
Our focus has always been on ensuring that the adult social care sector has the resources that it needs to respond to covid-19. Throughout the pandemic, we have made available more than £2.9 billion in specific covid support funding for adult social care, including £1.81 billion for infection prevention and control, £523 million for testing, and £583 million for workforce capacity—recruitment and retention—as we know that there are shortages across the sector.
The infection control and testing fund and the workforce recruitment and retention fund supported the care sector to prevent the transmission of covid and to support local authorities in working with providers to boost staffing and support existing care workers until 31 March of this year. Some of that funding helped to enable local authorities to provide continuous support to those in need of social care, including by delivering social work appointments virtually, as well as in person where it was appropriate and safe to do so.
Social workers went above and beyond during the pandemic and they deserve huge thanks for their tireless work. That is why continuing to help social workers manage their mental health and wellbeing remains a priority for the Government. We are determined that everyone working in social care should feel they have someone to talk to or somewhere to turn when they find things difficult. As many hon. Members have said, they deal with the most complex and difficult cases. We are committed to supporting social workers to recover from their extraordinary role in helping our country through the pandemic. We will deliver a listening service to help relieve immediate pressures, as well as talking therapies and coaching sessions for those with more intensive needs.
The chief social worker for adults, Lyn Romeo, has implemented a range of measures during the pandemic, including partnering with Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust to issue guidance to support the wellbeing of adult social workers and social care professionals. She meets regularly with the principal social workers in each local authority and NHS trust, advising and supporting them on practice and workforce support for their staff during the pandemic.
We have invested in increasing the number of social workers completing their approved mental health professional qualification for local authorities to increase their capacity in responding to the needs of people with mental ill health. An additional 228 social workers will be supported to complete their training. Social workers have been supported to improve their knowledge and skills in working with people with learning disabilities and autism.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) mentioned the vital work that social workers do to support people with learning disabilities. The chief social worker for adults commissioned the British Association of Social Workers to develop a capability statement for social workers working with adults with a learning disability in 2019. That supports best practice in this important area, especially considering the impact of the pandemic on those with learning disabilities and/or autism.
As well as our focus on wellbeing, we know the importance of building and strengthening our social care workforce. A number of hon. Members mentioned that it is vital to strengthen the social care workforce so that we can meet demand now and in the future. It is encouraging to note that the number of child and family social workers in the workforce is increasing every year, up from 28,500 in 2017 to 32,500 in 2021. That is 2% more than in 2020 and 14% more than in 2017.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) rightly focused on recruitment and strengthening the workforce. The Government invest over £130 million a year on recruiting, training and developing social workers to ensure the social care workforce has the values, capacity, skills and knowledge to perform its roles. This includes investments in bursaries for undergraduate and postgraduate social work degrees. A new and very popular addition, which I am very proud of, because I worked on it in my last role, is degree apprenticeships.
We have education support grants to support practice placements in organisations delivering social work services. That is vital to build that experience that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Strangford and the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden). We also have a range of postgraduate fast-track training programmes for those wanting to work in children and family social work or mental health social work. Our attention is not just on training our social workers of the future; we also invest a significant amount in leadership and development programmes for qualified social workers. That includes leadership programmes for social workers and the assessed and supported year in employment for newly qualified social workers. That provides high-quality support for every newly qualified social worker by sharing best practice and quality-assuring provision.
We have announced record investment in developing the social care workforce. In our recent White Paper, “People at the Heart of Care”, we set out our workforce development strategy and plans for the investment of £500 million over the next three years. I am sure we will be discussing that many times as we develop those plans. The investment will help us to realise our vision for a workforce of people experiencing rewarding careers with opportunities to develop and progress in the future. That includes a focus on how we can develop new training routes for people who want to become social workers.
We will also work with the adult social care sector, including providers and the workforce, to co-develop a universal knowledge and skills framework and careers structure. As well as supporting the development of our care workforce, we will help those wanting to progress into regulated professions such as social work. I am also delighted that the number of people taking part in the new social worker degree apprenticeship programme continues to increase, with 660 starts in 2019-20 alone. That is only the second year for which it has been available, so that is phenomenal growth.
Looking forward, we have commissioned Health Education England to work with partners to develop a robust long-term strategic framework for workforce planning. For the first time ever, the framework will include regulated professions working in social care, such as nurses, social workers and occupational therapists. That work will look at the key drivers of workforce supply and demand as well as careers, as has been mentioned, and will inform the direction of the health and care system over the next 15 years.
The framework will help identify the main strategic choices facing us, develop a shared and explicit set of planning assumptions and identify the actions required at all levels of using all our system levers. That will ensure that we can plan for a workforce that is skilled, confident and equipped with the right support to deliver the highest quality health and social care in the future. It will also form the basis of our next phase of work to develop a long-term workforce strategy, led by NHS England and NHS Improvement in partnership with Health Education England and the Department of Health and Social Care.
David Simmonds
I very much welcome what the Minister is sharing with us today. Does she agree that it would be worth considering how to develop the finance function of health and social care? The recent Competition and Markets Authority report highlighted that a lot of the provision the private sector has brought into the care market, both in children’s homes and adult social care, is, frankly, quite an astonishing rip-off for the taxpayer. Profit margins of 30% and more are not unusual and these are complex structures that are extracting resources that could be spent on care. Does she agree that there is an opportunity both strategically and in developing the skills of social workers and others involved in those decisions locally to bring more focus to the issue so that we can ensure we procure the best possible care with an eye to value for money for the taxpayer?
Gillian Keegan
My hon. Friend raises an important point that we will address as part of the White Paper, “People at the Heart of Care”. It is important that we equip local authorities with the skills and tools they need to commission well in the market and to get the balance right between paying a fair cost for care while making sure that they get value for money for taxpayers.
Cat Smith
I welcome quite a lot of what the Minister is saying, and I hope that I am not straying beyond her brief. The complex issue with social work, of course, is that it crosses many Government Departments. While she is talking about the recruitment and retention of social workers, I would like to invite her to put on record her thoughts about why, particularly in child protection, a social worker tends to burn out a lot faster. People tend to go into child protection and then progress to different parts of social work. Would she share her thoughts on why child protection in particular seems to lead to such quick burnout for social workers?
Gillian Keegan
The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. Anyone who has met social workers doing that vital job, particularly in child protection, has nothing but admiration for the job they do. It is an incredibly difficult job with incredibly difficult choices that are highly complex and have a massive impact on families and individuals. It is a highly stressful job, but we need to do more to support people in the workplace so that they can deal with their mental health, talk to people and share their experiences. There is no doubt that it is an incredibly difficult job and one that is done very well, but every day they face enormous challenges and big decisions.
Finally, last November we announced a review of leadership in health and social care, led by Sir Gordon Messenger. The review will report in early 2022 and is considering how to foster and replicate the best examples of leadership. Strong leadership in health and social care will help to ensure the best outcomes for our key priorities, including, most importantly, improved care for patients and service users. The review aims to ensure that the necessary leadership behaviours, strategies and qualities are developed to maximise these efforts. We all know that leadership is vital in these key professions.
The hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood mentioned the work of the British Association of Social Workers and the “Homes not Hospitals” campaign to help more people to get the support that they need in their community, so that they can leave hospital. I completely agree with the desire to get more people out of hospital and getting the right care in the community. Indeed, we have an action plan, “Building the right support”, which we will be publishing in the not-too-distant future. I will be delighted to meet with representatives of the British Association of Social Workers to discuss this further.
Once again, I thank all hon. Members who have provided valuable contributions and insights today. It is important for the sector that we have this debate. We know, in our role as Members of Parliament, the work that we can do to highlight the fabulous work that people are doing. That does not always get highlighted, so this is a fantastic opportunity to highlight the complexity of the social work role and the variety of the role—the many different areas in which social workers provide vital support and the link to ensure that people get the right services from a load of different public services and get the wraparound care necessary for them.
The measures that I have set out today show that the Government are fully committed to supporting and developing the social work workforce—it is vital, and recognised as vital—as well as the wider health and social care sector. I thank everybody for their contributions and I look forward to continuing to work to celebrate this fantastic profession.
Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)
I call Cat Smith to wind up the debate.
Cat Smith
Thank you, Mr Robertson. I had actually forgotten that I would get to wind up, but I will take the opportunity to thank all hon. Members for taking part in this important debate. I know that it will be reported on in various publications and read by social workers across the four nations of the United Kingdom, and I think that the contributions by the Members present will be appreciated. It is fair to say that social workers often feel invisible or unrecognised and that the only time they get the spotlight is when, sadly, things have gone horribly and tragically wrong. However, this has been an opportunity, so close to World Social Work Day, to highlight the good work that social workers do.
I thank the Minister for agreeing to meet with the “Homes not Hospitals” team at BASW. If she would not mind, I would be delighted if I could join her at that meeting.
Cat Smith
There has been such a lot of agreement and consensus in this debate, and it has been an absolute pleasure to hear so many positive things said about social workers right across the United Kingdom.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the impact of the covid-19 outbreak on social work.
Treharris: Restoration of Post Office Services
(2 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)
I will call Gerald Jones to move the motion and then call the Minister to respond. In accordance with the convention for 30-minutes debates, I am afraid there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up at the end.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the restoration of Post Office services in Treharris.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson, and I am pleased to have secured this important debate on behalf of residents in Treharris. Figures from Citizens Advice show that almost half of all adults visit a post office at least once a month. Sadly, that has not been the case for my constituents in Treharris, as three years ago this month the post office closed. The community of over 8,000 people has had no access to the post office services that were established in the village for decades.
I have previously raised this issue with the former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), who assured me that taxpayers’ money had been made available to Post Office Ltd. Despite that, Post Office Ltd has made no effort to restore a post office branch in Treharris, even though I understand that several parties have expressed interest in operating a service. Shamefully, the Post Office has left Treharris and many other communities across the UK in limbo, as it allows what was supposed to be a temporary branch closure to drag on indefinitely. Quite frankly, that is inexcusable.
I have been working closely with local councillors Gareth Richards, Ernie Galsworthy and Ian Thomas, and my Senedd colleague Dawn Bowden MS, all of whom have received representations from residents and businesses about the closure. Indeed, a petition launched less than six weeks ago has already secured almost 700 signatures from people who want a post office restored in Treharris, and it is not hard to understand why.
Until just a few years ago, Treharris was home to three major banks, all of which have now closed. The post office was a lifeline for residents and businesses. Treharris is still home to many businesses that have had to make alternative arrangements now, often at great inconvenience and cost. Glib suggestions by Post Office Ltd about using branches in Trelewis or Nelson fail to take account of issues such as low car ownership—around 30% of my constituents do not own a car—or the hour-long walk up steep hills to access the nearest post office. Public transport is sporadic, with a service once an hour at best. Long difficult walks and uncertain bus journeys—it appears Post Office Ltd has little understanding of the geography and topography of our area.
One local resident told me recently that they rely heavily on the post office service and budget their weekly bills using the cash they withdraw when they receive their pension. Over the past three years, they have had to make a weekly trip to Trelewis or Nelson to withdraw their pension, which involves taking half a day for a return bus journey and the added cost that entails. That is an unnecessary cost and an inconvenience that has a detrimental impact on many of my constituents.
In the three years since Treharris post office closed, there has been no attempt to provide mobile provision, and despite my office asking about that, no response has yet been given. Post Office Ltd’s own statement of principle says that it
“will provide an update to locally elected representatives if the status of the temporarily closed branch has not changed after 12 months.”
That did not happen.
Treharris is not alone in this situation; there is something very wrong with Britain’s post office network. Citizens Advice, the statutory consumer advocate for postal consumers, says in “Post: The state of the sector in 2022” that
“by September 2021, 1,291 post offices across Great Britain were temporarily closed, nearly twice as many as 5 years ago. And many ‘temporary’ closures last a significant period of time - more than 8 in 10 are shut for over a year. In reality many of these post offices are permanently closed.”
The report goes on to say that one rural post office in three in Great Britain is now provided as a part-time outreach service. Those post offices are open for an average of five and a half hours a week, although many are open for an hour—just one hour—a week.
I have some specific questions for the Minister. How can the Government allow so many post offices to be, essentially, permanently closed without the courtesy of consultation, discussion or debate with the communities they serve? How can it be that the Government provide money to Post Office Ltd to reopen branches, yet so many communities are left without a service?
As we have seen from the scandalous way in which Post Office Ltd treated its own sub-postmasters, its modus operandi is to keep quiet and hope that the problem goes away. I can assure you, Mr Robertson, and, more importantly, Post Office Ltd that the community of Treharris will not just sit silent. Treharris is a vibrant and viable community that is rapidly expanding owing to its proximity to Cardiff. There is, I believe, more than sufficient demand to sustain post office branches in Treharris, Trelewis and Nelson. The fact that Treharris does not have an operational post office when there is such strong local support is shocking.
On behalf of my constituents, I ask that the Government do all in their power to ensure that the service is restored to Treharris post office as quickly as possible. I hope that the Minister will provide much needed answers to give the residents of Treharris the assurances that they seek and very much deserve.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) on securing today’s important debate. I thank him for his commitment to the post office network, in particular his commitment to his constituents in Treharris and to getting postal services for them, especially given the social value that post offices provide to so many people.
Post offices play a crucial role in communities and for small businesses around the United Kingdom, and they comprise the largest retail network in the country, with more than 11,500 branches. Over the past 10 years, the Government have provided more than £2.5 billion to support the post office network. Crucially, that has included an annual subsidy to ensure the viability of rural and community branches. Since 2019, that has been maintained at £50 million a year, and I can confirm that it will remain at the same level until 2025. That shows that we in the Government are committing significant funding to the future of the network.
The country has faced unprecedented challenges in responding to the covid-19 pandemic, and post offices were essential services and postal workers key workers. That enabled the continuation of essential services provided by post offices, which would not have been possible if it was not for the hard work of postmasters and postal staff, who worked tirelessly to ensure that those services could continue. That enabled people to keep in touch with loved ones, which provided a lifeline to our communities and to the most vulnerable. That goes to the heart of what the hon. Gentleman was talking about: why people in Treharris value services that are as close to them as possible.
I would like to take a moment to thank postmasters and post office staff for their tireless efforts, the immense contribution made to communities across the UK, and their continual hard work and support. I am extremely thankful to all postmasters, who are pillars of their communities.
In a network as large as this, there will be variations in the number of branches open at one time. That is usually outside the Post Office’s control and is subject to external changes, such as postmasters retiring or branches closing and new ones opening. The network fluctuates and changes over time. That churn in the network is part of the modern and dynamic business that is the Post Office, but the Government-set access criteria ensure that services remain within reach for all citizens, which helps to protect the network: 99% of the UK population are within 3 miles of a post office outlet, and 90% within 1 mile.
To allow itself time to identify alternative ways to provide services, the Post Office requires operators to provide six months’ notice of a branch closure. Those plans apply to all partners, whether a multiple retailer or an individual postmaster. Where notice is given, the Post Office works with communities to ensure that the service is maintained.
As we have heard, Treharris post office has been closed for nearly three years, and I recognise that that is extremely frustrating for the hon. Member, and indeed for his constituents. He has been campaigning extremely hard to reopen Treharris post office, whether it be on the existing site or a business taking over that site. I thank him for his commitment to ensuring that the impact on his constituents is fully understood by the Government, the Post Office and the House. It reminds us how important post offices are to our communities, not only acting as a hub with social value but connecting to the country, from Swansea to Stockport, indeed to Strangford and Stirling, as we have seen from our absent hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who would normally be here contributing to the debate. Post offices are valued across all four nations of this great country.
Changes to the network are extremely concerning to members of the community who daily rely on postal and other services. I understand that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney recently met with the Post Office to discuss the future of Treharris post office. As he is aware, the Treharris post office will remain closed. He mentioned the Trelewis branch, just under a mile away. That was subject to a commercial transfer, which resulted in an extension of opening hours from 7 am to 9 pm, seven days a week. Two branches in such close proximity could reduce the viability of both businesses, based on current levels of post office footfall in the area.
Like many businesses, Post Office is operating in a challenging economic climate, and having two businesses open may not be sustainable. Post Office Ltd carried out a comprehensive review of the network, to ensure it is meeting the evolving needs of customers. It assessed the current services in Treharris and concluded that customer demands have been met, but I appreciate what the hon. Member said about the pressures on the local community due to the bus service. I hope the Post Office will listen to that, as well as the debates in this place, and reflect that in any further considerations of the area’s coverage.
Gerald Jones
I thank the Minister for giving way and for his speech. I support his comments about post office workers, who have been essential to the national effort during the pandemic. I want to re-emphasise the topography for communities such as Treharris. A mile away does not sound a lot but, with steep hills and a poor bus service that is sporadic at best, those challenges are too great to overcome for communities and residents alike in the valleys.
Paul Scully
I have no doubt. This is where it is right to bring to bear the hon. Member’s local championing and expertise. It is easy for us to look at a bit of paper or at Google Maps, but that does not emphasise the topography he describes. I very much take that on board. I hope that the Post Office will equally take that on board, as it listens and reads Hansard, and will reflect on that when considering wider views on the Post Office network in the hon. Member’s area. Because the Post Office operates as an independent commercial business, the company has the commercial freedom to deliver the branch network within the parameters we have set, but I want to reassure the hon. Member that his concern has been taken seriously. I will continue to monitor network numbers in his area.
He referred to recent Citizens Advice research that highlighted the number of branches classed as temporarily closed. I agree that the overall number of branches classed as temporarily closed needs to be reviewed. Post Office has started that review and is engaging with Citizens Advice on the process to reclassify the majority of branches classed as temporarily closed to permanently closed. I will engage with Post Office to find out its plans regarding this specific branch, as part of that exercise.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney talked about outreach, as he has done on other occasions, not being a substitute for a bricks-and-mortar shop. Clearly, we would all prefer bricks-and-mortar shops in our communities. That is the ideal for any post office services. In absence of that branch, it does provide a full range of services and remains an important means of maintaining access. Post Office does try to keep set times for outreach services for each week, so local communities can rely on them timewise. They know the patterns, so they are not hoping and waiting for a service to come, but I freely admit that we would all rather have that bricks-and-mortar post office, both for the convenience and for the social value I have talked about.
The retail sector has undergone a significant period of change, which has been accelerated by covid-19 and has raised many challenges that we are working hard to address. The Post Office continues to explore new business opportunities to ensure a thriving national network for the benefit of communities, businesses and postmasters up and down the country. Post offices play a key role in supporting high streets across the UK and helping keep town centres vibrant, as well as levelling up communities throughout the country. On 15 July, we published the “Build Back Better High Streets” strategy, which set out the Government’s long-term plan to support the evolution of high streets into thriving places to work, visit and live.
As demonstrated during the pandemic, the Government have sought to protect people’s jobs and livelihoods while supporting businesses and public services across the UK. Post offices, like many other businesses on the high street, are eligible for Government support. We will continue to provide 66% business rate relief until the end of the month and a temporary 50% relief in 2022 and 2023 to eligible businesses; reduce the burden of business rates for all businesses by freezing the multiplier for 2022-23; introduce a new relief to support investments in property improvements; and introduce measures to support green investments and the decarbonisation of non-domestic buildings.
However, the trend towards online shopping has been accelerated by covid-19, resulting in more and more of us shopping online. Post offices, whether in Treharris and Trelewis or further afield, will clearly need to keep up to meet those consumer demands. A new agreement has recently been signed with Amazon and DPD, and more than 3,100 branches now offer click and collect services, allowing consumers to receive their goods quickly and conveniently.
To conclude, I thank the hon. Member for his contribution; for bringing this debate before the House; and for making sure that the voice of Treharris has been heard, not only by this House, by me as the Minister or by Government, but by the Post Office, which—as I said—will be monitoring this debate.
Gerald Jones
Just to reiterate, the community has not had a consultation on the temporary closure. I seek reassurance from the Minister that any changes from a temporary closure to anything more permanent would be subject to a full community consultation, because the community deserves nothing less than to have its voice heard in a consultation process.
Paul Scully
I will certainly reflect that in the conversations I have with post offices, not just in Treharris, but all around the country. It is important that the Post Office operates as an independent commercial business, but none the less it has a responsibility to provide social value as well as economic value to reflect the communities it serves. In doing so, it needs to listen to those voices and consider all aspects of this issue, because the most vulnerable in our communities—the hon. Gentleman talked about the topography of getting from Treharris to Trelewis—are often those who need access to cash and services because they do not necessarily have good online access, or the any online access at all. We need to work through a reasonable listening exercise to make sure any decisions are taken in full knowledge of the facts and the views of the people the Post Office network serves.
We in this place all share a common cause: ensuring that a vital national asset continues to serve our constituencies for many years to come. I reiterate that I too am absolutely committed to safeguarding the post office network, and will continue to work closely with the Post Office to deliver that sustainable network and deal with the challenges faced in a post-covid world.
Question put and agreed to.
A5 in the Midlands: Improvements
(2 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of increasing capacity and other improvements to the A5 in the midlands.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie, on an important day here in Westminster, and to be able to highlight a vital issue for residents and businesses in my constituency and in the broader west midlands region. By way of introduction, the A5 is one of the UK’s oldest roads and a strategic route operated by National Highways. It connects London to north Wales and runs through large parts of central England, and I wish to focus on that part of the road.
For many years, various groups have been involved in campaigning about the state of the road, including colleagues from neighbouring constituencies, many of whom are present today; leaders of our local councils; businesses, both large and small, throughout the west midlands; and Midlands Connect, which researches, develops and progresses transport projects to provide the best social, economic and environmental benefits to the midlands. We also have an overarching group called the A5 Transport Partnership.
In recent years, all those groups have been lobbying central Government for funding to improve the strategic 53-mile corridor of the A5 running from the M1 at junction 18 in Warwickshire—close to and then bordering my constituency—all the way through to the M5 at junction 12 in Staffordshire. That strategic corridor through the west midlands not only connects the M1 and the M6, but intersects the M42 and the M69.
Those motorways in the centre of England are four of the country’s busiest motorways, and the A5 corridor is home to almost 3 million people, supporting 1.3 million jobs and serving several large cities and towns, such as Tamworth, Nuneaton, Cannock and Hinckley, as well as my constituency of Rugby. It also supports major employment sites including Magna Park and the MIRA enterprise zone.
Given its strategic importance at the centre of England, this section of the A5 sits at the heart of what is known as the logistics golden triangle, around the districts of Rugby, Daventry, Harborough, Hinckley and Bosworth. With that golden triangle, the corridor creates £22 billion in gross value added annually, which is approximately 10% of the total GVA of the area covered by Midlands Connect, the organisation entrusted by central Government to help identify research on the most important transport investments.
I intend to show that, with the improvements we all believe to be necessary, this corridor of the A5 has the potential to provide an alternative route to our existing congested motorways, while simultaneously supporting housing and employment growth.
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the importance of the A5 to residents and businesses in Staffordshire and across the midlands. Having campaigned with my neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Gavin Williamson), and with the Government against the building of the West Midlands Interchange, which is at the A5 roundabout near Gailey in Staffordshire, does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that we protect our environment and our green belt, as well as tackle congestion on the A5 and other Staffordshire roads?
Mark Pawsey
My hon. Friend is right. The environmental benefits are important, but I want to focus on the one that we would achieve by having less congestion, with car engines running for less time, and on the efficiencies and economies that can be provided to our local area as a consequence of a more efficient and effective A5.
Let me turn to the growth that is forecast for the area around the A5. Local councils within the corridor anticipate that, over the next 15 to 20 years, their local plans will bring forward 103,00 new homes, 16,000 new jobs and a further 524 hectares of employment land, which need a road. By investing in the A5 and improving its performance and resilience, we believe that the central Government have the opportunity to unlock the growth aspirations and priorities of the region.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend and neighbouring MP on securing this important debate on the A5. He makes some salient points about the level of economic growth along the A5 by comparison with other parts of the country. Does he agree, however, that without sufficient investment, such as the long-awaited dualling of the A5, we risk missing out on a huge amount of economic growth?
Mark Pawsey
My hon. Friend anticipates my point. He is exactly right: we need to have an efficient road that enables growth to take place. One of the challenges of the A5 is that it is dualled in parts, but single carriageway in others. There currently appears to be no consistent approach to an upgrade, and we need that upgrade in order to achieve our local councils’ ambitious objectives for the area.
As part of the wider strategic road network, the A5 currently carries 23,000 vehicles a day on its busiest section, so it is a pretty hefty road. Sadly, however, and despite its increasing importance and usage, the A5 in the midlands has not seen a proportionate increase in funding to provide resilience and capacity. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) points out, if that is provided, it will enable the A5 to spearhead and safeguard sustained growth in the region.
The fear is that, if neglected, the A5 will act as a barrier to growth rather than an instrument of it. With investment, we believe the A5 can become a significant corridor for growth by enabling greater east-west connectivity, providing access to the M6 toll road, and supporting north-south movements through its strategic interchanges with other regionally important motorways, as I have already mentioned.
In its November 2018 A5 strategy document, the A5 Transport Partnership outlined three key strategic interventions that it argued would be required to unlock the potential of the area served by the A5, and they are relevant today. The first priority is to make improvements between the M42 and M69—a combination of online and offline dualling to deliver the first phase of the A5 expressway, providing expansion of the MIRA site, which sits between Nuneaton and Hinckley, and works associated with the construction of HS2 at junction 10 of the M42. That is the first priority.
The second priority is the part between the M69 to M1 and M42 to M6. Again, it would be a combination of online and offline dualling, but this time to deliver the second and third phases of the A5 expressway. A third objective is to make better use of the M6 toll road. Those of us who have used the M6 toll road will know that it is not to capacity. If we can improve the size, we can get more traffic off the M6 and on to the toll road. In addition to those key priorities, improvements are needed to enhance the A5’s connectivity to the wider strategic road network. I know there are proposals for a new junction 20A on the M1, to bring relief to junction 20 at Leicester, which is the junction between the M1 and M69. That will provide additional growth opportunities.
Ministers are aware of the need for investment, given that one of the third road investment strategy pipeline projects is the upgrade between junction 1 on the M69 and junction 10 on the M42, and I hope that the debate will further press the case to bring that scheme forward. By securing this much-needed upgrade of the A5, we can help deliver growth around the corridor route, support network resilience, ensure greater sustainability and safety, and manage the impact of freight on the road.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire made some remarks about the economics, which I want to focus on. The 53-mile section between the M1 and the M6 plays a significant role in supporting the sub-regional economies of Warwickshire, Leicestershire, Coventry, Staffordshire and west Northamptonshire, and the economic performance of the A5 is strong when looked at in the light of the broader west midlands economy. As I mentioned, a number of important economic centres along that corridor will be subject to further expansion in coming years.
The MIRA enterprise zone is expanding; Magna Park in Leicestershire, in my hon. Friend’s constituency, is expanding; DIRFT 3 in Northamptonshire, which sits on the border of my constituency, is currently the subject of substantial construction; and Kingswood Lakeside Employment Park in Staffordshire—which I believe is close to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Theo Clarke)’s constituency—is coming forward. In my constituency, we have a substantial residential development at Houlton and the Rugby Gateway mixed-use development. I hope I am building a case for why it is imperative that the A5 is upgraded, to ensure that its present constraints do not curtail this planned growth or act as a barrier to continuing inward investment.
It is worth pointing out that unemployment levels along this corridor of the A5 are currently lower than the UK average, and with the expansion of the economic hubs I have just referred to and the further employment opportunities that will bring, that situation will only improve. As well as supporting local economies, the road has a wider role in providing connectivity to other economic centres, such as the Oxford-Milton Keynes-Cambridge growth corridor. When we combine the housing growth with the economic growth and the increased employment opportunities, it is clear that the A5 will come under significant further pressure over the coming years.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a fantastic case for why the A5 is so important. Does he agree that one of the principal problems with the A5 are the boundaries of the districts, councils and administrations that it borders? That makes things hard, because people always see the A5 as a periphery. We have heard talk about the west midlands, the east midlands, Leicestershire and Northamptonshire, and that is part of the problem. It is so important that my hon. Friend has secured this debate to make sure the Government realise we can release this stricture across the centre of the UK between Wales, England and London, and that doing so would make a huge difference economically, but also to the daily lives of the people we represent.
Mark Pawsey
My hon. Friend is right. The road sits as the boundary—it is the boundary of my constituency, the boundary of Warwickshire, and a regional boundary—but the local authorities have come together pretty effectively to press this case. It would have been very easy for each authority to have tried to do its own thing, but as it is, a range of bodies, including those in the private sector, have come together to argue the case for improvement. The Government have been clear that they recognise investment in infrastructure is needed to improve productivity and economic growth. When it comes to the A5, I hope the Minister will be able to say positive words that will lead to action.
I will also say a word or two about the importance of the logistics sector. As I have mentioned, Rugby is part of the golden triangle, and my constituency has certainly benefited from its geographical location at the centre of England. It contains several large logistics businesses, which has driven economic growth in Rugby, provided many employment opportunities, and helped my constituency become one of the fastest-growing towns in the country. Rugby is home to such household names in the logistics industry as DHL and Hermes, and just over two years ago, Amazon took the decision to invest in Rugby by building one of its fulfilment centres on the outskirts of the town, near the A5 and its junction with the M6.
As well as the numerous employment sites in my constituency that benefit from the A5, there are numerous other large and strategic employment sites in B8 use, logistics and distribution along the route. I have already mentioned DIRFT, Magna Park and Kingswood Lake, but I will now also mention Sketchley Meadows in Hinckley and Birch Coppice in Tamworth. Previously, I have outlined the importance of the MIRA Technology Park, an enterprise zone that is of course vital to the resurgence of the automotive industry in the midlands; indeed, that manufacturing sector is synonymous with the west midlands.
All the sites that I have referred to are of strategic importance, with many in line for expansion as our region continues to attract investors who are either keen to locate in the west midlands or keen to develop their businesses in the west midlands further. I regularly hear from developers keen to invest along the corridor.
However, a real worry is that growth in investment will be inhibited unless we now take the decision to invest in our strategic transport network. We are fortunate in our location at the centre of England to have generally excellent access to the motorway network, but without further investment to build network capacity and resilience, there is a real danger that we will miss the opportunity to rev up the midlands engine in the way that we would all like.
Alberto Costa
My hon. Friend makes some excellent points about the importance of this trunk road, which provides an alternative route to already congested motorways, for example. Does he agree that the A5 must also have improved capacity to ensure that overflow traffic is taken out of the many rural villages around it?
Mark Pawsey
My hon. Friend no doubt has constituents who will have experience of that overflow traffic in exactly the same way that I do. I will talk a little later on about how the A5 acts as a relief valve for the M6, but if people cannot move along the A5 in the way that they need to, the danger is that they will seek alternative routes that take them off the trunk road network.
I have already mentioned that the local councils are coming together, demonstrating their desire to grow and develop their employment and housing offer. By investing in this road, central Government can help those councils to meet their growth needs by facilitating a safe, reliable, efficient and resilient A5.
With that bit of resilience in mind, I will talk about the importance of keeping the traffic moving, to which my hon. Friend just referred. We know that there are often many planned and unplanned incidents on the M6, and that when the M6 comes to a halt many vehicles turn to the A5. Indeed, over the last 36 hours, there have been a dozen or so different lane closures on the M6 due to either maintenance work or incidents on the road.
In those circumstances, when traffic migrates from the M6, the A5 struggles to cope in certain situations and creaks under the weight of the additional traffic. That is often compounded by operational issues on the A5 itself, which in turn creates significant problems on local roads, as my hon. Friend has just referred to, with traffic dispersing because drivers seek alternative local routes.
One of the reasons for the lack of resilience, and it is the core of our call to the Minister today, is the variation in the standard of the road along the corridor. It is, in parts, recently constructed dual carriageway, with a great road surface that enables the road to work well. However, in other parts it is a windy A road, a single carriageway with double yellow lines, where the traffic really slows down. It is that variability that is at the heart of the challenge facing the road’s users. That situation is aggravated, as the Minister may know, because the road is constrained by old canal and railway bridges. That creates congestion and slows down journey speeds, impacting businesses and commuters, and even impeding emergency vehicles. Along with my colleagues here today, I am arguing that what we really need is the complete dualling of the road between the M1 junction 18 and the M6. That is our long-term objective.
On safety, one of the key objectives of National Highways is to reduce casualties on our roads. Sadly, the pressures on the A5, along with the development I mentioned, mean that the road has become a barrier to road users safely accessing economic hubs and other parts of the road network. I spoke about how that has impacted on congestion when incidents occur on other strategic roads but the safety of the road itself is impacted. Many of the junctions—be they roundabouts or road turnings—were not designed to cope with the levels of traffic that they are experiencing. We know that as congestion increases, so does the risk of collision. It can be caused by driver frustration or the limited safety provisions on the single carriageway sections of the road.
Along the corridor, that is, the 53 miles between the M1 and the M6, about a quarter of collisions occur during evening peak hours. Significantly, data demonstrates that the nature of the road, which is of a mixed standard, moving from dual to single carriageway sections with a large number of roundabouts, contributes to the number of collisions. Indeed, across all sections of the road, approximately 40% of the accidents that lead to personal injuries occur at roundabouts, compared with a national average of 10%. That is based on data provided by the police.
The historically fragmented nature of the A5, both through its construction and its inconsistency, can be seen as the heart of the issues with the road. Further or full dualling of the A5 will improve the overall capacity and resilience of the road while improving its safety and performance.
Alberto Costa
My hon. Friend is being generous in giving way. Given what he has said, does he agree that we need safety improvements on the A5 for the road to cope with greater capacity? In my constituency, for instance, High Cross and Smockington Hollow junctions are notorious accident blackspots, so I am grateful that he has mentioned the safety issues on the A5.
Mark Pawsey
I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. We do want to make the road safer as it is a horrible road for drivers to negotiate.
I also want to talk about sustainability. As part of the wider picture, improving the highways infrastructure should involving cycling and pedestrian routes and the use of public transport. In my constituency, both Rugby Borough Council and Warwickshire County Council are committed to investing in and further developing sustainable transport infrastructure with a view to reducing the congestion on our roads, encouraging healthy living and improving air quality. Those ambitions are shared by both central Government and local councils.
Public transport along the A5 by bus remains extremely limited. I have spoken about the new housing and commercial developments on the road and they are not accessible by public transport. I cycle, and I certainly would not want to ride my bike along the A5. At no point along the part of the road that I am particularly concerned about are there any cycleways, creating further issues around access. All in all, that drives people to use their cars to access sites along the A5, adding to levels of traffic and congestion on the road. By looking at sustainability, we can move traffic from the road. We really ought to consider sustainability when the new developments take place.
To conclude, I hope the debate has reinforced the message that I and my colleagues have been sending to Ministers over many years. Without an upgrade of the A5 in the midlands, economic growth will be restricted in our area. I hope that I have been able to show that in many ways the corridor has become a victim of the growth near it, with piecemeal improvements and developments made along it. It has not been considered in its entirety, which is what we would like to see. It should be treated as the strategic road that it is. Historically, any improvements have been fragmented in delivery and we now need an upgrade that looks at the A5 in its entirety—at the whole picture—and acts to unlock the potential throughout the corridor.
Our role as midlands MPs is to make certain that the funding to upgrade the A5 provides us with a consistent standard of dual carriageway between the M1 and M6. I hope that I have shown that the road experiences significant peak-hour congestion and will support major growth over the next decades, based on plans that have already been adopted and are emerging from the local councils along the corridor route. Without that action, growth in the midlands will be inhibited and lost.
The Minister will be aware that the midlands engine is revving up and is more than ready to play its part, but it needs the transport infrastructure to match that ambition and drive. I hope that in response to the debate the Minister will be able to reassure residents and businesses that the Government understand and recognise the necessity of an upgrade of the 53-mile corridor from the M1 junction 18 in Warwickshire to the M5 at junction 12 in Staffordshire, and that they are listening and will be ready to act.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Mr Hosie, and even more of a pleasure to be involved in the debate. I wholeheartedly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) for securing it. I admit that when I came down to Parliament, I never thought one of the things I would become most passionate about would be a road. The colleagues I have worked with, two of whom cannot be here—my hon. Friends the Members for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey) and for Nuneaton (Mr Jones)—have inspired me through the work they have done to drive forward why the road is so important.
Unfortunately for some of those listening to the debate, over the next few minutes I shall repeat some of the points that have been made. They are crucial to understanding why the road matters, why we care and why it is needed locally and by the UK. We know the road runs from Wales to London and I, too, want to focus on the A5 corridor, the middle, because that is the most important part. It is the heart of the logistics site; it is the connection from east to west, from the east midlands to the west midlands. Unfortunately, it is acting as a straitjacket to our economic growth and prosperity.
If we get the road right, we will have housing, businesses, growth, levelling up and, above all, happiness. It is one of the few roads that prompt people to come to us and say, “Please sort it out. This would make my life better.” It would improve not only their job prospects but their business prospects, commute and daily living. That is why the road is so important, and why I want to speak about the section between Cannock Chase and Rugby, which intersects across Hinckley and Bosworth. If we get it right, there is a real chance to make a difference.
Why does it matter? As we have heard, the A5 corridor affects 1 million people and supports almost 500,000 jobs, 10% of the jobs in the midlands. We know that there are 25,000 vehicles on its busiest sections, and that one third of those vehicles using the A5 are classified as HGVs. As we have heard, local authorities are planning for more than 100,000 new houses and 190,000 new jobs to be created by 2033. We need the infrastructure to be able to deliver that. That leads us on to its economic importance. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby rightly pointed out, it has a GVA of £22 billion. That is 10% of the Midlands Connect area, a substantial amount, but I would like to add some further facts. On the corridor, 38% of the jobs are in the economic sector that relies on the strategic network and 185,000 jobs, equivalent to 11% of the jobs in the region, rely on the strategic network. That is a huge amount for joining up the midlands.
The problem is resilience and reliability. A critical incident, as defined by National Highways, happens every eight weeks. When an incident happens, there is on average a five-hour delay to resolve it. In my constituency, 15% of those incidents happen when our bridge is hit. The Watling Street bridge was unfortunately the most bashed bridge in Britain last year. We have relinquished that title—we are now sixth—but an incident was happening every two weeks. When that happens, there is on average a six-hour delay to clear it, which means misery and suffering for those around the incident and for those in the villages around our area. Congestion goes up and people look for rat runs to beat their sat-nav throughout the constituency. That is a real problem, because the roads are not designed to deal with HGVs and the extra traffic that comes from such a delay.
When it comes to the functioning of the road itself, it does not even do that very well. The corridor is slow and unreliable. The average speed for the corridor is 40 mph, but in some sections, at the peak, it gets down to 10 mph. Midlands Connect has said
“there is up to a 20 mph difference between the fastest and slowest journey time, making it challenging for users to plan for their journeys…this does not meet Midlands Connect’s reliability conditional output that journey times should not be more than 20% higher than the average journey time for all days.”
That is why it matters, but why do we care about it? We care because we feel that this road is forgotten. Many of my colleagues—both former representatives of Hinckley and Bosworth and those who cannot be here today—have raised this issue in the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton has raised the issue of capacity at the Dodwells and Longshoot junctions, as well as the issue of safety at Longshoot and Woodford Lane. My hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire has campaigned tirelessly about congestion and how, if we get this road sorted, we can increase housing. The A5 Partnership, Midlands Connect, the businesses, the county council, the borough council—from all parties—have come together and said why this road is important. It sometimes feels like we are not heard.
The feeling was compounded in August 2021 when the long-awaited Dodwells island to Longshoot dual carriageway, promised in 2014, was scrapped. To the people of Hinckley and Bosworth and the surrounding areas, that felt like a body blow. However, we pledged to fight on. There is light at the end of the tunnel. We were lucky enough to secure £20 million for RIS2, and we are now looking at RIS3. The light at the end of the tunnel was the assessment that it would not be an efficient use of taxpayer’s money. That says to me that if there were to be an improvement, it would be right not to spend the money on that section if we get the 53 miles of dualling that we all require.
I come back again to the most bashed bridge in Britain, because it creates misery. For years it has been raised up. Signage and alternative routes have been talked about and we are finally getting closer to an answer, which is lowering the road to get it sorted. I am grateful to all the agencies working to put that in place. However, if that fails and the A5 does not go through, our community will feel stranded and forgotten about again. It matters to people—getting to work, getting their kids to school, improving journey times and their ability to get to their businesses, recruit more people and sell more goods. It joins one side of the country to the other. That is why it matters. It matters even more because the people around it have suffered the effects of the road not working. The wider communities have suffered when people cut through the likes of Twycross. We have had many an injury and death on some of the roads around my constituency, caused by people having to navigate a different road and not understanding where they are going. It leads to speeding, deterioration in the road and concern that our countryside cannot cope.
What do we need? Locally, we need the dualling and the upgrade as soon as possible. I am hopeful that with RIS3 ministerial point one will lead to a ministerial decision, allowing us to go ahead and make improvements to the road. It is a Roman road, although it does not lead to Rome; it leads to London and Westminster. Westminster needs to hear that the million people living around the A5 are saying that we need this improvement. We need the straitjacket to be removed, or the corset to be loosened, so that we can level up our ability to produce housing, prosperity, jobs and happiness. Minister, release the corset and let us be happy!
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. Before the debate started, you reminded us of the famous folk song about the A5. I have the answer—it was Christy Moore, with “Go, Move, Shift”:
“Born in the middle of the afternoon
In a horsedrawn carriage on the old A-5
The big twelve wheeler shook my bed
You can’t stay here the policeman said…
Go, move, shift”.
I win the brownie points on that quiz of yours, Mr Hosie.
Mike Kane
I will, Mr Hosie.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) on securing the debate about an issue on which he has campaigned for some time. It is of huge importance to his constituency, and to that of the hon. Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans)—what an impassioned plea he made! The hon. Gentleman was like some latter-day Henry Tudor on Bosworth field: ending the Plantagenet dynasty, slaying Richard III—the last King to go into battle—and making a plea for investment in his constituency. His was an eloquently framed speech.
There is a vast amount of consensus on the need for more action to be taken, and I hope the Minister will consider all points raised today. As has been pointed out, the A5 is a strategic route that generates about £22 billion each year. It brings huge benefits to the UK economy and not least to the regional economies in the midlands. It is a vital road corridor that connects businesses with ports, airports and motorways, and it supports major employment sites such as Magna Park and the MIRA enterprise zone.
I am acutely aware of the ongoing capacity issues on the A5 in the region. Although the pandemic has altered commuting patterns, congestion on the A5 in the midlands still averages approximately 25 seconds per vehicle per mile, I am told. On some sections congestion is even more severe, reaching over a minute and a half per vehicle per mile at some points.
As hon. Members have said, the cost of congestion is plain to see. It causes undue stress and, as the hon. Member for Bosworth said, a lack of happiness—although I have never heard about that in the context of a road—because of the extended journey times for motorists. It also contributes to increased carbon emissions and poor air quality for local residents, which I see all too often in my constituency around the M56.
Furthermore, research shows that traffic in the UK costs the economy billions of pounds every year. National Highways and the Department for Transport have highlighted the severe congestion issues on the A5 and identified the need to improve traffic flow. However, that is not being backed up by real action; hon. Members representing their constituencies in the midlands will be disappointed by the lack of progress on increasing capacity on the A5.
RIS2, running from 2020 to 2025, had committed to widening the A5 into a dual carriageway from Dodwells island to Longshoot, but, in a hammer blow to the local area, those plans were scrapped last year by National Highways and the Department. National Highways has said that the improvements will be considered in the context of wider proposals in RIS3 to improve capacity on the A5 from Hinckley to Tamworth.
In the meantime, congestion on the A5 remains at significant levels. Motorists will rightly question why they must wait until 2025 for funding to improve the traffic flow even to be considered. That is just one of a number of potential improvements to the A5. For example, the hon. Member for Bosworth told us that his constituency has Britain’s most bashed bridge—the alliteration trips off the tongue whenever he says it, and he raises it time and again.
Many Members will be eagerly anticipating the publication of RIS3 and hope for a coherent strategy to tackle congestion on the A5. However, given the broken promises so far, commitments may have to be taken with a pinch of salt. Wider investment is needed in our road network, not just to tackle today’s congestion, but to future-proof our major corridors. National Highways has projected that traffic on its roads will increase by 20% between now and 2050, but there is a complete lack of planning to prepare the strategic road network for the capacity that is needed.
We have to face this challenge together as the nations of the United Kingdom. I have not checked with the House of Commons Library, but I believe there are now about 40 million licensed vehicles on our roads. The figure has almost doubled in 30 years. At some stage, we have to make a decision. Yes, we have to help car drivers, but we must address how Government can begin to tackle that growth. We cannot continue with such vehicle numbers on our ever-shrinking highway network. It is important to lay that out.
Labour supports investment in our roads. Under this Government, the state of our roads has rapidly deteriorated. The issues discussed today are examples of wider endemic problems. From our country lanes to motorways, our road network has suffered more than a decade of under-investment. We need only look at what happened to highways maintenance funding last year: the Government slashed it, on average, by 22% across England. In the west midlands, the cut was even steeper. For instance, Government funding to pay for pothole repairs fell by a staggering 27% in the region, the second biggest cut in England.
We are now seeing the long-term nature of the cuts to road funding. Many local councils have been told that they can expect the cuts to their road maintenance grants to be embedded for the remainder of this Parliament. Last year, the annual local authority road maintenance survey found that it would take 11 years to clear the maintenance backlog, if local authorities had the funding and resources to do the work.
Labour has committed to rebuilding the infrastructure our communities depend on, as part of our contract with the British people. That starts by fixing the mess on our roads. We will invest in our strategic road network and our local roads alike to build a transport network that is fit for purpose, both now and in the future.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Trudy Harrison)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) is a passionate advocate for his constituency. I congratulate him on securing this important debate, on working with local leaders and colleagues in the House and on articulating so clearly the need to increase capacity and to make other improvements on the A5 in the midlands.
I do not think there has ever before been such a comprehensive discussion of the need to improve roads. We have discussed the issue economically, environmentally, socially and culturally—even a song has been written about this road. I am sure we all appreciated the rendition from the shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane). My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby set out why improvements to the A5 are so important to his constituents and to the wider area. It is good that Members are working together.
As we know, the A5 is an ancient road of 252 miles, yet just 15% of it is dualled. We heard the rationale for improving that percentage. Significant housing development proposed in north Warwickshire, Hinckley, Tamworth, Bosworth and Nuneaton and Bedworth, including sites in the immediate vicinity of the A5, add to the reasons why the road needs to be improved. The average daily traffic figure on the A5—21,338—-is considerable.
The A5 is part of a strategic east-west corridor running from London to Holyhead in Anglesey. As we have heard this afternoon, it links towns across the midlands, including Milton Keynes, Rugby, Lutterworth, Hinckley, Nuneaton and Tamworth. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) spoke to me at length yesterday about the need to improve the road, and he specifically mentioned the areas that most concern him: the Dodwells island connecting to the A47, the Longshoot junction and the Woodford Lane junction. He talked to me about the closures on the M6 and their impact on the A5. As we have heard today, rat runs are created in local communities when there are problems on the A5.
The A5 is a core artery bisecting the golden triangle of logistics distribution centres, supermarkets and high street stores in the midlands. Spanning from Northamptonshire, up the M1 to East Midlands airport and as far west as the Tamworth area, the golden triangle is bustling with big logistics names. As well as being in proximity to the huge distribution centres of supermarkets and high street stores—with Daventry in the south, Leicester in the north-east and Birmingham in the west—the corridor remains a key artery for communities in the midlands and for jobs in major employment sites such as Magna Park and the MIRA enterprise zone, which I had the pleasure of visiting thanks to the invitation from my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans). I saw for myself the innovation happening there. As we decarbonise the transport system and think about the future of self-driving vehicles, automation and connected vehicles, the site will become even more essential to the transition. As he articulated so well, the work being done by the midlands engine is critical to the economic, social and environmental prospects of this country.
The Government recognise the role that the A5 plays. It is a key piece of infrastructure that supports and provides resilience to nearby locations, which is why we are spending £24 billion on our motorways and trunk A roads in England in the five years between 2020 and 2025, as part of the second road investment strategy. RIS2 builds on the £17.6 billon in the first RIS, covering 2015 to 2020—a then record. Of that £24 billion, £12 billion is being spent on the operation, maintenance and renewal of existing networks, including beginning multi-road period programmes of structural renewals and concrete road surface replacement.
More than £10 billion is being spent on improving the performance of the network, supporting the Government’s levelling-up agenda and underpinning national and regional growth. The core principle of our strategy is to create a road network that is safe, accessible and reliable for all users, and that meets the needs of those living alongside the network. Although investment has an important role in achieving that, the road investment strategy also includes challenging performance targets that must be met. I recognise the frustration of my hon. Friends, the business community and residents that the A5 Dodwells to Longshoot widening scheme commitment in RIS1 was not started in road period 1 and was instead incorporated into proposals in RIS2 for a more extensive improvement to the corridor.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth raised the challenge of Britain’s most bashed bridge. National Highways is in discussions with the developer about the possibility of lowering the carriageway in the vicinity of the low bridge. The discussions are ongoing, and I know he needs no encouragement from me to do what he does best, along with colleagues in the A5 area: to continue engaging with National Highways on this important matter.
In championing the need for improvements, the work of the A5 partnership has been exemplary, and I reassure hon. Members that this work will continue to be fully considered by officials within the Department and National Highways as part of the canon of evidence for developing our third road investment strategy, RIS3, which will cover 2025 to 2030. It includes informing decision making on the proposed A5 Hinckley to Tamworth scheme—one of 33 schemes in the pipeline that are currently being developed for possible delivery in RIS3. The likely cost of the scheme is substantial, in excess of £1 billion in all likelihood. As my hon. Friend will appreciate, with such large sums involved, investment decisions need to be taken in the round to ensure we maximise value for taxpayers.
My hon. Friends have set out the importance of this road improvement for the economic viability and social happiness of the area. Individual pipeline schemes will be considered alongside future operations, maintenance and renewal priorities and how we respond to environmental pressures and opportunities, planning for a future of connected autonomous vehicles as well as small-scale improvements. In practice, those decisions will not be made until the final road investment strategy is set in 2024.
Mark Pawsey
One of our key asks is that this 53-mile section of road is looked at as a whole, rather than in individual pieces. There is a marvellous precedent in the midlands with the work being done on the A46—plans are coming forward for the final roundabout in my constituency—which will provide a continuous road from the M5 in the south-west at Evesham all the way through to the M69 and then the M1 at Leicester, providing a south-west to north-east link. That road has been looked at as a whole and will be a complete, uninterrupted road. Can we have the same for the A5?
Trudy Harrison
I am sure my colleague in the other place, Baroness Vere the roads Minister, will be listening to this debate. I reiterate how effectively my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby is championing this cause, and he is being taken seriously. Also, this is not all we are doing for the A5. As I am sure hon. Members are aware, National Highways has committed to delivering another scheme for the A5. The Dordon to Atherstone scheme is set to deliver improvements that will unlock the potential for 4,000 homes. National Highways will deliver that scheme, and the design of the improvements can be tied into the wider options being considered for the route. National Highways will also be completing safety improvements to the A5 Northampton Road this month.
I appreciate hon. Members’ concerns about the current operation of the A5 and its impacts on proposed growth in the region. My hon. Friends and I agree that efficient, reliable transport is a catalyst for enterprise and enables growth. Better connectivity means greater economic opportunity and all the benefits it delivers for communities.
I know that my hon. Friend for Rugby and other hon. Friends who advocate for improvements on the A5 are passionate about investment in the midlands for their constituents, and I recognise it is in everyone’s interest to mitigate the barriers to growth. That is why the Department is working closely with National Highways to fully understand congestion issues along the length of the A5 and how its key congestion pinch points can potentially be mitigated, including the A43-A5 Tove roundabout, the A5-A426 Gibbet Hill roundabout and junction 1 of the M69. I assure hon. Members that National Highways will continue to work closely with the local highway authorities and stakeholders to understand and deliver improvements where they are needed, so that the region’s potential can be truly realised.
As we look to the future of the network, National Highways has just finished the formal evidence-gathering phase of the third round of route strategies, which will inform its assessment of the current performance of the network and its needs. Those strategies provide an important input, alongside strategic studies and other evidence-gathering mechanisms, in informing decisions about further investment on the strategic road network beyond 2025. The route strategies review performance, pressures and opportunities on every part of the network, and provide a significant opportunity to consider the needs of the A5 corridor and, in particular, reinforce the case for improving the Hinckley to Tamworth section. The input of Midlands Connect and the A5 Partnership was an important contribution to that process and, as we have heard, the input from my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and his colleagues was an important contribution to the series of roundtable meetings that the roads Minister, Baroness Vere, hosted in the autumn.
I thank my hon. Friend once again for the work he does with Midlands Connect and the A5 Partnership to ensure the overwhelming support for improvements is well represented within Government. I welcome the integrated approach with local community leaders, sub-national transport bodies and transport authorities to demonstrate a united front on the need for investment, which is essential for building the case for improvements along this stretch of the strategic road network. The formal window for feedback through the route strategies feedback tool came to a close at the end of December 2021. It is vital for National Highways to understand and prioritise the issues that matter most for users of the road network. I encourage my hon. Friend to continue making the case for investment in the strategic roads that matter most, and the important engagement that is already under way with National Highways across all these issues is making a tremendous difference.
I conclude by thanking my hon. Friends the Members for Rugby and for Bosworth for this debate. In preparation, I learned much about the 252 miles of the A5 and I hope they are satisfied with my response to their concerns. We recognise the vital importance of the A5 in supporting all aspects of the regional and national economy, and the concerns and views that have been expressed will be dealt with as matters of the utmost importance when considering how to improve the A5 now and in the future.
Mark Pawsey
I am grateful to the Minister for her remarks. She has appreciated the passion in the midlands for improvements to this road. It is a piecemeal road; we have great bits that have recently been improved, and other bits that are single carriageway and have not had any work done on them for 50 years. I hope we have persuaded the Minister of the strategic importance of improvements, and their impact on growth in an area that is very sympathetic to attracting businesses, new housing and other such developments. We very much hope that the Minister and her team will take this forward, and that we get the shiny new road our constituents deserve.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of increasing capacity and other improvements to the A5 in the Midlands.
Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King’s Lynn
(2 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)
I will call James Wild to move the motion and then call the Minister to respond. The Member in charge will not have the opportunity to wind up, as is the convention in 30-minute debates.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered quality of care and the estate at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King’s Lynn.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I am grateful to Mr Speaker for granting this important debate, which gives me the opportunity to highlight the significant improvements at Queen Elizabeth Hospital, while once again making the compelling case for it to be one of the new hospital schemes that the Government have committed to building. I also want to recognise the close interest that my hon. Friend the Minister has taken in QEH and to thank him for the many meetings and discussions we have had about it so far. Of course, I also encourage him to back the bid.
QEH serves 330,000 people across Norfolk, Lincolnshire and Cambridgeshire, providing a comprehensive range of specialist, acute and community-based services. It is a busy hospital, with 55,000 in-patient admissions, a quarter of a million out-patient appointments and 70,000 emergency department admissions last year. However, QEH has suffered from poor Care Quality Commission ratings and an historic lack of investment, and has therefore been in special measures for some time. However, under the leadership of Caroline Shaw, the chief executive, and the chairman, Steve Barnett—who is moving on shortly, having done a lot of good work—things have changed.
In the last three years, there have been significant improvements in care. However, you do not have to take my word for it, Mr Hosie; that was the verdict of the CQC’s report a month ago. The core services it inspected—medicine, urgent and emergency care, and critical care—were all rated good overall. Indeed, critical care was recognised as having outstanding elements in many areas. That means that QEH is now rated good in three domains: caring, well led and effective. The CQC found that
“Staff provided good care and treatment…treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of…individual needs…and made it easy for people to give feedback.”
The report shows how far QEH has come. As a result, the Care Quality Commission’s chief inspector of hospitals has recommended that QEH come out of special measures, which is very welcome for the area.
It is frankly remarkable that all this has been achieved during a period when covid posed such huge challenges to QEH and other hospitals, and to other parts of the health and social care sector. This has not happened by luck; it is due to the leadership, hard work and commitment of all the staff at QEH. I have seen that dedication at first hand when I have met doctors, nurses, the infection control teams, the porters and all the others who make up the hospital during my regular visits. I commend them for all that they have achieved in the report. As the CQC said, staff were
“passionate about…providing the best possible care for patients”,
and leaders understood
“the priorities and issues the trust faced”
and were
“visible and approachable…for patients and staff.”
Clearly further improvements are required, as the hospital recognises, but it is important that we acknowledge the huge step forward that has been taken, as reflected in the report.
Those improvements have been made despite the decaying and ageing buildings that staff and patients have to experience and operate in. As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, QEH is one of the best-buy hospitals and has major issues with reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete planks—which I think we should refer to as RAAC planks for the rest of the debate—which are structurally deficient. The hospital was built with a 30-year design life, but it is now in its 42nd year. Some 79% of hospital estate buildings have RAAC planks, and I am sorry to say that it is the most propped hospital in the country, with 470 steel and timber supports across 56 parts of the hospital.
Being in a ward or another part of the hospital, surrounded by props holding up the roof, is a poor experience for patients. It makes it harder for staff to care for them. It is not something that we should accept, and we do not. This is a serious situation, and the trust’s risk register has a red rating for direct risk to life and the safety of patients, visitors and staff, due to the potentially catastrophic risk of failure of the roof structure. Last year, the critical care unit had to close for some weeks due to precisely those safety issues. The urgent need for a new hospital, and the strength of that case, is underlined by the fact that over a third of all reported RAAC issues in the east of England were at QEH in the last year.
I know that my hon. Friend recognises the seriousness of the situation, and the £20.6 million of emergency capital funding that he approved last year is very welcome. That is making a difference: a new endoscopy unit is taking shape to modernise facilities, and to create space to enable installation of fail-safe roof supports. In addition, there is £3 million of funding for a west Norfolk eye centre, which along with other projects, including digital, means that QEH is currently delivering a more than £30 million capital programme.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for securing this incredibly important debate. It is a very poor situation to have a hospital in Norfolk in this position, when it clearly needs a rebuild. I thank my hon. Friend for everything he has done; we would not be in this position without his tireless work to raise this matter with the Secretary of State. May I raise one point? We have three hospitals in Norfolk. We want a new hospital at QEH. That will benefit not just his constituents, but those all over Norfolk, particularly in my constituency of North Norfolk, who will also use its fantastic services when it is rebuilt.
James Wild
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support and words. He is absolutely right; I think his constituency has the oldest average age in the country, and that poses particular needs. My constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew), who has joined to support the debate, also have challenges, so we need to ensure that the care is in place. There is also a lot of planned housing growth in the area. The demand is strong across our constituencies, and in Lincolnshire and Cambridgeshire, which is why it is important to show the strength of support for the hospital across Norfolk and beyond.
When compared with the turnover, the level of capital programme is significant, and it is important to acknowledge that the programme is being managed well. QEH has submitted a further bid for £18 million for an orthopaedic centre, as part of the funding to tackle the backlog. Given that it is the area with one of the longest waiting lists for QEH, I strongly endorse that bid, and encourage the Minister to approve it when it comes to his desk. Seeing is believing. When the Secretary of State visits QEH—which he has agreed to and I hope will happen soon—he will see those improvements, but he will also see the props and the very real need for investment. My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) will be able to join him on that occasion or another, as he will be very welcome.
As well as the structural issues, the hospital has outgrown its footprint. The emergency department sees 70,000 patients a year—more than double what it was designed for. The layout of the hospital does not meet modern care pathways, with too few consulting rooms, and wards well below the recommended size.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I wish to add my voice to the support he received from my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker), and to highlight the importance of this hospital as a regional centre of excellence. It does not support only the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), but also those of North Norfolk, Broadland and further afield.
I pose this question: what impact does receiving care in a building where the ceiling is maintained by acrow props have on the patient’s confidence in the care received?
James Wild
My hon. Friend gets to the nub of the issue, which is the impact of this situation on patients. The previous Secretary of State for Health came to the hospital, saw that and spoke to patients in those beds. They made light-hearted remarks, but they were concerned about the safety of the building after seeing props and timber supports. Of course, the trust is doing all that it can to manage that risk, but the risk of catastrophic failure remains, which is why it is rated red on the risk register.
The hospital cannot cope with the current demand. NHS modelling shows a 64% increase in overall floor space is needed to maintain services and meet future demand, with lots of housing planned in the area. In short, QEH needs to be replaced. The case is compelling to take this once-in-a-generation opportunity to have a hospital fit for the future. QEH has submitted proposals to the new hospitals programme for a single-phase new build on the existing site to meet current and future demand. The plans put forward would eliminate RAAC, and transform and modernise local healthcare, integrating primary, community, mental health, acute, social care and the third sector in a health and wellbeing village.
However, this is not about having shiny new buildings for their own sake; it is about delivering better health outcomes in some of the most deprived areas in the country that the Government have recognised as priority 1 areas for levelling up. It is also about an anchor institution—the QEH in west Norfolk—combining with the new school of nursing studies, which will be funded through the Government’s town deal, to help the NHS workforce by boosting local opportunities to develop skills and careers in our healthcare sector. It is also about promoting sustainability by using modern methods of construction and net zero principles, and maximising the use of digital technology.
It is important to recognise that the trust going from inadequate to good in the well-led domain in this inspection is a significant achievement, which provides confidence that this is a trust capable of delivering the new hospital that the patients and staff in west Norfolk need. A lot of hard work and engagement has gone into developing the plans and the scheme is highly deliverable, with a strategic outline case well advanced and on track to go to the June board meeting.
QEH’s bid is backed by 4,000 staff at the hospital. Stuart Dark—the leader of West Norfolk Borough Council—as well as all the councillors and the county council are supportive, as is the Norfolk and Waveney integrated care system, and at least seven right hon. and hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for North Norfolk and for Broadland. The Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff—the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay)—and the Foreign Secretary also back the bid, and it enjoys local support, with more than 15,000 people having signed a petition backing a new hospital. It is essential that we have an acute hospital in this geographic area. The plans that have been put forward would deliver major improvements to care, patient outcomes and staff experiences. An alternative multi-phase approach has also been put forward. It would, of course, be an improvement on the status quo, but it would not deliver the same benefits or value for money as a single-phase build and would not be delivered in the required timeframe.
My constituents in North West Norfolk are frustrated by the delays in the timelines for the new hospital selection process, as am I. That will not come as any surprise to my hon. Friend the Minister; I confess publicly to bugging him and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State repeatedly for decisions on the shortlisting of these hospitals. I press the Minister today: when can we expect to hear a decision on the hospitals that will go through to the next phase of the programme? What implications does the delay have for the final decision on the eight schemes to be selected, and for getting design and construction under way? I encourage him to do all he can to move this process forward as rapidly as possible.
Over the last three years, there have been real changes at QEH and patients are getting better care. The leadership has demonstrated that it can drive sustained improvements, and move to a position where staff feel supported and valued, and where there is a strong focus on improved patient care and outcomes. Now we have an opportunity to build—literally—on that progress, to provide the major investment to modernise the hospital, to improve care further and to support the trust’s strategy to be the best rural district general hospital.
The Government and the Department of Health have already committed to removing deficient RAAC from the estate by 2035. However, experts on RAAC have said that for QEH the end-of-life deadline is 2030 and that the risk will only worsen. There comes a point where it no longer makes sense or represents value for money to keep propping up the roof. I would contend that we are past that point. Indeed, in the report that set out the significant improvements needed to QEH, the CQC said that
“The trust’s most substantial risk was the safety of the roof structure”
and that there is a
“need for long term solutions to the estate problems.”
As well as having serious structural issues, the current hospital cannot meet the current or future demand. The only long-term solution is a new hospital to deal with the RAAC issues, meet demand and serve patients. By selecting QEH as one of the eight new hospital schemes, that inevitable need for replacement will become part of a funded programme, rather than an unplanned demand requiring repeated emergency funding. I urge the Government to include QEH as one of the schemes. The people of North West Norfolk and beyond deserve nothing less.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie, and to respond to this debate, which was secured by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), about the quality of care and the estate at Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King’s Lynn.
As my hon. Friend has already alluded to, this is an important subject for him. It is rare that I pass him in the corridors of this place without him gently but firmly drawing me aside to raise this issue with me. I know that he does so because it matters hugely to his constituents. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) said, it also matters hugely to other people living in the region—the wider Norfolk area—and beyond.
My hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk rightly highlights the close interest that a large number of right hon. and hon. Members take in this subject. Indeed, I am conscious that even some Members in their lordships’ House take a close interest in this issue. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) for his words. He is absolutely right to highlight the dedication of our hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk to this cause. His constituents and, indeed, those represented by all hon. Members here today are lucky to have them, as they continue forcefully and firmly to argue the cause of the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King’s Lynn.
As my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk will be aware, the Government are backing our NHS with a significant capital settlement that will create a step change in the quality and efficiency of care up and down the country, including in Norfolk. We are pleased to confirm that an initial £3.7 billion has been provided over a four-year period—this spending review period—to begin making progress on delivering 48 new hospitals by 2030, with 30 of the hospitals already announced to be built outside London and the south-east. I am pleased that six of the 48 hospitals are already in construction and one has already been completed. Of course, this hospital building programme is in addition to the 70 upgrades, worth £1.7 billion, that are part of the wider programme of capital investment. Those commitments will result in outdated infrastructure being replaced by facilities for staff and patients that are at the cutting edge of modern technology, innovation and sustainability.
My hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk is, as always, passionate in putting the case for his local hospital to be among the next eight to be announced—I will turn to the process and timelines for that shortly. As he highlights, the Queen Elizabeth Hospital King’s Lynn NHS Foundation Trust has been provided in recent times with significant national funding, including £5 million in 2021-22 from our targeted investment fund for the establishment of an eye care unit at the Queen Elizabeth and a modular endoscopy unit, and £2.65 million in 2020-21 for the emergency department expansion works and to address backlog maintenance across its locations. My hon. Friend advocated for both those investments.
Let me turn to a point that I know is a significant concern for my hon. Friend. We remain publicly committed to eradicating reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete from the NHS estate by 2035-36—I note my hon. Friend’s point highlighting that in his view and the view of others, that needs to happen more swiftly—and to protecting patient and staff safety in the interim period. As he said, we awarded the Queen Elizabeth £20.7 million this financial year as part of SR20 £110 million ring-fenced funding to address the most serious and immediate risks posed by reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete. In addition, further funding confirmed in the autumn Budget and spending review will allow for the continuation of this remediation work in the Queen Elizabeth Hospital and, indeed, on the wider NHS estate.
Let me turn to the next eight new hospitals. The proposal for trusts to submit an expression of interest to be one of the next eight was announced last year and, as my hon. Friend knows, his local hospital submitted its expression of interest. We have been reviewing all submissions against our robust assessment process, to identify a longlist of schemes to progress to the next phase. We will communicate with trusts in due course about the next stage of the process, and will announce the selected eight schemes later in the year.
I am conscious that my hon. Friend, his local trust and his constituents will be keen to see that progress as swiftly as possible. There is a challenge there. We want to ensure that the assessment is fair and rigorous. I am also sensitive to the upcoming purdah period for local election campaigns across the country, but I do take my hon. Friend’s point about the need for speed. I suspect that his local trust will wish to know swiftly whether it is successful or unsuccessful and, if it is successful, what it needs to do for the next stage. I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate that I cannot comment, beyond those process points, on the specific bid that his local trust has submitted, save to say that it will receive very, very careful consideration in that process.
Let me turn to, more broadly, the quality of patient care and the points that my hon. Friend made in that respect. The CQC plays an important role, as he knows, in ensuring that NHS providers meet the standards of care expected by patients, families and carers. I recognise that the Queen Elizabeth had long struggled with financial and performance challenges, as previously identified by the CQC. The trust had previously been removed from special measures, now known as the recovery support programme, after being placed in the regime between 2013 and 2015, only for the CQC to subsequently recommend that it should fall back into those measures in 2018 when the regulator identified concerns across several core services.
Recent inspections in December 2021 and January 2022, which my hon. Friend highlighted, found significant improvements in the governance, leadership and culture of the trust. Although its overall rating was “requires improvement”, this represents a significant step forward from its previous rating of “inadequate”. I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the hard work and commitment of the chief executive, Caroline Shaw, the rest of the leadership of the trust and, crucially, all the staff at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King’s Lynn, who have clearly worked incredibly hard through even more challenging circumstances than they would usually encounter in the course of their work, and still made improvements in patient care and in the CQC rating. I pay tribute to all of them for the work they have done.
I welcome the commitment given to the CQC by the leadership to ensure that those improvements are sustainable and continue to be built on. As we would expect, the CQC will monitor the trust’s performance in order that the improvements are embedded and that further improvements in care and services are made for the benefit of patients and their families.
James Wild
I appreciate that my hon. Friend cannot get into the specifics, but can he assure me that the fact that this is the No.1 bid for the east of England will play heavily in the consideration of whether it will be on the shortlist and then chosen as one of the eight schemes?
Edward Argar
As my hon. Friend knows, each region will feed in its views about which of the schemes and bids in its area are the highest priority. Without prejudging that assessment process, I hope I can reassure him that one factor that I know he considers to be of significant importance—RAAC—will be considered. Patient safety and the safety of the buildings will be a factor in the analysis of which bids should go forward to the long list, but I do not want to go further than that at this point, however much he may charmingly seek to tempt me to do so.
Elective recovery is an area of real focus for the Department and for the whole Government, and I am aware that covid-19 has placed an unprecedented strain on routine and planned care, with waiting lists in England reaching a record high, at just over 6 million in January 2022. I understand that 19,366 of those patients are waiting for treatment at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital.
In February, the NHS published the “Delivery plan for tackling the COVID-19 backlog of elective care”, which set out a clear vision for how the NHS will recover and expand elective services over the next three years. That delivery plan commits to eradicate waits of longer than a year for elective care by March 2025. Within that, by July 2022, no one will wait longer than two years, and we will aim to eliminate waits of over 18 months by April 2023 and of over 65 weeks by March 2024.
To support elective recovery specifically, the Department plans to spend more than £8 billion from 2022-23 to 2024-25, in addition to the £2 billion elective recovery fund and £700 million targeted investment fund already made available this year to help drive up and protect elective activity. Taken together, this funding could deliver the equivalent of around 9 million more checks, scans and procedures, and will mean that the NHS in England can aim to deliver around 30% more elective activity by 2024-25 than it was delivering before the pandemic.
In highlighting the extra resources that we are putting into our NHS, it is vital to understand that this is not about the inputs; it is about the outcomes for patients and how those resources are used wisely to deliver improved patient outcomes and improved experiences for patients, with shorter waits. With regard to what is needed to achieve those outcomes, a significant part of that funding will be invested in staff, in terms of both capacity and skills.
I understand that an orthopaedic unit bid for about £18 million has been submitted by my hon. Friend’s local hospital trust. That is in the context of the £5.9 billion elective recovery funding, and the £1.5 billion from that for capacity and social hub improvements. Those bids will be carefully considered. They will need to meet the recommendations arising from the pilots that took place in London and the getting it right first time review, but I certainly look forward to considering the bid from my hon. Friend’s trust in due course.
Duncan Baker
Does the Minister know that the Queen Elizabeth Hospital was named after the Queen Mother? As it is Queen Elizabeth’s platinum jubilee this year, does he agree that it would be a fitting tribute to give the green light to rebuilding a hospital that is named after her mother?
Edward Argar
My hon. Friend is even more dextrous than our hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk in seeking to tempt me into an indiscretion or a prejudgment of the application process and consideration. I hear what he says and he makes his point eloquently, but I will not be drawn while that analysis and assessment of the bids is under way.
Ambulance services, like other emergency care services in the NHS, have come under significant pressure, as hon. Members will know. In February 2022, the service answered over 764,000 calls to 999—an increase of 13% on the number of calls in the same month before the pandemic. High levels of demand on the emergency care system, alongside the need for infection prevention and control measures, has resulted in higher instances of delays in the handover of ambulance patients to A&E in some areas.
I reassure hon. Members that significant support is in place for acute trusts, to help address handover delays. NHS England and Improvement and its regional teams are working with local systems—in this case, with the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk—to improve their patient handover processes, helping ambulances get swiftly back on the road. Ministers are in regular contact with NHSEI on the performance of the emergency care system, including the ambulance service and accident and emergency departments.
In conclusion, I once again pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk and all my hon. Friends who have spoken in this brief but very important debate for the work that they are doing to champion the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King’s Lynn. As I say, his constituents are incredibly lucky to have such a champion of their cause, of healthcare in his constituency, and of investment in his local hospital, and I look forward to continuing working with him to ensure that the quality of healthcare his constituents receive is the best the NHS can provide. I note his very kind offer, which has been reiterated to me, to visit him in sunny Norfolk—as I suspect it will be in the coming months—to see his local hospital. If I am able to do so, I will be delighted to visit.
Question put and agreed to.
Physical Education
(2 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered physical education as a core subject in schools.
As always, I am delighted to have you in the Chair, Mr Hosie, for this important and, I hope, enthralling debate at the end of the day on physical education in our schools. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
To begin, I thank personally all 386 members of the public who so far, in just 48 hours, have taken the time to respond to the survey distributed by the Chamber Engagement team, sharing their experiences and ideas on PE as a core subject. I also thank students of the Bishop of Hereford’s Bluecoat School who, as part of the Pupils 2 Parliament programme run by former children’s director Dr Roger Morgan OBE, contributed their views and proposals. I am extremely grateful to them. That demonstrates the significant and rising interest in this crucial aspect of school, and growing recognition that the status quo is not delivering for children in the context of the modern world in which we live, in particular for those with special educational needs and disabilities or from more deprived backgrounds.
I am also grateful to the Minister, whom I know, from our early morning runs together, is as passionate as I am about the power of PE as a springboard to a lifelong love of sport and physical activity. Indeed, the Government have an ongoing commitment to which I am sure he will refer. The £320 million a year primary PE and sport premium, the 2019 manifesto pledge to invest in primary PE teaching and the new £30 million of funding to help schools open their sports facilities are all demonstrations of the desire to see improvements in participation, performance and prolonged engagement into adulthood with physical activity and sport among children of school age and beyond.
Last year, I chaired the PE taskforce—I thank Sue Wilkinson, the chief executive of the Association for Physical Education, and her team for their support—and it laid bare that this is happening at a time when children’s physical fitness and their mental health and wellbeing are all heading in the wrong direction, unfortunately. A Lords Select Committee report, “A national plan for sport, health and wellbeing”, which was published in December 2021, cited data from the Active Lives annual survey showing that of 2.3 million children in England—I emphasise that I am speaking about England and English schools—almost a third, or 31.3%, are doing less than 30 minutes of activity a day. It also found that girls and children from deprived socioeconomic backgrounds are the most likely to have lower activity levels.
We have also seen a growing trend of obese children in both reception and year 6, leading to one in five secondary school pupils falling into that category. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the situation has gotten worse since the pandemic, with a surge in numbers of children being referred to mental health services, including a rise of 77% in severe cases. At the same time, there is evidence of PE being side-lined by some schools as a “nice to have”, rather than a “must do”, reducing PE time in order to focus on catch-up in other areas, which is understandable but to the detriment of PE.
It is worth remembering that even before covid, the situation was deteriorating. For example, as part of the research review series, Ofsted published its PE paper only last week, revealing reductions in the time allocated to PE of up to 20% since 2013 at key stage 3, and 38% at key stage 4. If we add increasingly sedentary lifestyles, gaming, phone addiction and sleep deprivation, we see that those are all turning children and young people off physical movement, with dire consequences for their own health and that of the nation. If we are serious about taking on the ever-growing pressures on the NHS, instilling a habit of physical activity for life would be a good way to start alleviating that pressure. The Lords Committee also said in its report that schools are the place where:
“Attitudes towards sport and physical activity…track into adulthood.”
The even better news is that we can actually do something about it; that is where physical education comes in. I am not, I hope, naive enough to think that making PE a core subject will, on its own, achieve that laudable objective. As a father of four, I know I have a responsibility to lead by example, and encourage my own children to find ways that they can enjoy keeping fit and active into adult life. Indeed, my 18-year-old son recently announced to me that he wants to join me on my next London marathon—my 17th, I think— this October, so I must be doing something right.
Having had the privilege of being Children’s Minister, rarely have I come across a specific policy, with a modest price tag, that has a very real prospect of changing the trajectory of so many young people towards a healthier and more fulfilling life. The evidence is staring us in the face. It is no coincidence that the very best schools, both state and independent, have for many years understood that the holistic intertwining of PE into their school offer reaps rewards in so many different ways—physically, socially, emotionally and academically, too.
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the need to combat and reduce childhood obesity. I congratulate him on securing this worthwhile debate and fully support what he is saying. There is a greater social benefit to children, particularly those from deprived backgrounds who do not have the life advantages of children from affluent backgrounds, in playing sport, coming together, learning team skills and enjoying being part of a team and the social fabric of sport. That is recognised, quite rightly, in much of the state sector—in good-performing state schools—and in the private sector. What he is proposing will ensure that all children have access to the opportunity to benefit from those wider parts of education, and that will bring their lives along further. I do not know if my hon. Friend would like to reflect on that, but I hope that the Minister has taken note of those comments.
Edward Timpson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the benefits that I saw when I was responsible for school sports as Children’s Minister was from programmes in the inner cities where children do not always have access to other facilities. The children there were gaining so many of the elements, which other children take for granted, that sport, physical activity and—the precursor to that—good physical education can bring to their lives. It is not only about their participation in sport; it is about their life skills, confidence and sense of achievement and purpose, and where that can lead. At the end of my speech I will mention an individual who all Members will know and who falls into that category.
That point segues into one made by the celebrated 19th century educator—and headteacher at one of my former schools—Edward Thring. He was ahead of his time in observing that when it comes to physical education,
“The aim was to produce a wholeness and harmony, within and beyond the classroom, in work and in play, and in body, intellect, and soul.”
As an academically rigorous curriculum is not at odds with having PE at its heart, we can see it as the only subject that educates through the physical domain. The evidence that it helps enhance academic performance—not forgetting concentration and behaviour—has never been greater.
In 2015, the University of Texas at Austin published a paper entitled “Active Education: Growing Evidence on Physical Activity and Academic Performance”. The paper reviewed 39 separate studies and unanimously found that,
“Physical activity can have both immediate and long-term benefits on academic performance. Almost immediately after engaging in physical activity, children are better able to concentrate on classroom tasks, which can enhance learning.”
Let us take an example from England. At Sandal Castle VA Community Primary School in Wakefield physical education is at the heart of their curriculum. It is also seen as a vital and critical priority driver for school improvement. They have two members of staff who have the Association for Physical Education and Sports Leaders UK level 5 certificate in primary school physical education specialism, which is vital in raising standards in primary school physical education teaching and learning. The breadth of curriculum opportunity on offer in the extended school day has ensured that attainment in core subjects continues to be well above the national average. In 2019, 82% of children achieved the national standard in reading, writing and maths, compared with the England average of 65%. Progress measures in English in particular are well above the national average, with reading at +3.5 and writing at +3.1—no coincidence, one might think.
At this stage, it is probably sensible to explain exactly what PE is and how it interrelates with physical activity and sport. The structure of the national curriculum is based on 12 subjects, classified as core and foundation subjects. English, mathematics and science are core subjects across all key stages, with PE being the only foundation subject across all those key stages. The purpose of studying PE as outlined in the national curriculum is as follows:
“A high-quality physical education curriculum inspires all pupils to succeed and excel in competitive sport and other physically-demanding activities. It should provide opportunities for pupils to become physically confident in a way which supports their health and fitness.”
The stated aims of the national curriculum for PE are
“to ensure that all pupils: develop competence to excel in a broad range of physical activities; are physically active for sustained periods of time; engage in competitive sports and activities”
and “lead healthy, active lives.”
PE is essentially the planned progressive learning that takes place in the timetabled school curriculum involving both learning to move and moving to learn, the context for that learning being through physical activity. Sport is the structured learning that takes place beyond the curriculum, often within school settings, out of hours or in the community, but there is clearly a symbiotic relationship between all three, with PE being the foundation from which all other physical activity and sport flows. As Ofsted points out, a child with lower levels of motor competence may be less inclined to participate in physical activity and sport. As such, getting PE right is fundamental.
Writing in the British Medical Journal on 2 March, Michael Craig Watson and Dr John Lloyd from the Institute of Health Promotion and Education observed:
“In addition to the current low levels of physical activity in the UK there are also stark inequalities in levels of physical activity within the population. There are large disparities in physical activity participation rates in relation to age, disability, ethnic group and gender”
and that
“physical activity should not just be for the elite or for example individuals of a certain age, or ability”
—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter)—
“but should be actively promoted to the whole population.”
Schools have an important part to play in developing health literacy. That includes physical education, which is a central part of the curriculum for all pupils of all ages.
In calling for this debate, I am realistic: PE will not miraculously appear as a core subject overnight. Further work is needed to ensure we have the capacity, culture and commitment within the schools system for it to have the desired effect. Some have also legitimately raised issues about curriculum time, assessment challenges, recruitment, and the quality of PE teaching at primary level. The Government are already addressing the latter, and I humbly suggest that when it comes to recruitment, the Department for Education should use Ofsted’s recent review of PE to help improve accountability and inspection of PE and the use of the premium, as well as develop a coherent standards and assessment framework for PE that would satisfy a core status in the future. That could include how PE reduces the burden on the NHS, as suggested by Professor Jo Harris from Loughborough University.
Turning to the question of curriculum time, PE has the flexibility to be incorporated more in the wider curriculum and woven into the school day if the leadership, innovation and desire is there. For instance, at St Gregory CEVC Primary School in Suffolk, the headteacher, Daniel Woodrow, has introduced a whole-school, 10-minute “wake and shake” activity first thing and, later, a 15-minute daily mile—something I know the Minister is keen on, and these days runs pretty decent times on, too—as well as three PE lessons every week.
Crucially, we should not see the curriculum as sacred and be dogmatic about its constitution; in my view, the move towards better vocational representation at school and college—which is the right move—is testament to that. The curriculum has evolved over time, and should continue to do so in order to best reflect the current and foreseeable demands and needs of society. Quite rightly, we place high value on all children having good knowledge and application of maths, English and science, but surely the time has come to recognise the equal value of good knowledge and application of PE as one of the cornerstones of setting up a child with some of the core attributes they will need for life.
Let us build on the excellent practice and leadership already out there. Let us learn from the outstanding schools that have already made PE essential to their delivery of an excellent education. Let us start to build the base of expertise and understanding across our school workforce. Let us set the achievable target of having a great PE teacher in every primary school, and let us make CPD more effective, so that the transition from a foundation to core subject up to key stage 2 can be where we begin. As Nik, who replied to my survey, said, let us assess the quality of the delivery through internal and external engagement and improve the real, “on the ground” evidence from the likes of the United Learning trust, which is piloting PE as a core subject across its whole family of schools. That is what children and the public want, too.
Pupils from the Bishop of Hereford’s Bluecoat School told me that they wanted more time for PE and sports in the curriculum, including different after-school and lunch timings to help find that time. A survey of adults conducted by the Youth Sport Trust found that the majority of the general public wanted more physical activity in schools and would support enhancing physical education to core subject status. Almost two thirds of respondents strongly agreed or tended to agree that PE should be a core subject in the national curriculum, with 80% agreeing that there should be more opportunities for young people of all ages to be physically active at school.
Before I allow others to contribute to the debate, I want to mention swimming and water safety. It is a statutory element of PE that every 11-year-old is required to be able to swim competently, confidently and proficiently over a distance of at least 25 metres. Despite the requirement being in place since 1994, one in three children, around 200,000 every year, leave primary school not being able to do so. I find that astonishing and worrying. It lends further credence to the need to take swimming even more seriously as an essential life skill. I hope the Minister will use the funding already announced to look at improving access to facilities, including pop-up pools, and better scrutinising this aspect of PE, so that we can ensure that all children get what they are entitled to.
I am aware from the Government’s response to the Lords’ report that there are no immediate plans to re-categorise PE as a core subject. However, I do not think it is giving away any state secrets to say that over the last few weeks I have had both enthusiastic and encouraging conversations with other ministerial colleagues in a position to make things happen. There will be people who want to put it off—either because it is not a priority, because it is too difficult to do or because they simply are not interested. As I said earlier, there are very few straightforward policy changes that sit on a Whitehall desk carrying such a clear need, evidential basis, public support and potentially far-reaching impact as this one.
I earlier alluded to Jason Robinson OBE, the former England rugby union World cup winner and British Lion. He said:
“Physical education was a vital part of my life growing up and gave me so much, playing an instrumental role in the success I went on to achieve in my career. PE has a unique power to inspire, but too often it isn’t taken seriously enough. The time for change has come and for PE to become a core subject in every school, rightly put alongside other key subjects to ensure that the next generation of our young people are given better opportunities.”
If the Government were able to accept, at least in principle, the recommendations of the Association for Physical Education’s taskforce, the Lords Select Committee and others focused on PE becoming a core subject, it is no exaggeration to say that we would be taking the lead with an absolute commitment to the development of healthy bodies and minds for all children, whatever their background. If we have the will—or should I say Will—we can make it happen. PE should be at the heart of school life.
Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson) for securing this debate. It is not often I get really excited in this place, but today is one of those days. This is a subject close to my heart.
I have a background in sport and physical activity and health and wellbeing, having lectured in these subjects for over a decade and worked both in primary schools, delivering exercise sessions to young children, including the aforementioned “wake up, shake up” activity, and in a secondary school PE department. Based on that experience, I strongly believe that PE should have a much more central role in the curriculum.
Successive Governments have missed the chance to improve the nation’s health and wellbeing by adopting a holistic and preventive approach, placing an emphasis on educating young people about the importance of physical activity, what it means to have a healthy lifestyle, and ensuring that they adopt healthy, enjoyable exercise habits from an early age. With alarming figures relating to childhood obesity, diabetes and a range of other health conditions, along with serious concerns around children’s mental health, we must take a more preventive and long-term approach to health and wellbeing. The provision of high-quality PE in our schools should be a fundamental part of that.
Do not misunderstand me: the provision of good-quality PE is not the only solution to those problems. As the hon. Member for Eddisbury said, we also have to look at a wide range of other things, such as active travel, active families and active communities, grassroots sports provision, nutrition, and addressing the barriers to being more active—be they real or perceived. However, young people’s access to good-quality and wide-ranging physical education is an important part of addressing some of those serious health issues. That is why I think that PE should be a core subject.
I accept that that cannot happen overnight, and we do, of course, have to consider the implications for the broader curriculum. However, as the Association for Physical Education says, we should give PE a higher priority straightaway, with children spending more time on physical activity, and aim to have a highly trained PE teacher in every primary school within a few years.
As The Times Educational Supplement reported recently, by having high-quality, properly resourced and immovable PE provision in our schools, we encourage children and young people to adopt life-long physical activity habits, which will reduce the prevalence of a range of chronic health conditions and, in turn, take some of the pressure off the NHS which we know is bursting at the seams.
The “A national plan for sport, health and wellbeing” report, recently discussed in the House of Lords, noted that:
“Attitudes towards physical activity…track into adulthood.”
In short, by exposing children to a wide variety of PE options and enabling them to develop healthy habits from a young age, we help to create a generation of healthy adults. The benefits of high-quality PE provision do not stop at the physical. The skills that children learn from PE are many: perseverance, resilience, collaboration, teamwork, initiative, and confidence, to name just a few. Those skills help young people to flourish in education and life.
The great thing about physical activity is that there is something for everyone, whether that is in competitive sport, dance, gym, group exercise, running, and everything in between. There is something for everyone—boys, girls, men and women. On that note, I am pleased to be providing a female perspective to today’s debate. I had two very good female PE teachers, who were instrumental in inspiring me to adopt physical activity habits for the rest of my life—including a 30-year hockey career which, sadly, came to an end as a result of the pressures of this job. Those role models are important, and that is why PE should be a core curriculum subject at the heart of our education system.
As well as having PE on the curriculum, it is also important to look at how we can embed physical activity into the education system as a whole. The “creating active schools” framework, designed in part by the Yorkshire Sport Foundation, is a good example of that. It encourages all stakeholders, from local authorities to school leaders and pupils, to play a role in embedding physical activity in the school’s ethos.
To finish, I am pleased to take part in today’s important debate, and to have the opportunity to speak about a subject so close to my heart. I offer to work with colleagues across the House on taking this agenda forward. Thank you.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, yet again, in Westminster Hall, Mr Hosie. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson) for securing this important debate. I thought his speech, and that of the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Kim Leadbeater), was fantastic in outlining the absolute reasons why physical education needs to be taken much more seriously, particularly in primary school curriculums.
Mr Hosie, the irony is not lost on me; I am quite aware of the overly large circumference of my waist at this moment in time, and that for me to be talking about physical health, I should be leading by example. However, PE is absolutely essential to tackling issues such as childhood obesity, which are, sadly, all too prevalent in the great city of Stoke-on-Trent, and in Kidsgrove and Talke, which I am also proud to represent. There are a number of different factors for that obesity, but one definite challenge is that, all too often, in the advancement of students’ literacy and numeracy—which are absolutely critical in improving the life outcomes of pupils in my area—the physical education side has suffered.
I am the first in my family to be the beneficiary of a private school education, something I am very proud of. My parents worked very hard and made many sacrifices to give me the head start in life that they felt they had not had through their education. People always ask me, “What is the major difference between a pupil from a state school and a private school?” I was a teacher in a state school for eight and a half years before I entered this place. The answer is simple. Even though private schools produce fantastic academic results, they heavily invest time, the money from parents—yes, I understand that is an advantage—and energy into giving children a rounded education, not just through debating, LAMDA and drama, but physical education.
I remember that Wednesdays from one o’clock meant games for the entire year group. A variety of football, hockey, rugby, netball and many other sports would be available to us for two to three hours. That meant we were getting high-quality physical education from fantastic teachers, such as Mr McCollin, whom I still dread and fear to this day. When I went back to see him 12 months ago, I still looked down and called him sir, because of the fear he brought when it came to being disciplined. Perhaps Mr Speaker should have a word with him, to get me to behave in the Chamber.
Ultimately, it was teachers such as him who inspired me to play rugby, a sport I had never played before I was 11. I was delighted to end up with a very successful career, even being paid to play rugby union while I was at university. It is about that type of support network. As the hon. Member for Batley and Spen said, it is about teamwork, the learning and camaraderie with colleagues, the resilience from taking a knock and getting back up, and accepting defeat, even when it feels undeserved. Those are the things that are inspiring, and why we need to do a much better job, ensuring that children in state schools are getting access to that.
Stoke-on-Trent in 2019-20 featured among the top local authorities for high levels of childhood obesity; 27.7% of children were either overweight or obese. In Kidsgrove and Talke, 27% of children in year 6 were obese and 19% overweight. Those are scary statistics that have a huge impact. As someone who has been open recently about my mental health struggles, I understand the impact a poor diet and lack of exercise can have on mental health. It is no shock to me that high levels of obesity are leading to long waiting lists with Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services. Adults in the city of Stoke-on-Trent have issues with asthma, heart conditions, with a clear link to the lack of physical activity at the earliest stages. We talk about the first 1,001 days of a child’s life being the most critical for imparting knowledge and nurturing their growth, but there is a physical aspect as well.
Kidsgrove sports centre was closed in 2017. Thanks to the Government’s town deal funding and Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council, it has been refurbished and will reopen in July 2022, bringing swimming back to the town, with its record high levels of obesity and overweight children. There will be a gym, which will be run by the Kidsgrove sports centre community group, so that every pound that is spent in it stays in that community centre, for the benefit of that local community.
Alongside that, we have invested in a pump track at Newchapel Rec, which has kids on their BMXs, scooters, roller blades and a variety of other wheely machinery. It is getting them out and about. When I drive past, I see the benefit of that with tens, if not hundreds, of children on a daily basis enjoying that facility. For the mere sum of £100,000, that town deal has already delivered over and above what was invested in that area. Clough Hall bowls club is nearby and there is a FIFA-standard 3G astroturf pitch at King’s Church of England school, supplied through the town deal funding. That will not only be used by kids during the day. We opened it up by doing a deal with the school, so that the community can use it in the evening and at weekends. This is a sports village complex that we are trying to bring to local areas, so that there is no excuse why anyone cannot access good, high-quality physical education.
The last thing I want to say is that we have some great people in our city doing fantastic work. We have companies such as Bee Active which was established in 2013 by brothers Ben and Bobby Mills. It offers an innovative approach to physical education, Ofsted-registered schools and holiday sports clubs. It has extended services beyond children’s PE, to include gentle exercise for older people, birthday parties, celebrations, special events and community sessions, to name a few.
Bee Active even has a great app that parents can use to do activities with their kids at home, record them and have them marked and assessed on how well they are doing. The company came to the office, and let me just say there is a lot of work to do on my part—I am sure my daughter and son will be much better. Bee Active has become Staffordshire and Cheshire’s leading provider of sports and physical activity, supporting 75 primary and secondary schools to deliver PE. However, there is one challenge in its way: the PE and sport premium. Because the money is not secured for the long term and there is almost an annual bidding process, there is insecurity as to whether the fund will even exist and, therefore, whether the business can carry on. Ben from Bee Active wants me to ask whether we can have a long-term settlement for the fund to ensure that companies such as his can continue to operate.
Edward Timpson
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend’s last comment about the premium, which I was privileged to help set up in my time at the Department for Education. I am delighted that it is still going, but long-term funding makes a significant difference to schools’ ability to bed in some of the practical improvements that they need in the way that they teach PE. Do we not also need confirmation from the Government in relation to school games organisers by 7 April, so that they can continue their excellent work on interschool and intraschool competitions, which have been so successful over the last 10 years?
Jonathan Gullis
I could not agree more. This is so important. Again, the benefit of private schools is that they have interschool cups, so we should have interschool competitions. The highlight of my week was knowing that I could get out of maths halfway through the lesson in order to go and play against another local school in a rugby match, or against another house when we were doing our school cup games. It is so important for breeding confidence and motivation in young people within our education sphere, so long-term funding needs to be approved. We cannot have year-on-year uncertainty with primary schools and the providers that are doing such great work externally.
My final point is that we need an extended school day. I bang on and on about this, and I know I will embarrass the Parliamentary Private Secretary for the Department for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (David Johnston), who is sat behind the Minister. He was an advocate for physical education when he was on the Education Committee, and they sucked him into the Department—probably to shut him up. Now that he is in the Department, he can tell it loud and clear that we need an extended school day. Not only does it keep kids off the streets and make the most vulnerable kids feel safe in their school building because it is a place that they know, surrounded by adults whom they trust. It also means that, regardless of whether there needs to be catch-up, the whole school can enjoy good-quality physical education if there is a challenge with fitting it within normal curriculum time.
The extended school day is happening already in the private school sector, and it is unfair that it is not happening in the state school sector. It is unfair on parents, who are having to leave work two or three hours earlier than they should, and who are having lower incomes than they deserve, in order to go and pick up their loved ones or look after them. The stats do not lie: all too often in major cities, knife crime involving young people peaks at the end of the school day, between 3 pm and 5 pm, as I have seen in some studies. We need to grab hold of the situation and announce this fantastic thing. I know it costs money, and I am fully aware that those in Treasury will be rolling their eyes at me yet again because I am asking for more funds, but this is something that, in the long term, we will see money come back in because we have confident and healthy young people who do not need to access health services in the way that they are doing now, and who feel much more confident and have aspiration to go and achieve.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson) for securing the debate. I am pleased to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), in his place, and I look forward to the Minister’s response. The Minister has shown that he can do this, because I remember when he was slightly broader than he is now. It is lovely to see him in his place. My contribution will reflect the Northern Ireland perspective, as it always does.
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis). I think we have now found his weakness. We know that Mr Speaker threatened to ring his mother, but we now know the right person to call, so perhaps I will text Mr Speaker to say, “The person you want is his teacher.” Beware of what might happen in the Chamber.
I declare an interest as a type 2 diabetic. I did not set out to be a type 2 diabetic, but I had Chinese carry-outs four or five times a week with two bottles of Coca-Cola, which is never a good recipe for keeping thin and trim. I realised only a year after my diagnosis that I had probably been a diabetic for a long time. I make that point because it is about having the right start.
I go back further than most people in this Chamber, as I was at school in the 1960s and early 1970s. I think about the grave impact of my type 2 diabetes and the benefits of PE. I went to a sporty school, and I was thin and wiry. I was always a good runner, and I loved rugby and cricket. Sport was an integral part of where we were.
However, I was always aware of something else at school, and I am speaking personally now. There is always a child—I was at an all-boys school, so it was a boy—who is always picked last when a team is picked. He came in last and was the last out of the changing room. That is how I learned to observe and consider how we encourage children. The fact is that boy always turned up for PE, but he did not seem to get enthused about it.
I learned to swim at school, and I am glad I did. I have always been a fairly strong swimmer, but I understand why some children ask their parents to write a note to get them out of what they perceive to be a humiliation. Yet the importance of a healthy lifestyle must be established from a young age.
Times have changed in the world of PE. In my day, we used a sports hall. Star jumps and the dreaded rope were deployed, and I am probably ageing myself here. Now, my speechwriter Naomi—she is a very busy speechwriter—tells me that her six-year-old came home saying that she was doing a month of Monday football, as an additional day of PE. There were no complaints about that extra PE.
I am not sure how schools enthuse children, and I will give another example shortly, but they certainly do back home. It seems to be working, which is the important thing, because that wee girl is not bothered one bit about doing extra PE. In fact, she is absolutely bouncing about it—literally bouncing. What a tremendous way to encourage young boys and girls to be involved in exercise that is interesting and exciting.
My eldest granddaughter, who is 12 coming up 13, was never very sporty; she was more into her laptop and contacting her friends. This year, everything changed. She attends Strangford Integrated College in Carrowdore, and she is on the girls football team. She has lost weight, which is tremendous to see. I was quite surprised, but she is enthused by the sport, including the training.
Sport is another way for children to engage with their friends, as the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Kim Leadbeater) said. The strategy of my granddaughter’s football team seems to be all or nothing. Her team lost their first match 7-0, but they won their second game 6-0. They go all out to score goals or all out to prevent them.
We must make sure there is exciting, inclusive exercise in school to tackle the sedentary lure of the computer and tablet. Get children away from those things and give them a physical focus. The days have changed from when mums and dads threw their children out to play in the streets until the streetlights came on, as happened to me. Parents are now understandably concerned about not knowing where their child is, so things are slightly different today.
Additionally, most parents who work all day are unable to take their children to the park to play, as they have to make dinner, do the housework and help the children to do their homework. The natural thing is that kids stay safe inside, playing their games. However, if we can engage children through the schools or local sports clubs, we can make them be energetic and keen—as they are naturally—and then I believe that we can move in the right direction.
Although children playing indoors is completely understandable, it is not ideal. Thankfully, the schools are stepping up and putting on additional physical activity. Primary schools are doing it, too, for very young children, which I am glad to see. The children in my constituency now start their day with what is called the daily mile, which the hon. Member for Eddisbury mentioned. It is incredible, because all the kids want to do the daily mile. They walk with their friends from school—they can chat the whole way round—but they do their daily mile and it has almost become an everyday occurrence. They walk at a pace set by the teacher, who sets a pace the children are able to cope with. This enjoyable form of exercise teaches our children that we can make exercise a part of daily life.
The staff in the Chamber and the security guards sometimes ask me, “Are you doing any running over the weekend?” I say, “No, there are three stages: running, walking and dandering.” I am a danderer. I take strolls at my leisure, as I am well past the other stages.
Time is of the essence, so I conclude by saying that obesity is an increasingly common problem in Northern Ireland, as it is across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. One in every five children aged two to five is classified as obese, so we have a real problem but we have a way of addressing it, as the hon. Member for Eddisbury and others have said. We have to change the story. The sugar tax on smaller chocolate bars is a good step, but exercise is how we want to achieve this. Schools have a vital role to play by providing more PE with interesting exercises. Hobbies would also be a wonderful step for each region in the UK to prioritise.
I am pleased to support the hon. Member for Eddisbury and I look forward to hearing from the shadow Minister and, more importantly, the Minister.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I thank the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson) for securing an important debate on an issue that I believe is vital to the future of young people and our country.
It is clear from today’s contributions that Members on both sides of the House agree that physical education and sport are an important part of the curriculum, and this has been a good-spirited debate. The hon. Member for Eddisbury spoke passionately about the importance of physical education, and I thank him for his efforts and his leadership in the task group. He described how some people perceive PE to be a “nice to have” rather than an integral part of the curriculum, and he spoke about the impact of PE on health and wellbeing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Kim Leadbeater) showed her usual passion and energy, which she demonstrates on every issue she raises in Parliament. She has huge experience of the education sector, and she talked about PE needing greater priority and about the skills it gives young people so that they can succeed, flourish and make friends.
We know the pandemic has caused unprecedented disruption to children’s academic learning, but it is also important to recognise the impact of the lack of opportunities pupils have had to participate in organised team sports and physical education. I am sure colleagues on both sides of the House will share my concerns about the combined impact that the limited opportunities for sport and exercise and being locked indoors for the past two years has had on our young people’s mental health and wellbeing.
Sport England’s survey, published in December, showed that only 45% of children and young people—equivalent to 3.2 million pupils—achieved the chief medical officer’s guideline of taking part in sport and physical activity for an average of 60 minutes or more a day. Worse still, 32% averaged less than 30 minutes a day. Crucially, the guideline is similar to the ambition of the Government’s 2019 school sport and activity plan
“that all children should have access to 60 minutes of physical activity every day”.
The Government had stated that they would publish an update on their plan this year but, despite their targets, it is still nowhere to be seen.
Even with the Government’s record over the last two years, the state of children accessing exercise prior to the pandemic cannot be forgotten and simply swept under the carpet. According to a Taking Part survey covering the period of April 2019 to March 2020, just 65% of five to 15-year-olds had participated in competitive sport in school during the previous 12 months, and only 58% of five to 10-year-olds had played sport at school in organised competitions. Will the Minister commit his Department to publishing an update on its school sport and activity plan? What specific action will he be taking to address the Government’s failure to meet their own objective of all children having access to 60 minutes of physical activity every day?
The pandemic has caused widespread disruption to children’s learning, including PE and sport, but the Government cannot use covid as a smokescreen to shroud a decade of failure to provide proper access to physical education and sport that students need and deserve. If Ministers will not deliver for our children, the next Labour Government will.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Will Quince)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson) for securing a debate on this very important subject. I am aware that it is close to his heart and I am grateful to him for his efforts thus far, including, of course, as chair of the Association for Physical Education taskforce, to promote the importance of this curriculum subject. In addition, this is the first opportunity that I have had at the—metaphorical—Despatch Box to thank him for all his work as one of my predecessors as the Minister responsible for children and families.
I also thank all hon. Members for their constructive and passionate contributions to this important debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury mentioned, we run together most Tuesday mornings and we have therefore had the benefit of discussing at great length this and many other issues. He knows that I am a relatively new convert to running—in truth, I am a relatively new convert to exercise full stop. But both running and exercise have now become a passion. In truth, I was not keen on playing sport at school. I did not enjoy it. People did not encourage me to play sport in school. I was one of the children picked last, which the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned in his speech. I was not very good at sport, and the main reason was that I lacked confidence. However, PE, sport and physical activity have significant importance in keeping children healthy and for the positive impact that they can have on a child’s health and wellbeing. I mention my own personal experience because, importantly, sport builds confidence. Schools should be aware of the difference that high-quality PE can make to a school. That is why PE is right at the heart of the national curriculum. In fact, it is the only foundation subject that is compulsory across all four key stages of the national curriculum.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury shares my passion in this area and a desire for us to go further and faster. Why? Yes, because health, fitness and physical wellbeing and mental health and wellbeing are really important, but also because this is about confidence, as I said, about camaraderie and teamwork, as the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Kim Leadbeater) pointed out, and about leadership skills. They all come with taking part in competitive sport.
Why now? As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) said, we have an obesity crisis. We know that there is a growing issue—pardon the pun—with childhood obesity. Obesity is now a bigger cause of cancer than smoking and although sport is not the only solution to obesity, it is a part of it. PE, sport and physical activity can and should play their part in tackling that. Equally important, of course, are diet and nutrition, but setting behaviour and habits around physical activity early in life and, importantly, as part of family life is vital. My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury talked about what we see our parents doing, and about doing things with our parents. That is vital, because children take that with them into adult life. These habits and behaviours stay with people, and then they are seen by their children, so they develop them too and they are seen as normal. High-quality PE at the earliest age at school is key to allowing children to learn and develop key skills that will—to come back to this point—give them the confidence to take part in physical activity and competitive sport. My hon. Friend mentioned this, too. I genuinely believe, and there is evidence to suggest, that it also enhances academic performance.
I could say, “Everything is rosy. This happens for all children and they get excellent PE teaching at primary school.” But the truth is that that is not the case. I know that from my own experience and from the experience of many young people I have spoken with. The teaching of PE is done very well in many schools up and down the country, but it is inconsistent and, particularly at primary level, there is an issue with teachers lacking the confidence to teach PE effectively. Too often, it is outsourced, as we know. As great as rugby and football coaching is in and of itself, that is not PE; it does not give children the confidence and life skills that will lead them to take part in competitive sport. I am determined to address that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury has called for PE to be made a core subject. He rightly pointed out that no curriculum review is under way, but I am very sympathetic to the case and the arguments that he makes and I will raise them at length with the schools Minister.
At the heart of the debate, notwithstanding the call from my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury, is the challenge to ensure that PE as a subject is taken seriously by all schools and that it is done brilliantly and consistently across our country. That is vital so that all children have the chance to develop the fundamental physical literacy that they need to go on to live an active, healthy life and to experience different types of sport, so that they are enthused and have confidence. That is why I am clear on the importance of PE as a curriculum subject. As I say, it is the only foundation subject taught across all key stages, making it a requirement for children of all ages. I assure all hon. Members across the House that the Government place significant importance on the delivery of PE lessons.
Notwithstanding that, given the challenges facing schools, as alluded to by the spokesperson for the official Opposition, the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), and with the recovery from covid under way, we remain wary of making technical changes to the curriculum now. That could place additional burdens on teacher workloads and training requirements by introducing changes, which is particularly relevant as schools start to recover from the pandemic.
That said, however, as referenced in the taskforce report of my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury, PE and sport are also vital to recovery. We want to focus on what we can do to build on what is already in place to ensure that PE is taught really well in schools. I therefore confirm that we remain committed to our manifesto commitments to support the effective use of school sport facilities and to invest in primary school PE teaching and the promotion of physical literacy and competitive sports.
My hon. Friend rightly pointed out the £30 million a year for opening up school sports facilities in England, as well as our measures to promote and improve the quality of teaching of physical education in primary schools. We will build on that £10.1 million that has supported schools to reopen their sports facilities after the pandemic, increasing opportunities for children and young people across England to take part in sport.
What have we done to improve PE so far? To help primary schools make improvements to the quality of PE and the support that they offer, we introduced the primary PE and sport premium in 2013, during the tenure of my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury. The funding for the premium since its introduction is £1.6 billion, with the funding having doubled to £320 million a year since 2017. We are considering arrangements for the primary PE and sport premium for the 2022-23 academic year, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North.
I desperately want to give that long-term certainty of funding. All I can say is that I am working closely with the Department of Health and Social Care to enable us to do that as soon as possible. We are considering a series of approaches to bring together the evidence of what constitutes really good PE, how that can be delivered practically and how to support schools to identify and take the steps necessary to make their provision as good as it can be.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury referred to the school sport and activity action plan. We remain committed to the ambitions that we set out in the plan and we will publish an update to it later this year, to align with our publication of the new sports strategy. That action plan update will not only cover ground lost during the covid-19 restrictions but boost momentum to deliver an action plan for all pupils, regardless of their background.
Notwithstanding what I have said, which I appreciate is lukewarm and complex, I assure my hon. Friend that I am ambitious about what we can do in this space and about going further on PE, school sport and physical activity in schools. I am ambitious about expanding the holiday activities and food programme, to which we have committed £200 million per year for a further three years as part of the spending review. Some 600,000 children up and down our country have taken part in those activities over the past year.
I am exploring whether we could be a daily mile nation, and I warn hon. Members that that will be not just for schools, but for everyone. I think we can do that, and I am pushing in the right direction. I am exploring a summer activity challenge—similar to the summer reading challenge—so that we get kids moving and taking part in sports and activities over the summer holidays.
The ambition is there and the work is ongoing. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury and Members throughout the Chamber are assured that we are determined to achieve the same thing, which is every school teaching PE well and every pupil benefiting from that, wherever they are, up and down our country. We will work with Ofsted, schools, sporting bodies and PE teachers on the further steps that we will take to achieve exactly that.
Edward Timpson
I thank all hon. Members who contributed to this afternoon’s debate. Although I cannot speak for the Labour party, a one-line Whip has been circulating for an hour or two, which may explain why some very enthusiastic Members who would otherwise have been here have found some more pressing engagement. However, if nothing else, the quality of the debate has been extremely high, and has ensured that we have brought to the fore the key aspects of what makes PE such a crucial part of school life.
My hon. Friend the Minister underplayed his hand a little by saying he was lukewarm in his response when he was actually very enthusiastic. He has given me a lot of hope for what is to come, both in schools and in the communities that surround them. I say to him—and to Her Majesty’s Government in their entirety, because I appreciate that other Departments are involved in some of these decisions—that moving PE to core status is not just a technical change, but would change the whole way in which it is seen in the schools system. It will no longer be able to be an afterthought as every school will have to engage and think hard about how to deliver the high-quality physical education we want to see right across the board.
I am pleased that the Minister shares my ambition to go further and faster and is sympathetic to the arguments we have made today on making PE a core subject. I acknowledge—as I did in my speech—that there is still some work to do in order to satisfy not just ourselves but everyone who needs to be party to that decision that all the building blocks are in place so it becomes a plausible, effective and long-term change that we can rely on within schools. To that end, I would be pleased if I could continue to work with the Minister and his Department on how we build capacity within the system and develop some of the assessment and accountability measures that will be necessary to satisfy everybody with a vested interest that the children we are putting through our school system are reaping all the benefits that that education can provide. We know that this is already happening in the very best schools —it has been happening for a long time—and I still come across some very inspiring leadership within physical education, but it is not happening everywhere often enough. Off the back of covid, we have a real opportunity to shine a light on a part of the schools system that has been kept in the dark for too long.
PE has a huge part to play in moving our country forward, both in ensuring a happy, long and healthy life for more of our citizens and making sure that our education system is performing at the highest possible level. Ultimately, it is not just about making sure children come out healthy at the end of their schooling, important though that is; we want to make sure they reach their potential, emotionally, mentally and academically. PE can tick all those boxes, and whenever in their life a person discovers the benefits of exercise, they never turn back. Let us make sure that more children find that out much earlier.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered physical education as a core subject in schools.
Written Statements
Trade Policy Update
(2 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
Since launching the negotiations on 19 January 2022, there have been 13 sessions between teams and five negotiations between the Trade Secretary and her opposite number. Yesterday, in Washington, the Trade Secretary met the US Commerce Secretary to discuss the resolution of US tariffs on UK steel and aluminium.
These US tariffs, imposed in 2018, restricted imports of certain steel and aluminium into the US, with additional duties of 25% and 10% respectively.
After two months of intense negotiations, we agreed a bespoke solution with the US which reflects the needs of our steel and aluminium industries.
This Government welcome the US decision to replace their Section 232 tariffs on imports of certain UK steel and aluminium products with “tariff-rate quotas” (TRQs), effective as of 1 June 2022. This solution reopens tariff free access to the US market back to levels before section 232 tariffs up to a specified volume.
The key elements of the solution are as follows:
On steel, the US will provide duty free access per annum for 500 thousand metric tonnes across 54 product categories within a TRQ. This provides certainty for UK industry, in terms of being able to maintain current export levels in the face of global competition, but also provides scope for growth in our exports to the US.
On aluminium the US will provide duty free access per annum for 21.6 thousand metric tonnes within a TRQ.
As part of the solution, we have also agreed to a future bilateral dialogue with the US on how best to tackle the critical issues of global excess capacity and the carbon intensity of our steel and aluminium industries. This will form a strong foundation for our engagement with the US going forward to ensure our domestic industry continues to be protected.
The removal of tariffs provides welcome relief to our steel and aluminium sectors, which support the jobs of around 80,000 people across the UK supply chain.
Both the UK and the US will need time to implement the solution. The TRQs will be implemented from 1 June 2022. The UK’s rebalancing measures will be suspended from this same date.
Reaching a solution on Section 232 clears the way for us to focus on strengthening the overall UK-US trading relationship, as we have demonstrated with the launch of the UK-US Joint Dialogues on the Future of Atlantic Trade, the first of which took place in Baltimore on 21 and 22 March. These dialogues demonstrate that we are closely aligned with the US on championing and advancing trade policy which helps build a fairer, freer, greener global economy and trading relationship. They will encourage closer collaboration on shared values such as our respective Levelling Up and ‘Build Back Better’ agendas, as well as explore ways to drive more modern, innovative approaches to international trade with our biggest trading partner in areas such as digital, green trade and supporting SMEs.
The dialogues will continue in the UK later this spring.
[HCWS710]
New Decade, New Approach
(2 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Conor Burns)
During the passage of the Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Act, the Government committed to laying a written ministerial statement every six months setting out which of our commitments in New Decade, New Approach (NDNA) we have delivered on to date. This is the first of those statements.
The NDNA agreement facilitated the restoration of the devolved institutions in January 2020 after three years of hiatus. The Government will continue to implement our commitments under NDNA to support a stronger, more prosperous and inclusive Northern Ireland in which everyone can participate and thrive.
So far, the Government have:
published four reports on the use of the Petition of Concern mechanism, with the most recent report published on 20 January 2022;
passed the Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Act to implement the institutional reforms agreed in NDNA;
passed the Internal Market Act 2020;
held a meeting of the Board of Trade in Northern Ireland;
ensured that Northern Ireland can access the trade deals the UK is striking across the world;
invited representatives of the Northern Ireland Executive to all meetings of the UK-EU Joint and Specialised Committees discussing Northern Ireland specific matters which were also attended by the Irish Government as part of the European Union’s delegation;
changed the rules governing how the people of Northern Ireland bring their family members to the UK, enabling them to apply for immigration status on broadly the same terms as family members of Irish citizens;
appointed Danny Kinahan as the first Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner in September 2020;
passed the Armed Forces Act, which further enshrines the Armed Forces Covenant in law;
continued a thorough review of the Aftercare Service, which supports veterans of the Ulster Defence Regiment and Royal Irish Regiment and their dependants;
marked Northern Ireland’s Centenary with a programme of cultural and historical events in 2021;
brought forward regulations that continue to ensure designated Union Flag flying days remain in line with those observed in the rest of the UK;
announced £2 million in funding for Northern Ireland Screen’s Irish Language and Ulster Scots Broadcast Funds;
continued preparations to recognise Ulster Scots as a National Minority under the Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities;
announced £4 million in funding for the International Fund for Ireland;
allocated over £700 million of the £2 billion funding in NDNA, which has helped bring an end to the nurses’ pay dispute, contributed to the creation of a new Northern Ireland graduate entry medical school in Londonderry, and been used to support the transformation of public services;
provided £50 million to support low-carbon transport in Northern Ireland, enabling the Infrastructure Minister to announce a new fleet of 145 low-carbon buses for Belfast and the north-west;
secured additional funding for the Executive in the 2020-21 year;
reviewed the findings of the renewable heat incentive inquiry report to consider its implications for the use of public money in Northern Ireland; and
continued to foster closer ties and better collaborative working across sectors such as tourism, sport and culture, including through the potential joint UK and Ireland bid to host the 2028 European Championships.
The Government’s priority continues to be a return to a fully functioning and stable devolved Government as soon as possible, to build on this progress and ensure the necessary delivery of public services for the people of Northern Ireland.
[HCWS709]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
Good afternoon and welcome to the Grand Committee. Members are encouraged to leave some distance between themselves and others. If there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after a few minutes.
Universal Credit (EAC Report)
(2 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report from the Economic Affairs Committee Universal Credit isn’t working: proposals for reform (2nd Report, Session 2019–21, HL Paper 105).
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I rise to introduce the Economic Affairs Committee report Universal Credit isn’t working. In the first paragraph of their response to the report, the Government say that they are
“surprised by several of the Committee’s observations with regard to Universal Credit … In particular, in contrast to the title of the report, the effectiveness of UC as a comprehensive benefits system has been admirably demonstrated in response to the pandemic.”
I pay tribute to the department for the way in which it dealt with the Covid outbreak and the speed with which it was able to put people on universal credit, but I have to say that the rest of the response from the Government shows that they are remarkably tin-eared.
In introducing the report, I begin by thanking our outstanding clerk Adrian Hitchins and our policy analyst Will Harvey for the splendid support that they gave to the committee to enable us to produce this report, which at long last has been given time to be debated. So much time has passed that I am no longer the chairman of the committee, but we have an excellent new chairman in the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, from whom I am looking forward to hearing later in the debate.
When the Government announced plans to introduce universal credit in 2010, the scale of their ambition was largely greeted with approval in Parliament and among commentators. However, support seeped away as universal credit was rolled out. The way that universal credit has been designed and implemented appears to be based around a kind of idealised claimant and it has features that are harming many of the most vulnerable people in our country. It is certainly linked to the exponential growth in food banks and it is probably also linked—although rent rises are a feature—to the dramatic increase in rent arrears. Many claimants reported to our committee that they find the system incomprehensible. Overall, it is fair to say that universal credit’s reputation has nosedived.
The Government’s response indicated that they were surprised by the title of the report, as I said. A couple of recommendations were accepted, although one of them was actually rejected and has now been accepted. Indeed, this very afternoon, the Government have been taking credit for reducing the taper for universal credit, which is a welcome measure. Nevertheless, during our inquiry, which was completed in July 2021, most witnesses thought that universal credit should not be abolished because of the severe disruption that this would cause for millions of people and thought instead that substantial reform was required in order to make it fit for purpose.
Change cannot come soon enough as far as I am concerned. The country is facing a major assault on living standards as a result of soaring inflation, tax increases, rising mortgage costs and savage fuel and energy price increases. The Chancellor’s decision to cut universal credit by £20 a week at this moment is simply indefensible. Conservatives believe in securing a safety net below which no one can fall and it is hard to see how millions of families in this country will manage in the months ahead. The conflict in Ukraine is forecast to put up energy and food prices substantially. Inflation is expected to rise to 8% this spring and perhaps even higher later in the year according to the Bank of England, which has consistently underestimated the rate of inflation and the impact of its policies of quantitative easing.
Of course, the basket of items used to calibrate CPI inflation does not begin to measure the actual inflation that many of the poorest families in the country experience. Scandalously, many of these very poor families have higher electricity charges through pre-paid meters. Benefits are due to rise by 3%, resulting in a substantial real-terms cut to income as essential bills escalate. Since our report was published, the Government have increased the work allowance and reduced the taper rate, as I have alluded to, to ensure that working universal credit claimants can keep more of their earnings. This is very welcome, especially since it supports the original purpose of universal credit to incentivise work. It still means that some of the lowest-paid people in the land are facing an effective marginal rate of tax of 55%—I note that the Chancellor has started to call the reduction of the taper rate a “tax cut” but, if it is a tax cut, it is an effective marginal rate of tax of 55%. That is 10% higher than people earning over £150,000 in taxable income. As if things were not tough enough, deductions from universal credit awards have left some claimants with an income that is substantially lower than their essential needs. Surely the DWP should be required to conduct affordability assessments before making deductions from awards.
Scandalously, universal credit is being used by the Government as a vehicle through which to recover debt. Most of this is comprised of around £6 billion of historic tax credit debt. Many people who owe this money are unaware of it. Certainly, the original receipt of an overpayment may have been outside of their control. The recovery of the money is leaving many households with an income that is well below what is needed to get by on, even before the current cost of living crisis. We called on the Government to write off historic tax credit debt that is owed by universal credit claimants. It should be treated as a sunk cost. Who really believes that this money is ever going to be repaid? Why create so much misery and anxiety among people who are extremely vulnerable in many cases?
The five-week wait for the first universal credit payment is the main cause of insecurity for claimants. Many people have nothing on which to fall back during this period, when their needs are most acute. The wait entrenches debt, increases extreme poverty and harms vulnerable groups disproportionately. The Department for Work and Pensions has introduced some measures to mitigate the most harmful effects, but these fall well short of what is needed. In the view of the committee, the DWP should introduce a non-repayable, two-week initial grant for all claimants. This would provide some security to claimants, mitigating the timing problems in relation to housing costs, and would make repayments of advances more manageable.
The way in which universal credit payments are calculated is based on a monthly assessment period and is designed to mimic the world of work. I ask the Committee: on which planet are these people living? Most people about whom we are concerned here are not used to be being paid on a monthly basis with index-linked pension plans, like the civil servants who have produced this scheme. However, it can result in substantial fluctuations in income month to month, which makes it extremely difficult for claimants to budget. This is impractical and fundamentally unfair and it should be resolved. We recommend that the DWP fixes the level of awards at the same level for three months. If claimants experience significant falls in income or disadvantageous changes in circumstances during this time, a mechanism should be introduced to enable them to have an early reassessment.
Paying awards on a monthly basis does not reflect the lived experiences of many claimants. It forces them to fit the rigid requirements of the system and causes unnecessary budget and cash-flow problems, both for those out of work and for those who are used to receiving wages more frequently. All claimants should be able to choose whether to have universal credit paid monthly or twice monthly.
Moreover, the way universal credit is paid as a single household payment should be revisited. Access to an individual income is important for maintaining balanced and equal relationships and, in more distressing cases, for reducing the risk of financial coercion and even domestic abuse. The DWP should review the option of a separate payment by default, drawing on the review carried out, I am pleased to say, in Scotland.
The conditionality requirements on claimants who can look for or prepare for work should be rebalanced. The extent of conditionality has increased significantly over recent years, too often to the detriment of claimants. Less emphasis should be placed on obligations and sanctions. Instead, there should be more support to help coach and train claimants to find jobs or to progress in their current roles.
The UK has some of the most punitive sanctions in the world, but there is very little evidence that they have a positive effect. Removing people’s main source of support for extended periods risks pushing them into extreme poverty, indebtedness and reliance on food banks. Furthermore, there is a great deal of evidence that sanctions, and the threat of sanctions, are harmful to claimants’ mental health.
We recommend that the Government publish an evaluation of the impact of conditionality and sanctions on mental health and well-being. Furthermore, we recommend that the DWP evaluates how the current length and level of sanctions facilitate positive behaviour change and how they lead to sustainable work outcomes. The DWP should also expedite its work on introducing a written warning system before the application of a sanction. Sanctions should always be a last resort.
Our report was an appeal for the Government to act now. That was in July; it is now even more important. Universal credit needs an immediate increase in funding to match the cost of living crisis, reform in its design and implementation, and improved support for claimants to find and prepare for work.
In his Mais lecture last month, the Chancellor quoted the opening paragraph of Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments, which I am sure everyone in the Committee will have read. I will remind them of what it says:
“How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it. Of this kind is pity or compassion, the emotion which we feel for the misery of others, when we either see it, or are made to conceive it in a very lively manner.”
In the difficult months ahead, may these words be his guiding light. I beg to move.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the committee on a first-class report and commend its then chair for having championed some of its recommendations, even today, notably concerning the withdrawal of the £20 uplift. The departmental response was, though, depressing, with what the then chair described in a letter to the Secretary of State as “perfunctory replies” to some of its “most urgent recommendations”. Although I noted numerous “do nots” and the occasional “acknowledge” or “note” in the response, the word “accept” was notable by its virtual absence. Thus, over one and a half years on, the problems identified by the report remain and some have got worse.
I have frequently quoted the report, in particular with reference to the benefit cap, which has still not been reviewed; the two-child limit, which is dragging more and more larger families into poverty; the already referred to five-week wait, which is not solved by repayable advances, especially given the level of other debts recuperated from weekly benefit; and the implications, especially of the single household payment, for victims and survivors of domestic abuse, ignored in the Domestic Abuse Act.
I will highlight just two areas now that stem from two of the valuable sets of principles framing the report, which were ignored in the DWP’s response: that universal credit should
“provide claimants with adequate income”
and
“provide security and stability—income must be predictable”.
These principles, and many of the report’s criticisms, were echoed by participants in two more recent studies but were found sadly lacking in their experiences of relying on UC. One participant in the Covid realities research, to which I referred yesterday in my OQ, said that
“the title ‘social security’ is laughable. We have never felt so insecure”
and the report referred to
“chains of insecurity and uncertainty”.
Likewise, an ESRC-funded study of couples on UC, carried out by a team that included the committee’s specialist advisers, found that in particular the monthly assessment of earnings, the whole-month approach to changes of circumstances—under which circumstances on a single day decide entitlement for a whole month—and monthly payment all contributed to insecurity, instability and lack of predictability. These issues were all raised by the report, as the noble Lord said, but given short shrift in the department’s response.
With regard to adequacy, the report argues that UC should be set
“at a level that provides claimants with dignity and security”
and pointed out that the £20 uplift
“shows the original rate was not adequate”.
Well, the evidence of its inadequacy was mounting even before the cost of living crisis, but, despite that, as we have heard, claimants now face a cut of more than 4% in the real value of these inadequate benefits over the coming year. Women as the shock absorbers and managers of poverty will bear much of the brunt of this cut. As the Minister knows, I feel strongly that there has to be an additional uprating, preferably in April but failing that in October. If a second uprating requires emergency legislation, so be it; this is an emergency. Additional funds to local authorities for discretionary support, announced today, are no substitute for the security provided by weekly benefits that meet people’s needs. In the longer term, we need a proper review of the adequacy of benefits—as the report sort of calls for.
I hope that the noble Lord will excuse me if I spend the rest of my time on an issue that is not explored in the report but is highly relevant to its recommendations on support with claiming, namely migration to UC. I recently attended a meeting of the UC all-party parliamentary group, of which I am an officer, and we heard evidence about the issue of migration that made me realise that I for one had taken my eye off the ball of migration, which now threatens to hit and bruise badly many claimants. I am grateful to the Child Poverty Action Group, of which I am honorary president, for its help on this.
First, the CPAG reports growing concerns among advisers about the “lobster pot” aspect of natural migration, which means that there is no going back once a UC claim is made, even if it proves to be to the claimant’s detriment. It and other charities recently called on the DWP to allow test claims so that the many households—including, for instance, many of those with disabled children—that turn out to be worse off on UC after making a voluntary claim can return to the legacy benefits system. Alternatively, they suggest that they could be covered by the transitional protection that will be available under managed migration, now called Move to UC. Could the Minister give us the department’s response to this recommendation?
Turning to Move to UC, the process of managed migration was supposed to be based on the outcome of a three-stage pilot. This was, understandably, paused at the start of the pandemic after just eight months, during which I understand that fewer than 13 households were confirmed as having made the move to UC. The purpose of the pilot was, according to Neil Couling of the DWP, to develop a
“measured approach to roll out, ensuring the system works for everyone.”
But, instead of continuing the pilot as originally promised, the DWP now says that it has gleaned a “considerable amount of learnings”, sufficient to proceed. Those learnings have not been made public and it is hard to be confident that the department has the necessary information from such an attenuated pilot.
Proceeding without the level of testing originally envisaged, or proper reflection and scrutiny, puts claimants’ well-being at risk. As the DWP has acknowledged, those who fail to respond to an official notification about migration will have their benefits stopped, threatening increased vulnerability and possible destitution. To ensure that this will not happen, can the Minister assure us that further piloting will take place so that the DWP can design a process that we can be confident will work? Will she publish the evaluation of the pilot, such as it was, without further delay and give an assurance that the department will fulfil the commitment to publish the evaluation strategy for the pilot? Finally, can she also assure us that Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise the managed migration/Move to UC regulations before the cap allowing no more than 10,000 claimants to be migrated to UC is lifted?
I can understand why the department wants to get on with it after the time lost during the pandemic, but surely it is more important to get it right. I therefore support the CPAG’s call for a pause in the Move to UC programme until it has been properly piloted, the evaluation has been published and Parliament has had a chance to scrutinise the plans. Can the Minister also say when the department envisages being able to publish take-up figures for UC, because, as the report points out, the promise of increased overall generosity rests on higher take-up? This higher take-up has been promised to flow from the supposed simplification of combining most means-tested benefits into a single award. The response to the report’s recommendation on publication of take-up figures simply said that
“The Department does not publish estimates of UC take-up rates”
and implied that there were no plans to do so. Well, I hope I read that wrong and that there will be plans to do so. We need to know when that will be possible. I understand why it may not be possible now, but it has to be possible at some point.
Finally, what is the Government’s response to the principle enunciated by the committee that UC
“must … reflect the lived experience of claimants—they must be at the heart of its design and involved in devising solutions to problems”?
This is a principle that was raised in yesterday’s OQ and that the Scottish Government have taken to heart, but I have yet to see evidence that the UK Government have.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the opportunity to discuss this report from the Economic Affairs Committee. The contributions we have heard from the former chair of the committee, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, have explained the detail of what has actually gone wrong with the universal credit system.
First, I am very concerned that the report was issued in July 2020 and that we are discussing it in this Chamber only in March 2022. Given that the Government’s formal response was sent 18 months ago, it is very hard to see what has held up such a debate—and, inevitably, some facts and figures have changed. When the Minister replies, perhaps she might just explain why we have had to wait this extraordinary length of time to have a debate on this absolutely vital matter for so many.
However, we should be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, for enabling a Private Notice Question to be placed on the Order Paper of your Lordships’ House on the very day of the Spring Statement. Doing so has drawn out a number of facts. One is that, as I interpreted the Minister’s response in the Chamber a few minutes ago, the Government have done no affordability assessment, and nor has anything been done as an impact assessment more generally. That is very serious, as in most cases impact assessments are part and parcel of what the House of Lords is asked to consider.
Many responders to the committee’s inquiry said that universal credit was not necessarily broken. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth—indeed, the report—says that it commands broad support in principle as a structure, but it does need reform. It is hardly surprising to me that some things went wrong, simply because it was such a major change to the benefits system. Inevitably, some things do not work as well as you want them to. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, identified in his introduction, the rise in the use of food banks is a direct consequence of what has happened with universal credit. The noble Lord was absolutely right in his initial remarks to comment on why the Government said that they were surprised by the recommendations in the report—because so many of those recommendations are absolutely justifiable. So I will add my own surprise that the Government were surprised in their response to the committee’s recommendations.
As the committee said, universal credit should not undermine
“the security and wellbeing of the poorest in our society.”
I understand, as I guess we all do, that the report was issued at a very worrying time for a lot of people as the pandemic threatened their livelihoods. Like the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, I recognise that the Government produced temporary and permanent welfare measures to the value of around £9 billion during the pandemic. In the Budget last October, low earners were able to keep 8p more for every £1 earned, and the work allowance increased by £500—and the pressure on the taper issue did have an impact.
The report congratulates DWP on its response to the pandemic and the huge increase in workload that the department had to manage, helped by digital working and automated processes. However, as the committee said, the underlying problems with universal credit remain. Some new claimants are not used to monthly pay. A fortnightly payment option would help them. The five-week wait for new claimants is too long and creates insecurity. The committee’s two-week grant recommendation seemed to me to be a very wise and helpful proposal, but the Government have turned it down. I still do not fully understand the audit reasons they have for so doing, because there are ways around that, which the committee proposed.
The Government say that an applicant may be able to get a universal credit advance if they are unable to manage during this five week-period. I hope that the Minister might be able to tell us in her reply what evidence from research undertaken by the DWP the Government have that that advance system is working fairly and reasonably for those who receive universal credit. As the committee rightly identified, the principle at stake is that the system should not cause shortfalls in income for individuals. As the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said, sanctions should be applied only as a last resort. The DWP should do affordability assessments before making deductions from awards. As a principle, someone’s income should never be lower than their essential needs.
We have heard about the cut of £20 per week; there has been a huge amount of debate around it. In my view, it was a gross error. I was hoping that something further might be done about it today, but I fear that that has not happened. More than 5 million low-income families lost just over £1,000 from their annual income, creating severe financial hardship for many people. What this revealed was that the real problem with universal credit is low incomes; that issue is fundamental to understanding the crisis around universal credit. With the current inflation rate heading towards 10%, an uplift under CPI of 3.1%—the Minister will recall our discussion of that uplift in Grand Committee a couple of weeks ago—simply will not do.
Crisis seems an appropriate word to use in this situation. Rent costs, housing costs, energy costs, food prices and transport costs are all rising. Food bank use has been rising and is clearly going to rise further and further. Household finances are much more difficult for the low paid because they have so little money. We need a real living wage, not the national living wage. The Government talk of the national living wage, but they have to talk about the need for a real living wage. It is true that many universal credit recipients are in work, but many people see adjustments being made to their hours of contract. It does not help when people get their hours cut, never mind a low hourly rate; in the end, this is about the income they receive.
I repeat that the five-week wait is the primary cause of insecurity in universal credit as it
“entrenches debt, increases … poverty and harms vulnerable groups disproportionately.”
Those were the words used by the committee, so there is an opportunity for the Government here. We will not get more than a few months into 2022 without needing to do something further.
In that respect, I ask the Minister about the proposal to close so many DWP offices. I seek an assurance from her that this will not in any way impact the support of clients who need help. A few days ago, there was an announcement that 42 DWP offices were to be closed across the UK. Apparently, 13 will be full closures while 29 are to be closed and relocated. There are offices being closed in Stoke, Southend, Peterborough, Chesterfield, Aberdeen, Kirkcaldy, Barrow, Bishop Auckland, Doncaster and Burnley—taking jobs out of these communities.
The Minister, David Rutley, said that the closures
“will not impact on jobcentres and the customer-facing interactions”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/3/22; col. 1032.]
Can the Minister explain exactly what a customer-facing interaction is? What are the implications for the agreement and contract that the Government have with Citizens Advice, which comes to an end a year from now, in March 2023? Under the help to claim system that has been running since 2019, Citizens Advice in partnership with Citizens Advice Scotland has given people independent advice. I understand there has been an investment in that of £21.3 million. If it would be helpful for the Minister to write later, rather than respond in detail now, I want to be reassured about the impact on people for whom digital or telephone contact may be very difficult. If they were able to go to a local office, will they be able to continue to go to that office to secure help?
That is all I want to say at this stage, but I think we will come back to this matter several times this year. I hope the Government and the Chancellor understand that this issue is profoundly serious. I said that two weeks ago, when we talked about the use of CPI at 3.1% for the benefit uplift, when inflation is heading towards 10% this year. For those on low incomes, that position is simply unsustainable.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I first add my thanks to the Economics Affairs Committee for producing this excellent report. As is often the case with a Select Committee report, reading it is not only enlightening but deeply informative. I have learned a great deal from it, for which I am grateful.
I too pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, for his tenacity, such as when securing the intervention in the Chamber earlier. It was so interesting that the concerns were being raised from every Bench. I hope the Government Whips and others are listening to the profound unease coming from every quarter of the House; it is not going to go away. I have experience of working across two relatively well-off counties. I used to work in the Black Country, but nowadays I have responsibility for Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire, which are fairly wealthy, by and large. The concerns coming out of parts of Watford, Stevenage and Bedford are uniform: we are facing a serious challenge.
I have to confess to noble Lords that some of the material in this report was new to me. I am ashamed to say that I had not realised, until reading it, that universal credit is being used by the Government as a vehicle to recover debt. I was glad to be able to raise that earlier although I do not think the Minister understood the point I was making, because we received no answer. This is deeply disconcerting, not only because it will not deliver what the Government want. Simply taking pennies off the poor at a time when Her Majesty’s Government have written off £16 billion in Covid business loans due to errors and fraud—which led to resignations from the Front Bench in our own House—is quite extraordinary and unrealistic.
As a general principle, I am absolutely committed to recovering debts. If the Government deem it necessary to pursue these historic tax credit debts from UC claimants, I hope they will broach other debts with the same level of vigour. I think we have no choice but to support the recommendation that we look for a Jubilee-style “Reset the Debt” policy, which would be just a small first step to addressing the serious and growing problem that we face.
What is true of the notion of pursuing claimants is equally true of the sanctions regime, which, as the report mentions, is one of the most punitive in the world. The findings of the report in this regard largely mirror those of the 2015 study by Christians Against Poverty, which stated that there was little evidence to suggest that the UK benefits sanctions regime made a positive contribution to helping people find work but that it did help in discouraging those who were unemployed from applying to the benefits system. I fear that the new shortened sanctions regime introduced earlier this year is merely an extension of this logic: an aid to get people off, and further discourage them from accessing, UC. However, the whole point about UC is that it is for people who have no other place to turn to. That is why it is vital that Her Majesty’s Government can categorically prove that sanctions help facilitate claimants in finding work and that the Government are open and honest about their purpose and effects.
I move now to some general points. The most fundamental question is whether universal credit is enough to live on. Leave alone the details of the system; there is simply a fundamental, pressing question when we face the levels of inflation that the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has just mentioned about whether it will enable people to weather the current economic storm. Can the Minister assure us that Her Majesty’s Government are looking at what would be appropriate increases in universal credit, as this huge storm comes together? It is simply hitting people now. I had a meeting this morning with someone from my diocese who yesterday visited the food bank in Broxbourne. Parts of Broxbourne are fairly well heeled, but they had seen a doubling in the number of clients in the past year; it has really hit them badly.
This report goes beyond a simple discussion of the amounts of universal credit that individuals receive and details the design flaws and tensions within the scheme. We all know that it is hoped that UC should be a transitional pathway to lead people into stable, long-term employment and financial independence. We all think that is the best way forward. The problem is that we are trying to do it at a time when much of this poverty is to do with in-work poverty, as repeatedly and consistently raised by different people.
Regardless of the lived circumstances, I echo the report’s concerns on the substantial fluctuations in month-to-month income due to the monthly assessment period and the huge difficulties that that is causing people. When visiting and meeting people in different parts of my diocese, I have been struck by how much this has been raised, as if it is almost impossible to make any plans. That then rolls out in all sorts of areas of public policy. For example, not being able to plan means that we cannot do the detailed work needed to ensure that people can live on a balanced diet, so that we can address the huge problems caused by eating inappropriate foods and obesity, which have knock-on effects such as diabetes and other problems.
I totally support the report’s recommendation to fix the level of awards for three months, to provide longer-term budgetary stability and encourage people to work without any pecuniary downside. Extending the assessment period might allow individuals to experience what one hopes is the dignity of labour as a platform on which to build their employment prospects. I hope that the Government will take on board some of the report’s recommendations so that we can attend to the disparities and produce a fairer and more just benefits system, which accords with Her Majesty’s Government’s own vision of a system that will help people to move into work in the long term and find themselves in a position where they can be full and contributing members of society.
Baroness Valentine (CB)
I am grateful for this opportunity to discuss this important topic. I will focus on one particular aspect of universal credit: housing benefit. I should first say that I work part-time for Business in the Community on levelling up left-behind towns, in places such as Bradford, Rochdale and Sheffield. Each of these towns has their own unique strengths and challenges. In passing I should say that I am delighted that Bradford has just been shortlisted for City of Culture, which would give the city a tremendous boost.
The place on which I want to concentrate is Blackpool, which, according to Zoopla, provides a gross annual yield to buy-to-let investors of 8.6%, the second best in the country. So far so good, but now let us look at the living conditions in those buy-to-let houses. Blackpool has about 4,000 private rented units in the centre of town, the legacy of bed and breakfasts that did not keep up with the more modern hotel accommodation that is now available. Many of these B&Bs have been converted to houses in multiple occupation and those HMOs are located in eight of the 10 most deprived wards in England. Life expectancy in this area is the worst in England.
Some 80% of these tenants rely on housing benefit or universal credit. While tenants in social housing can rely on the decent homes standard, there is currently no quality assurance for a private landlord receiving housing benefit. Therefore, if you are motivated only by money, or indeed absent and unaware of local conditions, the incentive is to squeeze in as many people as possible, leading to those profitable yields that I mentioned. Not only are these people crammed in, but the conditions are appalling. It is estimated that one in three of these buildings has a category 1 hazard. This type of hazard is defined as
“the most serious harm outcome … for example, death, permanent paralysis, permanent loss of consciousness, loss of a limb or serious fractures”.
I am delighted to say that two Secretaries of State had the chance to see these dreadful living conditions for themselves last week, during the Conservative Party’s spring conference. The Government have now announced a package of interventions. These include beefing up the council’s inspection and enforcement team and investing through Homes England to create more liveable neighbourhoods.
I am truly delighted that the national Government have focused on Blackpool as an exemplar of how to level up. But the issue remains that tens of millions in housing benefit goes to these HMO landlords and, without any requirement for decent standards, there are plenty in Blackpool who will do everything in their power to avoid the expense and hassle of upgrading their properties. It is imperative that, as soon as possible, the Government bring in legislation which means that substandard landlords are not eligible for housing benefit payments, mirroring the decent homes standards that were introduced in the social housing sector in 2000.
The levelling up paper aims to reduce the number of “non-decent homes” by 50%,
“with the biggest improvements in the lowest performing areas.”
I would like to suggest an addendum: “and no non-decent homes will be funded by public funds provided through housing benefit or universal credit.”
Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)
My Lords, I start by congratulating my noble friend Lord Forsyth and the committee on their excellent report. I had zero hand in it and agree with it entirely. It is always difficult to follow my noble friend Lord Forsyth on occasions such as this, because I feel that I am repeating everything he has said—he is so eloquent at summing up reports.
I am not going to go through the entire list, but it strikes me as an incredibly comprehensive critique of how universal credit should be improved. Reading the Government’s response, I too was very disappointed by its tone and substance—and, like the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, I was surprised by the Government’s surprise.
Something more fundamental than this strikes me. As we just saw in the Chamber, this entire area of policy, especially the issue of the £20, is uniting Members on all sides of the House. This area of policy needs a fundamental reassessment, for reasons that I will come on to, but especially for the reasons the report sets out: the five-week wait for the first payment; fixing the level of awards for three months; rebalancing the sanctions regime; the abuse of universal credit to recover debt, as the right reverend Prelate mentioned; and, perhaps most important of all, making the £20 a week uplift permanent. All these recommendations seem to make perfectly eminent sense—and that was the case when the report was published.
Let us remember, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said, that the world is now fundamentally different. Back then we were in the first phase of the crisis called Covid and inflation was still seen as under lock and key, or thereabouts. Oil was at $40 a barrel. Today, we have heard that prices are rising at the fastest rate for 30 years and oil is at $120 a barrel. It really is the case that the past is a foreign country; we did things differently there.
As we look ahead, we see energy bills rising by 50%-plus in April alone. As we heard in today’s Statement, households are facing the biggest fall in disposable income per person since the 1950s. Meanwhile, the backdrop to this is that the tax burden is on track to be at its highest since the 1950s, while debt is at its highest level since the 1960s. It is worth noting, as this is the backdrop to all the policies that we are addressing, what that means. As we heard in today’s Statement, interest payments are set to hit £83 billion in the next fiscal year. That is a record level—more than is spent on schools, the Home Office and the MoJ combined.
So wherever I look on the economic dashboard, I see the lights flashing red. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said, this is an emergency. At times in politics we are apt to use the word “crisis” in a slightly flippant way. But this is a crisis, and it really is one for those who are on the lowest incomes. I think all of us here share a sense of responsibility and a sense of wishing to take real and urgent action to address that.
As the OBR warns today, and as my noble friend pointed out, benefits are going up by 3.1% in April, but inflation is set to average at 8% in 2022-23 as a whole. Before today’s Statement, low-income households face a real-terms cut in income just six months after the £20 per week cut to universal credit. Let us remind ourselves what all this amounts to. The Child Poverty Action Group’s analysis shows that families’ universal credit will fall in value by £570 per year on average. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has calculated that 400,000 people could be pulled into poverty by this real-terms cut to benefits. Families with children in poverty will face £35 per month in extra energy costs even after the Government’s council tax rebate scheme is factored in.
That is before we get to other issues that we should be concerned about. One that I am very concerned about is the rising cost of food. Wheat prices are already up 40% this year alone. That is before we get to the threat of another hike in energy bills in October. Citizens Advice forecasts that 14 million households will struggle with their bills. That is one in four adults. Let us put all that together: we cannot continue with business as usual.
I absolutely applaud some of the measures taken today but, as the document from the OBR makes clear, total tax and benefit changes in today’s Statement offset only about a third of the overall decline in real per person disposable incomes. That assumes that this crisis does not deepen further. Although I welcome some of the measures in today’s Statement, I cannot help but think that we are giving with one hand and taking back with the other, creating a piecemeal system that is extremely confusing.
I ask a simple question, building on what others have said: why are the Government not taking the simpler and more straightforward approach of using the welfare system and reforming it to help those on low incomes and committing to the policies set out in this report? I know that the Minister will argue that the increase in work allowance and the cut in taper are an effective tax cut. We heard that from the Chancellor on Sunday. But what does she say to the Resolution Foundation, whose analysis shows that around three-quarters of families—that is 3.6 million—on universal credit in 2022-23 will be worse off under the new regime than they would have been absent the last Budget changes but if the £20 per week uplift had been retained? That is question one.
Secondly, picking up on what my noble friend said, what does the Minister say to the finding that the overall marginal effective tax rate for universal credit families earning over the work allowance will be 70% in 2022-23? This is the same rate as experienced by families receiving tax credits from 2003-04 to 2010-11. How does this 70% marginal tax rate square with the Government’s assertion that they will ensure that “work always pays”?
Finally, as I said in the Chamber earlier, I fear that we have lost sight of one of the best ways to help those on low incomes, which is to provide them with jobs and job security. I have to repeat what I said in the Chamber: the rise in national insurance is absolutely a hammer-blow to many of the people we are talking about whom we wish to help and the businesses that employ them. Of course I welcome today’s announcement regarding thresholds and likewise I welcome the employment allowance, but I note that today the Institute of Directors has commented that this measure is marginal for employers.
We have to consider what the national insurance rise will do, not just for employees but for employers. Let us consider the sectors that will be worst hit, which are the ones that have been worst hit by Covid: distribution, transport, hotels and restaurants. How will this measure help them create jobs? How does it help them encourage investment? How does it make them more competitive? How does it help them to keep their costs low? I hate and dislike everything about this tax rise. It is taking us in the wrong direction. But the key point that is relevant to this debate is that it exhibits a lack of strategy and a lack of principle that bedevils this Government. It does nothing to help those on low incomes who need that job security.
The question for my noble friend the Minister, who I fear might get a bit of a tough time this afternoon, but I know she can take it, is whether the Government are really doing enough to help those on low incomes. Are they really rising to the moment? Do they still see this as business as usual or are they treating it as the emergency that it really is?
Viscount Chandos (Lab)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, who, as he has just demonstrated, is an excellent successor to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, as chairman of the Economic Affairs Committee.
We are finally able to debate our report on universal credit, in the bijou location of the Moses Room, 20 months after its publication. Other noble Lords, not least the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, have remarked on this unacceptable delay—if not necessarily the relegation of the debate to the Moses Room. For me, there is perhaps one silver lining to this cloud, which is that I find myself the only speaker this afternoon, apart from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, who was an EAC member when the inquiry was held, so I feel that I can be permitted to say a few words about the chairman as well as echoing his tribute to the work of the staff, special advisers and witnesses who guided us through this exceptionally complex and difficult subject.
The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, led the committee from the front and none of us could match the burning sense of injustice about the Government’s policies that he articulated in the meetings and subsequently, as his introduction today has demonstrated. It is a little-known secret that to commemorate Sir Bernard Ingham’s description of the late Lord Biffen as a “semi-detached” member of the Thatcher Cabinet, the Conservative Whips in your Lordships’ House vote annually on the Bernard Ingham award for semi-detachment. I am told that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has won this so many times in recent years that he may well own the trophy in perpetuity, although I think that there are promising signs that the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, may give him a run for his money.
It would not be right to thank the many witnesses who gave oral or written evidence without noting the particular contribution of Sir John Hills, professor of social policy at the LSE, who very sadly died not long after the report’s publication.
I will concentrate my remarks on a couple of big-picture questions; other speakers have already raised highly effectively many of the specific recommendations in the report and the universally disappointing response from the Government. First, is it right to see universal credit as the basis of in and out of work benefits for the foreseeable future? The report’s summary states that
“we received overwhelming evidence that Universal Credit should not be replaced with a new system, not least because of the severe disruption that this would cause for millions of people.”
Although I continue to feel a nagging worry that this could be an example of sunk cost fallacy after 10 years of tortuous migration from legacy benefits—still not completed—I at least tentatively support this conclusion. My suspicion is that the digital platform on which universal credit is based should and will survive but that, by the time the reforms advocated in the committee’s report and others from different sources have been implemented by possibly a more enlightened Government than this one, the system will be largely unrecognisable from that which currently prevails.
One of the recommendations of the report was that childcare should be taken out of universal credit. Picking up on the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, we had a vigorous debate about whether housing benefit really fitted within universal credit. In the end, we concluded that it should not be moved, but I think that a universal credit system would still work effectively with four or five of the legacy benefits incorporated, not the current six.
I turn now to my second main question. Can any system give the support that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, so eloquently argued that we, as a civilised society, should give to those in financial distress? I vehemently support the noble Lord’s condemnation of the Government’s decision not indefinitely to continue the £20 per week uplift that was introduced for the period of lockdown when many households’ outgoings may have decreased.
However, as every psychotherapist might say, “Maybe we should move on”. I will move on and ask the fundamental question: what amount is necessary and fair for any household to live on? Professor Jonathan Portes, who was the chief economist at the Department for Work and Pensions from 2002 to 2008, wrote last year:
“The overwhelming case against cutting Universal Credit: not the pandemic, but the extraordinary cuts to unemployment-related benefits over the last four decades.”
In the period from 1979 to 2019, average out-of-work benefits fell from 25% of average earnings—hardly a licence for luxurious living—to less than 15%. Even if the temporary uplift in universal credit in 2020-21 and the suppression of some earnings may have reversed that trend in those years, the relative normalisation of the economy now will inevitably see new lows tested.
The furlough measures introduced by the Government in response to the pandemic and related working restrictions were rightly and generally praised. These provided for furloughed employees to receive 80% of their previous earnings, capped at £30,000 per annum. Can the Minister explain to your Lordships why she thinks that, if 80% was the right level of income support under the furlough scheme, 15% of average earnings is a justifiable level of support for unemployed people in normal economic conditions? I am not saying that 80% is a sustainable level in the long term, but surely 15% is far too low.
It may or may not be a coincidence that today’s debate coincides with the Chancellor’s Spring Statement, with what I can only regard as a stunt of an income tax cut in two years’ time—and I admit that perhaps the inventor of stunts of that sort was my right honourable friend Gordon Brown. The general tone of today’s Spring Statement seemed to be, “I’m all right, Jack”. Unless and until the Government reform the system of universal credit in the way in which the committee has advocated, we will face a period, to adapt JK Galbraith, of
“private affluence and public poverty”.
Lord Desai (Non-Afl)
My Lords, one of the great advantages of being a non-affiliated Peer is that I am always placed last on the list. I want to take a different stance from that taken by most noble Lords. I agree with all noble Lords that this is an excellent report and I have learned a lot from reading it. I have studied poverty in various ways in the UK, India and other places for much of my career in economics. There is one unfailing thing that one can say about these things: to those who have, more shall be given, and from those who do not have, what little they have shall be taken away.
Debt recovery procedures are much tougher on the poor than they are on the rich. In 2008, when the stock market collapsed, all previous discipline of balanced budgets was abandoned and money was printed like there was no tomorrow to give the banks, which had lost money, and everybody else lots of money so that they could re-establish the value of their property. The consequence was that, when universal credit had to be implemented, there was no money, surprisingly. It was therefore created in an atmosphere where it was said, “We don’t have any more money for all this”. So the poor, as always, were the last in the queue.
I want to take a slightly different stance from that taken by most speakers. Why is the political economy of welfare, if I may so call it, so mean to the poor? This is not just about universal credit, although I would say that it is especially horrible to the poor. For a long time, we have had a tradition that the poor should be treated with suspicion. The poor will be suspected of being lazy and shiftless and if they are ever unable to prove that they are seeking work, that will immediately lead to some kind of punishment by taking their benefit away.
It is interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, who has shared with us his committee’s great report, quoted the Theory of Moral Sentiments and cited the Chancellor. During the pandemic, I have written a book about why political economy is so misanthropic. Adam Smith was all right; he was generous in his attitude towards the poor and how the whole purpose of an economy was to create wealth not only for the few but for the many, if I may coin a phrase. It was with the Reverend Malthus and Ricardo that economics became very mean. When Malthus invented his completely fake theory of population growth, it was to make sure that the poor were not given more money because, if they were given it, they would breed more people and therefore it is useless to give people more money. David Ricardo put that in his theory of how there should be an iron law of wages. We then had the poor law reform in the 1830s and so it continued.
The logic was simple. There are so-called paupers who cannot work due to physical reasons, but they are all right. Then there are the poor, who are to be suspected because they are capable of working but likely to be lazy and shiftless, so the maximum meanness ought to be exercised in compensating the poor—you have to make them work. Finally, under the great and rational Benthamite rule, workhouses were created so that the unemployed would be in those, and nowhere else, to be strictly supervised by the poor law commissioners. Bentham wanted the children of the poor to be employed from the age of four as apprentices, so that they would learn that work was their fortune.
We have continued like this. I remember when we had the idea, before universal credit came, that if a single person was poor they would get so much but if it was a couple, they would not get twice that: they get less than twice because somehow the poor do not need as much money as the rich. That of course led to people living apart. Then people had to spied on by their local council in case they were cohabiting, which was not so much a sin as an economic crime, and so on.
We have this attitude, and it has not gone away. During the 2010 to 2015 Government, corporation tax was cut because cutting corporation tax or income tax is always good and beneficial to society. However, as far as the poor are concerned, cutting it is good for society because that is where we have to save money. This sort of logic has continued. I do not know how one can move the political and economic system from appreciating that announcing a 1p cut in tax in 2024 will get you applauded in Parliament. However, had he said that he would restore the £20 cut in universal credit, he would have done much more than was expected of him.
Anyway, I want not so much to ask questions but to make a couple of points. How does whatever minimum entitlement we have decreed for universal credit compare with the poverty levels that the European Union has laid down? The World Bank has a measurement of poverty for the third world; it is around $3.50 per day per person. The EU standard is 60% of median income; I may be wrong by a few percentage points but 60% of median income is the EU poverty level. Is the universal credit entitlement below or above the poverty line?
I should also say that, as soon as I started studying these things, I found these arrangements so complex that you need a PhD to know what is going on. I remember that there used to be a very fat book published by the Child Poverty Action Group in the 1960s to help people make their way through the variety of benefits and things, with all the conditions and exceptions and this and that. Why do we make the poor work so hard for the pittance we give them? Why can we not simplify the matter so that people get their money in a certain, predictable way? After all, as someone else said, we are not giving them much money compared with how much we have lost in fraud. It is nothing; it is a pittance. Although we were right to give money for furlough, we did not give a similar amount of money to the poor.
So we need a political rethink of why we do what we do. Why is the logic always misanthropic in our political economy, or whatever you want to call it? I hope that reports like this one will make us think that we have to change our attitude completely and not expect the poor to be more patient, more frugal and more rule-obeying. The fault, dear Brutus, is in ourselves and not in the poor.
Viscount Brookeborough (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful for being allowed to speak in the gap. I apologise for not giving notice; I did not think I was going to be here. I had not even noticed that the debate was going on.
The report led by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, seems excellent. I am not surprised by the disappointment in the reaction. I was a member of an ad hoc committee on financial exclusion that reported in 2017. We did some of it on universal credit, although we did not go into the same depth. I agree with everything that has been said.
In the time I have, I want briefly to comment on people and mental welfare. Mental welfare has become an increasingly important topic, led by Prince William and others. It really is important and, as things do not go so well, it becomes more and more important.
One of the problems is that universal credit is too complicated. We have just heard that it is so complicated that we do not understand it. People feel like criminals when they go through this process; I will come on that in a minute. The five-week wait puts people in debt. The Government will argue that that is not the whole reason, but we know that there is an increase in the number of people who are going into debt, for one reason or another, as a result of universal credit.
We went to Toynbee Hall, among other places. As noble Lords may be aware, this is an amazing charity that supports disadvantaged people. Many things struck me there. One was a lady who I and others were talking to. She said, “I just pray that you can give me some help. This is my correspondence about universal credit”—and it was a full lever arch file. She could not understand it and we could not understand it. All it said was, “Thank you for the answer to your last question. Will you please answer the following? Thank you for the answer to that; will you please do this?” She was at her wits’ end and felt she was being criminalised.
The next problem is the wait for money and people going into debt. This has a far greater effect than the Government ever seem to accept. The low-income group is an incredibly proud group of people. They care for their pennies, worry about the food they buy for their families and manage their expenses in an amazing way. Then a change in system dictated by government puts them into debt. They say, “We’ve never been criminals; we’ve always obeyed everything. But, to me, being in debt is a crime”. It does not just hit them; they are destroyed by this.
Therefore, when the Government say that they do help but there will be some people in debt, take a moment to understand the hundreds of thousands of people who, first, are made to feel like criminals because they have to fill in so many forms and answer so many questions and, secondly, feel like criminals because they are not able to hold their heads up and say, “I have never owed anybody anything”. Something like 40% of the population are not able to repair their washing machine out of cash—and we then do this to them. I ask the Minister whether the Government would consider this further. It brings you to tears to listen to them, when you can do nothing whatever to help. We have devised a system that has taken them away from their careful life planning —not borrowing, because they hate it, and not stealing, because they are not criminals. We then put them into this and, in three weeks, they are in debt—and, as far as they are concerned, they are criminals.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
We are debating an excellent report, like all the reports produced by the Economic Affairs Committee under the dynamic and effective chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean. I find that very annoying, because I was a member of his committee and, after leaving, have detected no falling off at all in the quality of the reports it has produced. I have to tell the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, that, knowing how dynamic and effective the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, is, I do not expect to see much falling off in the quality of the reports now, either.
The sad thing about this report is that it has not been overtaken, although it came out in July 2020. There is an extra dimension of sadness for me in that something is missing that could not be there, because it was written in July 2020, before the energy price spikes started. As the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, said, the energy price cap will go up by 54% next week. That is based on the increase in wholesale energy prices last autumn. We are now in the next reference period, which will determine the increase in October. At present, we are in for a rather larger increase. It looks as if the average household price, which is teetering at nearly £2,000 now, will go up to over £3,000, with another increase of 55% or 60% in the autumn.
We all know what a big component of household expenditure heating and lighting is for the less well off. Is it beyond the wit of man, or the wit of the department, to consider indexing universal credit, or an element of it, to the price of heating and lighting? Next winter could be an extraordinarily bad one for anybody on universal credit, for all the reasons that were set out in the report and discussed in the Chamber today, but with the additional reason, perhaps bigger than most of them, that the price of heating and lighting will be very much higher.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and the Economic Affairs Committee. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, it is a very august and illustrious committee, as I am sure it was when he was a member of it. It is of great encouragement to me, and I am sure to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and others, that we have this support for major changes to universal credit. I have to say that in the past we have not had a great deal of support for the kinds of changes proposed in the report, many of which we have raised. But I am encouraged today, and I hope that we have two people here who will see some of these fundamental changes through and campaign for them. I know the Minister; she is also a campaigner, and I know she will be very good at understanding the issues raised in the report and their effect on the people they apply to.
An effective safety net must provide realistic and accessible support for anyone who falls on hard times, whether through loss of a job, bereavement, relationship breakdown or other personal catastrophes. Any of these could happen to all of us in periods of our lives; they often do. The current system manifestly does not do this, as the report evidences.
The report identifies and analyses a range of familiar problems, as well as the lack of confidence, failure to understand how the scheme works and general feeling of powerlessness experienced by people who try to use the scheme, and gives practical recommendations. As many noble Lords have said, there is a need for a fundamental revisiting of the scheme’s finances. I know from reading the book Clashing Agendas by the noble Lord, Lord Freud, about the pressures in place when the Government tried to establish the scheme and set it on its way. As the report says, now is a timely moment to look at the fundamental financing of the scheme.
All noble Lords mentioned the crisis we face in energy and prices. The sticking plaster today in the form of an increase in the household support fund seems to show contempt for the suffering of so many people. As I said, I am grateful for the report because it does so much to analyse with the committee’s rigour and bring forward firm proposals that are deliverable, so I am hopeful.
As the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said, confidence in the scheme is extremely low. There is an overall perception of a chaotic system that is incomprehensible, inaccessible, intractable in its decisions and harshly punitive of any perceived shortcomings of claimants. I have written down some of the report’s themes that I hope the Minister will respond to, particularly the recommendations, which seem very sensible, as many noble Lords have said.
As I said, more funding is definitely needed to provide adequacy. The current level of support is quite rightly said by many to not be enough to live on. It needs to be a secure and fair scheme that provides proper support for claimants when they need it. So the recommendation that the Government should have committed
“to making the increase in the standard allowance permanent”
is very welcome. The recommendation also says:
“To avoid undue hardship and poverty it should also examine the relative levels of benefits for couples and those with children and investigate whether there are other claimant groups who do not receive adequate income.”
Many noble Lords have referred to the delays in the system. The five-week wait is ruinous for many people. I was encouraged to see that, during the lockdown, many people who would normally be in work were made aware of just how awful it is to have to wait five weeks when you have no money to put food on the table.
The inflexibility of the monthly assessment period has been fairly well documented—in fact, I think there has been a court case on it. The idea that people should be paid monthly because it corresponds to work takes no account of the way people work nowadays. It takes no account of the fact that people work on zero-hours contracts and that many need to have two jobs in order to live. Not only do they have to wait but, worse still, they have deductions made because they were overpaid because of the schedule, not because they have too much money. As I have said, for many people, it is incomprehensible that they should be put through this system.
The recommendations on conditionality, sanctions and the punitive approach are welcome. The suggestion of a written warning system is very helpful, because many claimants do not even know that they are going to be sanctioned or realise it only when they have just had their money cut. Similarly, I support the recommendation that deductions from universal credit be first subjected to an affordability assessment and made only in accordance with what the claimant can afford. I would like to see that brought in.
Some elements of the system actually increase poverty, including the two-child limit—if the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham were here today, he would have a great deal to say about that—so I welcome the recommendation that the two-child limit be reinvestigated. I am not necessarily sure about the tapered allowance for large families; I would like to see the evidence that that would adequately support larger families before I agreed with it. However, we certainly support the ending of the benefit cap, which we believe is another direct cause of poverty for many people.
Many noble Lords, particularly the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, mentioned that the Government’s response is not surprising. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, who has been campaigning on this subject for much longer than I have, was not surprised by it either. However, we are encouraged that the chilling economic circumstances described so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, might bring about some rethinking in the Government and hope that it will be an incentive. One hates to think that it needs a financial and economic crisis and a crisis in the cost of living to make the Government rethink, but if that happens, we will be very pleased to see it.
As many noble Lords have said, it is the most vulnerable who will suffer the most punishing circumstances in the cost of living crisis. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, referred to indexing universal credit to the price of heating and lighting. That would be a welcome measure. The point on cuts in budgets over the past 40 years, made by the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, is, again, one that we need to take into account. Comparison between the furlough and what people receive on universal credit is very telling indeed.
This has been a call to arms from the Economic Affairs Committee and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, will take the fight forward as chair. I know that he will have plenty of people who will be willing to help him. I hope that, as a result, we might see a real advance. I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, for his strength of purpose and his willingness to take on big challenges, and hope that he will continue to do so.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, I am the substitute for my noble friend Lady Sherlock. I could not even begin to match her wide knowledge and experience of these matters, but I can match her determination in wanting to put things right. I welcome the many detailed contributions from your Lordships. I was particularly struck by the opening remarks from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, who made salient point after point about the dire state of the many millions of people significantly affected by the cost of living crisis. Indeed, he gave the Government many sensible and strong points to follow, and I hope they listen to what he said. They would be wise to act upon his advice and that of his committee. His words were ably supported by the new chair of the committee, the noble Lord, Lord Bridges of Headley, who provided clear and concise key points and noted a lack of principles in this Government.
A lot has happened since the Economic Affairs Committee published the report we are debating back in July 2020. As a result, some of its content and recommendations have been superseded—in particular, retaining the £20 pandemic uplift, which has been cut, and reducing the taper rate, which went from 63% to 55% in the last Budget. I will return to these points, but let me address the content of the report itself first.
Much of the report and the issues that it found with universal credit still exist and continue to make life difficult for those eligible for it. As the name of the report says, universal credit is not working. Temporary and inadequate sticking plasters like the household support fund are no substitute for a proper social security system that offers security to families in hard times. I acknowledge that the Chancellor has doubled that fund in his Spring Statement today, but, disappointingly, he made no mention of universal credit.
Although my view and that of the Labour Benches is that universal credit should eventually be replaced, which the report does not agree with, I share the report’s overall conclusion that “substantial reform” is required in the first instance, as in its current state, the inflexible system is
“harming many, particularly the most vulnerable.”
A big part of this is about complexity. Universal credit was heralded—I remember seeing the TV documentaries with Iain Duncan Smith—as a simplified system, making it easier for claimants and the department alike. Instead, as the report notes, claimants do not know the support they will receive on a month-to-month basis, and the use of an arbitrary assessment date and pay date do the opposite.
Claimants are also on the end of significant shortfalls caused by the whole-month approach to any changes in circumstance, which in many cases will be out of their control and in no way reflects the lives of those in low-income households. A fair system would reflect the lives of those using it and be flexible enough to adapt.
As well as reflecting any changes in circumstances, the Government have said that their intention was for payments to reflect work, but this is not the reality. The report notes—as did the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth—that many new claimants have no experience of monthly pay. Having no flexibility in payment schemes different from this is detrimental to claimants, who are being forced to accommodate the system rather than the other way around. This principle extends to single household payments. As the report highlights, this simply does not reflect reality, but more pressingly it is an enabler for financial coercion and domestic abuse by making it more difficult for sufferers of these terrible situations to escape.
But the most damaging design flaw is the five-week wait. We know that the Government are aware of this as they have taken steps to mitigate it, but they have not gone far enough. Taking an advanced payment—one of the Government’s favourite tactics to make it look as if they are doing something when they are really doing nothing—means claimants choosing between a shortage now or later. This has left claimants, particularly those in vulnerable groups, disproportionately in limbo, with increasing debt, poverty and anxiety. Also, it is a minimum five-week wait. Some people are waiting even longer—and, even if everything goes to plan, in this time many people are referred to food banks as they struggle with debt, rent arrears and the mental health issues that arise from or are exacerbated by the uncertainty.
Moving on from design issues, there is of course the question of the adequacy of awards. Since the report was published, the then newly introduced £20 weekly uplift has been scrapped—in October last year. That was the second cut to benefits in six months, which, given the numerous other issues with the system and the cost of living crisis, was the last thing that claimants needed and will have achieved little beyond making the wide range of difficulties faced by claimants harder.
It is welcome that the Chancellor followed Labour’s lead and reduced the work allowance taper rate at the last Budget, but that is the equivalent of bailing water from a sinking ship with a spoon. Over one in four people on universal credit have no work requirements because they are unable to work due to a disability or a caring responsibility—a group for which lowering the taper rate provides nothing.
The committee’s report also highlighted the use of universal credit to collect other debts, which claimants are often unaware of, from recipients including
“£6 billion of historic tax credit debt”.
How can the Government look at this and think it is anything other than entirely against the principles of the system? You cannot have social security that offers no security.
Ultimately, I think that drifting away from the set of principles that would constitute a working social security is where universal credit has gone wrong, regardless of how this point has been reached. My noble friend Lady Lister expertly noted that, in the longer term, a review of the adequacy of benefits is needed. She has a detailed understanding of the causes of poverty and has provided many solutions for the Government in her academic work, if only they were willing to listen and learn.
The committee set out eight key principles that it set the report’s conclusions and recommendations against, derived from evidence taken during the inquiry, and which it considers reforms should be shaped by. I hope that very few in this place disagree with a set of principles that includes dignity and respect, providing adequate income, security and stability, reflecting lived experience, and being fair and flexible. But what is clear from both the committee’s inquiry and the experiences of claimants that we hear regularly is that the system we currently have in place does not reflect these principles closely enough. So I sincerely hope that the Government will turn to them as a guide and enact the serious reform that universal credit requires.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the committee and my noble friend on the report that we have been considering today. I will start by saying that I completely appreciate the depth of feeling and passion on the issues that have been raised.
I start by disagreeing slightly with something. When it is said that universal credit is not working, I would have to disagree. If we had had the legacy system in place and the issues around Covid-19, I doubt that anybody would have got any money on a regular basis. There are certainly a lot of elements of UC that work, but today all noble Lords have raised concerns that we must take account of, and we must change where it is possible to change.
The reform of universal credit is an ongoing process. It is under the leadership of Neil Couling and his team. I congratulate them on their excellent work.
My noble friend Lord Forsyth mentioned pre-paid meters. At this stage, let me say that I completely agree about the issues and additional expense that they cause. This situation rests with BEIS but I undertake to follow up on it personally, as I agreed to do in the Chamber earlier this week.
I completely agree with noble Lords that this is a difficult time. I would like to set the record straight, if I may. On universal credit and the monthly assessment period, if we had had the tax credit system, there would have been an annual assessment. That is why we have the debt we do. A monthly assessment is far better for the individuals we are trying to serve.
I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. It is worth noting, as some have said, that this report was commissioned prior to Covid-19. In what has been a very difficult period, the universal credit system has proven its worth through the invaluable support it has given to the 6 million people who faced financial insecurity during this time, with the pandemic seeing the amount of universal credit claims double and many people—a high proportion of them—being paid on time.
On the cost of living, which all noble Lords raised, the Government have introduced new measures to help with energy costs on top of the existing £12 billion of support that they are providing to help families during this financial year and the next. We are increasing the national living wage to £9.50 but I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, about whether it is a living or a thriving wage; however, we have increased this amount as the years have gone on.
I will come on to more interesting points about housing costs, but we have helped with the cost of housing. Discretionary housing payments can be paid and are very flexible. In 2021-22, the Government made £140 million of discretionary housing payments available to local authorities. Vulnerable renters struggling due to the impact of the pandemic will be helped by a £65 million support package announced by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. The funding will go to councils in England to support low-income earners in rent arrears, helping to prevent homelessness.
The noble Baroness, Lady Janke, and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, raised the issue of energy bills. The Government have announced that they will provide significant financial support of up to £350 to the majority of households, protecting them from half of the forecast £700 rise in energy bills. This support is worth £9.1 billion in 2022-23.
There is also a £150 non-repayable cash rebate on council tax for 80% of households, and the Government will provide £144 million in discretionary funding for local authorities to support households that would not be eligible for that. There is the warm home discount scheme, cold weather payments and help with basic food costs through Healthy Start food vouchers. We are investing more than £200 million a year in our holiday activities programme while ensuring that children get food in the school holidays.
Noble Lords have said that our record on the cost of living is poor. I do not accept that. We have a proud record of being on the side of working people. Since 2010, under successive Governments, we have doubled personal tax thresholds, which we increased again today. We have doubled free childcare, which I will come on to. We have increased the work allowance and cut the taper rate; my noble friend was right to say that this measure was in his report prior to us doing it. Of course, as I said, we have also extended free school meals.
The robustness of the UC system was evident in dealing with an unprecedented event, which we could not have foreseen. As I have said, this would not have been possible under the legacy system. The digital nature of universal credit allowed for its adaptability during this period, where we managed to get a record number of claims processed within the first few months. This ensured financial security at a very uncertain time, with around 95% of claims being paid at the end of their first assessment period, despite pressures on the UC system. Regrettably, I must say that during this period organised criminals and opportunists sought to exploit the extraordinary circumstances of a global pandemic for gain.
Last autumn, we announced a 75% uplift in our investment in counter-fraud, compliance and debt operations, taking our funding to £1.4 billion over the next three years. With this funding, we are: setting up a new, targeted review of universal credit claims; investing in enhanced data and analytics to prevent fraud and error occurring; increasing our capacity to address serious and organised crime; and scaling up our existing operations, through funding for around 2,000 additional trained specialists to identify and stop scammers. This investment will generate billions of pounds of savings over the scorecard period.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, raised Help to Claim. We recognise the challenges that a digital platform may pose for those who are unable to use this technology. That is why we have support through Help to Claim, and the alternative of being able to make a claim by telephone. A £21.3 million investment has been made available for the Help to Claim provision, providing support for a further 12 months, following a recent competition. From 1 April 2022, people will be able to access Help to Claim support online and over the phone through Citizens Advice and Citizens Advice Scotland. The service will be available at any time until the first full, correct payment of universal credit is made. People who are unable to access support, or to make their claim to universal credit by telephone or online, will be able to go to their jobcentre, where jobcentre staff will identify the right support to meet their needs.
The use of assessment periods ensures that we calculate a household’s benefit entitlement correctly, reducing overpayments and debt for families who already face financial uncertainty. The use of real-time information further enables this with accurate and current earnings information, ensuring the robustness of the assessment of entitlement.
All noble Lords have raised the issue of advances. I must confirm that, for those in financial need, the introduction of new claims advances allows for an eligible claimant to receive their full benefit entitlement up front, resulting in 25 payments of UC over 24 months. For those looking for work, universal credit works alongside existing provision to get people back into work, and to help fill the 1.2 million vacancies available. To highlight this, the Government’s Plan for Jobs initiative has made great strides in its bid to help 2 million people back into work. Further evidence can be seen through Kickstart, which is integrated with the universal credit system, resulting in over 130,000 young people getting valuable work experience to assist them to move forward in their careers. This is complemented by the reduction of the earnings taper and increased work allowance to ensure that work does pay, and results in 1.9 million households keeping, on average, around an extra £1,000 a year.
The department firmly believes that the best way to support claimants is through empowered work coaches, who engage proactively with claimants to help them identify the options they need to help build their skills, increase their confidence and return to employment. The claimant commitment is a tool for setting out, and getting the claimant to take ownership of, what they need to do in return for receiving their UC. In this sense, conditionality is indeed adapted dynamically with the claimant to ensure that the requirements for receiving support are appropriate and proportionate to the claimant’s current situation.
The claimant commitment is a key enabler to support claimants into work or to increase their earnings. For staff, it should be an enabler which supports robust setting and monitoring of work-related activities, and fair decision-making in relation to sanctions. The claimant commitment is a living document and is continually reviewed with the claimant, as appropriate, to ensure that it reflects their current situation. As such, the department considers that this meets the needs of the claimant, as well as our work coaches, in supporting claimants back into work.
When moving into work, there is additional support through the universal credit childcare offer. I completely understand the challenges that people face with childcare and that it sometimes stops them moving back to work. 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 to 70% in tax credits. These can be claimed up to a month before starting a job and eligible claimants can receive help for upfront childcare costs by applying for help from the flexible support fund. Our work coaches absolutely love the flexible support fund and will use it legitimately for anything that helps to remove barriers for people going back to work. That help is non-repayable and paid directly to the childcare provider, where it is used for childcare fees. Additionally, a universal credit budgeting advance is available to eligible UC claimants to assist with upfront costs.
The Government are committed to improving the lives of disabled people and delivering the most ambitious disability reform agenda in a generation. In 2017, we set a goal to see 1 million more disabled people in work by 2027. In the first four years of the goal, between quarter 1 2017 and quarter 1 2021, the number of disabled people in employment increased by 850,000.
For those unable to work because of ill health or disability, universal credit provides generous support. A claimant who is determined to have limited capability for work and work-related activity is awarded an additional amount of benefit; it is currently £343.63 per calendar month, which is more than double the equivalent rate paid in employment and support allowance. Additionally, claimants who are assessed to have limited capability for work, or for work and work-related activity, are eligible for a work allowance and, in couple claims where one is working, access to help with childcare.
I try to be as respectful to noble Lords as I possibly can in all these debates. The two areas that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, raises frequently—I respect her for it—are the benefit cap and the two-child policy. There is always a balance that must be struck between supporting those in need and having a system that provides a strong work incentive and fairness for hard-working tax households. This is not a new concept.
I remind all noble Lords that the proportion of households capped remains low, at 1.9% of the overall working-age benefit caseload. Exemptions from the cap also exist, such as those for households with earnings of at least £617 in an assessment period, and for those who are vulnerable and receiving disability benefits or are entitled to carer benefits. In addition, it is worth highlighting that the national cap of £20,000 is equivalent to gross family earnings of around £24,000, while the London cap of £23,000 is equivalent to gross family earnings of around £28,000.
The two-child limit is based on statistics from the Office for National Statistics showing that, in 2020, 85% of all families with dependent children had a maximum of two in their family; for lone parents, it was 83%. On the latest figures, 62% of households with a third or subsequent child that are in receipt of UC or CTC are not affected by the two-child policy. It is important to support families, but it is also important to be fair to the many working families who do not see their budgets rise when they have more children.
I will come on to some of the more specific points raised. I will see what I can do within the limits on my time.
A question was asked by my noble friend Lord Forsyth, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and others about why it is paid monthly. Universal credit is designed to top up earnings from employment, adapting to changes in the amount of earnings received each month. I must tell noble Lords that the department has no plans to change either universal credit assessment periods or payment structures. The current approach reflects the world of work, where the majority of employees receive wages monthly. Paying in this manner will encourage claimants to take personal responsibility for their finances and budget on a monthly basis, which could save households money. Ensuring similarities between paid employment and receiving benefits also eliminates an important barrier, which could prevent claimants adjusting to paid employment.
I cannot say this with utter confidence but I am quite sure that, where claimants are in difficulty and hardship, work coaches can help them. Rather than give information that is not 100% correct, I will write to noble Lords to confirm the additional support for when people are in difficulty.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans referred to the monthly assessment periods. Entitlement to UC is calculated in monthly assessment periods and the amount paid reflects as closely as possible the actual circumstances of a household in each assessment period, including any earnings reported by the employer in that period. Monthly reporting allows UC to be adjusted monthly, which I can only say is better than the tax credit yearly reconciliation. It ensures that, if a claimant’s income falls, resulting in a rise in their universal credit, they will not have to wait several months to receive it.
My noble friend Lord Forsyth raised the whole-month approach. As I have said before, universal credit is assessed and paid on a monthly basis. It is paid in arrears for each month and the amount will not vary to reflect the number of days in the month. To simplify the policy, we took a whole-month approach to changes of circumstance. This is a fundamental design principle of universal credit and is more straightforward for claimants to understand as they can anticipate how much universal credit they will receive, so can budget accordingly.
I come to the work of the work coaches. From all my dealings with them, all the visits I have done and all the times I have spoken to them, I know they are doing a first-class job. Nothing makes their heart sing more than when people get the right support and get into work, and where their payments are made correctly. We have 104 intensive work search claimants per work coach. To meet the demand for jobcentre services, DWP successfully recruited 13,500 new work coaches by March 2021. If any noble Lord wishes to meet a work coach, I would be only too happy to make those arrangements so that they can talk to them and see at first hand what they do. Whether the issue is money, childcare, personal circumstances, domestic abuse or anything else, they stand ready to help our clients.
My noble friend Lord Forsyth and the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, mentioned written warnings. In 2018, we committed to look at processes to give claimants a written warning instead of a sanction, sometimes referred to as a “yellow card”. We have restarted the work to test issuing a written warning instead of a sanction for a first sanctionable failure to attend a work search review. A second proof of concept is testing the operational viability of a warning system, and a further proof of concept is planned for later in the year. Once the proofs of concept are complete, we will assess the results and determine whether a larger-scale pilot is required. On sanctions, let me just say that no work coach or person in the system goes to work with a target to sanction so many people. They go to work thinking, “How many people can I progress today and get into work?”
Many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Forsyth, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, talked about advances. For UC, new claims advances are available urgently if a claimant needs support during their first assessment period and budgeting support is available for anybody who needs extra help. Advances of 100% of potential UC entitlement are available urgently. With an advance, claimants receive an additional UC payment, resulting in 25 payments over a 24-month period. We have reduced the normal maximum rate of deductions from 30% to 25% and have made numerous improvements to UC, including ensuring that people get the money they need as soon as possible through advances.
There was reference to the advances creating debt. I think the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, mentioned people who have never been in debt in their life. I understand the delicacy around this, but we are trying to get money to people who need it and for them to repay it, which is not unreasonable, over a period that they can cope with.
My noble friend Lord Forsyth made points about the current system supporting the long-term unemployed to move from one low-paid job to another. Our job is to get people into work, a better job and a career. We are managing to achieve this through our Plan for Jobs programme, with more news to come on the in-work progression system when that works.
I have already talked about the five-week wait. Nobody has to wait five weeks; I can only endorse that again.
We have talked about the benefit cap and the two-child policy. Through everything they have raised, noble Lords have talked about fairness in the system, which I understand. For policy areas that are often open to criticism that are highlighted in this report, such as the benefit cap and the two-child policy, there is always a balance that must be struck between supporting those in need and providing a system that provides a strong work incentive and fairness for hard-working taxpaying households. This is not a new concept and one that we will not change.
A benefits structure adjusting automatically to family size is unsustainable, and the Government have had to take the difficult decision to stabilise our economy and build a welfare system that works for those who use it, as well as those who pay for it. The Government’s view is that providing support for a maximum of two children in UC and CTC ensures fairness between claimants and taxpayers who support themselves through work. I doubt that I could have done anything to placate noble Lords on that issue, but it is the Government’s position.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Janke and Lady Lister, talked about the adequacy of the benefits system. All benefit uprating since 1987 has been based on the increase in the relevant inflation index in the 12 months to the previous September, as happens now. We all know that 3.1% was used this year.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, raised the move to universal credit. The pilot scheme that had been active in Harrogate was suspended as the department focused on delivering the Government’s ongoing response to Covid. Ahead of restarting activity around the move to UC this year, we want to ensure that claimants are aware of their entitlements and to support those who wish voluntarily to move to UC to do so. The department will make an announcement in due course on the plans for the move to universal credit. I have no doubt that there will be all-Peers briefings and meetings for us to discuss that.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
Could I ask the Minister about take-up estimates?
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I asked a number of questions about migration to UC. Perhaps the Minister could write about that as well.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I will cover that in winding up; I am conscious of the time.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, raised food banks. Food banks are independent charitable organisations and the DWP does not have any role in their operation. There is no consistent and accurate measure of food bank usage at constituency or national level.
On third-party deductions, benefit debts and social fund loans can see deductions reduced or deferred as the creditor, DWP, will always try to ensure that government debt is recovered effectively without causing undue hardship.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, talked about an impact assessment. The Government recognise that the public sector equality duty set out in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 is ongoing. As such, a full equality impact assessment was completed prior to the introduction of the uplift to UC, and it was reviewed and updated prior to the implementation of the temporary six-month extension announced by the Chancellor at the Budget on 3 March 2021.
I have already covered cost of living issues, fully cognisant of the difficulties that people are facing. I have heaps of information here. I try to answer all your Lordships’ questions and to treat the Grand Committee with respect. I do not want anyone to think that I am not prepared to answer questions; I will go through Hansard and through all these questions. I will write, and all noble Lords will get a copy of that. I thank your Lordships for the time you have spent listening to me.
Lord Shipley (LD)
Before the Minister sits down, I would be happy if she would write very specifically on the closure of DWP offices, some of which are clearly closing and not being replaced by alternatives.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I have an extra few seconds: we are rationalising back offices, and no job centres or face-to-face situations are involved. There is no desire whatsoever for anyone to lose their job.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, this is an unusual experience for me, because I have not found anyone to disagree with. On the fact that this committee is so much in agreement, on 9 March 2021, we did something rather unusual: we had a joint meeting of the Economic Affairs Committee and the House of Commons Select Committee concerned with these matters. We were unanimous in our view, and we took evidence from Mr Couling and the then Minister, Will Quince MP. There was universal agreement, except with Mr Couling, who thought that we were interfering with his perfect system. I think he said that making any changes would make it even more complicated and that he had devised a system which he thought would be around for generations to come. It is a classic example of coming up with a perfect system that everyone has to fit into and then ignoring the problems that occur.
I pay tribute to my noble friend the Minister. She does a fantastic job, and we all know that she is very well aware, from her own background, experience and the care with which she does her ministerial job, of the kinds of problems that arise. We know that the real problem here is the Treasury.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
That reminds me of something from my noble friend Lord Dobbs: “You may say that, but I couldn’t possibly comment”.
I very much appreciate the way in which the Minister responded to the debate, but I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, has been very patiently waiting to get on with the debate on the excellent Constitution Committee report, so I just thank everyone who has participated. Let us hope that the urgency and severity of the situation means that Mr Couling, the Secretary of State and the Treasury will mend their ways. I beg to move.
Covid-19 and the Courts (Constitution Committee Report)
(2 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Bolton
That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report from the Constitution Committee COVID-19 and the Courts (22nd Report, Session 2019–21, HL Paper 257).
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, will be contributing to this debate remotely.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, I am very pleased that we have an opportunity to discuss this report. It was published some time—a full year—ago, meaning that it has been a long wait, but perhaps that gives us an opportunity to hear to what extent the Government have taken on board the recommendations that we made.
The remit of the committee’s inquiry was to explore the impact of the pandemic and the Government’s response in relation to the operation of the courts. We were particularly interested in how the experience of the pandemic might influence the workings of the justice system in the future. I think it is fair to say that some of what we found will be very helpful going forward in terms of both what would work and what did not work.
No one can doubt the scale of the challenges that the pandemic brought us across all aspects of our lives. The justice system was no exception. In the report, we acknowledge the work that was done by those who have responsibility for our Courts & Tribunals Service. We said that there was
“a monumental effort by all”—
at least, most of the people—
“working in courts and tribunals to maintain a functioning system despite the COVID-19 pandemic.”
That was no mean ambition, and absolutely essential to our democracy.
However, as was patently clear from all the evidence we received, the justice system in England and Wales was under very significant strain even before the pandemic hit. It is important that we keep that at the back of our minds throughout this debate. I draw particular attention to paragraph 14 of our report, which shows clearly the impact of the Government’s funding cuts on Her Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service. I must emphasise how significant and damaging these cuts were. The scale of them is quite astounding. In 2019-20, Ministry of Justice funding for the Courts & Tribunals Service was a full 21% lower in real terms than it was in 2010-11. Between 2010 and 2019, a full half of all magistrates’ courts and more than a third of county courts were closed. The number of HMCTS staff went down as well.
In addition to this, there was a significant cut in legal aid funding. By 2019-20, legal aid funding was 37% less in real terms than it had been in 2010-11. That led us to the following conclusion—it is in paragraph 20, for those who are interested:
“The reduction in Government funding in the decade preceding the pandemic left courts vulnerable going into the COVID-19 crisis.”
I am afraid that that was the starting point, and it exacerbated the difficulties that the courts were going to find.
On top of all that, we have the problem of digital transformation. In 2014, the Ministry of Justice acknowledged the very real problems in the digital infrastructure of the whole system and announced a welcome package of measures to address it—in particular a package that would offer new IT support for remote hearings. The National Audit Office has reported on the problems of that programme, and it is not a happy story. We have seen repeated delays and significant problems that made it even more difficult for the justice system to adapt when Covid hit.
Finally, as an example of the lack of preparedness, we were told that the Government’s simulation of a flu pandemic in 2016, Exercise Cygnus, did not even consider what the impact might be on courts and tribunals. It was an obvious omission from an exercise that should have been complete.
That was the backdrop. That was the situation that we had pre the pandemic and, clearly, it had been made worse by the Government’s decisions. These cuts and this confusion led to an enormous backlog of cases—we will mention that later, because there are still some very worrying signs about the backlog that exists today.
When Covid hit us all, as it did so severely, change had to come quickly for everyone involved in the justice system: for victims, for defendants, for legal professionals, for the judiciary and for the support staff in courts—who very often do not get the credit they deserve for helping to keep the show in the road. On the ability of different parts of the justice system to adapt, there was a very mixed picture as to whether there was a satisfactory outcome. The immediate response of the Government—the Lord Chancellor working with the Lord Chief Justice—was to take some very significant steps. Some courts were closed; jury trials were suspended; there was a focus on priority cases, though there will always be a definitional problem there—who thinks a case is not a priority if they are involved?—and we saw the increasing use of technology to support remote hearings. There was, to give the Government credit, increased spending to facilitate the changes in technology for remote hearings. In addition, temporary courtrooms—the Nightingale courts—were opened to try to provide extra facilities and accommodation, especially when social distancing was necessary. That proved to be a very steep learning curve for everyone involved.
I shall not go into it in detail, but paragraph 35 of the committee’s report sets out the sequence of lots of the changes that were made over that period, responding to some of the pressures that existed. The most obvious of the significant changes was the move to remote hearings. This was not easy in many respects, but it was not easy primarily because of the antiquated nature of the IT systems that many in the courts system were using.
However, change there was. People responded quickly, and a new norm developed where there was a fivefold increase in the use of video and audio and, very soon, four out of every five cases were being heard remotely. Other things happened. HMCTS provided the criminal courts with a cloud-based video platform. The Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice both told us that they were impressed by the way in which the courts had responded.
It is true that, for many, this system did work. However, there was anything but a uniform experience. In the senior and appellate courts, the evidence that we received showed that remote hearings generally worked well. That was no surprise, because the judiciary and the practitioners at that level were—and, indeed, are—very well resourced, and the nature of much of the case work was more suitable for remote hearings. Because of this, the Lord Chief Justice was able to tell us that, in the High Court, 80% of normal work continued. The Supreme Court told us that no case had been adjourned because the court was unable to provide a hearing. Those figures and that information should give us some reassurance.
However, that was not the case elsewhere. There was certainly a more mixed picture in the lower courts, where the majority of cases are held and where many vulnerable litigants had a very different, and a very difficult, experience. I mentioned the family courts—and other noble Lords may wish to say more on this—where there was a rapid change to video and audio hearings. That had a very mixed set of results, with many people feeling very hard done by and that justice had not served them well. The Nuffield Family Justice Observatory, which is an independent research organisation, said that a majority of parents and families had concerns about the way in which their cases had been dealt with and that nearly half of those asked said that they had not understood what was happening during the online hearing. That is a very worrying picture, and one which gives real cause for concern. The Government need to think ahead of what should be happening in the future to make sure that that kind of experience does not happen on an ongoing basis.
The committee heard from one solicitor who very clearly described the difficulties which a client had experienced with just one mobile phone and no internet connection while trying to deal with both the court and her solicitor remotely. That is not the case in every situation, but it provides a contrast with the commercial cases, where all the resources and skills are available to everyone involved.
I want to mention one aspect of remote hearings which should not surprise us because it is very logical. Some remote hearings were very useful in emphasising the potential benefits of distanced participation. I think in particular of cases of domestic violence, where the victim could be heard remotely and not have to be in danger of being intimidated by the presence of the accused, or his family, in a court room. These are all factors which must be taken into account as we go forward, but, overall, it is clear that the vulnerable individuals involved in the courts system were often made more vulnerable by remote hearings. As I said, this is something to which the Government will need to give more attention in the future.
I also want to mention video remand hearings. The Lord Chancellor described them as a “singular success story”, and there are obvious advantages if a defendant does not have to be brought from remand to a court and escorted while they wait for a hearing that might come after a long wait and then last a matter of minutes. That is a resource-intensive event, and it is clear that there are very significant benefits in remote video hearings. However, we were also told that in October 2020 the National Police Chiefs’ Council confirmed that police forces would stop using virtual remand hearings due to cost and service pressures. The Lord Chancellor seemed frustrated by that, and I totally understand why. There is obviously real scope for benefit to everybody—except perhaps the prisoner who wants time out of prison—but it is not really the answer to how we could deal efficiently with cases of that kind, and I hope that there will be a report of some progress on that, because it is a very clear way forward.
I have outlined some of the main issues that are involved, and I know that other colleagues will pick up other aspects and give more detail on some—for example, the backlog. I hope that the Minister will clarify exactly where we are on the backlog of cases. I saw recently that the Nightingale court in Bolton was being closed, along with others, and I also saw that Liverpool and Chester Crown Courts had reported an ever-increasing build-up of cases, with the number of cases at the end of March 51% higher than at this time last year. I also noted that the National Audit Office had said recently, and very worryingly, that the Courts & Tribunals Service and the Ministry of Justice were
“not yet working towards shared … objectives”.
The National Audit Office described the Ministry of Justice’s plans to tackle the backlog as “ambitious”—and I think those of us who have seen “Yes Minister” know what that means. So there are some very real problems there to be answered.
I will ask the Minister to think about one other point. It is the question of the data that is available on all these problems. We heard very compelling evidence from Dr Natalie Byrom on the need to improve information gathering—I think that she has been in touch with the Ministry of Justice—but we need some detail about what is going to be done on that to make sure that we are operating on proper information.
So I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that the experience and the response to the challenges of Covid have some aspects that deserve praise, but I hope he will also acknowledge that the system was under pressure and vulnerable because of government cuts, and that the problems of the IT system have not gone away. I think we could do with an update following the National Audit Office’s criticisms. We really are worried about that backlog. But my main concern is the fact that vulnerable people are not well served if we do not have the proper infrastructure to give them the support that they need. Just recently, the Law Society has echoed our concerns about those who do not have access to all the technology and support that they need to be effective in remote hearings. We cannot have one size fits all when many people will lose out. So we need a sense of urgency to cope with the changes that are necessary, because we need urgent investment to give us the kind of justice system that this country deserves and that we can all trust.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I was a late arrival to this inquiry by the Constitution Committee. I did not become a member until all the evidence had already been heard and the committee was considering its report. I was able to contribute a little to the discussion, having had some experience of court procedure and some awareness of the problems the pandemic had created for all court users, but the bulk of the work had been done by others. That enables me to say, without the risk of too much self-congratulation, that this is an excellent report. It has been brought to life very well by our chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton. It owes much to her skill and leadership, and to the work of the staff of the committee and to the many witnesses who gave evidence.
There is no doubt that the suddenness of the lockdown created severe problems. Much of this was because the justice system already faced significant challenges due to underfunding, as the noble Baroness pointed out. I look back to the cuts we faced in Scotland as long ago as the 1990s, when I was the Lord Justice General. They started with a request, shortly after I entered office, that we should cut our expenditure for that year by 2%. That was an incentive to cut out what was wasteful and we were able to do as we were asked, but it became increasingly difficult to maintain standards as the same request to cut expenditure was made of us year after year. We were being made to do more with less. What was the case for the system in Scotland was also such in England and Wales.
So there is a warning here, which the noble Baroness has issued and I endorse, and that experience needs to be taken very seriously. The fact is that underfunded systems are much less resilient to the kind of shock that was caused by the pandemic. But there is a bright side to this: like all shocks to the system, the pandemic was an impetus for the development and application of new ideas and the acceleration of improvements, some of which were already under way. The aim of this report was to explore what should and could be done as we seek to learn from that experience. The committee looked at the impact of the pandemic across the justice system and it made many recommendations.
The report was published on 30 March last year. The Government’s response, by the then Lord Chancellor, Robert Buckland QC, was issued on 28 May 2021. It was as good a response as we could have hoped for, as it covered the issues that we raised in commendable detail. However, as so often happens with these debates on reports, time has slipped by. Here we are, debating it some nine months after we received the response. This means that some of the information that was given then needs to be updated. I am sure the Minister will want to do that and I very much look forward to what he has to say.
I will concentrate on just a few points—first, managing the backlog. It was inevitable that the business of the courts would be interrupted by the lockdown and especially by the impact of the need for social distancing in the conduct of criminal trials. This impacted the whole handling of business in courts, which are usually attended by many people in close proximity to each other. This meant even more delays in cases coming to trial, even more increases in the time spent on remand, with all that that entails for the detainee, for whom remand is often a miserable existence, and risks to the quality of evidence.
The Government said in their response last May that, given that at that time the courts were still operating within these constraints, their indicators on current levels of timeliness were positive. That was the message we were given then. I conducted a search of the latest edition of Criminal Court Statistics Quarterly, from July to September 2021, which was published in January this year. It shows there was a continuing recovery in some areas, including a timeliness decrease in the magistrates’ courts of 5%.
The position in the Crown Court seems very different. The median age of outstanding cases had increased by 50% on the previous year. Around 23% of cases had been outstanding for a year on more, up from 15% in the third quarter of 2020. The statistics for the last quarter of 2021 are not yet on the website, but it would be helpful if the Minister could bring us up to date. I hope there has been some improvement and that priority has been given to custodial cases to reduce time spent on remand as far as possible.
Secondly, there is the use of remote hearings. A study of the HMCTS website shows that much has been achieved and full advantage has been taken of the available technology. As far as I can see, there is a lot of online guidance now on how to manage the various systems. I also welcome the guidance the Lord Chief Justice recently gave about how to conduct remote attendance by advocates in the Crown Court. This will help to maintain consistency in this area of practice.
But what is being done to help those who do not have access to online guidance—the disadvantaged elderly, the disabled, or those who are less able to understand what is on offer? We noted in our report, at paragraphs 279 to 280, that the then current plans to collect data on the protected characteristics of court users lacked “clear deadlines or targets”. Is that still the case? Are the data, always so crucial to proper planning, being kept up to date?
Then there is the need for more accommodation to reduce the backlog. It is good to see that the number of Nightingale courts is to be expanded by making available 30 more such places spread around the country. Some are being closed, but more are being opened. Can something be said about whether these facilities are enough to cope with the demand and why, as we are being told, they are to be available only until March 2023? Can we be assured that they will be available after that date if the backlog has still not been cleared?
Lastly, there is the question of remote jury trials. The provisions in Part 13 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill—to enable criminal jury trials to take place if the judiciary thinks it acceptable—are controversial, but the report shows that such trials have been taking place in Scotland. It was impossible to accommodate juries in the accommodation that was available in the courtrooms there because of the need for social distancing. Of course, juries in Scotland are 15, not just 12.
Two possible solutions to the problem were rejected, as I believe they were in England and Wales. The first was to dispense with juries altogether during the period of emergency; the other was to reduce their size. It was decided that the jury should sit in a remote location, usually a cinema, while all the other participants, suitably spaced, were in the courtroom. It was decided that the judge should be there in the courtroom and not with the jury. Some people, particularly in this jurisdiction, have objected to this on the ground that the judge and jury should never be separated, but even a judge cannot be in two places at once. The most important thing is for the judge to be in the courtroom, where the witnesses are and where the trial is being conducted by the advocates.
I have been assured by the Lord Justice Clerk, Lady Dorrian, that the Scottish system has been working well, to the satisfaction of all participants. There is no question of the remote trials that the Bill is providing being used other than in exceptional circumstances, but the experience in Scotland is of some assistance. Are the Government continuing to pilot remote trials, as the report recommended in paragraph 220? If so, what conclusions are being drawn? In particular, is attention being paid to the issue that caused some concern of where the judge should sit under the new system, if there is a need to preserve social distancing? As I said, it seemed to work well in Scotland, with the jury sitting remotely from the judge and the judge being in the place where he or she most needed to be.
I am sure the Minister will agree that bringing the courts system under scrutiny, as the committee sought to do in this inquiry, has been beneficial. Of course, there remains the question of whether the system will be given the resources it needs to achieve the level of performance we would all like to see and to give it the resilience that it requires, but that, I suspect, is a matter for another day.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and our past, distinguished chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor. I look forward to all contributions in this debate, including from our new chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, who has followed so ably the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, in her task.
I do not want to repeat what is in the report although, on re-reading it after a little time, I have to say that it seems to make some cogent points. It has been excellently summarised by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor. The committee was absolutely right to consider that the effect of Covid on the courts was, and is, a constitutional issue. Why is this so? In civil cases, the ability to bring a case to court within a reasonable time is a critical part of a functioning legal system and thus of the rule of law. In jurisdictions where long delays are endemic, people avoid paying debts, often driving creditors into penury, and can by delays render justice an almost unattainable goal. In criminal law, delays are even more serious, if that is possible—for defendants, some of whom may be in custody, for witnesses and, generally, for the ability to have a fair trial.
Covid took, or seemed to take, the world very much by surprise. It is not, of course, over. Another variant—or even another virus altogether—should, I hope, find our courts system much better prepared. The Minister has already been asked a number of questions and, no doubt, in the rest of the debate will be asked many more. Of course, some are posed by the report itself. Although the problems with the criminal justice system long predate his appointment as a Minister, I know that he will answer questions in his usual careful and informative manner. Can he tell the Grand Committee what preparations have been made in the event of a further outbreak of some sort?
As the committee has pointed out and has been drawn to the attention of the Grand Committee, there was already a substantial backlog. I am sure that the Minister will tell us how the courts system is now coping. We were very critical of the backlog and the response to the pandemic, but I acknowledge, as have previous speakers, the considerable efforts that were made by HMCTS to adapt. What, though, is now the position? What is the average wait in a rape case between charge and trial, or in a fraud case?
The use, albeit limited, of Nightingale courts and remote jurors—even in cinemas, as we heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope—were all attempts to mitigate the backlog but there was no alteration to the fundamental right to trial by jury, a jury of 12 members. The infrastructure and cost of jury trials is considerable. The complications involved in having them in a pandemic cannot be overestimated. We welcomed the greater use of hearings online, which was happening pre the pandemic anyway. We also recommended piloting remote jury trials as having the potential to reduce the backlog.
We considered the question of altering the norm of having juries of 12. There was the possibility that they might be reduced to six or seven, or that defendants with legal representation should be allowed to choose a trial by judge or a panel of judges without a jury. A suggestion was made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, of two lay people and a judge instead of a jury, while the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips, advocated judge-only trials in response to the pandemic, but only when chosen by the defendant in question. There was also the possibility, ventilated by the Lord Chief Justice, of a judge and two magistrates, which would be much easier to manage than any jury. Labour’s shadow Lord Chancellor suggested having perhaps juries of seven.
There has been precedent for using other than traditional jury trials: in the famous Diplock courts, of course, and during the Second World War. We cover all this at paragraphs 221 to 225 of our report. However, I must point out that, notwithstanding canvassing these options, the committee came to the conclusion that any change to the jury system should take place only after careful consideration by Parliament, with full parliamentary debate preceded by evidence.
Personally—I do not speak for the committee—I think the time has come to think carefully about the future of jury trials. Other countries with mature legal systems do not find them necessary. More than 90% of our criminal cases are, in fact, heard by district judges or trained magistrates assisted by a legally qualified clerk, but for the most serious offences we leave the matter to 12 randomly selected members of the public.
There has inevitably been very little research on what juries think about in how they approach cases, the exception being that of Professor Cheryl Thomas QC. I am happy to assume that the vast majority of jurors approach their task conscientiously and will often come to the right result, or at least a fair result, but we do not know why they convict or acquit. If a judge were to decide the matter, perhaps assisted by magistrates, lay persons or assessors, they would have to give reasons for their decision, which would be capable of analysis on appeal. Appeals in jury cases have to rely on a misdirection by the judge, the admission of some new evidence not available at the trial or a perverse verdict. Incidentally, reasons for a decision are much more compatible with the European Court of Human Rights’ approach, in particular to Article 6.
Let us not forget that all personal injury cases were heard by jurors until relatively recently. That is the biggest volume of civil cases. Until 2013, defamation cases were all tried by juries too. I have not heard it much suggested that justice in these cases has been compromised by the fact that they are decided by judges alone.
Abolishing or reducing the right to trial by jury should certainly not be done without careful consideration by Parliament. Perhaps it could be done incrementally. I suggest that fraud cases would be a good place to start. In 1986, Lord Roskill, a former Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, and his committee made a recommendation along these lines following a number of failed prosecutions in fraud cases. His suggestions were not adopted by the Government, although various other recommendations he made for improvements in criminal procedure were.
We are unfortunately living in a very fraudulent age. The estimated scale of fraud relating to the various financial consequences of Covid grants is quite extraordinary. In the last two weeks the Government introduced the long-awaited economic crime Bill, which recently went through your Lordships’ House. Apparently, economic crime Bill 2 is shortly to be brought to Parliament, with a number of other provisions contained in it. Unfortunately, there is fraud in almost every aspect of society. The Government have set up a kleptocracy unit, while the fallout from sanctions is likely to give rise to a great deal of fraud prosecutions.
It is a feature of fraud cases that the prosecution has to simplify a case to make it digestible for a jury, but it is in the defence’s interest to obfuscate. The question then comes for a jury at the conclusion of a case: “Can you really be sure, in view of this immense complication, of the guilt of the defendant, having regard to all this uncertainty and this huge accumulation of documents?”
Juries, however conscientious they are, are often simply not well equipped to decide these cases. Nor is it—I emphasise this—consistent with the rule of law to wait five or 10 years for a case to come to trial.
I hope that Covid will have the effect of encouraging better investment in our courts system, in the future of the legal profession in the criminal sphere and in the imaginative and creative use of courts, but can it also be a catalyst for thinking seriously about the future of jury trial? The National Crime Agency, the Serious Fraud Office and other agencies are very short of funds and resources, hampering their ability to prosecute cases effectively. The need for a timely and fair prosecution in many of these cases is clear. Covid has exposed the general vulnerability of the criminal justice system. I can only hope that, following the experience of Covid, there will be a general reassessment of what is in the interests of justice and of a better-functioning criminal justice system.
Baroness Drake (Lab)
My Lords, the Constitution Committee applauded the “monumental effort” of those working in the courts to maintain a functioning system during the pandemic, but equally recognised that those efforts could not obscure the scale of the challenge faced. As others have said, the courts system was already struggling with major pre-existing weaknesses so, when Covid hit, rendering courts reliant on remote technologies, those vulnerabilities were exposed. The urgent need for major investment was laid bare.
The 21% decline in court funding over the preceding decade and the failure to deliver a modernisation programme exposed the weakened resilience of the system. Remote proceedings have the potential to enhance access to justice by increasing the number of hearings that can take place, but the delay in the modernisation programme meant that new case-management systems had not been rolled out, common IT systems had not been implemented, the digitisation of court forms was delayed and court data was stored on a range of legacy systems. The courts were ill prepared for the scale of the shift to remote hearings.
That sudden shift was also uneven in its impact. Senior courts and those dealing with commercial cases adapted relatively well. The lower courts, particularly those dealing with criminal and family cases, had a much more difficult time. The evidence revealed the practical challenges facing ordinary people in virtual hearings, including—among other things—limited broadband access, phones or iPads shared between users in a household, no private space, dependency on pay-as-you-go phones and expensive data packages, sensory impairments and limited digital literacy.
The evidence we heard indicated that remote hearings can make it difficult for lawyers and their clients to communicate, frustrate users if they cannot see or understand what is going on and undermine the ability of litigants to engage. On the other hand, there was evidence that court users can benefit from remote proceedings and the speedier conclusion of cases. As has been mentioned, some women who would be frightened of giving evidence in a court where their abuser was also present may prefer the security of a remote hearing. I learned recently of a case of a young mother whose baby was facing end of life. She wanted to be in court when she gave evidence as she wanted people to know that she had done everything she could to protect her child, but wanted to participate remotely on other days so that she did not have to spend time travelling away from the hospital.
It is important to ensure that courts function in an innovative way to meet the demand on the system and deliver speedy and effective justice. However, as a solicitor specialising in children’s law who gave evidence to the Committee commented:
“We need to ensure that there is consultation on good practice for remote hearings to allow the courts that remain open, to hear those cases which for a number of very good reasons may need to be heard in person.”
I look to the Minister on the point that people are looking for assurances that such essential consultation will take place, and that efficiency will not by default trump access to justice.
The Lord Chief Justice described the rapid adoption of new technology during the pandemic as
“the biggest pilot project that the justice system has ever seen”
and an opportunity to
“take the best of this new way of working”.
However, the information to support that opportunity was
“just not available”.
As the Government have acknowledged, the long-standing absence of quality data in the court systems meant that important questions about access and the efficiency of the courts remained partially unanswered. They include questions about the effects of digital technology on non-professional court users and where access to justice is most at risk when remote hearings are deployed. In 2019, the Legal Education Foundation published its report by Dr Byrom, Digital Justice: HMCTS Data Strategy and Delivering Access to Justice. The majority of its recommendations were accepted by the Government. What recent action has been taken to build excellent data systems and what is the timetable for achieving that objective?
During the pandemic, pre-existing backlogs of cases increased to record levels. This month, in his message, “A View from the President’s Chambers”, the President of the Family Division of the High Court, Sir Andrew McFarlane, commented that
“work in the Family Court is at an all-time high”;
that agencies and law firms had to ration their use of resources as demand in some areas has exceeded the capacity to deliver; and that
“there is unacceptable delay in listing cases.”
That resonated with recent evidence taken in a study by the APPG on Kinship Care that some local authorities are now having to prioritise the cases for which they bring childcare proceedings because they know that the courts do not have the capacity to handle all their potential cases, and that those that do are taking longer to complete. Given such rationing in terms of unmet need, the “family court backlog” must be an understatement.
Sir Andrew’s message had the ring of a cri de cœur. The family courts deal with vulnerable children. As the public advisory group of the Family Justice Board observed:
“For children who remain stuck in the middle of the court system, the detriment to them is immeasurable.”
The life of the child goes on while they are stuck, and they may have further negative experiences. Sir Andrew observed on their impacts:
“Backlog and delay in the Family Court are not … static … they have the potential to feed on themselves and grow the longer cases are left without a final resolution.”
The number of children in care is rising. A key driver is children staying in care for longer and not leaving. Children’s social care is inadequately funded and in need of radical reform. Domestic abuse is increasing. A report by the Competition and Markets Authority published just two weeks ago found that some large private providers of fostering services and children’s homes were generating excessive profits. It added:
“The UK has sleepwalked into a dysfunctional children’s social care market … some children are not getting the right care from their placement. Some children are also being placed too far away from where they previously lived or in placements that require them to be separated from their siblings.”
That overstrained care system is now having to operate alongside a family justice system that is far from robust.
I have another example: kinship carers are grandparents, aunts, uncles, siblings and family friends who voluntarily take on the care of nearly 200,000 vulnerable children who might otherwise be taken into looked-after care. They often take on the children at very short notice following a proverbial knock on the door by a police officer or social worker. Largely unsupported financially or legally, they produce better outcomes for children and save the state millions in costs. I have heard so many of their stories, and many are heroic. But aspects of the justice system reveal a bias against them. During public law care proceedings, kinship carers are often not joined as parties to proceedings, so they can struggle to follow what is happening and understand their options. Many kinship care cases are private law cases, and legal advice and support is even more limited. Carers struggle to get legal aid. They struggle to get access to guidance and advice so that they can make the right court application for the protection of the children, and there appears now to be even less time in the court diary for private law cases.
The backlog of cases is exacerbating that bias to the detriment of children’s interests. Sir Andrew observed that there was
“no single, let alone simple”
answer to the question,
“what is to be done?”,
which is evidently true. But it is sometimes said that we judge the quality of a society by how it treats its old people and its vulnerable children. We have a way to go before our vulnerable children get the access to justice and the care that they deserve.
There are many on the committee and who are following this debate who will want to know what the Government’s commitment is to increasing resources, pushing ahead with the modernisation programme and building in innovation to the court system so that we do not face the problems that were reported in this report in future. Finally, I acknowledge my noble friend Lady Taylor’s excellent chairing of the Constitution Committee in bringing this informed report to the House.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate and thank my noble friend Lady Taylor for her fine chairmanship of the committee and for the way she introduced our report. The committee notes that Covid hit a justice system that was already in trouble. We also noted that the courts rallied impressively to meet the huge challenge of Covid by adapting at speed as best they could to provide remote hearings, operate in improvised premises and keep court users safe.
Access to justice was gravely compromised before the Covid crisis made it worse. The Treasury had been gunning for legal aid since the 1990s, and criminal legal aid fees for solicitors, I understand, had not been increased since 1998. An egregious example of the injustices resulting from Treasury niggardliness was what became known as the “innocence tax”, whereby a defendant refused legal aid after means testing was not reimbursed their legal costs if acquitted. The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 was, however, the biggest assault on access to justice, hitting especially those least able to assert their rights. LASPO largely removed from the scope of legal aid family, employment, welfare benefits, housing, debt, clinical negligence and immigration law.
The Government claimed that austerity necessitated a reduction of legal aid spending by £350 million—an indiscernible fraction of public expenditure but a significant proportion of the legal aid budget. In the event, the cut to legal aid spending between 2010-11 and 2018-19 was worse than that: £1 billion, or 36%. Political hostility to legal aid was part of a wider narrative about scroungers, shirkers and the undeserving poor. The Ministry of Justice said that its aim was to target legal aid on those who needed it most. What actually happened was that those left without essential advice and representation included disabled people, people with impaired mental capacity, carers, victims of sexual exploitation, trafficking and slavery, victims of domestic abuse, people who were homeless or living in substandard accommodation, people in detention and people fleeing persecution.
With this drastic reduction in legal aid, by 2019, more than half of law centres and not-for-profit legal advice services had closed. I declare with pride an interest as a patron of Norfolk Community Law Service. It has defiantly kept going, raising enough funding to provide advice and support to many people—though only a fraction of those who need it.
The MoJ said that another of its intentions in LASPO was to deliver better value for money for the taxpayer, yet it removed funding for early legal advice, which is crucial to prevent problems escalating. In housing law, legal aid for advice on disrepair issues became unavailable until the situation had become serious enough for people’s health to suffer. In family law, legal aid became unavailable until a dispute about a child had escalated to a complex legal battle with even more damaging effects on all concerned. The long-term cost in mental health can only be great. The health—or otherwise—of the justice system is reflected in the health of society. Cuts to the MoJ budget of 27% in 10 years were a false economy, with MoJ costs exported and multiplied in the health service, social security, education, the police and local government.
Between 2010 and 2019, 295 court facilities—a third of the courts estate—were closed, including more than half of magistrates’ courts. A huge backlog of maintenance also developed. When Covid came, posters in courts instructed people to wash their hands but barristers reported that there were no soap or towels. Decent, well-maintained court buildings were once a mark of respect for the law and society. In 2018-19, the Government cut 15,100 court sitting days; they then reinstated just 4,700. At the end of 2019, before the pandemic hit, the backlog in the Crown Court was 37,500 cases.
Plenty of money was found for digitisation, however. In 2016, the Government proclaimed that they would spend £1 billion
“to modernise and upgrade our justice system so that it works even better for everyone.”
Not a lot then happened. There was no public consultation on the principles that should apply in regard to the rule of law and access to justice in the digital realm, although there was the obvious risk that significant numbers of people who were not computer literate would be seriously disadvantaged. This was found to be so in the pandemic. Progress was dilatory in equipping the courts with new technology and training court users. In 2020, when, with Covid, the courts suddenly needed to hold virtual hearings, they were unprepared to do so.
There has developed an unhappy lack of comity between senior Conservatives and the judiciary. As Lord Chancellor, Liz Truss appeared unwilling to defend judges when the Daily Mail attacked them as “enemies of the people”. In January 2020, Suella Braverman launched a remarkable attack in Conservative Home:
“The political has been captured by the legal. Decisions of an executive, legislative and democratic nature have been assumed by our courts … if a small number of unelected, unaccountable judges continue to determine wider public policy, putting them at odds with elected decision-makers, our democracy cannot be said to be representative.”
Shortly afterwards, the Prime Minister appointed her Attorney-General.
Smarting at the decisions of the Supreme Court in the two Miller cases and on the legality of the Prorogation of Parliament, the Government have been meditating on how to clip the wings of the judiciary. Access to justice will not be improved by further limitations on the right of citizens to seek redress by way of judicial review for the improper use of powers by government and its agencies.
What is the Government’s vision for the justice system? The backlog in the Crown Courts is now around 60,000 cases and it is taking up to five years for cases to come to court. In his letter to Peers of 15 March, Dominic Raab expressed some appropriate aspirations, but not since Michael Gove was Lord Chancellor have we heard a fully considered statement of principle or strategy. From time to time, in the face of disaster, small mitigations of LASPO and small additional doses of money have been forthcoming. I recognise that there was a more substantial development last week in the Government’s response to the Bellamy review of criminal legal aid. In the view of the Criminal Bar Association, the additional funding will not be enough to prevent a continuing haemorrhage of criminal advocates. I hope it is wrong.
The MoJ’s post-implementation review of LASPO in 2019 was belated and timid, failing to address the issues of the scope of civil legal aid, means tests, bureaucracy and the supply of services. Its so-called action plan amounted to little more than promises of further research and consultation, and some narrow pilot schemes. The recently approved order for a two-year pilot scheme in Manchester and Middlesbrough to examine whether early advice can produce savings for the public purse is unnecessary: the evidence that it does was set out compellingly in the Pragmatix report. It smacks of Treasury-driven foot-dragging.
We need to look systemically at the whole ecology of justice. The Government need to ensure that proper data are available to enable informed understanding of what is happening. Everything interacts. All parts of the system need to be resourced properly or else deficiency in one area produces damaging pressures elsewhere. The Government can reduce the burden on tribunals and courts by making better administrative decisions in social security and immigration cases—and, of course, by addressing the roots of poverty and crime.
The chronic underfunding of the justice system disrupts society, wreaks misery across the country and violates the principle that, where citizens have a reasonable case but cannot afford justice from their own resources, they should be supported by the state to have their case heard. That was once common ground across the political parties; for decades, we moved towards its fulfilment. It should still be seen as a bedrock principle of the welfare state, our constitution and a liberal society. The Justice Secretary, who is also Lord Chancellor, bound by his oath of office to respect and defend the rule of law, should not tolerate continuing dereliction of this principle. I look forward to the Minister telling us how the Government plan to restore and renew the justice system.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, and her committee on producing an excellent report in this field.
First, I pay tribute to the prison and court staff who kept the court system going through the pandemic to the extent that they could. It was particularly stressful for them because, with the lack of any contingency planning, they had to cope with new ways of working and new technologies. There was no central direction in the days leading up to 23 March 2020. One by one, Crown Court judges had to take individual decisions on whether to allow jury trials to continue based on inconsistent information and advice. There was no governmental risk planning; if there was, it was confined to Exercise Cygnus, which of course dealt with influenza.
In the weeks that followed, piecemeal solutions were put together jurisdiction by jurisdiction and court centre by court centre. It took months before there were any proper co-ordinated approaches. The High Court and the Court of Appeal coped but Crown Courts, where the bulk of the backlog of cases lies, did not. The digital case system in the Crown Court, which could be a brilliant resource to allow cases to be managed and prepared properly, was held back by the problem of getting jury trials up and running at all.
Some high-profile cases were able to go ahead. The trial for the murder of PC Andrew Harper at the Central Criminal Court led the way, but that case required huge resources involving a remote link to defendants in custody elsewhere. Only a tiny number of cases could be handled in that way.
Nightingale courts in a variety of strange locations—cinemas, theatres, hotels and even a football stadium—were a modest success but were limited because they could not deal with custody cases. You could not bring a defendant to court in a custody case. Custody time limits were extended by statutory instrument from six months to eight months to allow for the pandemic but courts routinely extended custody time limits further, beyond that time period, finding that the pandemic was “good and sufficient cause” for an extension. Eventually, the Divisional Court ruled that this should be followed nationwide in a case of judicial review.
The effect of this was that the defendants remained in custody way beyond the statutory time limit because the Crown Courts could not cope and could not put on trials for them. Now, as the courts begin to recover and tackle the backlog, priority must be given to these custody time limit cases. Other cases, often including serious sexual offences, which have such an effect on the victim, are being vacated from the lists as courts try to catch up on cases where an unconvicted defendant is languishing in prison on remand.
Fundamentally, the pandemic has exposed the chronic underfunding of the criminal justice system, as the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, pointed out, supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. There are not enough judges, nor enough courtrooms, nor enough court staff. Facilities have been shown up as old, defective, inefficient and unkempt; indeed, some were exposed as inadequately clean. Public Health England, which was brought in as part of Exercise Cygnus, was not impressed.
Since the courts resumed, there has been a problem with barristers becoming unwell, just as we in the Lords now find our colleagues falling by the wayside. There is a cohort of experienced criminal juniors who are struggling to cover the work. Some of them are voting with their feet. It is too stressful; the hours are too long and the courts are often not a pleasant working environment.
Paragraph 30 of the report recommends an increase in legal aid to match need. That is a very important finding. The report before us should be read with Sir Christopher Bellamy’s more recent review of criminal legal aid, published last November, which exposed the chronic underfunding that is undermining the profession. The Government have offered to implement at an unspecified point in future the minimum recommendation of the Bellamy review, which is an immediate £135 million investment in criminal legal aid. However, to date, there is no indication of how the money will be spent and the headline figure masks the reality. It is for all parts of the criminal justice system, not just the Crown Courts.
I was impressed by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, a moment ago. He referred to the statutory instrument about legal advice that we debated in this Room not so long ago. Legal advice used to be provided on a green form: legal aid for legal advice was a way in which people could be pointed in the right direction for their problems to be solved. What we had last week or the week before was a statutory instrument to bring about a pilot scheme that will last two years and so cannot come into effect until 2024. That is wholly inadequate. We need to research whether this is required. I remember from my early days that more than 1 million people had legal advice on legal aid without it causing any huge problem.
The criminal Bar has decided that it is too little, too late. On 11 April next, the Criminal Bar Association is going back to a policy of “no returns”; that is, not to provide cover for a barrister who finds himself, by reason of the current deficiencies, listed in two courts at once and has to return his brief to someone else. It is not a strike but a work to rule, and it is planned for next month.
I know that the criminal Bar does not want to damage the system but to improve it. Unhappily, the criminal justice system has not been given sufficient priority in the nation’s recovery from the pandemic—if indeed there is such a recovery as yet.
I heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, talk about remote juries in cinemas and the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, talk about whether jury trials should exist at all. I have some experience of juries and of jury trials as an advocate. I do not believe that it is right to put a barrier between a jury and what goes on in court. It is a strange thing, but in the whole of my career, I have had only one case in a jury trial where I thought the jury got it completely wrong. I think juries do get it right and they do understand.
When it comes to special juries, we have heard a lot about that in the past, particularly in relation to financial fraud. I have always thought that I would not have confidence, never mind the broader public, in a jury composed of bankers trying a banker for fraud; it is like a jury of policemen trying a policeman for an assault on a member of the public. The whole thing about the jury system is that people come into the jury box with their various life experiences and sit there and listen. They may not follow every point of law that is put to them, but they are part of it. It is particularly important that juries have the confidence of the people of this country. I can well imagine that, if we were to remove jury trials in serious cases, that confidence would not last very long.
There is some research from a very long time ago on the jury system. The same case—obviously, it was not a real case—was put before various juries, one of 12, another of seven and another of, I think, 15. The research showed that, with a jury of 12, the issues in a case are more distinctly and completely covered than with different numbers. I have every confidence in juries, but it is a topic that I think we shall debate long and hard at some future time.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton for this extremely interesting report. As she said in her introduction, it may be a year old, but it deals with issues which we are still dealing with today, and it addresses the context, if I can put it like that, of the way in which the criminal justice system went into the pandemic. She very fairly gave the historical context of the underinvestment in our criminal justice system.
The speech which I had prepared was to go into the statistics of it all—the backlogs, the appalling statistics particularly for sexual-related offences taking a long time to court—but a number of noble Lords have rehearsed those statistics, so I shall not go through them again now.
I thought I would go through the speeches we have heard and draw out the points that were of particular interest, and offer my experience on those matters. I just remind the Committee that I sit as a magistrate in London and deal with adult, youth and family law matters.
My noble friend talked about the digital challenge, as we went into the pandemic, and the uneven picture between the higher and the lower courts, which did not respond as immediately. I sat as a family magistrate throughout the pandemic. We did not stop. Within a week, I was personally operating from my dining room table, originally doing cases by telephone and then eventually by MS Teams. We found a way of working around the cases.
Just to give a bit more background, I am currently chairman of the Greater London Family Panel of 300 family magistrates in London. The panel responded to the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory report, to which my noble friend referred. I am aware of the shortcomings that that report highlighted. Sir Andrew McFarlane encouraged us to respond and we did so. It is difficult not being defensive, given the shortcomings that were identified, but I will just say that there was no alternative but to hear the cases that we did, because children’s safety was at stake. I literally took children away from their parents by telephone in the early days of the pandemic. I think we did the right thing, although there were shortcomings in the system.
My noble friend went on to say that some aspects of working remotely are beneficial. She cited domestic abuse cases, which is fair. I also deal with domestic abuse cases, in different formats and in different jurisdictions, and it is now part of the working process to think about what is best for each particular case.
I also know about the National Police Chiefs’ Council saying it would stop using remote remand hearings. My understanding is that it is a resourcing issue for the police in police stations, and it is a matter of regret to the court system that we were not able to do remote remand hearings and that prisoners actually had to be brought to court. Literally only a couple of years ago, we were able to deal with remote remand court cases when people were still in police stations.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, also gave some statistics, the experience of Scotland and some historical context, if I can put it like that. The different approaches taken in Scotland were interesting. In my experience of the differences between England, Wales and Scotland, people are very open to looking at alternative ways of working. I occasionally talk to colleagues in Scotland about the way they are addressing similar issues to us.
The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, spoke very effectively about how Covid in courts is a constitutional issue. I agree. He also said that, for some people in various parts of the criminal justice system, justice seems an unobtainable goal. I agree with that as well. He asked the Minister, and I would be interested in his response, about preparations for a future outbreak, if that were to happen.
The noble Lord then went into a greater exposition, if I can put it that way, about the various alternatives to jury trials that had been considered. I thought it might be worth telling an anecdote, speaking as a magistrate and a Labour Party member, about speaking to the then shadow Justice Secretary, David Lammy, about why the Labour Party was supporting jury trials over the alternatives. His response was simple: he said that people trust jury trials more than any alternative. The second point he made was that disproportionality—the make-up of the people taking the decision—is more likely to be accommodated with 12 people than it would be if there was some alternative arrangement. Those were the two points that David Lammy made to me about why the Labour Party supported jury trials continuing through the pandemic.
I thought an interesting point was made about fraud cases. I realise that is a much bigger debate, which is not really for today.
I was pleased that my noble friend Lady Drake spent some time going into the situation in family courts. She quoted Sir Andrew McFarlane and spoke about her experience on the All-Party Group on Kinship Care, citing the concern that there is effectively a rationing of family courts. The piece of jargon which we sometimes use in the family court system is that the local authorities are encouraged to “hold the risk” within themselves, rather than passing the cases on into the court system. The consequence is that cases which do turn up in the family court system are more serious, more advanced and more difficult to deal with. That is a policy decision and partly resource driven. Nevertheless, it has a very real effect: although the numbers of cases are going up, their actual complexity and seriousness are going up as well.
My noble friend Lady Drake also talked about kinship carers not joined to public law cases. She must be a mind reader. I was in a family court earlier today in Holborn and we were dealing with exactly that issue: whether to join some grandparents in private law proceedings to look after their grandchildren while, in parallel, there was a public law case for the children to be potentially taken away into care. It was a little example of the difficulties that the court faces because, although I was physically sitting in court, we were doing it remotely and the connection was extremely poor. The grandparents were not prepared for the case we were hearing. In fact, it had been wrongly listed in the first place, so it was an administrative problem. It did not work very well; I hope it works better next time.
My noble friend Lord Howarth of Newport gave an awful lot of background. I will not repeat the points that he made, because it was a tour of the horizon. Similarly, I endorse the tribute of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, to court staff and prison staff. They behaved absolutely heroically, in my experience, and kept things working. I will not go into the other points that the noble Lord made because he made them from a source of greater authority than I would be able to match. However, I will be very interested to hear the Minister’s response to the various questions which have been put to him.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions. This has been an extremely useful debate. I also thank the committee, including its former and new chairs, for its thorough and wide-ranging report, which underpinned today’s discussion. If I noted it down correctly, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, said that it was an excellent report, and I respectfully agree. As a relative newcomer to the House, when I read the report—shortly after it was published some months ago—it was clear that it was a very good example of the detailed and careful work done by committees of the House.
I should say right at the outset that a number of points have been made. Some of them would justify a debate on their own. I hope that the Committee will not find this out of order, but I will seek to respond to the themes, including giving some statistics and data; I will then ask my team to go through the Official Report with me, and I may send a follow-up letter as well. I hope that that will be acceptable.
The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, said that this was a constitutional issue. He referred to both civil and criminal issues. He is absolutely right, of course. The rule of law underpins everything else in society. I led a trade mission to the Gulf last November. The example I gave was that, when you build those wonderful skyscrapers, you do not see the cement once the building is built; however, without that cement, there would be no skyscraper. The rule of law is the cement that holds everything else in our society together.
The justice system is at the heart of everything we do and believe in as a society. There is no doubt that the pandemic had a very significant impact on it. On behalf of the Government, I repeat our thanks to all our partners across the justice system, including solicitors, barristers and the judiciary, but especially—I say this respectfully—court staff, who kept the system running and the wheels of justice turning.
In response to the impact of the pandemic, HMCTS set up national response structures that worked with the wider structures in the Ministry of Justice, other government departments and various external stakeholders. Practical measures were put in place. The estate was made safe by installing Plexiglas screens in more than 450 courtrooms, and 70 courtrooms were reconfigured to hear larger trials. There were a number of discussions with the judiciary to ensure that the most urgent cases could be dealt with if absences went beyond what might reasonably be expected. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, cases were sometimes dealt with in what might be called suboptimal circumstances—but it was better to do that than to do nothing. Sometimes justice just has to be done the best way you can.
That was the situation in the pandemic. The NAO has been referred to, but it is fair to remind the Committee that the NAO praised HMCTS’s response to the pandemic, saying:
“HMCTS responded quickly in the early stages of the pandemic … HMCTS’s evolving governance structures helped it respond quickly and effectively to the operational risks in criminal courts.”
That had a number of effects: domestic abuse victims, who were mentioned earlier, were still able to obtain protection orders; the remand of dangerous suspects could be extended; and, as we have heard, the commercial and family courts continued. We were one of the first countries in the world to resume jury trials; that is an achievement we should be proud of. In turn, that helped us to address the delays caused by the pandemic more quickly than some other jurisdictions.
One of my briefs in the department is the international brief. When I talk to jurisdictions around the world, they see our response to and recovery from the pandemic as extremely good. No doubt there are things we could do better—I will come to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, about how we would face a future pandemic later—but the response was very good. We are recovering pretty well, I think, from what has been a fairly torrid two years.
A lot was said about the funding background. The statistics are set out in the report. Those points were made by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and others. The Government have made significant investment in the justice system to help it recover from the pandemic. The MoJ’s spending review settlement is the largest increase in justice spending in more than a decade. It was a little disappointing that that point was not recognised. It is one thing to focus on cuts in the past, but we should also look at what is happening now.
More than £1 billion has been allocated to boost capacity and accelerate recovery from the pandemic in our courts and tribunals. That includes £477 million to improve waiting times for victims, and to reduce Crown Court backlogs caused by the pandemic from about 60,000 to our aim of 53,000. The figure for the Crown Court going into the pandemic was not out of line with the historical figure if one looks at how many cases are actually waiting to be heard. The key thing, of course, is not actually the backlog; it is throughput and how long it takes a case to get through the system. You could have a lot of people waiting to have a knee replacement, but the real question is not how many people are waiting but how long they are waiting. We are focused on throughput.
Funding secured for the Crown Court will enable it to sit at its maximum capacity. I will come to Nightingale courts, but we do not have an issue with rooms. The main issue is the number of judges; we now have enough rooms. We have set aside £324 million for civil and family courts, and tribunals, and an additional £200 million to complete the flagship £1.3 billion court reform programme.
I think everybody recognised that technology was a necessary response to the pandemic. I suggest that what we saw in the justice system during the pandemic was what we saw in society in a range of areas: the pandemic accelerated change that probably would have happened anyway. Everything in our lives has been disrupted and I am afraid the justice system has not been any different. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said, it was the impetus for new approaches and some of these have stuck.
The remote hearing provisions in the Coronavirus Act allowed literally thousands of hearings to take place. We now have about 11,000 hearings taking place remotely each week. We rolled out the cloud video platform at pace to keep justice going. We developed guidance to support court users when joining remote hearings. Video remand hearings were vital in our efforts to reduce the risk of Covid transmission, removing the need for prisoners to be transported to court sites.
On that point, I understand that it is effectively a resourcing issue in the police. The police withdrew support for video remand hearings in October 2020. Since then, use has diminished significantly: only three forces continue to operate them. We therefore continue to work with other government departments to find a strategic funding solution to address this issue, because we recognise that video remand hearings had some significant upsides.
As I said, the move to online justice was effective and there were lots of upsides to it. That is why we are in the process of replacing some of these provisions with permanent provisions in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which is still going through Parliament. I of course recognise that remote hearings might not be suitable for everyone or in all types of case. Therefore, I underline that the mode of hearing will remain a judicial decision and a remote hearing will not take place unless the judge is satisfied that it is in the interest of justice for all parties involved. We have also recently commissioned an evaluation of the implementation and use of the new video hearing services across civil, family and tribunals jurisdictions to ensure we get this right.
I will say a word or two about data. I am afraid that I am a bit of a data freak; I subscribe to the proposition that if you cannot measure it, you do not really know what the problem is, let alone how you are going to respond to it, so please take that point as read. I have had several meetings with Dr Byrom, and she worked closely with the department. We now put out a lot of data. When I write, I will set out some of the datasets that we put out.
I acknowledge that data collection across the court system has historically been challenging and that there is room for improvement. One of the issues—it is a constitutionally proper issue—is that it is not the MoJ which is in charge of every court and every courtroom, in the sense that judges ultimately decide listing, for example. When it comes to collecting data, we have to work with the judiciary to make sure that the data is appropriately captured. Judges, understandably, are very busy, and we have to make sure that we do not divert them and their staff from their main task, but I absolutely acknowledge that we need to do better on data.
One of the benefits of the reform programme is improving data collection: reform will deliver improved data on the way we schedule hearings and use court time, including the use of audio-visual technology. We published the HMCTS Data Strategy in December 2021, which is intended to build on the expanded data available to help transform our services.
We are doing some other things in the data space which I should mention briefly. One of these is making judgments available on the National Archives for the first time. At the moment, if you want to find a judgment you have to pay a private provider for a lot of them. We think that putting them on the National Archives will increase transparency and ensure free access for all. From April this year, that service will also host judicial review rulings, European case law, commercial judgments and many cases of significance from the High Court, the upper tier tribunal and the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court publishes its judgments on its own website.
So far as protected characteristics are concerned, last week HMCTS published the first report summarising responses to the collection of protected characteristics. They were collected for the period between April and September 2021. It is the first time this information has been published, and we hope that that will be a valuable contribution to the dataset. I underline, however, that the survey is voluntary, so the statistics have to be read with that caveat.
Nightingale courts provided much-needed extra capacity. Of course, the problem was that we could not use a lot of our existing courts because they were too small, so we had to have Nightingale courts. Sometimes they heard criminal trials; sometimes they heard other work which freed up other jury trial rooms to hear jury trials. We have now opened two super-courtrooms, in Manchester and Loughborough, which are three times the size of a usual courtroom and allow for trials of up to 12 defendants. I underline that room is not actually the issue at the moment—we have enough rooms. As I said, the issue is the number of judges.
Another thing we have done to help reduce the backlog is increase magistrates’ sentencing powers. I will not say too much about this, because it was not mentioned by anybody else, but I underline that extending magistrates’ court sentencing powers from the current maximum of six months to 12 months’ imprisonment will enable us to bring criminals to justice more quickly by moving sentencing hearings from the Crown Court into the magistrates’ courts. We estimate that this frees up over 1,700 Crown Court sitting days a year. If you translate that into jury trials, that is another 500 jury trials per year. We are also investing more than £1 million in a recruitment campaign. We want a broader range of people to become magistrates and to boost their ranks by 4,000.
That is part of a broader judicial recruitment campaign. We aim to recruit 2,000 new judges over the next two years, which will enable us to have enough capacity to sit at the required levels over the coming years. So we are encouraging fee-paid judges, with a particular focus on recorders, to sit where they can and are needed, and we are raising the maximum number of days that they can sit each year without having to establish a separate business case. So, for the second year in a row, we have increased the maximum number of sitting days for all recorders from 30 to 80 days.
Over and above that, we have increased the statutory mandatory retirement age from 70 to 75 for judicial officeholders, which will enable us to retain an extra 400 judges and tribunal members, and 2,000 magistrates, every year. There has also been a reform to judicial pensions, but, given the time, I will not say more about that now.
I will say a word about online hearings. I underline that there are benefits in addition to getting cases through the courts. We heard about one: domestic violence. You do not have to go in the same room as your abuser. But there are collateral benefits in terms of diversity for lawyers. For example, if you live in Derby, it is much easier to take your children and drop them off at school and then attend a hearing remotely in Exeter. You can do that if it is remote, and there are many advocates who find that extremely helpful.
The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, mentioned family courts. The Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal has been running as a completely remote hearing since the start of the pandemic. This means that families in crisis, often with children with complex needs, can seek justice more quickly and easily. So, although I absolutely accept that, as we move to online justice, we have to be cognisant of those with poor broadband and poor computer skills, and others who need help—I have made this point in the Chamber on a number of Bills and amendments—there are many advantages of online justice and we cannot tell the 98% that they have to wait for the 2%. We need to help the 2% and make sure that everybody has access to justice—I am passionate about that—but, equally, we need to see where justice is going, and justice is going online.
I turn to the backlogs with the caveat, as I said earlier, that the real issue is throughput and not backlog. We have already made significant strides towards recovery. In the magistrates’ courts—I apologise for throwing figures at the Committee—the caseload is close to recovering to pre-Covid levels. At the end of January of this year, the outstanding criminal caseload was 373,000. That was down from 445,000 in July 2020, a reduction of 16%. In the Crown Court, the outstanding caseload is down to 59,000. That is a reduction of about 2,000 cases since June last year. I absolutely accept that there is much further to go, but it shows that measures to tackle the backlog are starting to have an effect.
In the family courts, we have stabilised the outstanding caseload. In public law, the outstanding caseload by child stands at 21,000. We expect to see this start to fall over the course of this year. In private law, we have started to make inroads and the outstanding caseload by child has fallen to 83,000—down from 85,000 in August last year. The President of the Family Division was mentioned. I have very frequent and constructive meetings with him, and he and I are clear that we need a step change in family law, especially in private family law. Far too many private family law cases are going to court when frankly they should not be anywhere near a court. Back in 2015-16, the number of disposals per day was much higher than it is now; there has been a steady decline. That is nothing to do with the pandemic; there are other factors in family law that are going on and, whether it is the fact-finding hearings or other things, we need a real focus, and there will be a real focus, on private family law in particular.
In the civil courts, timeliness has improved. The average time it takes a small claim to reach its first full hearing has come down by three weeks. In the Immigration and Asylum Tribunal, the case load has fallen by 10%. That is down by 3,400 cases, and its timeliness has also improved.
I am conscious of the time but, if the Committee will indulge me, there was quite a lot said about juries so I hope I may respond fairly briefly. We heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, that remote juries worked in Scotland. I repeat what I said in the Chamber: we have no plans to introduce remote juries as a matter of course. The provision we put in the Bill is there on an “in case needed, break glass” basis. However, I respectfully suggest to the Committee that, if something is done in Scotland and they regard it as a proper way of doing justice, we perhaps should not find it as radical as some Members of the Committee seemed to see it.
The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, went further on juries. As he knows, we are consulting in the Human Rights Act consultation on the position of jury trials. It is right to say that when one looks at the Strasbourg jurisprudence and talks to lawyers from other jurisdictions, they find it odd that we have cases decided by people with no legal training who do not have to give reasons. Again, I respectfully ask the Committee to consider whether all the countries around the world which manage to decide their fraud cases without a jury are not operating a justice system. There is a real risk in a justice system that what is familiar becomes the only way of doing justice. I suggest that, ultimately, there are two reasons for why we should think very carefully before we move away from the jury system. However, neither has anything to do with its inherent superiority over other systems.
The two reasons are: first, the system in fact has the overwhelming confidence of the people of this country, and that is critical for a justice system; secondly, when you look at a jury—in particular, a jury of 12 because there are more people—you are more likely to see people like you. This is really tied to the first point, I suppose, but juries can be more representative of the community. This is well above my pay grade, so I will touch on this very briefly. I think it is slightly odd that we still ban research into juries. It is difficult to have any real debate—as in the one we are sort of having now—when, at the same time, the legislation effectively prohibits us finding out what actually goes on. If I say anymore, I might be out of a job, so I will stop there.
The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, also asked about our preparation for a future outbreak. Of course, we have learned from the Covid-19 pandemic. We now have a well-established pandemic-focused contingency plan, and we will also build more robust and tested plans to deal with other national events. We are already improving our readiness and planning for other strategic risks to our justice system.
If I can be indulged for another two minutes, I will turn to legal aid. The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, put a gauntlet down about how I will restore and renew the justice system. I am not sure that I can do that on a Wednesday evening. However, I point the Committee to our response to Sir Christopher Bellamy’s report. Also, the means-test review for both criminal and civil legal aid was published at the same time—please do not overlook that. There are a lot of very good ideas and proposals in that means-test review. We think that it brings 3.5 million more people within the scope of criminal legal aid, and 2 million more within the scope of civil legal aid.
Although the Criminal Bar Association is not particularly happy with the Government at the moment, what we said in response to Sir Christopher Bellamy’s report was welcomed broadly by the Bar Council, the Law Society and the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives. I say to the leadership of the CBA that the proposed action is ill-judged and unmerited, and I very much hope that they will reconsider. So far as the innocence tax is concerned, when the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, looks at the means-test review, he will see that it is one thing that we are proposing to do away with. It was a matter of a little regret that he did not mention that in his speech.
We also want people to be able to resolve issues without lawyers. For example, with the new online whiplash claims service and the online money claims service, they can do all that without a lawyer. We are running the system hot; there is no limit on sitting days; we are going to hear as many cases as we possibly can.
I underline that it is no part of my approach to clip the wings of the judiciary, but there is a proper constitutional debate to be had about judicial review and the Human Rights Act, and we will have that in due course.
I am conscious that I am trespassing on the Committee’s patience. I say in summary that we acknowledge that there is a lot more to be done. I hope that the Committee sees that we are doing a lot. We are very focused on justice for all. I think that the benefits from the pandemic are that we will emerge from it with a stronger justice system that is really suited to the 21st century.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, I must thank everyone who has contributed to this debate, particularly those members of the Constitution Committee who did so much to aid the production of this report. I think that Members will have realised the breadth of experience on that committee. It is indeed significant. We have the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, with his vast wealth of experience at the centre of the judicial system. We have the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, who likes to be provocative from time to time, as he proved this evening—I think we could have spent the next few hours talking about the jury system, but it is probably as well not to go there. We have the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, who proves her expertise and experience on family matters and the work that she has done in this House and elsewhere on kinship care. And we have the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, who joined us again today, giving his clear analysis and overview as I have seen him do on many other committees. I want to thank them and the staff of the committee, who were very important to us in writing that report. I now realise why I miss my Wednesday mornings, because they were stimulating and genuinely informative, and it was well worth going to all those meetings.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, for his comments about the report. I got the feeling when the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, was speaking that perhaps he should have been one of our prime witnesses, because he gave clear examples from his own experience of exactly what we were talking about. It was important that we heard that. We had not discussed it earlier, but I am glad that he took that approach.
I accept that the Minister takes this report seriously and has read it in detail. He covered a wide range of points, and we all share his appreciation of the work done by the courts staff in keeping the show on the road. He mentioned lots of problems, such as what needs to be done on the availability of more judges for more days. What has happened on pensions and on the age change is important. The committee has looked at these issues in the past and will no doubt come back to him, because there are concerns about diversity as well as just numbers and availability.
I am glad that the Minister is a data nerd, if I can put it that way, because that is extremely important. The evidence that we were given showed a great lack of availability of information. He mentioned that the Ministry of Justice is not responsible for every bit of information. That might be why the National Audit Office thought that there was not enough joined-up thinking between the department and the Courts & Tribunals Service.
I agree with him that, as my noble friend said, suboptimal hearings are better than nothing, but I think there is a problem with the backlog. The Minister mentioned throughput, but there is clear evidence of very long delays to very critical cases. That has to be worrying to the victims, their families and a whole range of people. It is another point that we must make.
Overall, we all want to see a court and tribunal system that has more resilience. The Minister mentioned that it has recently had its largest investment in a decade, but I point out that that is the same decade in which the Government made the cuts, so they are just catching up with themselves. But let us put the politics aside. We need resilience and I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that, when we change systems—remote hearings are here to stay—we have to make it work. He said that 98% of people can probably make it work and we should not wait for the 2%. I agree that we should not wait, but I am afraid we are not talking about 2%. We are talking about a much larger group of people who have vulnerabilities, but neither the resources nor the expertise to make best use of that system. We have to take them into account as a priority when we are looking at this.
We are all agreed that the rule of law underpins everything. We need a well-functioning legal system, and a well-functioning court and tribunal system. The recommendations from the committee are intended to be positive and constructive, and I hope the department will take them in that spirit.
House of Lords
Death of a Former Member: Baroness Howe of Idlicote
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, on 22 March. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Baroness’s family and friends.
Veterinary Personnel
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wigley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with representatives of the veterinary profession about the availability of qualified veterinary personnel following the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and in doing so I draw attention to my relevant registered interests.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, my officials are in regular contact with the veterinary profession, including the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the British Veterinary Association, concerning veterinary capacity across the UK. We have been made aware that there has been a long shortage of UK-trained veterinary graduates, which began before the UK voted to leave the European Union. Defra has been working with stakeholders to understand the reasons for this shortage and develop potential solutions.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that since the ending of the free movement of people following Brexit, the number of EU-registered vets coming to work in the UK has fallen by 68%, down from over 1,100 in 2019 to just 364 last year? Is this not yet another example of the total disaster that Brexit has been for the UK? So, what additional funding will the Government make available next year to expand the number of UK university places for veterinary students, and how many years will it take to train adequate numbers?
Lord Benyon (Con)
We already have new vets coming into the profession from the University of Surrey scheme, which was brought in a few years ago. Since then, we have new schools appearing at Harper Adams and Keele, the University of Central Lancashire and the Scottish royal colleges, and a collaboration between Aberystwyth University and the Royal Veterinary College. This will bring on stream new vets, trained in this country, to work here, alongside other measures we are bringing in to resolve the shorter-term problems that the noble Lord identified.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, have the Government considered some of the allied professions, such as chiropractic, osteopathy and physio- therapy, for the treatment of musculoskeletal problems in animals, especially horses and dogs? All of these professions are well qualified, evidence-based and self-regulated, and this would enormously ease the pressure on veterinary practices.
Lord Benyon (Con)
Some of the practices that my noble friend raises certainly have an impact on animal welfare and dealing with animal illnesses. But the most important thing is that we get more trained professionals in the veterinary profession, which is what the Government are seeking to do, by a range of measures.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, the Government already have a shortage of doctors and nurses, and now vets. What are they planning to do to make sure we get the support we need in this country to supply the professionals we need?
Lord Benyon (Con)
There are a lot of different veterinary roles besides general practice—we have to have official veterinarians as part of our products of animal origin process, and in abattoirs. Working with the royal college, we have changed the required language standard, which has resulted in more coming in. We have successfully negotiated with the Home Office to get this profession listed as a shortage profession, which has brought more in. We are also consulting and working in a whole range of ways to get more veterinarians working in this country.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, the reasons for the current shortage of vets are complex, but involve the three Rs—recruitment, retention and, particularly, encouraging returners back to work after career breaks. With reference to recruitment to veterinary schools, nearly one-quarter of veterinary graduates produced by UK vet schools are actually overseas students, mainly Americans, who are unlikely to devote their careers to strengthening the UK workforce but whose high overseas fees are essential to make up for the underfunding of the UK student core grant. Will the Minister press the Government to raise the core funding for band A veterinary students in the UK, which would displace the need to take overseas students and immediately increase very substantially the number of UK students undergoing veterinary training in our universities?
Lord Benyon (Con)
We should all be very grateful to the noble Lord for his involvement in creating the new courses across a number of different universities. I shall certainly take his suggestion away and make sure that, across government, there is an understanding of the very real need to get more veterinary surgeons in this country trained in our universities and functioning in our veterinary profession.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, numbers have fallen sharply, with the number of registered vets from the EU being less than one-third of the expected figure. A large proportion of public health veterinary work was done by vets from European countries. The real problem is not the number of UK students graduating, but the fact that they want to work not in public health but in private clinical practice. What are the Government going to do to rectify that?
Lord Benyon (Con)
Working in an abattoir or assessing the viability of products of animal origin is not necessarily why everyone goes into the veterinary profession, but they are important professions and part of it. We are working with the royal college to make sure that it is a career people want to go into. We are working with the Food Standards Agency, which is now going to recruit 25% of official veterinarians itself, rather than going through a third body, to make sure that we can career-manage them to stay in the profession and prosper in it.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of the British Veterinary Association and congratulate my noble friend on the work his department has done. However, on the question of abattoirs, does not he accept that the shortage of veterinary workers is causing the scandal of the backlog? How does he intend to address that?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I think it very important to say that there is no threat to human health resulting from the shortage of official veterinarians working in abattoirs. There is adequate coverage. It is a problem, and we are seeking to address it in a number of ways that I have already stated, and others. I hope we can reassure the public that, while there is a shortage, there is no risk to public health.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, officials at the agriculture department in Northern Ireland have indicated that, if and when the so-called grace periods under the protocol end, the number of agri-food certificates needing processing will be close to the number currently processed by the European Union as a whole. It is 20% even as things stand. That would require an enormous number of vets, and the Chief Veterinary Officer has said that he simply does not have them. Apart from the principle that these checks are unacceptable, they simply are not workable in practice. What are the Government doing about it?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The Chief Veterinary Officer for Northern Ireland recently referred to
“available veterinary resource located in Northern Ireland points of entry, delivering efficient controls on sanitary and phytosanitary goods entering Northern Ireland through third countries and Great Britain”.
The veterinary resource remains at 12, and the DAERA Minister has put an embargo on further recruitment to operations in ports. In Northern Ireland, official meat inspection in approved slaughterhouses is delivered by a team of DAERA officials, and Northern Ireland meat-inspection services are currently fully resourced.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, there is a way of ameliorating the problem. Under the trade and co-operation agreement, there is a specialised committee on SPS measures. It has so far met only once, in September last year, but it could be very useful in dealing with this problem. What plans are there for the committee to meet again and discuss this problem?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The noble Lord makes a very good point. That committee could well have a very beneficial effect, and I will go back and ask officials when it is next due to meet and let him know.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, all this was exactly predicted by the EU scrutiny committees of this House before and after Brexit. We took evidence and knew what was going to happen. The noble Lord is quite right: the shortage did occur before Brexit; I do not deny that. The last Labour Government started scholarships; this Government started Keele and Harper Adams in particular. However, what we need is food-production animal vets, not companion animal vets. That is the problem and given the current situation of banning people coming here from Europe, I do not see how we are going to solve it. While there is no safety issue in the abattoirs at present, there will be if things carry on like this.
Lord Benyon (Con)
The noble Lord is quite right to point out that this has been a long-running problem. In fact, it is large-animal vets we want to see more of. We want to encourage people into the profession and to go not just for the smaller animal sector, but for farm animals as well. We were, however, successful in negotiating with the Home Office to have this profession listed as a shortage occupation, and that has resulted in more vets coming into this country. We want to see more of that.
Loneliness Strategy
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Merron
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of their loneliness strategy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, the launch of the loneliness strategy in 2018 marked a lasting shift in the Government’s approach to tackling loneliness. Since 2018, the Government and their partners have invested almost £50 million in tackling loneliness, including in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. We have reached millions of people through awareness-raising campaigns and have developed a network of more than 150 organisations to join us in this work. Our latest annual report provides further detail on its impact.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Loneliness remains endemic, with the Office for National Statistics reporting that the long-term disabled, widowed homeowners, unmarried middle-agers and young renters are those who are most likely to experience social isolation. While the strategy suggests that it is a government priority, I note that loneliness is no longer featured as a ministerial responsibility on the department’s website. Does the Minister agree that it is more important than ever to keep focused on tackling and preventing loneliness as we emerge from the pandemic? Will the strategy be reviewed, so that no one is left behind as the world continues to open?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
As the noble Baroness said, the pandemic has thrown into relief the importance of tackling loneliness. We were aware of it before the pandemic, and the pandemic made it more urgent. My honourable friend Nigel Huddleston, the Minister responsible, sees himself very much as the lead Minister, but not the only Minister, for it, because this is a cross-government effort. That is the reason for the cross-government strategy, and work has been done in all departments. Of course, we continue to evaluate the work to see how we can do it better.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, the strategy highlights family well-being as crucial in preventing loneliness and the need to support families. The Children’s Commissioner has just been tasked with reviewing family life, following the finding of the commission on race and ethnic disparities that high rates of family breakdown are a major risk factor in loneliness and are key to outcome disparities. Some 63% of black Caribbean children grow up in a lone-parent household. Will measures to prevent family breakdown be included in her remit?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My noble friend is right to point to the importance of family in tackling loneliness. Of course, family events such as bereavement, becoming a parent and moving house can have an impact. Research also suggests that people of colour are more likely to experience certain barriers, which can cause loneliness for them, including access to community services, harassment, discrimination and feeling disconnected from the community. I will discuss the point about the Children’s Commissioner’s review with my noble friend Lady Barran, who is responsible, as the Minister in the Department for Education, and who of course, as a previous lead Minister for Loneliness, has done so much herself to tackle awareness of this important issue.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, will the Minister take into account the fact that sporting and artistic voluntary groups are almost by definition an answer to this problem? What are the Government doing to allow them to rebuild their capacity after Covid and how far across government does it go?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord is right. Community and volunteer groups of all shapes and sizes play an important role. Since April 2020, we have continued to grow the membership of the Tackling Loneliness Network to over 150 members. Last year, we published our Tackling Loneliness Network action plan, setting out actions that members of the network committed to take to tackle loneliness during the pandemic. We will continue to review that and see how that work can be furthered.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
There can be no more lonely experience than that of CFS/ME sufferers, for whom crushing fatigue is just one of a long list of symptoms that interfere with—and I would say prevent—normal social interactions. NICE recently issued guidelines for CFS/ME sufferers. Will the Minister agree to contact NICE to see if it would consider adding a section on loneliness for these particular sufferers—as I understand it, it did not include that issue within its guidelines?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I shall follow up that point with my honourable friend Nigel Huddleston and colleagues at the Department of Health. The noble Baroness is right: we know that people with long-term health conditions are significantly more likely to report feeling lonely. Through our loneliness funding, we have supported groups that work with people with disabilities and long-term health conditions to support them to feel more connected, including Mencap, the National Autistic Society, the British Deaf Association and the RNIB, to name just a few. I will follow up the point that she makes about NICE as well.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)
My Lords, this Question is a tribute to the late Jo Cox MP. It is shocking that 200,000 older people have not had a conversation with a friend or relative for over a month. I am old enough to remember when, in the north-east, most family members lived nearby, in close-knit communities. If I cut my head as a child, my mother would run three doors down the street and consult granny, who would tell her what to do. In a sense, this is the negative side of social mobility. Does the noble Lord agree that, by properly addressing the question of loneliness, we will reduce a burden on the National Health Service?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely right to remind us of the important contribution made by the late Jo Cox in driving forward cross-party work in this important area. Through our loneliness funding we have supported groups that work with older people to help them connect, including the Alzheimer’s Society and the English Football League Trust. Last year, members of our Tackling Loneliness Network formed a group focused on loneliness among older people to explore the issue further. The group’s recommendations were included as part of the action plan which I mentioned earlier, and an update on progress to deliver that was included in our most recent annual report.
Lord Lang of Monkton (Con)
My Lords, there can be no doubt that the subject of loneliness is very well worth discussion in this House, and we are all grateful that it should be raised. I would like to endorse the comments of my noble friend Lord Farmer when he pointed out the relationship between loneliness and family. Surely the most important unit of all in social policy considerations should be the family. I would like to hear my noble friend endorse that and say that family considerations will be taken into account in all future consideration of social policy.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Family is vital, not just in this area but across so many areas of social policy and the Government’s work. We know that peoples’ family situations can have an impact on their experience of loneliness. We are looking to improve the evidence base to understand the challenges that people face through loneliness, including the impact of their family situation. We have brought together experts and academics in the tackling loneliness evidence group to identify what areas we need to look into further, and what research should be done, to see how we can address the remaining evidence gaps.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, the Government’s idea of a socially connected society is a good one, but do they recognise enough, or recognise at all, the key role that poverty plays in disconnecting society? Has the Minister seen the recent study by UCL and the University of Manchester which found that older people in the poorest sector of the population in England were more than twice as likely to feel isolated as those in the richest, and that this was true both during and before the first lockdown?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord makes an important point which links to the Government’s wider work in levelling up to ensure that people of all backgrounds, across the country, have access to the services and the opportunities that they need. The levelling-up White Paper set out clear ambitions to improve peoples’ well-being, their pride in place and sense of community, and to create opportunities across the country. We know that connected communities provide people with opportunities to develop strong social relationships, and this is an important point. We will continue to explore opportunities to embed loneliness in the Government’s thinking on our important work on levelling up.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, have the Government made any assessment of the likely impact of the cost of living crisis, including energy prices and all of that, on family breakdown in this country?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am very mindful that my right honourable friend the Chancellor has, in another place, been setting out the Spring Statement, the details of which I have not yet had a chance to acquaint myself with. From what I have seen, I know he is addressing the pressures on public finances and household budgets, including the point made by the right reverend Prelate.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I wish to follow up the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, on people with ME, and to include other long-term conditions. Does the Minister think it possible to give guidance to the new integrated care systems in the health service to develop a local strategy to deal specifically with the issue of loneliness for people with long-term conditions?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Local councils, local health systems and voluntary and community sector organisations all have important roles to play in tackling loneliness. I will follow up the point made by the noble Lord, as I will the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, in relation to health.
Covid-19: Vaccines and Further Variants
Lord Blunkett
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the suppliers of COVID-19 vaccines about updating their effectiveness against further variants of the virus, prior to any delivery of a fourth vaccination to the wider population of the United Kingdom later this year.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, we are in regular discussions with vaccine developers about the efficaciousness of their existing vaccines and the variant vaccines that they are working on. Both Moderna and Pfizer are conducting clinical trials for omicron-specific variant vaccines. The contracts that we have signed with Pfizer and Moderna contain flexibilities to ensure that the UK can receive any updated vaccine produced, if production is switched. Having had a booster continues to provide a much-improved level of protection against omicron.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I am looking forward to my fourth vaccine dose, and to the Government making a decision to have a full rollout in the autumn. It is undoubtedly true that the effectiveness of the vaccine has been to reduce the impact and the great danger, and therefore the knock-on effects on the health service. But it is also true—it is the elephant in the room—that it is not providing immunity. It is very welcome that the noble Baroness has been able to assure us that work is going on, but could this be accelerated on an international basis? This is not just about the UK; this is about a global pandemic which still has not gone away.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The noble Lord is right: the current vaccines are very effective at protecting against serious disease, hospitalisation and death, but not so much against the transmissibility of the disease. UK scientists are in touch with scientists around the world, and we pool information. The noble Lord will be pleased to know that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are being trialled in the US, and tomorrow, trials start at St George’s in London as well.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, we know that Covid is capable of producing endless variants and that seems to be the problem at the moment. What are the Government doing to try to reduce the risk of these variants? Are they working with countries around the world to get some resolution to this?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
As noble Lords will be aware, the best way of reducing the number of variants is to vaccinate as many people in the world as possible. The UK has donated £548 million to COVAX to provide vaccines for people in lower- income countries. We successfully met the PM’s target to donate 30 million vaccines internationally by the end of 2021. We are on track to meet the 100 million target set by the Prime Minister at the G7 last June and have set out a plan to donate 70 million of these. More than 43 million doses have now been delivered, with approximately 38 million having been received by COVAX and 7 million having been delivered directly by the UK to countries in need. These donations have benefited more than 30 countries. I know noble Lords will say that there is more that we can do, and indeed there probably is, but they should rest assured that the Government are working very hard to increase their ability to export these vaccines.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, we have a virtual contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, despite the Minister’s comments at the beginning of this Question, Nature published a report on 18 March saying that while vaccines protect against the omicron subvariant, their effect really does not last long. Will the Government place an order for the recently approved Evusheld as a pre-exposure prophylaxis drug, which Ministers have promised the very vulnerable since July last year? What steps are the Government taking to protect the severely immunocompromised in the longer term, including in their decision on who will be eligible for free lateral flow tests?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I will do my best to answer the noble Baroness’s question, but it stretches into the health brief somewhat. On protection for the very vulnerable, on Monday we announced the rollout of the programme for the second booster for the vulnerable and the over-75s. It is not possible to predict what the long-term vaccine programme will look like, but undoubtedly there will be another vaccine in the autumn. We already have contracts in place for vaccines that we believe will be effective against any future variants and those trials have already started. Given the way the UK is approving these vaccines, with a rolling programme of research going to the regulatory authority, they can be approved very quickly and could even be introduced by September or October this year.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I draw attention to my registered interests. Is the Minister content that we are retaining sufficient capacity and infrastructure for testing and, in particular, genome sequencing of the virus in positive cases? This will inform a better understanding of the emergence of new variants, which will ultimately inform the development of new vaccines.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The noble Lord asks a very good question; unfortunately, I do not think I will be able to give him a proper answer. I suggest that I speak to my colleague in the Department of Health and get him a written answer, which we will make available to all noble Lords.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, do the Government have any information on people who, having had an injection, have a moderate to serious reaction to it? Is there any evidence that this might suggest that there is already some immunity to the disease?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
Again, the noble Lord asks a question which is specifically about the health benefits. This Question was geared more towards manufacturing and the resilience of the UK’s ability to produce vaccines. Again, I suggest that I ask my noble friend in the Department of Health to answer that question in writing.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, given my noble friend’s earlier commitment to international donation, is it not high time that we made a bilateral donation to Nepal in order to fulfil our duty of care to our 30,000 Gurkha veterans and ensure that they are finally vaccinated? I declare my interest as Deputy Colonel Commandant of the Brigade of Gurkhas.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I acknowledge my noble friend’s particular interest in Nepal and would be very glad to take that request back to the department.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, while multivariant vaccines would of course be a big step towards living with Covid, the WHO recently advised that the timeframe for their development is somewhat uncertain. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that emerging variants continue to be tackled individually while multi- variant vaccine development is ongoing?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
That is precisely what Pfizer and Moderna are doing. They are looking at the different variants and our contracts with them will allow their vaccines to be tweaked in order to cope with those variants. Given the way that the regulatory authorities in this country work, they can now be manufactured very quickly and be available to the public within months.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister was so right to say that the best way to fight variants is to defeat the virus worldwide. I am grateful for what she said about donations but, in the scale of things, they are a drop in the ocean. Can she update the House on the Government’s position in the current negotiations at the WTO around the TRIPS waiver and can she say whether, in the negotiations with the drug companies that she referred to, we are using our leverage to ensure that they share their know-how with countries in the global South that could produce generic vaccines for their populations?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I can confirm that all those questions are considered in the round with the vaccine manufacturers we are in discussions with. As to the noble Baroness’s initial question, I shall write.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked about the availability of Evusheld for those for whom a vaccine is wholly ineffective or contraindicated. I add that on Monday a study by the Washington University School of Medicine demonstrated that Evusheld was effective in providing protection against all variants of omicron. We as a Government are lagging behind 21 other countries which have entered into contracts for the availability of this for pre-exposure prophylaxis for the severely immunocompromised. Will the Government now act to put that contract in place?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I cannot commit to act but we now have that on the record and I will take it back to the department and make that request directly.
Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon (Lab)
My Lords, I understand that due to the lack of sustainability and diversification of supply of the vaccine, still only 10% of people living in lower-income countries are fully vaccinated. What plans do Her Majesty’s Government have to support the TRIPS waiver for lower-income countries to improve the accessibility of vaccines, tests and treatment?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I said to the noble Baroness’s noble friend that I would write about we are doing on the TRIPS waiver, with which I am not familiar. I will endeavour to include the answer to the noble Baroness’s question in the letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, those Members of your Lordships’ House, including me, who have recently had this disease, despite being fully vaccinated and boosted, will know that it is not entirely to be treated lightly, even post vaccination. Does the Minister agree that, while we certainly depend on vaccinations for the future and are hoping that they will evolve and become more widely available both here and elsewhere in the world, high levels of public health messaging about other forms of simple protection against transmission of this disease really need to continue and currently they really are not?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The noble Baroness makes a very good point. The “hands, face, space” message has seemingly long disappeared from sight. That is a very worthwhile suggestion, which I will be happy to take back to the Department of Health.
P&O Ferries
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sikka
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to appoint an independent inquiry to investigate the business practices of P&O Ferries and its parent company.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, the Government have condemned the appalling way that P&O Ferries has treated its staff. These loyal employees have been working tirelessly to keep our country supplied with essential goods, particularly through the pandemic. We wrote to P&O Ferries seeking information on the decisions it took, to determine whether it had breached UK employment law. We are carefully considering its reply, which the Secretary of State and BEIS have just received. If the rules have been broken, we will not hesitate to take further action.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, let us look at the facts. P&O has abused the employment rights of its workers. It took public money while its parent company paid £270 million in dividends. Its UK operating profits are almost wiped out by unexplained administrative expenses. The company is engaged in profit shifting and pays little or no corporation tax. Its 2020 accounts show a pension deficit of £95 million. Any responsible Government would immediately investigate P&O’s abuses. Can the Minister explain why this Government have not begun an independent inquiry?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
We are taking a number of steps. We are engaged with the Insolvency Service regarding the steps P&O Ferries took in this whole restructuring and redundancy exercise. The £15 million received by P&O was part of the furlough scheme and therefore to the benefit of the employees rather than the company. I know that P&O will still be accountable for the deficit in the pension contribution to the Merchant Navy Ratings Pension Fund. The Government are working very hard in a fast-moving situation to get answers to all those questions and to take the appropriate action.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)
My Lords, I apologise that I was not here yesterday: my wife had a very bad fall and fractured her head, so we spent two days in the hospital, but I wanted to be here today. I hope noble Lords will bear with me.
The most important thing for everybody in this House —or any house, individuals or otherwise—is your reputation. I am today wearing the tie of the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, which goes back nearly 200 years. My predecessor served at the Battle of Trafalgar and, as a matter of interest, my noble friend Lord Lamont is a direct descendant of the first chairman, who was in the Shetland Islands.
What I want to say is this—
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I do not want to be ungracious to my noble friend, but if he could reach his question, that would be helpful.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)
I will issue a statement separately from this, but I wanted to ask this. People from all over the world are deeply upset and concerned about the reputation of a company that has been one of the greatest companies, and of which I have had the honour to be a part for nearly 40-odd years. I stood down in 2005—
Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)
No, I have to say this, because it is very important. Dubai has had the company for 16 years. Does the Minister agree that the way Dubai has handled this is totally unforgivable to its reputation but, most of all, for all those who serve this country?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for reminding the House of his career in P&O, which was one of my first clients in the 1980s, when I joined the shipping department of Bank of America, and I remember him well. The Government are absolutely shocked by the actions of P&O Ferries, and we must make the point here that there is no relationship between P&O Ferries and P&O Cruises, which are entirely separate organisations. We are shocked by its actions over the past week. We have been angered by the lack of empathy and consideration that P&O Ferries has demonstrated towards its employees. The way that these workers were informed was completely unacceptable, especially as P&O Ferries received millions of pounds of British taxpayers’ support through furlough.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, as the Minister knows, multi-divisional companies such as DP World use a legal corporate veil so that they can hide behind the deeds of those subsidiaries. However, there is no moral corporate veil and DP World is morally implicated in the activities of P&O Ferries. How can the Government continue to do business with DP World, how can they continue to give it £50 million in tax breaks and why are they not suspending immediately the involvement of DP World in the two freeports that it has been granted?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The noble Lord is right and, as Ministers stated in the other place, we are reviewing existing arrangements and working with all government departments to consider what relationships we have with DP World. This includes my honourable friend in another place, Minister Scully, saying that the company should be on notice that it had fundamentally changed the relationship with government, including a £25 million subsidy the company received to help develop London Gateway as a freeport. It needs to realise that the relationship between the companies and the Government has changed as a result of its absolutely callous conduct.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, if P&O Ferries’ disgraceful action of sacking its workforce and bringing in agency workers to replace them on £2 an hour, with its ships being re-flagged outside the UK is not illegal, it certainly should be. What happened to taking back control? The Government could have prevented this, had they supported a Labour Private Member’s Bill that would have outlawed such fire and rehire practices. How will the Government stop this ever happening again? Will they now, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said, review DP World’s suitability for the £50 million freeport contracts it has recently been awarded?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I answered the last question with the words of my right honourable friend in the other place. The noble Lord is quite right that there is some truth in Barry Gardiner’s Private Member’s Bill, but I am not sure that it would have helped in this case, given that the fire and rehire may not apply to the replacement of British workers with lower-paid workers from overseas in a maritime context, as their contracts were with Jersey and therefore may not have been subject to UK law. However, we are looking at all these things and working out how we can take this matter forward and stop companies taking advantage of a loophole in the minimum wage legislation as it stands.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, can the Government take a very strong line on this? Many trade unionists will be looking very carefully to see how strong the government reaction is. Can the Minister take up with the DWP the fact that P&O was in the pension scheme of the Merchant Navy in a “last man standing” scheme, so if there is a deficit in this scheme, it could affect seafarers from all over the seafaring world, far beyond P&O?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I assure my noble friend that P&O is still accountable for its deficits in the pension scheme, particularly in the Merchant Navy ratings reserve fund. Regarding interaction with the trade unions on the situation, we are working closely with them to understand their concerns and act in support of their aims where possible, including to establish the legality—or lack thereof—of the actions of P&O. Minister Courts held a round table with maritime unions last week to discuss how Governments can best support maritime workers. We will continue to engage with unions as appropriate.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I am glad that Her Majesty’s Government are considering changes to the law to prevent this sort of outrage happening in the future. However, one thing is clear. Simply tightening up the loopholes exploited by P&O, or increasing the financial compensation caps, will not be enough with an employer who has long pockets. I suggest three steps which would have real teeth. First, as the Minister has mentioned, Barry Gardiner’s fire and rehire Bill would allow an injunction to compel consultation. Secondly, we should amend the Equalities Act to allow an injunction to prevent what is clearly discrimination on grounds of nationality. Thirdly, trade unions should once again be allowed to take solidarity action.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, we are committed to reviewing and monitoring the impacts of minimum wage legislation—including for seafarers—very closely, to ensure that it meets modern employment practices. Two years ago, the Government pledged to conduct a review of all NMW law in relation to seafarers and a working group was formed to explore this. I am sure that we will be looking at its results in responding to this crisis.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, did I understand the Minister to say that that a company incorporated in Jersey is not subject to UK law? I was under the impression that Jersey was under UK sovereignty. Can she clarify that statement?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The contracts that the seafarers were subject to were for international waters; land-based employers will still be subject to minimum wage legislation here, but there is a difference between many of the staff. The problem we have is that the 800 who were made redundant have received rather good packages, perhaps more than they would get through a tribunal, so it may be up to them to be supported by their trade unions.
Spring Statement Affordability Test
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps, if any, they took ahead of the Spring Statement to conduct an affordability test on the impact of the rise in cost of living, the reduction in Universal Credit payments of £20 per week and inflation rates for lower income families, and if so, what did it conclude.
Baroness Penn (Con)
The Government take seriously impacts on the cost of living for households, including when considering policies for the Spring Statement, and are providing support worth over £22 billion in 2022-23 to help. Her Majesty’s Treasury has published analysis alongside the Spring Statement, estimating the impact of policies announced, since the spending round 2019, on households. This shows that, in 2024-25, the tax, welfare and spending decisions will have benefited the poorest households the most as a percentage of their income.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, but this is not 2024-25. What people need now is cash in their pockets, not tax cuts later in the Parliament. Had the Treasury done an assessment—in fact, anyone can do the assessment—it would have concluded that the poorest people in this country simply will not be able to meet their bills, because of the impact of electricity and energy costs, because of food inflation and because CPI does not measure the real inflation rates that are felt by the poorest families in the country. Will my noble friend ask her colleague the Chancellor, whose measures I welcome today, to look again at the recommendation from the Economic Affairs Committee of this House to restore the £20 a week payment for people on universal credit?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Government absolutely understand that people need support with their household bills now. That is why, previously, we had announced £9 billion to support households with energy costs over the coming year. We consider all recommendations by the Economic Affairs Committee very carefully. Of course, we have provided further support to those on universal credit through cutting the taper rate and increasing the work allowance.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I never thought I would find myself saying this, but I must commend this Question from the noble Lord. It seems to me that it goes to the essence of good government. The Government should try to understand the needs of all sections of our society, particularly those with the greatest needs and the least influence. This morning, we learned that inflation has hit 6.2%—a 30-year high —and is likely to continue climbing. Today’s Spring Statement contained modest changes aimed at working people, but nothing—I repeat: nothing—to ease the very genuine concerns of pensioners and benefit claimants. Those relying on social security face significant real-terms cuts in their payments in just two weeks’ time. Why have the Government chosen, yet again, not to ease the huge cost-of-living pressures faced by some of the most vulnerable in society? Is it because, as individuals, members of the Government cannot envisage the appalling pain of real poverty, and hence believe it does not exist?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I am afraid I disagree with the noble Lord. The measures announced today were not modest; they were significant measures in terms of putting money back into people’s pockets to help them with the cost of living. We have taken significant action before today in the energy support package, in the changes to universal credit, in increasing the national living wage, which is rising by 6.6% in April—worth £1,000 to people on the national living wage who are earning full-time. So I am afraid to say I disagree with the noble Lord. I also disagree with the policy that he advocates of cancelling the health and social care levy to pay for our NHS. I listened carefully to his honourable friend Rachel Reeves’s response to the Statement today, and I did not hear her advocate for any changes to benefit levels.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, this is the third voice, joining the noble Lords, Lord Forsyth and Lord Tunnicliffe. Will the Minister understand that this House is ringing the crisis bell, because it is going to be a crisis for a very large number of people trying to live through this coming year? The OBR forecasts inflation at 9% by the end of the year, and if the Minister takes into account every argument that she has made and every measure produced by the Chancellor, the OBR still says that we will experience
“the largest fall in a single financial year”
in real household disposable incomes
“since ONS records began in 1956-57”.
Is it not extraordinary that, in order to finance a tax cut in 2024, the Chancellor is raising national insurance contributions today? Let us not have shilly-shallying over hypothecation. In fact, he could cancel today’s national insurance contribution rise, use windfall taxes to fill in for the two-year period and come out no worse in 2024. Why does he not do it?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Government make no apology for the health and social care levy. It is the number one priority of people in this country that their health service is back on track, and we need hypothecated funding to pay for it. The increase in national insurance thresholds means that, even when we take into account that levy, something like 60% of people will still be better off. That is money in their pockets to help them face the cost-of-living crisis that the Government recognise that people are facing this year.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, when the Government were looking forward in relation to food prices, did they take into account the role that food banks now play in our society? Are they budgeted in as something that is part of what we do, which is having to give away free food? We already have 59% of families saying that they are deciding between heating and eating—that horrible expression. Where do the Government stand in terms of helping people with food bills? Does the Minister think that, as chair of Feeding Britain, I should have a growth strategy?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, of course food prices are taken into account alongside fuel prices when we look at inflation and how it flows through to benefit rates. The noble Baroness will be aware that the Government are continuing their support for holiday clubs, including free meals, to ensure that children in families that get support during term time also have that support during the school holidays.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, nobody pretends that the Chancellor has an easy job, and I commend him for many of his policies. However, there has been a geopolitical shift in the past two months which should worry us all. This is the most dangerous period the Minister has ever lived in—indeed, that most of the population of Britain have ever lived in—yet she has completely ignored the fact that we are cutting the Army by 11% and reducing our ships and aircraft and at the same time Putin is running through Ukraine. Will she please go back to the Treasury and say that this is an emergency—an emergency much more important than the cost of living—and we need to spend some money on it?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend is right that the situation in Ukraine reminds us about the United Kingdom’s security situation and place in the world, but I have to disagree with him. At the spending review, the defence settlement was not for one or two years but for four years and was the biggest increase in defence spending since the end of the Cold War, which rightly reflects the priority that my noble friend seems to give to the matter.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, for the poorest families who have already cut back to the bone, this is an emergency. Will the Minister explain exactly what additional money has been put into their pockets by this morning’s announcement? Will she explain how giving discretionary funds to local authorities, which will give one-off discretionary grants, will compensate for the cut in the real value of benefits to which the noble Lord referred?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, we have helped those families in a number of ways. In fact, with the universal credit changes at the Budget our first priority was giving, effectively, tax breaks to those in lowest income households. We have also extended the household support fund by £500 million a year. That allows local authorities, which are often best placed to identify those families, to give them the right support at this difficult time.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, in the light of the huge inflationary pressures that are on people across the board and with the Government’s plan to use universal credit as a way of recovering £6 billion-worth of historic tax credit debt, what assessment has been made of whether there is the slightest chance of recovering those debts? What assessment has been made of that level of debt?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Government have done a significant amount of work in helping households manage their debts, for example, through the breathing space programme and the statutory debt repayment programme. It is important that the Government manage public money well and, where possible, ensure that where money may have been overpaid or mispaid it is paid back.
Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)
My Lords, in light of the answers that my noble friend has given, I think we all agree that one of the best ways to help those with low incomes is to give them job security. Can she please explain why the Government are proceeding with this jobs tax—the national insurance rise—on employers, given that the Institute of Directors has said that it
“adds needless complexity to the tax system, encourages self-employment rather than employment, and”—
this is the key point—
“hits hardest the labour-intensive sectors that suffered most from Covid”?
Why are they ploughing ahead with this at the very time when people need job security, not a jobs tax?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I think I have been clear about the health and social care levy, which is being used to fund people’s number one priority, our National Health Service. In good news for my noble friend, I am sure he will have noticed that today we are raising the employment allowance to £5,000. That is a £1,000 tax cut for small businesses, cutting employers’ national insurance bills.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, how does the Minister expect hard-pressed local authorities to divide £500 million between the 11 million families who are dependent on universal credit now? Does she really believe that giving that money to local authorities is preferable to giving people an extra uplift in universal credit?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, as many noble Lords will know, people on universal credit are often in work and earning. They will benefit from the increase in the national insurance threshold and from the increase in the national living wage by 6.6%. They will also benefit from the previously announced cut to the UC taper and work allowance. The Household Support Fund has been in operation for a period of time. As for the extra money going into it, the local authorities have already been managing that money and distributing it, and I am sure they are doing a very good job.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the original care levy was promoted as solving the social care problem for this country, but it turns out that essentially it is a subsidy for the wealthy in order to prevent them having to sell their homes to pay their care costs. How can it possibly be right that the poorest workers are having to pay to subsidise the well off?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I believe the noble Lord is referring to the care cap that is coming into place. That is a result of previous work by the Dilnot commission, which it builds on. I understand that noble Lords on the other side think that the cap is set at too high a level rather than too low. I think that is not the right characterisation of the Government’s policy.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I refer my noble friend to the admirable question asked by my noble friend Lord Forsyth: did the Government conduct an affordability test on the impact on the cost of living, and, if so, what form did it take?
Baroness Penn (Con)
As I say, my Lords, we have provided analysis in the round of tax and spending decisions taken by the Government since the 2019 spending review. That analysis shows that the combined impact of those decisions is progressive, with the largest burden placed on higher-income households as a proportion of their income.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, 6.2 million people in this country live on an annual income of less than £9,500. Today’s announcement gave them zero. Is that not a badge of shame for the Government? If so, what are they going to do about it?
Baroness Penn (Con)
The announcement today will be worth hundreds of pounds to millions of people across this country and will help them with the cost of living. The Government have a long-term plan to help everyone into work and to progress in work. We are investing nearly £4 billion in skills over the course of this Parliament. We are increasing the national living wage, which will see the lowest paid in this country receive the biggest pay rise since the national living wage was introduced. That is a record that I am proud of.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Last month a High Court judge ruled that the failure to include ESA and other legacy benefits in the £20 uplift to universal credit was discriminatory against disabled people. Many disabled people face higher energy costs and other living costs, which multiply the effect of the cost-of-living crisis for them. How are the Government going to ensure that disabled people can afford to live in this country?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right about the increase in living costs that will be faced by disabled people. That is why, as part of our energy support package worth £9 billion, we have provided council tax rebates worth £150 to help people with the cost of energy as well as a discretionary fund to local authorities so that those who will not benefit from the council tax rebates will also share in that support.
Direct Payments to Farmers (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2022
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Benyon
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 1, 3 and 10 February be approved.
Relevant document: 30th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 21 March.
Electricity Supplier Payments (Amendment) Regulations 2022
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 7 February be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 21 March.
Food and Feed Safety (Miscellaneous Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2022
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kamall
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 21 February be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 21 March.
Commissioner for Patient Safety (Appointment and Operation) (England) Regulations 2022
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kamall
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 7 February be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 21 March.
Sub-Postmasters: Compensation
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, yesterday in the other place the Minister committed to hold those responsible to account. Can the Government confirm that this will extend to the directors of the Post Office who wrongly sanctioned legal action? Last year’s historic shortfall scheme included interim payments specifically for those within that scheme. Can the Government confirm that interim payment will now be offered to the 555 trailblazers?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his Question. This is a historic injustice as we all know, going back many years. I know that my noble friend the Minister and my right honourable friend Minister Scully in the other place are grateful for the support given to the Government from all sides of both Houses in their efforts to resolve these issues. We must make public exactly what went wrong and ensure that something like this cannot happen again. We have established the Post Office Horizon IT inquiry, chaired by Sir Wyn Williams. As of 11 March, 45% in the historic shortfall scheme have already received initial offers of payment, and we hope to make 95% of initial offers by the end of the year.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, on the face of it, this is belated but good news. We should remind ourselves that this all started when a large international corporation, a huge public service and Government ganged up together to steamroller the lives of ordinary postmasters who were struggling with the Horizon scheme. I get no sense of the same vigour of their campaign on postmasters from that now on Fujitsu, whose product was the root cause of this problem, which went on for decades. Can the Minister please reassure your Lordships’ House that Fujitsu will be pursued with the same energy with which the postmasters and postmistresses of Britain were pursued?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I am sure that view will be expressed by a number of people around the House. The investigation led by Sir Wyn Williams will investigate all aspects of this scandal, including the role of Fujitsu. In the light of his report, we will have the information we need to shape our future relationship with Fujitsu and any future action we take against it for compensation. The UK taxpayer should not pick up the tab for problems caused by others.
Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)
My Lords, will the Minister please pass on to my noble friend Lord Callanan my thanks for the work that he did, along with Minister Scully in the other House, to achieve this excellent result? I come back to the point raised by the Front Benches opposite: will any interim payments be made to the 555 as there were with those whose convictions were overturned?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Callanan is not here to receive those plaudits, but he was suddenly taken ill last night. I hope he will be back tomorrow. The Minister, Paul Scully, is meeting the 555 group next week on 30 March. Interim payments and steps that will be taken to compensate the original 555, the GLO group, will all be discussed at that meeting. I am sure we will bring back more information as a result of those discussions as soon as we can.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, as well as commending the Government on this Statement, so far as it goes, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom, on his unbelievably consistent campaigning on this issue. The House, the country and the Government all owe him a great debt of honour in this respect. It has always been the case that this issue will not be resolved until all victims of this egregious miscarriage of justice are fully compensated and exonerated. We are well on our way to full compensation, but we are very far behind on exoneration. Fewer than 10% of the 736 people wrongly convicted on Fujitsu’s evidence have been exonerated. It is beyond doubt that a short, two-clause Bill in Parliament could exonerate the rest in a day. What other evidence do the Government need on these wrongful convictions before taking that step, which will be welcomed universally across Parliament?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The noble Lord makes a very good point. For this third group, 73 of their criminal convictions were overturned, including one yesterday—it could be hundreds, but it depends on individuals taking action to get their convictions overturned. The Post Office has contacted 640 of the 740 it prosecuted, offering help. They have had an interim payment of £100,000. We urgently want to resolve this issue and hope that all will be compensated in the current year.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I join others in congratulating the noble Lords, Lord Arbuthnot and Lord Callanan, on their work in chasing this. I am concerned about the Minister’s answer on the time it will take before anyone in the Post Office or Fujitsu who might be implicated can be brought to task. At the moment, it appears they will all have retired, or worse, before there is any penalty. Presumably in the meantime they will get promoted and do other jobs. Is there no way of speeding this up a bit?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I sense the frustration in the noble Lord’s voice, but the statutory inquiry is in the hands of Sir Wyn Williams. It is for him to decide when it will report. He has announced that he will take evidence until November this year, so we hope that we will at least have a report out within the next 12 months.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I thank my noble friend for the good news in this Statement, which was welcomed at the meeting of the APPG on Post Offices today, which I attended. What lessons for the future have the Government already learned from this long and deplorable scandal, which the noble Baroness rightly described as an historic injustice?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
There are many lessons to be learned. Everybody is appalled at the ability of so many different factors—from different Governments, to Post Office officials and management —to see this particular demographic of individuals prosecuted in this way, when it was almost certainly obvious to the outside world from the beginning that it was a very odd process. I am sure there will be many lessons to learn. Most of them will probably be highlighted in the report by Sir Wyn Williams, but I do not think we should wait for that report to look at this in detail. I know that my noble friend Lord Callanan and my right honourable friend in the other place will be doing just this within the department.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I do not want to prejudge the outcome of the public inquiry, but the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, made a point about speed. Does my noble friend know if the Government already have in mind which sanctions are at their disposal to be taken against those who are likely to implicated at the end of this inquiry?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I think I had better write to the noble Baroness on the specifics of what action we can take. Fujitsu is no longer a preferred supplier to the Government; in common with any other company, it can bid for contracts. I envisage that there is much we can do, and I will write with the specifics.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend join me in commending the work of my noble friend Lord Arbuthnot and extend my gratitude to the Minister in this place—my noble friend Lord Callanan—and Paul Scully in the other place? Can I press my noble friend Lady Bloomfield a bit more on the position of Fujitsu? Can she give the House some idea of what actions the Government could take now for the historic injustices inflicted on these absolutely innocent people, not least to send a message to other corporates that such behaviour is utterly unacceptable and will have expensive consequences?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I do not believe I can go further than what I have already said in our action against Fujitsu. Obviously there will be repercussions for it, but I do not want to prejudge what the inquiry will set out. All I can say is that, while it is at liberty to bid for future government contracts, I am sure the history of this sorry saga will be taken into account in that process.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
I will pause a moment before calling the next business.
Health and Care Bill
Wednesday 23rd March 2022
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 View all Health and Care Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 132-I Marshalled list for Third Reading - (22 Mar 2022)
Baroness Thornton
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a technical amendment necessary to remove a defective reference to a non-existent Clause (Cap on care costs for charging purposes), following its removal at Report stage.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
On behalf of my noble friend Lady Wheeler, I will move Amendment 1 and speak to Amendment 2, which are grouped together. This should not take very long, as we speed the Bill on its way to the Commons.
I just want to say one thing: we entered lockdown two years ago today, and I stood here for the next two days, helping to put through the emergency legislation. Some 186,000 deaths later, we are not finished yet. Now is not the time to discuss this, but I just note that that is what happened. I can hear an alarm—I thank the noble Earl for turning it off. I thought that it was mine for a moment, but that is not the noise mine makes.
Amendment 1 is a technical amendment—I thank the Public Bill Office for sorting us all out on this—necessary to remove a defective reference to a non-existent clause, “Cap on care costs for charging purposes”, following its removal on Report.
Amendment 2 leaves out Schedule 6. This is also a technical amendment, necessary to remove Schedule 6, “Intervention powers over the reconfiguration of NHS services”. It was previously introduced by Clause 40 of the Bill as introduced, “Reconfiguration of services: intervention powers”; again, this was removed on Report. I beg to move Amendment 1.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
My Lords, the Government will not oppose the minor and technical amendments tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Wheeler and Lady Thornton. We respect the fact that both amendments are necessary to reflect, and are consequential on, the removal of the care-cap metering clause and the reconfigurations clause, respectively, even though the Government are disappointed that noble Lords chose to remove these clauses from the Bill.
Baroness Thornton
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a technical amendment necessary to remove Schedule 6 (Intervention powers over the reconfiguration of NHS services). It was previously introduced by Clause 40 (Reconfiguration of services: intervention powers), which was removed at Report stage.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
The Question is that the Bill do now pass. As many as are of that opinion will say, “Content”—
Baroness Penn (Con)
I think that noble Lords may want to make a few remarks before we reach the Question.
Lord Kamall (Con)
As noble Lords know, I am still learning. I will take a moment to mark the end of the Bill’s passage through your Lordships’ House. Its size reflects the Government’s ambitious agenda for change and the NHS’s requests to help to deliver this change. The Bill intends to strip out needless bureaucracy, improve accountability and enhance integration, and it will form the bedrock for the NHS to build on in years to come.
I will express some words of gratitude. In many ways, the many meetings, the debates and even the late nights during the passage of the Bill have, I believe, shown this House at its best—informed, collaborative and considered. I am grateful to all noble Lords for their intense scrutiny over the nine days of Committee and four days of Report.
I pay tribute to the willingness of noble Lords, right across the House, on all Benches, to engage with me and my officials to find ways to improve the Bill. As well as being grateful to the Labour and Liberal Democrat Front Benches for at times challenging us and at other times agreeing and co-operating, I thank a number of Cross-Bench Peers, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, Lady Watkins of Tavistock and Lady Hollins, and the noble Lords, Lord Stevens of Birmingham and Lord Patel—who sends his apologies—for their always constructive contributions. I should perhaps also thank noble Lords on the Benches behind me and reflect that the challenge was sometimes from them.
As a relatively new Minister, thrown in at the deep end—your Lordships can see how new I still am from my asking, “Am I on yet?”—I also thank my colleagues on the Government Benches, who have assisted, advised and, I have to admit, consoled me at times throughout the passage of the Bill. I pay tribute to the kind support and advice of my noble friends Lord Howe, Lady Penn and Lady Chisholm of Owlpen.
I also put on record my thanks to the wide range of stakeholders which have engaged with me and many noble Lords, including the NHS Confederation, NHS Providers, the King’s Fund, the Nuffield Trust, the Health Foundation, the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges and the Local Government Association, for their sustained and constructive engagement over several years. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that the Bill is better for all their work.
It would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to the work of colleagues across the NHS, government and the devolved Administrations, who have worked so hard behind the scenes. In particular, I thank my fantastic Bill team and the departmental policy teams supporting them, all of whom have been assiduous, helpful and uncomplaining at all times, despite very long hours. Perhaps I should give a special shout-out to 10 month-old Teddy Povey, son of the Bill team manager. You say that you are getting old when the policemen look younger, but I must say that I felt very old on seeing that the policy officials are getting younger. I pay a special tribute there, on his early introduction to politics.
I thank officials across government, including the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Department for Education, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the Ministry of Justice, the Cabinet Office and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. That shows the sort of cross-government dimension to this Bill.
There is no doubt that your Lordships have improved the Bill. I hope that noble Lords across the Chamber will recognise that the Government have listened, considered and responded positively to suggestions where we were able to. However, I also recognise that there are some areas still to be resolved and where, to use my oft-used phrase one more time, we were unable to close the gap between our positions, including on social care, workforce planning and reconfigurations, on which the House of Commons will want to make its voice heard—and to which we may return in debate. But the areas of disagreement should not overshadow the improvement that all noble Lords have made to the Bill. Together, as a House, we have banned hymenoplasty; introduced a power to create a licensing regime for non-surgical cosmetic procedures; extended the gamete and embryo storage limits; made important commitments to safeguarding children; and strengthened the NHS’s commitment to net zero. On a subject close to my heart and that of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, we have included specific references to tackling inequalities.
We send to the other place a Health and Care Bill that is improved with its three underpinning principles reinforced: embedding integration, cutting bureaucracy and boosting accountability. I beg to move.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I was rather hoping that we would do one of these. I agree with the Minister that we have improved the Bill; it is a much-improved Bill that we are sending back to the Commons, and I hope that they have the good sense to accept all the wise amendments that this House has made.
I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, that this is his first Bill, and it has been a baptism of fire for him. It is a very large Bill to cut your teeth on. I think that he has had a bit of a masterclass on legislation and legislative processes, but I compliment him on how he has risen to the occasion and thank the whole ministerial team, including the noble Earl and the noble Baroness, Lady Penn; I was about to call her Baroness Jo-Jo, sorry. I also observe that this is a three-baby Bill. The leader of the Bill team and the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, have had babies, and our adviser who started out on the Bill, Rhian, has also had a baby. That is probably quite unusual in your Lordships’ House.
I say thank you, of course, to my wonderful colleagues, my noble friends Lady Wheeler and Lady Merron, and also to the Labour team behind me, particularly my noble friend Lord Hunt, who has been especially active on the Bill—and very welcome that has been, too. We have worked very well across the House, and we have been very pleased to work with the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, at a distance, and with many colleagues on the Cross Benches. If I start listing them, I know that I shall forget someone, but I need to mention the noble Lord, Lord Patel. He has not been with us for as much of the Bill as he would have liked, but of course his wisdom has been with us all the way through the Bill.
We are sending the Bill back to the other place, and I suspect that we are all going to be busy when it starts pinging and ponging back.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, this Bill is of great significance to the NHS, care services and, in particular, patients and residents in the care system. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and the Minister have said, it has been improved by your Lordships’ usual scrutiny.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and the other two Ministers working on the Bill. By my calculations, the Government have given us either changes or reassurances on 13 different areas in this Bill. It certainly shows that the ministerial team and the Bill team—to which I am also grateful—have been listening. They have devoted an enormous amount of time to hearing our concerns and responding to them. I thank them for that.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I hate myself for this, but I forgot two people. Half way through the Bill, we acquired a new advisor, Liz Cronin, who has done an excellent job, and there is Richard Bourne, who has been sat by my side, right through the Lansley Bill and this one. They have my thanks.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
From these Benches, I very briefly thank the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, the whole Bill team and all the officials who have worked with them for the way that they have listened—repeatedly listened—as we made our points over and again and as they sought sometimes to try to understand what we were trying to get across and why. I also thank everyone across the House, on all the Opposition Benches, the Cross Benches and the Government Benches, who have worked with us as Cross-Benchers in a very collaborative way and made their own offices available for background support to all of us.
I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton: this Bill leaves us better. It has been a genuine pleasure to work on it. Some of us have worked on previous Bills, and I have to say that this was a more enjoyable and rewarding experience because the dialogue involved a better interchange at many points.
We have made some points of great significance, one of which was over palliative care, which has been dear to my heart. Palliative care has come of age. I think the House will be pleased to know that, on Friday morning, the annual meeting of the Association for Palliative Medicine has a specific session dedicated to understanding the changes and what it now needs to do in the light of those. The word goes fast from here, and that is very welcome.
I hope that I have not forgotten anybody in my thanks, which are open and sincerely expressed.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise very briefly, with the Green group having made quite a large contribution—certainly in hours—to this Bill.
This House has improved the Bill, but I feel I need to say that I have received in the last few days a significant number of emails. They are not part of a co-ordinated campaign; they are cries from the heart, many from long-term NHS campaigners who I have known for a long while. I quote just one of these, which says that:
“The Bill is still not in the interests of the public or indeed of the NHS itself as a comprehensive, universal public service”.
That is an expression of feeling that I am hearing very strongly. I hope that the Minister will listen to that and understand that there are very grave concerns out there among the public about the direction of the NHS.
The improvements that we have at least delivered, as other noble Lords have said, should stay, but the Government really need to safeguard this universal public service.
Elections Bill
Wednesday 23rd March 2022
(2 years 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)
“Addresses of candidates at parliamentary electionsHome address form: statement of local authority area
(1) Schedule 1 to RPA 1983 (Parliamentary elections rules) is amended as follows.(2) In rule 6 (nomination of candidates)—(a) in paragraph (5)(b), for the words from “state” to the end substitute “—(i) where the candidate’s home address is in the United Kingdom, state the constituency or the relevant area within which that address is situated;(ii) where the candidate’s home address is outside the United Kingdom, state the country within which that address is situated.”;(b) after paragraph (5) insert—“(6) In paragraph (5)(b)(i), “relevant area” means—(a) in relation to a home address in England— (i) if the address is within a district for which there is a district council, that district; (ii) if the address is within a county in which there are no districts with councils, that county;(iii) if the address is within a London borough, that London borough;(iv) if the address is within the City of London (including the Inner and Middle Temples), the City of London;(v) if the address is within the Isles of Scilly, the Isles of Scilly;(b) in relation to a home address in Wales—(i) if the address is within a county, that county;(ii) if the address is within a county borough, that county borough;(c) in relation to a home address in Scotland, the local government area in which the address is situated;(d) in relation to a home address in Northern Ireland, the local government district in which the address is situated.”(3) In the Appendix of forms, in the Form of Front of Ballot Paper, for the address after “Catherine Angelina Smith” substitute “(address in [relevant area])”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment amends Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983 to give candidates at parliamentary elections the option of stating the name of the local authority area in which their home address is located on the home address form required by rule 6(4) of that Schedule.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, government Amendment 121 concerns the details about candidates that appear on ballot papers at parliamentary elections. We are bringing forward this amendment in response to concerns raised by Members in the other place.
Currently, candidates at parliamentary elections are required to disclose on the ballot paper either their home address in full or the name of the constituency in which the home address is located. The original purpose of requiring candidates to provide information about their address was so that electors could identify them as specific individuals. Given that MPs are elected on an individual basis, they need to be identifiable, even if many electors may make choices by party affiliation. The current requirements were introduced by the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009 and give candidates the option of having just the constituency they reside in recited on the ballot paper instead of their home address. This was intended to provide security and privacy for candidates, while still ensuring electors can see if a candidate has a local connection to where they are standing.
We have listened to concerns raised in the other House that there should be a further option for candidates who wish to indicate in a more commonly understood description where they live, without sharing their full address, so that their security can be better protected. The amendment intends to enable candidates to use the local authority area in which their home address is located as the address they give. We consider that the local authority will be a familiar and comprehensible indication of locality to most people. I beg to move.
Amendment 121A (to Amendment 121)
Lord Scriven
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I am a little perplexed and confused. Many noble Lords will ask how that is different from my normal state, but the reason I am confused is this. I am looking at this from the perspective of a potential voter at a parliamentary election. Many noble Lords will probably argue later in Committee that the link between the MP and the constituency, particularly for voting, is strong and must be maintained. Most people, when they vote, look at the link of the candidates to the constituency they are standing in, not necessarily the local authority area, as those can be very big.
Let me give an example. In my home city of Sheffield, there are five and a half constituencies: the half is because one half of the constituency is in Barnsley and the other half is in Sheffield. Sheffield is quite large: it is 367.9 kilometres squared. If you live in the north of Sheffield, it is highly unlikely that you have a link with the south-west of Sheffield. You would not go shopping there; you probably do not work there; you probably do not go to the parks there. People living in south-west Sheffield probably do not have a link with the north of Sheffield. There are many constituencies across the country like that. Therefore, just having the name of a local authority does not necessarily mean that the candidate has a link with the constituency. I agree with the Minister on the importance of the security of candidates, but that has to be balanced with the need for information for the potential constituents and voters to be able to ascertain how local the candidate is and what link they have with a particular constituency.
There are 650 constituencies in the UK and 398 councils, as laid down in the Government’s amendment. That means that there are 252 more constituencies than councils. I am not going to become a geek and tell you what the square kilometres of those are, but the number is quite large. When the Minister responds, will he say whether there has been any evaluation done about the exact amount of extra security and safety that will be afforded to candidates if we move from constituency to council area? That is key. If not, we potentially lose the link between the candidates and the constituency in which they are standing. That is the main reason for my amendments, and I look forward to the Minister’s reply, particularly his answer to that question about what evaluation has been done and what level of extra safety and security will be afforded if the Government’s amendment is implemented. I beg to move.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, government Amendment 121 relates to election candidates and the location which they state on their ballot paper and elsewhere. We on these Benches fully agree with the Minister’s comments about concerns held by Members of the other place. At present, there are two options available to candidates: they may state either their full address or the name of their constituency. Police forces and other authorities have often advised candidates that the first option can be unwise. Elected politicians and candidates are often subject to extensive abuse, so making their full address publicly available can increase the risk that such abuse will lead to violence or intimidation. For this reason, it is often appropriate for candidates to select the second option and instead list their constituency.
At times, this can be problematic, because the names of constituencies often do not accurately describe or reflect their location. It therefore makes sense that a candidate may instead list their local authority, but I am concerned by a few unintended consequences. In particular, there is a possibility that candidates will use this option to mask the fact that they live far away from the constituency. Many rural local authorities such as Cornwall, Shropshire and Northumberland are well above 1,000 square miles, a point which the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, made in relation to Sheffield.
In these examples, a candidate may now list their local authority to obscure the fact that they live close to two hours away. Does the Minister accept that this amendment might have the unintended consequence of hindering transparency? In addition to this, I am concerned that some local authorities may not accurately describe their locations. Will the Minister consider expanding this to include local authority wards? I look forward to hearing his response and thoughts on these points.
Lord True (Con)
I am grateful to those who have spoken, and I will think about the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Khan. This is a balanced proposal which has come from concerns from Members in another place; we all know of recent sad events. I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, says about people seeking to pass off where they live. This is a democracy, and I have been in politics for quite a long time, and if someone does not live very close to their ward or constituency, a leaflet comes pretty fast through the door—usually from the Liberal Democrats—with lots of big arrows over it, claiming, not always correctly, that they live somewhere on Mars. I think that democratic challenge would offer a control. The Government hope that there would not be unintended consequences.
We are suggesting a further option and, as the noble Lord, Lord Khan, said, sometimes the local authority’s name is closer to people’s understanding than the name of the constituency. While I understand what the noble Lords are saying, one would not want this to be abused in any way to deceive electors. I point out to your Lordships that it is an option already available to candidates at local and mayoral elections, so we consider it appropriate to extend the option to candidates at parliamentary elections. Although I listened carefully to what was said by both noble Lords, the Government believe on balance that this is an appropriate move to make in present circumstances, and in light of this I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, will withdraw his amendment and the House will be able to support this very small change, which brings parliamentary elections into line with local and mayoral elections.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I thank the Minister for that response. I am now perplexed but not confused, so at least he has helped with the confusion. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Khan, for reiterating the issue of unintended consequences. Having listened to the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the 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 local electors in Northern Ireland, section 10(4A)(b), 10A(1A)(b) or 13A(2A)(b) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (as applied by Schedule 1 to the Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Act 1989), and(b) where the person is or will be registered in a register of local government electors in Great Britain and does not also fall within sub-paragraph (a), paragraph 9(1) of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Local Elections (Northern Ireland) Order 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.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in Lord True’s name at page 116, line 30.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment leaves out paragraph (c) from inserted paragraph 27(3A) of Schedule 9 to the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962.
“(d) obtains or attempts to obtain information, in the circumstances mentioned in sub-paragraph (3AA), as to the candidate for whom a person voting by post at a local election (“V”) is about to vote or has voted; or(e) communicates at any time to any other person information obtained in contravention of paragraph (d).(3AA) The circumstances referred to in sub-paragraph (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 paragraph 27(3A) of Schedule 9 to the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962, provision clarifying the scope of the prohibition on obtaining or communicating information about the candidate for whom a postal voter has voted in a local election in Northern Ireland.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment updates cross-references in consequence of the amendment in Lord True’s name at page 126, lines 23 to 26.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment updates cross-references in consequence of the amendment in Lord True’s name at page 126, lines 23 to 26.
“(3BA) Sub-paragraph (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 election, or(b) a published forecast as to the result of that election which is based on information given by voters.(3BB) In sub-paragraph (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 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 a local election in Northern Ireland for the purposes of an opinion poll or exit poll.
“34A_ In the table, for the entry relating to section 115 of RPA 1983 substitute—
“Section 114A (undue influence)”” |
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in Lord True’s name at page 116, line 30.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in Lord True’s name at page 116, line 30.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment takes account of the possibility of a person being appointed as a proxy for an elector, at a particular election to the Northern Ireland Assembly, under section 8(7) of the Representation of the People Act (as applied to Assembly elections).
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
“(6A) Subsections (1) to (6) expire 10 days after the next elections for Mayor of London after this Act is passed.”Member’s explanatory statement
This probing amendment would mean that the simple majority system is only used for the next Mayor of London election.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group. The first two, Amendments 134 and 135, are designed to probe the fact that the Government have changed the voting system for the next Mayor of London election and other mayoral elections—my amendment specifically uses that example—and for police and crime commissioner elections. I want to probe the reasons why the Government have decided to make these changes and why they were included so late during the progress of the Bill. I look forward to hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, when he speaks further on this although I will make my own comments on our concerns more broadly about Clause 11.
Clause 11 was inserted, as I am sure noble Lords are aware, during Committee stage in the House of Commons and proposes changing the voting system for all PCCs, combined authority and local authority mayoral, and London mayoral elections to a first past the post system. It was not included when the Bill Committee took evidence on the Bill. In fact, my honourable friend Cat Smith MP actually made a point of order to the chair during the committee’s evidence sessions to ask whether the committee could take evidence from witnesses on the issue of electoral systems. The chair was very clear in saying that that was out of the scope of the Bill and so committee members were not able to take evidence on electoral systems.
The Government’s intention to include this change, despite this, was announced in a Written Ministerial Statement after the then Minister, Chloe Smith MP, had given her oral evidence to PACAC; this was after evidence to PACAC and after evidence to the Bill Committee. PACAC then received correspondence from several combined authority mayors who made it crystal clear that the inclusion of this change to the electoral system in the Elections Bill came as a complete surprise to them and they felt that they and their local communities had not been consulted properly on the proposed changes.
For example, Dan Jarvis, mayor of South Yorkshire, said:
“The government has not consulted with local communities on this major change, even though the last time a government proposed a reform of the electoral system they put it to a referendum. Greater local consultation would have been carried out for a mid-sized infrastructure project than they have offered for a major constitutional change.”
Similarly, Jamie Driscoll, mayor of North of Tyne Combined Authority, expressed concern about the topdown way this change was being made. He said:
“As a matter of principle major constitutional changes should not be imposed on local areas without full consultation and without taking into account local preferences. To do otherwise runs directly counter to the principle of local control which devolution is meant to enshrine, and inevitably fuels cynicism and growing loss of trust in our democracy.”
Andy Burnham, mayor of Greater Manchester Combined Authority, disagreed with the Government’s assertion that voters are confused by the current supplementary system. He further stated:
“The Government has also argued that it wants to bring these elections in line with other English or UK-wide elections. However, the comparison between Mayoral elections and those of MPs or local councillors is a false one. As Mayor, I am elected as an individual executive decision-maker, not to be part of a wider legislature. That difference is important and drives the need for a different electoral system.”
The view that the supplementary vote system was a positive one for the role of mayor was also expressed by Dan Norris, mayor of the West of England Combined Authority. He believes it is important that the present supplementary voting method allows voters to express a second preference if no candidate receives 50% of the vote because
“this ensures that a candidate must have a larger base of support to win”
and is
“more helpful to the democratic process”.
The London mayor is also concerned. He is particularly concerned because the moves in this Bill would overturn the 1998 Greater London Authority referendum result which specifically described the supplementary vote system that Londoners voted overwhelmingly in favour of. All previous London mayors won more votes than any other candidate in the first round, so the mayor is also not convinced that changing to first past the past would have given different results.
The conclusion in PACAC’s report said:
“Regardless of the benefits or disadvantages of the changes made by the Bill to the electoral system for those offices, the manner in which the proposed legislative change was brought about is unsatisfactory. Making changes such as this after the Bill has been introduced and debated at Second Reading is disrespectful to the House.”
It is disappointing that the Government’s response to PACAC’s report did not address this comment. I know that the Minister is a decent person. Does he agree that the way these changes were introduced was disrespectful to the House? Does he agree that this disrespectful attitude is compounded by the fact that this is an elections Bill—a Bill of constitutional importance that requires those in power to behave with the highest respect for due process in order to protect our democracy and trust in government.
The Minister may well say this is a manifesto commitment, as was said in the other place. Yet while the manifesto includes commitments to strengthen the accountability of elected police and crime commissioners and to continue to support first past the post, it does in fact reverse the 2017 manifesto pledge to impose first past the post in elections that currently use proportional systems. So that was a previous manifesto pledge, from 2017, overturned in 2019.
Amendment 144D in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mann, would enable returning officers to provide for early voting where they believe it would improve participation. I note that the Welsh Government have developed flexible voting pilot schemes that will take place at the local government elections, in four areas in Wales, this coming May. It will be interesting to read the Electoral Commission’s independent evaluation of the impact and effectiveness of these schemes, which I understand is due to be published in August 2022. I look forward to hearing further from the noble Lord, Lord Mann, on that amendment, and to the Minister’s response to my questions. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is taking part remotely, and I now invite him to speak.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this is a particularly difficult issue for me. I strongly support the deletion of Clause 11; it is no more than an attempt to abolish an electoral system that has stood the test of time so as to secure an electoral advantage for the Conservatives. The Government are effectively seeking to corrupt a system that is fair and, in the absence of full proportional representation, more proportionally reflects the opinion of the wider electorate.
The Conservatives have always opposed the supplementary vote system since its birth as it challenges the Conservative bias built into the first past the post electoral system—nothing more and nothing less than that. They have opposed it for over 20 years. I know, because I designed it, researched it, named it, wrote the original paper advocating it, gave evidence to the Plant commission advising its introduction, and saw it through to its introduction by the Labour Government. I brought in Professor Patrick Dunleavy from the London School of Economics—a world-renowned academic known for his independence of mind—to approve it as it developed. At every stage, to validate it, we did thousands of runs under different scenarios on a computer in the House of Commons Library when I was an MP. We spent 12 months working on it; Patrick Dunleavy gave it the academic approval and credibility that I lacked.
The driver behind all the work was that any system that totally ignores the centre vote in British politics, essentially a Liberal Democrat vote, will inevitably favour the minority right. First past the post helps in the election of Conservative Governments. If the Conservatives thought for one moment that there was some electoral advantage in AV, SV, AMS, STV or any form of this system, I believe they would support reform of the electoral system.
There was a very interesting article in a recent issue of Prospect magazine on mayoral elections by Stephen Fisher, associate professor in political sociology at Trinity College, Oxford. He carried out research into the use of the supplementary vote. He noted first that 41% of the people in England now live in areas where SV is now in use for one election or another.
Lord Kerslake (CB)
It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, with his passion and analysis, which was evident even through the screen.
I speak to support Clause 11 not standing part of the Bill. In doing so, I declare my interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and an adviser to a number of metro mayors and mayors, as set out in my entry in the register of interests.
In support of my view that the clause should not stand part, I shall speak about three issues. First, this proposed change cannot be regarded as a manifesto commitment; secondly, there is the lack of any meaningful consultation on the change; and thirdly, a proportional voting system is right for these particular posts, regardless of whether you support proportional representation in general or for local elections. I apologise in advance that this will be a longer Committee speech than is perhaps normal. However, the issues at stake here are so fundamental to the way we do business in a properly functioning democracy that they need to be set out at length.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
Can the noble Lord enlighten the House by telling us how many results of mayoral elections would have had a different result had they been held under first past the post?
Lord Kerslake (CB)
The noble Lord had better ask the Minister; I do not have those figures, but I am happy to dig them out. The point I make still applies. As in London, I am sure there is scope for better systems to improve the design of the papers and reduce rejected numbers.
The last of the Government’s arguments is consistency. Those in favour of PR might argue that the way to achieve consistency would be to move all elections over to PR. You do not need to go that far; as I explained earlier, people are perfectly able to live with different electoral systems.
I think the real reason the Government have done this, as has already been alluded to, is the results of the elections themselves. Out of the 15 directly elected mayors, none represents the government party; out of the 10 metro mayors, including the Mayor of London, only two represent the government party. I can understand why the Government find that a disappointing result, but I do not think that is a good reason for taking forward a major constitutional change to an electoral system without meaningful consultation.
Lord Lipsey (Lab)
My Lords, I put my name to this stand part debate. When I was in journalism, people used to say of me, “He may be no good, but at least he is quick.” I will try to follow that precept this afternoon.
The first thing I wanted to say will cheer the Minister. Like him, I do not think much of single transferable votes—I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours on that. The immense defect of STV compared to its obvious alternative—the alternative vote, which is an exhaustive ballot—is that it does not produce a candidate who commands a majority of the electorate. AV infallibly does, which is why we so sensibly use it for the election of hereditary Peers. It seems very basic that, for mayors in particular, and perhaps police commissioners too, we want somebody who commands a majority of the electorate, and that STV does not do.
The second thing I want to say is about haste. More than 20 years ago, on the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform chaired by the late Lord Jenkins, we were as quick as we possibly could be. People who have served under Lord Jenkins as chair know he was not a man who permitted excess words or allowed discussions to meander. Even so, it took us about 12 months to come to a conclusion. It may or may not have been right, but it took us 12 months to get there. The complexities are enormous. At that time, I could have distinguished between three varieties of Sainte-Laguë system for the distribution of majorities, but now I can hardly remember the words, and I certainly cannot remember what those were. But these are immensely complicated matters of immense importance, and they can affect the results of elections, which are the expression of our democracy. To do this by introducing an unheralded amendment in Committee in the other place is, to use a word much used by my old boss Tony Crosland, frivolous.
The third thing is that different places need different electoral systems. It does not follow that because first past the post may be felt by some to be right for the House of Commons it is right for every election. It clearly is not. Parliament legislated for different systems in Scotland and Wales—the AMS system. A whole set of desiderata attached to electoral systems apply differently in different elections, and this is a very poor reason for having first past the post.
It is particularly poor because the winner can have a very tiny share of the vote, not much more than 20%; I can cheer the Government up for a moment by citing one such perverse result in an East Anglia PCC election in 2012. The winner on the first ballot was one John Prescott, known to many in this House. John Prescott’s lead—he had just over 20% of the first ballot votes—was soon got rid of, and his votes transferred, to elect Matthew Grove. Where is Matthew Grove now?
We cannot openly countenance a system where candidates with 20% of the vote rule over our big cities and order our police. I use the word again: this is a frivolous approach to constitutional reform in general and to electoral reform in particular. This House should have nothing to do with it.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, my name is on some amendments in this group. As Members of the Committee will know, I am extremely disturbed by this Bill as a whole and by the way it has been introduced. Of all its provisions, I think Clause 11 is the least justifiable, introduced as it was after a Written Statement by a middle-range Minister last September after the Bill had already begun its Committee stage in the House of Commons, and pushed through for clearly partisan reasons.
On Monday, the Minister was asking us to look at the practice on voter ID in other countries as a justification for what the Government propose. I am sure he recognises that in the Irish and Danish constitutions, any change in the voting system is a constitutional amendment and therefore has to go through exceptional procedures. That is also true in a number of other countries. In this respect, of course, he will probably say that we should pay no attention to other countries. I deeply respect that, privately, the Minister knows this clause is impossible to defend, and I recognise that he nevertheless has to stand up for it as best he can in the circumstances that this was a Conservative pledge in 2017 and someone up there has not forgotten that.
Yesterday, I read a very good article in the Political Quarterly of 2019 entitled “The UK Politics of Overseas Voting” by Susan Collard; I will return to it when we get on to overseas voting. One of the things that struck me about the introduction was that it talked about the package of measures that might have been agreed among the parties in 2016-17 about voting reform. It was discussed among the parties in the Commons that we could have moved towards automatic voter registration to reduce the number of people not on the register—by and large, the young and the marginal. We could have had a major effort at citizen engagement to encourage people to go to the polls. We could also have included votes at 16, which would almost definitely have helped the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, the Greens and others. In that context, overseas voting and the extension of overseas voting would have been part of the same package. That could have been negotiated as part of a—
Lord Lexden (Con)
Were these official interparty discussions or informal exchanges?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
These were exchanges on and off the Floor of the House of Commons.
That would have been a major set of changes to voting rights that might even have included some form of examination of our voting system. I draw attention to Amendment 140, which suggests that we need a citizens’ assembly on methods of voting for different elections in this country. That would be highly desirable, encouraging an intelligent approach and taking out of the control of parties the question of whose advantage is most looked to in this respect.
This Government have mucked about with local government over an extended period. I am not a great fan of metro mayors—certainly not metro mayors without the scrutiny of elected assemblies—but the Government have them. The Government have reduced the number of local councillors, and now they want to muck about with the system, partly because what Michael Gove and other enthusiasts thought they wanted—independently minded people like we saw in New York and Chicago—has not yet emerged very strongly. But some of those who emerged are rather good, or not so good, Labour candidates, who do not please the Government. Be that as it may, we have a current system for elected mayors.
The only argument, in effect, that the Government can make in defence of this change is that the voters of London and other cities are not as intelligent as their counterparts in Ireland, Scotland and elsewhere and are not capable of understanding a complicated system such as the supplementary vote and therefore we have to go back to the first past the post. That is not a good argument, and I look forward to hearing what alternative argument the Minister may wish to produce.
One of the problems with the first past the post system is that it works really well only when there is a clear two-party system and the two-party system has broken down in almost all democratic countries in recent years, except for the United Kingdom and the United States. In the United Kingdom and the United States, factionalism within both major parties has almost wrecked our politics, partly because the extremists —or less moderate—in both major parties have done their best to take over their party rather than going off and forming their own.
I was very struck by an argument made by the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, during our previous day in Committee, which was that you need to be very careful about how the selection process for candidates works because in most constituencies in Britain the selection process decides who will be the MP. The attraction of any form of alternative voting, supplementary voting or proportional representation is that it gives the voter some choice among candidates.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
In European elections, for example, if you are top of your party’s list, it is pretty close to being a safe seat.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
The noble Lord and I will have conversations about list systems and non-list systems off the Floor of the House.
On Amendment 144C on proportional representation in local elections, I recall very clearly many years ago that the borough of Rochdale had all-out local elections and thus required three candidates for each ward rather than one. What was most striking was that that was the point at which Rochdale ceased to have overwhelmingly white male councillors because if the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives each had to choose three candidates, they tended to choose one white man, one woman and one Asian. That gave people a choice and in some wards people voted for the woman or the Asian in greater numbers than they did for the Labour or Conservative candidate, which you might think is not a bad thing as a matter of choice in elections.
I remind the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, who is deeply committed to the idea of the constituency, that until the first five years of my life the tried-and-tested constituency system in the United Kingdom included a large number of multi-Member constituencies. The last double-Member constituencies were abolished in 1945. I know I am older than him and that was not in his lifetime. We had a number of three and four-Member constituencies in counties and large boroughs, so if we are talking about things that are un-English, English history—the tried-and-tested systems referred to by the noble Lord, Lord True—includes multi-Member constituencies and different forms of voting in return.
Now is not the time to have a full debate on methods of voting, but I commend to the Committee the idea that we should move towards a citizens’ assembly. I hope that whoever makes up the next Government will indeed move forward on this, but I also say as strongly as I can that now is not the time to introduce into a Bill at a late stage, as Clause 11 does, a proposal that the Government have introduced solely because they think it will advance the Conservative Party and disadvantage others.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I will allow the noble Lord on my right to speak first.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I know he will interrupt me anyway.
I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and one of the rare people who has been elected under a proportional system to the London Assembly and under first past the post to a council. It has always struck me that I was told by Conservative voters in both areas that they voted for me rather than a Labour or Liberal Democrat person. Under both systems, they realised that there were options other than voting for the person that they might first vote for.
I know the Tory party struggles with the future and does not like modernisation, except when it really suits it, and proportional representation is the future. It is obvious that other democracies—I am not even sure that this country is a democracy any more, but I will grant us that status—have been using proportional representation for years.
There is more grumbling on the Labour Benches about what I am saying and I really wish they would do it quietly so that I could not hear them.
Proportional representation is the future. First past the post is a relic of the past when small groups of landowning gentlemen would gather in a small room to cast their votes to put another landowning gentleman into a room to represent their interests to the monarch. That is really not a system that we want to continue. As the franchise has expanded to include women and non-landowning men and the population has grown, so the number of voters is many times what it once was and social diversity has increased massively. We are now at a point when first past the post simply is no longer an appropriate system. The idea that winner takes all leaves many millions of people unrepresented in Parliament and in councils.
It seems to benefit the two main parties, Labour and the Conservatives. They are apparently content to take turns to run the country. Sometimes they do well and are handed a substantial majority in spite of the fact that they do not have a majority of voters behind them, and sometimes they suffer and end up in opposition. However, it does not suit Labour as well as it thinks it does. In the previous century the Conservatives won 20 elections and the Labour Party only nine. Labour does not benefit from first past the post. If Labour wants to form more Governments—we see this reported endlessly—it will have to appeal to more voters, which means to people like me, who might give them a vote if my preferred candidate is not able to carry a majority. We need PR, and that means real democratic reform, such as the amendments in this group, which I support; I will be happy to vote for any of them. If they throw in a new, real green new deal, that would improve the odds of Labour forming a new Government a lot.
First past the post feeds into the overly confrontational system we have at the moment. The nature of British politics is not very attractive. The parties are forced to fight viciously by the very nature of the electoral system. In the other place and here, we confront each other across the Chamber. It is very unhealthy in terms of being able to work together and find any sort of consensus. The first past the post voting system is designed to create conflict and opposition and it enables a small bunch of right-wing politicians to run a corrupt and uncaring Government on a mandate given by fewer than half the voters. Consensus building in politics is the future and will help us to claw our way out of the climate crisis.
You have to ask: do the general public like the way things are run? No, they do not—they will tell you that they do not like the constant fighting and braying that they see in Parliament, and they wonder why politicians cannot work better together. They wonder why campaigns are run with dirty tricks and character assassinations, and they wonder why politics and politicians—us—cannot be better. These are all reasons why we need to change the voting system, to transform our democracy into something really democratic and to allow people to be represented by the politicians who most closely align with their values, opinions and hopes for their future—to stop people being forced to choose the lesser evil.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, arguing for consensual politics in a characteristically aggressive speech—and it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, as well. There must be a misprint on the Marshalled List, because the noble Lord told us that he did not want to discuss proportional representation. But there is an amendment tabled here, with his as the lead name, proposing a new clause with the heading, “Proportional representation for elections to the House of Commons”. I do not know whether he wants to discuss that—
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
I said “at length”. I assure the noble Lord that I can discuss proportional representation at very great length, but I fear that might tire the Committee.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
I shall certainly follow the injunction not to speak at length, but I cannot resist responding to arguments about proportional representation. Oddly enough, I think I am the first the noble Lord so far to speak passionately in favour of first past the post, which shows once again how unrepresentative this House can be of British public opinion. On two specific occasions, it has been the subject that dare not speak its name. There are two issues that have not been mentioned, either by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace—and I do not blame him—or by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. One is the small matter of an opinion poll, and I shall call it that to be a little contentious, held in 2011, which consisted of 19.2 million voters, who the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has told us probably represent something that is dying out and departing. That opinion poll was in a referendum which the Liberal party made a condition of its membership of the coalition—and at any stage, if the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, wants to interrupt, of course he can. He was a Minister in that Government.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
I thank the noble Lord for the invitation. He will remember that this was the first occasion on which Dominic Cummings managed very successfully to make the argument that it would be much too costly to change the electoral system and that the money would be much better spent on the National Health Service instead—an argument that he also used in the Brexit referendum. In neither case was the money spent on the NHS.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
Well, to bring Dominic Cummings into it sounds like a good argument to a point that I was not discussing and do not intend to discuss.
The referendum was a condition of the Liberal Democrats’ membership of the coalition Government; they said that there should be a referendum on the voting system in this country. Some 19.2 million votes were cast, 6 million in favour of the alternative vote system and 13 million for first past the post, as specifically referred to. There was a 2:1 majority for first past the post, and a widely held debate right across the country. I am pretty shocked that, having demanded that referendum and having rejected the result, which is not an unusual characteristic, the noble Lord wants, by means of an amendment to a Bill, to change the electoral system away from first past the post, not by another referendum—because referendums keep giving him the result that he does not want—but by an amendment to a Bill. I find that a very unsatisfactory way of proceeding, but I am afraid that it has become a behaviour pattern. I am sorry, because I agree with the Liberal Democrats on a lot of aspects of this Bill, but not on this. It is a very similar pattern to what was followed in relation to the European referendum, whereby they voted for the referendum, did not like the result but knew that it was too big a risk to put it back to the people—so, instead of having another referendum, they proposed to change it without one and back to the original situation.
I am afraid that this approach of no compromise with the electorate that seems to be being offered by one party to this discussion is really not a satisfactory way for democrats to proceed. Of course, people can change their mind; people might decide, at some future date, that they want to change the electoral system. But, again, I have noticed—and this is why I both enjoy but am frustrated by discussions about the voting system—that one thing that people who are in favour of changing from first past the post always manage to do, whenever you criticise them for anything that they are proposing, is to say, “Oh, that’s not the kind of proportional representation that I’m in favour of—it’s completely different.” In fact, of course, they will even argue, although it was more proportional, that the proposal in the 2011 referendum, which was for the alternative vote system, was not proper proportional representation. It is not, but it is much more proportional —and I am quite certain that they see the electoral systems for mayors, police commissioners and everything else just as a stepping-stone towards proportional representation.
I am the first noble Lord to mention the referendum. The other thing that proponents of proportional representation always avoid mentioning is the test bed that we had for quite a long time—thankfully, no longer —for elections to the European Parliament. They were done on the basis of proportional representation. I remind supporters of the system of the arguments that are tediously repeated about the great merits of proportional representation, the principal point of which is that it reaches parts of the electorate that are ignored at present. It is said that there are tens of thousands of Labour voters, say, in the south of England and tens of thousands of Conservative voters in the north of England who never have their voices represented, and that if you released all that potential by proportional representation, the public would be energised.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
How does the noble Lord explain the fact that, when you have a PR system—it does not matter in which country—you get loads of Greens elected? Does not that sound as though there is an unexpressed need under first past the post for Greens? I do not know why noble Lords are all laughing: there are three out of 25 on the London Assembly.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
I was listening carefully to the noble Baroness’s speech, and she seemed to be suggesting that quite a lot of votes were not votes for Greens at all but votes for her personally. I have never kidded myself about that, with regard to elections that I have fought, because I have lost too many—I cannot afford to say that.
I have said that the standard argument is that proportional representation energises people. But the turnout for European elections in 2009 was 35%, which is lower than in local government elections, generally. In 2014, it was 36% and in 2019 it went up to 37%, but that was because large numbers of people were voting for a party to scrap the European Union, as we know. So let us please hear from any proponents of PR who happen to emerge during this debate an explanation as to why they do not attach any significance whatever to a referendum held on the subject, and precisely why it is, when a PR system has been tried in this country, it has not involved large numbers of people turning out to the polls. In fact, although admittedly it is for general elections, good old first past the post is the one that continues to attract far and away the biggest turnout of any of the other fancy electoral systems on offer.
Finally, I will mention an important point: PR kills the link between an MP and a constituency. That is the heart of it. I speak as a former MP—there are many others in this House—in saying that, whenever MPs are accused of getting out of touch with the electorate, the answer is always the same, and it is true: if you hold surgeries every weekend and have meetings—
Lord Kerslake (CB)
Could the noble Lord perhaps address the point I made in my contribution? Whatever your views about disconnection during a general election between the vote and the person holding the seat, that does not apply to metro mayors in the way it works. Similarly, the noble Lord talks of countering the referendum, but we are here changing the voting system—we are not adding PR but reducing the current use of the system—without consultation at all.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
I am the wrong person to ask about directly elected mayors or police and crime commissioners because I have always been opposed to both. On the method whereby they are elected, I prefer a parliamentary system in local and national government —namely, a system whereby whoever holds executive power is subject to constant control, management or association with the people who decide who should be in the Executive. Some of my best friends are elected mayors or police and crime commissioners, but the system—certainly that for police and crime commissioners —is not worth having a great debate about. I repeat: the link between an MP and a constituency keeps the feet on the ground.
Finally, I think the proponents of PR call it “fair votes”—I tend to think of it as “unfair votes” because it certainly results in unfair power. It effectively means that the third most popular party of the three major national parties is the one pretty permanently in office. Nick Clegg would no doubt still be Deputy Prime Minister—there is a thought for you—almost for life, because it is always a question of which of the two main parties the third party will associate itself with. That leads to disproportionate power and influence for the smallest of the parties, which is not a system to be defended. Let us at least agree that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, can either be not moved—he does not seem keen to debate it—or, preferably, defeated.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, with whom I completely agree. I will speak mainly on the opposition to Clause 11 standing part, which is in this group, but I do not support any of the amendments in it. I listened very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, said—he was clearly much too modest to say that he actually invented the supplementary vote system, back in 1989, so what we heard was some rather over- protective parenthood trying to keep that system going.
Our electoral system has had first past the post at its heart for a very long time—and very successfully. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, referred to the referendum in 2011, when the British people were quite conclusive in their view: they did not want the alternative vote system. I accept that it is not the same as the supplementary vote system, but it showed that the British public had no appetite to change from the first past the post system.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, who is unfortunately not in his place, described the supplementary vote system, in 2015, as “one of the worst” electoral systems, and I agree with that. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, described it in 2014 as the “oddest” electoral system—I thought I was going to find a second thing that I could agree with him on this week, but he may have been using that as a compliment. I do not think anyone has mentioned that, in 2016, the Home Affairs Committee in the other place recommended that it be abandoned for PCC elections.
The supplementary vote system is used hardly anywhere outside England, with very good reason. The noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, helpfully gave the statistics for the 2021 London mayoral and PCC elections. He tried to blame that on the ballot paper, but I just do not buy that: there is a very significant difference between the number of spoilt ballot papers in the—
Baroness Noakes (Con)
I hear what the noble Lord has said, but the difference between the spoilt ballot papers in the local elections at that time and the PCC and London mayoral elections is too great to be laid wholly at the door of the shape or design of the ballot paper.
The British people understand the first past the post system, which is why they supported it in 2011. It gives a clear result to the candidate with the most votes, and that is the heart of accountability. If that candidate does not perform to the electorate’s will or expectation, they can boot him out; they can vote him out at subsequent elections. That is the key advantage of the first past the post system: it gives a very clear result.
Lord Scriven (LD)
Is the logic of what the noble Baroness is saying that electors in Northern Ireland and Scotland who use STV, or people in South Yorkshire who elect their mayor, cannot vote their officeholders out because of the voting system?
Baroness Noakes (Con)
They can vote them out, but it is much more obscure—the link is much less direct. The supplementary vote system, which is what we are talking about replacing, clearly allows weaker candidates, with fewer first preference votes, to get through the system because of second preference votes, which have the same value as first preference ones—that does not seem right.
My only regret about the Bill is that it does not get rid of the even more confusing additional member system for the London Assembly. As the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said, we fortunately no longer have the proportional representation system for the EU elections, which resulted in MEPs being distant and certainly not accountable to electorates. I would personally look again at the systems used in Scotland and Wales, but I shall stick to my normal practice in your Lordships’ House of not getting involved in devolved matters. It is time for our electoral systems in England to return to their roots and for the first past the post system to be the default for national elections and all English elections.
Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have been affected by the debate this evening. I was intending to speak—if I was going to speak at all—in a rather different way, because I have anxieties about the way that the Government introduced this legislation, at the point when they brought in all the material about the form of election. But I have been stirred by the other side of the argument, because something that I feared has definitely now come about: the people arguing against the Bill are really trying to bring back proportional representation, as a much wider piece of argument, into the whole of our public life and our electoral system—
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I did not argue in my speech for bringing proportional representation forward at all.
Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-Afl)
I thank the noble Baroness for that and accept what she says. I am thinking more widely of the debate—
Lord Kerslake (CB)
Does the noble Lord agree that I also made no argument to extend proportional representation? My specific concern was about this change and it being made without consultation.
Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-Afl)
I listened closely to the noble Lord’s speech, and it is perfectly true that he made a very long and important argument about the specifics, but he also expressed a general preference for proportional representation.
I wish to make a very simple point, which I think came across very well in what the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said. He described how, even under the strict chairmanship of Lord Jenkins, it took 12 months of what he called “immense complication” to look at these issues. That is precisely the problem with all this. It is dangerous to confess to ignorance in this very learned and expert House, but despite covering politics in various ways for 40 years, I have never been able fully to understand or explain all the different voting systems that clever people keep coming up with, and that is an argument against them. If somebody who is paid a salary to try to understand these things still finds them complicated, there is something wrong with them. All right, I am stupid, but I make the point that it is very important for the buy-in of a democracy that people can understand what is being said, what is being offered and how to perform the operation they are invited to perform. They can do so under first past the post, but under proportional representation they cannot, broadly speaking. Therefore, I oppose these amendments and support the Bill.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I used to be a full supporter of first past the post, very much in the spirit of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, in relation to accountability. However, over recent years I have started to see a problem that I wanted to raise—I am not just doing this as counselling. Because of the whole of Clause 11, we have been invited, in a way, by the Government to discuss electoral systems, and that is one of the problems with the way it has emerged. I would not be discussing it if they had not brought it in, but now that everyone else is discussing it, I will join in.
I was minded to support Amendment 136 until I realised that it was an amendment that would overturn a referendum, which struck me as not a good idea and not likely to fit in with my general position on these things. It is perhaps ironic to those people in this Committee arguing for proportional representation that I was elected using that method in the European elections and came top of the list. I do not know if people think that was a fully democratic system, because a lot of people did not think that I should have been there at all, or elected in that way, when I stood only for very particular reasons, as we know.
These are the problems with first past the post in 2022 that I cannot get my head around. Through this Bill, we want to reassure voters that elections are watertight in terms of fairness and that they represent what they want as voters. In a number of debates, we have discussed our worries about different clauses that might be seen to be disenfranchising voters—sometimes I think these are overwrought worries, but they are worries none the less. It seems to me, however, that first past the post, in lots of ways, makes many people’s votes redundant and represents a frustration with what is happening politically.
I remember that before the 2016 referendum I was invited to a think tank gathering at which most of the people were supporters of remaining in the European Union. They assumed that I was as well, because that is what nice think-tankers did. They said that one problem they had was that the referendum would not be taken seriously if they did not get a big turnout, so what could they do to get a big turnout? The consensus in the room was that it must be emphasised that a vote in the 2016 referendum was a once-in-a-lifetime vote where, for once, every single person’s vote would count. They went out and argued that very successfully and the nation said, “My goodness, for once my vote really will count.” As a consequence, people took it seriously that they were being asked to make a big constitutional decision and that this was one election where every individual vote meant something. In the build-up to the referendum, it led to grass-roots discussion groups being set up around the country, family conferences and people getting together with their research. People took the whole thing extremely seriously and there was an atmosphere of vibrancy and buzz, with people saying, “What should we do?” as they assessed the pros and cons. People rose to the challenge that their vote counted, an idea which I think really resonated.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak on behalf of my noble friend Lord Shipley, who has Amendment 144C in his name, but he is in Grand Committee and unfortunately cannot be here to speak to it. In so doing, I declare my interest as laid down in the register, both as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and as a trustee of Make Votes Count.
The amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Shipley would implement PR in local government—not a system for proportional against the whole district, but a system for each ward based on the one-two-three model. This keeps the ward as the basis of the representative district but makes sure that the system is more representative of the majority views of the electorate.
That would avoid councils being heavily dominated by one party that secures less than 50% of the poll, in the vast majority of seats. At least each councillor would have the support of 50% plus one after the transfers at second preference. If I apply that to my own city of Sheffield, 29 seats were up for election in 2021 but in only seven of them did someone get more than 50% of the vote in the ward. The figure for the candidate who got elected with the smallest percentage of votes was 31.7%. That happened to be a Liberal Democrat, so this is not a political issue; as a matter of principle, I do not think a system is fair when 29 seats are up for election but only seven of them are elected on the basis of the majority of people who decide to go out and vote. So I support the amendment in my noble friend’s name.
I turn to the wider argument about how Clause 11 came about. Having listened to the last hour and a half, I say to those noble Lords who are not normally invited to Liberal Democrat ward meetings that it has sounded a bit like a Liberal Democrat ward meeting. Some people in this Chamber who are not Liberal Democrats seem far more technical and geeky than some Liberal Democrats on voting systems. I have heard many arguments about why we are talking about voting systems. Let me be clear: we would not be talking about voting systems at all if the Government had not tried to push through this clause as they did in the House of Commons.
It is quite insulting for an elector back in South Yorkshire, who has voted for a metro mayor, who was asked whether we wanted one and then told what the voting system would be—or at least we were asked about how we wanted a mayor and a voting system—to be told now that that voting system is somehow too complicated for us or not relevant to our local area. This has been pushed through without any consultation at all with the areas that have metro mayors. We have had no say back in our regions about whether we want this change. That is not the way to bring about change. It is for that reason more than anything else that I do not think Clause 11 should stand part.
I turn to some of the other arguments. I have to point out very gently to some noble Lords that this is not 2011; we are now in 2021.
Lord Scriven (LD)
Sorry, 2022. It feels as if this debate started last year.
The YouGov tracker looks at a number of issues. One issue that it has been tracking for 10 years is people’s perceptions of voting and voting systems. The question it asks is:
“Some people support a change in the British voting system to proportional representation, where the number of MPs a party wins more closely reflects the share of the vote they receive. Other people support retaining our present voting system, First Past the Post, which is more likely to give one party an overall majority in the House of Commons and avoid a hung Parliament. Which voting system would you prefer?”
In March 2022, the latest figure—and this has been a trend for over 10 years—the vast majority of people who give a preference support PR, with 44% in favour of PR and 27% in favour of first past the post. Among Liberal Democrat voters, 62% support a PR system while 21% are in favour of first past the post. The party with the highest number of people who support first past the post is the Labour Party; 64% support PR and 13% support first past the post. I accept that among Conservative voters there is a small majority for first past the post.
We should look at the Red Wall seats. This is really important because a lot of people really feel that their vote does not count, that they do not have a voice and that in some constituencies there are MPs for life. In certain parts where I come from, people say, “No matter who you put up, if they wear a certain colour of rosette then they will get elected.” This is not a middle-class or a southern debate; in the north, 43% support PR and 28% do not.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
Could the noble Lord remind us of his sample size? Mine was 19.2 million.
Lord Scriven (LD)
That was 11 years ago. I am trying to point out to the noble Lord that people’s views change. I am not prepared to accept that 2011 is still how the public feel.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
Could the noble Lord answer the second question, which was: what type of PR was wanted? That is the problem. It is not just about saying “We like PR.” There is a huge gamut of options. Unless you are clear about what is actually being offered to people, you will get that answer but then, when they have to make a choice, first past the post comes back to the front.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I support Amendment 140, which is about setting up a citizens’ assembly to go through this question so that citizens can come to a view about the best voting system that they would wish to see if we moved to a PR system. I would therefore like to leave it to a citizens’ assembly rather than dictating it. I have my own personal preference, which is STV, but I do not think it should be about my personal preference; I think it should be down to a citizens’ assembly.
I do not think the British public are stuck back in 2011. I think we have moved forward and people feel that PR is the future. That goes across all parties and social demographics—apart from the Conservative Party voters who support first past the post—and all regions of the UK.
The way that Clause 11, regarding mayors and police and crime commissioners, was introduced by the Government in the other place, and the very fact that those people who were offered a mayor on a system of voting that was not first past the post have not been asked, is not levelling up; it is pushing us down and completely ignoring the voice of the people back in those regions who now have a metro mayor.
Lord Kilclooney (CB)
My Lords, back in the middle of the last century when I was Minister of State for Home Affairs in the old parliament in Northern Ireland, I had the task of reforming the local government system in Northern Ireland, which was then first past the post. This meant that in the west all the councillors were Irish nationalists and in the east all the councillors were Ulster unionists. Against some opposition from my own party, I introduced a Bill that included STV for local government. This resulted in the unionists in the west, who are the 40% minority, having representation for the first time, and they have it still today. Likewise, the Irish nationalists gained seats in the east that they would not have had under first past the post. So there was fair representation of Catholics and Irish nationalists in the eastern part of Northern Ireland and fair representation of unionists and protestants in the western part.
When it comes to UK elections, of course we still have first past the post because that is the UK law. What does that result in? It results in Sinn Féin/IRA winning many seats where they get less than 50% of the votes cast in their constituencies, and the result of that election is that they boycott the House of Commons. If we had STV or some other kind of proportional representation system in UK elections in Northern Ireland, I think we would have very few Sinn Féin MPs in the House of Commons.
Lord Framlingham (Con)
My Lords, I want to make one very simple point related to what we are talking about. I agree entirely with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, and my noble friend Lady Noakes. I really believe that first past the post has stood the test of time. I think that all the other ideas are more complex and more difficult, and that if the general public were asked and thought it through again, they would still vote for first past the post. What worries me is this. If it is true that most people out there still want first past the post, but the general feeling in here is that they should not have it, we ought to think very carefully about what that says about your Lordships’ House.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
I should confess to having been a supporter of electoral reform for many years—since the 1970s, when I was working for the Labour Government. The reason I became a supporter of electoral reform was that I felt our society was becoming very dysfunctional, our way of government was very dysfunction, and the Labour party was essentially two parties forced together into one and was not really working in the best interests of the country.
The essay question I would love to debate with the noble Lord, Lord Moore, and that has to be addressed, is this: in the post-war period, particularly given the troubles we have been through in the last 10 years, has Britain had a more satisfactory system of governance than Germany? Germany has been so successful, with its proportional representation and federal system—a system, incidentally, in which British advisers and British politicians played a very important part in ensuring in the democratic part of Germany after 1945. For me, that is the big essay question. I know what I think about it, but it would be worthy of debate.
However, we are not debating that general question this evening; we are debating the specifics of whether the supplementary vote system should be changed. I have been sitting for an hour and 43 minutes through this debate, and I should think that less than a third of it has addressed that specific point, and so I do not want to detain the Committee for long. I accept all the arguments that have been made about the undesirability of this proposal emerging at a very late stage in this Bill. I do not think changes in electoral systems should be introduced in an arbitrary way, or as my noble friend Lord Lipsey said, as Tony Crosland would have said, in a frivolous way; they ought to be seriously considered.
It is possible to have different electoral systems for different purposes; we do not have to have the same electoral system for everything. We now have a great variety of electoral systems. I am quite interested to know why the noble Lord, Lord True, thinks it is desirable to go back to first past the post for the Mayor of London elections but to retain the proportionally elected London Assembly. It seems to me that if, as a result of that action, the mayor’s political base is significantly lower than it is under the present system, then there is the possibility of real dysfunctional government when agreeing budgets and other questions where the London Assembly has a say. That is a very serious point.
I think that devolution has been a success, certainly in Scotland and Wales. I even think that what the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, said about Northern Ireland was very interesting. The success of devolution has depended on a proportional system, and on the additional member system in Scotland and Wales. Look at how support for devolution has grown, particularly in Wales, since it came about in the late 1990s. It would be difficult for the Government—even this Government—to try to abolish Welsh and Scottish devolution. One of the reasons it has such strong support is because it is seen to be very representative across the community. There is an understanding between Plaid Cymru and the Labour Party in Wales. Similarly, despite disliking the thought of an SNP Government, they do show that a proportional system enables change to happen. Labour showed great foresight in devolution, in agreeing to a proportional system. For that purpose, it has been very successful.
On the question of the supplementary vote, particularly for mayors, one of the arguments—as I remember it from when I was in No. 10—for introducing this arrangement was that we wanted to encourage the possibility of diverse and independent candidates coming forward who might challenge the established parties. That is quite a good argument.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My noble friend did not say that at the time.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
It was said in the councils of which I was part that it would be a good idea to shake up conventional politics at the local level. That was the argument.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
I do not normally draw attention to this but my noble friend and I were both working in No. 10 at the same time. I would say two things: first, if that was ever discussed, I never heard it; and, secondly, if I had heard it, I would have been ferociously opposed to it.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
I have no doubt about that; that is why we would not have mentioned it to my noble friend. I am trying to make the point that there is an argument for something that opens up politics a bit more.
In the case of mayors, it is not like voting for an MP, where you are basically voting for who you want to be Prime Minister or which political party you support. It is very much about who you want to govern your local area, and they should have the widest possible base of support.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure always to follow my noble friend Lord Liddle, even though I would not agree with an awful lot of what he said; it is a great pleasure to follow him, nevertheless.
I absolutely think that there is no case at the moment for changing the electoral system for police commissioners. We have no directly elected mayors in Wales but we have police commissioners. There is a very strong case for trying to increase the turnout and the interest in elections for police commissioners. I am reminded of the fact that, in the very first election for police commissioners in Gwent, my own county, there was one notorious ward in the city of Newport where not a single person turned up to vote—no one at all. We are deluded if we think that changing the electoral system will improve interest. We look forward with great interest to the Minister telling us why we need to change the system.
I refer now to Amendment 136, and the very interesting debate we have had on first past the post versus proportional representation. This is not a wide debate—it would take days, weeks and months to do that—but rather one on the nature of the amendment we have been asked to consider. The amendment says that the House of Commons should be elected by PR, full stop. My noble friend Lord Grocott, in a fine speech, referred to the fact that these things cannot be changed unless there is a referendum on them. It is a rather unusual argument to suggest that because we had one in 2011 it is no longer relevant. Of course it is relevant, in the sense that we should have another referendum if that is required and should not change things unless the people are asked.
In my political lifetime, I have fought 11 elections. I served as an elected representative for 49 years, 28 of them in the other place. The great advantage of our system is that there is a marvellous link between the elected representative and the people whom he or she represents. It is unique. I was always referred to as “my MP” or “our MP” in the possessive case because they thought that. The contrast, for example, with the change that took place when we altered our electoral system for the European Parliament was immense.
Of course, the constituencies for Europe were very large—grotesquely large in some senses—but I bet your bottom dollar that people knew who their Member of the European Parliament was. I bet your bottom dollar, too, that they did not when the new system came in. I did not know who mine was, and I was an MP for the area towards the end of that system. We completely lost that link between the elected representatives and the people whom they represented. That is the greatest aspect of our system, which we must not do away with.
Of course, we have different systems in different parts of the United Kingdom. I was partly instrumental in bringing about the system in Northern Ireland. The noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, was right. He was very advanced and forward-looking when he made that change all those years ago. The only way that the partisanship in Northern Ireland could be destroyed was to have that system changed. It is very different there from the rest of the United Kingdom. It is not the same as Wales or Scotland or England because, by voting the way they do in Northern Ireland, they express a very different view from that expressed by the rest of the United Kingdom. That was a very significant change indeed. The Assembly is elected by STV; local government is elected by STV, but, of course, the MPs in the United Kingdom Parliament are elected by first past the post.
Scotland and Wales are different. They have top- up systems, known as AMSs. They are entirely incomprehensible to the voter. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moore, that if the voter cannot understand what they are voting for, it is a very poor system. Indeed, in Wales, a commission has been set up to investigate changing to a different system, although I do not think they will change completely to first past the post. There is some merit in having different systems in different parts of the country—in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland for their own assemblies—but they have to be comprehensible to the voters who use them. At the moment, that is not the case.
The biggest flaw, of course, in this amendment is that it does not seek proper legitimacy for the change. It is not just the 2011 referendum, but in every case—in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland—referendums were held for the new systems of government, and that included the way those Governments and Assemblies were elected in every single case. In Wales, of course, when they wanted extra powers some years ago, they went for another referendum to get that legitimacy which lies behind every change. So, for me, the great weakness of this amendment is not just that I do not agree with PR, but rather my belief that the way in which the change would be introduced has to be done by asking the people. If you ask the people, you must also say to them: “Do you understand what it is you are voting for?”
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, as a very new Member of the House, I had not intended to take part in Committee on this important Bill. However, I need to do so to make a confession. Under the hereditary by-elections, in which I participated quite recently, the process is one entirely of proportional representation. That will open up my noble friend Lord Grocott to argue that this is a further reason why the hereditary Peers’ elections should not take place. He might add that it is a further reason why we should not be here at all.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, I want to make a brief contribution on Amendment 144C in the name of my noble friend Lord Shipley, relating to proportional representation in local government. My noble friend Lord Scriven, the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, and others have spoken on it as well. I want to pick up one remark made by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that the problem with, for instance, the European elections and the nature of the voting system for them was that those elected were too distant from the electors. I will make a couple of points relating to local government, which I think might be relevant.
Last May, in the local elections, 3.2 million people voted Conservative but still found themselves in a local authority that had no Conservative councillors at all; 40,000 of those were in Manchester, the neighbouring authority to my authority of Stockport. Those 40,000 people voted Conservative, but they did not get one Conservative councillor elected in Manchester. In fact, there has not been a Conservative elected to Manchester City Council since 1992. There are actually a large number of local authorities where one or the other of the two big parties does not have any representatives at all in that area.
The Conservatives have no councillors elected in Newcastle, Norwich, Newham, Oxford or Cambridge. There is a list, but I will not go on any further than that. Conversely, of course, there are plenty of Labour voters who are not represented at all by a councillor in the authority in which they reside: 5.8 million Labour votes were cast for candidates in local authorities where no Labour councillor at all was elected. When it comes to being distant from the electors, we need to bear in mind the very polarising effect of first past the post in quite a number of our local authorities.
One place where Labour has no councillors is the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames in London. Labour had 36% of the national share of the vote at the last round of elections but no Labour councillor was elected. That was a Liberal Democrat stronghold, but in Harrogate, 23.4% of people voted for Labour candidates, but none was elected. That is a Conservative stronghold.
It is not just whether people have representation at all in a local authority; it is whether they have appropriate representation, depending on the strength of the electorate who supported them. I picked out just one local authority—not completely at random—the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames, where in 2018, 78,491 votes were cast for Conservative candidates, and that resulted in the election of 11 councillors. In fact, they lost 28 seats as a result of that. They should, in fact, have had 20 seats, had there been a more proportional system.
I will not detain the Committee any further on that but point out simply that this amendment would introduce a change to local government in England which would be very much to the benefit of local democracy and the fair representation of people. It would give people a voice or a channel of communication, at least, for their point of view in practically every town hall in the country.
On the much wider debate that has opened up, I say simply to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, that in 2010, when he stood for election on the Labour manifesto, he stood on a commitment to introduce the alternative vote. Indeed, I remember, as one of those who took part in the negotiations with the other parties in the start-up of the coalition Government, having a discussion with senior members of his party about that proposition.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
If I heard aright, the noble Lord said that I stood in the election of 2010, but I am afraid that I was in the House of Lords by that stage.
Lord Stunell (LD)
How very wise the noble Lord was to miss that particular commitment, is all I can say. A number of his colleagues were blessed by that promise.
To return to the substance of Clause 11 and the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord True, I remind the Committee that the Law Commission said that there should be a comprehensive overhaul of election legislation brought forward in a proper Bill. The Committee on Standards in Public Life produced 47 recommendations for change. Both those ideas have been rejected by the Government on the grounds that there has not been enough time, it needs more consideration and there would have to be wide consultation before they could be brought in. Finding that this proposition has been dumped into the Bill is inconsistent with that view against having a comprehensive reform of electoral law, along the basis that independent sources strongly recommend.
I was impressed by what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said about the views of the Mayor of Greater Manchester and his reasoning. That struck me, as someone who lives in the area over which the mayor casts his eye, more powerfully than it probably did other noble Lords. There is no element of self-interest in what the Mayor of Greater Manchester said. It grieves me to say that in the May mayoral election, Andy Burnham, the mayor, won a plurality of votes in every ward in every borough in Greater Manchester, including all those which at the same time returned Tory, Liberal Democrat and, in one or two cases, independent councillors. There was a clear view from the electorate that they wanted this personality as the Mayor of Greater Manchester. Whether we like to believe it or not, it clearly transcended people’s normal political convictions to say, “In this case, I am voting for this person.” That characteristic of the mayoral election frankly surprised me, because I am not a supporter of mayoral systems, but I must admit there was a powerful advert for it in that election.
There is also a powerful advert there for the retention of a first and second choice. It was not called into play in Greater Manchester so we do not know what the figures would have been, but we know the result in those places where it has been called into play, and people have quite easily adopted the idea that they have a preferred candidate but, if it cannot be that one, there is another who would do as their second best. That development of an overall mandate is a powerful benefit of the present system, whatever its authorship might be. It might well be the first time that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, and I have been on the same side of any discussion.
I strongly support the view that we should delete Clause 11 and retain the current system of electing our mayors in the big cities.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, it has been a lengthy debate. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, that I have not presented any amendment. I am presenting to your Lordships’ House a Bill which has been passed by the elected House, and your Lordships are expressing opinions on it. It is certainly not the Government who have sought to Christmas-tree the Bill with a generalised debate on proportional representation. The actors in that are elsewhere than at the Dispatch Box.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the amendment which was introduced in the Commons and is now Clause 11 was a Christmas-tree addition to the Bill by the Government.
Lord True (Con)
I will come to that, my Lords. If the Committee will be indulgent, I think it has heard quite a lot of debate on this subject and I will try to come to the point. As I see it, this very lengthy debate boiled down to two things. First, do we like first past the post? Regrettably, a lot of your Lordships who spoke do not seem to like it, although, like the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, having fought a few elections myself, it seems pretty simple and clear for electors to stick a cross on a piece of paper and get a result. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, was not impressed by that, but the simplicity and clarity of first past the post has a lot to say for it. The second issue in the debate was: should we do this now, in this Bill and in these particular elections? I shall seek to address both of them.
It is irresistible to contemplate the thought of the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, poring over his opinion polls about how popular PR is. I remind him that, before the referendum in 2011—you can look it up on Wikipedia if you like—the opinion polls said how rapturously enthusiastic the majority of the British public were about PR. When the actual argument came along and it was put, they voted for first past the post by—I cannot remember the figure, but I think the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said it was 68%. I would not advise the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, to put too much faith in his opinion polls, although it is a characteristic of that party.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I just make one point of clarification. It is not an opinion poll but a tracker of opinion over time. If the public should be asked about changing the system, will the Government ask the people in the areas with police and crime commissioners and metro mayors to have a referendum to see whether we want to change the system that we already have?
Lord True
My Lords, whether it is a poll or a tracker, the noble Lord is welcome to look at it. I will persist with my remarks, which will address the point he just made.
Another argument put by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, was that new parties could not arise. A very great new party arose under the present system: it is called the Labour Party. It supplanted the other party, and it did so because it was popular. As we will see on a later group, one problem is that the parties that want to make the change are those that are not popular, or generally less popular.
That is what the debate was about. I listened with great respect and persistence to the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake —he spoke for nearly 20 minutes. It could have boiled down to one sentence: he did not like first past the post and he wanted your Lordships to stop this proposition. I will now try to address both those points.
Lord Kerslake (CB)
If you make a comment about what somebody said, you need them to be able to come back and say you have got it wrong. The precise point I was making in my speech was not that I favoured PR—although I happen to—but that, irrespective of whether you support PR, the way the Government are doing this and what they are doing is wrong. That is exactly the argument I am making. It is really important not to distort what people are saying in their speeches.
Lord True (Con)
One might have thought, listening to the noble Lord, that he was talking about his liking for PR, but I will read very carefully what he said in those 17 minutes.
There is one specific amendment that I should like to address, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, spoke on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Mann. Although he is not in his place, a specific question was asked on Amendment 144D. That amendment would allow returning officers to establish polling stations for five days ahead of the day of a poll. Although advance in-person voting is not available in the UK, voters are already able to cast their vote in advance of the poll by post. The amendment would pose significant logistical challenges for returning officers, including the need to prevent double voting, and could create an inconsistency across the country as to when and where people were able to vote in person, so I would not be able to accept that amendment in this group.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
The noble Lord is characterising my vote. It was against the alternative vote system and not for first past the post. We voted on an alternative vote system. That is not what the Minister is suggesting the vote was on.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord has been here all through the debate, but I maintain the position that the Electoral Commission has reported. I have given the facts to the Committee on the problems that arose under the supplementary vote system.
Lord Kerslake (CB)
My Lords, with respect, the Minister partially reported what the Electoral Commission said. It pointed to the fact that the level of rejections in the 2016 election was 1.9%. It said the single biggest issue in the 2021 election was the design of the form. Those are critical factors in forming a judgment about the voting system.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord says let us have a look at 2016. The noble Lord also said not to pay any attention to the 2017 Conservative Party manifesto which is explicit on this point before the Committee. He wants to go back to 2016 for one thing and not back to 2017 for another. I think the noble Lord is rather picking and choosing his arguments. I wish to make progress—
Lord Liddle (Lab)
The Minister made an important point in his argument about the 2011 referendum. That was on first past the post for Westminster elections. Is the Government’s contention that they want to see first past the post for all elections in the UK, including the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments and the London Assembly? If that is so, why have they not introduced that in this Bill? Why pick on this particular electoral choice?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am speaking to what is before the Committee at the moment. As far as the Scottish and Welsh elections are concerned, the noble Lord knows very well that there is devolution, which this Government respect.
I will respond to what the noble Lord said about the London Assembly. It involves rather more complex issues in terms of the Assembly’s potential make-up. We will be considering further how these principles could be applied to the London Assembly and perhaps promoting the use of first past the post, but we are open to representations on how that could be implemented. For the moment, the proposition is on these specific elections, against the background I have described: the Government committed to first past the post, the Elections Bill and the evidence of problems in 2021.
I turn to the broader amendments—which I must because they are before the Committee—from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. It is always the less popular parties which clamour for PR. They want to introduce a new clause abolishing the use of first past the post at parliamentary general elections held more than six months after the passage of the Bill. For the reasons I have already discussed, we cannot accept that. First past the post ensures a clear link between elected representatives and constituents in a manner that other voting systems do not. The noble Lord, Lord Murphy, was compelling on that point.
The new clause proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, is not clear even on what sort of electoral system he wants to introduce—that is the most bizarre thing about the amendment that he is asking your Lordships to agree with. He wants to get rid of the present system within two years, but he does not say what would happen if an election came along before that or in the period where there was uncertainty because a new system would require further primary legislation to enact it. There is a real risk, if we went down the road proposed by the noble Lord, that we might not have an established legal method as to how Members of the other place were elected. To be confronted with this question mark of an amendment when the Government are charged with being frivolous—I think the proponents of this amendment are frivolous. All we know from the noble Lord’s amendment is that he wants a system that would have had, over the past five parliamentary general elections, a mean average Gallagher proportionality index of less than 10—that will get them jumping around in the pubs in Saltaire and Moulsecoomb, I am sure.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
I am sure that the Minister knows that this is copied from the SNP amendment in the Commons. One may talk about umpteen different proportional systems—and no electoral system is perfect, of course—but there is a choice to be made, putting it simply, between the Irish and the Scottish and Welsh systems. I prefer the Irish, but I think it would be appropriate to have some consultation among parties before a decision was finally taken. The point that a number of us have been making throughout the Bill is that, on constitutional matters such as this, it would be appropriate to aim for some consensus among the parties, rather than have each party—as in our aggressive two-party system—changing the rules to favour itself.
Lord True (Con)
The noble Lord has completely failed to answer the core question. He has thought about this amendment and tabled it, it is here on the list and in it he says:
“The simple majority system must not be used for any Parliamentary general election after the end of the period of six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed.”
Who knows when the end of the Session will be, but let us say that this Act is fortunate enough to get on to the statute book, that means that for any election in 2023 or 2024, we would not be allowed to use first past the post—if your Lordships agreed to the amendment that the Liberal Democrats have put before the Committee, supported by the Green group—but would have to flounder around to find some other system, which the noble Lord will not specify, which would have a mean average Gallagher proportionality index of less than 10.
I am accused—the Government are accused—of coming to this Dispatch Box arguing for first past the post, which people understand, while the people on the other side come forward with a kind of canard of nonsense, such as in the noble Lord’s amendment. We are also asked for citizens’ assemblies, but I can only repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Grocott said, with much greater eloquence than mine, that we did have a big citizens’ assembly of nearly 20 million people who decided this in 2011.
I am not convinced by the arguments that I have heard on proportional representation; I do not believe that this is the appropriate Bill in which to try to change our system from first past the post within six months, as is proposed. But, returning to the core of the question, I do believe that it is reasonable to have a simpler system than the system that proved so confusing and led to so many wasted votes in the London elections and that we should go for first past the post, as the Government have maintained very clearly. I ask the House to reject the amendments that have been tabled.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I do not want to get into any discussion at all about what sort of electoral system is best because, to me, that is not what this clause is about. It is about changing the system without any consultation at all. Much of this Bill has had no consultation or pre-legislative scrutiny. Our concern—my big concern—is that lack of consultation, working with local people about the proposals. With the changes to the mayoral system and the PCCs, but the mayoral system in particular, it is extremely disappointing that the Government decided to bring these in—very, very late and after they had been told originally that it was out of scope. That, to me, is the big problem with Clause 11. I am disappointed that the Minister did not address my concerns around the fact that it was disrespectful to the House and that an Elections Bill should have more consideration.
Lord True (Con)
I am sorry that the noble Baroness—for whom I have the greatest possible respect, as she knows—feels that way. The House of Commons did not seem to regard it as disrespectful. I have submitted that there is nothing novel or unusual about first past the post. It is not one of the kinds of systems that is suggested. The Government have made it clear to the electorate that they wish to maintain and support first past the post. We have an Elections Bill, we have the evidence of the difficulties caused in the London mayoral elections, and I think it is reasonable for the Government to seek to address that. Others may have different opinions, but I think Parliament would be remiss in not considering whether there is a better system than that which led to hundreds of thousands of wasted votes in the London elections last spring.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I have the greatest respect for the Minister but—with the greatest respect—that really did not address the issue. However, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
“Voting from age 16 in parliamentary elections
(1) The Representation of the People Act 1983 is amended as follows.(2) In section 1(1)(d) (definition of voting age for parliamentary elections), for “18” substitute “16”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would lower the voting age to 16 in UK parliamentary elections.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, Amendments 137 and 138 are grouped with Amendment 143 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, who will undoubtedly want to speak to that amendment.
We have just had a long debate on voting systems because the Bill contains a clause that intends to change part of our voting system. The Bill also has a number of clauses that add somewhere between 1 million and 4 million extra voters to the electorate by extending the overseas electorate. I declare an interest as I have two sisters who have lived abroad for 50 years who would now be able to vote in British elections, not to mention a niece born in Britain, so I am conscious of the problems with that.
That means that the discussion as to whether or not the electorate might also be extended to include those between the ages of 16 and 18 is within scope of the Bill. As I mentioned in my earlier speech, it would have been appropriate for that to have been considered together with the question of whether to extend the electorate by increasing the opportunities for overseas voters to register. I do not intend to rehearse all the arguments for voting at 16. I say merely that I was converted to this by going round schools and learning about, first, the lack of citizenship education; secondly, the lack of engagement by young people in politics; and, thirdly, our failure to get young people to register.
The proportion of people aged 18 to 25 on the register is, in some areas, as low as 40%. That is an extremely poor failure within our electoral system. It is also very bad for our politics that we have an increasingly elderly electorate, which votes. Parties recognise this and therefore produce policies that appeal to older voters. Young people do not vote, which therefore means that the parties tend not to produce policies that they think are particularly important for younger voters. Again, I declare an interest, as I have twice led the manifesto process for my own party and I can remember, in 1996-97, people saying, “William, that’s not terribly important; we have to produce policies that appeal to people in their 40s, 50s and 60s, not those in their 20s and 30s, because those are the people who really care about this.”
The two amendments on which I am speaking are for parliamentary and local elections. I raise these as probing amendments. I suggest that the Government ought at least to be open to the idea of opening voting in local elections to young people aged 16, because it would involve them in discussing local democracy. It would therefore help to educate them about local democracy and that is very important for the future of our country.
I will make just one further remark. The last debate was remarkably English, with the exception of the contributions from the noble Lords, Lord Murphy and Lord Kilclooney. We have had proportional representation in the United Kingdom in two different forms in Northern Ireland and in Scotland and Wales. I am now talking about the problem of young people throughout the United Kingdom. I hope the Minister will at least address the problem of how we engage young people in politics. How do we get citizenship education back into our schools? How do we make sure the young do not switch off from politics, as there is substantial evidence that they have? I beg to move.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendments 137 and 138, to which I have added my name, and oppose Amendment 143. Last November, the eminent professor of politics at Cambridge University, David Runciman, published an extended article arguing that children should be allowed to vote from the age of six. He cited a new book by John Wall which makes the case for no lower age limit on voting rights in the name of true democracy, and which addresses objections such as those based on competency. Wall suggests that parents and guardians should be able to cast proxy votes until such time as a child feels ready to vote on their own behalf. Runciman argued that
“if societies want to be truly democratic, they need to overcome their engrained biases and embrace the whole human community”.
I cite these examples not to make that argument but to show how modest and unradical the growing call for votes at 16 is. It is a step already taken by our sister Parliaments in Holyrood and Cardiff. Nevertheless, I acknowledge there is not a consensus in favour, as was clear from the evidence presented to the Select Committee on Citizenship and Civic Engagement, of which I was a member and which was chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts.
Indeed, children and young people themselves are not unanimously in support, as I discovered in research I undertook into young people’s transitions to citizenship some years ago. The main reason given against the idea in that research and elsewhere was that the young people did not feel they had sufficient knowledge and understanding of politics to vote wisely. To my mind, the very fact they think that indicates a greater thoughtfulness about voting than some adults show.
That underlines the importance, as has already been mentioned, of citizenship education. As we said in our Select Committee report,
“Citizenship education is a crucial piece of the puzzle for thinking about the age at which people can vote.”
We noted that
“The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child recommended that if the UK should choose to lower its voting age it should ensure it is supported by ‘active citizenship and human rights education’.”
Unfortunately, the committee found the state of citizenship education to be pretty woeful, and I do not have reason to believe that it has improved much, if at all. But that is not a reason for not extending the vote to 16 year-olds; rather, it is an argument for giving much higher priority to decent citizenship education, as recommended by the committee.
There are instrumental arguments in favour of extending the franchise to 16. With decent citizenship education, 16 and 17-year-olds could be much better prepared for voting than older voters. They could be more likely to vote and then to keep voting as they get older. If they had the vote and used it, politicians might pay more attention to their needs and concerns, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, has argued.
For me, the overwhelming argument is that so many in this age group are already acting as citizens and have been taking the lead on crucial issues such as the climate emergency. In the study I carried out, those who wanted a reduction in the voting age felt that without it they were not being listened to or respected, and that the vote would help them feel that they belonged and that they had a say as full and proper citizens
In the same vein, the Select Committee on Citizenship and Civic Engagement heard from the young people we met that the lack of the vote was “a sore point”. Even if votes at 16 are not young people’s top priority, they pointed out to us that
“the Make Your Mark campaign coordinated by the UK Youth Parliament included … votes at 16 one of their core campaigns”,
voted for by over 950,000 young people. What better way to recognise these young people as full citizens than to extend the vote to them?
It is because of the implications for citizenship that I oppose Amendment 143, as tying the vote to employment and income tax status would create two classes of citizenship. In doing so, it would be divisive and exclusionary, which is the very opposite of what citizenship should be about and what we want to achieve by extending the franchise. From a practical point of view, it would be subject to annual decisions about the level of the tax threshold so young people on low incomes could find their right to vote fluctuating like a yo-yo, which is not conducive to them turning out to vote.
In the Commons, two Oral Questions on votes at 16 were met with a one-word answer: “No.” I have no doubt these amendments will be rejected also, but I hope not in similar peremptory fashion. I hope that the Minister will first give serious consideration to the case made, which is gaining more and more support.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I follow the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, with pleasure. I will speak to Amendments 137 and 138, to which I have attached my name. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Lister—I am sorry we have not heard from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, and are yet to hear his case—I oppose Amendment 143 on the basis that it assumes that contribution to society can somehow be measured by income. In fact, we know that many of the people who contribute most to our society, whether they be carers—there are many young carers in our society—or people involved in the community, are huge parts of their community without receiving any income for that.
I will speak chiefly to Amendments 137 and 138. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, in introducing this, reflected on the previous group being very English in its debate. That is particularly relevant to this group, as Scotland and Wales have votes at 16—the former having had it since 2015—with full cross-party support, including enthusiastic support from the former Scottish Tory leader and now Member of your Lordships’ House, the noble Baroness, Lady Davidson. It is a pity she is not with us today; I hope she might join us to share her thoughts on this on Report because that would be interesting and informative.
The success of the policy north of the English border has been very obvious, with very high turnout among 16 and 17 year-olds—a higher turnout than for 18 to 24 year-olds, with 75% voting and 97% saying they would vote in future elections. It is also worth noting that research shows they got their information from a wider range of sources than voters of older age groups. There is very strong evidence that people who vote in their first possible election are far more likely to keep voting. We have lost generations of people who have not voted in their first election. If we have votes at 16 and 17, we can see from the Scottish example that people are more likely to vote and keep voting.
I often speak to young people in formal and informal settings. I will insert a little advert here, for Members of your Lordships’ House who are not involved in it, for the Learn with the Lords programme, which is a great way to have contact with young people from a wide range of audiences.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 143, which has received such wholesome support from other Members of Your Lordships’ House. I can sum it up in four words: no taxation without representation.
I do not suggest for one moment that other contributions are not valid. The clause says nothing on that. I do not suggest anything to the wider debate; that has been well laid out. It is a clause set out in extremely simple terms on an incredibly specific point: the disfranchised 16 to 18-year-olds who currently can work and go to war cannot vote for how those taxes are spent and cannot vote for the Government who send them to war. Nothing more, nothing less than that.
I do not decry wider issues; it is simply a point on that specific group of people which is currently disfranchised. The Minister may wish to consider one possible solution: taking the 16 to 18-year-olds out of taxation completely. Amendment 143 offers an alternative solution, where they can be represented. I accept entirely the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on the complexities in previous years, but what one can now do with digital tax and real-time tax data would overcome those points. It is a simple amendment for a specific group of people, and a cry which has gone through democracies for centuries: no taxation without representation.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond. I would have pre-empted him, but I am so glad that I did not. With respect, some noble Lords wrongly anticipated an incredibly creative and clever probing amendment. He has made the point about no taxation without representation through Amendment 143. I would not like to see it on the statute book because I do not want to return to the link between property, earnings or wealth and the franchise, but he has made a brilliant point very succinctly and incredibly well.
I will not torture Ministers further with my views on this subject. I have tortured Ministers of both stripes with my support for votes at 16 for some years. The poor Minister was tortured a while ago by my noble friend Lord Adonis, who is not in his place. We rehearsed this, and I commend to the Committee that extensive debate that we had one Friday, three years ago or five minutes ago; I forget which. It was five minutes ago. I do not support votes at six. I accept that any age of majority is slightly arbitrary because people mature differently. We must pick an age in law.
I rather think that we should be coalescing around 16, not only for voting but for criminal responsibility. The disparity between suffrage and criminal responsibility, in addition to taxation, I find very troubling. The noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, made his point so well. Of course, taxation is not just for people who are earning and paying taxes. There are sales taxes and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said, people who are doing unpaid work and keeping families and small businesses going. However, Ministers have human rights too, and I would like them to get a comfort break and some supper quite soon.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid that I am going to strike a discordant note because I invite my noble friend to reject these amendments, and certainly Amendments 137 and 138. I follow what the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said about Amendment 143. It is an interesting idea but highly complex and probably not practical.
The Committee will recognise that I am committed to a vibrant civil society. I have spoken about it, I have moved amendments about it, and I think that it is a very important part of our democratic system, because it maximises people’s ability to participate, collectively or individually.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, who is not in his place, referred to lowering the voting age in order to increase citizenship education, which seemed to be the wrong way around; citizenship education would lead to improved understanding of what voting is all about. I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. That was a central theme of our cross-party review on citizenship for civic engagement. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Collins, as a member of the Liaison Committee, for having backed the idea of a follow-up, since when we have gone sideways, if not backwards. I am pleased to be able to say to him and the noble Baroness that the revised report will be published on Monday and out in the wider world on Tuesday, to probably no effect whatever but at least we will have some benchmarks.
During the committee, we had two issues from which the chairman has scars. The first was about British values. What were they, or were there any? The second was the voting age.
I shall quote a couple of sentences from our report, because they summarise some of the issues that lie behind these two amendments and which mean that I personally do not support them. Paragraph 319 of the report states:
“However, the issue has divided our witnesses. There is no consensus on whether the age should be lowered to 16 or whether it should remain at 18. Proponents of the change listed being able to marry and become a member of the armed forces as a reason for considering that 16 year olds are sufficiently responsible to vote. However this raises questions of whether it is right for people to be trusted as responsible enough to vote whilst not being responsible enough to ‘buy a beer or cigarettes or even drive to their friends or buy a firework’”.
That was what Professor Jon Tonge, professor of politics at the University of Liverpool, said in evidence to us. He and Dr Mycock have been doing some more research on this whole area. As the noble Baroness said, there was obviously a fierce discussion about the pressure for democratic backing for the change. Professor Tonge told our committee that he thought young people were almost evenly divided, though he said that some of that data was quite old.
The noble Baroness referred to the Make Your Mark campaign, but I am not sure she gave the full picture of what we were told. To quote from paragraph 321,
“the Make Your Mark campaign coordinated by the UK Youth Parliament included the votes of over 950,000 young people”,
which the noble Baroness referred to,
“who had voted to make votes at 16 one of their core campaigns.”
However, an analysis of the votes done by our staff showed that
“it received 101,041 votes”—
only one in nine—
“and came 5th out of 10 topics. This suggests that young people care more about other topics than about votes at 16.”
Interestingly, the topic that received the most votes was “A curriculum to prepare us for life”, which in turn suggests support for a radical overhaul of the whole area of citizenship education and involvement. As Professor Tonge said:
“You would not let people go out on the road and drive a car without giving them some lessons first, yet we expect them—particularly if we lower the voting age to 16—to go out and vote without giving them any training in what our political systems are about. It seems perverse.”
To summarise, my view is that unless the case for making a fundamental change is overwhelmingly made, we should not make the change. I do not think that case has been overwhelmingly made. It certainly was not made before our committee and that is why I hope my noble friend will reject these amendments.
I shall dare to trespass on the Committee’s time for a further moment, ending with not a discordant but a sour note. In the debate on voter ID in the last meeting of the Committee, my noble friend on the Front Bench took a lot of heavy punishment about how it was being introduced to try to benefit the Conservative Party. He rejected that, rightly in my view. Would I be wrong to say that there might be some advantages for other parties in the House in young people voting and that that may be why it is being so enthusiastically supported?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Would the noble Lord agree that young people look at what their interests are? Maybe if the Conservative Party did more to represent the interests of young people, more of them would vote for it.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
I am not saying anything about that. I am just saying that I do not think the case has been made for the change. Where we go from there is another matter.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I take the noble Lord’s point, because there are all sorts of polls and this is in the Library briefing, but I can honestly say that I have debated this issue in the past with Labour Ministers who were not for votes at 16 at the time. I think we are getting to a stage in thinking about sophistication and education where we have to coalesce around an arbitrary age. I go back to the criminal responsibility point. The noble Lord speaks very eloquently. He argues “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” and that we should not make a radical change without a great deal of consensus. He did not speak like that when he was talking about radically overhauling the refugee convention on another Bill.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, I simply venture to suggest that, at the moment, the priority should be to assist and encourage as many of our young people who are already entitled to vote at the age of 18 to get on the registers. We do not have nearly enough of them on the registers. The Government have a number of important initiatives in hand to encourage more of those aged 18 and immediately above to register to vote. My noble friend might be able tell us briefly about some of those important initiatives when he comes to reply.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I will try to be brief. The Labour Party has supported and continues to support lowering the voting age. I would just say to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, that the last time we were in government and lowered the voting age, we lost the subsequent election. That was in 1970.
On civic education, in many of my contributions, I have mentioned the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and his committee’s report. It is excellent and worth rereading. He is absolutely right about the Government’s failure to respond properly to it. But citizenship education in schools and lowering the voting age are not mutually exclusive. Speaking from personal experience, I joined the Labour Party in 1970, partly because we had organised a mock election in my school. As a consequence of standing as a Labour candidate in that mock election, I went out and campaigned for Harold Wilson, even though I did not have the right to vote. I joined the Labour Party at the age of 15—noble Lords can now calculate how old I am.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Well, there you go. I am still below the average age—just. The important point is that they are not mutually exclusive. This is about how we encourage people to participate in democracy and, as the noble Lord said, participation is not simply about voting. We want people to properly engage in civic society. That includes other groups which campaign and organise, because that is what influences our politics. Young people are certainly doing that, which is why we are very strongly in favour of this.
Of course, we have the evidence. Scotland and Wales now have a lower voting age, but they are not the only places. The Isle of Man and Jersey have it, as do Guernsey, Brazil and Austria, and it applies to some elections in Germany, Malta and Norway. There is strong evidence of how it can encourage participation and build this in, because when people start voting at a young age, they continue to vote. That is a really important point.
Picking up the point that I think the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, made, the noble Baroness, Lady Davidson of Lundin Links, changed her mind through her experience in the referendum campaign. I read an article that she wrote for the Tory Reform Group as a consequence of that experience in 2016. She said:
“Those in favour of the status quo argue that while the referendum offered a clear, unambiguous choice, parliamentary elections present a more muddied, multi-layered decision which require a more mature electorate.
But having watched and debated in front of 16 and 17-year-olds throughout the referendum, I have found myself unable to agree. My position has changed. We deem 16-year-olds adult enough to join the army, to have sex, get married, leave home and work full-time. The evidence of the referendum suggests that, clearly, they are old enough to vote too.”
I agree with her. We should do this.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I fear I cannot accept these amendments, although, having been mildly disobliging on the previous group about those against first past the post, I will open with an area of agreement. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, my noble friend Lord Lexden and the party opposite that we must do more—as much as we can—to engage young people in civic education and understanding what it is to be a future citizen. We are also having other discussions on trying, we hope, to persuade more young people to vote. There is strong agreement there.
We cannot accept these amendments because the Government, having reflected on the matter, simply do not believe that a reduction to 16 is the correct course. My noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts made a very strong speech on this. There are many difficult questions, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said, about what constitutes full adulthood, which society has to wrestle with. We think, in common with most countries in the world—although not, I acknowledge, the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales—that the current position is correct.
We made that very clear to the electorate; we were not trying to hide it, because it was and is a subject of discussion between the parties. We have been criticised for our manifesto not being clear, but it was absolutely clear on this point:
“We will maintain the voting age at 18—the age at which one gains full citizenship.”
That was very explicitly stated. You may not agree with that, but it is the position. I hope the Committee will respect that. Eighteen is widely recognised in the vast majority of democratic countries as the right age at which to enfranchise young people.
There are difficulties. For example, the very radical proposal by the Liberal Democrats to legalise cannabis was not for people below 18 because they were not mature before that age. In 2010, the party opposite raised the age for using sunbeds to 18. Other examples have been given on some more fundamental and difficult questions of peace and war. With respect to the arguments I have heard, the Government believe that the settled, present position is correct, in common with most other democratic countries.
My noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond’s amendment seeks to lower the voting age to 16 and 17 year-olds by linking the franchise to taxation. I fear I must disappoint him; taxation has never been the basis of democratic representation in this country. For example, an American citizen of voting age who works and pays taxes in the United Kingdom does not have the right to vote in parliamentary elections simply by virtue of tax. However, a British citizen of voting age who pays no income tax, such as a student, rightly retains the right to vote, as do those earning less than the tax-free allowance. In council tax there is a class S exemption—I think it is called that; it was in my day—for households of 16 and 17 year-olds precisely so that they should not pay council tax. The mixing of taxation and voting rights raises difficult problems. It would also potentially disfranchise people who could, for a range of reasons, be unable to work or find work or who may be working but not earning enough to pay taxes.
With respect to those who have a different opinion, the Government have reflected on this. Engagement is important; I was very proud when I was leader of a local authority—I know many other local authorities do the same—of the UK Youth Parliament and youth engagement through schools. I have similar recollections to the noble Lord opposite. These things are important. Let us work together across parties to try to do that, but I cannot recommend that the House adopts this principle in the Bill. I forecast to the Committee that, if it were proposed, because it was a manifesto commitment by the Government to maintain the present position, it would not find favour in the other place. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, in withdrawing this amendment, I point out that, if we are saying that there is a problem—which the Minister has admitted, but has said that this is not the answer—then the question of how we manage to get more young people on the register, which we will come to on automatic voter registration, is important. The very near collapse of citizenship education in our state schools is an urgent matter, which we should all address on a cross-party basis. I look forward to the Minister returning to that. I hope he will take back to his colleagues in the Department for Education how important many of us feel this to be.
I merely remark to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, that the extensive coverage in this Bill of the extension of overseas voting is there because Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, Conservatives Abroad and the Conservative Party’s international office decided that this would be to the Conservatives’ advantage. Surveys in the mid-2000s suggested that 68% of those voting overseas were voting for the Conservative Party. I was suggesting earlier that a little bit of balance and cross-party agreement on how one extends the electorate might be desirable. Sadly, I do not think this Government are in the mood for that. That is one of the many things I regret about the way this Bill has been introduced and is being handled. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2022
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Brixton
That this House regrets that the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2022, and the decision by Her Majesty’s Government to suspend the triple lock on pensions, will result in benefit increases of 3.1 per cent in April 2022, compared to the Bank of England forecast of a 7¼ per cent increase in the Consumer Price Index for that month, and that this will result in a basic state pension for a single pensioner that will be worth £296 less in real terms compared to 2021/22, and £475 less for a couple.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, this debate has been a little time coming but I make no apology for making sure it takes place. Unfortunately, I was unable to take part when the order came before Grand Committee as I was active in the Chamber at the same time. However, I was happy to adopt the Government Whips’ idea of this separate debate on the regret Motion.
In the event, this has the advantage that we now know a lot more about where we are with the increase in social security benefits that will take place in two weeks’ time. The new information is not good. Inflation in February was higher than expected, at 6.2%, and is certain to be even higher at the beginning of April when the benefit increase comes into effect. The effect is spelled out—this is why it is good to have the debate today—in today’s economic and fiscal outlook from the OBR. This states that, because of lags in the CPI uprating of welfare benefits, benefits will fall by almost 5% in real terms. To be clear, the poorest in our society are facing a 5% reduction in their income when they are already in poverty.
Further, the OBR report states that £12 billion is being taken away from poor people and that it will take up to 18 months fully to catch up with that reduction. I could speak at length about what this means for individuals in human terms, but I will simply refer the Minister to the heartfelt contributions made in the Opposition day debate in the Commons yesterday. I urge her to take the time to read that debate if she has not already done so. That is the human cost.
I want to make three additional points, to which I invite the Minister to respond. I shall not dwell too much on the Labour Party’s position on the uprating—I look forward to my noble friend’s contribution from the Front Bench.
First, does the Minister recognise that it is no consolation to people who are already in poverty and suffering a further cut in their real income to be told that it all averages out over time? We are told, in effect, that the loss of income they are facing, and from which they will suffer in the coming year, is not that important because at some point in the future—the OBR estimates it to be in 18 months’ time—they will receive an increase that will make good the shortfall. They are already in poverty, and they will have to endure 18 months of even greater poverty because of a defect in our benefits system. For people in poverty that is simply not good enough. Eighteen months is too late, as even in the subsequent better year they will remain in poverty. They have already suffered the effect of poverty on their lives and they simply lack the resources to even out their income over the years.
The question is what can be done about it. The Minister told the Grand Committee that
“It is not possible to undertake the uprating exercise any later than currently timetabled.”
But she also told the Committee that
“All benefit uprating since April 1987 has been based on the increase in the relevant price inflation index in the 12 months to the previous September.”—[Official Report, 9/3/22; col. GC 484.]
In truth, the seven-month delay goes back even longer. I recall discussing this with the relevant department back in the 1970s. I find this less than impressive. Seven months is too long when inflation can change so rapidly. Despite all the advances there have been in handling and processing data in the past 35 years, it appears that we still cannot do any better.
I quite understand the department’s resistance to making any change, but faced with the suffering caused for the poorest in our society, we must find some way to achieve a closer alignment of increases in prices and benefits. For sure the index we use could be more up to date, and I refuse to believe that this cannot be done through greater use of modern technology. The department simply needs to invest more in computerising its records. I also suggest, more radically, that where an increase falls short, an adjustment should be made during the course of the year when it becomes apparent, plus provision for back pay to cover the gap that has arisen because of the shortfall increase.
My second point is that the resources are there in the National Insurance Fund to pay higher pension increases. We have the advantage on this occasion of the welcome report by the Government Actuary that is attached to the draft order. This tells us that, for the next five fiscal years, the balance in the National Insurance Fund will increase from £53 billion at present to £76 billion in 2027. In percentage terms, that is an increase when expressed as a percentage of benefit outgo from 48% to 55%. It is worth comparing those figures with the 16.7% that the Government Actuary recommends as the minimum fund balance. It is also worth emphasising that that is without allowing for the possible Treasury grant, which is an integral part of national insurance as originally conceived. This can amount to 17% of benefit payments. It is simply untrue to say that the money is not available. It is not that the money is not there; it is that there is a political choice not to pay.
I had the benefit of a letter this morning from the Treasury Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook—the other Baroness Scott—referring to the Government Actuary’s quinquennial review, which was presented to Parliament last week. In her letter, she states:
“Increasing spending on today’s pensioners would pass the costs onto future generations of taxpayers.”
Well, I would welcome an opportunity to discuss the quinquennial review, and perhaps the Government Whips would provide the time. However, given the limited time available this evening, I say simply that the review, while commendable, tells us only part of the story. Taking the figures from the OBR, along with those from the Government Actuary, there will be the resources available in 2085 for everyone to be better off, even if national insurance contributions reach the level suggested in the Government Actuary’s report.
My final point relates to the triple lock. How much credence can we give to the Government’s repeated promises to keep to the triple lock for the basic state pension and the new state pension? On Monday in the Commons, after some confusion on the part of the Secretary of State, she said:
“I am again happy to put on record that the triple lock will be honoured in the future”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/3/22; col. 99.]
But she said the same thing back in 2020, and subsequently broke the promise. The Minister here made a similar commitment in Grand Committee. The truth is that we already know that this Government are prepared to break their promise to maintain the triple lock, which was given voluntarily in the election manifesto and subsequently repeated by the Prime Minister.
The explanation given by the Minister here when this was discussed in Grand Committee was that
“setting aside the earnings link in the state pension triple lock for the year 2022-23 … was in response to exceptional circumstances”.—[Official Report, 9/3/22; col. GC 475.]
The problem is that we do not know what counts as the exceptional circumstances in which this Government will break their promise again. On this occasion, with the current uprating that we are talking about, we are told that the exceptional circumstances are the effect that coming out of the Covid measures has had on the earnings index.
So the question is not whether the Government will break their promise. We know that they are capable of breaking their promises. What we do not know about is the possibility that they will break their promise for further exceptional circumstances.
We simply cannot rule out the possibility that, come next November, when a decision is taken on next year’s uprating, it will be decided that this coming September’s CPI index is exceptional or anomalous. To be honest, with the prospect of it being more than 8%, according to the OBR, I hope that it is exceptional. I return to the OBR report and the nice graph—I cannot show it to noble Lords because that is against the conventions of the House—in which there is a leap up to the September figure, when it could be in excess of 9%, which is exceptional. What promise can the Government give that they will not say that these are again exceptional circumstances?
To conclude, can the Minister give us an unequivocal commitment, now, that whatever the CPI increase in September—8% or 9%—this will be applied to the 2023 increases?
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton, who spoke with great passion and eloquence to put the Government to shame for the plight of our senior citizens, who continue to be treated very badly.
The state pension is the main or only source of income for the majority of our senior citizens—they rely upon it. The Government introduced the triple lock but, despite it, pensioner poverty has actually increased; it has not decreased. The statistics show that many of our pensioners continue to suffer. From next month, the pension will rise by 3.1%. Pensioners and others face RPI, not CPI: try buying broadband and you will be told that the price will increase by RPI-plus, not CPI. People face increases in line with RPI, which is already about 8%. Last October’s Treasury Red Book showed that by suspending the triple lock the Government were denying retirees £30.5 billion over the next five years. That is a vast sum. They will never be able to catch up or make good the lost purchasing power.
The Government do not treat our senior citizens with any equity or respect. The winter fuel payment has been unchanged since 2011. Even before the current rises that are coming our way, the winter fuel payment would have had to double simply to cope with price rises and rates of inflation—the Government never increased it. A Christmas bonus was the grand sum of £10 in 1972. If it had kept pace with inflation, it be about £150; it is still exactly £10. The Government removed the free TV licence from the over-75s. It is no good saying that there are some who will still qualify for it if they negotiate the bureaucratic maze; many will simply not be able to and will either pay or volunteer to go to prison, because the Government want to criminalise avoidance of the TV licence fee. At least some of our senior citizens will get warmth and some food there, and some may well take up that particular option.
The Government still do not like people getting old. There are no prescription charges in Scotland, but the Government here are raising the free prescription age from 60 to 66. Why England has to be an outlier, I do not know.
In the last Budget, the Government handed £4 billion of tax cuts to banks. They took money away from pensioners and instead gave it to banks, which are absolutely awash with cash. Banks offer you a measly 1% interest on your savings and charge you 40% on your overdraft, but they are bailed out by the state, which acts as a lender of last resort. If that were not enough, it also handed £895 billion of quantitative easing to speculators, including banks, which made vast profits from that. But the Government do not want to pay our senior citizens a decent pension. That is a huge wealth transfer, which tells us something about the Government’s value system.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton for tabling this regret Motion, and it is very well-timed given that today was the Spring Statement.
The Chancellor promised that he would stand by people in the face of the cost-of-living crisis, but it seems that this promise does not extend to parents struggling on social security benefits. Instead, I fear it is an attitude of “Let them stand on their own two feet”, and wait a year for “smoothing”, as benefits catch up with inflation—a year when some parents could go under with the strain. For all the talk of “security” in the Chancellor’s speech, there is nothing to address the insecurity experienced by social security recipients. Additional assistance to local authorities for discretionary help is no compensation for the security provided by weekly benefits that meet people’s needs. As the Women’s Budget Group points out in its very quickly produced Spring Statement analysis,
“The Chancellor has left women in the lurch”,
and raising social security would have done much more for those on low incomes than raising the national insurance threshold.
Since we debated the uprating order in Grand Committee two weeks ago—it feels like a lifetime, but it was two weeks ago—three research reports have been published that reinforce the arguments I put then for an additional uprating to match the inflation rate. I am not going to go over everything I said then, but the Trussell Trust pointed to a
“crisis of our social security system, which is failing to support people to keep their heads above water.”
A recent Carers UK survey found that, among carers in receipt of carers allowance or the UC carer element, nine out of 10 are already stressed and anxious about their finances, and generally carers’ financial situation has worsened considerably over the six months since it last did the survey. The findings of a new Covid Realities report published this week was summed up in the conclusion that
“‘There is nothing left to cut back’ - people have reached the limits of their budgeting practices and resourcefulness.”
with implications for their physical and mental health. The report commented on the
“disbelief at the perceived lack of understanding among policy-makers of the scale and severity of the difficulties people were facing.”
I am afraid we have seen all too many examples of this in the last few weeks. When, in an OQ last week, I asked the Minister’s colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, what are parents on benefit, who have already cut back to the bone, supposed to do if benefits are uprated at a fraction of the inflation rate, in response she intoned what the Government are spending in total on benefits but did not answer the question. Following the very disappointing Spring Statement, I ask again: when there is nothing left to cut back, what are parents struggling on an inadequate benefit supposed to do over the coming year? How are they supposed to get by?
I believe that this Minister does understand, to some degree, the difficulties faced, and she cares. Unfortunately, she can do no more, it appears, than take messages back to the department and the Treasury. But she can at least today answer the question. Indeed, I ask her to tell us: what would she do if she had to get by on inadequate benefits that are being eaten away by inflation?
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for his regret Motion, which I agree with.
It is estimated that one in five pensioners in the UK is living in poverty, that 1.3 million retirees are undernourished and that 25,000 pensioners die each year due to cold weather. As we know, the cost of energy has doubled, and older people are more susceptible to the cold, particularly if they are housebound or suffering from a disabling illness.
The Government failed to accept that inflation was going to rise at an alarming rate when benefits and the state pension were uprated for this April. They insisted on basing the uprating on September’s inflation figure of 3.1%, as usual. The Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, quotes the Bank of England’s prediction of 7.25%, but that is now being fast overtaken by events, and a figure of nearer 10% is now forecast during the year. It is unthinkable that poor pensioners, at the end of their lives, should have to experience such a sudden change in circumstances. Up to now, they have been protected by the triple lock but, because of what was seen as a one-off adjustment in incomes as a result of a recovery from the pandemic, the Government abandoned the triple lock. Had it still been in place, a rise of 8% would have equalled the predicted rate of inflation in April, when the uprating comes into effect.
Age UK has estimated that soaring energy prices will plunge 150,000 older households into fuel poverty this winter. It has said that the number of fuel poor older households could reach more than 1.1 million by the spring, unless the Government take urgent action.
We have one of the least generous state pensions of any country in Europe, and it is still below its 1979 value. The triple lock was introduced in 2010 in the light of a hugely devalued state pension. Some recovery has taken place since then, but the state pension still does not provide enough support to keep 2.1 million pensioners out of poverty.
For women pensioners, the situation continues to get worse, with one in five now in poverty. Analysis of government figures shows that, in 2012-13, 14% of female pensioners across the UK were living in relative poverty—that is, they were living in households with less than 60% of median average household income, after housing costs. By 2019-20, this had increased to about 20%. That increase comes despite increases in women’s state pension age, meaning that the number of female pensioners in the UK has fallen by about 800,000 since 2012-13.
On these Benches, we think it is essential to protect the poorest pensioners who depend on the state pension and that it is crucial to bring the value of the state pension to a realistic level in relation to earnings and living costs. It is vital to make sure that those already in poverty and dependent on benefits do not become poorer than they already are. As has been said, it is not enough to claim that an upward adjustment will be made next year, because the problem exists now.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to make a short point. Noble Lords have set out the human cost of the cut to social security earlier in the year, the failure to uprate it and to maintain the triple lock on pensions. As I understand it, the Treasury has saved £12 billion in so doing. The Minister will correct me if that figure is wrong but, whatever it is, billions have been saved.
I want to look at the other side of the equation. Those billions that have not gone to the poor people who have been described this evening is money that would otherwise have been spent, because poor people spend everything they receive: on food, on heating, on rent, and so forth. None of it is sorted away in the Cayman Islands; it is all spent money, and spent in the places where poor people live.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, for the second time today I am substituting for my noble friend Lady Sherlock, whose expertise in these matters is well known to the House. I will do my best to convey our position.
When the Social Security (Uprating of Benefits) Bill, now Act, was debated in this place last year by my noble friend Lady Sherlock, she highlighted how the suspension of the earnings element of the triple lock for the upcoming tax year would impact millions. This point has been made several times since. I share her concerns, those of my noble friend Lord Davies, and the concerns of others who have spoken in tonight’s debate.
Over the last decade, this Government have failed pensioners. The last Labour Government reduced pensioner poverty by over a million people. In the 12 years since, the number and rate of pensioners living in poverty has soared. In 2010, 14% of pensioners, totalling 1.6 million, lived in poverty. In the year before the pandemic, it was 18%. Some areas are far worse than others. Here in London, over one in four pensioners lives in poverty, totalling almost 300,000 people. Other regions, such as the East Midlands, the north-east, the north-west and the West Midlands, have poverty rates of over 19% among the over-65s. Therefore, of course, the number of pensioners in debt has risen too, by over half a million since 2010, so far.
Things have got harder since these pre-pandemic numbers, and pensions are one part of this. Following the uprating order being made last week, the increase to state pensions and benefits signed into law is 3.1% from next month. The basic pension rises from £141.85 a week for a single pension or £226.85 for a couple. The full rate of the new state pension will rise to £185.15 a week but, with earnings rising at 8.3%, the Government keeping their manifesto promise and maintaining the triple lock would have meant that the basic state pension would instead be rising to £149 for individuals, £238.30 for couples, and the full rate of the new state pension to £194.50. For an individual on the basic state pension, this is a difference of approximately £370, almost £600 for a couple, and close to £485 for those on the full rate of the new state pension—even higher than the difference with the Bank of England’s CPI uplift that my noble friend has highlighted already, which is expected to peak around 7.25% in April 2022 when the uprating takes effect.
What is undeniable is that the cost of living has increased by far more than 3.1%, and the Government breaking their promise has made it harder for pensioners. This hit for pensioners comes on top of several other factors, either caused or not addressed by this Government, that have made life harder for those struggling to get by.
On a related note, the Government continue to act too slowly to repay state pension underpayments to over 100,000 older women, leaving many thousands of them without the pension they deserve and barely enough to live on. At any time, pensioners who have worked hard their entire life should expect to be paid what they are owed at the right time but, with compounding difficulties, the impact is even more severe.
The main thing making things harder for pensioners at this time is the cost of living crisis and energy prices. Age UK warned that rising energy prices will lead to some of the poorest pensioners, for whom the cold could be particularly dangerous, rationing their heating. There was no mention today by the Chancellor of energy prices for heating oil, for example, in the spring Statement—but then it is an unregulated sector of the energy market. Cold weather payments and the warm home discount scheme fail to reach those who need them because they are not claiming pension credit.
As a result, three-quarters of older people in the UK—almost 10 million people—are worried about this cost of living crisis. Over half of those surveyed by Age UK said they will have to heat their home less, a quarter said they would have to choose between heating their home and the food they buy if their energy bills continue to go up, and two in five are having to cut back. What can they do other than go into debt or simply not pay their bill?
What is more, the £20 uplift to universal credit being stopped will continue to impact couples where only one is at state pension age. There are around 1.3 million working pensioners who will be asked to pay the poorly thought-out health and social care levy. Pension credit is another area of concern, with 850,000 eligible families missing out on almost £2,000 per year on average, and the number of eligible couples falling dramatically between 2019 and 2020 from the number the Government told us to expect.
While I have drifted away from the pensions uprating, my point is that the Government’s broken promise is not just a broken promise but one more burden on millions of pensioners at a time when it is simply the last thing that they need. The consequences will not be small; they will be pensioners unable to heat their homes, struggling to put food on the table, and managing increased debt in their efforts to prevent that. While this order has already passed, this does not have to be the fate for pensioners. I recognise the Minister’s sincerity, as noted by my noble friend Lady Lister, but I hope she will follow by setting out the steps the Government will be taking to avoid these outcomes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)
My Lords, I would like to re-emphasise what happened today in the spring Statement. The Chancellor announced an additional £500 million for the household support fund from April 2022 to help households, including pensioners, with the cost of essentials such as food, clothing and utilities. This is in addition to the £500 million we have already provided since October, bringing the total funding to £1 billion. The Chancellor also announced a cut in fuel duty at 5p per litre. Customers will benefit from savings worth over £5 billion over the next year compared to uprating fuel duty in 2022-23. This will save average car drivers, many of whom are pensioners, around £100. I confirm that the Government will continue to keep the situation under review, recognising the high level of current uncertainty, including monitoring the ongoing impact of the Russia-Ukraine conflict on the economy, and will be ready to take further steps if needed to support households.
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, for moving the Motion. I also thank him for agreeing that this Motion could be debated after 9 March, when we debated the uprating order. A number of important points were raised, which I will now try to deal with. He made the point that averaging over time is no consolation. Uprating in April 2023 will take into account the rate of inflation this September, but we recognise the short-term pressures, which is why we have introduced a package worth more than £9 billion.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, raised the issue of the cost of living and what the Government are doing to help pensioners. The Government spend more than £129 billion on pensioner benefits, which is 5.6% of GDP. In cash terms, from April, the full yearly amount of the basic state pension will be over £2,300 higher than in 2010. Over the last two years, the basic state and new state pension will have increased by more than 5.6%. Eligible pensioners will also receive support through free bus passes, free prescriptions, free TV licences, winter fuel payments, the warm home discount scheme, and cold weather payments.
The noble Lord asked about the opportunity to discuss the quinquennial review. I will write to the Government Actuary’s Department to see if it will do that with him. It is not something that is appropriate or sensible for me to do.
The noble Lord also raised the issue of the triple lock. We are not ending the triple lock. The suspension of the earnings link this year is a one-year response to exceptional circumstances and the Government remain committed to implementing the triple lock in the usual way for the remainder of the Parliament. I can confirm my Secretary of State’s statement on Monday evening that the triple lock will apply for the rest of this Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, talked about using the National Insurance Fund to fund the triple-lock earnings increase, as did the noble Lord, Lord Sikka. The National Insurance Fund matches expected receipts to the predicted spending on contributory pensions and benefits over the medium term. There is no surplus in the fund that can simply be drawn on without consequences either for the ability to pay future liabilities or for the need for higher contributions in the future. It is therefore inaccurate to suggest that there is a surplus in the fund that can simply be drawn on. Increasing spending on today’s pensioners would pass the cost on to future generations of taxpayers.
The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, raised the point that the national insurance system is regressive. This is a matter for the Chancellor and the noble Lord has made his views on the subject very clear today.
The noble Lord also raised the issue of the cost of living, as did other noble Lords. Over the last two years we have delivered an increase of more than 5.6% to the basic and new state pension. As well as the winter fuel payment, pensioners receive a guarantee of pension credit and qualify automatically for the £140 rebate off their winter energy bill from suppliers participating in the warm home discount scheme. I will come to pension credit later in my remarks.
Older people can also benefit from the £9.1 billion that the Government will spend this year on extra measures to protect people from energy price spikes, such as the £200 energy rebate, the £150 council tax rebate and the £144 million discretionary fund available through local councils.
Pension credit came up so let me deal with that now. Pension credit would help people but, as noble Lords have said, people do not apply for it. We have to redouble our efforts to make sure that people apply for pension credit and receive it where it is due. We have undertaken a range of actions to raise awareness of pension credit, encourage pensioners to check their eligibility and make a claim. This includes the media day of action in June last year and we continue to use opportunities to promote pension credit, using proactive press activity and social media to reach potential recipients, their families and friends.
On Monday, the Minister for Pensions wrote a letter to editors of local newspapers across England, Scotland and Wales urging any readers who think they or a family member may be eligible to make a claim. There will be another day of action in June and the Pensions Minister will write to key stakeholders to seek their support for this. As well as these communication activities, we set up the pension credit working group with a range of stakeholders. It is tasked with identifying new practical initiatives that we can work on together to help pension credit take-up.
Over the last two months, more than 11 million pensioners in Great Britain will have received information about pension credit in the leaflet accompanying their annual uprating letter. It includes a prominent message that highlights that an award of pension credit not only tops up their state pension but can provide access to help with housing, heating and NHS costs and, for those over 75, a free TV licence.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
I raised a point about equality, although perhaps the Minister was coming to it; I am not sure. The Government have equalised the state pension age for men and women, but women’s state pension languishes behind men’s. Why is it not equalised? Can she undertake to give a date by which that will happen?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I cannot undertake to say if and when that will happen, but I will write to the noble Lord and place a copy in the Library with any updated information that I can glean.
The noble Lords, Lord Sikka and Lord Shipley, raised a point about pensioner poverty. Absolute pensioner poverty, both before and after housing costs, has fallen by 200,000 since 2009.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
Most academics would use the relative poverty rate these days, so could the Minister give us that?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I do not have the relative rate in front of me because the Government are using the absolute rate, but I will find out and write to the noble Baroness. The Government prefer to look at absolute poverty over relative poverty because the latter can provide counterintuitive results. Relative poverty is likely to fall during recessions due to falling median incomes. Under this measure, poverty can decrease even if people are getting poorer. For example, some think tanks have projected that relative poverty fell sharply in 2021, during the pandemic.
The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, asked why we did not recycle savings in the pandemic. This Government locked down the economy to a large extent to protect our older people. That came at an enormous cost, and I therefore cannot agree with the noble Lord that the Government have not invested to protect their senior citizens.
The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, raised the issue of women and state pensions. Reforms to the state pension have put measures in place to improve state pension outcomes for most women. Over 3 million women stand to receive an average of £550 more by 2030 as a result of recent reforms.
The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, raised the point about linking the state pension to the national living wage. The national living wage and the state pension are two very different things; the national living wage is designed to protect low-income workers and provide an incentive to work by ensuring that all workers benefit from as generous a wage as possible, and the state pension is supported by further measures for older people, which I outlined earlier in my remarks.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, again raised the issue of fuel poverty. We know that low-income households in homes with a low energy-efficiency rating will find it harder to heat their homes, as energy costs rise. We are addressing the energy efficiency of homes to tackle fuel poverty in the long term. Right now, measures are in place to protect consumers and mitigate the effects of debt. We are providing support with energy bills this winter through the warm home discount, winter fuel payments and cold weather payments. The noble Lord asked how we were supporting pensioners with fuel poverty. As I have read out this evening, it is through the warm home discount scheme, winter fuel payments and cold weather payments.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, is passionate about support for parents, and has raised the point. Although we are talking about pensions in particular, I shall say, as I have said many times before, that the best way to help people out of poverty is to help them into work. Our changes to universal credit are designed to achieve that. There is also more support for childcare costs than in the tax credits system that the universal credit system replaced. Of course, there is no requirement to seek work for those with very young children.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I accept that not everybody out of work is required to seek work or able to seek work, whether because of their caring responsibilities, or whatever. I asked a very specific question. The evidence is that parents and others on benefits—and this is an uprating order about benefits as well as pensions—are already cutting back to the bone and do not know how they are going to cut back further. What are they supposed to do? That is the question that I asked, and which I asked the other day in Oral Questions of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and I still do not have an answer.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
The noble Baroness is right to point out that there are those on low incomes who are unable to work, and I shall talk to my noble friend Lady Scott and write with actions that the Government are taking. I do not have that information to hand.
The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, raised the point that we are making savings at the expense of pensioners. We have increased most state pensions by 2.5% this year, when CPI in the relevant period was 0.5%. We made primary legislation to make sure that that happened, and we locked down the economy precisely to protect our older people. I cannot therefore recognise the points made by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness.
The noble Baroness rightly raised the issue of state pension underpayments. That should not happen, and we have apologised unreservedly, but I can confirm that the department has a dedicated team working on the correction activity. Sufficient additional staffing resources have been allocated to progress this activity, and further resources are being allocated through 2022-23. The Government are fully committed to ensuring that these historical errors made by successive Governments are addressed as quickly as possible to ensure that individuals receive the state pension that they are rightfully due in law.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, raised the issue of pensioner poverty for women. Reforms to the state pension have put measures in place to improve state pension outcomes for most women, and over 3 million women stand to receive an average of £550 per year more by 2030.
On the state pension underpayments, the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, asked, understandably, how we are prioritising cases. Resolving these errors is a priority for the department, as I have already said, and we are committed to doing so as quickly as possible. We have started reviewing cases when the individual is alive; in doing so, we are initially focusing available resources on older cases and those who we believe are most likely to be vulnerable.
I am conscious of the time. I have mentioned many things—but I hope that noble Lords will be reassured that the Government are fully aware of the concerns that people have over rising prices, and we have taken action, where possible, to help. I finish by again thanking the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for giving me the opportunity to set out the Government’s position.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a worthwhile debate. I am conscious of the time: I could spend a lot of time rehashing all the arguments, but I am sure we will return to them. I feel this is the first of what may well become an annual event, and I look forward to future occasions. I thank my noble friends Lord Sikka, Lady Lister, Lord Hendy and Lady Wilcox, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for their contributions. If the House were in a position to take a vote, the Motion would certainly be carried, but it would be meaningless in current circumstances.
I conclude by saying that I am sure the Minister had to mention the Spring Statement, but the truth is that the Spring Statement did nothing for the poorest pensioners. The whole debate has been about the poorest pensioners; there was nothing material in the Spring Statement for them. In fact, it made them worse off, by giving a further little upward shift to inflation. I thank the Minister very much for her reply, and I am sure we will continue the debate. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Elections Bill
Wednesday 23rd March 2022
(2 years 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 Thomas of Gresford
“Voting by convicted persons sentenced to terms of 12 months or less
In section 3(1A) (exceptions to the disenfranchisement of prisoners) of the Representation of the People Act 1983, after “Scotland” insert “or a parliamentary election”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would allow prisoners serving a sentence of 12 months or less to vote in UK parliamentary elections.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, perhaps I may be forgiven for my second intrusion into the Committee by all those who are toiling so hard on it day after day.
It may be a bit trite, but in a democracy, all citizens are presumed to have the right to vote. That is the way by which they have a say in making the laws that govern them: demokratia. The Joint Committee of both Houses appointed to consider the draft voting eligibility (prisoners) Bill in 2013 concluded that the vote is a right, not a privilege. It does not have to be earned, and its removal without good reason undermines democratic legitimacy.
In the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the purposes of sentencing are said to be
“the punishment of offenders … the reduction of crime … the reform and rehabilitation of offenders … the protection of the public, and … the making of reparation by offenders to persons affected by their offences.”
Where does the disfranchisement of a prisoner come within those aims? It obviously has nothing to do with the reduction of crime, the protection of the public or the making of reparations. If it is regarded as an act of retribution, part of the punishment of offenders, it is doubtful that the prisoner thinks it significant in any way, compared with his loss of liberty.
This does not concern itself with proportionality: a prisoner loses the vote by the act of imprisonment, not by the nature of his crime. A person imprisoned for dangerous driving is in exactly the same position as a person serving a life sentence for rape or murder. Of course, unconvicted prisoners, convicted prisoners awaiting sentence and people imprisoned for either contempt of court or debt, remain eligible to vote.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I support the amendment, to which I have added my name and which has been so well introduced by the noble Lord. The House of Commons Library briefing note on prisoners’ votes details the sorry tale, as has the noble Lord, of how the issue has been kicked into the long grass without a satisfactory resolution, following the ECHR ruling that an indiscriminate ban on all serving prisoners contravened the European Convention on Human Rights and subsequent calls from the Council of Europe. The result has been, in the words of one expert commentator, “minimalist compliance”. When it comes to prisoners’ votes, it is a question of “out of sight, out of mind”, just as prisoners themselves are.
The recent prisons White Paper included, in a section on the purposes of prisons, the need to
“promote rehabilitation and reform to reduce reoffending.”
It would be facile to suggest that, of itself, giving short-term prisoners the vote would lead to rehabilitation. But to withhold the right to vote from them, together with some of the things said by Ministers when it was a live issue—the noble Lord quoted David Cameron on the subject, in particular—indicates a punitive rather than a rehabilitative view of the role of prisons. On Thursday, my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti argued powerfully for the right to vote as a fundamental civil and political right. It is a basic right of citizenship. To withhold this right from short-term prisoners is in effect to say that they are not citizens. As the noble Lord said, it has been described as a state of civic death, one which affects black and minority ethnic groups disproportionately, according to the Prison Reform Trust.
Of course, as Governments of all hues like to emphasise, citizenship is about responsibilities as well as rights. My noble friend described it as an “ethical duty”. What better way to instil a sense of civic responsibility in prisoners than to encourage them to see themselves as fellow citizens with a stake in the country and the right and responsibility to express their views through the vote. As Conservative MP Peter Bottomley once argued,
“Ex-offenders and ex-prisoners should be active, responsible citizens. Voting in prison can be a useful first step to engaging in society.”
The Electoral Commission has in the past considered the practicalities involved and concluded that they are perfectly feasible. As has been said, the UK is one of only a handful of European countries which automatically disenfranchises sentenced prisoners. All the amendment would do is extend the vote to those sentenced to 12 months or less, which is a very modest step, but one it is high time we took. It may not be popular, but few people will have heard the case for it, given that most politicians have been so against it. In the name of citizenship and fundamental rights, it is time that a Government had the courage to take this modest step.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is again my great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, and agree with everything she has said. I offer Green Party support for Amendment 139. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said in introducing the amendment, this is a long-term situation where the UK has not complied with its human rights obligations. This is an occasion where I am not going to hold this Government solely responsible; the Labour Government had five years to remedy the situation and the coalition Government had five years to fix it, yet here we still are.
The Green Party policy, as is the case in many things, would go rather further than the amendment. Our policy is that all prisoners should have the right to vote except where the sentencing judge, taking into account the nature of the offence, decides to make the loss of the vote explicitly part of the penalty. The obvious cases where that might happen would be in a case of electoral fraud, for example, or perhaps where an oligarch who has used some of their ill-gotten gains to attempt to buy a political party or a certain political outcome.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said, the question is what prisons are for when it comes to more standard types of offences. Are we cutting people off from society, further reinforcing social exclusion and distancing them from the norms and values that we are hoping they will absorb before they go out into society? After all, nearly everyone who is in prison will eventually go out into society. Are we actively trying to rehabilitate people and equip them for a life outside prison?
Voting is a fundamental part of our society. The blanket denial that says that once you are in jail you cannot vote is a way of saying, “We’re not going to do anything to improve the world that helped to put you into this place”. We know the situation of so many people in prison and the huge disadvantage and inequality that is a background to people who are there. So the amendment does not go far enough but it is an important first step.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, on the amendment, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, on moving it. As always, I thank my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett. I am sorry that I am outwith my party’s position on this but there are hawks and doves in both main parties when it comes to penal reform, and indeed when it comes to the law-and-order arms race that I believe has been a problem in our country for too many years—perhaps for my whole adult life.
I remember Lord Hurd addressing the Conservative Party conference when I was a relatively small person—even smaller than I am now. Those were the days when all party conferences were televised in total—can you imagine?—and it was a time when people were calling for the reinstatement of the death penalty. He, as a Conservative Home Secretary, faced that audience down and explained to them why that was a terrible thing. Later in my life and career I had the privilege to congratulate him on that moment, which he remembered, and it was something he could be proud of.
I believe this change will come because I am an optimist about the course of progress in world events. It may well be a Conservative Home Secretary and Government who do the “Nixon in China” thing, but whoever does it, I think they should. I will not cite the European Court of Human Rights, as some would groan and expect me to do. I do not pray in aid its judgments; I pray in aid basic principle and practical logic.
I agree with the points that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, made about the purposes of incarceration. We accept that some people in extremis need to be incarcerated for certain offences for the reasons of retribution, rehabilitation, public protection and deterrence, but none of those four traditional justifications for incarceration after criminal conviction explains why, on a blanket basis, you would take away someone’s vote—particularly people, as in this modest amendment, who will be out very soon and who we want to reintegrate and rehabilitate as best we can. Frankly, we want politicians, activists and voters to be a little bit more concerned about those people whom we are still subjecting to this Victorian notion of civic death.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I heard all the contributions from all sides of the House, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, for his introduction, which quite accurately set out the history. I have read the parliamentary Commons briefing as well. The reality is that the position of the Labour Party has not changed, and we do not support this amendment.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have spoken. Amendment 139, as has been said, seeks to extend the franchise for parliamentary elections to prisoners serving a term of 12 months or less. This Government believe, in common with the party opposite, that when a citizen commits a crime that is sufficiently serious to detain them in prison, they have broken their contract with society. In addition, the Government have made their position clear. We said openly in our manifesto:
“We will maintain the ban on prisoners voting from jail.”
Prison means the loss of a number of rights and freedoms, not least the right to liberty and freedom of association. The Government believe that the loss of voting rights while in prison is a proportionate curtailment of such civic rights. As such, we cannot support this amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
I thank those who have supported me in this amendment. I am particularly grateful to those on the Labour Benches, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, who have spoken in favour.
I just wonder about the Labour Party. In Cardiff, it moved to bring about voting for prisoners, seeing it as an important part of its remit from the people of Wales. Here, however, it is dismissed in a sentence: “We haven’t changed”. The Labour Party is a little bit split. I am not sure what it said in Scotland; I will have to look that up after this and investigate.
This is the way the world is going. You can stand in the way if you like, but ultimately the vote will be given to prisoners, just as it is in most democracies around the world. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Automatic voter registration
(1) Registration officers must take all reasonable steps to ensure that all persons eligible to register to vote in elections in the United Kingdom are so registered.(2) The Secretary of State must by regulations require public bodies to provide information to registration officers to enable them to fulfil their duty under subsection (1).(3) Regulations under subsection (2) must apply to the following public bodies—(a) HM Revenue and Customs;(b) the Department for Work and Pensions;(c) the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency;(d) the National Health Service, NHS Wales and NHS Scotland;(e) schools and further and higher education institutions;(f) local authorities;(g) HM Passport Office;(h) police forces;(i) the TV Licensing Authority;(j) Job Centre Plus;(k) the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Local Communities;(l) the Department for Transport;(m) the Department for Health and Social Care;(n) the Home Office; and(o) the Ministry of Justice.(4) Regulations under subsection (2) may also apply to other public bodies. (5) Registration officers must—(a) use the information provided by the public bodies listed in regulations under subsection (2) to register otherwise unregistered persons on the appropriate electoral register or registers, or(b) if the information provided does not contain all information necessary to register a person who may be eligible, contact that person for the purpose of obtaining the required information to establish whether they are eligible to register and, if so, register them on the appropriate electoral register or registers.(6) If a registration officer has registered a person under subsection (5), the officer must notify that person within 30 days and give that person an opportunity to correct any incorrect information.(7) Where a person is registered under subsection (5), that person must be omitted from the edited register unless that person notifies the registration officer to the contrary.(8) Nothing in this section affects entitlement to register to vote anonymously.(9) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to registration officers on fulfilling their duties under this section.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require registration officers to enter eligible voters on the register, and provide for them to receive the necessary information from a number of public bodies.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, we had not pre-planned who would speak but, having attached my name to this amendment and being one of the two people here to do so, I will speak, with some unexpectedness, in favour of it.
Amendment 141 introduces a carefully planned and worked-through plan—as noble Lords can see—for automatic voter registration. It is a great pity that, given the time of this debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, is not able to be with us, but I hope that we might return to this on Report. It would be particularly interesting to hear from both the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, and the noble Lord, Lord Woolley. Many of the issues that the noble Lord addresses in this amendment were similarly addressed in his speech on voter ID and the importance of allowing the engagement of everybody in our electoral process. I urge people who have not read or heard that speech to catch up with it because it is an important one.
To put the case for why we need automatic voter registration, when I was reflecting on this, I thought it sounded like the sort of thing that we would normally do in Grand Committee in the Moses Room, looking at some detailed statutory instrument and going through the dusty tomes. But this is of course far from a bureaucratic detail. Rather, to bring in automatic voter registration would be the long-delayed completion of a democratic progression of a couple of centuries, right through the 19th-century reform Acts and the 20th-century women’s suffrage. It is a vital step in ensuring that everyone who is eligible to vote actually has that vote available to them. The fact is that people do not have that practical opportunity now.
As I said at Second Reading, just because the Government are trying to slash away what little democracy we have in this country with many elements of this Bill, it does not mean that we cannot use this opportunity to set out a way forward to reform and repair our archaic and dysfunctional UK constitution. For there are what is known in shorthand as the “missing millions”— people who are eligible to vote but not registered for the right. An Electoral Commission study from 2019 suggested that their numbers exceed 9 million, while more than 5 million people are incorrectly registered. Those millions are not some random sample of the population. It is the young and those in private rental accommodation, many of whom have to move often, who are massively underrepresented on the rolls and by our so-called democracy. This ties into the debate that we were having earlier about votes for 16 and 17 year-olds. Those people are least likely to vote Conservative.
This amendment, therefore, is about not just people’s individual rights but ensuring that our electoral results reflect the views of the people. The background to this is individual electoral registration, which was introduced in 2014. It cleaned up the messes—I am sure that I am far from the only Member of your Lordships’ House who has knocked on the door of a very small flat at which there are apparently 16 people registered, and it is not a case of fraud but various people have moved in and out and names have been added without any being removed. However, it also cleaned out millions of people who should have been on those rolls, particularly young people and students at university.
This is a really important point and I hope that the Minister might be able to address it. It is not even easy to check whether you are registered correctly. The Electoral Commission website says—this is the only information it provides—
“contact the electoral services team at your local council”.
That is how you go about checking whether you are on the electoral roll. It is a far from simple, easy process. Can the Minister say whether the Government plan any improvements on that simple step so that people can check whether they are registered?
To briefly address the details of this amendment, automatic voter registration need not be complicated or introduce a large bureaucratic burden. Schools and colleges could register young people as attainers—those about to become voters—and university students could be registered by their universities. Changing the address on your driving licence, which is something everyone is legally obliged to do, registering for council tax, or having contact with the Department for Work and Pensions are all things that could feed into the electoral roll—they are how the Government know where people are.
I will make one final point, because I am sure other people will have many other things to say on this important amendment. Of course, automatic voter registration will not guarantee that people turn out to vote. Already, typically, fewer than 70% of people on the roll turn out for general elections, and often 30% or fewer in council elections. But giving people the opportunity by making sure their name is on the rolls as it should be without them having to go to extraordinary efforts has to be essential to make any claim of calling this country a democracy. I beg to move.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, as it is to add my name to this amendment also in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Woolley of Woodford, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Warsi. I do not need to repeat the compelling points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, but I will just say this. We all know that to have the option of voting is a fundamental right, just as to pay tax when it is owed is a fundamental duty. The Government worked very hard, as they should, at ensuring that when people reach the age of 18, they are automatically registered for tax purposes. I really believe in taxation, obviously. They are right to do it, and it ought to be increasingly easy to do that in our automated world. If the Government can do that, why on earth would they not do the equivalent thing when people reach whatever the age of majority is—we argued about that—to ensure that people are registered.
We have had the arguments about voter ID, which is ID when you turn up and choose to vote. No doubt, we will come back to those, but this is an earlier step. If the Government are really serious, as they tell us they are, about not disfranchising people and making sure they have this possibility of exercising their right, why would they not at least ensure they are automatically registered, with all the information and all the tools available to the state? If I may say so to the Minister: if the Government would listen on this issue and be prepared to have discussions, it might go some way to ameliorating concerns about potential voter suppression in relation to ID when people to turn up to vote at the polling station.
This is an infinitely sensible proposal, infinitely possible to achieve. A quarter of the way into the 21st century, with all the wit and wisdom we have at our disposal, and all the resources the Government have, if we are really serious about ensuring people are not disfranchised, they should be automatically registered when they reach voting age.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, the exacerbation of the political exclusion of poorer and marginalised communities—Gypsies, Travellers and Roma in particular —consequent on this Bill was thoroughly aired in Committee on 17 March, when, I regret, I was unable to attend, and on Second Reading. I read Hansard carefully, and I will not rehearse the powerful arguments made by my noble friends Lady Hayman of Ullock and Lady Lister and the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, and acknowledged by the Minister responding—the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook.
I would just add, in support of Amendments 141 and 144B, that only this week, colleagues from Friends, Families and Travellers—I declare an interest as president and my other related posts shown in the register—and the Roma Support Group made the points at a meeting with DLUHC that people from their communities already have difficulty in meeting the identification requirements for exercising their right to vote and would feel even more left out of the system under the Bill’s proposals. The fact that postal voters would be exempt compounded their sense of injustice.
As I understand it, the Government do not actually know the relative proportion of minority ethnic turnout to vote. Nor did their voter ID pilots establish this basic national social evidence. In my opinion, the Government would be well advised to consider positively the assistance offered by these amendments in making sure that no one is left out.
As the Bill stands, Gypsies, Travellers and Roma, and other marginalised citizens, are in effect discriminated against, when they should be enabled to join the mainstream. The proposals deter rather than enfranchise people. They subvert democracy. These amendments would help right that wrong. I urge the Government to adopt them.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, I support both these amendments. Does the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, wish to speak to her amendment first?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Carry on—I will not be saying anything very different.
Lord Stunell (LD)
First, it is important to establish that there is a problem. I quote from the briefing supplied by the Electoral Commission to your Lordships on these amendments:
“There is more that could and should be done to modernise electoral registration processes in Great Britain, to ensure that as many people as possible are correctly registered.”
I believe I heard the Minister make the same point—that he believes it good public policy to get people registered. The Electoral Commission’s most recent estimate is that
“between 8.3 and 9.4 million people in Great Britain who were eligible to be on the local government registers were not correctly registered”.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said, those figures were collected in December 2018. It says there are another 360,000 or more people in Northern Ireland not correctly registered. It also made the same point as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett:
“Our research found that young people, students and those who have recently moved are the groups that are least likely to be correctly registered.”
Courtesy of the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, I would say that Travellers are very much in that group of under-registered people.
The Electoral Commission has published feasibility studies which identified that there is potential to evolve the current system. Those studies are reflected in the amendments before your Lordships today. Amendment 141 is one route to it—the two are not exclusive but it is one route—and Amendment 144B is another, to which we have added our names as well. It provides simply that, when a person is issued with a national insurance number, they receive their application for the electoral register.
The Electoral Commission makes two more points in its briefing:
“the education sector … could help EROs identify attainers and other young people. Also, data from the Department for Work and Pensions could potentially be used by EROs to register young people to vote automatically when they are allocated their national insurance number ahead of their 16th birthday.”
I do not want to frighten the Minister; the Electoral Commission is not suggesting that they would vote from their 16th birthday but simply that, as attainers, that would be an appropriate time for them to apply to be put on as an attaining voter.
At least in theory, I think we are all in favour of all qualified UK citizens being on the electoral roll and we would all say that we would like them to exercise their vote. This legislation increases the number of people eligible to go on that register by virtue of what the Bill proposes to do in relation to overseas electors. We will debate that shortly.
Clearly, the Government do not have a problem with having a larger voting roll. They share the Committee’s view that it is desirable, in principle, that all eligible people should be on the roll, and yet, so far, they have been extremely resistant to doing that, as far as attainers in particular are concerned. In the light of the evidence that the Electoral Commission has produced, that it is a significant number and that there are solutions, and in a situation where the Minister has in front of him two amendments proposing practical ways to solve that problem, I hope that in winding up he will be able to say that he will take this back, give it further consideration and perhaps produce an appropriate government amendment on Report.
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord True, has made two sets of powerful arguments about the right to vote. First, he made a series of powerful arguments in favour of photo identification as a right to vote and, just now, he talked about the rights and responsibilities of citizens with respect to prisoners’ right to vote. Would an acceptance of this amendment not represent some consistency, and a rejection of this amendment represent some very clear inconsistency in the following sense? What would the Minister do about a situation where someone turns up at a polling station with a British passport and a British driving licence on which their address is registered, and they are then refused the right to vote? They will have complied with everything the Minister argued for in the discussion of identification, but they will be denied the right to vote because of a variety of complexities that still bedevil our registration system.
Surely it is appropriate that there are democracies—Norway, Australia—in which a presence on the register and the right to vote are automatic and ensured by modern data systems that can easily do the job. Surely, if he has a degree of consistency in his arguments about this Bill, the Minister will support these amendments.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, throughout Committee I have kept coming back to the impact assessment. Right there on the front page of the impact assessment it says:
“What are the policy objectives of the action or intervention and the intended effects?”
It is:
“To ensure that those who are entitled to vote should always”—
always—
“be able to exercise that right freely, effectively and in an informed way”.
That is the intended consequence, the stated intention of the Bill before us: that those who are entitled to vote
“should always be able to exercise that right”.
People cannot exercise that right if they are not on the electoral roll. It is an absolute condition of always being able to exercise that right.
The amendments before us are absolutely bang on the money, in terms of what the intended policy of the Bill is in the impact assessment. As citizens of this country, we are all given automatic rights and responsibilities. Through that, we get certain certificates or automated numbers. We get our national insurance number automatically. We do not have to apply; it is automatically granted to us at 16. As the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said, we are registered for taxation automatically. We get our NHS number automatically. If noble Lords asked the vast majority of the public if they would object to being automatically registered, I have seen no evidence that says people would reject that proposition. Whether people then go to vote is down to the politicians to encourage them, enthuse them and get them to the polling station.
The very fact that the Government’s policy is to “always” ensure that people are able to exercise their vote in an automatic, easy and effective way means that these amendments should be accepted by the Government. If they are not, I would ask the Minister to explain why not having automatic registration, and keeping what is on the face of the Bill, would actually meet their objective to
“ensure that all those who are entitled to vote should always be able”
to do so.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, in speaking to my Amendment 144B, I would like first to take the opportunity to thank the Patchwork Foundation for its very helpful briefings on this matter. I will be brief because we have already heard that the current system of voter registration really is not working to the benefit of many people, and that voter registration rates are disproportionately low among young people and some minority groups.
There is confusion among eligible voters about how and when to register. The University of East Anglia carried out a survey in 2016 which found that two-thirds of electoral registration officers reported that citizens had complained to them about the voter registration process being bureaucratic, and that this had discouraged them from registering. Surveys of poll workers have also found that the most common problem that they encounter is citizens asking to vote when they are missing from the electoral register. Furthermore, a poll conducted by YouGov before the 2019 general election found that 16% of respondents believed that they were automatically registered to vote if they paid their council tax, and 17% believed that they were automatically registered when they turned 18. There is a lot of confusion and we belief that AVR will go a significant way in tackling the disparities and the inefficiency of the current system. It would diminish the impact of cyclical registration patterns, which can put so much pressure on voting infrastructure and the officials who are running and managing it. It would also go some way in bridging the current gaps in registration across various ethnic and social economic groups, as other noble Lords have said.
The UK is one of the few liberal democracies that does not already have some sort of system of AVR in place. Of 40 liberal democracies assessed by the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust and the University of East Anglia, the UK came out as one of just six countries that does not have a system of either automatic or assisted voter registration. Where it is in existence, it has proved very effective at encouraging first-time voters to vote. By contrast, the UK is witnessing a fall in the number of young people registering to vote.
We have had quite a discussion on this, and I will finish by saying that this is terribly simple and straightforward. As other noble Lords have said, people are already written to ahead of their 16th birthday with their national insurance number. If we can do that, why can we not at the same time have an automatic registration to vote? We have the means to do it, so why do we not just get on with it?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Committee for the debate; it is a debate we had two years ago when we were discussing a previous Bill. If applying to vote was difficult or time-consuming, the Government might have more sympathy for this proposal, but it is not. It can be done online, by paper and post, in person, or by telephone, where the registration officer offers these services. Online, it takes five minutes and can be done anywhere, anytime, on a smartphone or a tablet; I have done this recently myself.
As a small but very positive step to encourage young people to vote, HMRC now includes additional information on registering to vote on letters issuing the national insurance numbers, and this practice has been in place since the end of September 2021.
These amendments contradict the principle that underpins individual electoral registration: that individuals should have ownership of, and responsibility for, their own registration. At this point, I say that some members of our communities do not want to register—we have all probably met people who do not want to go on the electoral register. Automatic registration would threaten the accuracy of the register and, in doing so, enable voting and political donations by those who are ineligible.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
The noble Baroness may be aware that there is an equivalent of a national register: Experian, which collects a great deal of data and is used by a lot of private and public authorities. If it can do that, why cannot the Government?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I do not know, but I will look into that with the team.
Automatic registration therefore risks not being truly automatic or adding ineligible people to the register. For example, under the EU voting and candidacy rights changes provided for in the Bill, very few EU citizens who arrived to live in the UK after 31 December 2020 will have the right to register to vote, but most will be issued with a national insurance number. Moreover, most national insurance numbers are issued before someone is 16, which is too young to be added to the register, even as an attainer, in England and Northern Ireland. Therefore, the Government have no plans to introduce automatic registration at this stage, and I request that this amendment be withdrawn.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and a number of other noble Lords asked what we are doing to encourage registration. Since its introduction, the register to vote website has revolutionised the ability of electors to participate, with over 60 million applications to registers being submitted since 2014. In the last UK general election, a record 47 million people were registered. We continue to refine and adjust the way that the digital system works to improve its security.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, brought up accessibility. It is very pleasing to see that the register to vote service has the highest accessibility rating—AAA—under the web content accessibility guidelines. It is also the responsibility of the Electoral Commission to promote participation, and it runs an annual campaign to encourage eligible voters to register.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I will ask a question, because this may impact on another group. The Minister mentioned that we will not know whether EU citizens who have come here properly after a certain date have the right to vote. The Government have signed agreements with a number of EU countries—Spain, for example—that will allow EU citizens to vote from them. Why is that a problem, in terms of this issue? How many EU countries have we signed reciprocal voting arrangements with?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
No, I think we will deal with that later—but if we do not deal with that today, I shall make sure that the noble Lord gets a note on it, because I do not have a list of them to hand.
We have no plans to introduce automatic registration, and I request that the amendment is withdrawn.
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
Could the Minister address the inconsistency to which I referred—that someone with a British passport and a British driving licence, obeying the requirements in this Bill for identification for voting, could be denied the right to vote because they are not registered?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
No, because they are not registered. You cannot just have anybody walking into a polling station with some pieces of paper or a passport and saying that they have the right to vote. They have to register to vote.
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
So the Minister is saying that a British passport and a driving licence are random pieces of paper. Is that how she is referring to them?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
No, my Lords, but you have to register to vote in this country, and going into a polling station and just saying that you have a passport but you have not registered cannot allow you to vote.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, this has been a very interesting and informative debate and I thank the Minister for her answers, and thank all noble Lords who have participated.
To pick up some points from the Minister, she suggested that it was not difficult or time-consuming to register. Perhaps this is not something that most people in your Lordships’ House do very often, but moving house is up there just below divorce and death in terms of people’s level of stress. Moving house is something that many people in our society, particularly younger and poorer people, find themselves doing regularly at six- or 12-month intervals—and now we are going to make this extra thing that they have to remember when there are so many other things they are worrying about. Perhaps when people are younger, the first or second time they move they do it religiously, but by the time they get to the sixth, or the eighth or the 10th time that they move, and they have so many things to worry about, it is unsurprising that they do not. It is difficult, when it is mixed in with that whole difficult experience.
The Minister made the point about people owning their own registration and that they might get registered accidentally when they should not be. Of course, the form that automatic registration could very easily take would be to change your driving licence address in the box and then respond to the questions about whether you were eligible to vote, providing any extra information that might be needed. I shall have to go away and look at this, but all the information that you have to provide for a driving licence would be sufficient, I should have thought, for voting. I shall go away and look at that.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, brought up an interesting point about complications around EU citizens, which we will come to—but again that could be answered by a tick-box arrangement.
One key point has come out of this debate, well highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, but also by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. This is a balance to voter ID. I do not agree with voter ID but, if you are going to have it, as the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, said, and you turn up with your paperwork, and you are still told, although you have your passport, that you are not really a proper citizen because you have not ticked a box on a website, that is going to create some real anger.
I am not sure that the Minister really addressed the important points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, who so often in your Lordships’ House is a champion for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people, and many other excluded groups in our society. For all kinds of reasons, it is so much more difficult for those citizens, and we should be going to extraordinary efforts to make sure that their voice is able to be heard.
I pick up also the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, about the Government’s own impact assessment. If this is the aim of the Bill, it is very hard to see why the Government should not be taking these steps.
I make the final point that I raised a question with the Minister that was not answered—whether the Government are looking to make it easier to check whether you are correctly registered. You may have moved two or three years ago in a mad flurry—maybe your relationship had just broken down and that was why you moved—then there is an election coming, and you think, “Did I register to vote or not in that difficult period?” You would then have to know what council you are in and find its electoral services and send them an email or ring them up—and we all know what ringing a council up is like. Are the Government doing anything to improve that? If the Minister cannot answer that now, perhaps she could write to me about that, and perhaps she could commit to that before I withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I think from the discussion it is very obvious we are going to return to this on Report, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Holmes of Richmond
“Electronic voting
Within 3 months of the passing of this Act the Secretary of State must commission research into the desirability of electronic voting, including—(a) lessons to be learnt from similar systems in other countries,(b) the accessibility and inclusion benefits which may result from such a system, and(c) the use of block chain and distributed ledger technologies, with the aim of ensuring security and immutability of votes cast.”
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to move this amendment. I will speak to Amendments 144 and 209 in my name and I will not trespass on others’ eloquence when speaking to their amendments in this group.
Had I had a sharper pencil when I was drafting, I could have probably made Amendments 144 and 209 into the same amendment. I did not so they are not, but they are very closely linked. They speak to the opportunity that comes from the new technologies now available to us to potentially—it is only potential—use innovation to drive inclusion in our electoral process.
Amendment 144 is concerned with electronic voting. It is not suggesting that we move to electronic voting; it is simply suggesting that within three months of the Bill becoming an Act, it is something worth considering. The amendment talks about considering some international comparators. Estonia is particularly helpful in this instance, being probably the most digital state—certainly in Europe—and which has a very effective and efficient means of electronic voting. It goes so far, and I will come to more of the areas where we could go further in this country when I discuss Amendment 209.
Similarly, with electronic voting we can address many of the issues discussed on day two, particularly on Amendments 119 and 120, about accessibility and inclusion. Electronic voting potentially offers the opportunity for everybody to vote in an accessible and inclusive manner. There is also the consideration of what technology can be used. Certainly, distributed ledger technology offers a range of possibilities to assist with underpinning the integrity and security of electronic voting.
Amendment 209 takes a similar approach when it comes to the electoral register. This would be a step further than the situation in Estonia, because although in Estonia you can vote electronically via the electronic voting machine, there is not a system behind that which can trace the vote from the point of the voter registering in the first instance to being eligible to vote in that environment. If we had the electoral register put on a distributed ledger technology, we could have full traceability, immutability and, crucially, auditability of every move, of every vote—of every element of that system. You could permission particular actors to be the auditors of that. It would ensure far greater safety and security than the current system. It would be extremely difficult to drive an electoral fraud through such a system because you would have to engage so many actors to pull it off. The immutability of the technology would alert, in real time, all those permissioned people to be aware of it.
There is much more I could say on the technologies, but I will not. The crucial point is that if we looked, experimented and proof-of-concepted some of these technologies, we could potentially drive accessibility, inclusion, and the independence, secrecy, security, safety and integrity of every vote and, through that, the entire electoral process in the UK.
Crucially, these amendments are not asking for revolution, transformation, that we move to e-voting, or to an electoral register based on a distributed ledger technology platform. They are simply suggesting that there is something in these technologies that it is worth the Government considering and experimenting with and proofing some of their concepts. I look forward to my noble friend the Minister’s thoughts and response. I beg to move.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 150 and on some of the broader issues. I was quite worried, listening to the last debate and the Government’s answer. They now seem to be saying that they are not interested in broadening the number of people who vote, filling in the gaps in the register, or in much modernisation of the system, because they are quite happy with the inconsistencies that we have.
I think that the United States and the United Kingdom are the two democracies with the largest number of people eligible to vote who are not on the electoral register in each state or local authority. That is a scandal. It suggests that some of those behind this Bill are concerned with voter suppression, or at least with discouraging people from voting who they do not think may vote Conservative. That should worry us all. I fear that we are heading towards a bad-tempered Report, because the Government will railroad this through without any consultation or discussion.
On these proposals, I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, that modernisation and digitisation is where we should be going. When in government, I was concerned with the digitisation of Whitehall, and I agreed very strongly with Francis Maude, now the noble Lord, Lord Maude, on the efforts which he was making to push digitisation through a rather reluctant Whitehall and a group of largely uninterested Ministers. I much regret that, since 2015, the Government appear to have lost momentum on all that. There are ways of linking government databases without sharing all the information that could make life much easier for citizens on whom the Government hold a fair amount of information which is relevant to them.
I was deeply affected by what happened with the Windrush scheme, when all those people were told that they had no right to be in Britain, or that they had not been living in Britain for the last 20, 30 or 40 years. There was information in various Whitehall departments demonstrating that they had been here, but the Home Office did not look for it. In terms of modernising the electoral register, in terms of managing the vote and in terms of managing another couple of million applicants for overseas voting, who need to be checked properly when they come on to the register and need to have the chance to vote within a tight time scale, digitisation is clearly part of the answer.
The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and my amendment, are saying that the Government should be looking at this. Other Governments are way ahead of us in this. Everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said in Committee on a previous day about how astonishingly old fashioned our electoral process is, compared with many other democratic states, is absolutely on target. I hope that the Minister might at least give us a very slight indication that the Government might be just a little interested in this, even though it would be very dangerous for them to encourage more people to vote.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for his introduction to his amendment. I thought what he said about the opportunities that are available for new technologies to drive inclusion in our electoral process is really important if we are looking to the future. We completely support his aim to encourage the Government to invest much more in technologies in this area. As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said, let us catch up with many other countries which are looking to do this and looking to invest more in this in the future.
One thing we do know is that electronic voting machines are often more accessible for disabled voters. I give the example of the United States, where visually impaired voters can use an audio interface while those with paralysed limbs can select candidates from a screen using head movements. There are all sorts of different innovations that we should be looking to investigate and see how we can bring them into our own system.
I turn to my amendment. The Government’s 2019 manifesto—I go back to their manifesto—included a commitment to
“make it easier for British expats to vote in Parliamentary elections”.
I also say, as part of that, they should be looking at the Electoral Commission’s research after the elections since 2015, which has consistently found that overseas voters have experienced difficulties in voting from outside the UK. This is mainly because many did not have enough time to receive and return their postal vote before the close of the poll.
I am aware that the Government are looking at ways to improve that, but it strikes me that as the Electoral Commission also recommends that the Government explore new approaches to improve access to voting and draws on evidence from other countries, there is an opportunity here, which is why I tabled the amendment. I hope that this will encourage the Government to consider more research into digital technologies and look at what is happening in other countries in order to drive inclusion and enable a quicker and more efficient system for those voters who live outside the UK.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, these amendments both seek to improve and expedite means of voting for British citizens living overseas. My noble friend mentioned Estonia and although Estonia has e-voting, it still uses paper ballots and less than half of Estonian voters use the e-voting system, which relies on the national ID card as a credential to vote. The blockchain technology which supports its system, although advanced in security, is not foolproof and hackers are becoming more and more sophisticated.
That leads me to Amendments 144 and 209, which would require the Government to conduct research on electronic voting and technological solutions to increase the security of the electoral register. I fully understand that electronic voting and further technological solutions supporting our processes may sound attractive in the light of ongoing digital advances. However, all electronic changes are large-scale programmes and we are currently not persuaded of the need for them and are wary of the risks that they may usher. In particular, electronic voting is a double-edged sword.
The selection of elected representatives for Parliament and other public offices is regarded as requiring the highest possible level of integrity, and the introduction of electronic voting would raise a number of issues. We know that electronic voting is not seen to be suitably rigorous and secure and could be vulnerable to attack or fraud by unscrupulous hackers and hostile foreign states.
Lord Scriven (LD)
If that is the case, can the noble Baroness then say why we are allowed to register to vote electronically and why the Government encourage us to do that?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Security is not as necessary for that as it would be for voting.
Amendment 150 from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, would require the Government to ask the Electoral Commission to make proposals on how to facilitate the participation of overseas electors in parliamentary and local government elections while maintaining the security of the election process. I highlight the fact that British citizens resident abroad who are registered as overseas electors are not currently permitted to vote in local elections, though they may participate in parliamentary elections. Overseas electors are, by definition, more likely to be directly affected by decisions made in the UK Parliament than by decisions made by local government. For example, decisions on foreign policy, defence, immigration, or pensions may have a direct impact on British citizens abroad. The Government have no intention to change the franchise for local elections in this way.
In a similar vein, Amendment 151, tabled by the noble Baroness, would require the Government to consult on the possibility of introducing digital ballots for overseas electors within six months of the Bill passing. Ballot papers are printed on specific papers with security markings on them as a measure to prevent fraud. This cannot be replicated when printing on home printers and it would raise concerns as to the secrecy and security of the ballot if such measures were removed. Furthermore, the votes of overseas electors could then be easily distinguishable at a count if, for example, they were printed on different paper. That cannot be appropriate. As such, the Government cannot support the introduction of a “print and return” system for ballot papers.
On a wider interpretation of “digital ballots”, the Government hold the position that, at present, there are concerns that electronic voting by any means is not suitably rigorous and secure and could be vulnerable to attack or fraud. Due to these concerns, the Government could not support any alternative online voting option for overseas electors. This consultation, therefore, would be a poor use of time and resources.
The provisions in the Bill will enable overseas electors to remain registered for longer with an absent vote arrangement in place ahead of elections. The registration period for overseas electors will be extended from one year to three years. Additionally, electors will be able to reapply or refresh their absent vote arrangements as appropriate at the same time as renewing their registration. We are also introducing an online absent vote application service allowing electors registered in Great Britain, including overseas electors, to apply for a postal or proxy vote online. It is anticipated that an online service will alleviate some of the pre-existing challenges for electors and electoral administrators, by reducing the need to rely on manual processes. In addition to benefiting citizens, these changes will benefit electoral administrators by reducing workloads during busy electoral periods.
Additionally, the Government have already improved the postal voting process for overseas electors registered in Great Britain by working with Royal Mail and the British Forces Post Office to expedite dispatch abroad and funding the use of the international business response licence which expedites the return of ballot packs from overseas in a large number of countries, as well as covering any postage costs that might otherwise be incurred.
In summary, the Government have already taken steps to improve voting methods for overseas electors, without risking the integrity of the ballot, and will not consider these amendments. I urge that the amendment is withdrawn.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I have the greatest respect for the Minister, but that was an extraordinarily disappointing response. The amendments merely asked the Government to consider these areas, but the response was, “We will not”. From the Minister’s response, we would take it that the current electoral system is without difficulties or problems. The intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, was germane, because one could register online with whatever means one chose, with no real checks. It probably boils down to still messing around with gas bills as some kind of proof of identity, but where is the quality of that? Nowhere. At this stage, I will withdraw the amendment, but I have to say that that was an extraordinarily poor response.
“Qualification for standing in local authority elections: temporary housing exception
In section 79(1) of the Local Government Act 1972 (qualifications for election and holding office as member of local authority), at the end insert “; or“(f) he or she may have otherwise qualified under any combination of paragraphs (a) to (e) if he or she had not been provided temporary housing outside of the area by the local authority.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would protect the right of people in temporary housing to stand for election where the local authority provides temporary housing outside of the local authority area.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I move and speak to Amendment 144E, which noble Lords will have noticed appears in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, but operating on our normal lark and owl rota, this one falls to me at the owl end of the evening.
We have just been talking about some major issues around the Bill and our whole electoral system. Here, we are doing something that some might regard as a more traditional aspect of your Lordships’ House: the scrutiny, modest measures, cleaning and tidying and curing of small injustices. Amendment 144E amends Section 79(1) of the Local Government Act 1972, addressing the situation where people have been placed by their local council into temporary housing outside the area for which they wish to stand for election.
We know that housing is now a huge issue. Many people are struggling to find housing, many people are being displaced and many local councils are struggling to find housing. The amendment comes from the case of a person who contacted our office who wants to stand in the forthcoming local elections and, through absolutely no fault of their own, under the current rules have been made ineligible to stand because they have been placed in temporary housing outside the local authority area.
It is obvious that this is not an isolated case. It is a factor of the current qualifications for standing in local elections. It is a case of instant disqualification. Someone may have been in an area for decades and be really embedded in that area, part of that community and have something to offer it but, because of the lack of housing—perhaps a failure of the local authority—they are suddenly unable to stand and to contribute. Of course, this can affect any candidate, regardless of their party or their social or economic situation. Perhaps they have been evicted because a landlord is selling the home they have been living in, perhaps they are fleeing domestic abuse. There is a whole host of other reasons why people might need temporary accommodation. They may have been planning stand in the forthcoming election for years, but the placement outside the borough scuppers all their hard work.
This is a small, modest amendment that would affect only a very small number of people, but it would address a basic injustice. I hope that I will get broad support across the Committee for the amendment and the Government might feel able to move modestly on it. I beg to move.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to this amendment, which would protect the rights of people in temporary housing to stand for election where the local authority provides temporary housing outside the local authority area. At any given point, close to 100,000 households live in temporary accommodation, according to quarterly statistics published by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, is right to draw attention to their right to participate in the democratic process, and I fully support the intention behind her amendment. We on these Benches fully support the points she made. Those who live in temporary accommodation are often most in need of their voice being heard, especially at local authority level. The suggestion that they would be prevented from standing for the relevant local authority due to the fact that their temporary accommodation is located outside the boundary is absurd. I hope the Minister will accept the case behind the amendment and work with the noble Baroness to find a solution to the problem.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for the amendment. Although admirable in its intent, it introduces an unwelcome subjective element into the current objective criteria that specify qualifications for election as a member of a local authority. It presupposes that an individual, if moved by their local authority into temporary accommodation out of the area where they are standing for election, would otherwise satisfy the qualification criteria had they not been moved by their local authority.
The qualification criteria for local elected office must be beyond doubt. The amendment as drafted would remove the demonstration of consistent connection with an area that the current criteria rightly demand. The amendment would introduce a subjective qualification that the individual believes that they would otherwise categorically have remained eligible within the existing criteria, but this is not objective; it could be neither proved nor disproved. It would be unreasonable for the local electorate to be asked to consider voting for someone who may no longer have a strong connection with the local area nor any demonstrable proof that they would otherwise have maintained that contact.
There are other criteria for standing in local elections, and I think it is important that anyone in this situation looks at those—specifically, that they have been a local government elector for the last 12 months and that they have during the last 12 months preceding that day occupied as owner or tenant any land or other premises in that area. If they work in that area then they can stand for local election, or if they have resided there for the whole of those 12 months before they were moved just before the election. Also, there is the case that they are a member of a parish or community council. There are other points for people to consider.
We have looked at this and will give it further thought, because it is an interesting concept that has not come up before. We do not make any promises, but we will look at it. At this moment, though, the Government cannot accept the amendment and I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw it. Maybe we can have further conversations.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, that was a very short but productive group. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, for his offer of support.
I note that, with 100,000 households affected, we are not just talking about a few people; there is a significant group here. To respond to the Minister, we often think about people being moved long distances from an area, but it could literally be to the other side of the road—that would still technically be out of the area. However, I very much thank the Minister for her constructive response. I will not go through it line by line now, but I would very much like to work with her to see how we can address this issue.
I just make the point that, if you had resided there for the whole 12 months—maybe you were moved into temporary accommodation the day before—there are obviously areas there that do not help. With regard to working, again, people may volunteer in the area but maybe what they spend much of their time doing is not work in terms of that qualification. However, I very much take encouragement and I hope to work with the Minister in future to see what we can do with this. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Return of election deposits where a candidate's party elects at least one MP
(1) Rule 53 of Schedule 1 to RPA 1983 (forfeiture of deposit) is amended as follows.(2) After paragraph (3) insert—“(3A) Where a candidate has been authorised to use a party description under rule 6A of these rules, the deposit shall be returned as soon as practicable after any candidate using the same party description is elected in any constituency at that general election.”(3) In paragraph (4) after “paragraph (3)” insert “and (3A)”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would return the election deposits to all general election candidates whose registered party elects at least one MP.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise again to speak to amendments in my name, starting with Amendment 144F, which moves us back to a larger scale. It would amend the part of the Representation of the People Act 1983 that deals with deposit forfeiture to return election deposits to all general election candidates whose registered party achieves at least one MP. Those Members of your Lordships’ House who are still paying acute attention at this hour of the evening might have noticed that I have to declare an interest at this point.
The “one MP” point is not chosen randomly or for self-interest. It surprises many voters when they find out that to stand in a general election you have to pay a £500 deposit. Maybe many say, “A one-off payment of £500 is not that large a sum of money”; it is for many people in many communities, but maybe it does not seem that much. However, put that at a national scale: to take the example of the Green Party in the 2019 election, 465 lost deposits cost us £232,500, the best part of a quarter of a million pounds. I am aware that for some political parties that might look more or less like change down the back of the sofa, but to us it is a massive sum of money, a sum that in our case is largely raised by crowdfunding at a local level, people putting their £10 or £20 in to support local democracy.
What we have is a very odd situation—here I come to why the “one MP” criterion is in the amendment—because, in our system, we have what is known as Short money. It was introduced in the Commons in 1975 and is available to all Opposition parties that either secured two seats or one seat and more than 150,000 votes at the previous general election. It is payable to qualifying parties as £18,400 for every seat won at the last election, plus £36 for every 200 votes gained by the party. When people say to me, “I think my vote is being wasted because it didn’t elect someone”, it is always worth pointing out that it does have an impact in terms of Short money.
In the context of this amendment, we have a situation where with one hand the state deliberately gives money to parties that have won at least one seat and got a certain number of votes but, with the other, takes it away in terms of the election deposits. This is, in effect, a tax on democracy. If we look at the comparison with many other democracies around the world—on earlier groups we were talking about comparisons in many ways and how we appear to fall short compared with other democracies—it is interesting that many other democracies in Europe and other parts of the world fund the operations of their political parties on a regular basis, not just in parliament but in terms of funding research and election campaigns. They acknowledge that, if we do not all collectively fund politics, the people who do fund it are the ones who then get the politics that they have paid for. We are now in a situation where we are getting politics paid for by a relatively small number of people, and election deposits make that far worse.
I will be interested to hear from the Government what their current justification for election deposits are, but I expect that they might say the £500 deposit discourages frivolous running for office and joke candidates—at which point I would invite them to look at any list of candidates standing in any general election or high-profile by-election, as it does not really seem to do the job.
If the Government do not like Amendment 144F and the immediate step to end this tax on democracy, I have the alternative Amendment 212F, which is a simpler and less immediate action. It calls for a review of election deposits and the exploration of alternatives. If the Government were to acknowledge that there is an issue here that deserves to be explored and should be considered, Amendment 212F is a way of getting to that by taking a longer and more considered view of how we might approach this situation and end this barrier to democracy. As we were discussing on an earlier group, the Government said in their impact assessment of this Bill that their aim is to improve access to democracy. Taking away the deposits could be one important step for that. I beg to move.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness has come up with a very cunning plan and I have to say that, as a Liberal Democrat, I can see its merits immediately. I just say one thing to her, which is that it is usually a mistake to put all your dice on one number. There is about £250,000 at stake if that seat were, by any mischance, to be lost. That may be a good reason for me to be more enthusiastic about her second amendment than her first, which might be a case of being careful what you wish for.
Nevertheless, she has raised some important issues which are clearly relevant to all political parties other than the big two—it has to be said that the big two also waste money on lost deposits, although I am sure they do not think of it as being wasted so much as an investment for the future. That said, it is an interesting argument to link this to the payment of Short money from parliamentary funds to support those political parties which are represented in the other place. It will be interesting to see whether the Minister is in any way tempted to assist small parties with a £250,000 bounty, as compared to the very much bigger sums of money which he and his colleagues can summon up on demand when a general election arises.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I hear what the noble Baroness says, but there are many reasons for a deposit. It is a well-established practice and I do not accept that it is necessarily a barrier, bearing in mind the facilities that being a registered candidate gives you—not least free postage for an election communication to every elector. There are certainly a lot of things you can already benefit from as a properly accredited, validly nominated candidate. There are lots of responsibilities to that, so I do not see grounds for change.
However, that does not mean I am opposed to some sort of examination of precisely how the deposit system impacts on candidates. The noble Baroness said that an argument might be made that it acts as a barrier to participation, but then she said that, when you look at general elections, a lot of candidates are thrown in, particularly in high-profile seats. It is a form of registration; you get your money back if you get sufficient support, so I do not see the grounds for changing.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid that, having been able to be reasonably accommodating on the previous amendment, I cannot meet the noble Baroness on this one for very similar reasons to those argued by the noble Lord opposite. The reality is that candidates have to provide a deposit of £500, which is lost if they get less than 5% of the vote. It is designed, as the noble Lord said, to ensure that, normally, only those who are serious about seeking public office will put themselves forward for election. However, it does not seem to have deterred Lord Buckethead over the years I have been following elections, although I suspect the figure under the bucket may have changed—he has been around a long time.
As the noble Lord, Lord Collins, said, candidates at parliamentary elections are entitled to have an item of election material sent to electors free of charge by the Royal Mail. Paying the deposit gives candidates access to over £20,000 of public money for this purpose in a typical case. This is a factor in the level of deposit required from candidates.
The noble Baroness proposes that, at a general election where a candidate standing wins one seat for a party, all other candidates standing for that party would be entitled to have their deposit returned regardless of the level of vote they receive. At a general election, there are a series of individual contests in individual constituencies across the country, as the Green Party knows very well from its successes. We submit that it would be a significant change for a result in one constituency to have any impact on contests in others. You can have very different results down the road; that is germane to a general election. While candidates can be members of parties, they stand for election on an individual basis and the law views them as such in terms of deposits.
As the noble Baroness sees it, this would help her party, which secured a little more than 2.5% of the vote nationally. The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, said it might help other parties. However, the reality is that, as she acknowledged, the Greens were not so popular, because they lost their deposit in 465 constituencies, which was up from 456 lost deposits in the previous election—they actually lost more. This amendment would require, as the noble Baroness acknowledged, nearly £250,000 of taxpayers’ money to be returned to Green candidates who had been rejected by taxpayers at the polls.
We would also need to consider very carefully the implication the proposal would have in individual constituencies. It could unfairly and, in my submission, inequitably disadvantage single, local independent candidates—we all know them, people who have strong issues in a local constituency, who put themselves on the line. They may get more of a share in a particular constituency than this national party, and then find someone they had beaten gets their deposit back, but they do not. A level playing field for elections is essential for our democratic processes, so I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Collins, that this would need a lot more consideration before we could go near this. The Government constantly review electoral activity, but I regret to say that we cannot support this change, and I urge the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, to withdraw this amendment.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who have participated in this short debate and thank the Minister for his response. I would perhaps question the classification of general elections as measures of popularity; they are reflections of popularity, since people have to deal with the first past the post voting system. If we look at the last election, it might have been taken as a measure of popularity where votes more or less matched seats, and people knew that their votes counted. It was the last European election where the Green Party got 11% of the vote and finished ahead of the Conservative Party in that particular measure of popularity under a different voting system.
I wish to pick up on a couple of points. Both the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, picked up the point about the one seat issue. I take their points, but the fact is that, with Short money, there is already a legal situation that says one seat means you will be regarded as a national party. I am interested in the Minister’s comments, with his strong stress on each seat being an individual contest, which does not really seem to be the way the Conservative Party has been fighting recent elections, or the way recent elections have been treated by the media.
On the Minister’s point about disadvantaging single local candidates, around the country at a local council level we are seeing groups of candidates representing their local area—I am thinking of Herefordshire, but there are other areas where significant groups of councillors have come together as representatives of their local area, and they might want to run in a number of seats where they represent the council, and that is a very large sum of money.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, said it is not a barrier to participation because you get your money back if you get sufficient support, but that implies you are able essentially to gamble £500. While there are many people in our society who can say, “Well, here is £500—I will get it back or I will not”, there are an awful lot of people for whom that is not a financially viable situation, who do not have access to that £500 to start off with.
I think this has been the start of a conversation. I took encouragement from the comment by the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, that the idea of a review might be of interest to the Labour Party. I think that is something that I might look to take forward in the future, and I hope we might be able to work on that. This has been very much the start of a conversation which has a long way to run, but at least it has been started. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
“(c) on that date a red notice has not been issued in respect of the individual by Interpol.”Member’s explanatory statement
This probing amendment would prevent those who have been issued a red notice by Interpol from being overseas electors.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I have tabled my Amendments 146 and 147 mainly to probe what kind of checks and balances are taking place for who can register for a vote as an overseas elector. This is because our main concern about the overseas elector section of the Bill is that it could undermine the integrity of our electoral process if not done well. I have mentioned in previous debates concerns raised by local government and others about the pressures on our councils and election teams, which are already overworked and underresourced. These changes to who can register as an overseas elector will in some areas greatly add to the pressures and workload, so they will need support in making sure that everyone who applies is a proper person to be on the register.
I also draw attention to the fact that we are very worried that the proposed changes could create a loophole in donation law that would allow donors unlimited access to our democracy—in other words, foreign money to be able to bankroll election campaigns from potential offshore tax havens. I will not go into any detail now, because we are going to debate this in some detail on Monday.
Whether we agree with removing the 15-year limit or not, it does not seem right to me that expats will be granted more flexibility in registering a right to vote than some people living in this country. My noble friend Lord Collins will talk about this in the next debate.
I want to briefly talk to my Amendment 148. The issue of sanctions is pertinent at the moment, given Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, which has led to new legislation and designations of Russian individuals and businesses. This has shone a light on the complexities of sanctions legislation and the importance of the entire statute book complying with such declarations. The purpose of this amendment is to highlight that election law must too be implemented in accordance with any sanctions legislation. There is clear evidence that Putin’s regime has sought to undermine democracies around the world, and it is entirely possible that, in the future, it may seek to do the same in relation to the UK. For this reason, public bodies in the UK that organise and facilitate elections must work closely with the bodies responsible for maintaining our compliance with sanctions. Ultimately, this means ensuring that sanctioned individuals play no role in elections. But given the complexities of holding elections, this is easier said than done. That is why we have tabled this amendment—in the hope that the Minister is able to explain how the Government can help to ensure that elections are held with consideration of sanctions legislation, to prevent foreign interference from hostile actors. I beg to move.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I wish to speak to the two amendments in my name, Amendments 147A and 147B. They are meant to be helpful, in the same way that the amendments I put down on postal voting numbers and handing them back at city halls or town halls were meant to be helpful—helpful in the sense that they come from briefings from and discussions with those who administer the elections. What those people are saying is that they welcome the move from annual to three-yearly registrations for overseas voters, but that the new three-year period might not help with the administrative burden because general elections can be five years apart. Therefore, people registering late and not every three years, as the tendency is, will mean that the problem from the impact assessment that the Government are trying to solve—about late registrations posing
“challenges for persons who choose to vote by postal ballot and live further away from the UK”
in getting their vote back—may not be solved by what the Government are doing.
I seek clarification from the Government. What advice has come back from the discussions they have had with electoral registration officers? Do they feel it would solve the problem to move to the three-year gap or that, in their view, a five-year period for re-registration would help to deal with the problem that the Government identify in their own impact assessment?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, overseas voting extension is an important part of this Bill, one of the many bits that is substantially changing the pattern of voting. It could add a couple of million extra voters and deserves better than the treatment it is getting at present. Some of us may wish to discuss whether we will oppose Clause 12 standing part on Report just to make sure we have a proper discussion. I have been struck, in everything I have read and discussed with Ministers and officials, by the fact that this has not been thought through and has been poorly prepared. If I were unduly suspicious, I would say that Ministers are more interested in getting donations from people who will then come on to the register than they are in really getting proper overseas representation.
We know where this comes from: the campaign that Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, when he was head of the Conservative Party’s international office, took to encourage overseas voters, particularly retired British expatriates in Spain and France, to register. Academic research that I found, which the Minister, when I spoke to him, appeared to be unaware of, showed that the distribution of votes—I do not know whether the Minister is listening to me; he may not be interested—in constituencies had been lopsided from the start. It was always concentrated in London and the south-east. Now, it continues to be very lopsided. The Minister said that he was unaware of the distribution of votes by constituency. I found it out quite easily, through the Office for National Statistics. I am sorry it was not available to him. It ranges from over 2,000 in several north London constituencies, to 25 or so in various Welsh constituencies. If we double that, the maldistribution of overseas voters in different constituencies will entirely undo the redrawing of the boundaries to make them more accurate, which is just going through.
The academic research in the mid-1990s suggested that two-thirds of overseas voters in 1992 had voted Conservative, but only in small numbers. After the introduction of individual electoral registration allowed Conservatives abroad to mount a registration drive on individual registration from abroad, numbers rose from 33,000 in 2010 to 106,000 in 2015. The Conservative Party International Office encouraged targeted donations from abroad to marginal seats in the 2015 general election, showing that donations were a very important part of this. After the referendum, the numbers registered surged to over 300,000, which perhaps suggests that the Conservative assumption that they are all going to vote Conservative may have been a little shakier than they had intended.
There are many weaknesses with the proposals as they currently stand. First, in a Bill that tightens identity checks for domestic voters, the identity checks for overseas voters are extremely weak. Furthermore, the Government do not know who the overseas citizens are, how many of them there are or where they live. I put down a series of Written Questions six months ago, and the answers I got to most of these was “We do not have the figures”. I asked the Foreign Office what information it had, and it said that it plays no role in the registration of overseas voters and it does not expect to play any role in assisting them to vote. If the Minister had looked at comparisons of the way in which other Governments handle overseas voting, he would have noted that embassies and high commissions play a very active role in this. The noble Lord, Lord Hayward, reminded me that the largest polling station in Australia is at the other end of the Strand in London. The British Government apparently do not want to get involved in that, and it would be very complicated.
The problem we were discussing about digitisation and how to get the balance out and then get them back in a short campaign, remains and is already a grievance with overseas voters.
The absence of preparation, therefore, is absolutely clear. The problem of how you identify fraud is very considerable if the Government have such little information on where citizens are and who they might be. The identification checks are very weak, and the powers given to the Secretary of State to take whatever measures he thinks appropriate to provide information campaigns suggest that a particular Secretary of State might decide that Portugal, Spain, Italy or France are where he wants to concentrate their efforts, rather than on those who retired to Jamaica or southern Nigeria or Pakistan.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
Or Belgium: exactly. There are many weaknesses in this. We put down another amendment, which comes in the next group, suggesting that the appropriate answer is overseas constituencies. The idea that people should vote in constituencies in which they have not lived for 50 years is absolutely absurd. My conversation with my local ERO suggested that trying to check on whether they actually have lived there or not might prove an impossible task.
This is a very shaky part of the Bill. My conversation with the Minister and officials suggests that they have not thought this through; it seems the Minister is not interested in thinking it through any further. I suspect, therefore, that it is the donations that they are really interested in, and this leaves me very discontented with this part of the Bill.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, I want to ask some technical questions, without necessarily knowing what the correct answer is myself. I hope that the Minister, if he is not able to answer today, would be prepared to write to provide a further explanation.
I start by referring to some of the text of Clause 12. On page 14, line 13, under the new section “Extension of parliamentary franchise”, there are various conditions that a person has to satisfy. They have to be,
“not subject to any legal incapacity to vote (age apart)”
et cetera. I take it—perhaps the Minister can consult the Box to get an answer to this—that that is to make sure that nobody overseas registers who is under age. I assume that is the meaning of that. If I am wrong about that, then there might be a whole set of questions arising, but that seems to be the common-sense explanation for those two words in brackets.
I want to move on to the next page of the same clause. New Section 1B is headed,
“British citizens overseas: entitlement to be registered”.
The proposed new section sets out that, essentially, there are two ways in which one can qualify to be registered. The first is as a former elector in a United Kingdom constituency. There will be discussions about that, I am sure, but the second is what I want to focus on at the moment. The second condition is that you were a former resident in a UK constituency. We already know that there is quite a large number of people who are not registered, because we discussed earlier on that the Electoral Commission’s estimate is that in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, there are somewhere between 8.6 million and 9.8 million people who are currently resident but not on the electoral roll. There is, therefore, quite a large pool of people who, presumably in approximately equal proportion, will be overseas now. There is no special preference for people who have registered being the people who have migrated.
So my question is: does this legislation grant voting rights to someone who left the UK with their parents as a baby and moved to Switzerland, say, to claim their vote alongside their parents, once they reach the age of 18 overseas? If it does, I note that there does not seem to be any requirement for that baby to have been born in the United Kingdom; they need to establish only that they were resident here. As far as I can tell, there is no specified minimum period for that residence.
I will take a case that is not entirely hypothetical. Parents who came to the United Kingdom, having been working in Ghana, with a baby who was born in England, move to Switzerland six months later. It seems that nothing is set out in the legislation to prevent that baby from claiming their vote on reaching 18 while still living overseas. I want to check that I have not misunderstood what the legislation is saying there and that, by virtue of that brief period of residence, they would be eligible to vote and—I suppose I could add—to make a donation. If that is true, I know of two British nationals now in their 50s who will be very happy to take up the offer.
But I want to know whether that really is the extension to the franchise that the Government want or whether I have actually missed something and, in some other part of the RPA—or Schedule 9 or goodness knows where else—there is something that would prevent that absurd outcome.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I will first answer the noble Lord, Lord Stunell: it is late and I do not have all the answers, but we will get a letter to him as soon as we can to answer his questions.
Amendment 146 seeks to place a time limit on overseas electors’ connections with the UK. Imposing a new time limit, albeit a longer one, does not deliver on our manifesto commitment to introduce votes for life. The Government’s view is that any time limit is arbitrary in an increasingly global and connected world. Length of time outside the UK is not a certain indicator of how a person feels about their British identity or a measure of the interest that they take in this country’s future. The Bill sets a sensible boundary for the overseas franchise. Previous registration or residence denotes a strong degree of connection to the UK.
Amendments 145, 147 and 148 seek to prevent people who have committed offences or been sanctioned under the described Acts, or those who are subject to an Interpol red notice, from registering as overseas electors. Domestic electors are not required to declare whether they have ever committed offences under the Acts described, and the Government will not impose these requirements on overseas electors. Overseas electors would be subject to the same restrictions as domestic electors in respect of offences relating to personation and postal vote fraud that result in a temporary bar from voting upon a person being convicted or named as personally guilty of that offence.
In a situation where a domestic elector would not be permanently barred from voting, we would wish to treat an overseas elector equally—
Lord Stunell (LD)
The Minister has just said that exactly the same restrictions would apply to overseas voters as to voters in the UK. If an overseas voter had been sent to prison in Switzerland, say, for 18 months, would they be able to vote from prison there, or would we have a mechanism for making sure that they were not competent to vote in that situation?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I think that is a hypothetical question, but I shall certainly get a legal opinion on it.
On Amendment 148, as the noble Baroness said, all those issues on sanctions should be dealt with on Monday, within the group on donations, if she does not mind. I think that is the sensible place to have that debate. Therefore, I urge her not to press the amendments.
Lord Scriven (LD)
The five-year period in my amendment comes from a briefing from Solace. Could I suggest that further discussion takes place to see whether something has happened since the original discussion?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I shall certainly ask the team to go back and check. I do not know whether it was Solace or another group that has been working with the policy team on this. We will check that out for the noble Lord and see why there is a difference.
Furthermore, the Bill carefully balances the need to ensure that registers are kept accurate and that overseas electors’ contact details are up to date, which is particularly important to ensure that they receive a postal ballot. I hope the noble Lord will consider these points and not press his amendments
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. I will just make a couple of points. One is that there is quite a bit of concern about this part of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, talked about concerns about proper checks, which is what we are very concerned about—making sure that those checks are done so that the people who are asking to come on to the register who have not been in this country for a long time are proper people to come on to the register, and the checks and balances have taken place properly and correctly. Also, if that is going to happen, what about the support for local authorities and election teams? It could be a lot of work in some areas. At some point, it would be good to return to this issue.
I completely take the Minister’s point about looking at sanctions in more detail in the debate on Monday. That is a particularly important thing that we need to spend some time on, even if the broader debate is not one that the Government want to spend time on. We need to look at that. With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
“Creation of overseas constituencies
(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, and prior to section 12 coming into force, the Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament on proposals for overseas constituencies.(2) A report under subsection (1) must consider proposals on—(a) the most suitable deployment of overseas constituencies;(b) the ratio of nationals per MP;(c) the impact on existing UK constituencies;(d) the local administration of ballots;(e) the appointment of returning officers; and(f) the form of proportional representation best suited to electing Members of Parliament to represent overseas constituencies.(3) In preparing a report under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must consult—(a) the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee of the House of Commons;(b) the Constitution Committee of the House of Lords;(c) the appropriate committees of the Scottish Parliament, Senedd Cymru and the Northern Ireland Assembly;(d) the Electoral Commission;(e) the Association of Electoral Administrators; and(f) any other person they consider appropriate.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to report on the creation of overseas constituencies.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, if the Government were in a mood to try to build any sort of consensus on the Bill, which they clearly are not, I would hope that they would be willing to consider accepting some part of this amendment; it does not say that we should necessarily create overseas constituencies but that we should at least consider them.
If I may anticipate the Minister’s comment that this would be an enormous innovation, I point out that the extension of the franchise to people who have lived abroad all their life is itself an enormous innovation. If I were to follow the line that he has argued on former subjects—that we should be looking at the practice of other countries—overseas constituencies are a practice in a number of democratic countries for very obvious reasons. If you are looking after your overseas voters, they have lost their links with their local constituencies, they are much more distant than they were and they have a different set of interests and it is therefore perhaps appropriate for overseas constituencies to be created.
It may be that we have not yet thought this through. I suspect that the Government have not thought about it at all because they do not have the numbers or any of the practice or documentation that the French, for example, have about their overseas citizens with support from their embassies, consulates and others. Nor have we looked into what we do about dual and triple nationals, an increasingly large and difficult category, as we have discovered in our relations with Iran and China in recent years, which takes us into the question of how we might redefine British citizenship as such in a much more global world. The question of how parties fund keeping in touch with overseas voters is the most sensitive one because we know that one of the underlying structural biases in our electoral system is that one party has two-thirds of the funds available for political parties and the others have a great deal less, so we know which party will be able to keep in touch with the overseas voters it wants and the others will not be able to do so.
Having said that, I hope the Minister will recognise that there is a case for looking at this. The current proposals will concentrate overseas voters, by and large, in London, Surrey and other home county constituencies. We do not know the implications of that. A Conservative Peer of my acquaintance told me that the one overseas constituency in France which consistently votes left is the one that includes London; he suspects that there might be some similar interesting differences in where people are living as opposed to where they come from, but at least we ought to be looking at that as part of the package. I therefore ask the Government not to close their mind to this and not to demonstrate that getting this done without thinking through the implications is all they are really concerned with. As part of approaching this major extension of the British franchise, they should look at this, as other countries have done. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I have very little to say other than that it is a very interesting suggestion and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, for bringing it forward and giving us food for thought. I had no idea that France had overseas constituencies until he tabled his amendment and I looked into it. It is an interesting suggestion.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I fear that at this late hour, I will disappoint the noble Lord. This amendment would require the Government to prepare a report on proposals for the creation of overseas constituencies. The Bill will allow overseas electors to continue to vote in constituencies to which they have a significant and demonstrable connection. This constituency link has always been and continues to be a cornerstone of our democracy. Creating overseas constituencies is therefore not something the Government are considering. To commission a report on the topic is unnecessary. Overseas electors will continue to register in the constituencies to which they have a significant and demonstrable connection.
As the amendment acknowledges, there are extensive and complex bureaucratic challenges to implementing overseas constituencies. There would, for example, be ongoing complexities regarding how constituency boundaries and their electorate would be determined and maintained with a constituency stretching across multiple countries and being affected by fluctuating migration. Furthermore, electoral administration for overseas constituencies would have to be done in a very different way from the current process, whereby it is undertaken by local authorities. We would need to address matters such as: who would be responsible for maintaining the register of electors and administering the polls for an overseas constituency. Overseas constituencies would not fit in with the existing arrangements for organising constituencies and delivering elections, and establishing them would require the consideration of a range of complex issues. I hope the noble Lord will feel able to reconsider this suggestion and withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, that is not at all surprising as an answer. I point out that the extensive and bureaucratic challenges to which the Minister refers are involved in extending the vote to overseas voters in the first place. Those challenges will be met by local registration officers in Britain, but if we are to have a different relationship with our 5 million to 7 million citizens abroad, we need to look at it in a rather more rounded way and consider how we manage it. It is not a question of just extending the vote and leaving it like that.
After all, we have got into some difficulty in recent years with the question of how we relate to overseas citizens, particularly our dual nationals when they are imprisoned in the other countries of their nationality—and these are not particularly friendly countries. That needs to be thought about.
What I hear from the Government throughout the Bill is that they are not interested in anything except their current agenda. They are not interested in thinking through the implications of some of their proposals. I have talked to Canadian Senators about how they cope with these voters. I am aware of the French system; I am surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, was not. The Britain, Ireland and Nordic constituency is one of its five overseas constituencies. Many people in London are French and therefore vote in French elections. In the last presidential election campaign, Macron came to address a large meeting in London as part of his campaign. If we were to move in that direction, of course British politicians would need to think about which other countries they would go to campaign in. There are some large implications of this which, if I may say so, the Government appear simply not to have thought through as they push this through.
That is the problem with an awful lot of this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord True, will be responsible for having assisted and enabled a thoroughly badly thought-through Bill to become law. That will be on his conscience and his responsibility. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.