House of Commons

Wednesday 27th April 2022 Commons Chamber

Wednesday 27 April 2022

The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock

Prayers

Wednesday 27th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Wednesday 27th April 2022 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

1. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the shared prosperity fund on Northern Ireland.

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis)]

May I first wish the hon. Lady a very happy birthday? Do not worry—I can assure the House that I will not be singing.

The shared prosperity fund is a central pillar of the Government’s ambitious levelling-up agenda and will deliver for communities across Northern Ireland. The fund will inject around £127 million into Northern Ireland over the next three years to support communities, boost local business, and invest in people and skills. We will be working closely with the Northern Ireland Executive and other key stakeholders to develop a plan that reflects the needs of Northern Ireland’s economy and society.

[Ruth Jones]

I thank the Secretary of State for his kind words.

According to the latest Asda Cebr income tracker, Northern Ireland has seen the largest relative fall in discretionary income, amounting to a huge drop of 13.3%. Living standards in Northern Ireland are under the most pressure in the UK, thanks to the Tory cost of living crisis, made in Downing Street. Does the Secretary of State agree that short-changing Northern Ireland with the shared prosperity fund, as in Wales, will only make things worse?

[Brandon Lewis]

Actually, we are boosting our investment in Northern Ireland. If the hon. Lady looks back over the past couple of years, to the previous spending review and the current one, she will see that we have just put in the largest block grant budget for Northern Ireland since devolution began in 1998, and that is aside from the extra investment we are making through the community renewal fund and the new deal, with £400 million for a range of infrastructure projects. We are making the biggest investment in Northern Ireland in decades, and I am proud of that. But she is right that we need to see productivity and employment continue to grow in Northern Ireland, as they have over the past few months, so that we have a prosperous Northern Ireland that can build on the benefits of the Good Friday agreement.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State, Peter Kyle.

[Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)]

The Northern Ireland Finance Minister has said that the shared prosperity money for Northern Ireland is £90 million short of what was provided by the EU. The Conservative manifesto promised that the shared prosperity fund would “at a minimum match” the size of the EU structural funding it replaced. When can we expect the shortfall to be made up?

[Brandon Lewis]

It is worth the hon. Gentleman’s while having a clear look at all the figures going into Northern Ireland, because he is not making a like-for-like comparison. At the spending review we announced that the funding for the UK SPF will ramp up over the years, so that we get to a point where it will at least match the receipts of the EU structural funds. The EU regional development fund and the European social fund, on average, reaching about £1.5 billion a year—

[Peter Kyle]

When?

[Brandon Lewis]

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard later, because I answered that question about 30 seconds ago.

[Peter Kyle]

But is the Secretary of State aware that in the first round of levelling-up funding, Wales applied for and received almost 50% more than was first allocated, and for Scotland the figure was 10%, yet Northern Ireland got 3% less? Will he assure us today that the same will not happen with the shared prosperity fund, and that levelling up for Northern Ireland means more than just being hit by the same tax rises that are being inflicted on the rest of the UK by this Tory Government?

[Brandon Lewis]

Again, the hon. Gentleman needs to look at the figures in the round and realise that, as I have said, we have been making the biggest investment in Northern Ireland in decades—indeed, he may want to apologise for the previous Labour Government’s lack of funding for Northern Ireland. We now have the biggest sum of funding since devolution began in 1998. I saw for myself just this week the benefits that the levelling-up programme and the community renewal funding are making to community projects and businesses in Northern Ireland. That builds on the £2 billion from New Decade, New Approach and the £400 million new deal money, which will boost Northern Ireland. We will continue to do that to see Northern Ireland prosper in future.

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The Secretary of State will know that there is £300 million in a bank account in Stormont that cannot be spent because the Democratic Unionist party walked out of the Executive. He will also know that there are families in Northern Ireland who cannot heat their homes or feed their children. If the Executive cannot meet after the election, will he commit to working with me to get that money into people’s pockets as soon as possible?

[Brandon Lewis]

I agree in part with the hon. Gentleman —it does not happen all that often at the Dispatch Box—because I want to see that money being spent for the benefit of people in Northern Ireland, but I disagree with his analysis of why it is not being spent. That is money from last year’s budget, and for a couple of years running now the current Department of Finance in Northern Ireland has consistently underspent. The Executive needs to find ways of ensuring that the money is properly spent.

I have to say that the hon. Gentleman has also identified a real issue with the Northern Ireland protocol, because the UK has put substantial extra money into the pockets of people across the UK through VAT and fuel duty cuts, but we cannot do some of that directly in Northern Ireland because of the protocol. We have therefore made that money available to the Executive and I want to see it get to the people of Northern Ireland.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

2. What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on negotiations on the Northern Ireland Protocol.

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

13. What recent assessment he has made of the impact of the implementation of the Northern Ireland Protocol on businesses in Northern Ireland.

I meet Cabinet colleagues regularly to discuss Northern Ireland matters, including the Northern Ireland protocol. The protocol does not command the confidence of a significant part of Northern Ireland’s population. This is about making sure that we get the balance right, and deliver on the balance in the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement. That agreement must have primacy, which we have been clear about on many occasions in this House. This is more than an issue of trade; it is about peace and stability, identity and the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom.

[John Spellar]

On trade, I am sure that the Minister will join me in welcoming the latest round of UK-US trade talks yesterday, and the progress on the US policy, and joint policy, of worker-centred trade deals. When we were in Washington last month, it was made absolutely clear to us in Congress that this would be derailed by what many there would see as the undermining of peace on the island of Ireland. They included in that not only the Good Friday agreement, but the Northern Ireland protocol. Is the right hon. Gentleman really going to put at risk a trade deal with the world’s biggest economy?

[Brandon Lewis]

Obviously, the focus of the UK Government’s work is to get trade deals that work for the United Kingdom as a whole United Kingdom. Northern Ireland wants to and should be able to benefit from those trade deals. We have also got to make sure—this should always be our prime focus—in a shared way with our friends in the US, who have a strong interest in the Good Friday agreement, and strong involvement in it and support for it, the primacy and delivery of the Good Friday agreement. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Good Friday agreement has three strands, and east-west is one of them.

[Greg Smith]

The cost of shipping from Great Britain to Northern Ireland is up 27%. Nine out of 10 traders in Northern Ireland are reported to face difficulties with six out of 10 forced to re-route goods because of the protocol. The European Union’s interpretation of the protocol is damaging business now, it is undermining the Good Friday agreement now and it is threatening Northern Ireland’s rightful full place as part of our United Kingdom now, so does my right hon. Friend agree that the time to fix it is right now?

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend makes a very important and accurate point. The protocol and its implementation are having a profound impact, and change is needed urgently to resolve the issues that affect businesses, consumers and communities. I remind the House that this is the consistent position of the UK Government going back to March 2019, when the now Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster outlined the importance of the Good Friday agreement. The Attorney General himself outlined that the Good Friday agreement will always have primacy for the UK Government. It is right that we deliver on that, and we will do.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

After five months since the Government renewed negotiations with the European Union on the protocol, we have no visible progress, have we? Instead, we have a series of op-eds aimlessly threatening article 16. Now, bizarrely, the Prime Minister confirms on a visit to India that he is ready to tear apart his own deal, while expecting the Indian Government to trust him with a new one. Will the Government get a grip on treating negotiations with the respect they deserve, and use something called statecraft, and diligence, to find a settlement with the European Union?

[Brandon Lewis]

I have got used to listening to those on the Opposition Front Bench defending the European Union against the people of the UK on a regular basis, but that was quite something. The reality is that the EU’s protocol implementation —and we are not seeing in the negotiations the flexibility from the EU that we need to see to find a resolution—is detrimentally affecting the people of Northern Ireland. I would respectfully say to the hon. Lady that she should think about standing up for the people of Northern Ireland and the people of the UK. That is what we will do to defend and protect the Good Friday agreement and resolve these issues.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

In those discussions with Cabinet colleagues, will my right hon. Friend commit to pointing out that there would be a terrible hypocrisy if, having pointed out to Russia and her allies the importance of abiding by an international rules-based system, we were then to countenance breaking our internationally agreed obligations?

[Brandon Lewis]

Our position has been consistent, whether set out by the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union or the Attorney General in March 2019. The Secretary of State pointed out that if

“the objectives of the protocol were no longer being proportionately served by its provisions because, for example, it was no longer protecting the 1998 agreement in all its dimensions”—[Official Report, 12 March 2019; Vol. 656, c. 289]—

the UK could seek agreement to end the provisions, which would be, for obvious reasons, no longer necessary to achieve the protocol’s objectives. The objectives of the protocol are very clear and they respect the Good Friday agreement. At the moment, that is under massive threat in all three strands, and we need to make sure we are protecting the peace and prosperity that we have seen in Northern Ireland thanks to the Good Friday agreement.

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

Another week, another rattle of the sabre by threatening to deploy article 16. I wonder who the Secretary of State imagines is impressed by such behaviour, apart from a number of hardliners in a Conservative and Unionist party that seems increasingly incapable of conserving or unifying anything, least of all itself.

[Brandon Lewis]

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman might want to have a closer look at what is happening in Northern Ireland, in the sense that there is a view across all parties that we need to resolve the issues in the protocol. Some parties have stronger views than others about what those issues are. Nobody in the Unionist community supports the protocol any more, so it does not have consent across the communities. We no longer have a First or Deputy First Minister, and we no longer have a North South Ministerial Council. That is the Good Friday agreement under threat. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman stands for, but I stand for defending the Good Friday agreement and defending the United Kingdom, its people and its residents. We will do that.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

In trying to find an alternative to the Northern Ireland protocol that has cross-community support, what note has the Secretary of State taken of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee report of March 2019? The report made it very clear that there are acceptable technological, technical and procedural ways of dealing with the border that do not involve onerous checks of the sort that we see now.

[Brandon Lewis]

My right hon. Friend correctly points out that there are now technical solutions. We have tried to talk to the EU about them, and we want the EU to show flexibility and recognise that there are solutions that can work today to deliver what is required in a way that works in Northern Ireland and protects the single market. We understand and respect the EU’s desire to protect their single market. For us, it is about the Good Friday agreement and the people of Northern Ireland.

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)]

If we are going to use the situation in Ukraine as an example, does the Secretary of State agree that the last piece of advice we would ever give to a sovereign nation such as Ukraine is to cede control of part of its territory to a foreign entity? And yet those who advocate the protocol advocate precisely that—that a large degree of the laws and regulations in Northern Ireland should be imposed by the European Union, and that I and my colleagues should have no say whatsoever in how they are drawn up. The Secretary of State and the Government last year published a Command Paper, indicating steps that they would take to restore Northern Ireland’s place within the UK internal market. When will the Government take those steps?

[Brandon Lewis]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point, not least because in the vision outlined in its opening pages, the protocol makes it clear that we will not disrupt the everyday lives of people and their communities, and that we will respect the internal market of the United Kingdom and all aspects of the Good Friday agreement. Those are the effective vision statements that we are determined to deliver on. As I said, we will keep everything on the table. We want to get a resolution, by agreement with the EU, that respects all aspects of the Good Friday agreement. If we cannot do that, we will need to take action to ensure we deliver on the peace and prosperity of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

The Government are a co-guarantor of the Belfast agreement. The Secretary of State will know that since the introduction of the protocol, the North South Ministerial Council is no longer functioning, and we do not have a fully functioning Northern Ireland Executive. The Assembly is limited in what it can do, and the east-west relationship is at its weakest point since probably 1998. The Government therefore need to send out a clear message to Washington and others that the protocol is incompatible with the aim of maintaining Northern Ireland’s political stability and political institutions, because it changes Northern Ireland’s constitutional status without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland, and that is not acceptable.

[Brandon Lewis]

I understand the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making. We find ourselves in a ridiculous situation where the EU’s position on implementing the protocol means that the very document that was designed to help to protect the Belfast/Good Friday agreement is the thing that is putting it most at risk. We recognise that, and we are very clear that that needs to be resolved.

As I say, we take nothing off the table. We want to get an agreement with the EU, and we want them to recognise the challenges that this is creating for businesses and communities in Northern Ireland. We are clear that we need to, and we will, resolve this issue. If we cannot do so by agreement, we will have to do what is right for the people of the United Kingdom and, obviously, the people of Northern Ireland.

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

3. What assessment he has made of the impact of the “Levelling Up the United Kingdom” White Paper on communities in Northern Ireland.

[The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Conor Burns)]

The “Levelling Up” White Paper sets out clearly and compellingly the Government’s mission to spread prosperity and opportunity to every part of our United Kingdom. Alongside the £617 million in city and growth deal funding, the levelling up, community renewal and community ownership funds have invested £62 million to date in the people and places most in need in Northern Ireland as a demonstration of our commitment to the people of Northern Ireland.

[Alun Cairns]

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing 11 successful levelling up fund applications? Does he agree that the levelling-up agenda, together with the levelling-up fund, the shared prosperity fund and some of the other funds that he mentioned, is an excellent example of how the might of the UK economy can be shared throughout every nation of the UK?

[Conor Burns]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. The levelling-up fund and our commitment to Northern Ireland are unshakeable. The levelling-up fund is yet another demonstration of why Northern Ireland’s place is integrally as part of the United Kingdom. I am looking forward this afternoon to joining the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O'Brien), at the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs to hear him explain the vision for the next phase of levelling up in Northern Ireland.

[Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)]

4. What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of resources for women’s services in Northern Ireland.

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

10. What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of resources for women’s services in Northern Ireland.

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis)]

Women in Northern Ireland cannot currently access the same basic healthcare support that is available in the rest of the UK. This is unacceptable. I have committed to return to Parliament directly following the Assembly elections in May and, if necessary, we will make regulations to ensure that services are commissioned.

[Rosie Duffield]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s confirmation that he will act on abortion services in Northern Ireland after the elections in May, but does he understand that it is hard for women to take his word at face value after so many missed deadlines on this important issue, which will have had real health impacts? Will he please put on record that he intends to lay the regulations that he has prepared before Parliament within a month of the Queen’s Speech?

[Brandon Lewis]

I recognise the hon. Lady’s support for this policy and for women in Northern Ireland. The Department of Health in Northern Ireland must make the services available to women and girls. If it does not, as I have said, I made a commitment to the House on 24 March via a written ministerial statement that I will make regulations to resolve this unacceptable situation that must be fixed for the people and the ladies of Northern Ireland.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s assurances that he will act if necessary after the Queen’s Speech and the elections in Northern Ireland. Does he have a date in mind when women in Northern Ireland will be able to access this essential reproductive healthcare service? When will they actually be able to get the service that this House voted for over two years ago?

[Brandon Lewis]

I am sure that the right hon. Lady recognises that this has primarily been an issue for the Northern Ireland Executive to deliver on. I have been clear: they have not done that, that is not good enough and we need to resolve that issue. We are already recruiting the team from my Department to put the commissioning in place. I will return to the House soon after the May elections if that has not been progressed by the Department of Health to lay the regulations to ensure that these services are provided.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

5. What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on his legislative proposals on Northern Ireland legacy matters. [R]

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis)]

The Government’s core and shared objectives in addressing the legacy of Northern Ireland’s past are to implement an effective investigation and information recovery process that will provide answers for families, deliver on our commitments to those who served in Northern Ireland and help society move forward.

[Dan Jarvis]

Consensus is historically difficult to achieve in Northern Ireland but when it comes to dealing with the past I am sure that we can all agree that the current process is failing those who have suffered, so we need a new way of delivering justice, and soon. Does the Secretary of State agree that his Bill or any proposals he brings forward must not in any way weaken or undermine our commitment to international law?

[Brandon Lewis]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman and I appreciate his support on a point that I have made consistently: the current system is failing everybody. That is why we need to bring forward proposals that work for the people of Northern Ireland, for the victims as well as those who served so admirably in Northern Ireland to protect life and country. I can assure him that we are absolutely determined that this will be article 2-compliant. It has to be for it to be effective for everybody.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The sacrifice made by members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, GC, is one that I and many across Northern Ireland will never forget. Over 300 officers were killed and 9,000 injured at the hands, mainly, of the IRA. A recent report by the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland laden with innuendo has caused great hurt among former RUC officers and families who lost loved ones. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the service and sacrifice of the RUC, the Ulster Defence Regiment and all those who donned a uniform are not besmirched under the auspices of addressing the legacy of the past?

[Brandon Lewis]

Yes, absolutely. The hon. Lady makes a very important point. There are so many people—hundreds of thousands—across the RUC and the armed forces who put their own lives at risk to protect others, and there is a huge difference between those who went out every day to protect life and those who went out determined to destroy lives. There can never be a moral equivalence; we would never accept one. She is absolutely right.

[Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)]

6. What plans his Department has to mark the platinum jubilee of Her Majesty the Queen.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

14. What plans his Department has to mark the platinum jubilee of Her Majesty the Queen.

[The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Conor Burns)]

The Northern Ireland Office is working collaboratively with partners on a range of proposals to celebrate Her Majesty’s platinum jubilee. I am pleased to tell the House that next week we will unveil a jubilee hamper, bringing together the very best of Northern Ireland’s food and drink produce, which we will be presenting to Windsor Castle, Clarence House and Kensington Palace. We want the jubilee in Northern Ireland to bring communities together and celebrate the amazing personal achievement of Her Majesty the Queen.

[Simon Baynes]

My right hon. Friend has touched on the deep respect and admiration that everyone across the United Kingdom has for Her Majesty the Queen—something that we see in Northern Ireland and that I see in Wales, particularly in my constituency of Clwyd South. Does he agree that that is amply demonstrated not only by the plans that he will outline but by the many street parties and local events being planned by communities large and small across the UK?

[Conor Burns]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: this will be an event and a weekend that brings all citizens of our United Kingdom together in celebration as we collectively salute the service of Her Majesty the Queen.

[Andrew Bowie]

We should never forget, of course, that Her Majesty the Queen was among thousands who lost close family members during the troubles and that, by her actions, she has supported the efforts towards peace and reconciliation. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Her Majesty’s platinum jubilee is a fantastic opportunity for communities across Northern Ireland to come together not only to mark this important milestone but to recognise how much progress has been made towards peace and prosperity during her reign?

[Conor Burns]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In Northern Ireland we are determined that the celebration of this historic event will bring communities together. I have acknowledged previously in this House the words of the leader of Sinn Féin, who extended her congratulations to Her Majesty, saying that

“70 years is quite some achievement.”

This jubilee can be celebrated across communities and in every part of our United Kingdom, and we are determined that it will be.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

The Minister will recall that at Northern Ireland questions six weeks ago, he said that

“we will be marking this jubilee with full throttle, joy and celebration,”

and that he and the Secretary of State would be

“coming forward with some very innovative ideas”.—[Official Report, 9 March 2022; Vol. 710, c. 311.]

So far we have a hamper and the potential for an annual garden party. I do not want our celebrations to be lacklustre; I want the NIO to bring a level of sparkle and joy to the platinum jubilee celebrations. Is there more to the plans the Minister will unveil next week?

[Conor Burns]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I, and the whole of the Northern Ireland Office, will be sparkling throughout the jubilee celebrations. We will be unveiling very shortly another very exciting proposal—a competition in Northern Ireland’s schools for something to be presented to Her Majesty on behalf of the young people of Northern Ireland. I assure the hon. Gentleman that he will not be disappointed, and I say that knowing that that is a very high bar to cross with the Democratic Unionist party.

[Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)]

7. What recent discussions he has had with the (a) Northern Ireland Executive and (b) Irish Government on plans for implementing the provisions of the Nationality and Borders Bill.

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis)]

The Government continue our close co-operation with both the Irish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive on immigration matters, including on the Nationality and Borders Bill. We will continue to work, as we always do, to ensure that we are protecting the Good Friday agreement and the common travel area.

[Marion Fellows]

The Nationality and Borders Bill will grant UK Ministers draconian powers to strip UK citizens of their citizenship so long as they can claim citizenship in another country. As most Northern Irish people can claim Irish citizenship, Northern Ireland’s people are threatened in a way no other people in the UK are; they could be stripped of their citizenship without warning or notice. How can the Secretary of State justify that?

[Brandon Lewis]

I thought the hon. Lady was going to outline all the excellent work that the SNP will do in Scotland to start finally taking part in the asylum scheme. At the moment, only one council in Scotland is doing that. Regarding the Nationality and Borders Bill, we will continue to deliver on the Good Friday agreement and respect all its parts, including people’s right to be Northern Irish, Irish, or Northern Irish and British—something we have always done and will continue to do.

[Mr Speaker]

That is the end of Northern Ireland questions. 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.

The Prime Minister was asked—

[Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)]

1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 27 April.

[The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)]

As this will be the final PMQs of this Session, I wanted to remind the House of what we have achieved. More than 20 Acts of Parliament have been passed, including our National Insurance Contributions Act 2022, which will increase the thresholds from July and be worth an average of £330 a year—the largest single personal tax cut for a decade—and our Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 to respond to Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine. We hope by the end of the Session to have passed our Nationality and Borders Bill, to take control of our immigration system; our Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, to make our streets safer; and our Health and Care Bill, to reduce bureaucracy and help to cut the covid backlogs. Only today, new figures show that already, since 2019, we have recruited over 13,500 additional police—well ahead of our 12,000 target. Those police are already on our streets, making our communities safer. We are focusing on delivering the people’s priorities, and there is plenty more to come in the Queen’s Speech on 10 May.

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.

[Sally-Ann Hart]

As a proud maritime nation, the United Kingdom has long relied on its coastal communities to help to deliver national prosperity, but today too many of them face shared challenges and disproportionately high levels of deprivation. Does my right hon. Friend therefore agree that to ensure that beautiful constituencies such as mine—Hastings and Rye—can properly unleash their full potential, a specific and targeted Government strategy focusing on coastal communities is needed; and will he meet me to discuss this?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes indeed, and if my hon. Friend looks at the levelling-up White Paper she will find that it is clearly directed at enhancing and improving the lives of people in our coastal communities, tilting resource and attention to those fantastic communities. I will make sure that she gets a meeting with the relevant Minister as soon as possible.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the Leader of the Opposition.

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

I know the Prime Minister has whipped his Back Benchers to scream and shout, and that is fine, but I hope he has also sent a clear message that there is no place for sexism and misogyny or for looking down on people because of where they come from, in his party, in this House, or in modern Britain.

Next year, the UK is set for the slowest growth and the highest inflation in the G7. Why is the Prime Minister failing to manage the economy?

[The Prime Minister]

First, in response to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said about sexism and misogyny, let me say that I exchanged messages with the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) over the weekend, and I will repeat what I said to her. There can be absolutely no place for such behaviour or such expression in this House, and we should treat each other with the respect that each other deserves.

On the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s point about the economy, yes of course it is true that there is a crisis of inflation around the world, but this Government are tackling it in all the ways you would expect, Mr Speaker. We are helping people with the cost of their energy—putting in far more than Labour would—and we have a British energy security strategy to undo the mistakes made by previous Labour Governments. Above all, we made sure that we had the fastest growth in the G7 last year, which would not have been possible if we had listened to him—frankly, had we listened to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, we would not have come out of lockdown in July last year. Never forget that no Labour Government have left office with unemployment lower than when they came in.

[Keir Starmer]

The Prime Minister sounds like the Comical Ali of the cost of living crisis. He pretends the economy is booming and where there are problems they are global, but in the real world our growth is set to be slower than every G20 country except one—Russia—and our inflation is going to be double that in the rest of the G7. Does he think that denying the facts staring him in the face makes things better or worse for working people?

[The Prime Minister]

The facts are, as the International Monetary Fund has said, that the UK came out of covid faster than anybody else. That is why we had the fastest growth in the G7 last year. That would not have happened if we had listened to Captain Hindsight. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman studies its forecasts, he will see that we will return to being the fastest by 2024 and the fastest in 2025. That is what the IMF forecast says—read it. He asks about working people. This is the Government, this is the party that supports working people, unlike Labour, with the biggest increase—[Interruption.] Yes, I will tell them what is going up: the living wage is going up by record amounts, employment is going up by record amounts. Five hundred thousand more people—[Interruption.] They do not want to hear it. Let me give them the figures: 500,000 more people in paid employment now than there were before the pandemic began and youth unemployment at or near record lows. Under Labour, just to remind everybody, youth unemployment rose by 45%.

[Keir Starmer]

These must be the Oxford Union debating skills we have been hearing so much about: failing to answer the question, rambling incoherently, throwing in garbled metaphors. Powerful stuff, Prime Minister. Here is the problem: it is not just his words that are complacent; it is his actions as well. The cost of living crisis was blindingly obvious months ago, but he said that worries about inflation were unfounded and he backed a tax-hiking Budget. Does he think that his choice to be the only leader in the G7 to raise taxes during a cost of living crisis has made things better or worse for working people?

[The Prime Minister]

As I have just explained to the House, and will repeat once more, this Government and our Chancellor cut taxes on working people. The national insurance contribution went down by an average of £330. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is talking about the health and care levy—maybe that is what he is droning on about—that is what is enabling us to pay for 50,000 more nurses and to pay for clearing the covid backlog. How tragic, how pitiful that the party of Bevan should now be opposed to that investment in the NHS.

[Keir Starmer]

The Prime Minister is an ostrich, perfectly happy keeping his head in the sand. Working people are worried about paying their bills. They are spending less and cutting back. That is bad for business and bad for growth. Working people are looking for help, but this week millions will look at their payslip and see a tax rise with his fingerprints all over it. Does he think that his 15th tax rise has made things better or worse for working people?

[The Prime Minister]

What we are doing for working people is not only lifting the living wage by a record amount and helping people on universal credit with a £1,000 tax cut, but cutting national insurance contributions and lifting the threshold so that, on average, people pay £330 less. What we are also doing is taking our country and our economy forward, investing in our NHS, which is a priority for the people of this country—unlike for the Labour party—and ensuring that we have record creation of jobs. That is what matters: high-wage, high-skill jobs. Half a million more—[Interruption.] Labour Members do not care about jobs; we do. We believe in high-wage, high-skill jobs and that is the answer for the economy.

[Keir Starmer]

It is as if the Prime Minister is only just waking up to the cost of living crisis. And his big idea: fewer MOTs—it actually makes the cones hotline sound visionary and inspirational.

North sea oil producers are making so much unexpected profit that they call themselves a “cash machine”. That cash could be used to keep energy bills down. Instead, the Prime Minister chooses to protect their profits, let household bills rocket and slap taxes on working people who are earning a living. Does he think that that choice has made things better or worse for working people?

[The Prime Minister]

What we are doing is making things better for working people than his plans would by a mile. We are putting in more to support people with their energy costs than he would with his new tax on business. We are putting in £9.1 billion, with an immediate £150 cut in people’s council tax. Labour’s thing raises only £6.6 billion, and it clobbers the very businesses that we need to invest in energy to bring the prices down for people across this country. Clean, green energy—the wind farms, the hydrogen that this country needs. What this Government are also doing is reversing the tragic, historic mistake of the Labour party in refusing to invest in nuclear. We are going to have a nuclear reactor every year, not a nuclear reactor every decade, which is what we got under Labour.

[Keir Starmer]

So the Conservatives are the party of excess oil and gas profits and we are the party of working people. This Tory Government have had their head in the sand throughout the cost of living crisis. First, they let prices get out of control and then they denied it was happening. They failed to do anything about it and then they made it worse with higher taxes. Because of the Prime Minister’s choices, we are set to have the slowest growth and the highest inflation in the G7.

A vote for Labour next week is a vote for a very different set of choices. We would ask oil and gas companies to pay their fair share and reduce energy costs. We would not hammer working people with the worst possible tax at the worst possible time. We would insulate homes to get bills down. And we would close the tax avoidance schemes that have helped the Prime Minister’s Chancellor—where is he?—to reduce his family’s tax bill while putting everyone else’s up. That is a proper plan for the economy, so why does the Prime Minister not get on with it and finally make choices that make things better, not worse, for working people?

[The Prime Minister]

I have listened to the right hon. and learned Gentleman over many weeks and many years, and this guy is doomed to be a permanent spectator. We have a plan to fix the NHS and fix social care; the Opposition have no plan. We have a plan to fix our borders with our deal with Rwanda; they have no plan. We have a plan to take our economy forward; they have no plan.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about the elections in a few days’ time. Let me remind him that everywhere we look at a Labour administration, it is a bankrupt shambles. Labour-run Hammersmith Council spent £27,000 on EU flags three years after the referendum. Labour-run Nottingham Council—bankrupt because of its investment in some communist energy plan, of the kind that he now favours; he should apologise for it. Labour-run Croydon—bankrupt because of its dodgy property deals. And never forget Labour-run Britain in 2010—bankrupt because of what the Labour Government did, and they said that they had “no money” left.

If the right hon. and learned Gentleman looks at council tax—he boasts that he lives in Islington or Camden, or somewhere like that—he should contrast neighbouring Westminster, which has the lowest council tax in the country and better services, too. That is the difference between Labour and Conservative across the country. Vote Conservative on 5 May.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

2. Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming the huge step forward this week in the regeneration of Heanor town centre in my constituency with the successful purchase of the run-down old grammar school building, using the Government’s towns fund money? Does he agree that that is exactly the sort of local delivery that people should be voting on in next week’s local election?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is entirely right: those are the issues on which people will be voting. As I said, they will be voting for better value, better services and lower council tax, and I hope they will be voting Conservative.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the leader of the SNP.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

May I associate myself with the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition about the absolutely disgusting misogyny and sexism witnessed by the deputy leader of the Labour party? What has happened over the past few days should shame us all.

This morning, the Trussell Trust confirmed that 830,000 children across the UK are being left to depend on emergency food parcels. Instead of convening a Tory talking shop at Cabinet, the Prime Minister should be acting to help those children and help families through the cost of living emergency. If he is genuinely looking for ideas to tackle this Tory-made crisis, he would be wiser to look beyond his Cabinet colleagues, who, of course, know that he will not be there for very much longer.

As a parting gift, here is an idea for the Prime Minister. The Scottish Government have introduced, and now doubled, the game-changing Scottish child payment of at least £1,040 a year, helping those families who are being hit the hardest. Is the Prime Minister prepared to match that payment across the UK to help families through this emergency?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course it is important to do everything we can to help families in a tough time. That is why we have massively increased the funds available to local councils to support families facing particular hardship. The holiday activities fund, now running at £200 million, is there as well. We will do everything we can to support families throughout this period when we are dealing with the aftershocks of the covid pandemic. If I may say so—the right hon. Gentleman may not appreciate my pointing it out, but it is true—I think that this is another example of the vital strength of our economic union, and of the importance of support from the UK Treasury, which is what he gets.

[Ian Blackford]

My goodness! We have children facing poverty, and the Scottish Government are responding with the child payment—by the way, it will increase again later this year—but we get nothing but empty words from the Prime Minister. We heard plenty of desperate pre-election waffle, but I will take it as a no: there is no support for hard-pressed families. It is clearer by the day that the Prime Minister’s supposed plan to fight the Tory-made cost of living crisis is not only non-fiscal, but non-existent.

I will try again. Here are three other ideas for the Prime Minister that would help families with their soaring costs right now: scrapping his national insurance tax hike, reversing the Tory cuts to universal credit and matching Scotland’s 6% benefits rise instead of imposing a real-terms cut. Those are three things that would make a difference to millions of people. Has the Prime Minister come to terms with the reality that if he fails to act now, the voters will send him and his sleaze-ridden party a message by voting SNP next Thursday?

[The Prime Minister]

We are helping families up and down the country with the universal credit taper. The right hon. Gentleman asks about universal credit; we are tapering it so that working people get another £1,000 in their pocket. We are helping families in the way that I have described, and I remind the House that under this Government there are now far fewer children in workless households than there were before this Government came in. That is because we believe in championing work, championing employment and helping people into high-wage, high-skill jobs. That is what counts—and as for our respective political longevities, I would not like to bet on him outlasting me.

[Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)]

3. Last April, the West Berkshire child and adolescent mental health services received an additional £120 million to tackle waiting times for autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder diagnoses. Twelve months on, it has outlined a general ambition to reduce delays but has set no targets or timescales for improvement, and some parents are still waiting two years for their children to be seen. Does my right hon. Friend agree that when a significant amount of public money is invested, people have a right to know how and when services will be improved, and will he support my campaign for a 12-month maximum wait for any family in West Berkshire seeking a diagnosis of this kind?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is running a great campaign, and she is absolutely right: the Government are indeed providing funds to improve autism and learning disability services, but it is also important for people to receive the diagnoses and assessments that they need within 12 weeks, and the measures in our Health and Care Bill will improve local accountability for those services.

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)]

The Road Haulage Association has confirmed that the cost of moving goods from this part of the United Kingdom to Northern Ireland has risen by 27% in the first year of the operation of the protocol. The Irish sea border is harming our economy and undermining political stability in Northern Ireland. Next week, the people of Northern Ireland will go to the polls to elect an Assembly. What hope can the Prime Minister give them that the protocol will be removed and Northern Ireland’s place in the UK internal market will be restored?

[The Prime Minister]

I think the whole House will want to support the balance and symmetry of the Good Friday agreement. That is what really matters, and it is a great legacy for all of us. It is vital for the protocol—or the arrangements that we have in Northern Ireland—to command the support of all sides, and that is what this Government will undertake to ensure.

[Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)]

6. I am grateful to the Prime Minister for the additional funds and support that Mansfield has received in recent years for education and skills, for tackling crime, and for our town centre, which will be bidding for the levelling-up fund this spring, but Mansfield residents now want to see the tangible outcomes of those capital funds for the town centre. Will my right hon. Friend look seriously at how we might help to accelerate the often lengthy process of moving from successful funding announcement to spades in the ground, so that our residents can benefit from those investments?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is a fantastic champion for Mansfield and, indeed, the wider area. I am delighted that Mansfield was awarded £12 million as part of the towns fund. I cannot endorse any specific project, but the next round is coming up shortly and will be announced in the autumn.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

4. Fifty-six Members of this House are under investigation for sexual misconduct, and that includes three members of the Prime Minister’s Cabinet. He has just rightly said that there can be no place for sexism and misogyny in the House. Can he now confirm that he considers sexual harassment—unlike, apparently, bullying and lying—to be grounds for dismissal under the ministerial code?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course sexual harassment is intolerable, and it is quite right that Members should now have a procedure whereby they can bring it to the attention of the House authorities. I think that that is a good thing, and of course sexual harassment is grounds for dismissal.

[Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

7. Financial scams have increased dramatically in recent years and are now the most common form of crime, harming millions of families every year. Most of them are made possible by online platforms such as Facebook and Google, which make vast profits from advertising fraudsters. Does my right hon. Friend agree that companies that profit from promoting fraud should help to pay the costs of fraud, and online platforms should compensate the victims whom they have helped to create, and will he work with me to achieve that end?

[The Prime Minister]

I have known my hon. Friend for many years, and this is typical of his creativity. We will be looking at exactly how we could make that kind of measure work. I think it is important for us to proceed with care and get it right, and I will ensure that my hon. Friend has a meeting with the relevant Minister in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport as soon as possible.

[Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

5. Hundreds and thousands of people are still shielding. They are living in fear of covid, as they know that the vaccine has not mounted an antibody response for them and they remain at increased risk of serious illness or death. There is hope, though. Evusheld gives immunocompromised people 83% protection for six months. Sadly, the Government have not ordered any of it, despite the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency giving its approval on 17 March. I appreciate that the Prime Minister might not have all the details to hand, so will he meet me to talk about this life-saving and life-changing drug?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Lady very much; she is absolutely right to speak up for those who are shielding and who are anxious. We are doing everything we can to protect and reassure them. On Evusheld, we are evaluating it at the moment, but I will ensure that she has a meeting as soon as possible with the Department of Health.

[Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)]

8.   My Conservative council in Kensington and Chelsea charges £500 less council tax than neighbouring Labour Camden, and it has four times as many bin collections. You have not misheard: £500 less; four times as many. Does my right hon. Friend agree that everyone who wants low council tax and good services needs to vote Conservative?

[The Prime Minister]

Do I agree with my hon. Friend? There is not a syllable with which any sensible person in this country could possibly dissent.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

9. Last week, a headline in The Daily Telegraph—not normally a paper that I read—stated: “Northern Ireland could be forced to follow EU rules on Covid tests”. The Chancellor has told the House that Northern Ireland could not benefit from moves to scrap VAT on energy efficiency measures because of the protocol, and now the protocol’s restrictions threaten a shortage of covid tests in Northern Ireland. The financial costs of the protocol can be measured, but the true cost, in relation to VAT, medicines, covid tests and damaged relationships, is much, much greater. When are the Government and my Prime Minister going to restore our place in the United Kingdom?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman very much. There is clearly an economic cost to the protocol. That is also now turning into a political problem, and an imbalance in sentiment about it. We need to rectify that balance for the sake of the Good Friday agreement, on which this country depends.

[Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)]

12. By 2025, Liberal Democrat Eastleigh Borough Council will have a debt of £650 million, which is £6,300 for every resident in Eastleigh. Does the Prime Minister think it acceptable for this council to become a speculative property developer, and what advice would he give to my constituents next week if they want to put a stop to this casino council and its profligate ways?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is completely right about Eastleigh Borough Council and the debts it has run up. I cannot even see the leader of the Liberal Democrats in his place here. He is not even delivering value for money for his own constituents.

[Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

10. The cost of household food bills is set to rise by £271 this year as prices soar. The supermarkets are lowering their prices to help customers who are struggling to buy food. The Resolution Foundation has reported that 1.3 million low-income Britons will be pushed into absolute poverty by the cost of living crisis, but this Government are doing nothing to protect people who are struggling. If the supermarkets are stepping in to protect people’s pockets, what will the Prime Minister do?

[The Prime Minister]

What we have done in just the last few months is put in £22 million to help people with the cost of living. I want to pay tribute to those businesses that are now trying to protect consumers from the impact of the global inflation crisis. The fact is that many, many businesses now have the cash reserves not to take prices, as they put it, but to shield consumers from the impact, and I hope that they do so.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

13. I was recently contacted by my counterpart, the Chair of the Ukrainian Treasury Committee, with some ideas on how we can further tighten the screw on the Russian economy, particularly through the international tax regime. I was, of course, able to affirm the full support for the Ukrainian people right across this House. The gentleman concerned also knows the work that my right hon. Friend has done to promote sanctions internationally, but will the Prime Minister meet me to consider these new proposals to make sure that no stone is left unturned in facing up to Putin’s vile regime?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend for what he and his Select Committee have been doing in this area to tighten the screw on Putin’s regime. UK companies have already shown that they think very carefully about investments and doing business with Putin’s Russia. As my right hon. Friend knows, we banned all new outward investment in Russia, but I am very happy to have a meeting as soon as possible to make sure these further ideas are transmitted to the Government.

[Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)]

11. Last night we learned that the Home Secretary put the Member for Wakefield (Imran Ahmad Khan) on an expert panel offering advice on sexual exploitation. At the time, he was under police investigation following allegations that he had assaulted a minor, of which he has since been found guilty. He sat on the panel long after the Conservative party received a complaint from his victim. Is the Prime Minister not ashamed that his party did not take the victim seriously and put someone who abused a minor in such an important position? Does he wish to take this opportunity to apologise to them?

[The Prime Minister]

I believe the Home Office has already made a statement about it. If there is any further comment to make, it will make a statement.

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

14. Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council has secured millions of pounds of Government investment for our high street, but we have a problem with persistent antisocial behaviour on the high street. Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister therefore welcome the recent appointment of a new chief constable for Staffordshire and a new borough commander for Newcastle, and the fact that Newcastle will get its own dedicated response unit? Will he also set out what further measures the Government are taking to combat crime and antisocial behaviour?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is an avid champion for his constituents. He might have missed what I said earlier, but there are now 13,576 more police on the streets of this country as a result of the actions taken by this Government. There are also tougher sentences, which were opposed by the party opposite. We are cracking down on drugs gangs, whereas the Labour party is soft on drugs. I think the Leader of the Opposition said he would decriminalise drugs and that he did not want people found with class A drugs to face prison sentences—I think I heard him say that.

Of course, we are also cracking down on cross-channel gangs that risk the lives of migrants in the English channel. We are cracking down on them and, as far as I know, the Labour party would scrap the economic and migration partnership with Rwanda. We have a plan; they do not.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

Some 4.5 million people pay for their gas and electricity through a prepayment meter. They are already paying more for their energy than direct debit customers, and the number of people who are disconnecting themselves because they have run out of money for the meter is increasing. What is the Prime Minister going to do to ensure that all our constituents have a right to light and warmth?

[The Prime Minister]

We are working with Ofgem and all the companies to ensure that we protect people at this difficult time. We are also making sure that we support people, and not just through the cold weather payment and the winter fuel payment. By giving £0.5 billion more to councils, we are making sure that we look after the types of people to whom the right hon. Gentleman refers, who are finding it particularly tough. We will do everything we can to shield the people of this country as we get through the aftershocks of covid and deal with a global inflation problem.

[Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

Within the past hour or so, it has been reported that some 287 Members of this House have been sanctioned by the Russian state. I am sure nobody here is rushing to change their summer holiday plans, but perhaps the Prime Minister will assure us that he will continue his excellent relationship with President Zelensky and continue to provide the Ukrainian people and military with the support they need.

[The Prime Minister]

It is no disrespect to those who have not been sanctioned when I say that all those 287 should regard it as a badge of honour. What we will do is keep up our robust and principled support for the Ukrainian people and for their right to protect their lives and families, and to defend themselves. That is what this country is doing and it has the overwhelming support of the whole House.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

Today, a court has found that the Government acted unlawfully when their policies led to the discharge of untested patients from hospitals to care homes at the start of the pandemic. The court also found no evidence that the former Health Secretary addressed the issue of the risk to care home residents of such transmission, despite the Government insisting at the time that a “protective ring” had been thrown around care homes.

The Government have once again been found to have broken the law. Will the Prime Minister apologise to the families of the thousands and thousands of people who died in care homes in the first half of 2020? Will he also apologise to care workers for the shameful comment that he made in July 2020, when he said that

“too many care homes didn’t…follow…procedures in the way that they could have”?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course, I want to renew my apologies and sympathies to all those who lost loved ones during the pandemic—people who lost loved ones in care homes. I want to remind the House of what an incredibly difficult time that was and how difficult that decision was. We did not know very much about the disease. The point I was trying to make, to which the hon. Lady refers, is that the thing we did not know in particular was that covid could be transmitted asymptomatically in the way that it was. I wish we had known more about that at the time. As for the ruling she mentions, we will study it and of course respond further in due course.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As you have just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt), the Interfax news agency announced less than an hour ago, in Moscow, that the foreign ministry of the Russian Government will now sanction 287 Members and former Members of the House of Commons—from both sides of this House. I am proud to say that both you and I are on that list. Are you able to give any advice to right hon. and hon. Members of the House of Commons regarding this?

[Mr Speaker]

Normally I would not, but I think this is an important matter, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for letting me know at the start of questions that he wanted to catch my eye. Although the issue he has raised is not strictly a point of order, I am of course alarmed to hear what he has reported to the Chamber. Rather than give a knee-jerk reaction now, I am sure that the Government will rapidly be assessing the implications of this move. I am therefore asking them to keep me and the House authorities briefed on this very important issue, and I shall make sure that Members are kept informed as appropriate.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am distressed that I am not on the list—I am also slightly surprised. I can assume only that the Russian Federation accepts that everything I have said about President Putin over the past few years is true: he is a barbarous villain and we must make sure that he fails.

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman may now have got himself put on that list.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister and the hon. Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan) incorrectly claimed that council tax is lower in Conservative councils; according to the Government’s own live figures, the average council tax bill for a Conservative council is £1,642 while the average for a Labour council is £1,313. So, Conservative council tax bills—this is a fact—are £329 higher than Labour council tax bills. May I seek your advice, Mr Speaker, on how to ensure those facts are put on record?

[Mr Speaker]

We are not going to continue a debate from an earlier question, and the hon. Gentleman has answered his own question, but I do hope he let the hon. Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan) know he was going to mention her in the Chamber; if not, I am sure he will drop her a line.

HM Passport Office Backlogs

Wednesday 27th April 2022 Commons Chamber

12:40

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement about delays at HM Passport Office.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)]

Prior to the pandemic, HM Passport Office routinely processed approximately 7 million passports each year. Over the last two years the necessary restrictions on international travel meant only 4 million people applied for a British passport in 2020 and 5 million in 2021. This left about 5 million unrenewed passports.

In 2022 many of the customers who delayed their application are returning. We expect this year to deal with 9.5 million British passport applications and have been planning for this. Throughout the pandemic, HM Passport Office prepared to serve an unprecedented number of customers. Alongside technical solutions, staffing numbers have been increased by 500 since last April and we are in the process of recruiting a further 700. These preparations ensured passport applications could be processed in record numbers, last month seeing the highest total for any month on record, with HM Passport Office completing the processing of over 1 million applications, 13% higher than the previous record output.

Inevitably, however, faced with this level of demand applications will take longer. Consequently, in April 2021 guidance was changed to clearly advise customers to allow up to 10 weeks to get their passport, in recognition that a surge would arrive as international travel returned. The vast majority of applications continue to be processed within 10 weeks; in fact, over 90% of applications were issued within 6 weeks between January and March 2022, despite the much-increased demand. HM Passport Office also provides an expedited service where an application from the UK has been with it for longer than 10 weeks; 42 applications have been expedited under these criteria since 31 March.

With greater volumes of applications which are in the system for longer, levels of customer contact have inevitably risen. We recognise that difficulties in contacting HM Passport Office will cause concern for those wanting assurances about their applications. In response, the provider of the passport advice line, Teleperformance, has been urgently tasked to add additional staff as its current performance is unacceptable.

To finish, the team at HMPO are dealing with record numbers of applications and delivering a record level of output to match this. Their hard work will enable millions of British citizens to enjoy a holiday abroad this summer, and I thank them for that.

[Yvette Cooper]

From listening to the Minister we would think that actually everything is all right, but my constituents fear their honeymoon may now be wrecked because their passports have not arrived even though they applied in plenty of time, and we have had cases of people cancelling jobs, parents trying to get a holiday for a sick child waiting since January, and huge and long delays by the Passport Office and the contractor, TNT. The message today on the one-week fast-track service is “System busy, please try again later”, and the online premium service has no appointments anywhere in the country. So people cannot get urgent travel such as to go to funerals or to urgent events.

The Minister has said more passports are being processed, which is clearly welcome, but it is not enough. The increase in demand this year was totally predictable. In 2020 and 2021, the Home Office was asked what it was doing to plan, but people are already losing holidays, trips to see loved ones and thousands of pounds that they have spent in good faith because of the lack of planning at the Passport Office and at the Home Office, which is in danger of becoming a “Stay-at-Home Office” instead for people this summer. So what grip does the Minister have on this? Is it going to get better or worse over the next two months? How many passports have already been delayed by longer than the 10-week wait, and how many does the Minister think will be delayed by more than 10 weeks over the next month or two?

On staffing, what is the percentage increase compared with before the pandemic? Is it true that the Minister tried to recruit 1,700 staff and got only 500? When will the fast-track services be reopened? What is his advice to a family who are planning to go on holiday in 10 weeks’ time, in July? Do they have any chance of getting their passport, or should they be trying to cancel right now? The problem is that there is a pattern here: delays in the Passport Office, in Ukraine visas, and in basic asylum cases. The Prime Minister said that the answer may be to privatise the Passport Office, but why do Home Office Ministers not just get a grip instead?

[Kevin Foster]

It is quite interesting to hear all the claims of how predictable all this was. I am struggling to remember the number of times anyone on the shadow Front Bench predicted any of this over the last year or two. I welcome their recently found interest in the Passport Office.

To give some numbers, as of 1 April, there are over 4,000 staff in passport-production roles and, as I say, we are in the process of recruiting another 700. I would also make the point again that 90% of applications were completed within six weeks, and the service standard is 10 weeks. My advice to anyone who is looking to go on holiday this summer is exactly what I said the other day: get an application in now.

We are making a range of efforts. Staff are working weekends; overtime is being incentivised. We are certainly confident that we will not need to change the 10-week target, but as I have said, this is a record level of demand and a record output, far in excess of what we have seen before. We will expedite the applications of those who have compelling and compassionate reasons to travel, such as funerals or family ill health.

We know there are challenges. The teams are working hard to deal with them. [Interruption.] I hear comments about staying at home, but I have not heard a great deal of support from the Labour party for the work of the Minister for Government Efficiency in getting people back into the office, but I am sure that he will welcome the comments we have just heard.

As we see on so many occasions, we are hearing lots of complaints from the Opposition but we are not hearing any solutions or plans. Having just heard from Captain Hindsight, it is no surprise that we are now hearing from Lieutenant Rearview.

[Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)]

My constituent, Mr Neil Jones, made an application for a passport at the end of February for his holiday, for which he is due to depart at the end of May. He sent his passport by ordinary pre-paid post—not by recorded delivery, unfortunately—and he was told by the Passport Office that it had never arrived. He then made a further application with a lost passport form, which has not been dealt with. He finds it almost impossible to speak to any representatives of the Passport Office, and he is under considerable stress as a consequence.

My hon. Friend says that the Passport Office is doing its best and that he recognises the difficulties, but I heard this morning that the Prime Minister has threatened the Passport Office with privatisation. May I suggest to my hon. Friend that he should not shy away from that? If the work can be done more efficiently by the private sector, for goodness’ sake, enlist the private sector.

[Kevin Foster]

Just to be clear, a range of private contractors are already involved in the passport process. The bit that is not undertaken by a private contractor is the decision itself. The customer advice line is run by Teleperformance, a private company. As I have already described, its performance is unacceptable and we are engaged with it.

There is already quite extensive use of the private sector in the process. To be fair, Thales and others have stepped up in the record output that we now require, which is far beyond what would have been expected in a month two or three years ago. The private sector is already being used in the vast majority of the processes in the Passport Office.

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

Like many other Members, I have constituents and family members who have lost a lot of money and had to cancel plans because of the passport delays. I share the concerns for those people, but I want to talk about the workers who, yet again, are about to be blamed.

It is a thankless task to work for a Government agency at the best of times but—worse—they are now being blamed for the Government’s failings. Could it be that they are under-resourced, understaffed and suffering from stress from the pressure to do more faster? In Glasgow, many passport staff were forced into further stress when they were redeployed to process universal credit claims with just five days’ training when it would normally be six weeks’ training. Could that be part of the reason for the backlog? It is certainly another source of stress for them.

Those same workers face the public’s understandable anger, but it is being directed at the wrong place. The Government are throwing them to the wolves: Ministers are leaving notes on desks suggesting workers should work a little harder—and that from a Minister who is known to lie down on the Benches in this place when he is supposed to be at work—and, although I do not have the exact quote, the Prime Minister said something like, “If they don’t sort out this backlog, I will privatise the Boris out of them.” How did that go with rail, energy and water? Is that the plan? Was it the plan all along? Is that why the Government did not foresee this? The Opposition cannot be expected to foresee these things—[Interruption.] I hear coughing; I had better ask my last question. Is there any chance that we can simply respect workers by increasing capacity, decreasing threats against them and sorting out this sorry mess for everybody?

[Kevin Foster]

I start on a point of consensus by thanking the many staff who are working hard and saw a record output last month. It was 13% higher than the previous record, so we are talking about it beating that record not by one but by some distance. As I said, there are 500 extra staff and we are in the process of recruiting more; between January and March, 90% of applications were dealt with within six weeks; and support is there.

The redeployment that the hon. Lady mentioned took place at a time when passport demand was significantly down. It made sense to redeploy people away from a role where there was not the demand and on to things such as universal credit and the EU settlement scheme. To be clear, those staff have now fully returned to passport production, and on 1 April more than 4,000 staff were working on it. Yes, there are issues, particularly in relation to the unacceptable performance of the advice line, which is run by a private contractor, as I have already touched on.

We continue to put in place a range of measures. If people are to travel somewhere, we advise them to get their applications in now. We saw a strong level of applications yesterday. We continue to do the work we need to do and to expedite those cases in which people have compelling and compassionate reasons for travelling.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

Like Members throughout the House, I have a number of constituents who have been waiting for passports for a considerable time, who have had to pay even more for premium services to guarantee their trip, or who are frightened that they are going to miss holidays. I welcome the work that the Minister is doing to speed up the process, and particularly some of the things he said in his statement about people who have been waiting for more than 10 weeks and those who have a particularly urgent need to travel being able to expedite their cases, but will he tell the House how people in such circumstances can access the expedited service?

[Kevin Foster]

That will be partly through contact with the Passport Office, which is why we are moving to deal with the unacceptable issues in relation to the advice line. Some people come through their Members of Parliament—people get in touch about compelling and compassionate reasons for travel for a range of reasons. I reassure people that, as I touched on, 90% of applications were done in six weeks. The vast majority of people still get their passport done well within the 10-week timeline, but there is provision to expedite applications.

As I say, the numbers of people whose applications reach 10 weeks and so need expedition have been fairly low so far. Colleagues will understand that most of the cases that go beyond 10 weeks are ones in which, for example, there is suspicion that a document that has been submitted is not genuine, or particular evidence has not been included, but that would be true at any other time of the year.

I keep going back to the fact that record output is now being achieved. Our strong message to people, if they are planning to travel, is to get their application in now.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

We know that the Home Office is under enormous pressure given the Ukraine visas, the Afghanistan scheme and the asylum claims backlog. It was pleasing to hear the Minister say that plans were put in place well in advance because everyone expected a surge in passport applications once people were able to travel. I have heard what the Minister has had to say. On reflection, why does he think he has been brought to the House today to answer an urgent question? MPs’ inboxes are full of casework in respect of passport delays. What has gone wrong with the plans that the Minister put in place to deal with the surge?

[Kevin Foster]

As we have touched on, we are seeing an unprecedented level of demand: we would normally process 7 million applications in an entire year and did 1 million last month alone. That is a record number. In January, we were seeing around 60,000 a week; by the middle of March we were dealing with more than 200,000 a week—that is output, not just applications. The service has rapidly expanded to meet the demand that has returned.

To be clear, we changed the service standard last year because we expected a surge and there would inevitably be a limit on how many passports could physically be produced in a week. That is why we advised people of the 10-week standard. As I said, though, in recent months 90% of people have still been getting their passport within six weeks and we retain the ability to expedite if people have particularly compelling reasons for travel.

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for his response to the sharp increase in passport applications, but when he reviews passport application processes, will he make walk-in centres more widely available? Will he also properly resource the MP hotline so that we can intervene in individual cases if we feel it is necessary?

[Kevin Foster]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. We have increased the capacity of the counter service, which is similarly seeing much-increased demand. We certainly accept the point that there need to be significant improvements in the performance of the advice line and the MPs’ line, and we are already engaging with Home Office teams about how we can get more resources in so that people can have their queries answered, particularly when Members of Parliament raise issues on behalf of those with compelling and compassionate reasons for travel and therefore need their application to be expedited.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

I have a passport office in my constituency; may I say gently to the Minister that his rather transactional and at times nonchalant approach will not go down well with constituents throughout the country? I have had queries from all over the country because of this situation, and delays have been reported for months on end. Will the Minister confirm whether the backlog is reducing or increasing and how significant that might be? Will he consider compensating those who may have lost holidays outside the times allowed, or the people who have even lost jobs as a result of the problems at the Passport Office?

[Kevin Foster]

I am disappointed to hear the hon. Gentleman’s comments and the tone of them. We have not been nonchalant. Although others have not shown too much interest until now, the teams—including those in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency—have been working hard. In some cases, they have been working extra hours over weekends—for which I pay tribute to them—to produce a record output that is far above any other Passport Office output on record.

What the hon. Gentleman says sounds rather odd when we are recruiting extra staff and making sure that cases can still be expedited if there are urgent demands. We were clear last year that we put the service standard at 10 weeks to make sure people knew that they may need to allow extra time. Last year, we sent 4.7 million texts to those who had not renewed their passport to try to encourage more people to get their passport applications in. Far from our being nonchalant or uninterested, a lot of work has been done. It is a shame that the passport teams working hard in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency are perhaps not getting some of the credit they deserve.

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

I appreciate that the surge is such because people have not been able to go away, which was not unanticipated, but I have not heard of too many problems with the online system. People can do online applications and they have been fairly quick.

I have a number of cases, one of which is from just this morning. I will not mention their name in case they get a miracle and are able to go on holiday to Mykonos on Saturday 7 May—I would not want to advertise that they might be away. They have new twins so have to use the paper-based system. Has the Minister been to the passport office at Peterborough or anywhere else to see the volume of physical mail that is sitting at these offices? Is it that working from home has really not helped the system over this recent period?

[Kevin Foster]

Clearly, there were times over the past couple of years when people were working from home. I have to say that for things such as document scanning, the teams are in the office. A small cohort are employed to work fully digitally, but I have to say that they work on digital applications—for obvious reasons—that can be fully worked on at home. The digital system has provided a great help in dealing with the level of demand, given that it simplifies the process all the way through, including for the applicant. I accept that there are cases in which the digital system cannot be used for particular reasons.

On where we are with the process, things are getting through but, as I say, we advised people to allow 10 weeks, partly because we wanted to be up front with people about potential challenges, but also to ensure that we could get through applications and people did not miss the holidays they had booked. As I say, again, if there are compelling or compassionate reasons, we will look to expedite.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

Last week my constituents Paul and Jacqueline Weir received the distressing news that their Finnish daughter-in-law had passed away suddenly and unexpectedly in their son Daryl’s arms. She was only 34. Daryl and their young son are understandably distraught, and Paul and Jacqueline are desperate to go over to support the family. They applied for an urgent passport renewal and were told that proof of death is required, but those documents may not be available for weeks as the death was unexplained. Can the Minister’s team intervene to ensure that they can go as soon as possible?

[Kevin Foster]

I am very sorry to hear of the death in that family. Absolutely, given the circumstances of travel, I am happy to liaise with the hon. Member and see if we can get the application expedited.

[Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)]

There is undoubtedly a sense of frustration at the length of time it is taking to process passport applications, but we must not forget that those working in the passport offices, in Peterborough and elsewhere, are working extremely hard. Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to thank everyone in the Peterborough passport office for all their hard work and reassure them that their efforts are appreciated?

[Kevin Foster]

I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. The efforts of the team at the Peterborough passport office are certainly much appreciated. As I have touched on several times, we saw record output last month, with over 1 million passports dealt with in just one month, whereas normally we deal with 7 million across a whole year. Many in those teams are working over the weekends to get through the applications. I am very happy to pass on my hon. Friend’s thanks, and I am sure that the staff in the Peterborough passport office very much appreciate his support.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

The Minister asked for solutions, so I will give him one. One reason for the surge in applications is that UK airlines have been misapplying the new post-Brexit passport validity rules, and requiring people to have six months’ validity on their passports when they need only three. Today easyJet has finally put that right and will no longer require six months. Will the Minister get together with the Transport Secretary and tell the other airlines to start implementing the new rules properly?

[Kevin Foster]

I will happily relay that to the Department for Transport, because obviously we are keen that airlines should apply the rules correctly. Those are not our rules on entry; they are for entering the European Union. I do not expect that would massively mitigate the number of applications we are receiving, given that during the pandemic 5 million passports were not renewed, and we expect a lot of people will now want to renew, looking ahead to summer holiday travel, but I certainly welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s point.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

In the year before covid, the aviation industry contributed £22 billion to the UK economy and £3.6 billion to the Exchequer through air passenger duty, and it is expected to be at 70% demand this summer, so we cannot put this at risk, for the sake of our economy. May I press the Minister on what extra resources will be allocated? I also re-emphasise the point about the MPs hotline. Our staff are working for hours each day on Ukrainian refugee cases, and now this is being added to their workload. My caseworker, having been on the phone for hours, then finds she has been cut off. That will not work for us while we deliver on our other responsibilities to our constituents, so can we please get the focus that he talks about?

[Kevin Foster]

As I have already said, the performance of the advice line is unacceptable and needs to change. I know that the relevant director general at the Home Office is meeting with the chief executive of the company tomorrow. It is not just about the MPs hotline; it is also about sorting out the public advice line. We certainly recognise that it needs to be sorted out, so that people can get answers about their applications, alongside the work to ensure that we are driving up output, which ultimately is the solution to these issues.

[Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)]

I am really concerned that the Minister does not understand the scale of the issue. Many of my constituents have been saving for their holidays for years but now risk losing them altogether due to unacceptable delays of well beyond 10 weeks. They are stuck in limbo, unable to get any updates on what is happening with their applications. I am told that constituents’ emails have gone unanswered, that the phone lines cut out and that the online tracking system does not always work. As the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) mentioned, our caseworkers are working relentlessly to try to get updates, but with little success, with lines being cut off, often after queueing for hours to get answers. The Minister really needs to get a grip on this issue, fix the delays and, most importantly, ensure that the people who are waiting are given regular updates on their cases so that they know what is going on.

[Kevin Foster]

The Government fully recognise the scale of the issue. As I said, there are 5 million unrenewed passports and we expect 2.5 million of them to be renewed, and that is on top of the normal 7 million-strong demand each year. Last month we processed over 1 million applications, which is 30% higher than the previous record, and 90% of those between January and March were done within six weeks. We certainly recognise the scale of this and have put in extra resources. The message we want to get out to the public is that if they are planning to travel this summer, they should make their application now, and we will get through it in the time we have said, which is 10 weeks.

[Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

I want to put on the record my thanks to staff in our passport offices up and down the country, who are facing enormous pressures—I wonder whether the Minister has met the trade unions to discuss the issue. I have a constituent who made his application in February but was told this month that his documentation has been lost. He wants to visit his sick mother in Canada but has received no information and is deeply concerned about the delay. The Minister says that cases can be expedited, which is what my staff are trying to do. What can we expect and what is the timeline for resolving this?

[Kevin Foster]

First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments about passport office staff. As he knows, a large number of Home Office staff are based in Liverpool—we have fantastic staff in those decision-making hubs—so it is good of him to recognise their contribution. I understand that there is regular engagement with staff trade unions. Just to be clear, the weekend working is based on incentivised overtime, not on people being compelled to work. If the hon. Gentleman gives me the details of the individual case he raised, I will happily follow it up.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

The Minister said in his opening remarks that over 90% of applications were meeting the timescales, but the particular problems, based on my own casework, seem to be with first-time applications and children. As we have seen with the Homes for Ukraine scheme, we are leaving families hanging while they wait for a child’s application to be processed. What assessment has he made of how the Passport Office is linking applications together, because too many families are losing out while waiting for one application to be processed?

[Kevin Foster]

Passport applications would not usually be linked together as such. It is not like applying for a travel visa, for example, when a family will travel together. This document confirms that someone is a citizen and lasts for 10 years. As I have said, the service standard of 10 weeks applies to paper-based applications and to the digital service, although adult renewals via the digital service will inevitably be quicker, and we would not delay issuing a passport if it was going through the paper process. Certainly, 90% between January and March were issued within six weeks, so not the 10-week standard, and over 1 million were issued last month. For a first passport it may take slightly longer—that is more likely to be a paper-based application—but the 10-week standard still applies.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

In response to the Post Office fiasco, the Prime Minister said yesterday during an interview on TalkTV’s “The News Desk” that he does not care whether an institution such as the Post Office is public or private but it must deliver value and good service. That is why the likes of me have been speaking about the dangers of the privatisation of our NHS and the Tories’ ideological fascination with selling off everything in sight. Whenever there is a problem, why is it always someone else’s job on the line, rather than the Prime Minister’s and those of his Ministers?

[Kevin Foster]

Perhaps I will put my answer to that one in the post.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

People have dying loved ones who cannot be visited; long-awaited family holidays are being postponed or cancelled, and extra costs are being paid to get passports expedited despite the unprecedented cost of living crisis that households are facing. The Minister has acknowledged that there is a problem, so will he take this opportunity to apologise to my constituents for their distress as they wait due to this Government’s failure to properly plan and prepare for this eventuality?

[Kevin Foster]

As I said, where people have a compassionate and compelling reason to travel, such as having been advised that a loved one is entering their final days, then that will be expedited via HMPO. Again, if Members have examples, I am very happy to assist with that.

In terms of overall position, we advertised the 10-week service standard last year. We sent out 4.7 million texts to people who had not renewed their passports to point out that there might be a surge if they wished to travel in the following year. As I say, we are still managing to deal with most passport applications relatively quickly, with over 90% issued with six weeks. We planned, prepared for and delivered a record output last month. No other month has seen over 1 million passports issued.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

There has been a spike in demand for passports, but that should have been anticipated since we know that 5 million people put off renewing their passport during lockdown. Clearly, more resources are needed, more staffing is needed, and, yes, the MP hotline needs to have better services. Dozens and dozens of my constituents have contacted me in utter despair after enduring very long delays, with some having to cancel travel plans and others left in limbo. The Minister’s response that it is being dealt with sounds hollow to those affected by these delays. What more will he do, now, to help my constituents and all those affected by these delays?

[Kevin Foster]

As I said, we have an additional 500 staff and we are in the process of recruiting another 700. We let people know that the service standard was being pushed out to 10 weeks last April, so we did not hide from the fact that there would be a surge. We are planning to issue an additional 2.5 million passports this year compared with what we normally do as business as usual. A large amount of work has been done and more is being done. Between January and March, we still saw 90% of applications being determined within six weeks.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I thank the staff at the Durham passport office and all the other passport offices for the excellent work they do. I mean no criticism of them; my criticism is of process, of senior managers, and, I am afraid, of the Minister. It is a bit rich the Minister asking those on the Opposition Benches for solutions. I wonder why we are paying him if he cannot come up with them himself. Further to my question at Home Office questions on Monday this week, can he confirm that he has made a decision, and is going to write to me, about the issue of the MP hotline? Again, can we have a direct line to a decision maker in a passport office who has access to all the relevant information and who can actually make decisions, rather than MPs and their staff having to sit for hours waiting on phone lines only to be passed from person to person, speaking to people who are unable to make decisions, answer questions or authorise the printing of passports?

[Kevin Foster]

While I do not agree with all the hon. Gentleman’s comments, he makes a fair point about the MP hotline, which certainly does need to be better. I am not going to hide from the fact that the performance of the phone lines has been unacceptable, and we need to improve and change that. I thank him for his recognition of the work that the team at the Durham passport office are doing, which has helped to contribute to the record output we saw last month.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

The failings of private contractors suggest that privatisation is not a solution to passport office backlogs, so will the Minister do two things? First, can he confirm that private contractors have penalty clauses in their contracts, and if so, have they been actioned? Secondly, will he update the advice on the Government website, which says that someone will normally get their passport within five weeks? Not one Member of the House can confidently tell their constituents that, so will he update the Government website to reflect today’s reality?

[Kevin Foster]

I have already spoken about the involvement of private companies, the exception being the decision that is made, for pretty obvious reasons, by directly employed Home Office staff. In terms of the performance of contractors, there are clauses in particular contracts—certainly, as I say, those for Teleperformance. We do not believe that its performance at the moment is at all acceptable, and that has been made very clear.

We are looking at the information that we give, because there is a balance between telling people the time it roughly takes—for example, saying that 90% of applications were dealt with within six weeks between January and March—and being clear that the standard time to allow is 10 weeks. If there is a particular point on the website that does not make that clear, I will be happy to review it.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

I echo the comments made around the Chamber about the work being done in the passport offices. It is really unfair to hear the criticism coming from the Prime Minister, who seems to be speaking at odds to what the Minister is saying. I, like many others, have had a great number of cases of people in my constituency who are struggling to get passports. A particular example is that of young parents with a two-year-old who has an autoimmune condition. They are desperate to get away following his treatment. Will the Minister grant me some time to discuss this, because their holiday is on 10 May and they really need to get away for the good of their child?

[Kevin Foster]

I am happy to have a conversation with the hon. Gentleman after the UQ.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

I pay tribute to Joseph and Christine from the Belfast passport office, who we have great contact with. All Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland have built up a rapport with those two excellent team leaders who are assisting, knowing how difficult it has been over the past three or four weeks. The right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) raised the issue of six months being required by easyJet and other carriers. The Minister will be aware that access to the Schengen area requires a passport that has two aspects: first, three months’ validity; and secondly, being less than 10 years old. But, as he will know, people in the UK may have passports that are 10 years and nine months or 10 years and six months old. They are valid and have three months remaining but they are not less than 10 years old. The gov.uk website has indicated that engagement is going on between the Foreign Office and the European Commission, and has been for the past four or five months, yet we still do not have a resolution. People in this country with a valid passport are now putting more pressure on the passport system because they are unnecessarily applying for new passports. I hope the Minister can engage with this with the Foreign Office and find a resolution so that people with valid passports can travel.

[Kevin Foster]

The hon. Gentleman speaks powerfully and well on this point. I am happy to engage with our colleagues in Government. As long as the passport is valid, it can be used to come back into the UK. This is not a matter of our own rules; as he says, it is about the Schengen rules. However, I am happy to engage with my FCDO colleagues.

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

My constituent Bernadette submitted her application for a passport on 24 January. She chased it up multiple times and spoke to more than 10 different agents who tended to give different information. Some could not find her application; some said that it was closed. She was eventually transferred to the complaints department, who, after leaving her on hold for two hours, told her that her application had indeed been closed and to try again. She reapplied months ago and has heard nothing since. My office has engaged with this. We wrote to the Home Office on 6 April, some 21 days ago, and still have not even had an acknowledgement. What might the Minister say to Bernadette, and to Hannah, Shereen, Lee, Lisa, Stuart and Elizabeth, all of whom have engaged with us and recounted the various issues that they have had with the passport office in recent months?

[Kevin Foster]

It does sound as though something has gone rather wrong there, given that, as I said, back in mid-January the demand was not as high as it became in mid-March. We saw a very strong surge at the end of February and into March, and the output surged as well. As I said, 90% of applications submitted in that time were dealt with in six weeks. Clearly something has gone wrong and I am happy to look at the circumstances after the UQ.

[Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

I, too, thank the passport office staff. I am sure the Minister will be all too aware that the passport processing crisis is not new. One of my constituents has been waiting months for a new passport. They have called the passport office over 80 times since early March but have not received a useful response. With a holiday booked in May, they risk losing thousands and thousands of pounds if they are unable to travel. Can the Minister explain to my constituent why the communication has been so poor and when they should expect to hear back? My constituents need clarity and a resolution of the delays as soon as possible.

[Kevin Foster]

Again, I am happy to pick up separately the particular case. As I have touched on, the 10-week standard is there, and we have not had to expedite many cases beyond 10 weeks. I would not want to speculate on whether there are issues with the application, but I am certainly happy to look into the specific case and get an answer.

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

There are dozens of cases I could raise with the Minister this afternoon, but I will raise the case of Helen, about which my office has been on hold for just over two hours. She spent £7,000 on a holiday and is due to fly out on Sunday. She applied for her passport in January. My staff may get cut off again on the MPs’ hotline, so is there anything that the Minister can do to make sure that my constituent Helen will go on holiday? If she does not, what can she do for compensation, because that was a very expensive holiday?

[Kevin Foster]

I am certainly happy to pick up the point. Certainly if it has been going on since January, I suspect we are now beyond the 10 weeks, and something should be done. Obviously I do not want to get into speculation about issues with the application—that would not be appropriate on the Floor of the House—but if the hon. Member supplies me with the details, I will be happy to look into the case.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

Over the past year, I and my team have been supporting Mr and Mrs Puri from Whitton in my constituency. Mrs Puri’s brother and sister-in-law in India both died of covid, leaving behind very young children without parents. Mrs Puri has been in India, separated from her children here, for a year trying to adopt her niece and nephew and bring them over. Thankfully, a little over two months ago they were granted British citizenship. She applied for passports for those children immediately. Despite my interventions, they are still waiting for their passports. Will the Minister please urgently look at this tragic and exceptional case and meet me, so that the whole Puri family can be reunited after a year and those young Indian children can start their new life here in the UK?

[Kevin Foster]

Obviously we are sorry to hear of the circumstances. There are issues sometimes with issuing passports overseas, particularly where, for example, there have been local restrictions, but given the circumstances, I would be very happy to pick up the case and see what we can do, or if we can arrange some sort of documentation to allow them to travel pending the passports.

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

We are hearing so many moving cases where there have been deep failures within the Home Office that are not being addressed and need to be addressed. I have no doubt that Passport Office staff are working incredibly hard, but they can only work effectively if they have the resources to do so. I find it astonishing that the Government are unable to manage a Government agency. I have a constituent who is a dual national and who has applied for her passport to be renewed, which took several months. That has been resolved, but she was told that she would receive her passport within two weeks, and it has been more than four weeks. She cannot get through to the Passport Office by any means, and my staff were cut off from the MPs’ hotline after 45 minutes, but they are persistent. Will the Minister agree to look at that case as well?

[Kevin Foster]

I am very happy to. As I have touched on, we accept that the performance of the telephone lines is not acceptable, and we are making moves to change that, but I am happy to pick up that particular case.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Like all Members who have spoken, I have had several constituents experience delays. One pinch point seems to be the private contractor responsible for delivering passports. Even once a passport has been processed, they seem to go on little holidays of their own all around the UK until they eventually arrive—or not—on the constituent’s doorstep. Can the Minister speak to that private contractor and perhaps look at options for people to collect their passports from a depot, rather than having to stay in all day in the hope that the passport might arrive?

[Kevin Foster]

There has been some significant engagement on performance and improvement with FedEx, the parent company of TNT, which does most of our delivery. Given the surge in demand, we have brought online DHL, which we use for our international deliveries, to increase the delivery capacity. Supporting documents are now also being returned via Royal Mail, because with the surge in demand, we have also had to surge our ability to deliver. Certainly there are issues there, although from our big bulk production sites it would actually take more time to fish passports out of a large pile than it would to allow them to be delivered to people directly, and there are obviously some security issues with ensuring that we give a passport to the person entitled to it.

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

My constituent made a passport application for himself and his daughter in June 2021. He provided his original marriage deed and his daughter’s birth certificate. These are Syrian documents, and because of the situation in Syria they are irreplaceable. These documents have gone missing and despite formal complaints, representations from his own lawyer, a phone call from my office and an email from my office, we are yet to receive a reply on what has happened. Will the Minister urgently look into this case?

[Kevin Foster]

Very happy to. It sounds rather different from the issues of surge and the other areas we are talking about, if it has been going on since June 2021, but I am very happy to pick up the particular details of this case.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

I have to go with someone whose birthday it is, haven’t I? I call Ruth Jones.

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

The staff working at the Passport Office in my constituency of Newport West have been working incredibly hard under difficult circumstances, but they require additional staff to deal with the record demand to which the Minister has already alluded. The staff union, the Public and Commercial Services Union, has claimed that the Passport Office planned to recruit 1,700 new staff members to help deal with this increased demand, but only 300 have actually been brought in so far. Can the Minister confirm those reports?

[Kevin Foster]

I can confirm that we have increased staff numbers by 500 since April 2021, and we are in the process of recruiting another 700. As of 1 April, there were more than 4,000 staff in passport production roles. We are also offering incentivised overtime as well, for those who are prepared to work at weekends. We are increasing the resources and the staffing, and again I pay tribute to the staff working at the Newport passport office, who are doing a tremendous job under a lot of pressure.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I have a Passport Office in my constituency, and while I am sure they are all working hard, I am distressed to hear from my constituents about how they believe they have been let down and lied to by staff who they have been dealing with. Can I ask the Minister a very specific question? My constituent Sean was the victim of an unprovoked assault with a knife last year, and he has just discovered that his passport has a puncture hole and blood stains on it. Can the Minister give some advice on whether Sean needs to apply for a new passport before his holiday in a fortnight’s time, or will the one that he has suffice?

[Kevin Foster]

It might be worth discussing the specifics afterwards, depending on how badly damaged the passport is, but I suspect we need to look at dealing with that compassionately, as it is compelling, particularly where he wants to go on holiday with a passport that will immediately remind him of what happened. If we get the details afterwards, I know the team would be happy to help, particularly assuming that it is a straightforward adult renewal, which it sounds like it would be.

[Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)]

Did the Minister receive my letter this week that was signed by almost 100 parliamentarians on this very issue? I wrote to him because of the troubles we were having in my office, all of which have been more than adequately described by many people here today. Is he going to do anything to help people who have lost their holidays and not had all their money reimbursed? They put everything in with plenty of time. They have spent hours on the phone, as have my staff. In one example, a whole family going to Euro Disney did not get to go because the five-year-old’s passport did not arrive, all the other family members having got theirs. This cannot go on. He has made some effort to say what he will be doing, but does he really think that is enough?

[Kevin Foster]

Well, what we are going to do is on top of what we have already done in increasing staffing numbers and increasing production to record levels of more than a million in one month. We were also very clear to the public last year about the 10-week allowance for doing it and the ability to get applications expedited if they have been outstanding for more than 10 weeks. I would not want to speculate about individual applications —sometimes things will go beyond 10 weeks for particular reasons relating to the application—but we have done a lot already. We have got to a record level of output, and there is more on the way, with more staff being recruited. Separately, we are looking to sort out the staffing issues in relation to the advice line.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

Last night, in response to a written question I submitted on average processing time for passport applications, I was told that the Department did not have the information available, which, given what we have heard today, does not fill me with confidence that the Department has a grip on what is necessary to deal with these issues.

Turning to constituency problems, which many hon. Members have already raised, I obviously also have many constituents who have had serious delays with the Passport Office. There are two families who applied in early February who have still not had their passports. They are due to go away in the next few days. They cannot speak to anyone on the telephone and neither can my constituency staff. They applied in time and have played by the rules. If I send the Minister the information, will he personally intervene to ensure that they get those passports in time?

[Kevin Foster]

To the latter part, yes. I am happy to have the details. As I have said, in terms of processing times, between January and March, more than 90% of cases were completed within six weeks. Although we advise people to allow 10 weeks, the vast majority of people are getting their passports much more quickly.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I appreciate what the Minister says about understanding the problems, but I feel that saying to people, “Get your applications in on time,” does not really cover it. One of our main problems is that when our staff call, they are asked whether it is passports, Ukraine or other. Most of the cases that need to be expedited come under “other”, but when they go on to that line, the people there say, “Email us.” We are already doing that and emails are lying there unanswered for two months. At the moment, in every area, the Home Office seems to be high on rhetoric and low on delivery. Can the Minister take back to the Secretary of the State that this is simply not working anymore and that drastic action is needed to knock the system into shape?

[Kevin Foster]

Advising people to apply strikes me as good advice if people are planning a holiday. I am pleased to note that since that advice was given we have seen more applications coming in this week. In terms of being low on delivery, we delivered more than 1 million passport decisions last month—a record number. There is a significant amount of work being done by dedicated teams. We are bringing in more staff to be able to do more. We have even expanded our delivery network to cope with the output that we now have, as touched on in an answer to a previous question. We recognise those pressures and those issues, but that is why we have advised for some time to allow 10 weeks. If people are looking to go on holiday this summer, our advice is firmly, “Get your application in now.”

[Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)]

Delays with processing passports are causing huge delays to my constituents and those across the country, as we have heard. The lack of planning by the Government, not to mention not providing enough staff to manage what everyone could see would be a huge demand, smacks of incompetence. We have an MPs hotline that cannot provide information to help constituents and that is currently not fit for purpose. In addition, I have constituents who paid a fast-track fee only for my staff to be told—after waiting for three hours yesterday—that paying the fee does not guarantee fast track. The Government have caused this mess and the undue pressure on staff in the passport offices, so when will they get a grip and sort the problem out?

[Kevin Foster]

Again, let us go back to what we have already said: 4.7 million texts were sent out last year; 1 million passports were issued last month—a record amount; more staff are being recruited; and existing staff, if they wish, are being given the opportunity to work incentivised overtime. There has been a large amount of planning and work done to meet the challenge, but inevitably, with 2.5 million extra passport applications due this year, on top of the 7 million that we expect to receive from those whose passports fall due this year, there were going to be pressures in the system. That is why we were up front in April last year in changing the service standard and doing some campaign work to remind people of that. We are now doing everything we can, including bringing in extra staff, to ensure that we can meet the surge of demand that is there. As I said, between January and March, 90% of people got their passport within six weeks.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for coming to the House today. He has certainly been across his brief, so I thank him very much for that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) said, I pay tribute to staff in the Belfast office for all their hard work, particularly Christine and Joseph, who are exceptional when they are contacted. Honeymoons, family reunions and holidays postponed because of covid are all being affected. I am dealing with passport applications from January. A particular problem appears to be children, as was eloquently outlined earlier. Will the Minister outline when more fast-track appointments will become available? There are currently none available across the United Kingdom.

[Kevin Foster]

I thank the hon. Member for her kind comments about the staff in the Belfast passport office, following on from the similar comments of the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson). I know that they will be very much appreciated by the staff concerned. We release additional fast-track appointments every day. With the level of demand that we are seeing, they are taken up relatively quickly whereas normally there might be availability over a number of days. We have looked to expand the number of counter appointments, but she will appreciate that there is a limit to how many we can realistically offer each day. In some cases, some of the slots to do that sort of expedition would instead be used to deal with compelling and compassionate applications where someone urgently needs a passport to travel for some of the reasons that I have touched on.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)]

I raise the case of my constituent Elliot Joshua Rees of Pontyates near Llanelli, who made his initial application on 8 February, more than 10 weeks ago. The application seemingly hit a series of barriers resulting from his parents’ marriage certificate, which is Austrian, despite the family providing a certified translation. The family are due to go on holiday in the next few weeks. Will the Minister please look at that specific case?

[Kevin Foster]

Certainly, if the application is over 10 weeks and the family are due to travel, I know that the Passport Office will be happy to expedite that and resolve it. It sounds like there has been a specific issue with it. I am happy if the hon. Gentleman wants to raise that with me directly.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)]

There is no doubt that staff across the UK have been working hard, but a constituent submitted an application more than 10 weeks before travel. Her Majesty’s Passport Office made a series of mistakes and seriously mishandled it; it even lost my constituent’s documents. When my office tried to help, it told my staff on one occasion that the application had not been made until a week after our first contact with it about the application. I also wrote to its director general, who never responded. What is the Home Office doing to implement meaningful routes of escalation and to address where there have been failings in specific cases?

[Kevin Foster]

I am sorry to hear of the hon. Lady’s experience. As already touched on a number of times in this UQ, I accept that the current performance of the advice lines for members of the public and Members of Parliament is not what it should be. That does need to change. On the specific case, I am happy for her to raise the details with me after the session.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his industrious efforts to try to solve the problem; it is clear that he is trying to do that. I echo the comments about the staff in the Belfast office, who are assiduous in their response on behalf of our constituents. This morning, three more constituent families—on top of the dozens of others—have contacted my office to say that they cannot get their passports, which are in date but with six months’ life left on them. It is about solutions, so what discussions have there been with Brussels to secure a mutually beneficial extension to enable my constituents to have their holidays and them to get British moneys into the local tourist economy?

[Kevin Foster]

Certainly, colleagues in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office regularly engage with our European friends about the rules and about entry, particularly into the Schengen area where the common rules apply based on the European Union’s rules. Obviously, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we have a more flexible approach the other way around in terms of our visitor rules and entry to the UK. We regularly remind our colleagues that it would be nice if they replicated that and looked at the benefits that our more generous visitor routes bring to the UK, particularly Northern Ireland’s tourist economy.

We always save the best until last in UQs with the hon. Gentleman. I thank him for his kind remarks about the staff at the Belfast passport office, who I know will very much appreciate them.

Channel 4 Privatisation

Wednesday 27th April 2022 Commons Chamber

13:38

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the privatisation of Channel 4.

[The Minister for Media, Data and Digital Infrastructure (Julia Lopez)]

Our TV and radio industry is one of our great success stories, and public service broadcasters such as Channel 4 are central to that success. Our PSBs sit at the heart of our broadcasting system, delivering distinctive, high-quality content and helping to develop skills, talent and growth across the entire country.

However, the broadcasting world has changed beyond recognition in recent years. Rapid changes in technology and the rise of American streaming giants such as Netflix, Amazon Prime and Disney+, not to mention YouTube and social media platforms, have transformed audience habits. Viewers can watch what they want, when they want, on their laptop, phone, smart TV or Fire stick. As a result, while streaming services have enjoyed a 19% increase in subscribers in recent years, the share of total viewers for linear TV channels such as the BBC and ITV has fallen by more than 20%.

The Government are determined to protect the role of PSBs in our nation’s economic, cultural and democratic life, and to make sure that they remain at the heart of our broadcasting system no matter what the future holds. Tomorrow, therefore, we will be publishing a White Paper that proposes major reforms to our decades-old broadcasting regulations—reforms that will put traditional broadcasters such as the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 on an even playing field with Netflix, Amazon Prime and others, and enable them to thrive in the streaming age. We will set out the full details of our proposals when the White Paper is published.

It is important to understand that the sale of Channel 4 is just one part of that major piece of reform. Like the rest of the White Paper, it is a reflection of the transformation that broadcasting has undergone in the last few years and the need to make sure that our PSBs can keep pace with those changes.

Channel 4 has done a fantastic job in fulfilling the original mission that it was set by the Thatcher Government: to spur independent production and deliver cutting-edge content. The independent production sector has exploded in the last few decades, growing from a £500 million industry in 1995 to an industry of approximately £3 billion in 2019. However, since it was structured to address the challenges of the 1980s, there are limits to Channel 4’s ability to adapt to the 2020s and beyond.

Channel 4 now faces a new set of challenges. It faces huge competition for audience share and advertising spend from a wider range of players, many of whose deep pockets have been driving up production costs. Streamers such as Netflix spent £779 million on UK productions in 2020, more than twice as much as Channel 4. While other PSBs, such as the BBC and Channel 5, have the freedom to make and sell their own content, Channel 4 has no in-house studio and relies almost entirely on linear television advertising spend at a time when those revenues are rapidly shifting online.

Under its current form of ownership, Channel 4 has few options to grow, invest and compete. The Government believe that it is time to unleash the broadcaster’s full potential and to open Channel 4 up to private ownership and investment—crucially, while protecting its public service broadcasting remit. We believe we can sell Channel 4 to a buyer who will fund emerging talent and independent and impartial news, and invest in every corner of the UK.

We intend to use the proceeds of the sale to tackle today’s broadcasting challenges. As I said, our independent production sector is thriving. Only 7% of its revenue comes from Channel 4. The much bigger challenge we face is a shortage of skills. Our film and TV studios are booming. We need to give people the skills to fill the jobs in them, so we will reinvest the proceeds of a Channel 4 sale into levelling up the creative sector and giving people in left-behind areas the training and opportunity to work in the industry.

The sale of Channel 4 will not just benefit the broadcaster; it will deliver a creative dividend for the entire country. As I said, the future of Channel 4 is just one part of our wider reform of the entire broadcasting sector, and I look forward to providing the House with the full details shortly.

[Lucy Powell]

The sell-off of Channel 4 is an important matter for Parliament, yet instead of a statement we had announcement by tweet during recess, and now we hear that a White Paper is to be published tomorrow, when we will not be here and there will not be an opportunity for statements. Where is the Secretary of State to defend her policy today? It is a pattern, and it is a disgrace. Nothing screams rudderless Government like fixating on the governance of Channel 4 while people’s energy bills are going through the roof. It did not even make the list of pretty bad ideas discussed at yesterday’s Cabinet.

Why sell off Channel 4, and why now? Is it because there is an overwhelming clamour from the public? The Government still have not published the 60,000 consultation responses, but my understanding is that the vast majority were against any sale. Is it to help level up the country? Given that Channel 4 commissions half its budget outside London, creating a pipeline of talent across the nations and regions, and stimulating the creative economy in places such as Leeds, Glasgow and Bristol, of course it is not. Is it to create more British jobs in our world-leading creative industries? The Minister and I both know that the likely buyers are going to be the big US media companies, looking for a shop window for their own content. That will mean fewer British-made programmes for British audiences and fewer British jobs. Any UK bidder could lead to less competition, and of course they would be looking at economies of scale.

Is it to support the independent production sector? Channel 4 is currently, uniquely, a publisher-broadcaster, allowing start-ups and independents to retain the value of their own programmes, helping them grow and export. No buyer is going to continue with that model. That is why the UK independent production sector is so overwhelmingly against the sell-off. Or is it to save the Treasury money? I know that the Secretary of State was a bit confused about this in front of the Select Committee, but Channel 4 does not cost the taxpayer a single penny. Indeed, its profits are all reinvested in British jobs and programming.

The Secretary of State says the sell-off is needed to help Channel 4 compete with the likes of Netflix and Amazon. The truth is it will be gobbled up by them. She says the sell-off will generate a pot of up to £1 billion for her to dish out in grants, but Channel 4 already invests that amount here, commercially, each and every year. She says she will protect the essence of Channel 4 in a new remit, but I thought that was the straitjacket she wanted to free it from. The truth is that the sell-off just does not stack up, and the Secretary of State is running scared of Parliament. In fact, it is going to clog up Parliament for months to come because she has no mandate to do it and there is widespread opposition to it on her own Benches.

I can only conclude that this is a deliberate distraction from partygate, a vendetta against Channel 4 news coverage, or another act of cultural vandalism. Channel 4 is a great British asset, owned by the public, that does not cost them a penny. It commissions award-winning British programmes owned by the small independent sector. That is why Margaret Thatcher invented it, and that is why the Government are wrong to sell it off.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I really do need to remind both Front Benchers that in an urgent question the Minister has three minutes, the shadow Minister has two minutes, and the SNP spokesperson has one minute. [Interruption.] No—if it is a statement, it is different. I call Minister Lopez.

[Julia Lopez]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is important to say that tomorrow is a sitting day, and we bid for a ministerial statement on this subject.

We are very keen that the House understands that the Channel 4 sale is not a stand-alone issue; it sits within a very important series of reforms that we as a Government want to make to the public service broadcasting system. Channel 4 is an incredibly important economic asset in that ecosystem, and we want to make sure that it is sustainable not just now but long into the future. We think it is our responsibility as the Government to do that future-gazing and to make sure that Channel 4 has the freedom and flexibility it needs to be able to make changes to thrive.

There are two important things to understand about Channel 4. First, it cannot retain control of its own intellectual property, and therefore it does not have the same financial flexibility as the likes of ITV and the BBC, both of which have their own studios. Secondly, its borrowing sits on the public balance sheet, and therefore if it required greater financial flexibility in the future, the Treasury would need to be content with that.

As I say, tomorrow is a sitting day. We had very much hoped that we would be able to set the sale of Channel 4 in the context of a wider series of incredibly important reforms that we wish to make to the public service broadcasting sector. I regret that the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) does not think this is an important issue and has dismissed it as some culture war. That could not be further from the truth. The last time that important broadcasting reforms were made was 2003. I hope she will agree that the broadcasting world has changed immeasurably since then, and that the Government would not be responsible if we did not address some of those changes.

We think the public service broadcasters play an incredibly important democratic, cultural and economic role in our nation’s life and we want to sustain that role, so we think the privatisation of Channel 4 is an important part of a wider series of reforms. We will make further details available to colleagues, and I will be engaging one-to-one with colleagues who have concerns as we go forward.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

The Minister may or may not have been convinced by the words that she read out, but I do not think that they convinced the House. Channel 4 is in the best state that it has been in creatively or financially for decades. We were told that it is supposed to be able to compete with Netflix, but Netflix is a loss-making, debt-ridden business whose share price is now $198 when it was $700—an enormous drop.

If the choice for the country is about Channel 4’s specific remit and structure as a publisher-commissioner that does not hold programme rights, the Government could do best by leaving it alone. If they do not, they could engage with Channel 4’s management team about its proposals—I am not sure that we have all seen them in public—and explain why they prefer to go to the United States than to have a state broadcaster that is independent of Government.

Those in government may not like Channel 4 because it may criticise the Government in its news output, but it is better to be in government and criticised than to be in opposition and cheer.

[Julia Lopez]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. It is important to understand that the Secretary of State and I went into the entire process with a very open mind—[Interruption.] That is certainly true. We went into this looking at what is best for the public service broadcasting sector as a whole going forward. We looked incredibly carefully at alternatives, and I hope that the material that we will publish tomorrow will assure him of that fact. We think that we can get the right blend by retaining Channel 4’s public service broadcast remit, which maintains its distinct and unique appeal, while enabling it to get the private sector capital investment that it requires to deal with some of the wider challenges presented by the likes of Netflix.

I appreciate what my hon. Friend said about changes in subscriptions. I think that underlines the volatility of the market and the need to be able to compete and invest in content. That is incredibly important. If Channel 4 is to remain uniquely appealing, we need that investment in content, and we believe that the reforms will give it greater sustainability going forward.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson, John Nicolson.

[John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

Well, here we go again: a Secretary of State, oblivious to the unanimous opposition of the sector, is ploughing on with a politically motivated privatisation. She knew so little about Channel 4 that she thought it was publicly funded and had to be corrected by a Tory colleague on camera. Channel 4 costs the taxpayer nothing. The cynical motivation for the policy is simple: it is payback time; it is revenge. The Government hate “Channel 4 News” and its rigorous journalism holding Ministers to account.

The Minister mentioned a Netflix-style model, ignoring the fact that Netflix, unlike Channel 4, loses money—it is currently $15 billion in debt—and does not send war correspondents to Ukraine. Will she therefore listen to the experts, or must we wait for the Sue Gray report, the Prime Minister’s defenestration and the Secretary of State’s replacement?

[Julia Lopez]

I thank the hon. Member for his question. I did not suggest that Channel 4 would pursue a Netflix subscription model; I simply made the point that Netflix and others—this is not a Netflix issue alone—are changing the dynamics of the marketplace very rapidly. People now view content in very different ways and I do not think it would be a wise, sensible or responsible approach to leave PSBs untouched and unable to have the flexibility that they need to address some of those fundamental challenges.

The hon. Member made a number of unpleasant comments about the Secretary of State. She is not the first Secretary of State to have considered this question. This is not a Secretary of State-specific point of view but a question that has been live for a number of years. It was looked at previously, and the fundamental changes in the market have only deepened since that time with the move away from linear advertising and the rapid change in viewing habits. She took the responsible decision to look not just at Channel 4 but at how we ensure that public service broadcasters have the flexibility they need to be able to provide the content that we all love. She has done a sensible thing in looking at the decision afresh and dealing with it head on, and she has courage in doing so.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Julian Knight.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

I am concerned to hear that the media Bill White Paper will be published tomorrow, a day when we may not have an opportunity to see the full details. I hope that we will not have to rely on the media round in the morning to get those details.

On Channel 4 privatisation. I start from the position that everything should be in the private sector unless there is the strongest of cases that public ownership is absolutely essential. I therefore broadly welcome the concept of privatisation, but what assurances can the Minister give me that the privatisation is a game worth the candle? Will it be part of a redesign of public service content ensuring prominence, collaborative working of a whole new order and a continued driver of BBC reform to gradually and safely wean it off the licence fee?

[Julia Lopez]

First, I thank my hon. Friend for his engagement on the issue and for the work of his Committee, which the Department very much values. I was able to speak to him about the proposal previously, and I am glad that we have a meeting scheduled for later today, for which my plan had been to take him through some of the wider reforms that we wish to make in the PSB sector and offer him the assurances that he seeks. As he knows from previous conversations, the Secretary of State and I were adamant that the proposal needed to go hand in hand with a creative dividend and a wider set of reforms to make it a success.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The UK has the best broadcasting in the world by a country mile. In so many different genres—drama, comedy and natural history—we lead the world, which is remarkable considering that we are a relatively small economy compared with the rest of the world. Channel 4 is intrinsic to making all of that work because it does something that no other broadcaster in the world ever did: it guarantees diversity through the private sector for everybody. I therefore cannot understand why the Minister would want to dismantle it. Will she say just one thing to me? If she does sell it off, will she ensure that it can be owned only by people who pay taxes in this country?

[Julia Lopez]

I agree with the hon. Member about how fantastic our broadcasting sector is—it has unrivalled creativity—and we are seeking fundamentally to preserve that in the reforms that we are making. In this country, we are able to have a great blend of specific public service remits that private broadcasters can deliver, and that is what we would seek to do with Channel 4 going forward, protecting the things that we enjoy and love about it. We believe that any future buyer of Channel 4 would seek to purchase it precisely to tap into the specific markets that it appeals to.

[Chris Bryant]

Will they be British?

[Julia Lopez]

I will not speculate on the nationality of any company. We will be looking at bidders who share our vision for Channel 4, the important role that it plays in investment in our creative industries and the distinct and unique remit that it has in our country. We can provide further details as the process goes on, but I will not stand here and make commitments and crowd out particular buyers for an important UK company.

[Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)]

Channel 4 is a prized national asset that was created by Margaret Thatcher 40 years ago. It puts public service before profit and continues to be sustainable, so why are the Government failing to consider its detailed plans to address their concerns? The plans were set out very clearly in a document entitled “4: The Next Episode”, which was provided to the Government on 28 January this year.

[Julia Lopez]

My hon. Friend plays an important role through her work with the all-party parliamentary group for Channel 4, and I am glad for the engagement that we have already had on the issue. I am also glad that she recognised the role of the Thatcher Government in creating this special entity. As I mentioned in my statement, it was set up to spur independent production in this country, and it has done a fantastic job in that, but the world has changed fundamentally.

My hon. Friend raises the alternatives that Channel 4’s management put forward. I assure her that we gave detailed consideration to those plans and tomorrow we will provide further details in a set of documents as to why we decided that they are not the right way forward. We also have duties to the taxpayer, to the wider creative sector and to the audience. Our reforms are really to sustain Channel 4’s place in in our creative ecology.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

Channel 4 invests about £20 million a year in Scottish independent production companies, contributing £36 million in gross value added and supporting about 400 jobs. I am proud that it has a hub in my constituency. Glasgow-based indies do get contracts with Netflix and the others, but they are clear that the Channel 4 model is at the heart of their success. Why would the Minister put all that at risk with privatisation?

[Julia Lopez]

We do not think we are putting it at risk. There are a number of things we can do via the PSB remit on quotas for independent production and we would seek to maintain those. We will be bringing forward a series of reforms that we hope, ultimately, will grow the sector over the period of time we are talking, such that all independent producers will benefit.

[Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

My hon. Friend was right, of course, to say that previous Secretaries of State have considered the privatisation of Channel 4, but she will also recognise that not all of us were persuaded at the time that it was the right thing to do. If the Government are determined to privatise Channel 4, she will also recognise, I am sure, that one of the things that makes Channel 4 distinctive is its willingness to take risks and commission work it cannot be sure will be successful. By doing so, it encourages creatives in the sector to take risks themselves. That is good for the sector and good for our broadcasting. Can she reassure me that if privatisation proceeds, the Department will be particularly focused on making sure that that provision is retained in the broadcasting landscape?

[Julia Lopez]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his question. In recognition of what he says, the reason that previous Secretaries of State looked at this matter was that they could see a number of trends, particularly on spend on linear advertising, that were only going in the wrong direction for a broadcaster like Channel 4, which is uniquely dependent on that spend. Something like 70% of its revenues come from linear advertising spend. I think he would recognise the speed of change in the sector and the fundamental changes in viewing habits, particularly among younger audiences. We think it is responsible for any Government to be very cognisant of that. He will be aware that a number of things can be done in terms of remit and how we engineer the sale to ensure that what is unique, distinct and valued about Channel 4 can be maintained and protected going forward.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

I feel a bit sorry for the Minister, because the Secretary of State is not here. We all know what the game is: this shabby little bunch in No. 10 are determined to undermine public service broadcasting in our country. As she said, this is part of a wider attack on the BBC and all public service broadcasting in the week when the forces of darkness, in the shape of the richest man in the world, have gobbled up Twitter. The fact of the matter is that if we do not stand firm—[Interruption.] The Whip is either having a bad attack or he has indigestion, but this is not funny. For a party and a Government who believe in levelling up, this will do great damage to Leeds and the creative industries in the north of England. The forces of darkness are on the rampage. Channel 4 will be gobbled up in no time by someone like the richest man in the world.

[Julia Lopez]

I am desperately grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s sympathy and I am sure I will need it going forward. I would just simply say that the reforms we seek to make are about the fundamental sustainability of the public service broadcasting system. If the Opposition wish to bury their heads in the sand and pretend that those fundamental changes are not happening, then that is for them to worry about. We are making a series of fundamental reforms. As I say, the legislation was last looked at in 2003. This Secretary of State is looking fundamentally at this area to make sure that we are serving audiences, the taxpayer and the wider creative sector. I commend her for having the courage to make those changes.

[Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is aware of my profound scepticism about the wisdom of the action the Government are taking on this matter. I keep reading that the Prime Minister wants Departments to do Conservative things. May I therefore urge on the Minister the very Conservative action of listening to the voice of small business—the many small businesses and creative companies—that Members from all sides of the House are praising because they provide innovation, creativity and jobs around the country, precisely serving the levelling-up agenda? Can she tell us, having looked at the consultation responses the Government have not published, what is the overwhelming voice from those small businesses? They are all saying that Channel 4 is not broke and does not need fixing in this way. They are urging the Government not to go down this route.

[Julia Lopez]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his engagement already on this issue and I appreciate the conversations we have had. We will publish the consultation responses tomorrow. As I said, we have a whole package of information that hon. Members will no doubt scrutinise and hold us to account for, but I hope that they will also welcome it, because this is a series of important reforms. This is fundamentally about growing and sustaining our fantastic creative sector to the benefit not only of audiences but of the small businesses he cites. One thing we are keen to secure is a creative dividend to deal with the challenges that companies are actually talking to me about, which are the skills required for the booming production sector we have in this country.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

Ampere Analysis says that privatisation would put independent production companies out of business. As the Member of Parliament for Bradford West, Channel 4 in Leeds makes a real difference to diversity, especially in news channels and in journalism as a whole. Can the Minister assure me that if we go down that road and they privatise it, the buyer will be required to maintain the presence and trajectory of workforce growth in Channel 4’s regional offices in Leeds, Glasgow, Bristol and Manchester?

[Julia Lopez]

The hon. Lady is right to highlight the great investment that Channel 4 has made in Leeds, which was actually at the encouragement of previous Secretaries of State when we previously looked at the question of privatisation. In our relationship with Channel 4, we have encouraged it to seek to increase what it does in the regions and nations of our country, and we think it has done a great job of that. We value the contribution it has made to regions and cities, and we will very much seek to preserve that in any sale process.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

Channel 4 has been a driver of the independent sector. As the Minister knows, the independent sector trade body is raising considerable concerns about the impact of privatisation on the sector. Will she tell the House whether she intends to retain, in the privatisation details, an obligation and a quota for the independent private sector?

[Julia Lopez]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the important point that we can get a number of our aims in relation to independent production via quotas in the public service broadcasting remit. We will be seeking to do that. We will provide further details as the process goes on, but I hope that when we are able to publish the White Paper tomorrow he will see that we will seek to retain and modernise the approach we take to independent production such that the companies he is concerned about will be able to benefit.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The small businesses in the creative sector in Northern Ireland have revolutionised television production in Northern Ireland beyond recognition. No one would have thought that a film about four or five wee girls growing up in the maiden city in Northern Ireland would have been such a dramatic success in every single aspect. That would not have happened without Channel 4. That is the reality. There are 81 jobs in Northern Ireland supported directly by Channel 4. It contributes £8 million annually to Northern Ireland’s GVA. Over a quarter of £1 billion is contributed to Northern Ireland as a result of television and film making. Nine television dramas and six major films were made last year in Northern Ireland. What will the Minister do to ensure that the production fund and the independent fund, which have supported jobs, production and apprenticeships in companies such as Waddell Media, Stellify Media, Strident Media and Fired Up Films, will be protected going forward?

[Julia Lopez]

I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman remind the House of the thriving creative sector in Northern Ireland, and the tremendous programmes and content that have come out of the place that he represents. That is something we all celebrate. We think that any future buyer would look at the unique and distinct content that Channel 4 provides as one of its great assets. We are able to protect some of that via the remit, which we would seek to do, but it is also important that Channel 4 is only one part of why the creative sector has been very successful in Northern Ireland. I commend him and his constituents for the contribution they have made to that success.

[Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)]

I agree with the Minister that there have been massive changes to the broadcasting sector, in particular in TV advertising and particularly for linear TV. It is right that we do not leave PSBs in aspic, but will she confirm that there will be an ongoing commitment in PSBs for prime time news? It is important that we have a diversity of voices in news. Will there be that commitment to prime time news for Channel 4 under a new ownership model?

[Julia Lopez]

It is frustrating that I cannot set this entire question within the wider context of the reforms that we seek to make. Public service broadcasting is valued by the Government precisely because it provides the kind of content in which a lot of commercial operators are not necessarily inclined to invest. The challenge is to want to make channels continue to be PSBs. The reforms that we are introducing will provide people with a number of advantages in being public service broadcasters that we hope will mean that the important democratic content, which we all value, is retained in the future broadcasting system. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend and I am happy to continue to engage with him during the process, because he is a champion for the sector and has a number of important views that need to be considered.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

Under private ownership, Channel 4’s output will be dictated by profit rather than public service, and I share the concerns about creative risk taking and the impact on diversity when commissioning content—would we see “Derry Girls”, “The Last Leg” and Mo Gilligan? Does the Minister agree that private ownership will dilute, rather than enrich, broadcasters’ programming?

[Julia Lopez]

There is a fundamental misunderstanding that private ownership and being a public service broadcaster are at odds with each other. The whole point of what we are trying to achieve is to get capital investment and have a distinct public service broadcasting remit. We hope that that blend will sustain Channel 4 long into the future. It is important that those who are not in favour of privatisation answer some of the fundamental questions about the long-term trends that concern us as a Government.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

How do the proposals genuinely fit in with our levelling-up agenda? What protections and safeguards would be put in place to ensure that Channel 4’s HQ not only stays in Leeds, but continues to flourish there? What safeguards can be put on Channel 4’s excellent commitment to quality regional TV production so that it can continue to flourish, particularly because Channel 4 currently invests more in independent production companies outside London than any other broadcaster and supports thousands of jobs outside London?

[Julia Lopez]

I know that my hon. Friend is concerned about Yorkshire and the importance of ensuring that creative businesses there thrive. We share that fundamental aim. As I mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter), the key thing is that we need broadcasters to wish to retain their public service broadcasting remit, because it includes our ability to impose quotas on production spend, including outside London. My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) will know that his area has benefited substantially from that. We are seeking to stitch those kinds of commitments into not only the PSB remit, but the sale process, so that our aims on levelling up align with any future owners’ aims on levelling up.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

Shall we just remind ourselves of what things were like in the past? When I was growing up, there was an awful lot of pretty mediocre stuff on the box from across the pond, such as “The Lucy Show”, “Lost in Space” or “Batman”. As the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said, however, we have had a cultural renaissance since then. Today, we have a British broadcasting product that is the envy of the world. Let us remember that, for the United Kingdom, that equals soft power, which is very important in these dark days. I have a straightforward economic question for the Minister. A new owner will want to make a profit and they will take money out. How will that possibly not impact on the money that would otherwise be spent in genuine local production companies the length and breadth of the United Kingdom, including in Scotland?

[Julia Lopez]

I always enjoy engaging with the hon. Gentleman. The Government do not see “profit” as a dirty word; profit is key to creating investment in the companies and kinds of content that he is concerned about. He is right to celebrate Channel 4. We celebrate it and all the fantastic content that it brings, but this is about maintaining and increasing spend on content. That is why we will have a series of reforms in tomorrow’s broadcasting White Paper that I hope will reassure him of our intentions as a Government to have a sustainable PSB sector. I go back to the point that, through the PSB system, we get commitments in the remit to the kind of news content that he is absolutely right to highlight as incredibly important to our soft power.

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

Channel 4 spent £516 million on original content in 2006. That number fell to £329 million because advertising incomes fell at a similar pace. Does my hon. Friend agree that unless we do something, Channel 4 is at risk of stagnating, and that we can keep a similar news remit, commitment to diversity and investment in nations and regions in a different model?

[Julia Lopez]

I agree about the fundamental trends that my right hon. Friend highlights, and about some of his concerns. Channel 4 has fundamentally accepted those concerns in providing us with a range of alternative options, which we have looked at very carefully. We believe that the route we are highlighting is right because, through that, we will have a more sustainable public service broadcasting system, and we will be able to maintain the content and our commitments to some of the less commercially viable programming that audiences very much value.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

During the previous statement, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), told the House that it was difficult to predict the huge surge in the demand for passports once the lockdown restrictions had been lifted. Surely, however, it was possible to predict that over the lockdown period, the demand for Netflix subscriptions would increase dramatically because people did not have any alternative. It is surely also completely predictable that now that those restrictions are lifted, the demand for Netflix subscriptions will decline. That is reflected in subscriptions and share prices. Given the cost of living crisis, why push ahead with forcing a successful, publicly owned Channel 4 to adopt a privately financed model when subscriptions are becoming a luxury that many people and families simply cannot afford?

[Julia Lopez]

The hon. Gentleman needs to understand that we are not seeking to have a subscription model for Channel 4. On the issues that we have highlighted relating to Netflix, there are trends that predate the pandemic, involving younger audiences, certainly, moving away from linear television and the decline in linear television advertising. The Government think that addressing all those things is incredibly important, because our public service broadcasters produce a whole range of free-to-air products that we want to maintain as free-to-air products. The range of reforms that we will introduce tomorrow are about the sustainability of the whole PSB sector. I hope that that reassures him that his constituents will continue to get high-quality British content long into the future.

[Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

Up and down the country, public service broadcasters, such as Channel 4, the BBC and ITV, are treasured national assets, delivering vital news, education, entertainment and sport. In rural areas such as mine, people depend on free-to-air terrestrial TV, especially in areas with poor internet coverage. I know that the Government are working on that, and my hon. Friend is working with me to help to improve that situation in rural Cumbria, but please, please can I urge the Government to rethink this Channel 4 privatisation idea? Now is the time to support and bolster our public service broadcasters, not challenge them or lead them to being a competitive, subscription-based service, which is the last thing that our rural communities need.

[Julia Lopez]

I thank my hon. Friend for all his work on connectivity in his constituency. I am pleased to say that Cumbria is one of our priority procurements for gigabit roll-out and I look forward to working with him on that. I simply refer him to my previous answers: we would maintain Channel 4 as a free-to-air service. We are not looking for a subscription model. Everything that we are doing seeks to bolster the public service broadcasting sector. I hope that when he sees the context in which this decision has been made, he will feel reassured.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

Diolch, Madam Deputy Speaker. I echo concerns that others have raised that the privatisation of Channel 4 might jeopardise its investment in communities across the UK as part of its public service remit, and its quotas relating to commissioning content in each nation of the United Kingdom. That investment has amounted to more than £77 million in Wales in the past 10 years, and supported over 200 jobs in 2019 alone. Will the Minister elaborate on how the Government will seek to ensure that that valuable contribution continues, even if privatisation proceeds?

[Julia Lopez]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s comments about the importance of creative investment in his region. I cannot be too detailed at the moment, because the White Paper is coming out tomorrow, but I hope that he will have taken heart from my comments about how we can put quotas in the public service broadcasting remit to ensure a certain level of non-London production spend and investment in our regions and nations.

[Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)]

Independent production companies across our nations and regions rely on Channel 4’s current operating model. Channel 4 is an important public service broadcaster, but that does not mean that it has to be owned by the Government. Will my hon. Friend explain how levels of independent production can be protected as the channel is sold?

[Julia Lopez]

In having a more sustainable public service broadcasting system, we seek to not only maintain investment and content production, but expand them. If we did not make the series of reforms that we seek to, we would be concerned about the withering of something that we believe audiences and the creative economy cherish. When we are able to provide further details, I hope that my hon. Friend will be reassured by some of the things that we hope to do in this field.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

This is not levelling up, is it, Minister? It is levelling down. It is closing down independent producers, largely in the north of England. For the supply chain, it will mean laying off up to 2,000 workers. Look, cut the ideological rubbish and think again. Make your mark as a Minister and put this in the bin.

[Julia Lopez]

I am not sure that I wish to thank the hon. Gentleman for his slightly demeaning approach. I do not think that I have been particularly ideological in anything that I have said today; I have been clear that the reforms we seek to make are about the sustainability of the public service broadcasting sector that I value, he values, this House values and—most importantly—audiences value. We need to make sure that the PSB sector is sustainable. The Opposition can bury their head in the sand when it comes to current trends, but fundamentally, the reforms that we are bringing forward tomorrow aim to ensure that the things that the nation values culturally, democratically and economically are taken forward in tomorrow’s broadcasting system.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

The hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) knows that he should not address the Minister directly like that.

[Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)]

Having worked as a news presenter both at the BBC and at Channel Five, my feeling is categorically that the commitment to high-quality journalism is just as strong in the private sector as in the public sector. Rightly, much has been made of the calibre of some of Channel 4’s programming, but tonight’s schedule includes “The Great Home Transformation”, “Grand Designs: The Streets”, “Bling Ring: Hollywood Heist” and “Shocking Emergency Calls UK”. I assume that the Minister might agree that those programmes could just as easily be produced by a private sector owner.

[Julia Lopez]

I very much enjoyed my hon. Friend’s contribution to the reception celebrating 25 years of Channel Five. The channel has made some very interesting news investments recently; it has taken up top-quality presenters and has really invested in its news content. That proves that private sector investment in our broadcasters can mean higher-quality content that is more attuned to what audiences of the 21st century want. I welcome the interest of any company that wants to do to Channel 4 what has happened to Channel Five, with the high-quality programming that it provides.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

I may have my facts wrong, but as I understand it, Channel 4 is phenomenally successful. Its subscription service levels are something like a third higher than Netflix’s in the UK, and All 4 is the largest subscription service in this country. Channel 4 does not cost the taxpayer anything, yet it generates £1 billion per year for the UK economy. Other than the scrutiny of Government, what is not to like?

[Julia Lopez]

The Government are thinking carefully about the fundamental sustainability and future of the Channel 4 model. The hon. Gentleman may be aware of two key points about Channel 4: it does not retain ownership of its intellectual property, and any borrowing it does sits on the public balance sheet. Given its dependence on linear advertising, we have concerns, looking at viewer trends, that that model will be difficult to sustain if Channel 4 is to continue to make the investment in content that I think we all want. We are therefore looking afresh at what Channel 4 needs, not only to sustain itself, but to grow. I hope that what we bring forward will help the hon. Gentleman to understand how this reform sits within a wider set of reforms to sustain our public service broadcasters.

[Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)]

We have seen some excellent examples of public service broadcasting. I grew up not too far from the Central Independent Television studios in Nottingham and have been a fan of Channel 4 over the years, particularly “Fifteen to One”, “Football Italia”, and my favourite, “The Crystal Maze”. I am not too sure which zone the Opposition are in today, but does the Minister agree that this deal not only makes really good financial sense for the Government, but allows the purchasers of Channel 4 to raise capital to produce even more of the independent programming that we all value?

[Julia Lopez]

I very much welcome the opportunity to talk in this House about “The Crystal Maze” and the fantastic content that Channel 4 has produced over the years. Our reforms are fundamentally about making sure that Channel 4 can continue to make the investments that my hon. Friend and I both want in that kind of unique, fun and distinctive programming.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)]

All 4 is the UK’s largest free-of-charge streaming service, providing entertainment and educational programming across the UK, without regard to users’ income, which is particularly important in this economic crisis. How can the Government believe that removing that service will benefit low-income families?

[Julia Lopez]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question and her concern, but I do not think that anything we seek to do in relation to Channel 4 would deprive low-income families of free-to-air content on it. Channel 4 has made really great strides in the digital space. We think that that will be attractive to any future buyer, and that any future buyer would seek not only to sustain that, but expand it.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I am convinced that the Minister believes in the importance of maintaining an impartial media. At a time when the phrase “fake news” has risen to prominence, that is vital. Furthermore, it is critical for the Minister to state that the integrity of independent journalism is a priority, and that the Government are at pains to maintain it. Can she confirm that for Hansard, please?

[Julia Lopez]

I always welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments and his perspective from Strangford. As I hope I have reassured him through my comments today, this is about the fundamental sustainability of the public service broadcasting sector. If channels wish to remain PSBs, they will still take on the obligations that the Government place on them through their remit, which can, importantly, include the production of impartial news content. I hope that the reforms that we bring forward will assure him that such remits will be taken forward and sustained, so that we have high-quality, important journalism going forward.

Points of Order

Wednesday 27th April 2022 Commons Chamber

14:19

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I believe that the Father of the House also wishes to make a point of order, but I will come to the shadow Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport afterwards. I assume that her point of order relates to something that happened in the urgent question, so the Minister for Media, Data and Digital Infrastructure might like to stay for it.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

If the other point of order is about the urgent question, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am happy to wait.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Thank you.

[Lucy Powell]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Could you advise me on whether you have received notice that there will be a statement tomorrow? If not, what advice would you give the House about the very important White Paper, given that we are expecting Prorogation today, that the business will fall very early, and that there will be very little opportunity for statements and oral interrogation?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Lady for that point of order. My understanding, from what the Minister said, was that there had been a plan to make a statement tomorrow to coincide with the publishing of the White Paper. Obviously, if tomorrow is a sitting day, it is possible to have urgent questions or statements. Does the Minister want to add anything to that?

[The Minister for Media, Data and Digital Infrastructure (Julia Lopez)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was advised by my officials that we had put in for a statement tomorrow.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

That would be an oral statement, I imagine?

[Julia Lopez]

We are awaiting confirmation of whether it will be written or oral. We put in notice of our intention to publish the White Paper tomorrow, and are waiting to hear whether there will be a written or oral statement.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

It will be possible to make an oral statement tomorrow, should the Minister wish to, and for there to be an urgent question then, if tomorrow ends up being a sitting day. There are a number of imponderables, but I hope that that explains the various options available. I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

May I say first, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I think we have the sense from both the Chair and the Chamber that the House would wish this to be an oral statement that the Government do actually manage to make, so that those of us who want to do so can question the Government on it?

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—and this is a separate point. During the exchanges on the urgent question, I saw a copy of a personalised letter delivered by post from the Labour leader to named constituents of mine, asking them to vote on 5 May, the day of the local elections. I want to know whether the Electoral Commission has approved this as part of a local election expense, or whether it is a national election expense. I should like to know whether the Electoral Commission will answer that question this week rather than next week, whether it would require evidence to be gathered both by itself and by the police lest there should be a case afterwards, and whether Mr Speaker might be able to take this up at 4 pm, when he is due to have a private meeting on the Electoral Commission.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, but it is not really a matter for the Chair. Obviously, as he mentioned, there are questions that he can raise with the Electoral Commission. I rather think that letters are sent out during election campaigns, from different party leaders—but, as I have said, this is not really a matter for the Chair, and as the hon. Gentleman said, he could raise it with the Electoral Commission should he so wish.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice. In last week’s privileges debate, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) mentioned a number of constituencies in the House, and supposedly quoted constituents. May I ask first, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether it is normal practice to inform Members that their constituencies are to be referred to in that particular way, and secondly, whether it is normal practice to advise Members representing the constituents whom they are quoting? I should add that I notified the right hon. Gentleman of my intention to make this point of order.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving notice of his point of order. Obviously the Chair is not responsible for the content of hon. Members’ speeches. The guide to courtesies in the Chamber says that Members should notify colleagues if they are going to refer to them in the Chamber, other than making passing references to public statements; if they intend to table questions that specifically affect those colleagues’ constituencies; or if they intend to visit a colleague’s constituency. It may therefore be felt that Members should inform colleagues if they intend to quote extensively from one of their constituents, but I think that that would apply especially if a Member was intending to make a political point about the colleague concerned, as opposed to, perhaps, quoting from correspondence that might have been received. Obviously the hon. Gentleman has informed the leader of the Liberal Democrats of his point of order, so he may wish to pursue the matter further with him.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During Prime Minister’s questions today, the Prime Minister repeated his claim that there are more people in employment now than there were when the pandemic began. However, the chair of the UK Statistics Authority wrote to the Prime Minister when he made that assertion previously in February, telling him that it was misleading. May I seek your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, on what the House can and should do if a Minister repeats a claim which that Minister has been directly and categorically told by a relevant authority is misleading?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I must stress again that the Chair is not responsible for the content of Members’ speeches, but obviously it is important for information given to the House to be accurate. I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench have heard the hon. Lady’s point of order, and that, if necessary, the matter will be addressed appropriately and action taken to correct the record if it is considered necessary.

Import of Products of Forced Labour From Xinjiang (Prohibition)

1st reading
Wednesday 27th April 2022 Commons Chamber

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

14:35

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the import of products made by forced labour in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region; to require all companies importing products from Xinjiang to the UK to provide proof that the manufacture of those products has not involved forced labour; and for connected purposes.

The Bill has two simple aims: aims that are already deeply enshrined in our international human rights obligations, and which we now wish to implement. The first is to prohibit the import of products made by forced labour in the Xinjiang region, and the second is to require all companies importing products from Xinjiang to the UK to provide proof that their manufacture has not involved forced labour. I do not believe for a moment that this is in any way controversial, or is something to which the people of the United Kingdom would object. Indeed, I am convinced that people across these islands would want to know that what they pick up in their local supermarket or hardware store, or purchase from an online retailer, has not been made by slave labour.

In 2021, in its annual report on people trafficking, the US State Department reported:

“In Xinjiang, the government is the trafficker. Authorities use threats of physical violence, forcible drug intake, physical and sexual abuse, and torture to force detainees to work in adjacent or off-site factories or worksites producing garments, footwear, carpets, yarn, food products, holiday decorations, building materials, extractives, materials for solar power equipment and other renewable energy components, consumer electronics, bedding, hair products, cleaning supplies, personal protective equipment, face masks, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and other goods—and these goods are finding their way into businesses and homes around the world.”

That is why, in December 2021, President Biden signed into law an Act, which had passed through Congress with support on both sides of the aisle, to ensure that

“all goods, wares, articles, and merchandise mined, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part”

in Xinjiang could not enter the United States unless businesses could prove that what they were importing had not been produced with forced labour. The Act puts the United States way ahead of the rest of the international community in confronting China’s abuse of the Uyghurs, because, crucially, it makes the assumption that goods coming from Xinjiang are made with forced labour, and businesses will have to prove that that is not the case before they can be brought into the country.

The US legislation has received widespread support from human rights campaigners and the Uyghur diaspora. Nury Turkel, a United States-educated Uyghur-American lawyer and a commissioner on the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, has challenged countries that are reluctant to follow the US lead on this issue, asking, “How do you propose to get China to change without going after the most important thing to the Chinese Government, which is their economic interest?” He is absolutely right, because whether we like it or not, the only thing that will make the Chinese Government change their behaviour is the imposition of meaningful economic sanctions. I think that consumers here in the United Kingdom would welcome the confidence that when they purchase goods that have been produced or imported from China, they are not inadvertently complicit in China’s horrific human rights abuses.

In 2020, the UK Government said that they would

“continue to urge the Chinese authorities to change their approach in Xinjiang and respect international human rights norms, both bilaterally with China, and at the UN alongside our international partners.”

There is, however, no evidence whatsoever that that approach has worked, and it is clear that China has not paid the slightest heed to what the UK Government—or, indeed, anyone else—has had to say about its human rights record. Now, perhaps, with the United States increasing the pressure and leading the way with this new legislation, it is time for the UK and others to follow.

On Wednesday night the Government tabled an amendment to the Health and Care Bill that recognised the serious problem of products produced as a result of slavery and human trafficking entering the supply chain in NHS procurement. It has been known for some time that billions of pounds’-worth of NHS medical equipment has been sourced in whole or in part from forced labour in Xinjiang. That fact was recognised earlier this month, with Lord Blencathra saying:

“Despite widespread reports of forced labour in that region, our supply chain laws have failed to prevent such procurement.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 April 2022; Vol. 820, c. 2011.]

It is an outrage that our healthcare workers have been forced to put on PPE that originated in the forced labour camps of Xinjiang. Something has to be done about it, and I applaud the work done by the World Uyghur Council and the British Medical Association on highlighting the scandal of PPE procurement that resulted in Uyghur slave-made goods flooding into the UK and into the NHS in particular.

I welcome the Government’s amendment that recognises the scale of the problem and gives the Secretary of State the power to do something about it, but it is not, in and of itself, the answer. It cannot be seen as anything more than a welcome first step in tackling this issue. The wording of the amendment is weak, as it merely states:

“The Secretary of State must by regulations make such provision as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate with a view to eradicating the use in the health service in England of goods or services that are tainted by slavery and human trafficking.”

That amendment should have been far more explicit. It should have stated categorically that anything tainted by slavery or human trafficking would not be permitted to enter the supply chain of NHS procurement, and that the onus for proving that it had not come from the forced labour camps of Xinjiang should be on those importing the equipment. But it is a first step, and having formally recognised the problem that the NHS is being flooded by such goods and products, we must now work to ensure that all other sectors of our economy exclude products that are tainted by slavery or forced labour. There is only one way of doing that, and that is through legislation.

We would all like to believe that slavery has been consigned to the pages of history. Sadly, we know that that is not the case and that this abhorrent practice is still widespread in parts of the world, including in China where many of the 1 million to 2 million Uyghurs who have disappeared are working under forced labour conditions. We also know that, despite claiming to have ethical business models and to be champions of best practices in safeguarding human rights, there is credible evidence to suggest that many recognisable high street brands are complicit in using exploited Uyghur forced labour in their supply chains. That means that, as consumers, we have no idea if the clothes we wear, the phones we carry and the variety of other everyday consumer goods we take for granted have been made in these forced labour camps before arriving on our high streets.

This has gone on for far too long, with companies and entire countries turning a blind eye to modern slavery in the interests of continuing the supply of consumer goods and maximising commercial profit. It has to stop, and in the absence of a copper-bottomed commitment by the companies to make it stop, we will have to follow the lead of Congress and legislate to make it stop. If these companies are telling the truth, and if they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear from legislation such as this.

Whether we like it or not, the global economy is tainted by Uyghur slavery and forced labour, and China’s treatment of the Uyghurs is a challenge for the world and a test of just how robust the international community’s commitment is to universal human rights when it comes into conflict with multinational commercial interests. We cannot now pretend that we do not know what is happening in Xinjiang. We can no longer be blissfully unaware that so much of what we consume is the product of slave labour. And we cannot kid ourselves on that we cannot do anything about it.

Loose arrangements, voluntary codes, finger wagging and sage advice have, by and large, failed to stop companies and importers being extremely lax in their attitude to weeding out anything that may have been manufactured or originated using slave labour. Similarly, harsh condemnation, desperate urging and impassioned persuasion have all failed to shift China’s policy one iota, and that is why the time has come for legislation. That is why this Bill’s time has come, and why being part of that united international front against modern-day slavery is going to get the companies to comply and get China to change its ways.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Brendan O’Hara, Ms Nusrat Ghani, Rushanara Ali, Patricia Gibson, Jim Shannon, Debbie Abrahams, Mr Alistair Carmichael, Chris Law, Fiona Bruce, Patrick Grady, Liz Saville Roberts and Siobhain McDonagh present the Bill.

Brendan O’Hara accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 May, and to be printed (Bill 309).

Elections Bill: Programme (No.2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Elections Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 7 September 2021 (Elections Bill (Programme)):

Consideration of Lords Amendments

(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement.

(2) That the Lords Amendments be considered in the following order, namely: 22, 23, 86, 1 to 21, 24 to 85, 87 to 126.

Subsequent stages

(3) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.

(4) 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.—(David T. C. Davies.)

Question agreed to.

Elections Bill

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 27th April 2022 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords amendments

[Relevant documents: Fifth Report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Legislative Scrutiny: Elections Bill, Session 2021-22, HC 233; Seventh Special Report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Legislative Scrutiny: Elections Bill: Government Response to the Committee’s Fifth Report, Session 2021-22, HC 911. Fifth Report of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, The Elections Bill, HC 597, and the Government’s response, HC1133; Oral evidence taken before the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee on 7 September 2021 and 14 September 2021 on the Elections Bill, HC 597; Oral evidence taken before the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee on 1 March 2022 on the work of the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, HC 1066; and Correspondence between the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee and the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities of 12 April 2022 and 25 April 2022.]

14:46

[The Minister for Levelling Up Communities (Kemi Badenoch)]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 22.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments (a) to (i) to the words restored to the Bill.

Lords amendment 23, and Government motion to disagree.

Government amendments (a) to (k) in lieu of Lords amendments 22 and 23.

Lords amendment 86, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendments 1 to 21, 24 to 85 and 87 to 126.

[Kemi Badenoch]

The Bill has returned to the Commons after wide-ranging and often intense debate in the other place. I am grateful to my colleagues there, Lord True, Baroness Scott and Earl Howe, for their efforts in ensuring that the Bill was able to benefit from that scrutiny. The Bill delivers on key manifesto commitments to protect our democracy as well as a range of recommendations from consultations, parliamentarians, Select Committees, international observers and electoral stakeholders.

I will come to the more positive highlights of the Bill’s passage shortly, but I must, with regret, begin with the areas where the Government cannot agree with the changes made. We disagree with Lords amendment 86, tabled by Lord Willetts, Lord Woolley, Baroness Lister of Burtersett and the Lord Bishop of Coventry, which suggests a long list of new documents that could be used as a form of identification at polling stations, including non-photographic documents such as a bank statement, a council tax letter, a P45 or P60 form. The Government have been clear that the most straightforward and secure way of confirming someone’s identity is photographic identification. The Electoral Commission found this to be the best approach to pursue in the pilots undertaken by the Government in 2018 and 2019.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

Does the Minister share the concern raised by Mencap that the introduction of voter ID could result in another barrier to people with a learning disability participating in elections?

[Kemi Badenoch]

The answer is no, we do not share that concern. We have conducted extensive pilots and we recognise that many people are concerned about the Bill, which is why we carried out extensive engagement explaining why there need not be any concerns about additional barriers on voter ID.

We also have the experience of Northern Ireland, where photographic identification has been required since 2003, following its introduction by the last Labour Government after the non-photographic model that had been in place since 1985 was deemed insufficient to stamp out fraud. A free voter card will be available for voters without suitable photographic identification and we are working closely with the Electoral Commission, which will deliver a clear and comprehensive communication campaign on the new requirements. While the list of acceptable identifications in the Bill is wide-ranging, I wish to reassure this House that, should further forms of photo identification become available and be sufficiently secure, the powers in the Bill are such that additional identification can be added or removed as necessary without the need for further primary legislation. For these reasons, the Government cannot support this amendment.

I ask the House to disagree with Lords amendments 22 and 23, which seek to remove clauses 14 and 15 from the Bill. The purpose of clause 14 is to make provision for the introduction of a strategy and policy statement setting out guidance to which the Electoral Commission must have regard in the discharge of its functions. Some parliamentarians have claimed that this duty to have regard to the strategy and policy statement will weaken the commission’s operational independence, which is not correct. This duty will not allow the Government to direct the commission’s decision making, nor will it undermine the commission’s other statutory duties or displace the commission’s need to carry out those other duties. Clause 15 simply expands the role of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission and empowers it to examine the commission’s performance of its duty to have regard to the strategy and policy statement.

In the other place, technical amendments to these clauses were made in Committee before the clauses were removed on Report. If this House disagrees with Lords amendment 22, the series of amendments we have proposed to the words so restored to the Bill will reinstate those technical amendments to clause 14. Amendments (c) and (f) to (h) reflect the parliamentary consequences of recent machinery of government changes. The other technical changes to the words so restored to the Bill, amendments (a) and (b), will ensure that the strategy and policy statement must not relate to the devolved functions of the Electoral Commission. Consequently, amendments (d), (e) and (i) provide that Scottish and Welsh Ministers are no longer statutory consultees on the strategy and policy statement. For the reasons I have set out, I ask the House to disagree with Lords amendments 22 and 23 and to agree to amendments (a) to (i) and to the words so restored to the Bill.

Given the strength of feeling, although the Government strongly reject the characterisation that clause 14 will weaken the commission’s operational independence, we have heard the concerns and tabled amendments (a) to (k) in lieu of Lords amendments 22 and 23. Amendment (a) will require the Secretary of State, when preparing a statement, to have regard to the duty placed on the commission by section 145(1) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 to monitor and ensure compliance with the rules set out in that Act. Further, the amendment will prohibit the statement from including reference to specific investigatory or enforcement activity. That provides further reassurance on the commission’s operational independence.

On the parliamentary approval procedure in relation to the statement, the Government’s view is that the affirmative resolution procedure will provide both Houses of Parliament with appropriate opportunities to debate and scrutinise the statement in full before determining whether to approve or reject it. However, we have listened to the concerns raised and, to provide further reassurance, the Government tabled amendments (c) to (h), (j) and (k) in lieu of Lords amendments 22 and 23. These amendments provide for enhanced parliamentary scrutiny of a statement that has been subject to statutory consultation under new section 4C of the 2000 Act by providing both Houses with a supplementary opportunity to consider the draft statement and make representations before it is laid for approval. The amendments also make consequential changes to clause 14.

Amendments (b) and (i) in lieu of Lords amendments 22 and 23 will require the Secretary of State to publish a response to the statutory consultation on the statement, and to respond to requests from the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission for the statement to be revised.

Taken together, these provisions, in addition to those already built into clause 14 relating to parliamentary approval and consultation, should provide significant reassurance to Members of both Houses on the concerns about the strategy and policy statement. In particular, the amendments put beyond doubt the question of whether the statement could be used to unduly influence individual enforcement activity or to give guidance without the Secretary of State considering the commission’s monitoring and compliance duties.

On clause 25, the Government have listened to the concerns raised by parliamentarians and by representatives of civil society organisations in recent meetings. Lords amendment 44 means that any order to remove or vary the description of a category of third-party campaigner can be made only where it gives effect to a recommendation of the Electoral Commission, which will provide a necessary safeguard against any future Government who potentially seek to misuse the clause.

The Government have also carefully considered the concerns relating to clause 27. These measures were not designed to disproportionately affect any particular group. Given the strength of feeling on this issue, the Government tabled Lords amendment 50 to remove the clause from the Bill. I ask the House to support this amendment.

It is standard practice for the Government to conduct post-legislative scrutiny of Acts following Royal Assent, but we took on board the desire to ensure in the legislation that that scrutiny took place. Lords amendment 80 supports the joint aim on both sides of the House that the operation of these measures is assessed following the implementation of the Bill, while ensuring sufficient time has passed and processes are embedded enough for the scrutiny to be meaningful and effective. For these reasons, I commend the amendment to the House.

Lords amendments 1 to 5 make changes to clause 7, narrowing its scope so that the provisions do not unintentionally prevent legitimate campaigning by candidates outside the time that a person completes their postal ballot or legitimate opinion polling activity. Lords amendments 112 to 116 make the same changes in relation to Northern Ireland.

Lords amendments 9 to 12, 45, 64 to 79, 81 to 85, 87, 105 to 110 and 118 to 124 are technical and clarifying amendments. As the House will be aware, the Bill represents an extensive and ambitious portfolio of work in a complex and detailed body of law. The amendments ensure the measures are fit for purpose and operate as intended.

Following extensive engagement with the devolved Administrations in the preparation and drafting of the policy, the Scottish and Welsh Governments unfortunately declined to consent to applying certain measures to devolved polls. It was therefore necessary for the Government to table Lords amendments 6 to 8, 13, 14, 24 to 28, 30 to 33, 37, 38, 40 to 43, 46 to 48, 51 to 63, 88 to 102, 117, 125 and 126 to ensure the measures apply to reserved matters only. I therefore ask the House to agree to these necessary amendments.

Lords amendments 15 to 19 strengthen the provisions in clause 9 that seek to expand the provision for voters with disabilities from a narrow and restrictive provision specific to blind and partially sighted voters to one that supports the needs of a wider range of voters with disabilities, increasing the overall accessibility of our elections. For too long, we have had a requirement in law to provide a single device, which has hindered innovation in this area. We are grateful for the work of Lord Holmes, who worked with both the Government and external organisations to strengthen these measures in the Bill by specifically highlighting the importance of supporting electors’ ability to vote independently and secretly, all while maintaining our policy aim of moving away from a limited prescriptive approach to more flexibility and innovation. These amendments will also enable the support for disabled voters to be monitored effectively through Electoral Commission reporting, and will require in law that there is guidance to promote consistency, for which returning officers must have regard. That guidance will be developed in consultation with organisations representing people with disabilities. For those reasons, I commend the amendments to the House.

The Government also support Lords amendments 20, 21, 103, 104 and 111 tabled by Lord Hayward. These amendments make sensible changes to the rules for candidates standing in elections, which were first raised in this House by my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans). Lords amendment 21 will allow candidates the additional option of citing their local authority area on the ballot paper for UK parliamentary elections, as they already can for local elections. That will make it easier for candidates to demonstrate locality while preserving protection for their personal safety. I particularly thank my hon. Friend for raising this topic and I hope he is pleased with that outcome.

Lords amendments 20, 103, 104 and 111 widen the scope of the current provisions concerning the use of commonly used names to allow candidates to include on their nomination paper any name they commonly use as a forename or surname, such as their middle name. This is already facilitated in practice by returning officers, but it is not provided for in existing electoral law, so it is right that the Bill is amended for consistency. I commend these amendments to the House.

Lords amendments 34, 35 and 36, tabled by Baroness Noakes, are technical amendments that bring this clause into line with more standard accounting practices, so I commend them to the House. Finally, Lords amendments 49, 29 and 39 were brought forward in the other House by Lord Hodgson. I am pleased to confirm that the Government are supporting them. They will introduce a duty on the Electoral Commission to produce a statutory code of conduct, providing much-needed certainty for third-party campaigners on how to comply with the rules related to third-party campaigning.

15:00

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to speak for the Opposition in these proceedings. We have said from the outset that this is a bad Bill. Rather than opening up our democracy, it closes it down and puts up barriers to participation, apart from for foreign donors, who will now have an unfettered ability to flood our democracy with donations from the comfort of an offshore tax haven.

We will get to some of the criticisms shortly, but I want to recognise, as the Minister did, some of the progress that has clearly been made in the other place. I pay tribute to my colleagues and teammates Baroness Hayman and Lord Khan for their work in this area. First, I come to Lords amendments 15 to 19, on assistance with voting for persons with disabilities. We raised this issue in Committee and during consideration of the remaining stages. I did not then and do not now believe it was the Government’s intention to make voting harder for disabled people, particularly those who are blind or partially sighted. But those who have been concerned about this matter have campaigned well and made their case strongly, and I am glad that it is has been recognised in the Bill. Like plenty of right hon. and hon. Members, I will be keeping an interest in this area, to make sure that returning officers continue to make voting accessible for everybody, regardless of disability, at every polling station.

Lords amendment 50 would remove clause 27, deleting the provision on joint campaigning that meant that spending by one entity in a joint campaign had to be counted by all entities. That never made sense to us and we are glad to see it dispensed with entirely. In his letter to his colleagues in the other place, Lord True paid tribute to the campaigning efforts of the TUC and of the Trade Union and Labour Party Liaison Organisation. He was right to do so, as their campaign was a brilliant one and I, for one, am glad it succeeded. Of course we will be supporting that this afternoon. Also, I am pleased to see that addition made via Lords Amendment 80 to wire in post-legislative scrutiny of this Bill. I would have such a provision in every Bill, as it is a good way of doing business. Beyond that, we do not have an issue with the tightening of provisions relating to secrecy, undue influence, candidate names, expenditure or electronic material. However, I will finish this section of my speech with a minor whinge, which I hope the Minister will address in her summing up. Lords Amendment 21, a Government amendment, deals with home addresses on ballot papers. Currently, as the Minister said, we or those who challenge us in elections to this place have a choice of having our home address or the constituency where we live on the ballot paper. For security reasons, that is a very good idea. Not only is it important for safety, but it allows voters to have a sense of where we are from. This provision adds a third option: we could specify which local authority we live in. That does not develop the original intent, because I do not think there is a case for safety there; I think this is there more for candidate vanity, and I am not sure what problem it is solving. So I am keen to learn from the Minister what needs to be addressed with that provision. It is not egregious enough for us to divide on, but I am keen to understand a bit more about why it is necessary.

I move on to the points of greater difference—the outstanding issues facing us. This Bill is littered with various things we have voted against throughout the process, in relation to voting, to political finance and to electoral systems, but today we are really down to just two issues: voter ID, as set out in part 1 of the Bill; and the independence of the Electoral Commission, as set out in part 3. The other place has done important work to help save the Government from themselves in this area, and it is sad that the Minister is not minded to accept that salvation, particularly on Lords amendments 22, 23 and 86. We have opposed and continue to oppose the introduction of voter ID. It is a solution in search of a problem; there is scant evidence of voter personation. In 2019, there were two major sets of elections—council elections in the May and a general election in the December—and in that year there was precisely one conviction for personation.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern about the disproportionate effect that evidence suggests photographic voter ID might have on ethnic minority voting rates?

[Alex Norris]

I do have concern about who will miss out as a result of this. We know from the Government’s own figures that there are 2 million people without the right sort of photo ID. I see some shaking of heads from Conservative Members who are still listening to the debate, but it is not us making this point—the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has said that the poorest are six times more likely than the best off to miss out under the Government’s proposals. The key thing is: when all of us who can vote next Thursday stand in line to vote—and we hope the lines will be long—we are more likely to be hit by lightning three times than to be queuing behind someone who is committing an act of voter personation. Once again, this is a solution in search of a problem.

We have seen this in the pilots as well. As the Minister mentioned, the Government have done pilots in this area and if what happened in those were replicated across the country, 184,000 people who wanted to vote would be unable to do so. Again, that is a demonstration of why Lords amendment 86 is so important and why this is such a bad idea. This amendment does not delete the voter ID provision, as would be my preference and as we have sought to do in Committee and on Report. Instead, it just makes things a little easier by expanding the list of accepted ID at polling stations. That is a worthy compromise, and I am surprised that the Government have not sought to take it.

The Minister has talked about the provision of a voter card from the local authority, but she has not yet said who is going to fund that. May we have a concrete assurance that that will come from central Government funding and it will not be put on the rate payers? Will she also assure us that thoughtful consideration has been given to the pressures on our electoral administrators, since the demand for these voter cards will peak at the same time as demand for postal votes, voter registration and proxy votes? Our electoral administrators, who do such a great job, are already overburdened, so I would love to know what assessment had been done of the capacity to deliver those things. The Lords amendment would ameliorate many of those challenges.

We always seek to be helpful to the Government, and Conservative Members will know that their manifesto pledge on voter ID was that they intended to introduce simply voter ID, not photographic ID—the word “photographic” was not mentioned. So the solution proposed in the amendment is very much in line with what they have committed to. We know that the alternative, which is forcing through photographic ID, is about a form of ID that more than 2 million voters lack, according to the Government’s own figures. This was an opportunity to do better and the Government should have taken it. We certainly will be pressing that point.

Lords amendments 22 and 23 remove clauses that undermine the independence of the Electoral Commission. It is worth saying, although it is staggering that this needs to be said, that it is not for this Government or any Government, be they Labour or Conservative, to dictate the priorities of an independent watchdog, especially one that regulates our own elections. One would think that that would be axiomatic, but we have seen this creeping culture of the Government trying to put their thumb on the scale, whether in the scandal with one of our former colleagues at the end of last year or in the debacle last week relating to the privileges motion. This very much sits within the same family, and although the public do not necessarily take interest in the granular details of particular bits of legislation such as this one, they are starting to pick up on this constant pattern of injustice and unfair play. This really is another example of it.

Let us do a useful thought experiment: if something like this happened in a nearby democracy, or perhaps a country where we were concerned about the future of its democracy, and it said that it wanted its Executive to be able to direct its electoral commission, would we not say that that did not feel right? I do not think that it feels right in this case. Although he is not in his place, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) and the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which he chairs, and to the Electoral Commission, which has made persuasive arguments for the protection of the commission’s independence. The Minister said that the Secretary of State would not have broad-ranging powers or interest in directing the work of the commission. In the annex to his response to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, the Secretary of State said:

“The Strategy and Policy Statement (clause 15) will provide an opportunity for the Government, with the approval of the UK Parliament, to outline a clear articulation of principles and priorities for the Commission to have regard to when going about their work—particularly in areas where…the Commission are exercising the significant amount of discretion they are afforded in terms of activity, priorities, and approach.”

I do not think that quite chimes with what the Minister says: it is clear that the Government do fully intend to use these powers significantly and we should be very concerned about that.

I want briefly to reference the Government amendment in lieu. It is better, and it is welcome to hear that the Secretary of State’s statements will need to pass both Houses; that greater degree of scrutiny for Parliament is good. Similarly, the point around individual investigations is a welcome clarification, but it does not change the basic question: why are we doing this at all? There has been no clarity from the Minister previously or in her opening remarks today about what the problem is for which a solution is sought. We strongly believe that the regulation of elections must be independent, impartial and free from political control, and the Government’s proposals, whatever might be said, challenge and compromise this principle, so I think it is very surprising that we are having this conversation.

I will finish there. The problems boil down to two points: voter ID and the Electoral Commission. We will continue to push those points and defend the very good amendments made in the other place.

[Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, as I have at every stage of this Bill, and I am sure the Minister will agree that it is nice to be on the home stretch after so long, especially as she very bravely took over halfway through. I know today could potentially be quite a long one and we are all keen to get to Prorogation so that those of us with candidates can get out on the doorsteps campaigning in the local elections, so I will not take too long.

I spoke previously about my psephological exuberance, and I am afraid that today I will expose my psephological exasperation at some of the amendments that have come back from the Lords. I am, as we would expect from the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Leader of the House of Lords, a keen advocate of the upper Chamber and the excellent work it can do in refining legislation, as has been the case here. As such, I do not intend to speak to the amendments the Government are accepting; I think they speak for themselves, but I do welcome the refinements they present. Instead I shall touch briefly on Lords amendments 22 and 23 in the name of Lord Judge and then on amendment 86 in the name of Lord Willetts.

On amendments 22 and 23, clauses 14 and 15 will allow the Government, with the approval of Parliament, to clearly articulate the principles and priorities for the commission to be guided by when discharging its duties, especially where primary legislation is not explicit and where the commission enjoys a great degree of latitude in priorities and approach. Fundamentally, we should have confidence that there is a clear framework underpinning the role and duties of the commission in its work. At present, just three of the sitting commissioners have any electoral history of their own and, however august their CVs may be— and I absolutely accept that they are—they are not experts in elections or electoral law, nor do they have any lived, practical experience that informs their decision making.

Setting appropriate thematic guidance is wholly appropriate and clauses 14 and 15 give the power to the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission to approve that guidance. Despite some of the alarmist talk about this part of the Bill from those on the Opposition Benches, this does not take away from the independence of the commission, and I think if anyone were to be truly honest they would agree that the commission has not steered entirely clear of controversy or perceived bias in its past. We know at least of one recent case where its decision was overturned, in relation to the referendum; in fact, a former head of the commission was actively campaigning in that referendum. I want a robust commission, not one that plays fast and loose with the rules and gives itself carte blanche to do as it pleases. That said, I will be supporting Government amendments (a) to (k), which refine the Government’s approach.

Amendment 86 seems, I am afraid, to be another attempt to override the voter ID provisions of the Bill. The specified list of IDs, including the freely available Government ID to be introduced, provides a wide-ranging yet robust range of options to validate the right to vote. We have heard some disgraceful attempts to paint voter ID as a form of voter suppression against certain minority groups. I was told by a member of the Labour party in the Bill Committee that I, as an LGBT Member, would not be able to vote because of this new provision; it was absolutely disgusting. This is dog-whistle politics at its worst and Opposition Members should be ashamed.

In fact, just yesterday the Supreme Court ruled on this matter and I will read from the judgment:

“I consider that if persons have confidence in the electoral system by the elimination or reduction in voter fraud then they might be encouraged to vote by virtue of their increased confidence in the electoral process.”

In other words, the Supreme Court thinks this makes it more likely that people will vote.

According to work conducted by the Electoral Commission, two thirds of voters support voter ID, just 4% of people surveyed did not have any of the qualifying ID in the Bill, and just 17% of those people said they would not take up the freely available ID. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) is chuntering from a sedentary position; if people choose to absent themselves, that is their choice.

Opposing or undermining this measure is at very best to turn a blind eye to the problem. I asked in Committee and on Third Reading and will ask again: what is an acceptable level of fraud? How many votes is it okay to steal before we feel we have to act in legislation? [Interruption.] Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; I am sorry, but I have heard this argument several times and it is spurious. We should want to be the envy of the world by having the most robust electoral system, and that can be achieved by doing what Northern Ireland voters have been doing for a very long time, and what most voters who turn up to the polling station with their polling card think they already have to do: prove who they are and that they are eligible to vote where they are trying to.

3.15 pm

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman therefore accept that turning up with a polling card proves that we are who we say we are, and if that is the case why does he reject the long list from the Lords? If he accepts that a polling card says who we are, why not the list from the Lords?

[Chris Clarkson]

No, the hon. Gentleman was not listening to what I said. I said people turn up with a polling card; I did not say that that is an appropriate form of ID. People already assume they have—[Interruption.] No, I did not; I encourage the hon. Gentleman to read Hansard because he clearly was not listening. [Interruption.] No, he was not. An appropriate form of ID is something that will definitively prove who we are.

I can give a perfect example of this. I share an office with my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Paul Holmes). His surname is the same as my stepfather’s. I could go and vote on behalf of my stepfather by taking something that demonstrates that I am him, because I can just take it off his desk. That is how unrobust this approach is.

[Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is correct: we do share an office and I enjoy doing so. He has made a completely acceptable point. Opposition Members keep saying that there is no proof of electoral fraud. Does my hon. Friend agree that I can pick up an electoral card from anyone’s doorstep and claim when I turn up at a polling station that I have their name and address with no proof? [Interruption.]; yes, I can. [Interruption.]; yes, I can. I can do that with no proof that that is not me, which exactly shows why we need to introduce voter ID in this Bill.

[Chris Clarkson]

My hon. Friend is entirely correct, and if the Opposition are saying that there is no proof of this, I can tell them now in relation to Rochdale Borough Council’s election this coming month that a member of the Labour council accepted a caution for electoral fraud—he voted twice. So do not spin the line that this does not happen.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Is that not therefore evidence that the current system works? The kind of behaviour the hon. Gentleman’s party colleague, the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Paul Holmes), has just described is already against the law and will be identified by the polling clerks if someone turns up and tries to vote twice.

[Chris Clarkson]

As I have said, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We do not know how many times this is going on. I ask the hon. Gentleman: how many votes is it okay to steal in Scotland? Is there a different metric—is there a Barnett consequential for electoral fraud? It is ludicrous that this is being opposed, and we have to ask what the motive is from the Opposition Benches; I am pretty sure most sensible people can infer why they oppose it.

[Brendan O’Hara]

I shall seek to give a calm and reasoned response to the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson), and I rise to speak in favour of Lords amendments 22 and 23, which, as we have heard, seek to preserve the integrity and independence of the Electoral Commission, as well as Lords amendment 86, which says that, if we have to go down the road of providing ID at polling stations, what is deemed as an acceptable form of ID should be greatly extended to allow as many people as possible to participate in our democracy.

Having sat through hour after hour of the Bill Committee searching for evidence that any form of ID was actually necessary, nothing—particularly, I have to say, after the hon. Gentleman’s contribution—will shake me from the belief that there is no need for this. From day one this has been, as the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) said, a solution in desperate search of a problem. From the very first day of our evidence sessions, many months ago, I was convinced—I remain convinced—that the desire to produce photographic ID at polling stations is nothing less than a cynical ploy to disenfranchise a sizeable section of the electorate, and to give the Conservative party an advantage on polling day.

I thank the Lords for their valiant efforts to rescue something from this utterly appalling Bill. I know that they did a great deal of work on it and have tried to remove or soften some of its more unpleasant and fundamentally undemocratic aspects, but as I said in Committee, on Second Reading and on Report, the Elections Bill is rotten to its core. The Lords could have gone through the Bill for a month of Sundays and it would still be rotten to its core.

I believe that, in a democracy, the best place for the Bill would be in a chamber of democratic horrors in a political museum, where it would be brought out—along with the Nationality and Borders Bill and the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill—to be shown to aspiring politicians with a warning that said, “Look what we nearly did to our democracy.”

When we sent the Bill to the Lords, it was an affront to democracy, and however it was amended, there was not a snowball’s chance in hell that it would return and be anything but an affront to democracy. However, in the spirit that something—anything—is better than nothing, the SNP will support the amendments made in the Lords.

One of the most egregious ideas contained in the Bill was always the plan to politicise the hitherto independent Electoral Commission by placing it under the direction of the Government and having Ministers set its policy direction and strategy. The independence of the Electoral Commission is fundamental to maintaining public confidence and trust in our electoral system. In a healthy democracy, the idea of the independent referee having its strategic direction dictated by the sitting Government beggars belief. Giving this or any future Government the power to direct the work of the commission is fraught with danger, and if the public, campaign groups, political parties and individuals start to believe that the decisions of the commission are politically motivated, or that they are tainted by party political bias, the commission’s trusted position of impartial arbiter will disintegrate in short order.

[Christine Jardine]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech with many good points. Does he share my surprise that those on the Government Benches are not prepared to take into account the fact that the Lords tabled a cross-party amendment to deal with the concern that he and I share about undermining the Electoral Commission? That concern is obviously shared in the other place. Perhaps the Government could take that into account before dismissing that amendment.

[Brendan O’Hara]

I share the hon. Lady’s concerns. Those great concerns are felt not just on these Benches, but in the other place, as well as beyond Parliament. Among non-government organisations, individuals, trade unions and political parties, there is a genuine fear that our democracy is being undermined.

On our first day of taking evidence in Committee, Professor David Howarth, who served on the commission between 2008 and 2018, said of the idea:

“This would have been unthinkable in my time… I do not think anyone would have ever imagined this was a good idea. It is an open goal for the opponents of western democracy. If you are President Xi, you might think this is the kind of thing you want—all the institutions of the state lined up behind the governing party—but not in this country. It is completely unthinkable.”––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2021; c. 39, Q51.]

He is absolutely right. It should be unthinkable, and even at this late stage, I urge Government Members to stand up for democracy, defend the independence of the Electoral Commission and join us in supporting Lords Amendments 22 and 23.

I turn to Lords amendment 86, which would greatly expand the number of forms of identification that would be acceptable for receiving a ballot paper. I have made the SNP position on the principle of voter ID quite clear. That position was confirmed in the Bill Committee’s earliest evidence session, when witness after witness made it clear that personation was not a problem. Even the Government’s star witness was forced to admit that postal vote fraud was a far, far greater problem that had to be tackled, but conveniently, it is not tackled in this Bill. Yet here we are creating solutions for a problem that no one really believes exists, and the Government are rejecting reasonable proposals from the Lords. I regret that the Lords have conceded on the principle of ID cards, but simply extending the acceptable forms of ID would have been a far greater and more reasonable compromise.

[Paul Holmes]

I genuinely thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He keeps saying that there is no evidence of voter fraud when it comes to voter identification, so I will very calmly ask him again. If I go to a polling station with somebody else’s voting card and vote on their behalf—that is personation—and that person turns up afterwards to vote for themselves, it is very unlikely to be proven that that is what has happened. The lack of ability to prosecute on that basis is exactly why we need voter identification.

[Brendan O’Hara]

First, I would say to the hon. Gentleman that he is breaking the law, and he will, if caught, be punished. Secondly, there is no evidence whatever that that is a widespread practice, but there is great evidence that there are problems with postal voting fraud. The Bill does absolutely nothing to address them. It looks in the wrong place because it is more convenient to those on the Government Benches to look for a problem rather than address a problem, as they, and even their star witnesses, have identified.

I cannot fathom why the Government would object to people to bringing along a birth certificate, a marriage certificate, a credit card, a bank statement that is less than three months old, a national insurance card, a council tax demand letter or a mortgage statement. I just cannot understand.

[Christine Jardine]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Brendan O’Hara]

I will just finish this point. Would the Government really have us believe that there would be an explosion of forged birth certificates being secretly traded outside polling stations; that a thriving black market in dodgy council tax demand letters would emerge, fuelled by desperate party activists; or that eBay would be awash with folk flogging their national insurance card to the highest bidder in a key marginal. It is utter nonsense! They know it is nonsense, and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

[Christine Jardine]

On the hon. Gentleman’s point about birth certificates, like many other married women in this country, my professional name is different from my married name, but it has always been accepted by the Passport Office, the bank and every other legal authority I know that my marriage certificate, which has both names on it, is proof that I am the same person. I cannot understand why the Government will not accept it as identification when voting.

[Brendan O’Hara]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. Sadly, as with so much of the Bill, there is no common sense—indeed, no principle is involved. It is grubby attempt after grubby attempt to game the system in order to secure short-term electoral benefit for the Conservative party. If the price to be paid is a lessoning of participation in elections, I am afraid that is the choice made by Conservative Members.

From the outset we have opposed the Bill as being fundamentally undemocratic. Rather than being improved by its progress through this House, it has become even more undemocratic. I am delighted that the Scottish Parliament has refused to give it legislative consent. I thank the Lords for their attempts to improve the Bill and, in recognition of their efforts, we will support their amendments, but as the old adage says, there are some things in life that you just cannot polish, and this Bill is most certainly one of them.

[Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

rose—

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Follow that!

[Beth Winter]

How do you follow that?

In the week in which the Government intend to prorogue the House, they have voted to carry over three Bills, and this is the fifth Bill they seek to force through following repeated Government defeats in the Lords. The Government really are losing their grip, and I regret that, in response, they are seeking to grab democracy by the throat.

I wish to confine my comments to Lords amendments 22, 23 and 86, which I support. First, let me highlight the extraordinary developments regarding the clauses that affect the work of the Electoral Commission. I express my support for Lords amendments 22 and 23, which removed what were clauses 15 and 16. As others have said, those clauses gave the Government the power to establish a Government strategy and policy statement for the Electoral Commission, and to place a duty on it to have regard to guidance issued by the Government relating to any of its functions.

3.30 pm

The Bill’s erosion of the commission’s independence gave rise to the letter signed by its chair and all but one of its board members on 21 February this year, which said:

“It is our firm and shared view that the introduction of a Strategy and Policy Statement—enabling the Government to guide the work of the Commission—is inconsistent with the role that an independent electoral commission plays in a healthy democracy. This independence is fundamental to maintaining confidence and legitimacy in our electoral system.”

The letter went on:

“The Commission’s accountability is direct to the UK’s parliaments and should remain so, rather than being subject to government influence.”

For that reason, I urge the Government to think again about the measures.

The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee also wrote to the Minister only last week to strongly urge the Government to accept the amendments tabled in the House of Lords by Lord Judge that removed clauses 15 and 16, as the Committee recommended in its report. Furthermore, in lieu of any Government support for the amendments, the Committee urged the Government to consider amending the Bill

“to provide that the Electoral Commission is able to depart from the guidance set out in the Statement if it has a statutory duty to do so or if it reasonably believes it is justified in specific circumstances”.

Regrettably, the Government have not done so, which is why I support Lords amendments 22 and 23.

Let me turn to Lords amendment 86, on voter ID, in respect of which I wish to draw some parallels with the Welsh experience. Initially, the Welsh Government withheld legislative consent for the Bill because it affects Welsh elections, because there was an issue with consulting the Welsh Government and because it negatively affected devolved powers. However, the Government have since conceded on some of those concerns and it is welcome that their voter ID proposals will not now apply to Senedd or Welsh council elections.

Although the Senedd has now granted legislative consent, there are still concerns about the Bill in all sorts of respects, but specifically with regard to voter ID. The Welsh Government say that the UK Government plans for voter ID risk making voting harder. Although I welcome the fact that the provisions do not apply to Wales, the inconsistencies between UK parliamentary elections and Welsh elections will cause all sorts of confusion for electors in Wales.

I support Lords amendment 86, which was tabled by Lord Willets and adds an additional list of documents that would be accepted as a form of identification for electors, for the reasons already given. The relevant part of the Bill is discriminatory and will disenfranchise millions of people. We already have extremely low turnouts for elections—the evidence is there—which is why in Wales we are doing the opposite and looking into different methods to encourage people to turn out to vote.

I will conclude with a quote from our Counsel General, Mick Antoniw, because the Welsh Government remain opposed to the Bill, which they believe—Opposition Members share these views—

“is more about voter suppression and enabling foreign funding than enhancing electoral democracy and integrity.”

[Patrick Grady]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter), who is essentially right in everything she says.

The scrutiny of this Bill so far has been an absolute travesty of the democracy it is supposed to regulate—the lack of engagement on the Government Benches is testimony to that. The Government changed the scope of the Bill after Second Reading, and crashed it through a Bill Committee, despite the fact that constitutional Bills should be considered in Committee of the whole House. Now the Lords, for their own mysterious reasons, have sent it back, largely with Government corrections and a few meagre concessions. We applaud the Lords on taking a stand on voter ID and the role of the Electoral Commission, but their lordships should have forced the Government into using the Parliament Acts to get the Bill through, given the damage it will do to what remains of Westminster democracy.

The amendments on the right of voters with special needs, particularly those who are blind or partially sighted, to vote independently and in secret are welcome, although they do not go as far as the Royal National Institute of Blind People has called for them to do. Indeed, they do not go as far as the original legislation that this Bill is changing, so once again this is a Bill seeking to solve problems that did not previously exist; it is creating its own problems. There must now be clear guidance on how those provisions are implemented, and careful monitoring and reporting to ensure that those with specific requirements can vote in confidence, in every sense of that word.

It appears from the Minister’s comments that the Government think we should be grateful for the various concessions that respect the devolution settlement and the right of the devolved institutions to manage and regulate their own elections. She said that she had difficulty engaging with Scottish Government Ministers and officials. Well, perhaps if this Government had started the process before the Bill was published, and perhaps if there had been proper prelegislative scrutiny, a lot of that would not have been necessary. The reality, of course, is that the Scottish Parliament has refused to give legislative consent for the Bill as a whole.

What mostly seems to be happening, through these amendments, is the result of a late realisation that all the different electoral cycles in the UK mean that we would never be out of “regulated periods” across the UK, which would make the Tories’ predilection for dark money and AstroTurf campaigning a little trickier. I am not sure that the changes have been made in the best interests of the devolved institutions.

Where the Lords have chosen to take a stand, the Government and this House should be paying close attention. The integrity of the Electoral Commission ought to be protected, and the easiest way to do that is to support the Lords in their amendment removing the two clauses that would allow Government direction and interference. We demonstrated throughout consideration in Committee and on Report the danger of the Government’s plans to allow for ministerial direction of the commission, which is pretty much unprecedented in western democracies. The Government’s amendments in lieu, such as they are, do not go nearly far enough and are themselves a concession that they were trying to overreach with the powers they put into the Bill, so we should agree with the Lords and just take those clauses out entirely.

The House should also support the Lords on their amendment 86. It is disappointing that they did not remove the clauses on photo ID altogether. Again, throughout the Bill’s progress in this House, we have heard how the requirement to present photo ID will depress turnout and make it more difficult for those who are already in marginalised groups to have their voices heard at the ballot box. We heard that repeatedly in evidence and, as we have heard from other Members, that has been heard by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.

We hear Members say, “Well, what level of voter fraud is acceptable?” There is no evidence that voter fraud at the moment is as rife as they are pretending.

[Chris Clarkson]

I will ask the hon. Gentleman the question again, since he wants to challenge it: what does he think is an acceptable level of voter fraud?

[Patrick Grady]

The point is that voter fraud, to the extent that it exists—personation, as the Labour Front-Bench spokesperson said—is in single figures. There is no evidence whatsoever that personation is actively affecting the result of any election taking place anywhere across the country.

[Chris Clarkson]

Even if we accept the premise that it is in single digits, is that acceptable?

[Patrick Grady]

Of course it is not acceptable, which is why it should be punished to the full extent of the law, which it is. We have heard several times in this debate that if someone votes twice, they have broken the law and they go to jail. That does happen, as we have heard—

[Chris Clarkson]

rose—

[Patrick Grady]

I think the ping-pong is supposed to be between this place and the upper House, rather than across the Floor of the Chamber, but I will give way.

[Chris Clarkson]

Will the hon. Gentleman accept that some crimes go undetected?

[Patrick Grady]

I think we are getting slightly philosophical here. The reality is that when voter fraud/personation is detected, it is punished to the full extent of the law. We heard in evidence that it is an incredibly inefficient way to swing the outcome of an election. As my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara) said, people who want to swing the outcome of an election can do so in far more effective ways that are not tackled by the Bill, starting with the kind of postal vote fraud we have heard described. All that this little ping-pong exchange has done is serve to demonstrate that this is, as others have said, a solution in search of a problem.

The fact that this is ideologically motivated, for the Government’s own reasons, is demonstrated by their unwillingness even to accept the relevant Lords amendment, such as it is. One of the counter-arguments we heard from Government Members was about other circumstances in which ID needs to be presented—for example, when collecting a parcel at the post office. Lords amendment 86 extends acceptable forms of ID for voting to include the kind of ID that would be acceptable in collecting a parcel at a post office counter, so, on the basis of that argument, I am not entirely sure why that is not acceptable to the Government.

The Order Paper notes under the listing of this business that the Scottish Parliament has refused legislative consent for the Bill. Once again the Government are ignoring the Sewel convention and showing their disregard for the devolution settlement. Constituents in Glasgow North have written to me in large numbers opposing this Bill. All of this, alongside the Government’s refusal to accept Lords amendments 22, 23 and 86, simply demonstrates the growing divergence between politics in this place and the direction of travel in Scotland.

[Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)]

I thought that we also learned in Committee that the voter ID proposals would actually make us a more European country, in that they introduce things that we see in European voting systems. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman disagrees with this divergence, and would have thought he would welcome it if he wants Scotland to be at the heart of Europe.

[Patrick Grady]

I am delighted by the hon. Gentleman’s conversion to the cause of European democracy and alignment. The simple answer is that Scotland has one of the widest, most open and transparent franchises that has ever existed in western democracies. It includes 16 and 17-year-olds, asylum seekers—people who have made their home here—and people who are serving certain types of prison sentence, because we want to rehabilitate everyone and bring them back into the democratic fold. That is the franchise that will deliver independence for Scotland. Unlike the UK-wide franchise—[Interruption.] Conservative Members seem to find this highly amusing. They can laugh all they want once Scotland has voted for independence in the next couple of years, because that is the reality; it is not far away now, and it will be achieved on that wide and open franchise, whereas the UK-wide electoral system will be weakened and undermined by this Bill and by the Government’s refusal to accept the Lords amendments before us.

[John McDonnell]

I apologise to the Minister for being a few minutes late and therefore missing her introduction; I received a green card asking me to visit a constituent who was lobbying me.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I knew he was here before, out for a very short time, and here for the majority of the Minister’s opening speech.

[John McDonnell]

The constituent was lobbying on the abolition of imprisonment for public protection, and I am visiting one of her sons in prison, so I felt the need to see her.

I want to make three very simple points. When we get to this stage in the parliamentary Session, people start to become a bit light-headed, so let us try to concentrate on three issues. I am a member of PACAC, whose Chair, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg), is here. Every time he makes a parliamentary intervention, he increases my respect for him. Electoral officers were looking for a Bill that was much more comprehensive and wrapped up a whole range of issues; they were looking to bring together existing practices in one piece of legislation, and to look at new challenges that they faced. Those challenges are not reflected in the Bill.

On the amendments, one of the main concerns about the operation of the Electoral Commission that the Government seem to identify is that it needs more direction by way of a Government ministerial statement. That was not part of any of the evidence that we heard from electoral administrators. This goes to the heart of the independence of the electoral administration of this country. That is why people are fearful. I have ranted on this before, and do not want to go into the arguments again about our being on a slippery slope to something that could be quite dangerous. However, if there is to be a statement from the Secretary of State, which I think is completely wrong, there needs to be at least some acknowledgement by the Government that there should be more of a role for Parliament in drafting it.

I want to ask the Minister a question, and I will give way if she can respond. Did I hear correctly that the statement will be dealt with by the affirmative procedure, but not the super-affirmative procedure? Can she clarify that by way of intervention?

[Kemi Badenoch]

Yes, I am happy to confirm it is the affirmative procedure.

15:45

[John McDonnell]

We introduced the super-affirmative procedure about a decade ago, I think, and it enables the House to amend the statement. What happens under the super-affirmative procedure is that the Minister publishes the statement, there is consultation, the Parliament comments on that, and then the Minister brings back the statement in the light of those comments. Actually, it works. If we look at past practice, what has happened is that even when there has been considerable dispute, the Government and the Secretary of State have usually been able to amend the statement and we have reached consensus. I urge the Government to follow that procedure, rather than the “take it or leave it” of the affirmative procedure.

We raised this issue in the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee with the Secretary of State. With the Government majority as it is, “take it or leave it” means that the Secretary of State is dictating terms to the Electoral Commission and therefore undermining the independence of the commission, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) said in quoting the letter from the commissioners themselves.

In another debate on another matter some years ago, people on the Government Benches—I thought it was interesting and constructive—said, “When you legislate for this, you have to legislate for your worst scenario.” Someone stood up and said, “Just think if John McDonnell was in power.” I therefore just say this: what we legislate for today might well be done in good faith by Government Members, but we have to guarantee in legislation for the future at least some form of level of practice that we can all support. I disagree with the whole concept of the statement, which undermines the commission’s independence. If we are to have one, at least give us the opportunity to have a proper debate and amend the statement before it is formally agreed.

My second point is about ID. On PACAC, we could not find evidence of large-scale electoral fraud. To address the point that the hon. Member for Gedling (Tom Randall) was making time and time again very eloquently, and at times with some amusement, the issue around it is that if we cannot find the evidence, it might still be happening. We therefore have to make a judgment when legislating as to whether the remedy we are introducing will cause more harm than the problem we are addressing. That is a subjective judgment.

A number of us have come to the view that, no matter how many times we have trawled for evidence of large-scale electoral fraud, we could not find the evidence that there were not sufficient powers to deal with the issue. The only time there was a real problem was Tower Hamlets. There was a special investigation, and special measures were taken, and I hope and believe the problem has been properly addressed. My worry is that the remedy we are introducing will suppress votes, whether intentionally or unintentionally, and will do greater harm than the harm we see at the moment, which is relatively minuscule, but there we are—that is a judgment.

[Tom Randall]

I enjoy serving with the right hon. Gentleman on PACAC. As a footnote to what he is saying, one of the concerns I have, which is shared by many—I know we divided on this in the Committee, and I found myself in a minority of one—is that allegations of offences are not properly investigated by the police. He might consider that to be a separate issue. As another footnote, he mentioned Tower Hamlets. Next week, we find ourselves in the horrible situation that Lutfur Rahman, who was the man who perpetrated all that electoral fraud, is on the ballot paper in Tower Hamlets. It is a fact that these problems have only been investigated to an extent, it seems.

[John McDonnell]

That is a valid point. Rather than change legislation, which could introduce a remedy that does more harm than good, it is a matter of looking at how the existing system is working to ensure proper resources for investigation. The point that the hon. Gentleman makes about the individual—I will not name them—is about whether the sanctions were severe enough to prevent such a return. That is the way forward on all that.

The other aspect is about the list of alternative provisions that the Lords have come up with. If the Government had looked at them and said, “Okay, we’ll accept some and not others,” that would have been a better approach, because it would have demonstrated an open mind to work towards something that I think could operate effectively, even though I oppose the whole concept of the use of ID as a result of this legislation. The Government did not even do that, however. To reject the list wholesale demonstrates that they have dug themselves into a hole. I think that we will have to come back to a new piece of electoral legislation in due course that does exactly what the returning officers wanted and consolidates our electoral registration and also remedies some of the unfortunately difficult parts of this legislation.

Those difficult parts could be quite dangerous. I caution about the issue around suppression. I stood for election in my constituency in ’92 when poll tax had been introduced and 5,000 people dropped off the register there—by the sound of it, most of them were Labour voters because I lost by 54 votes. That demonstrates that, if necessary, people will drop out of the system, which worries me. It is not so much that the votes go missing but that those people become distant from the democratic process. They do not engage and, if they do not engage once or twice, it is very difficult for them to re-engage. That is why what seems like relatively minor procedural legislation could have a dramatic effect, particularly in certain constituencies, and could be quite dangerous in the hands of future Governments. I urge the Government to think again on that.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

I am following the right hon. Gentleman’s argument with great interest. A constituent of mine wrote from a church to say that a number of her colleagues in the church are too old so they do not have passports or driving licences. I looked on the Government website and it would seem that local government can issue photo ID cards. Does he not think that to achieve the democracy that he and I want, it is incumbent on local government—although I hate to throw things at it—to ensure that such people get voter ID cards and to publicise that they are available?

[John McDonnell]

Two things on that: first, the hon. Gentleman is right to make us wary of putting even more responsibility on local government given its financial situation; and secondly, those cards have to be applied for, which is another process to go through that becomes costly. The hon. Member for Gedling intervened; it looks as though only 70% of people will actually do that, so we are still looking at a number of people dropping out of the system altogether.

That is why, with other colleagues, we are looking at what else people will have that they could use and why I thought that the list in Lords amendment 86 was constructive. There might be elements of that about which the Government think, “Well, that’s a bit iffy,” but I would rather that they had come back and said, “Well, let’s rule these ones out but accept the others.” They did not, which for me undermines their argument that they are trying to construct a legislation that will work effectively to ensure maximum democratic participation.

I am trying to be ultra-reasonable here, because people can lose their temper about this sort of legislation. My view is that whatever ping-pong takes place now, the two elements that we are talking about could be easily remedied. I want them to be dropped altogether, but if the Government will not drop them, then on the statement we should use a super-affirmative resolution process, and on the voter ID stuff they should at least look at some of the mechanisms and the list that the House of Lords has put forward, because several of the items are perfectly valid for their use. I will leave it at that.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to contribute to the debate. I wish to speak to Lords amendments 106 to 109, as they pertain to local elections in Northern Ireland and elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly. I totally agree with what the Minister said earlier, in particular about photographic ID. We have had that in Northern Ireland for a number of years, and it has proven to be successful. I understand exactly the principles of why it is important. All a polling card confirms is the name and address on it; it does not confirm anything else. That is why I believe photo ID is critical.

In Northern Ireland, someone can use a passport, a driving licence, a SmartPass or a war disablement pass, because they all contain someone’s name and address and also their photograph. The Minister is absolutely right that those are methods of doing this. We also have another method—it goes back to what the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) mentioned in his intervention on the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell)—and that is electoral identification. Because we have an election coming up in Northern Ireland, people are coming in almost every day of the week to be registered so that they can use that electoral ID, with a photograph, which is recognised and issued by the Electoral Commission in Northern Ireland. It is done not by local government but centrally, by the Electoral Commission. Those are examples of why voter ID is important—because it works.

[Michael Fabricant]

I, too, am anxious that we do not see people not voting because of the problem identified by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington. Is it the hon. Gentleman’s experience that in Northern Ireland, people do not vote because of the need for voter ID, or is that not an issue in practice?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He poses a question, but he also poses a solution. We both know what the solutions are, and clearly the Minister does too.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

There has been no discernible drop-off in voter turnout as a result of the requirement for photographic ID in Northern Ireland. I looked up the turnout figures in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, and they are sitting at around 60% with no voter ID; in my constituency in Northern Ireland, where voter ID is required, turnout is higher. Voter ID has not had a discernible impact. I have been entirely frustrated during the passage of the Bill with the reticence from Labour. Does my hon. Friend agree that that has no factual basis and has not been borne out in reality whatsoever?

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I totally agree with him.

I looked through some of the things referred to in Lords amendment 86 as a “specified document”. Nearly half of them do not have any photographic ID. I could lift the cheque book of the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson), take it down to the polling station and pretend to be him, when that is absolutely not true, because that is one of the documents listed. This does not work with documents without photographic ID, so I come back to the point I made at the beginning—and I thank the Minister very much for setting the scene.

Sometimes I wonder about change. When the seatbelt legislation came in, we probably fought against that because it was an attack on our liberty, but we all wear a seatbelt now because it is the norm. When helmets were made compulsory for motorbike riders, some of us thought that was an attack on our liberty, but now people wear a helmet on a motorbike all the time. If photo ID comes in, it will be the same—it will be accepted—because the Government have a process that makes it simple and achievable. When electoral ID was first introduced in Northern Ireland, there was a £2 charge. There is no charge any more. The system works because the Government want it to work; they want people to go and vote. That is what this process has to be about—encouraging people to go and vote and use their franchise whenever they can.

I want to comment on some of the things that have been flagged up over time. It is important to feed into the process; while we have photographic ID, there are things that sometimes crop up in the process, and it is always good to exchange those things. I know that the Minister is always keen to see what we are doing across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but in particular in Northern Ireland.

On voter ID, we have had photographic ID in Northern Ireland for some time. We encourage people to be paperless at work and to bank online, so I look at the requirements and wonder how people can provide a bank statement that is not a print-off. The problems are real.

16:00

When we consider the amendments on voter ID, we must take the timeline into account. As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris), said—I was going to intervene on him—when an election is called, people are spurred on to change their address, to notify or register at their address or indeed to register to vote. All the pressure at that time is on the electoral office, which needs to be able to respond to that surge in a positive fashion. Will the Minister reassure us through the Bill that staff will be made available to deal with that surge? We can look at the passport issue that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), spoke about in the urgent question, where extra staff were employed and a million passports were processed in one month. It can be done, but we need to ensure that we have a process for that.

I have voters who sent information and were contacted by the electoral office 10 days later to say that the information was incorrect, but the deadline had passed. How can that sometimes be the voter’s fault? Again, I feed that into the process to try to conduct on thoughts on how we can improve the system. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) will also pursue those things back home. There must be a deadline, but there must also be a time for information provision before the deadline so that, if people have more information to feed into the process or have inadvertently not included something that they were supposed to, there is still time to work through that and ensure that they can vote.

Why do we do that? The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington is right that we want to encourage people to vote; we do not want to hear them saying that they cannot be bothered or that they do not care. We want them to be part of the process, and the legislation needs to have common sense as its bedrock. There is sometimes overcomplication, so we need legislation to streamline the voting system and not make it hard for normal people with a pen and paper and not with scanners or printers and all the things that those in offices take for granted. That is often the case for many of my constituents. They have a desire to vote but no polling card because of an admin delay that is out of their control. That is just one example of where it can go wrong.

We ask people to use their vote, yet for some that is almost impossible. Back home, we have Northern Ireland Assembly elections, and—my hon. Friend will confirm this—a large number of elderly and ill voters have had their postal vote denied because they did not have a digital registration number on their application. We introduce some of this digital stuff, but there is a generation who do not understand how the system works, how to register or what digital actually means—I say that respectfully and I am one of them.

[Gavin Robinson]

True luddite, Jim.

[Jim Shannon]

Many people cannot follow it, and I suspect that I am one of them.

The denial letter is sent with the DRN on it. Again, the elderly and ill people ask, “What does that DRN mean?” I say positively and constructively to the Minister that I believe she will replicate what we have done in Northern Ireland and probably do it better, having learnt from some of the mistakes made back home. How do I explain to an 87-year-old woman—I will not mention her name—that the electoral office needs information that she did not know that she had and that, because she has been denied her vote at this time, I will have to borrow a wheelchair to take her down to vote? We will do that on the day, and she has not left her home in two years. I say that because the digital process was lost on that lady, and it is lost on many others.

The digital registration number is essential according to the legislation, yet it means nothing in practice. She had used her national insurance number for the last 65 years of her life, yet all of a sudden that is not what the electoral office wants. She understands that, but she does not understand what the DRN is. Again, that is about looking at how we can make the system better.

I believe we are overcomplicating the system, and it is the ordinary person who is the loser. Those sitting in a room fraudulently filling out postal vote forms know all about DRN—they understand it, but this lady does not. She will make herself ill getting to the polling station because she will not miss her vote. Never mind that she has had a postal vote for that address for many elections, there is no room in the legislation for common sense.

My fear is that the Lords amendments do not go far enough and complicate matters, which is why I look to the Minister and the Government for suggestions on how to take the issue forward. I welcome Lords amendments 15 to 19, which include explicit reference to voting in secret and “independently”, and would place new statutory duties on the Electoral Commission to draw up new guidance to support an independent and secret vote at the polling station from 2023, consult relevant organisations in the production of that guidance, and hold returning officers to account for following that guidance. However, as the Royal National Institute of Blind People says, the key question will, of course, be whether blind and partially sighted voters have better experiences at polling stations in 2023 and beyond. On that, it is clearly too soon to say.

I know the Minister is keen. I know the comments she has made in the past on ensuring those who are visually impaired have the right to have the same opportunity to vote and a system they understand. I know the Minister wants to make sure that happens, but perhaps she could confirm that that will be the case.

I will conclude with this comment. There is an overarching theme that this legislation may not be hitting. That is to encourage people to vote and not set up hurdle after hurdle for those who are minded to vote. If people want to cast their vote and use their franchise, and if we want to ensure they have that opportunity in whatever way they can—it is right that they should—then I believe this House must ensure that people have that vote. I look forward very much to what the Minister will say. I cast my mind back to our experiences in Northern Ireland and what we have done. Do not feel threatened in any way by photo ID. It works for us; it can work for you.

[Kemi Badenoch]

I have listened to the debate with interest. As shown by the amendments tabled today in relation to the Electoral Commission, the Government have been receptive to the representations made by parliamentarians across both Houses and have sought to provide reassurance where possible.

Before I conclude, I thought I might pick up on a number of points raised by Members. The Opposition Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris), asked about the purpose of candidates’ addresses. It is right that candidates who live just outside the constituency they are standing for, but who do not wish to disclose their home addresses, are not at a disadvantage because their local connection may not be recognised. Using local authorities is a balanced approach to that, while also protecting their safety. On Report, this was a cross-party amendment, so I know that Opposition Members agree. The option is already available to candidates at local and mayoral elections across local authorities, and we think it is appropriate to extend that option to candidates at parliamentary elections.

The hon. Gentleman asked about funding. New burdens funding will be provided to cover additional costs as a result of the changes, so local authorities will not be required to find it from their existing budgets.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) is no longer in her place, but she made an intervention on the hon. Gentleman about the suppression of ethnic minority voters. She is quite wrong. Her assertion that black voters are less likely to have ID is based on a stereotype that arose in the US and was true during the Jim Crow era. We do not have Jim Crow in this country. We never did. It is an offensive stereotype. It is not just offensive but wrong to say that ethnic minorities do not have photo ID. All other things being equal, ethnic minority voters in this country are actually more likely to have photographic ID. Speaking for first-generation immigrants like myself—[Interruption.] I am not addressing the hon. Gentleman; I said the hon. Member for Edinburgh West. We should agree across the House that ethnic minorities should not be used as political footballs to make those sorts of silly points when there is no evidence. I am glad that he agrees with me. It is a shame that the hon. Member for Edinburgh West is not in her place.

The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) raised the point about the strategy and policy statement, and he might be pleased with my clarification—I assumed that he was asking about everything in our new provisions on the strategy and policy statement. It will be subject to the approval of the UK Parliament and allow it a greater role in scrutinising the Electoral Commission. In applicable circumstances, the statement will be subject to statutory consultation to allow the views of key stakeholders to be considered before the draft statement is submitted for UK parliamentary approval. I think he will be pleased to hear that we tabled amendments (c), (h), (j) and (k) in lieu, which provide for enhanced parliamentary scrutiny—it is super-affirmative, as he mentioned—of a statement that has been subject to a statutory consultation by providing both Houses, with a supplementary opportunity to consider the draft statement and make representations before it is laid for approval.

However, not all changes to a statement will warrant a full statutory consultation, which is why, in some circumstances—if it is just a minor change—the Secretary of State will be able to disapply the statutory consultation requirement. The Government’s view is that it would be overly burdensome to apply enhanced parliamentary scrutiny to changes that did not warrant a statutory consultation.

The Scottish National party Members, the hon. Members for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) and for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), continued the theatrical representations that they have made during all stages of the Bill, repeatedly creating straw men that they could knock down and using so much circular reasoning that my head was spinning. We have covered those points many times, so I will not repeat them again, but I enjoy listening to them in these debates. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson), who was excellent in making a lot of rebuttals to the points that they and other members of the Bill Committee made.

I thank the hon. Members for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who very eloquently and strongly explained that voter turnout in Northern Ireland was not impacted by the introduction of photographic ID. That is yet another straw man. It is not true, and they said it far better than I ever could. The hon. Member for Strangford sought reassurances about a number of measures. I do not have the correct information to do so now, but I will ensure that my officials provide him with a comprehensive response.

I hope, in returning the Bill to their lordships, that hon. Members can send a clear message on the vital importance of ensuring that our elections remain secure, fair, transparent and up to date. The Bill delivers on the Government’s manifesto commitment to ensure the integrity of our elections and it will protect the right of all citizens to participate in our elections while feeling confident that the vote is theirs and theirs alone. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 22.

16:12

Division 268

Ayes: 306

---

Conservative: 295
Democratic Unionist Party: 6
Independent: 2

Noes: 215

---

Labour: 155
Scottish National Party: 42
Liberal Democrat: 10
Independent: 3
Plaid Cymru: 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Green Party: 1
Alba Party: 1

Lords amendment 22 disagreed to.

Government amendments (a) to (i) made to the words so restored to the Bill.

Clause 15

Strategy and policy statement

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 23.—(Kemi Badenoch.)

16:28

Division 269

Ayes: 306

---

Conservative: 296
Democratic Unionist Party: 6
Independent: 2

Noes: 213

---

Labour: 153
Scottish National Party: 41
Liberal Democrat: 10
Independent: 3
Plaid Cymru: 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Green Party: 1
Alba Party: 1

Lords amendment 23 disagreed to.

Government amendments (a) to (k) made in lieu of Lords amendments 22 and 23.

Schedule 1

Voter Identification

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 86.—(Kemi Badenoch.)

00:00

Division 270

Ayes: 306

---

Conservative: 295
Democratic Unionist Party: 6
Independent: 2

Noes: 213

---

Labour: 152
Scottish National Party: 41
Liberal Democrat: 10
Independent: 3
Plaid Cymru: 3
Green Party: 1
Alba Party: 1
Conservative: 1

Lords amendment 86 disagreed to.

16:50

More than two hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments, the proceedings were interrupted (Programme Order, this day).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83F).

Lords amendments 1 to 21, 24 to 85 and 87 to 126 agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendment 86;

That Kemi Badenoch, Miss Sarah Dines, Duncan Baker, Jacob Young, Alex Norris, Colleen Fletcher and Brendan O’Hara be members of the Committee;

That Kemi Badenoch be the Chair of the Committee;

That three be the quorum of the Committee.

That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Michael Tomlinson.)

Question agreed to.

Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

Business without Debate

Wednesday 27th April 2022 Commons Chamber

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Employment and Training

That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2022, which was laid before this House on 16 March, be approved.—(Michael Tomlinson.)

Question agreed to.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Under the order of the House agreed yesterday, I may not adjourn the House until any message from the Lords has been received. The House must accordingly be suspended. I would encourage colleagues to keep an eye on the annunciator for the latest information on the expected time to return—it is not clear what time we are expecting any message—but in any event I will also arrange for the Division bells to be sounded a few minutes before the sitting is resumed.

16:55

Sitting suspended (Order, 26 April).

20:51

On resuming—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I can notify the House that we are not expecting further consideration of any Lords messages this evening. On that basis, we can proceed with the petitions, but before that Caroline Lucas has a point of order.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. At Prime Minister’s questions today, I said that 56 MPs were “under investigation” over allegations of sexual misconduct. I should like to correct the record. I realise now that I should have said that according to a report in The Sunday Times 56 MPs are facing claims. There is a difference between a complaint being investigated and an investigation of the MP in question. I wanted to make that distinction clear.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I am extremely grateful for that point of order and for forward notice of it. The hon. Lady’s correction will now stand on the record and I am grateful to her for making it in such a speedy manner. I thank her very much.

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. On 29 March, the House approved a Humble Address that compelled the Government to release to us critical information concerning the Prime Minister’s involvement in the appointment of Lord Lebedev to the other place. That motion set a deadline of 28 days for the Government to comply, and that deadline falls tomorrow. Unless Ministers plan to publish the information imminently, before Prorogation, the Government will not comply with the resolution of this House.

In a recent written answer to me, the Paymaster General suggested that information would be published “in due course”, but did not provide any timetable. This is a serious question of national security and the British public have a right to know if and how an individual of apparent concern to our intelligence services was granted a seat in the heart of our Parliament by the Prime Minister, against security advice. Delaying and dodging transparency undermines trust in politics. On top of the long-delayed Sue Gray report, this pattern of behaviour is an insult to this Chamber and to our constituents.

Mr Deputy Speaker, can you advise me whether it is in order for the Government to refuse to meet the deadline provided in a binding, substantial resolution of this House? What action can be taken by the Chair, or by Members of the House, to ensure that Ministers keep their promises to us, to the Crown and to the British people, to allow us to get to the facts behind the whole murky business?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I thank the right hon. Lady for giving me notice of her point of order. She is right that the terms of the motion agreed by the House on 29 March said that the information requested by the House on this matter ought to be provided

“no later than 28 April”.—[Official Report, 29 March 2022; Vol. 711, c. 742.]

Those on the Treasury Bench will have heard the right hon. Lady’s concerns. It is for Ministers, in the first instance, to respond to the terms of the motion, but it is for the House to determine whether such a response is adequate.

I suggest that, at this stage, we await further updates from Ministers by the deadline tomorrow, which was set by the House. Should Members wish to pursue the matter further after that, a number of avenues are open to the House, on which the Clerks will be able to advise.

Petitions

Wednesday 27th April 2022 Commons Chamber

20:55

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents who are members of the Save our Derwent Walk campaign group. Derwent Walk country park runs through my constituency, from Swalwell, through Winlaton Mill and Lockhaugh, and on to Rowlands Gill. I thank the campaign group for their tireless efforts to retain our magnificent country park. The petitioners state that the walk is under threat of destruction or irrevocable change through the proposal for a permanent transport route linking Consett and Gateshead. In addition to this petition, the campaign group has an online petition of over 25,000 names, from my constituency and beyond.

The petition states:

The petition of residents of the constituency of Blaydon.

Declares that the Derwent Walk is under significant threat of destruction or irrevocable change through the proposal of a permanent transport route linking Consett and Gateshead and/or Newcastle; notes that the walk lies on the former track bed of the Derwent Valley Railway, opening in 1867 and closed in 1962 under Beeching proposals, due to underuse; notes that the walk has since developed, enveloping C2C cycle routes, the National Cycle Network (No. 14) and a country park, and is also the site of a Scheduled Monument, with a vast area covered by the protected status; and further that the proposal of a permanent transport route does not properly account for access for the disabled or the importance of walking and cycling routes.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to accept the concerns of residents, to commit to maintain the integrity of the Derwent Walk, and reject the feasibility study for the above reasons. And furthermore, to discuss the current proposal with members of the ‘Save Our Derwent Walk’ group.

And the petitioners remain, etc.

[P002729]

[Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)]

I rise to present a petition on behalf of the residents of High Peak calling for step-free access at Chinley station. My long-standing petition has received overwhelming local support, with over 1,000 signatures. The station has no step-free access for either Manchester or Sheffield-bound trains, meaning that local residents with mobility issues or disabilities cannot access the railway. This must not be allowed to continue. I am encouraged by the national Access for All fund to improve the accessibility of railway stations, and I fully support the funding bid by Northern Rail and by Chinley and Buxworth transport group.

The petition states:

The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,

Declares that the lack of step-free access at Chinley Station denies access to public transport for many local residents with disabilities.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to note the need for step-free access at Chinley Station and reallocate funding to complete this project following Network Rail’s completion of a viability survey of the station.

And the petitioners remain, etc.

[P002730]

Cotswold District Council: Solar Farms

Wednesday 27th April 2022 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Scott Mann.)

20:57

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

Mr Deputy Speaker, would you please thank Mr Speaker for granting me this opportunity to raise the matter of Cotswold District Council and funding for solar farms?

The council’s Liberal Democrat administration proposes to borrow a staggering £76.5 million to fund various capital projects. The plans were laid out in a report presented to the council’s capital programme investment board on 24 March 2022 and during a subsequent cabinet meeting on 4 April 2022. The full public document pack is available on CDC’s website.

The problem is that if a local authority is ever put into special financial measures, for example as seen in 2018 when Northamptonshire County Council effectively declared itself bankrupt because it could not pay its bills, it is the taxpayer, via the Government, who always ends up paying for disastrous financial decisions made by local councillors.

So what exactly are these proposals as laid out in the circulated tactical delivery plan? Well, page 66 states that the council wishes to borrow a total of £76.5 million to finance various projects, at the same time exhausting the council’s general reserve fund. The plan envisages that £49.7 million be borrowed to finance climate change and green energy investment projects. The largest of these projects is to buy five solar farm sites for a total of £46.5 million. There is more than sufficient finance in the market to fund these schemes without the council’s intervention. In addition, there are plans to borrow £25 million for investment in a variety of projects described as investments for economic development and asset usage, although further details on these schemes are currently not available.

From the delivery plan setting out the substantial amount of money that the council intends to borrow overall, just one project so far has been approved in this entire programme—a £1.8 million housing loan to contribute to Cottsway Housing, which produces income below target. This is a good thing. Borrowing to invest in social housing would really benefit the people of the Cotswolds. However, this is a comparatively small sum compared with the overall amount that the council proposes to borrow, despite its having tangible benefits for the people of the Cotswolds and the fact that it should be prioritised in the building of homes, especially social housing. I understand that councillors were originally advised that about half the borrowing was for social housing, only to later discover from the plans that only £1.8 million had been allocated.

The total amount of this borrowing is spread over five years. However, according to the plans, it appears that some £50 million is scheduled to be spent next year, as they are showing an income for the following year. If this borrowing occurs, it is equivalent to mortgaging council tax payers in the Cotswolds for a generation. The Liberal Democrat administration says that these investments are green and follow economic growth priorities for the council. So what is wrong with that? Well, there is strict legal guidance that all local authorities must act with financial probity, including not borrowing excessively in a way that could put the council’s finances at risk. Please could the Minister confirm this in her reply?

We have seen many recent examples of councils losing huge amounts of money in failed investment schemes. For example, Nottingham City Council ultimately lost £30 million of public money in 2015 after it set up and invested in Robin Hood Energy—a localised green energy company that ran into financial difficulties and could not pay its bills. By 2019, the council was forced to bail it out. In 2020, Croydon Council effectively declared itself bankrupt with a £73 million shortfall. It borrowed £545 million during a three-year period to invest in commercial and housing properties. The council invested £30 million in the Croydon Park hotel in 2018-19. A central Government taskforce was sent to oversee an audit in 2020, following these risky property investments and the council ignoring repeated warnings on its dire financial situation, and last year the council had to have a £120 million bailout from the Government.

Only today, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Paul Holmes) raised during Prime Minister’s questions the shocking fact that by 2025 Liberal Democrat Eastleigh Borough Council will have a debt of £650 million following investment in property projects. Cotswold District Council hopes to borrow the money from the Public Works Loan Board at 3.3%, making a profit on the loan by obtaining a return of 7.5% from the investment. The problem the council has with this proposal is that in order to curb excessive substantial, and risky, borrowing from the PWLB, I and others on the Public Accounts Committee have recommended to the Government that they prohibit loans in what I call exotic investments. Such projects include solar farms, and even commercial property investments, purely to make a return on the investment. Could the Minister please confirm that bodies would not, under the PWLB’s loan criteria, be eligible for a loan for an investment in a solar farm?

Furthermore, any application to the PWLB must—this is critical to the whole debate—be accompanied by a repayment statement known as a minimum revenue provision, or MRP, setting out the repayment period and how the council will repay the loan on top of paying interest payments. As an illustration, the proposed loan by Cotswold District Council of £76.5 million, repayable over 25 years, would require annual payments of around £3 million per annum. That is purely to pay off the loan, without any interest payments. The plan does not say where the money borrowed will come from, the duration of the loan, nor how the borrowing will be repaid.

I remind the House that the council’s annual core spending was only £11.2 million last year. From that £11.2 million, which needs to pay for all services if there is to be a balanced budget without a deficit, it would need to deduct £3 million for the annual loan repayment. In the financial year 2021-22, the council forecast a budget of £12.55 million; £5.5 million is from council tax, £3.278 million is from business taxes, and the balance of around £4 million is from a variety of Government grants, which are not necessarily recurring. The council’s finances are fairly flimsy in any case. Will the Minister confirm that the size of this loan—£76.5 million—would be totally disproportionate and unaffordable, given the council’s current income, from which loan repayments and interest would have to be deducted?

It seems that the motivation for taking on all this borrowing was the desire to invest in schemes to generate income. However, as other councils doing the same thing have found to their cost, these schemes are highly risky and could make the finances worse, which would pose a considerable risk to the core finances of the whole council. No commercial bank would ever contemplate agreeing to such a loan. Could the Minister confirm that the PWLB will require a repayment schedule for the so-called MRP?

Under the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy code, the council’s financial section 151 officer is required to give advice to councillors about the financial probity of such a large borrowing plan. The section 151 officer can ultimately give a section 114 notice, warning a council that, given the overall state of the council’s finances, the level of borrowing is not sustainable.

Another proposal mooted by the council is issuing green bonds to publicly finance these projects. Securities such as these are regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Cotswold District Council anticipates that an issuance programme will be aimed at small investors, although no details are available at this time. Even if the council could begin to sell the bonds in the markets, can the Minister confirm that this form of finance would also come under the financial probity regulations, under which the section 151 officer would have to warn councillors of the effect on the council’s finances of such large borrowing? Furthermore, as a financial instrument, it would have to be authorised by the regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority.

Cotswold District Council has increased council tax by £5, which is a 3.6% increase in the tax bill for residents. That is above the official cap in England of 2.99%—the maximum allowed without a referendum of local council tax payers, and a cap that some 286 councils across England and Wales are exceeding. Given the cost of living squeeze, the council should not look to put up council tax by that much while planning this huge amount of borrowing. It should focus on increasing council tax as little as possible, in order to help people with the cost of living, and should focus on delivering its core strategic services of waste collection and planning, rather than spending our money on feasibility studies.

Although the Government have set some achievable targets under the green agenda, such as bringing all greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050, and securing global net zero by mid-century to limit global warming to 1.5°, there is evidence that, faced with the cost of living, people are asking the Government to help with the squeeze on bills by slowing down the increases in green levies. The same applies to the extreme borrowing that is proposed by Cotswold District Council for solar farms.

Worryingly, I do not see any statements from the council that it is trying to live within its means. Instead, it continually says that the Government are cutting various grants. In fact, in recent years, central Government—the Minister’s Department—have given it significantly more money, as is laid out in the local government settlement, which includes £16.3 billion in settlement funding for local councils in England this financial year. With other grants and an estimate of council tax included, the core spending of councils across England will rise to £54.1 billion, which is an increase of 4.6% on the previous year. There is no pressure on the council to borrow all this money to increase its income. The settlement will partly help to reverse the trend of council tax accounting for an increasingly large proportion of any council’s spending power.

There is no evidence that the council or councillors have the experience to successfully manage a long-term investment programme of this size and complexity. Delivering a financial plan on the scale that is proposed would require considerable financial expertise in the council, which could be lacking, as the competent long-term financial officer, head of finance and deputy CEO has recently resigned. The Liberal Democrat authority also proposes carrying out the programme before the local elections in May 2023. Even the biggest and best commercial banks would struggle to find suitable investments involving that amount of money, and to do the necessary due diligence on them, in just 12 months.

The proposals by Cotswold District Council to borrow a breathtaking £76.5 million, as stated in the plan circulated to its capital programme investment board and cabinet, clearly demonstrate financial incompetence amounting to a recklessness that has the potential to bankrupt the council. At the very least, it will mortgage the council for the generation to come. I urge Liberal Democrat councillors, in the interest of Cotswolds council tax payers, to think again, and I urge the Government to use all their powers to stop councillors borrowing that unsustainably large amount of money. I thank the Minister for being here to answer my debate.

11:30

[The Minister for Levelling Up Communities (Kemi Badenoch)]

I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) on securing a debate on this important topic. Borrowing rules for local authorities may not be the sort of thing that generate many column inches in the newspapers, but they really matter to the day-to-day workings of local government. In many ways, these rules are the guard rails that help to govern decisions around the investment of public funds, which is why it is vital that hon. Members have as much clarity and transparency as possible on what councils can and cannot do, as well as having the opportunity to challenge and raise instances of what they perceive to be misallocation of funds.

My hon. Friend is a tireless campaigner on behalf of his constituents and I applaud him for bringing the issue to the House today for discussion. First, he asked whether the borrowing in question was within the lending rules of the Public Works Loan Board. Under Public Works Loan Board guidance, a project for service delivery includes education, highways and transport, social care, public health, culture, environmental and regulatory services; police, fire and rescue; and central services. I can confirm that projects related to climate change are included in that.

I make it clear that the Government understand that although borrowing is necessary to deliver local priorities, it does carry risk, so it is important that it is done sensibly to keep local authorities’ finances sustainable. My hon. Friend will no doubt be aware that in recent years, a small minority of local authorities have taken excessive and unnecessary risks with taxpayers’ money. Those risks have backfired. That has been all too visible in the high-profile cases of councils that have become too indebted or have made substantial investments in projects that have ultimately proved too risky or too large.

On my hon Friend’s points about the scale of the borrowing that Cotswold District Council intends to do in comparison with its annual income, it goes without saying that disproportionate levels of debt expose councils to financial risk. It is not just the size of the debt that can create issues; some authorities invest in novel activities outside their areas of experience or expertise, which can lead to financial loss when the investment is mismanaged. My hon. Friend will remember what happened with Robin Hood Energy, Bristol Energy and Together Energy. While councils are sometimes very well meaning in trying to tackle important issues such as achieving net zero, we cannot forget that the energy market can be volatile, and councils need to be sure that they are getting the right advice when proceeding with such investments.

That is not to say that local authorities should not undertake borrowing. I want to make it clear that the Government recognise that commercial investments can be necessary and appropriate when made sensibly. Sensible investment can play an important role in helping us to power forward on issues that are central to the Government’s agenda, be they levelling up, net zero or building the homes that the country needs.

On my hon Friend’s point that the Government should stop Cotswold District Council borrowing this money, as he will be aware, councils have responsibility for setting out capital strategies for their area, and they will be held accountable by their communities. Local leaders should understand local issues and prioritise accordingly; it is the Government’s expectation that they should be able to make decisions that reflect the needs of their communities.

In making these decisions, every local authority has a duty to comply with the prudential framework by making sure that its plans are prudent, affordable and sustainable. As my hon. Friend highlighted, taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for preventable mistakes. The Government will, of course, step in where there is clear evidence that local authorities are not complying with their legal duties or acting in the best interests of their taxpayers.

Our focus, as my hon. Friend might expect, is on making sure that we have a system that is genuinely fit for purpose.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the guidance to the Public Works Loan Board has recently been changed so that no investment that is made purely to increase return is allowed? Will she also confirm that any application to the PWLB will have to be accompanied by a statement including a minimum loan guarantee repayment, so that it is crystal clear to everybody in the Cotswold district how these loans will be repaid?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I can confirm that my hon. Friend is correct on the first point. The council cannot invest purely for profit, but because its investment has a net zero element, it would qualify under the guidance. However, it remains to be seen exactly how the proposal will manifest itself. I cannot confirm the second point at the Dispatch Box, but I will get officials to write to him formally with a comprehensive answer. He is absolutely right to raise the point that there is guidance out there that should ensure that councils invest prudently.

In July 2021, we set out what might be called a multi-pronged approach to supporting our role as steward of local investments by improving local decision making and capability, and by developing proportionate tools for intervention, when that might be needed. We continue to work with the sector to implement our proposals and keep the system under continuous review.

I turn to my hon. Friend’s point that the council lacks the experience to successfully manage the programme. To be clear, when local authorities make decisions to borrow to invest in areas such as solar farms, it is important that they have the relevant expertise in the market, and that they have the governance in place to challenge the parties and people running the projects if they are being mismanaged or appear to be falling behind schedule. The council will need to satisfy itself, taxpayers and the electorate that it has the necessary expertise to manage complex projects without exposing itself to excessive risk.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again; she has been generous. Considering that there is more than adequate private finance to fund these solar farms, is it right that a local authority should invest in such a risky venture?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point. He is right that the Government should not be competing too much with the private sector, but it is not for me to determine what a council should or should not do. Councils are elected and have mandates, but they must be responsible in spending taxpayers’ money. We do not want, as a corollary of that, the Government intervening too much in councils’ decisions. We have empowered councils to do the right thing and, as I said, we expect them to satisfy themselves and taxpayers that they have the necessary expertise to manage complex projects and not expose themselves to excessive risk. We would expect any council to comply with good practice guidance from not just the PWLB but organisations such as the Chartered Institute for Public Finance and Accountancy, and to take on board lessons learned from other authorities. We want to support local authorities in investing responsibly. In March—my hon. Friend may not be aware of this—we commissioned a review of the governance and capability of local authority investment and borrowing, and that review will report later this year.

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing the issue to the House, and for raising this case. It is important that local authorities remain financially sustainable, and the Government take that seriously. If he would like to raise any further points, I will be happy to write to him with further details. Members from across the House care about local accountability and protecting taxpayers’ interests. I am sure that Members will agree that that needs to be achieved in the right way, and that local authorities’ spending needs to be sustainable and not beyond their means.

Question put and agreed to.

21:21

House adjourned.

Draft Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022

Wednesday 27th April 2022 General Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: Mr Laurence Robertson

† Anderson, Stuart (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)

† Beckett, Margaret (Derby South) (Lab)

† Cruddas, Jon (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)

† Dowd, Peter (Bootle) (Lab)

† Evans, Dr Luke (Bosworth) (Con)

† Fletcher, Colleen (Coventry North East) (Lab)

† Furniss, Gill (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)

† Gullis, Jonathan (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)

† Harrison, Trudy (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport)

† Hunt, Jane (Loughborough) (Con)

† Lamont, John (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)

† Loder, Chris (West Dorset) (Con)

† Richards, Nicola (West Bromwich East) (Con)

† Russell-Moyle, Lloyd (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)

Sheerman, Mr Barry (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)

† Solloway, Amanda (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)

† Trott, Laura (Sevenoaks) (Con)

Huw Yardley, Kay Gammie, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Sixth Delegated Legislation Committee

Wednesday 27 April 2022

[Mr Laurence Robertson in the Chair]

Draft Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022

14:30

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Trudy Harrison)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson.

The regulations before the Committee meet a commitment laid out by the Prime Minister in the 2020 policy statement “Gear Change: A bold vision for cycling and walking” to give local authorities outside London the powers conferred in part 6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 to enforce contraventions of moving traffic restrictions. The powers have been commenced to coincide with the regulations due to come into force on 31 May.

The regulations before the Committee form part of a package: a statutory instrument subject to the affirmative procedure and one subject to the negative procedure. I shall refer to the former as the appeals regulations, and they are the ones we are considering. The appeals regulations consolidate the rights of representation and appeal in place England-wide since 2007 for vehicle owners who are or may be liable to pay penalty charge notices, or PCNs, in respect of parking contraventions and extend them to disputed bus lane and moving traffic PCNs outside London, the latter being defined under the umbrella term “relevant road traffic contraventions”.

Colleagues should also note the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Approved Devices, Charging Guidelines and General Provisions) (England) Regulations 2022, which are subject to the negative procedure. They are referred to as the devices and guidelines SI, if required. The instrument includes wider related provisions for evidence regarding penalty charge notices, adjudication penalty charge levels and income and expenditure.

The regulatory package being introduced under part 6 of the 2004 Act consolidates existing legislation and at the same time makes powers available to local authorities outside London to issue PCNs for contraventions of safety and critical moving traffic restrictions such as no entry, barred turns and unlawful entry into box junctions. Local authorities wanting to undertake moving traffic enforcement may from now apply for formal designation of these powers to enable enforcement to begin in practice by using CCTV cameras that have been certified by the Secretary of State.

We plan, as soon as practicable thereafter and with sufficient demand, to lay a further order before the House later this year. When using the powers, local authorities have a duty to act fairly. The regulations make provision to entitle drivers who are or may be liable to pay penalty charges for contravening certain traffic regulations, including the moving traffic regulations, to make representations to the enforcement authority and, if their case is rejected, to appeal to an independent adjudicator against the penalty charge.

The appeals regulations prescribe the information that must be given when a penalty charge is imposed about the right to make representations or to appeal against that charge and to prescribe time limits for each stage of the process within which both the motorist and the local authority must respond. They create an offence of knowingly or recklessly making false representations under the regulations or in connection with an appeal.

I can assure colleagues that the regulations merely extend long-established provisions for motorists wishing to dispute parking penalties, applying the forthcoming civil enforcement regime for moving traffic contraventions inside and outside Greater London. To create parity across the board outside London, we have also used this opportunity to repeal the bus lane enforcement regime in place since 2005 under the Transport Act 2000 to create a single enforcement regime that includes bus lane enforcement.

It was envisaged that this would happen soon after the 2004 Act was introduced. By doing so, we have removed some inconsistencies in the legislation. Motorists who challenge bus lane penalties will therefore benefit from representations and appeals provisions not previously available to them, which will apply to all contraventions. For example, they can challenge a penalty charge on the grounds of procedural impropriety. There is an express duty on local authorities to consider any compelling reasons that the motorist gives for cancellation of the charge; an express power for adjudicators to refer cases back to the local authority when there are no grounds to allow the appeal, but the adjudicator considers that the authority should reconsider whether the appellant should pay all or some of the penalty; and a requirement for the authority to respond to representations within 56 calendar days.

Bringing bus lane powers under the 2004 Act also enables Ministers to publish statutory guidance, to which local authorities must have regard, to cover all contraventions for the first time.

It should be noted that the affirmative SI provisions for appeals in connection with vehicle immobilisation—clamping—and removal—impounding—relate only to the long-established civil enforcement regime for parking contraventions and are not applicable to the forthcoming moving traffic enforcement powers.

I am clear that civil enforcement of moving traffic contraventions should be a last resort. If contraventions are preventable through other means, such as improvements to the road layout or signing, I expect that to be done before enforcement is considered. We will issue statutory guidance to ensure that local authorities use those powers correctly.

Before enforcement can begin in practice, local authorities must apply to the Department for an order by means of a letter to the Secretary of State. To ensure due diligence, designation will be conditional on local authorities having already consulted local residents and businesses on where existing restrictions have been earmarked for enforcement. Due consideration must have been given to any legitimate concerns.

Local authorities will also be expected to issue warning notices for first-time moving traffic contraventions at each camera location for six months following enforcement go live. That applies to any new camera location in the future. Those requirements will be enshrined in statutory guidance to ensure that enforcement is targeted at only problem sites, that road users clearly understand the new powers and that enforcement is carried out fairly.

Statutory guidance will also require the issue of warning notices, which are an opportunity to explain the benefits of compliance while advising that any further moving traffic contravention at the same camera location will result in a penalty charge notice, even within the sixth-month period.

I stress that the enforcement must be aimed at increasing compliance, not raising revenue. Local authorities will not have a free hand in how any resulting surplus is used. It will be strictly ringfenced for covering enforcement costs or specified local authority-funded local transport schemes or environmental measures. Local authorities will not have a free hand in setting penalty charge levels for moving traffic contraventions, for which banded levels are set in the devices and guidelines SI, in line with existing penalties for higher level parking contraventions, such as parking in a disabled bay.

As moving traffic and bus lane contraventions are of a kind, we are increasing bus lane penalties by £10 to align with those for moving traffic contraventions and higher level parking contraventions, such as parking in a disabled bay. That places equal emphasis on what we believe to be serious traffic contraventions while reaffirming our commitment to achieving the aims of the national bus strategy.

I commend the regulations to the Committee.

14:39

[Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Robertson.

We understand the rationale behind the regulations and the others contained in the package of measures. We support greater powers for local authorities in enforcing moving traffic offences while also extending rights of appeal. We will therefore not oppose the regulations today.

There is widespread support from the industry and the public for these changes. Research by the RAC shows that 57% of drivers support allowing local authorities to enforce moving traffic offences. It is hoped that these new measures will have a tangible benefit when it comes to road safety and traffic flow. However, the Government have so much more work to do in improving our roads; I will come to that later.

We support extending greater rights to motorists outside London to appeal bus lane violations—indeed, that would bring regulation in line with that for other offences such as parking violations. As I have said, that support is shared by motorists. However, I would like to highlight some outstanding issues to the Minister.

I am aware of concerns raised regarding box junctions in particular. Of course, the vast majority of drivers want action to be taken against those deliberately blocking junctions and causing gridlock. However, the RAC has found that many box junctions across the country are not fit for purpose when it comes to benefiting traffic flow. Hence, there is concern that enforcing such yellow boxes could result in considerate drivers being fined unfairly. That could then have a knock-on effect on the appeals process and result in an already overstretched system being put under yet more pressure. I invite the Minister to offer reassurances to the industry and to drivers who are concerned about the enforcement of box junctions. 

In addition, it would be remiss of me not to highlight the additional pressures that could be placed on our local authorities. In my area, Sheffield City Council has had its spending power cut by almost a third of its total budget since 2010. I urge the Minister to ensure that the new duties do not place yet more burdens on our local authorities, whose budgets have been cut to the bone on the Government’s watch. Many new duties have already been highlighted by the Minister and it is disappointing that local authorities are unable to take part of the enforcement fines that they collect. That would have been helpful.

One of the biggest obstacles to road safety is poor road markings and a lack of sufficient maintenance. We now know that highway maintenance funding cuts seen over the last few years are here to stay. By 2025, the funding will have been cut by a third in real terms since 2020—yet more confirmation, if it were needed, that the Government are totally blind to the crisis on our roads.

In conclusion, we support the aims of ensuring a fair appeals process for motorists who have received a fixed penalty notice, and we will not oppose this statutory instrument. However, we also reiterate our calls for the Government to step up and fix the mess on our roads, which is causing havoc for so many motorists.

14:42

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

I broadly support this statutory instrument, but I want to put on the record concerns about how these issues are being enforced across England. I hope that the Minister will take those concerns away.

I should declare an interest: I have been given a penalty charge notice for a bus lane offence. I appealed, and my local authority decided that on that occasion I did not need to pay the PCN. So on a personal level, I know that the system sometimes works; in that case, I was driving out of the bus lane after having been forced in. I have, however, been contacted by constituents who have been fined because they have moved into a bus lane to keep clear of a passing ambulance. The authority has not lifted the fine, saying that it is not required to do so.

The statutory instrument will help constituents who have legitimate reason to appeal after driving in a bus lane or a hatched area—they may have been moving out of the way of an emergency service vehicle, for example—for which they could currently be fined, in the case of a bus lane. I am pleased about that, but I would like the Minister to make it clear that authorities should not fine motorists in such instances and should use their discretion. At the moment, they are not doing so.

I am also deeply concerned that many drivers believe that the penalties are used as revenue-raising alternatives for councils. That is understandable, because council funding has been cut by huge amounts. One bus lane camera in Brighton has raised £1.3 million in just nine months. The Conservative and Labour parties have asked for that camera to be removed following a review; unfortunately, the Green party, which currently runs our city, continues to insist that it should stay there.

The situation exists because of a lack of signage, a lack of consultation and, as the Minister rightly pointed out, a lack of clear road markings. When someone is driving, if they have missed the sign that comes 300 yards before they get to the traffic lights, they will assume that they can continue going straight on. I do think the Department needs to be clearer about where it would rule out the use of such cameras and enforcement, and allow people to appeal.

Finally, I would love the independent adjudicator to be able to develop a basis of precedent, because that would show councils where they are getting it wrong. There is a danger that the independent adjudicator treats each case alone and cannot establish a level of precedent about particularly problematic uses of this power. I do support it but I think we need to be cautious, because people are sceptical.

14:45

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Mr Robertson.

As a former local authority member—indeed, I was the leader of a council and the chair of highways many years ago, when we had what was called the decriminalisation of on-street parking offences—I have a bit of experience of introducing systems and processes that inevitably led to many fines for people who took an insouciant or nonchalant attitude towards parking when it was not appropriate to do so; indeed, when it was dangerous to do so. We all agree on that.

I therefore welcome today’s proposals, but it would be remiss of me not to mention, as colleagues have done, the implication in the explanatory memorandum that they will not be too much of a burden on local authorities. The proposals may well be a burden for local authorities. My local authority has faced £230 million of cuts from the Government in the last few years. Local authorities are straining at the sinews when trying to provide services, so I do not want to underestimate the challenge the proposals might bring them.

I do not think local authorities implement such proposals as cash generators—certainly, my local authority and those I have been involved with do not. As with on-street car parking, the money goes back into the transport budget. When I was the leader of a council, I certainly never said, “Can we squeeze more out of the fines?” when drawing up a budget. It just does not work like that on the ground. I am glad the Minister refers to the documentation that says that local authorities should not do that, but in my experience they tend not to do it in any event.

Paragraph 7.4 of the explanatory memorandum refers to police forces being under strain. Of course they are under strain—20,000 police officers have been cut in the past 10 years. Numbers have now gone up 13,700—I think that is what the Prime Minister said—but they are still 7,000 or 8,000 short of where they were in 2010. That belies the fact that local authorities are also under pressure. It is no good transferring the problem to local authorities simply because the police are under pressure. We have to sort out both problems.

I agree with the point about consultation, but everybody always agrees with such proposals in the abstract. Of course, when people get a fine for something, often they no longer like the idea. I would like to see discretion, so that the regime is as sympathetic to people as possible. Nevertheless, we have to recognise that people will contravene these regulations. If we want the regulations, which people do, there have to be certain consequences that, frankly, we might not like on an individual basis. We have to be as careful and as sympathetic as possible in enforcing them, but people cannot just use any excuse to not pay the fine they should be paying.

I am glad the explanatory memorandum mentions that the regulations do not relate to the European Union. I am pleased about that, because it is two years since we were in the EU. I am surprised that that is even in the document.

I broadly welcome the proposals, but I recognise, as the Minister said, that some road layouts may need to change significantly. Local authorities do not have the resource to do that at the minute. It is no good the Minister sharing road layout changes in advance when the local authorities do not have the money to make them. Perhaps the Government should consider giving local authorities that take on such responsibilities the capital investment that they need up front. They could do their own layout and then get the money from the fines, which would go into that pot. Perhaps the Government should give that careful consideration.

On the whole, I welcome the proposals. I am sure that by working with our colleagues on councils, local MPs will monitor the impact on our constituents as time goes by, and on specific individual situations and topographies in our constituencies.

14:49

[Trudy Harrison]

I thank colleagues for their broad support for the SI, and for their consideration. I will respond to a couple of queries. To correct the shadow Minister, I confirm that as the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown rightly said, local authorities will be able to receive the money, but it will be ringfenced. We take seriously the need to do that in order to address significant concerns from Ministers and the public about over-zealous enforcement by some LAs.

Traffic enforcement is not about LAs raising revenue; its aim is to encourage compliance and to achieve the policy aim of improving traffic flow, with consequent benefits to wellbeing and the economy. Any surplus raised is strictly ringfenced in order to cover the cost of enforcement activity, LA-funded environmental measures and the local transport schemes that we have heard are so important.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I understand the ringfencing, but does the Minister not agree that local authorities could end up spending that money on transport plans such as subsidised bus routes in a different area of the authority, or an environmental plan in a completely different location? For the public, that is not a ringfence; it is a substitution of funding that would have been previously paid for out of Government grant that has been cut.

[Trudy Harrison]

Local authorities will choose to spend the money in accordance with guidance from the Department and the Secretary of State.

I think everybody will agree that the draft regulations are a vital part of the regulatory package, because it is so necessary to enable sensible and fair traffic management, as we have heard. That is broadly what local authorities are calling for; they want these new powers. On the new burdens assessment, it has been agreed with the Local Government Association that this is the right way forward.

Since their introduction in 2003, equivalent powers in London have proved effective at reducing moving traffic contraventions, with a consequent increase in traffic flow. By making the enforcement powers available to local authorities outside London, we will improve air quality, make active travel safer and more attractive, and be able to promote sustainable travel for everyone. We all rely on the restrictions being followed to enable us to travel efficiently and safely.

I have set out the rationale for where roads can be improved. Tackling the drivers who choose to disregard the rules will therefore benefit the lives of pedestrians— not least those with protected characteristics, including people with mobility or sensory impairments, older people, carers and children. I thank you for your time, Mr Robertson, and I thank colleagues for their consideration of the SI.

Question put and agreed to.

14:51

Committee rose.

Westminster Hall

Wednesday 27th April 2022 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 27 April 2022

[Clive Efford in the Chair]

Great British Railways Headquarters: Derby’s Bid

Wednesday 27th April 2022 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Derby’s bid to host the headquarters of Great British Railways.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for, I think, the first time, Mr Efford. I also warmly welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to her place. The beauty of being a Back Bencher, with no ministerial responsibility—I have to add that I have never wanted that responsibility—is that we can do anything that we want to do. We can campaign for things that matter to us and we can be successful—sometimes—in those campaigns. Yesterday I was delighted to hear the Third Reading in the House of Lords of my Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Bill, and we should get Royal Assent today or tomorrow, so that is a tremendous success for a Back Bencher. I have been passionate about that issue for many years, so it was a great delight to do that. Another of my passions was to get Derby designated the city of culture. Sadly, I failed miserably on that. As a team in Derby, we campaigned together, but we did not make it.

My other campaign is to get the Great British Railways headquarters to Derby. I have been talking about that for some time in Parliament and I am passionate that Derby is the right place for it to be situated. Sadly, we do not have many right hon. and hon. Members with us today to take part in this debate—probably because the House sat so late last night and 9.30 on a Wednesday morning is not people’s favourite time to come in—but I am passionate about the headquarters coming to Derby. Of course, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State established the competition, which he announced last year, to find the place that will host the headquarters of Great British Railways. Derby has submitted its bid and is eagerly waiting to find out whether it will succeed in making it through to the second round. Then there will be even more lobbying, but with a much-anticipated public vote.

I firmly believe, as you would expect, Mr Efford, that Derby is the right location for the headquarters. There are many reasons why it is an important place for Great British Railways and why the Minister and the Secretary of State should choose Derby for its headquarters. First, Derby is at the centre of the UK’s rail network. It has great connections north and south, from Scotland to London and beyond, and, crucially, east and west, offering a key path from the east midlands to the west midlands and Wales, as well as to the east coast.

Secondly, Derby has so much rail history. Derby station first opened in 1839, as one of the largest in the United Kingdom, when Derby was home to the world’s first factory and the Midland Railway. As soon as the railway arrived in Derby, the rail industry set up shop there, too. Derby locomotive works was constructed in 1840 and, in the years that followed, nearly 3,000 steam engines were built. The first ever roundhouse, for turning engines, was built by Robert Stephenson in Derby. It is part of what is now Derby College. [Interruption.] I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs Wheeler). From 1934, Derby produced diesels, and then in 1947 it built Britain’s first main-line diesel locomotives. Now, we are at the forefront of developing alternative train-based power sources that complement the progressive roll-out of electrification. HydroFLEX, Britain’s first train converted to hydrogen operation, was designed in Derby by Porterbrook.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for her dedication to all the subject matter on which she has delivered the legislation coming through on marriage. I support that and was very pleased to see it. I also commend her for her work in this area. Connectivity is critical but does she agree that that is also true of the private sector, of which I believe Derby has a large proportion? Connectivity is part of the pursuit of the headquarters of Great British Railways, but the partnership with the private sector is crucial to advancing it.

The hon. Lady mentioned hydrogen. We in Northern Ireland have some connections with hydrogen and we are pleased that she is promoting it. All I know about Derby is that it has a football team that is in trouble, but I am pleased to come here and support the hon. Lady.

[Mrs Latham]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It never fails to amaze me how the hon. Gentleman from Northern Ireland can have an interest in what is happening in Derby. It is very important that we include the whole of the United Kingdom and work with all of it when and if we get the Great British Railways in Derby. It is important that Northern Ireland, Scotland and all the other regions are included, so I thank him for that intervention.

Alstom, which has had various names and iterations, is the current train building company in Derby, and it plans to build the first brand-new fleet of hydrogen trains in conjunction with Eversholt Rail. Similarly, Porterbrook and Rolls-Royce recently launched the first 100 mph hybrid battery-diesel train on Chiltern Railways, which links London with Oxford and Birmingham. It is very important that we look to our history, but that we also look to the future of the Great British Railways and rail innovation.

Derby is at the heart of rail innovation. It is home to the largest cluster of rail engineering companies anywhere in Europe, with an international reputation for rail excellence and innovation.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

The hon. Member is making a compelling case for Derby very effectively. Does she agree with me that Great British Railways would benefit from that innovation that she was starting to talk about? Derby’s rail industry is famous for the revolutionary tilting trains that have gone on to be hugely successful. They were first developed in Derby as a result of the technological know-how of the British Rail research team, and that expertise continues in our universities in both Derby and Nottingham. I believe that, at one point in the 1970s, the team also developed plans for a flying saucer. Is that not precisely the kind of innovative, radical thinking that Great British Railways needs?

[Mrs Latham]

We have the expertise in Derby and it is important that we spread it around. If the Great British Railways comes to Derby, it will benefit Nottingham and other counties, including Staffordshire and Leicestershire, because we are quite a tight-knit community. There are so many innovative companies based in and around Derby that it will have a knock-on benefit for so many people and the local economy. It is really important, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, that we have thriving private businesses working with Government organisations. Working together, they can achieve so much more. I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention.

We continue to be the home of rail research, as has been said. In 1935, the LMS Scientific Research Laboratory was established in Derby, which evolved into British Rail’s globally recognised Railway Technical Centre that opened in 1964, and that tradition of innovation continues today through special rail consultancies, dynamic small and medium-sized enterprises, and the University of Derby’s rail research and innovation centre, so there is a host of reasons why the Minister must choose Derby.

Derby is home to the largest cluster of rail engineering companies anywhere in Europe, with an international reputation for rail excellence and innovation. There are more than 11,000 rail sector employees in Derbyshire, spanning operations, design, manufacture, testing, safety, data and finance. Nowhere else in the whole country can we design, test and manufacture a train all on the same site. Not only that, but alongside the University of Derby, our rail industry is leading the way on rail decarbonisation—a huge part of our country’s efforts to achieve net zero by 2050. In addition to these practical reasons why Derby is the best choice, I would like to talk about the longer-term impact of such a decision, and how it fits in with the Government’s policy aims. First, for GBR, choosing Derby brings the opportunity to engage more closely than ever with the private sector. Last year, the Williams-Shapps plan for rail laid out clearly the Government’s intention for GBR to work ever more closely with the private sector, learning lessons and fostering innovation.

As I have explained, there is no better place for interaction with the private sector than Derbyshire, whether seeking to collaborate with the largest rail companies in the land, or to learn from and help to develop the most innovative engineering or railway technology businesses. I know I need not repeat, for the Minister has heard me make the point many times, that Derby is home to the largest private sector rail industry cluster in Europe, and the associated benefits that that would bring to our public sector rail body.

The east midlands is the rail capital of the UK, with a global reputation for excellence. I would like to quote the Government’s rail sector deal:

“The east midlands is one of the largest rail clusters in Europe…The success of UK rail will owe much to the successful nurturing of these clusters.”

In the recently published levelling-up White Paper, the midlands rail cluster is referred to as one of the largest in the world, incorporating rail operations, research and innovation, digital applications, manufacturing, technical services and finance.

Derby and Derbyshire, along with the whole of the east midlands, are often left behind when it comes to public funding. Levelling up is a phrase we have heard a lot recently, and it is really important for Derby. We have heard Ministers and the Prime Minister talking about it, but I would like to see it delivered for Derby. We must be clear that levelling up is about taking advantage of the talents and skills all around the country, not just about giving a handout. That is why bringing GBR to Derby really is levelling up. Placing the headquarters of Great British Railways at the heart of the largest railway cluster in Europe is an example of the Government taking advantage of the amazing skillset and industry knowledge that we have in abundance in the east midlands, which for so long have been overlooked.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady has been wide-reaching in the debate for Derby, but we can all take advantage. The Government and the Minister have given their commitment to levelling up across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The hon. Lady referred to that, which I fully support. Within that levelling up, there may be opportunities for businesses in Northern Ireland to buy into the levelling up that Derby can take advantage of. Does the hon. Lady feel that, when it comes to securing the Union, which we can do as we are all committed to that, levelling up is part of that process?

[Mrs Latham]

It is important that levelling up works for the whole country, and that we genuinely level up. We need a lot of levelling up in our region, and it is important for the Government to do what they say.

Alongside that, we will have the opportunity for many apprentices and to improve skills we already have. It is amazing that at Alstom, which builds the trains, there are some fantastic female apprentices. They are not straight from school; they have worked outside and come in as apprentices. They are so passionate about building trains and making it right. We have the workforce who want to do the job. With Great British Railways, and all the other businesses in Derby, we could provide an apprenticeship for everybody, because there are so many opportunities with so many different businesses in the area. It is incredibly important—

[Lilian Greenwood]

The hon. Lady is being very generous in giving way. People may think it is slightly strange that someone from Nottingham is supporting Derby, but it is important to take a view of the whole of our region. Does she agree that if Great British Railways were based in Derby, which of course is a key city of the east midlands, its employees travelling there would see that it is on a north-south line that is not fully electrified, and that, at the moment, we have very poor east-west connections to Birmingham and the west midlands? That might remind them every single day of the importance of the levelling up that she is talking about and the need for more investment in our transport network.

[Mrs Latham]

That is absolutely right. The people who come to work for Great British Railways will see the benefits of what we do in Derby and across the region, and that we need better links. We have links, but we need better ones. It is no good looking at places such as Birmingham, which has huge innovation and lots of other businesses, and does not specialise in rail. Derby specialises in rail, so locating Great British Railways there would have a huge impact on the economy and the area. That will add to the levelling up agenda, and Nottingham will benefit from that. Cities need to play to their strengths. Nottingham has different strengths, and Derby’s greatest strength is the rail industry, as well as Rolls-Royce aero-engines, the nuclear sector and Toyota. We have planes, trains and automobiles in our area, and huge skills in engineering, which are very important. Lots of people from Nottingham work in Derby, and vice versa, because there are opportunities for different industries to employ people.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I should not allow the impression to be given that there are not fantastic rail engineering companies in Nottingham. LB Foster in my constituency produces rail technologies, rail lubrication and friction modification. It has worked on Crossrail, and produced the original boards at St Pancras station. That technology is spread across the midlands, although Derby is very much at the heart of the industry.

[Mrs Latham]

Of course, that is true. The hon. Lady talks about local companies being involved in St Pancras station, and the bricks that were used there came from Butterley in Derbyshire, so we are steeped in the rail industry—from the construction of buildings, right through to the construction of trains and all the engineering in between.

The Minister may not be aware that Derby was home to Britain’s first railway staff training college, which opened in 1938. It is now known as the Derby Conference Centre. That amazing, beautiful building has been repurposed, but it was the heart of the railway staff training college, which is very important to Derby.

Derby’s bid is supported not just by Derby’s MPs, or even Derbyshire MPs. I am delighted by the support that colleagues from across the region have given to our bid. They not only recognise that Derby is the best location for the Great British Railways headquarters, but know that it will benefit GBR, Derby and the wider region in the long term. Some of those colleagues are here today. I would have liked to have said many, but the late night means that not many are here.

I remind the Minister of all the right hon. and hon. Members who have already publicly pledged their support for the bid, demonstrating their support for Derby and levelling up in the east midlands. First, there are the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) and my hon. Friends the Members for Derby North (Amanda Solloway) and for South Derbyshire. Then there are all the other Derbyshire MPs from across parties. Several are Ministers so cannot speak in this debate, but I know that they have expressed their support to the Minister through other channels. We have also received support from outside Derbyshire. There have been key contributions from my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), my hon. Friends the Members for Burton (Kate Griffiths) and for Bosworth (Dr Evans), and the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), who is a former Chair of the Transport Committee and was shadow Transport Secretary for a long time, so understands the industry in the area. Also supporting us are my hon. Friends the Members for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith), for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) and for Mansfield (Ben Bradley)—who is also leader of Nottinghamshire County Council, which is important because it is fully behind us—and my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson). That is a formidable amount of parliamentary support. It is not just Derby Members who want it. The support stretches across four counties and at least six upper-tier authorities representing the entire east midlands region.

We have over 11,000 highly skilled people in rail-related employment across the east midlands, with around 45,000 jobs connected to the rail industry delivering train building and refurbishment, infrastructure maintenance and renewals, operations, digital technology, safety management, specialist finance and other key roles.

The thing about Derby is that, compared with other cities in the region, we do not have many civil servants based in our city or indeed in the county. There is one very small rail industry body, the Rail Accident Investigation Branch, but apart from that we have very few. If we are talking seriously about levelling up, it means bringing in Great British Railways to take part in this wider rail industry in Derby, Derbyshire and across to Nottinghamshire.

It is very important that GBR comes to Derby, because it would cement the whole of the rail industry. It would benefit from working with the private sector and learning about all the different private businesses there, as well as our huge innovation. A lot of apprentices go from Derby College into the rail industry. The university also works very hard with the rail industry. It is such a key place, and not just for history. History is important, but it is about the future.

The first railway cottages in the world are in Derby. They were saved by the Derbyshire Historic Building Trust many years ago. They were going to be bulldozed to make way for a four-lane motorway through the centre of Derby, which would have been crazy. These beautiful railway cottages are genuinely the oldest in the world. We have history, but we also have the innovation. We have the will of the people in Derby. I hope that the public vote will show that they really care about the railway industry in Derby. Another part of the jigsaw is to bring Great British Railways to Derby.

09:53

[Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. My colleague from Derbyshire, the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham), has done a brilliantly comprehensive job of making the case for Derby to be the home of the headquarters. She has left very little for anyone else to say, but I will pick up on one or two points.

The hon. Lady covered this ably in her remarks, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), but I particularly want to stress that there is much to be said about the tremendous history of rail in Derby. It is something in which the whole community takes great pride. However, we are not just about the history of rail. The present and the future of rail also have a very strong base in Derby. That is the key point that I would like to leave with the Minister. There are other places with much past connection to rail, but I do not think there is anywhere else that has the unique combination of history, strength, community understanding, skills and families who have all lived with rail right across the city and its environs.

As the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire said, Alstom has the only facility in the United Kingdom—it has been the only facility for some time—that goes all the way from design to production of new rolling stock. As the Minister will know, Alstom, in partnership with Hitachi, is providing the rolling stock for Crossrail and for HS2, so Derby is both looking to the future and to delivering now.

The word “partnership” is very familiar to Derby, as it is in partnership with other places across the country—Hitachi is also in partnership in the north-east—and within our city and community. There is tremendous community spirit and co-operation in the whole business sector in the locality of Derby.

As the hon. Lady has pointed out, we are very much a transport hub; we are not just a rail hub. Toyota is based in the constituency of the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs Wheeler), Rolls-Royce is based in my constituency, and a collection of people are working constructively together all the time. The hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire touched on the rail forum, which now has some 300 companies from across the UK. I am sure that the Minister will find herself invited, if she has not been already, to various functions in the rail industry, and she will find that a concentration of people are in or have come to Derby and that the spirit of partnership that we all need is very much present.

Reference has been made to the importance and strength of our geographical location, which makes it is easy to travel to places such as Cardiff. As well as the north-south connections, and although there is weakness in the east-west links to Birmingham and so on, people rarely highlight the impressive fact that CrossCountry trains, which run between Inverness and Penzance, run through Derby. In the near future, the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy will visit the Met Office in Exeter, and I shall come home on the train, from Exeter straight through to Derby. Geographically, therefore, Derby is an extraordinarily convenient place. It deals with both the present and the future of rail.

As has already been highlighted, there is a great concentration of skills, knowledge and experience in the community, among the existing and the potential workforce, but more than that there is opportunity. There is training and a rail-specific educational engagement programme, run in partnership with Rail Forum Midlands. Those developments can all be of benefit to Great British Railways.

On the issue of whether enough, or any, civil servants are being brought out from the centre into our locality, it is a constant source of astonishment to me that Derby is not recognised more readily as an attractive environment for those who would come to work in the headquarters. We have an extremely competitive housing market—that may not please everybody, but it is certainly true—particularly for people who might be coming out from the centre. We have excellent facilities and, of course, we have on our doorstep one of the most beautiful national parks in England.

Derby has a great deal to offer and has an immensely strong sense of community. It is a community that looks outwards and is welcoming. I have experienced—perhaps the Minister has, too—places with a strong sense of community, but it is directed inward: “If you haven’t lived here for 60 years, you don’t really belong.” Derby is not like that. Even if people have been there only five minutes, we will treat them as if they and their grandparents before them had been there all their life. It is a very warm and welcoming place, where such new employment would be welcomed and could thrive.

As has been touched on, there is the whole question of research and development for the future. The plethora of companies that operate in and around Derby makes it a home of real innovation. For my part, I have a great attachment to the manufacturing industry and, within that, a particular attachment to innovation. We do not devote nearly enough attention to innovation, but it is where Britain has a great track record. It has been said that, under successive Governments, far too often we innovate but do not follow through—other people exploit our innovation. We certainly have the innovation and we should, I hope, focus more on how it can be exploited in future.

The hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire also commented on support from across the local business community—not just rail-related business, but the whole business community in Derby and Derbyshire, which works well together on all kinds of projects. As I recall, we have support from Tarmac, which has quarries up in Derbyshire, serviced by rail, where it produces aggregate needed for the housing programme. Its efficient operation is dependent on the facility of rail. Right across the piece, therefore, we see an opportunity. The support should be there to develop rail to the maximum advantage, with a real interest in and pressure for research and future development.

[Lilian Greenwood]

No one understands Derby and its history as well as my right hon. Friend. Does she agree that one thing about Derby and the east midlands is the importance of freight? Derby brings not only that knowledge of rail infrastructure and rolling stock, but interaction with freight customers, which is important because they can sometimes be forgotten in the focus on passengers. Freight is important in our region, historically because of quarrying, and increasingly with the rail freight hub and proximity to the East Midlands airport, which is a huge freight airport. That brings a thinking that is unique in the country.

[Margaret Beckett]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is slightly unfortunate that there is no better link at present, because, as she says, East Midlands airport is the freight airport, in particular for freight from the United States. It is very much an airport linked to freight. That gives us an opportunity to develop strengths and partnerships that might not have been fully developed so far. Again, that is an opportunity to innovate and develop support for the future.

I do not want to take too long or to simply repeat everything said by the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire. However, I hope that we will convince the Minister and those organising the programme for Great British Railways that nowhere in the UK is better suited to house its headquarters—to everyone’s advantage—than the city of Derby. The massive support that the city and its environment can provide for the establishment of the headquarters will very much play in our favour.

10:04

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Efford.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) on securing this important debate and on the passion she shows for Derby and its proud industrial and railway heritage. In fact, I congratulate all Derbyshire Members on working cross-party for their area to win this prestigious prize.

We heard, eloquently, from my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett). I know that many other Derbyshire MPs could not be here because of the late sitting last night, but they too have shown their support. Derby is proud and privileged to have the support of the former Chair of the Transport Committee and former shadow Transport Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood). Amazingly, it has also managed to get support from Northern Ireland, with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). The Minister, and everybody at the Department for Transport, will be left in no doubt that Derby has a very strong bid.

The hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire and my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South have rightly placed Derby at the centre of the history of the railway, as a place where trains have been built since 1839. It is a centre of British engineering excellence to this day. I was privileged to visit Derby recently to see some of that engineering excellence, meet some of the workers and executives and see their impressive work, thanks to Rail Forum Midlands and its amazing chief executive officer Elaine. I even got to drive a train, which was a first for me. Subsequently I had the pleasure of having a meeting with Councillor Baggy Shanker and the Derby group of Labour councillors, where I heard about their strong support for the bid, with intricate details provided by the senior council officers. As we have heard, it is a bid that is supported by Alstom, which I also visited, the local enterprise partnership and the East Midlands chamber of commerce, among many others.

I am left in no doubt that Derby has made the strongest possible case and put together a very strong bid. However, as the shadow Rail Minister, I must stop short of making my own preferences known or endorsing one particular bid—even a bid as strong as Derby’s. I would get lynched by other Members who have also been on my case. It is a very crowded and impressive field. I think this is the sixth debate secured by a Member advocating their town or city. I understand that 42 places had submitted a bid by the time the deadline passed. There are so many places that speak to the rich heritage of the railway across the country, including Doncaster, York, Crewe, Darlington, Edinburgh, Swindon, and Wakefield, as well as many other wonderful places with a strong claim. However, despite its amazing connectivity, for some reason Slough, incredible as it is, did not quite make the cut. I noticed that Carnforth made the list; it will forever be associated with Trevor Howard and Celia Johnson and their “Brief Encounter”.

The quality of the bids tells us that there is a lot of love for rail, and a vibrant railway manufacturing sector in our country that is still going, despite every challenge and obstacle. There is an enthusiasm to design, manufacture, build, create and produce. Embedded deep in our history are Stephenson, Trevithick, James Watt and the legendary Isambard Kingdom Brunel, who built the famous Great Western Railway that runs through my Slough constituency. However, we need to look to the future, too. I believe that Great Britain can have a great industrial future as well as a proud past, but it requires vision, investment and political will.

The current Government’s industrial strategy is inadequate to the task and is still ideologically enamoured with free markets rather than long-term planning. If recent events—whether that is Brexit, the pandemic, energy prices, war in Europe or the climate crisis—prove anything, it is the need for Government to work in partnership with industry to provide investment where markets fail, as well as strategic direction, planning and leadership. On the climate emergency in particular, we need to harness our engineering genius to meet the fierce urgency of tackling global warming with carbon capture, renewable energy and green manufacturing.

The railway is central to this green new deal. We need high-speed links across the UK, including the east midlands to Leeds leg, which the Government have unfortunately scrapped—so much for levelling up—and electrification, which should be rolled out further and faster. We need hydrogen-power trains, such as those pioneered and built in Derby. As has been eloquently pointed by hon. Members today, with more railway freight, we will have fewer lorries on our roads. More passengers on trains across the timetable will reflect the new changed realities of the world of work.

I welcome recent announcements of cheaper fares for the next few weeks, which will hopefully remind people that trains can be a viable means of transport. However, I cannot shake the view that it is simply a gimmick. Would it not be better if rail fares were affordable all the time, as they are in many of our European neighbours? As the Labour Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, pointed out, a return train ticket from Manchester to London bought on a Monday morning is £369. That is more than a return flight, booked in advance, to India, Jamaica or Brazil. That is absolutely ludicrous. Could the Minister update us on the long-promised plans for reforms of ticketing and ticket prices, and whether Government plans will truly make rail travel a viable option for people on middle and low incomes?

That brings me to my central point. We are discussing the headquarters for the new Great British Railways, as established by the Williams-Shapps rail review, but that body is merely the guiding mind of a railway system still dominated by private sector companies running those franchises. The new passenger service contracts will replace the emergency agreements agreed during the pandemic, but those contracts are with private companies and their shareholders and investors. As long as the profit motive is central to running the railways, there will be pressure for higher fares and more profits derived from the pockets of the long-despairing travelling public. Could the Minister offer her assessment of how much cash those franchise deals will cost the public purse for the first five years of the plan?

The great missed opportunity from the shock to the system provoked by the pandemic was the nationalisation of the railway in its totality, which would end the franchises and put people before profits. By bringing our railways back into public ownership, we could have a democratically driven railway that was owned by the people and accountable to Government—a people’s railway for all the people. That model, which is commonplace across the world, would guarantee recovery of our UK railways.

We need to keep down fares, speed up investment, boost green manufacturing and secure our railways for another 200 years. I wish the great manufacturing centre of Derby all the very best and hope to have the pleasure of visiting again very soon. I once again congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire and wish the other shortlisted towns and cities the best of luck, too. I hope we have a decision as soon as possible from the Department, before we have further such debates, which will no doubt be called by right hon. and hon. Members for their towns and cities. Most of all, I wish for a clean, green, safe, reliable and affordable railway that is accessible for all.

10:13

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Wendy Morton)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Efford. Before I respond to the points made by the hon. Members, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) for securing the debate. She has made clear her passion for the city of Derby and the area she represents and she has highlighted some of the things that Members can do as Back Benchers. I hope that the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Bill, her private Member’s Bill, makes progress—fingers crossed it will receive Royal Assent. I know she has been working on it for a long time. As a Back Bencher, I was successful in taking two private Member’s Bills through this place and that is real proof that we can deliver things that we have a passion or enthusiasm for or an interest in.

Just last month, I was in the Chamber debating the merits of Crewe as a potential Great British Railways headquarters location. This is the fifth debate on the subject—the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) and I may differ on whether it is the fifth or sixth overall. Others have been for Darlington, York, and Carnforth, and, yesterday, we were in Westminster Hall—so this is a little bit of déjà vu—for a broader debate on the merits of the York bid.

It has been absolutely heartening to see hon. Members from up and down the country engaging in the important conversation about the future of our railways and doing outstanding work to support the bids for their towns and cities. As Rail Minister, the other real advantage of the debates has been the opportunity not for just me, but, more broadly, for all of us to learn so much more about the history and heritage of our railways, and about our rail industry—about the manufacturing, the communities, and the families that are all part of our railways.

At the risk of repeating myself, as I said this yesterday, railways are close to my heart. Both of my paternal great-grandfathers worked on the railways, one in Wensleydale and the other in County Durham. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire mentioned railway cottages and I discovered that my dad was actually born in one. There is perhaps a sense that I have some railway heritage, or railway stock, myself, and I absolutely understand the importance of the industry and the amazing rail heritage of this country.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire set out, Derby has a very proud rail heritage. When the Midland Railway was formed in 1844, Derby became its headquarters, and Derby rail station is a major railway hub. As we have heard today, Derby became an important manufacturing centre for the railways through the famous Derby Works and the Derby Carriage and Wagon Works.

The first mainline diesel locomotives built in Great Britain were built at the Derby Works, which closed as a locomotive works in 1990. The Derby Carriage and Wagon Works continues to operate as a railway rolling stock factory today, run by Alstom. From the earliest days of the railways to the modern day, Derby has played, and will continue to play, an important role. My mailbox shows great evidence of the fact that many other towns and cities across the country have, of course, played an important part in our proud railway heritage, which hon. Members are proud to represent. The response to the competition has been positive and I am pleased that by the time it closed on 16 March we had received an outstanding 42 applications from up and down the country.

Hon. Members will be well aware that the Williams-Shapps plan for rail, published in May 2021, set out the path towards a truly passenger-focused railway underpinned by new contracts that prioritise punctual and reliable services, the rapid delivery of a ticketing revolution with new flexible and convenient tickets and long-term proposals to build a modern, greener and accessible network. Central to the Williams-Shapps plan for rail is the establishment of a new rail body—Great British Railways—that will provide a single familiar brand and strong, unified leadership across the rail network.

Great British Railways will be responsible for delivering better value and flexible fares and the punctual, reliable services passengers deserve. By bringing ownership of the infrastructure, fares, timetables and planning of the network under one roof, it will bring today’s fragmented railways under a single point of operational accountability, ensuring that the focus is delivering for passengers and freight customers. Great British Railways will be a new organisation with a commercial mindset and strong customer focus. It will have a different culture to the current infrastructure owner, Network Rail, and very different incentives from the beginning.

GBR will have responsibility for the whole railway system, and a modest national headquarters as well as several regional divisions. The national headquarters will be based outside London and will bring the railway closer to the people and communities it serves, ensuring that skilled jobs and economic benefits are focused beyond the capital in line with the Government’s commitment to levelling up. Hon. Members have spoken this morning about the importance of the levelling-up agenda.

The competition for the headquarters was launched by the Secretary of State on 5 February 2022 and closed for applications on 16 March 2022. The GBR transition team is now evaluating the 42 submissions for the national headquarters, which we received from towns and cities across Great Britain, against a set of six criteria. The criteria are: alignment to levelling-up objectives; connected and easy to get to; opportunities for Great British Railways; rail heritage and links to the network; value for money; and public support. The GBR transition team will recommend a shortlist of the most suitable locations that will go forward to a consultative public vote. Ministers will make a final decision on the location based on all information gathered. As I mentioned before, I am incredibly pleased by the number of high-quality bids we have received. I am sure that, wherever we choose, the future headquarters will go to somewhere truly deserving.

Alongside a new national headquarters, GBR will have regional divisions that are responsible and accountable for the railway in local areas, ensuring that decisions about the railway are brought closer to the passengers and communities they serve. GBR regional divisions will be organised in line with the regions established in Network Rail’s putting passengers first programme, which reflects how passengers and freight move across the network today. Cities and regions in England will have greater influence over local ticketing, services and stations through new partnerships between regional divisions and local and regional government. Initial conversations are starting with local stakeholders on how those partnerships can best work together.

I was pleased to hear the contributions from the hon. Members for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett). I was also pleased to see the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs Wheeler) in the debate. One of the challenges of being a Minister is being unable to speak in such debates, but it was good to see her.

We have heard contributions about innovation. As a Minister, I have learned a lot recently about innovation in the sector, including the First of a Kind scheme. The importance of freight has also been highlighted; it is really important in building a cleaner, greener future for our country. The hon. Member for Strangford spoke, quite rightly, about levelling up. The right hon. Member for Derby South highlighted the importance of our rail heritage and its future. That goes for the country as a whole. The focus of this morning’s debate was Derby, but we should be proud of our heritage and look positively to our future.

There were contributions about the importance of partnerships, the rail community, rolling stock and ticketing. We recently launched our Great British rail ticket sale. As of yesterday, we have sold more than 700,000 tickets—an excellent example of how the Government are helping people to access rail and with the cost of living.

The reforms proposed under the Williams-Shapps plan for rail will transform the railways for the better, strengthening and securing them for the next generation. The reforms will make the sector more accountable to taxpayers and the Government and will provide a bold new offer to passengers and freight customers of punctual and reliable services, simpler tickets and a modern, green and innovative railway that meets the needs of the nation.

Although transformation on such a scale cannot happen overnight, the Government and the sector are committed to ensuring the benefits for passengers and freight customers are brought forward as quickly as possible. We have already sold over 200,000 of our new national flexi-season tickets, which offer commuters savings as they return to the railways. As I have explained, to help passengers facing the rising cost of living we also recently launched the Great British rail sale, which offers up to 50% off more than a million tickets on journeys across Britain. And the transition from the emergency recovery measures agreements to the new national rail contract is under way, providing more flexible contracts that incentivise operators to deliver for passengers.

GBR will work alongside the local communities that it will serve. Integrated local teams within GBR’s regional divisions will push forward design and delivery for their partners supported by new incentives that encourage innovation, partnership and collaboration. GBR will be designed and have the structure to become yet another example of this Government’s historic commitment to levelling up the regions across the nation. Both the Government and the GBR transition team welcome the interest and advocacy from different cities and towns, and also welcome the participation in the competition for GBR’s headquarters so that together we can really deliver the change that is required.

To conclude, we look forward to creating this new vision for Britain’s railways, in collaboration with the sector and local communities, and deciding on GBR’s HQ is just one of many steps we are taking to achieve that.

10:26

[Mrs Latham]

Today’s debate was about quality rather than quantity, probably because of the late night in the main Chamber last night.

The Minister will be aware that we have worked cross-party to provide the information for the bid. In Derby, we work cross-party a lot for the benefit of the city and the surrounding area. It is important on such matters, which are not party political, and we do it for the benefit of all our citizens.

The Minister will not be aware that some years ago, when Bombardier—now called Alstom—was threatened with closure, 10,000 people marched from Derby to show the strength of feeling in the city. That is how much rail is embedded in Derby. As the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) said, different generations of families in Derby have worked in the rail industry, so it is in the city’s DNA and in people’s veins in Derby to work in this absolutely amazing industry on all fronts; every single front is covered.

[Margaret Beckett]

I do not want to detain Members, but when the hon. Lady mentioned that march it struck me that—this is quite true—there are not many occasions when I have found myself marching, in a crowd of people all chanting to bring pressure to bear for the right outcome, alongside the Conservative leader of the council and Conservative MPs.

[Mrs Latham]

That absolutely shows our cross-party work in Derby when it matters to the city, and this question really matters to Derby. People will see the passion in Derby when we get through to the second round of the competition, and when my hon. Friend the Minister comes to visit the different bidding cities she will come across the passion for the rail industry in Derby. That is why it is another piece of the jigsaw for the city to embed Great British Railways in Derby, because the people working in that industry and that HQ will learn from those people in the city who are steeped in the history of the railways. Having said that, I know that this is about the future, not history. We have the history, as the Minister knows, but this is a question of the future. She talked about the six pillars that the bidding cities will be judged on and we have every one of them. Indeed, that could be our bid.

I am sure that the Minister will look forward to coming to Derby in the second round of the competition so that she can see for herself how passionate people in Derby are about getting GBR to the city. It is also about levelling up and Derby ticks every box when it comes to that.

I thank the Minister for her response to the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Derby’s bid to host the headquarters of Great British Railways.

10:30

Sitting suspended.

UK City of Culture 2025: County Durham’s Bid

Wednesday 27th April 2022 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered County Durham’s bid to become the UK’s City of Culture 2025.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. It is a delight to see colleagues from across the political parties, and from Durham and further afield, in the Chamber.

After much work from Durham County Council and many other organisations, I know that I am not alone in feeling thrilled that our bid has placed us among the four finalists, although I never doubted we would be. Having watched the debates on city of culture bids from two of the other finalists, I admit that we face stiff competition, but Durham is no ordinary county and is the most worthy of being the 2025 city of culture. I am confident that we can demonstrate that.

Our case can best be summarised by the historical motto of the Durham Miners’ Association:

“Into the Light: The past we inherit, the future we build”.

Let me begin by discussing that history, because from Bede to Beveridge, we have quite a lot of it.

If there is one landmark associated with Durham, the land of the prince bishops, it is undoubtedly Durham cathedral. Construction began in 1090; it is well over 1,000 years old and has been a UNESCO world heritage site since 1986. In addition to its stunning architectural beauty, it holds the remains of the Venerable Bede and St Cuthbert’s relics. It forms part of the Camino Inglés—the English way—which is a walk that includes Finchale abbey, Durham cathedral and the seventh-century Saxon Escomb church, south of Bishop Auckland. Before I came to this place, I had the opportunity with the rotary club to visit that ancient church on several occasions. That is the route traditionally taken by northern European pilgrims going to Santiago de Compostela in Spain.

A comparatively more recent religious site in Durham is Ushaw college, which was founded in the 19th century by Catholic scholars who fled the French revolution. For a mere 200 years, it served as the primary seminary in the north for training Roman Catholic priests. It closed in 2011, but the site remains important to the area, as it now houses the Durham University Business School and the Ushaw college library. Its buildings and gardens provide an excellent day out for tourists and locals alike.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

In this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, culture, tradition and history are so important, so I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s bid. Does he agree that the rich history and heritage of the City of Durham, coupled with the community mindset, as outlined by the wonderful Tree of Hope in its bid, shows the strength of the proposal? That needs to be recognised at every level, and part of that is clearly to be the UK city of culture.

[Paul Howell]

I could not agree more. We must recognise at every level how important city of culture status is and the value it can bring to Durham.

Alongside the cathedral is Durham castle. We have lots of castles, including Brancepeth, Lumley, Lambton, Walworth, Witton, and, of course, Barnard Castle.

Aside from its religious significance, Durham has been a place of technological and social innovation. I will come on to the history of the railways in a moment, but first I want to discuss the town of Newton Aycliffe in my patch. It was the very first of the post-war new towns. It was founded in 1947 under the New Towns Act 1946, and William Beveridge, the architect of the modern welfare state, chose it as a flagship new town to demonstrate how the new welfare state of council housing, free education and full employment would work. Beveridge became the chairman of Aycliffe Development Corporation, which, he said, aimed at

“making a town better than anything in the past, a town that will be an example for the future. We shall do our utmost to make the town both happy for its inhabitants and famous as an example to Britain and the world.”

Although the country and the welfare system both look considerably different today from when Beveridge set out his plans, the pandemic has demonstrated what an important role the Government play in our lives.

Any debate about Durham county of course must mention its mining heritage. Durham County Council has taken the city of culture bid’s motto from the miners’ association. The last of the mines closed a generation ago and we are looking to the bright future ahead, but we cannot forget the role that mining played in developing and sustaining the area for so long. My grandfather went down the Dean and Chapter mine in Ferryhill, and we remain proud of our mining heritage even if it no longer supports our economy. A visit to Redhills, the Pitman’s Parliament, is an absolute must for anybody who visits the area.

I know my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) would likely have raised Killhope, but since he cannot, I will do it for him. Otherwise known as the north of England lead mining museum, it opened in 1984 after decades of neglect and is located in the North Pennines area of outstanding natural beauty. Naturally, it has won a number of awards. It has one of only two surviving William Armstrong waterwheels and is a highly educational experience for anyone interested in learning about the area’s lead mining history. I am sure my hon. Friend would also mention cultural landmarks such as the Empire theatre in Consett, the Roxy project in Leadgate, the Weardale Museum and Jack Drum Arts.

In addition to the cathedral and mining, rail travel is a crucial aspect of Durham’s history. The Stockton and Darlington railway first opened in 1825, meaning that the city of culture year will coincide with the bicentenary of the celebrations of that historic line. I hope that combining the Stockton and Darlington bicentenary with the city of culture celebrations will also give the necessary impetus to restoring Locomotion No. 1—not the engine, but the pub that used to be Heighington station on the Aycliffe levels, which is where Locomotion No. 1 was first assembled and put on the line. It is currently up for auction for a second time, and I hope the new owners will renovate it sensitively to demonstrate our rail heritage at its best in time for 2025.

As far as political history goes, one of my predecessors, a Prime Minister, brought world leaders such as George W. Bush and Jacques Chirac to the Dun Cow in Sedgefield and the County in Aycliffe village respectively. Both of those have rooms and excellent food offers for visitors as they come for the event.

Military history also abounds owing to the many battles we had with the Scots and the Picts, as we are so close to Hadrian’s Wall. Our more modern military history is founded on Newton Aycliffe, where the Aycliffe angels made millions of munitions for world war two, many of which were dispatched through Ferryhill station. Hoped-for improvements to the station and the Weardale railway from the railway restoration fund will, I hope, enhance transport to Durham when the celebrations are on.

Durham already has some excellent transport links, which is a clear benefit for any city of culture as it allows people from across the country to visit. Indeed, Durham is almost exactly in the centre of the country, equidistant from the north coast of Scotland and the south coast of England. Since we are on the east coast main line, it takes less than three hours to get to us from London and about the same from Glasgow. For international travellers we are accessible via Teesside and Newcastle airports. Drivers can of course reach us on the A1. Lastly, travellers who want to travel under their own steam can take advantage of the sea-to-sea cycle route. It crosses Durham from the amazing countryside of Weardale in the west to the enchanting heritage coast, which is internationally recognised for its rare plants and wildlife.

If some of those watching the debate prefer nature to city-based activities, we have an abundance of offerings in that regard too. From the upper dales to the coast, there is something for everyone, with plenty of museums in between such as the chateau-style Bowes Museum—a purpose-built public art gallery near Barnard Castle that houses the amazing Silver Swan, which is particularly notable. Of course, one of the biggest attractions in the area is Beamish, an open-air museum that tells the story of life in the north-east of England during the 1820s, 1900s, 1940s and 1950s over almost 350 acres.

Although being the 2025 city of culture would help Durham develop its enormous potential, I must mention some of the cultural activities that we already have. First and foremost is the Lumiere festival that is put on by Durham County Council every other year. Last year’s celebration saw over 40 art installations throughout the county, and it is completely free to attend. It just so happens that that is on in 2025.

I have spent most of this speech discussing the qualities of Durham that are difficult to quantify, such as our rich heritage, but I want to turn for a moment to what city of culture status would mean for us in economic terms: more than £40 million in direct spending, with at least half of the contracts going to local suppliers; more than 1,000 jobs created or kept; and more than 900usb businesses and organisations benefiting. Durham County Council estimates that by 2029, city of culture status would see an additional 200 creative enterprises, and over 2,500 more creative industry jobs.

In terms of the tourism Durham would receive, the council expects that we would see almost 16 million more visitors, including 4 million more overnight visitors and 3.5 million international visitors. That would result in £700 million more in visitor spending, and up to 1,800 more tourism jobs. Cities across the UK have suffered from the loss of tourism in the past couple of years, but by 2025 we will hopefully be a few years out of the pandemic. I know that being city of culture would give Durham’s tourism industry the boost it needs now more than ever, giving clear support to the Government’s work on levelling up.

Returning to the bicentenary of the Stockton and Darlington railway, this event is already of global significance—there are so many people on this planet who like trains. I am sure that the Minister, with his culture hat on, will have already begun scheduling his visit to the 2025 railway celebrations. That is the central point: we can compare our offer of cultural events, coastline, countryside and UNESCO world heritage sites, but it is only Durham that specifically in 2025 offers a globally significant anniversary that will already be attracting visitors from all over the world. Declaring Durham as the city of culture will hopefully mean that all of those visitors will bring their friends, families and everybody else with them to see everything else that can be offered by the county. That multiplier opportunity is why, for 2025 in particular, there can be only one place to award city of culture status—the county of Durham.

11:11

[Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) both for securing this important debate and for allowing me to make a short contribution. It is vital that MPs in County Durham temporarily set aside our political differences and work together in support of a bid that would bring enormous economic and cultural benefits to the county we all represent. I am also grateful to Culture Durham, Durham County Council and Durham University, as well as all the businesses, organisations, creative industries and local residents who have worked so hard to deliver such as strong bid for Durham.

I will start by talking about Durham’s heritage, and in particular our mining industry. Anyone who has been lucky enough to visit Redhills, a building I was fortunate enough to have my office in, will have sat in the incredible Pitman’s Parliament and admired the lodge banners as they walked through the beautiful corridors. Becoming immersed in the building, its history and the history of the surrounding area cannot be helped. It reminds visitors of our industrial past, and how our history of trade unionism has left behind a culture of resilience, community and solidarity in Durham. While everyone at Redhills is justifiably proud of their past, rather than dwelling needlessly on former glories, they use them as an inspiration. That attitude is underpinned by their moto, which I am delighted has been adopted by Durham 2025:

“The past we inherit, the future we build”.

That saying is relevant to the aims of the bid, because today County Durham faces many challenges, such as a loss of industry, high street decline and growing levels of deprivation in our communities, to name just a few. However, alongside those challenges, our county has so much to offer culturally, economically and socially. We have the world-class university, emerging creative industries, a growing green economy and a growing independent business sector. If we look at just the city itself, there is the internationally important UNESCO world heritage site, the River Wear winding its way through the centre of the city—with boats available for budding rowers—the historic town hall and the wonderful news that Crook hall and gardens will be reopening in July. There is also Durham cathedral, which is one of the finest examples of Norman architecture in the country, at the heart of the world heritage site. It was featured in two Harry Potter films, as well as several of the “Avenger” movies.

Durham is also home to the miners’ gala—known locally as the big meeting—where every year hundreds and thousands of people gather to celebrate trade unionism and working class solidarity. This annual event has been running since 1871 and has only ever been interrupted by war or a pandemic. It is not just a celebration of past history in the region; it is a show of pride in our roots, a coming together of different communities from across the whole country and indeed the world, a recognition of what we have in common with others, and a really fun day out.

Durham is a creative place. A visitor to the villages across my constituency or throughout the county will be met with people just quietly celebrating culture and history in the region, or those creating new art and culture, such as the Bearpark Artists, or those providing space for budding musical artists and producers, such as Rocking Horse Rehearsal Rooms right in the heart of the city.

Although the Durham 2025 bid will not be a magic wand for the challenges faced by the county, it is a unique opportunity to utilise our area’s strengths, kick-start investment and help our county realise its enormous potential. That is why the words of the Durham miners resonate so strongly with this bid. What is a city of culture if not an opportunity to build on Durham’s future? It is impossible to read about the bid without being excited about what it could mean for our county.

As well as an exciting calendar of events, the bid promises genuine investment with a pledge of more than £40 million of direct spending for Durham 2025, with at least 50% of contracts going to local suppliers, which will create and protect more than 1,000 jobs in an area that is in desperate need of support. Becoming the city of culture will have a transformative impact on our region’s creative industries, with 15.7 million more visitors coming to Durham, and the creation of 1,800 more jobs. This is the time for our region to shine again and for the people of County Durham to believe that we have something here. I truly believe that the process begins with the city of culture.

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that we have to allow time for the Minister to respond. I call Dehenna Davison.

11:17

[Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)]

Under instruction, I will keep my contribution as brief as I can.

Over the weekend, I had the immense pleasure of attending one of the cultural events of the year in Bishop Auckland, the Bishop Auckland Food Festival. The reason I am struggling a bit today is that my stomach is still full from Yorkshire pudding wraps and amazing sausage sandwiches and Scotch eggs—only a snippet of the incredible food culture we have in our county.

I have to go only slightly into the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) to get to the incredible Raby Hunt Michelin-starred restaurant, which is not only nationally renowned but world renowned. I look forward to eventually being able to afford a meal there—it is a wonderful place and I cannot wait to go. At the other end of the scale, we have some incredible local cafés, such as Café Cheesedale in my constituency, which set up just before the pandemic and has had an incredible pandemic, offering a real outdoors escape for people to go and enjoy a meal with their family, see the pigs and the cows and enjoy some locally produced cheese.

It is not just food—we have some cracking breweries as well. In my constituency, we are fortunate to have McColl’s and the Barnard Castle Brewing Company. If people are not for beer but fancy gin later on—perhaps when we are here for late votes—they can always pick up some Durham gin, a wonderful tipple.

Of course, it is not just about food and drink, although that plays a vital part in all our lives, but about heritage. In County Durham, we are fortunate to have some really incredible heritage. My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield and the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) have already spoken about the Durham miners’ gala, which I hope to be able to attend this year for the very first time. That mining heritage shines right throughout our county. In my constituency, we have a mining museum that features some incredible art created by miners when they were sitting in the pits; we also have the wonderful Norman Cornish gallery in Spennymoor, where some of the incredible work of that absolute world legend can be seen. I encourage everyone to visit.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield said, heritage also comes in the form of military heritage. I am delighted to say that the joint administration in Durham is finally bringing back the long-awaited Durham Light Infantry Museum after years of campaigning by local residents.

We also have some brilliant built heritage. Escomb church has already been mentioned. It is a centuries-old Saxon church that is on the international radar. Again, I would encourage anyone to pay a visit. However, if people really want to learn about the history of County Durham and the prince bishops, they have to go to Bishop Auckland and Kynren. It tells an incredible, spectacular tale in the outdoors about the history of our county. Kynren by the Auckland Project really sums up the incredible cultural assets we have in our county.

For people into art, there is good news. Not only do we now have the new Spanish Gallery, a faith museum that is due to open very soon, and the incredible Bowes Museum, we have great community artists as well in the form of the Pineapple Gallery, House of Smudge, and some brilliant street artists who are revolutionising the street scene in Bishop Auckland. We know that some of our high streets are struggling, but why should we look at grotty, rusty shutters when we could have brilliant street artists going out and showing the best of what they can offer?

If people like music and fancy a boogie, I would recommend a trip down to The Witham in Barnard Castle. Last time I went there was for Bootleg Blondie, which was, I must say, one of the best gigs I have ever been to. During the election campaign, my campaign manager told me that I could not have a night off. I ignored him and had a great time. I would recommend it to anyone.

There is also an incredible statue in Bishop Auckland commemorating Stan Laurel, which shows that the culture from Bishop Auckland can be seen all over the world. For a breath of fresh air, I would recommend going down to High Force, a beautiful waterfall right in the heart of Teesdale. It is a wonderful place to visit—and is also a great spot for selfies. I can see the Minister nodding away; we will have to get him up for a visit. People interested in the stars and figuring out our place in the universe should get themselves over to Grassholme Observatory, which runs an incredible educational programme, where one can learn all about the universe.

It would be remiss of me not to mention one final place—a place that in the spring of 2020 gained international renown. That place is Barnard Castle. It is an incredible town, where, a few weeks ago, I was very fortunate to see some of the best of the culture that was on offer when Mayor Rima Chatterjee held a Holi colour festival. I took part in the colour run and got covered in coloured powders. It was an incredible day, and lots of families got involved.

What I have said today just goes to show the breadth of culture that is available to everyone in our county. I am very fortunate to call County Durham my home. I want to extend an invitation to everyone to come and visit—not just in Parliament and the country, but all over the world. Come and see us. Come and see the best of what we have to offer. The best way to do that, Minister, is by making us the city of culture.

11:22

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford, although it is very rare for us to be in the same room without talking football—though I suppose that I just have.

I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) for securing this debate. He is a great advocate for his constituency. More broadly, he is an able champion for County Durham and the north-east. He is understandably delighted that Durham was recently shortlisted in what has proved to be a very competitive field for the sought-after title of UK city of culture 2025. I also thank the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy), my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison), and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for their contributions today. We have many great advocates here, including my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden). He is unable to speak, because he is my Parliamentary Private Secretary, but I am sure that he agrees with everything that has been said today.

I would briefly like to talk about the UK city of culture programme before turning to Durham’s bid. Delivered by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport in collaboration with the devolved Administrations, the UK city of culture is a quadrennial competition that supports culture-led regeneration to drive economic growth and attract investment. It is a key part of the Department’s broader offer to level up. The UK city of culture competition promotes culture as a catalyst for change. Enhancing culture’s role in the heart of our communities, the competition seeks to strengthen relationships and creative partnerships, ultimately making places more attractive to visit, live and work in, which we have heard about today.

It is worth reflecting on some of the benefits brought to previous winners of the competition. Coventry, the current UK city of culture, has delivered an ambitious year-long programme that is already transforming the city and supporting its citizens. With a community-led approach, Coventry City of Culture Trust has secured remarkable investment in local arts and community organisations. For example, despite having to delay its programme by six months due to the pandemic, Coventry has seen more than £172 million invested in the likes of concerts, public art displays and new children’s play areas in the city. There have been so many benefits.

Of course, previous cities of culture have also seen huge benefits. Before Coventry took the title, the 2017 winner, Hull, saw 5.3 million people visiting more than 2,800 events, and the 2013 winner, Derry/Londonderry, benefited from more than £150 million of public and private sector investment, so there is a huge upside to being selected. The benefits speak for themselves and explain why there is such interest, with a record 20 initial applicants expressing interest in the 2025 competition. After a long-list stage, Durham, along with three other locations—Bradford, Southampton, and Wrexham—was approved by the Secretary of State to make the shortlist for 2025. The panel chaired by Sir Phil Redmond, which is the next stage of the competition, will be visiting the four shortlisted places. We hope that the winner will be announced in Coventry at the end of May, and further assessment is going on at the moment.

I absolutely recognise that Durham’s bid is being delivered by Durham County Council, with Durham University acting as the principal partner on behalf of Culture Durham. Durham is home to world-famous heritage attractions, many of which we have heard about today. It is a very broad definition of heritage, involving music, arts, culture, historic sites and, indeed, food—my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland made me very hungry with her speech. Of course, Durham is also surrounded by beautiful landscapes, and many of its communities are built on proud industrial foundations. This culture and heritage is at the heart of its bid, and rightly so.

Talking about being at the heart of things, the comment from my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield was very telling. He said that, to the surprise of many, Durham is at the centre of Great Britain, although I think my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) claims that his constituency is absolutely at the centre. That always surprises people who do not wander north of Watford Gap too often.

As stated on its website, Durham’s bid aims to bring people and communities together, providing the opportunity to have a significant and sustained impact on the region’s economy. As hon. Members have outlined, there are significant plans for investment, a great upside and a considerable multiplier effect in the bid that is being proposed. Durham’s 2025 designation as UK city of culture would create an estimated 2,500 additional jobs in the creative industries alone, and would aim to attract more than 16 million visitors to the region. I have spoken on many occasions to my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield about the importance of tourism in the region and, in my other role as tourism Minister, that is something that is close to my heart. We have seen in previous competitions that being chosen as the UK city of culture really does deliver.

Importantly, even bids that have failed have nevertheless ended up getting considerable success from going through the process, because they then have a shovel-ready project, with business plans and business cases being built that can be used to apply for other funds, including heritage funds, Arts Council England funds and so on. I am absolutely confident that, having got as far as it has at the moment, Durham will see more value being delivered,

DCMS wants all bidders to take advantage of the bidding process. This was the first time that the eight long-listed places received a £40,000 grant to help support their applications. I know that the money is being used very intelligently and will therefore help, regardless of whether the bids win or lose—I hear the arguments about winning—and I hope that it will have helped with strengthening some of them.

I want to respond positively to the invitation to visit Durham that my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield has given me previously, and which I have heard again today from my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland. I absolutely commit to doing so, and we will sort that out in the diary, because there is so much in the region to see and do across the DCMS portfolios. I would like to finish by applauding the Durham bid team’s dedication and expressing my sincere appreciation for all their hard work so far. I wish Durham, and of course all the shortlisted places, the very best of luck in the final stages of the competition.

Question put and agreed to.

11:29

Sitting suspended.

Affordable Housing (Devon and Cornwall)

Wednesday 27th April 2022 Westminster Hall

[Stewart Hosie in the Chair]

14:30

[Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the availability of affordable housing in Devon and Cornwall.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I hate the word “crisis”, but there is no doubt in my mind that we have a housing crisis across Devon and Cornwall, which is particularly acute in my constituency of North Devon. It means that there is virtually no housing available for local people, affordable or otherwise. This weekend, the Chamber engagement team secured over 200 responses, the strength of feeling is so high. It is my constituents’ experience of this issue that drove me to apply for today’s debate.

Carol, one of my constituents, says:

“For me personally I am a single woman two years off retirement, I will not be able to retire completely because private rents are too high for one person on a pension. I am at risk of being homeless because of this. I’m not eligible for help if I lose my house because I cannot afford to live here anymore.”

Rachel says:

“We’ve been given notice to move out after 10 years so our landlord can use the house for family holidays. But we cannot find another family home in Braunton—there’s simply nothing available, likely due to the increased number of holiday lets.”

Kathryn says:

“We were saving to buy a house 3 years ago, unfortunately having reached our savings target 18 months ago, we have been unable to buy due to the huge increase in house prices in North Devon during the last 2 years. We now require more than double our original savings target for a deposit so are stuck renting until something changes.”

Stephanie says:

“Despite working, two of our children who live in Devon with children of their own are now suffering poverty due to high and increasing rent and no possible chance of either social housing or owning a home. They are likely to need deposits of approximately £150,000 as their wages would only cover a mortgage to approximately £90,000. It’s no good claiming there are schemes where only 5% deposit is needed when house prices far exceed earnings.”

So what exactly is going on? Figures from the Land Registry show that house prices in North Devon have risen by 22.5% against a UK average of 8%, the second highest increase in England, with neighbouring Torridge coming in fifth at 19.9%. At the same time, we have seen a complete collapse of the private rental sector as landlords take advantage of the surge in domestic tourism during the pandemic. Currently, Barnstaple, with a population of over 35,000, has just three private rentals available on Rightmove and 234 holiday lets on Airbnb.

[Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the situation at the moment allows landlords to buy up good residences in towns such as Barnstaple and Bideford, register themselves as businesses, apply for small business interest rate relief, pay nothing to the community, either in council tax or business rates, and provide very little by way of employment, and that that racket has to be stopped?

[Selaine Saxby]

As always, my right hon. and learned Friend and neighbour makes an excellent point. There is so much that needs to be done in Devon and Cornwall.

Building on the point I was making about the availability of property, today Ilfracombe has just one private rental and over 300 holiday lets. Apparently there has been a 67% reduction in rented housing between 2019 and August 2021, making North Devon the worst affected area in the south-west and the fourth worst nationally. Despite an improvement in the management of the list, the council reports a 32% increase in applications, with local affordable housing providers advising that there has been an increase of four to five times in the number of applicants for each new affordable rental property. From the data available, our district council reports that we have lost 467 houses from the permanent occupied market to second homes and short-term holiday lets, at a time when the rate of new developments has dropped right off due to the pandemic.

[Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to consider a bold policy intervention to tackle the impact of second home ownership? One such policy could be to allow councils to reserve a percentage of new builds for people with a local family or economic connection to an area.

[Selaine Saxby]

I agree with my hon. Friend. In my constituency many of these homes are reserved for local people, and I will explain some of the further issues later in my speech. I know that the Secretary of State has conceded that we have not built enough affordable homes, and he is right.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. In Cullompton in Mid Devon, we are putting up Zed Pods, which are very good modular homes that are zero carbon and equipped with triple glazing. They are also going on to garage sites and the like, and can be put up quite quickly. If we want to push to get more housing done, that is one way in which we could produce affordable, good-quality housing that is good for the environment and help reduce waiting list numbers.

[Selaine Saxby]

That highlights another important point, which is that a large number of small district councils in Devon are all tackling the same issue and coming up with different solutions. In fairness, building rates in North Devon have been good historically. However, we are currently averaging only 18% affordables on each development. As the Affordable Housing Commission concluded in 2020, many of these products are

“clearly unaffordable to those on mid to lower incomes.”

With some of the lowest productivity figures in the country and an abundance of part-time and seasonal work, we clearly have a lot of residents in that category.

[Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)]

My hon. Friend makes a good point about affordability. Does she agree that it is important to ensure that our county council statistics on average earnings are reflective of what in-county people earn? All across Devon, average earnings per year do not relate to the people who want to be able to afford houses and who work in the same area.

[Selaine Saxby]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. That is particularly the case in the south of our enormous county, where people can go out to other places, whereas we up in the north are very much—unless we work in London—in North Devon. Many new builds there are being snapped up as holiday lets or second homes. Many never even make it to market; they are purchased off plan before local residents see the light of day.

Building right down the Devon and Cornwall peninsula is difficult. We have higher land prices, particularly on the north coast, and fewer resources to build and materials to build with, making viability so challenging that the percentage of affordables drops right off. Many of the issues impacting on the housing market at present are particularly extreme on the coast, and we have an abundance of beautiful coast in Devon and Cornwall.

North Devon has an abundance of tiny communities looking to community land trusts, but products that should work well there repeatedly find that the high-unit grant rates required on often challenging sites with high abnormals still have a funding gap of £30,000 per unit, and that is despite the generous registered providers and grant rates from Homes England’s affordable homes programme.

I hope that I have detailed the magnitude and complexity of the problem. I have been walking this road for over 18 months and am grateful to the ministerial team for hearing from me quite so often on this topic. However, what I am struggling to convey is the urgency of the need for a solution.

With summer approaching, we are expecting and, indeed, seeing another surge in section 21 notices, as landlords find ways to evict tenants to enable them to convert these homes into holiday lets. With no registration scheme in place, there is no formal record of how many people are renting properties out on a short-term basis. We desperately need the consultation on the registration of short-term holiday lets to conclude, but it has not even started, despite having been announced last June. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport assures me that it is imminent, and even Airbnb is calling for one.

Having spent much time with housing providers, I know that they believe that the only solution is to devise another class of planning for short-term rentals, so that councils can differentiate between C3 housing and what would be, in essence, a commercial venture in short-term holiday lets. Local councils could then require licences to run that type of business in a property that was initially built for full-time residency, and limits could be placed in a community if there is deemed to be an imbalance.

We have always welcomed holidaymakers and second-home owners to our beautiful coast, but we have got out of balance, leaving the fabulous pubs, restaurants and hotels that people come to visit—and even our surf schools—unable to recruit enough staff. The situation has extended to our public services, with transferring personnel, however senior, struggling to find housing. With vast distances between so many communities, the increase in the cost of fuel and the absence of public transport, if there are not enough people living close to jobs that are paid a living wage, it is simply not worth travelling to get there in North Devon. We have already seen teaching assistants move out of jobs they love, simply so they can work closer to home. If there are no homes near someone’s job, it leads to jobs being returned, as people simply cannot move into the area.

I believe that we also need to go beyond just tackling business rates on short-term holiday lets; we need to tackle the inequalities between mortgage relief on long-term and short-term rentals, which are viewed as capital assets. Their profits are taxed differently, as returns on capital. Both types of property were built as homes, and they should be taxed comparably. Without a register of short-term holiday lets, I imagine that many are paying no tax at all, which is another opportunity for the Treasury. This is a step that could be taken rapidly to make the private rental sector more appealing to landlords, which is ultimately a step that we need to take quickly in order to begin to provide more housing in the south-west.

Other steps that could be taken rapidly include recognising that Devon has a large number of small planning authorities that all tackle the same challenges, with most having under-resourced planning departments, as detailed in previous recruitment challenges. Will my right hon. Friend the Minister commit to assist our planning departments to reverse building where appropriate, to stop building properties solely for holiday lets or second homes, and to have a clause that exempts people from living there full time? It is one thing for holiday parks, which are designed that way, but actual housing is being built with this restriction in place along the North Devon coast. Clearly that is needed on occasion, but as we have such a shortage of long-term housing, can we not focus on this, given that we are short of the other necessary resources—land, builders and materials?

Will my right hon. Friend the Minister also commit to work with the Treasury to look at taxation reforms and how to tackle the issue of empty properties? We have an abundance of them in North Devon, but it is simply not viable for the council to spend its time and resource on tackling this issue. If we could breathe life into empty buildings, we could take steps to regenerate additional housing, without building all over the beautiful fields of North Devon. I keep being told that the councils have it in their remit to convert space above empty shops into homes. Will someone please come to Barnstaple and make that happen? We have so many empty units with huge storage areas, rather than flats, above them, and tackling this issue could transform our town centre as well as provide vital accommodation.

Finally, please can steps be taken to tackle the issue of viability and barriers to councils being able to build developments with more than an 18% social housing component? I know that we English believe that our home is our castle, but far too many of the residents of North Devon worry about not having a home at all. That causes mental health issues, which are exacerbated further by having so many shortages in mental health services, as we cannot recruit to fill the vacancies.

We get really big storms in North Devon, and we are stuck in a really big housing storm right now. Without urgent intervention, we will have literal ghost towns and villages along our coast next winter, as locals have their homes and opportunities to live and work in their community ripped away from them by something like the Kansas twister. I hope that we can say goodbye to the yellow brick road and that some affordable housing wizardry will be expedited this afternoon.

14:43

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) has admirably outlined the problems that many of our constituencies face. Mine are slightly different from hers, but they carry a lot of similarities. If anything, house prices in Exeter are further inflated by the presence of a very successful university that has grown considerably in recent years due to the fact that the city is an attractive place to live. It is two hours from London on the train, and it is possible to cycle or walk to schools, so Exeter has all sorts of quality-of-life benefits.

My local authority has a very good record at doing what it can to ensure the good provision of local social housing and affordable housing to rent, but it really is working against Government policy all the time, and I have to give the Minister a number of practical proposals from my local authority that would make people’s lives much easier. For example, we are one of the few local authorities in the region that always insists on the maximum legal requirement for social housing in private developments in Exeter. That has made a huge difference, but it is like pushing a boulder up a hill repeatedly—not least given the impact of the covid pandemic. In recent weeks I have been knocking on doors for the local elections—as I am sure we all have—and have been completely dumbstruck by how many people have arrived in Exeter in the last year or so. They have moved out of London and the south-east for a better quality of life and cheaper housing, as far as they are concerned—they can now all work from home—and that is making the problem more acute.

There is a useful thing that the Government could do, according to my local authority. Through the right-to-buy scheme we are losing 40 council homes a year in Exeter. We are building 100 a year, but obviously we would provide a lot more local council houses if the local council was allowed to keep some of its receipts a bit longer. I know that the Government extended the number of years that local councils could keep those receipts to invest in local housing provision. However, because of the current shortage of construction workers and labour, and the difficulty in getting stuff built—I am experiencing that myself as I am currently renovating a house—it would be really helpful for local authorities if the Government had another look and considered extending to 10 years the period in which local authorities can reinvest that money. I do not see what the argument against that would be, as it would make the lives of local authorities a lot easier.

I know that this is a controversial suggestion, but given the seriousness of the situation outlined by the hon. Member for North Devon—this is a serious crisis—will the Government consider suspending the right-to-buy scheme for a limited period? That would protect our stock and enable local authorities to add to it in net terms. Even if private sector rental accommodation is available, in many cases the rents are simply out of the reach of many people, given the incomes they can command in the south-west.

The Minister could also change the way in which “affordable” is calculated. At present, the term “affordable” is applied to a calculation of 80% of the local market value. In Exeter, as in most places in the south-west, that 20% reduction of already hugely inflated prices makes absolutely no difference to the majority of potential homebuyers. The cost price is still way out of the reach of most local people. A resetting of the calculation of “affordable”, using, for example, a percentage of the value above building costs, could really make a difference. It would go a long way towards making “affordable” actually affordable in reality—for most people, that is currently not the case.

The hon. Member for North Devon has touched on the issue of second homes and Airbnbs. That is also really serious and has got much worse in the last year or so. It is unlikely to get better given the continuing demand from people across the UK for domestic holidays. We need an area-based cap, based on the local housing need. A cap on the percentage of housing used for short-term holiday lets needs to be put in place, even if it is a temporary measure for a couple of years in order to redress the imbalance of permanent versus temporary housing.

Planning regulations and houses in multiple occupation regulations need to be changed. Local authorities need greater powers—this is a massive issue in Exeter—so that they can determine the percentage of housing that is permitted for short-term HMO lets based on the housing need in their area. Local authorities need to have the ability to refuse planning permission for flipping family homes into HMOs once that cap is reached. That would make a significant difference in Exeter and, I am sure, in some of the constituencies my colleagues represent.

The final thing that my local authority said would really help to address this crisis in the short term is a two-year freeze on private sector rents, and a fair rent endorsement backed by Government incentives, such as a deposit underwriting scheme, so that local people can afford private sector housing. Many of them cannot at the moment. Those are just five or six practical suggestions that I hope the Minister will take away. I am sure that colleagues present will make other suggestions.

This is the most serious housing crisis I have experienced in my 25 years as a Member of Parliament. The combination of the cost of living crisis, inflation and the extraordinary inflation in house prices, which is more acute in beautiful regions such as the south-west, is creating an unprecedentedly difficult situation for families. I worry that we will see a big increase in homelessness in the months to come unless the Government do something about it very quickly.

14:49

[Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)]

I can only echo all that has been said so far about the challenging situation in Devon and Cornwall. This acute problem particularly affects Devon and Cornwall, and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) for securing an extremely timely debate.

The lack of good-quality, affordable housing for local people is not new, but it is not helped by significant population growth. In the past couple of years, Cornwall has had the highest net internal migration of any local authority area in England and Wales. I do not want to say this, but I know it is a fact as I do a lot of work on empty homes in my constituency: the problem is not helped by the fact that the Church of England, the Methodist Church, Cornwall Housing, an arm’s length company of Cornwall Council, and LiveWest, which we all know in Devon and Cornwall, have a lot of empty homes across Cornwall. The Methodist and Anglican Churches have empty homes in my constituency, and I am trying to get them used to address the significant need that hon. Members have set out clearly. Nor is it helped by the fact that long-let homes are being flipped to holiday lets at an alarming rate.

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and to my housing debate in December, when I had more time to set out the difficulties and potential solutions. During the debate, I called—more ambitiously than has been done so far—for devolved powers to local authorities such as Cornwall Council through the levelling up and regeneration Bill. I believe I have the support of Cornish colleagues in suggesting that all new homes be restricted for permanent residents only in perpetuity, and for a licence requirement if someone wants to use a home that is lived in as a holiday let, a bolthole or for any other business purpose.

Since December, the Government have not done a great deal to resolve the problem, although I appreciate that legislation is to be announced in the Queen’s Speech, but they have sought to address the exemption of second homes from business rates and council tax. From next year, as a consequence of lots of work that many have done—I have raised the issue twice in the Chamber over the years, and the Government ran two consultations—people will have to prove to the local authority that they have rented their house for 70 days before they qualify for the exemption. I still think council tax should be paid on all homes built to live in. That would be very good for our police and our town and parish councils, which at the moment are losing that income.

[Anthony Mangnall]

If the Government decide not to take up my hon. Friend’s suggestion, they should extend that 70 days to 140 and make it more rigorous.

[Derek Thomas]

And stop the opportunities for fraud. At the end of the day, it is fraud for someone to say they have a business that they do not have. I would happily welcome that.

Today, I want to explain why the pressure on housing has intensified in recent months and years. Regrettably, that is in part an unintended consequence of Government policies. I want to pick on two of them. Government policy is effectively driving landlords out of the market. We hear landlords saying—I could use some French, but I am not going to—“We’re not going to do this anymore. We are going to flip our homes into holiday let or do something else with our property,” and they are partly supported by Government policy, such as changes to long-let allowable tax benefits. Since April 2020 —not that long ago—landlords have no longer been able to deduct any of their mortgage expenses from their rental income to reduce their tax bill. The new system means higher or additional-rate taxpayers can no longer claim tax back on their mortgage repayments. Less obviously, the new rules could force some landlords’ total income into the higher or additional-rate tax bracket, depending on their pension or other income. I do not particularly object to that if it is fair across the board, but at the moment it favours holiday lets and does not help private landlords.

[Neil Parish]

I very much welcome what my hon. Friend is saying. We need to set up a rental system that encourages people to have private, long-let properties. We have made a mistake by targeting them too much, taking away the interest rate and the ability to claim that back against the property. We want private landlords who let good quality properties on long-term rentals, so the Government should reverse some of that policy and look at ways to encourage the private sector to put up good properties for long-term lets.

[Derek Thomas]

I completely welcome and agree with that intervention. I do not believe the Treasury deliberately intended to force private landlords out of the market, but that is certainly what is happening.

Energy performance certificates are a pet subject of mine and a debate on their own. Rental properties now require an E rating, which does not sound particularly ambitious until we try it on a property that was built in the 1800s. Since April 2020, landlords can no longer let or continue to let properties covered by the MEES regulations if they have an EPC rating below E, unless they have an exemption, which is not easy to get and costs over £3,000. The landlord has to spend money on the house before they even apply for the exemption. If they are planning to let a property with an EPC rating of F or G, they need to improve the rating to stay within the law. Again, every landlord has to get an EPC rating of E.

The Government’s plan to make rented homes greener is not in itself a bad thing, although we can have a wider debate about whether an EPC is the right tool to deliver the desired outcome. It is a computer system that invariably says no, without the ability to understand or appreciate the diverse nature of the built environment. I do not object to improving homes, making them warmer and their upkeep cheaper, with less of an impact on the environment, but my concern is that landlords seem to be subject to the EPC requirements in a way that holiday lets are not, and the situation is expected to get much worse because the Government have consulted on a compulsory energy performance certificate rating of C on new tenancies by December 2025—three years from now if they pursue it—and on all rented properties by December 2028. If we think the problem is bad today, it will be disastrous for somewhere such as Cornwall, where buildings were constructed in a very different era compared with today, and I would not even say that our buildings today are that modern. We will not get properties up to EPC rating C, so they will be lost to the rental market.

Those are examples of legislation that applies to long lets, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) has clearly demonstrated. We are losing valuable homes that people enjoy—we have heard about tenants of 10 years—because the legislation that applies to private landlords does not necessarily apply to people who own holiday lets. I largely agree with the requirements, but I do not believe there is a level playing field. Irrespective of Government policy, we must avoid a situation where we drive private landlords out of the market. There are people who do not wish to own their own home, and there are lots of people who, because of how we manage the term “affordable”, find it difficult to get on the ladder.

I hope the Minister understands the severity of the problem for Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. It is urgent. I have many constituents in a desperate situation, and we need rapid and effective intervention that provides a secure home for life, whether it is owned or rented.

14:58

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie, and I offer massive congratulations to the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing a really important debate. I apologise to colleagues, but I am a Member of Parliament for a western county—[Laughter.]

More seriously, I think we need to hunt as a pack because the issues that affect Devon and Cornwall affect Northumberland, North Yorkshire, Somerset, Wiltshire, Cumbria, Shropshire and other places as well. The hon. Member for North Devon was right to say that we should be sparing in our use of the word “crisis”, but she was right to use it in this case, because there is no doubt that rural communities like ours are under huge pressure. They were before the pandemic, but the pandemic has turbocharged a problem that already existed.

I want to echo something that the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) said earlier. The word “affordable” has become almost meaningless in how it is applied. In Devon, Cornwall or Cumbria, a house for sale at £200,000 is not affordable. The reality is that when average household incomes are in the £20,000s and average house prices are at least £250,000, that is a broken system and a broken market. I believe in a free market but I would intervene and referee to try to make it fairer. We are all trying to encourage the Government to take that seriously.

We represent desirable and beautiful places, with great, welcoming communities. We must get the tone spot-on, as we are not saying to people who visit or make their homes in our communities, or even have second homes in our communities, that they are not welcome. We are welcoming, British people—that is what we are. Our communities and economies thrive because of the tourism that underpins them, but we cannot ignore the fact that excessive second home ownership and holiday lets, excessive house prices in general, and a lack of availability of affordable homes for families who are either local or want to become local, are serious problems. We have a broken market, and we have to intervene to fix that.

The impact of excessive second home ownership is the death of communities. When a village or a town lacks the number of permanent residents needed to allow it to support a school, a pub, a post office or a bus route, its community becomes sad and dies as it no longer has any functional existence. No one wants to come on holiday to a dead community. We want to protect those communities so that they are alive and living.

I talked about the pandemic turbocharging an existing problem, but during the pandemic estate agents in my patch reported that anything between 50% and 80% of all house sales in the lakes were in the second home sector, showing a steady attrition of the already reducing permanent housing stock.

Holiday lets are vital and underpin any tourism economy, but if there are too many, where do they come from? In one year during the pandemic, there was a 32% rise in the number of holiday lets in my district council area. They are not being magicked from nowhere, but, as the hon. Member for North Devon rightly pointed out, arise from long-term lets where the landlord has ejected tenants using a section 21 eviction, and they then typically end up on Airbnb and similar places.

In my area, and I imagine Devon and Cornwall are very similar, we have high levels of employment and low levels of unemployment. Typically, we see couples, both of whom have jobs, with children at local schools, having to leave those jobs and take the children out of their schools in order to move to somewhere urban that is just about affordable, perhaps 50 miles away. That kills local communities, is tragic for the individuals and families concerned, and is a massive blow to the life of that community.

That point is worth bearing in mind when we look at new-build homes, wherever we live. There is a danger that we have got into the mindset that fewer planning regulations are better for creating more homes; that is not true. Planning authorities, whether they be national parks or local authorities, have to have the power to direct what kind of homes are built, in order to make them more likely to happen. In this country, we are constantly building to meet demand, but not building to meet need, which is what creates opposition to new development.

In most communities like mine, the people are the opposite of nimbys. They are desperate for new homes, but for homes that people need. Of course, a nice new-build four or five-bedroom property in Cornwall, Devon or Cumbria will sell and someone will buy it, but it is not what that community needs. We need planning laws that make sure that the homes that are built are green, sustainable, affordable and underpin the local community and economy.

[Anthony Mangnall]

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise what the Secretary of State is trying to do through his BIDEN acronym, which means build beautifully, make sure there is infrastructure, hold developers to account, take into account the environment and make sure neighbourhood plans are fully weighted?

[Tim Farron]

Yes. That is massively important, because if a community supports a development, it is more likely to happen. I regret that we do not enforce zero carbon homes and that we still permit the inflation of the value of land through the massively outdated and hugely damaging Land Compensation Act 1961, which inflates the price of houses. Those issues could be tackled by giving local authorities and communities more power, and if better, more beautiful and greener houses are built.

[Anthony Mangnall]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, with which I wholeheartedly agree. When a planning Bill is introduced, will he support the measures set out in the Planning (Enforcement) Bill, the ten-minute rule Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) a few months ago? Those measures were specifically designed to ensure that plans presented to a community or a local council are not altered when the site is developed, driving down the affordability, greenness or environmentally friendly nature of the original proposal.

[Tim Farron]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, and risks my going off on one about viability assessments and so on, and the fact that when conditions are made, they should be applied. We need the Government to back national parks and local authorities, who impose conditions, get through the planning game and put affordability in there, and then developers say, “We have found some rocks in the field. It will cost too much money to do that now.” We need to ensure that communities get what they were promised and not otherwise. He makes an excellent point.

I will be quick in my final remarks. The impact on communities is huge and the impact on the economy is massive. We had a vote the other night on the amendment on health and social care workforces. In communities such as ours, as has been mentioned by right hon. and hon. Members, we have a serious problem. On the whole, these are older communities. My community is about 10 years above the national average age. That means smaller working-age populations. If those people are squeezed out even further, there is no one to run the health service. People will take jobs in the local hospital or care home, check the housing market and then give back word. That happens all the time, as has already been mentioned.

Cumbria Tourism carried out a survey of members a few months ago and discovered that last year 63% of Lake District hospitality businesses worked below capacity, despite demand being there. Why was that? Because they did not have the staff to meet that demand. That is in part due to the issues that we have raised today. What can we do? Change planning law to make first homes, second homes and holiday lets separate categories of planning use, so that planning authorities and councils can enforce affordability and availability, and ensure there is a limit on the number of second homes and holiday lets in a community. We could allow, as the Welsh Senedd has decided, local authorities to increase council tax above 100% on second homes. Councils would have the choice to do that; they would not have to. As the hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) mentioned, quite rightly, we should ensure that council tax is paid on every property that is built as a residence.

The simple fact is that a wealthy person, with a second home on the Lizard peninsula or in the Lake District, is subsidised by somebody on the breadline and going to the food bank in the same community because they have let their second home for 70 days a year. That means they pay no council tax and, as a small business, pay no business rate. That is an outrage from the Exchequer’s point of view. It is also morally outrageous, that people barely getting by are subsidising wealthy people who can afford two, three, four or more homes.

We also need to ensure that section 21 evictions are abolished, as the Government promised in their manifesto. We need to decide the point at which a second home has become a holiday let, and raise the bar from 70 nights to more than 100 nights. It could be made consistent with the HMRC requirement of 105 nights a year to qualify as a holiday let.

My final point is this. I agree with pretty much everything everyone has said in the debate so far. We have been raising the matter for years. I remember raising it with the junior planning Minister a few years ago, a gentleman who is now Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am concerned that we make these points, which are obviously an issue, showing the need to tackle the lack of affordable housing in rural communities, yet the Government still refuse to take the action needed to deliver for those communities.

I hope that in a spirit of solidarity and hunting as a pack, we might persuade the Minister to listen and take the action that rural communities need.

15:08

[Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Hosie, for chairing the debate. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing the debate and making her case so forcefully. It is about time that Government realised that one of the solutions to our energy problems in this country is to plug my hon. Friend into the national grid. Her energy could power many homes over the coming months.

I would like to draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as a non-executive director of Rentplus-UK Ltd, a company started in Plymouth that provides affordable rent-to-buy homes for local people, especially key workers.

The housing market is complex and challenging. Throughout my 30 years at Westminster, there has never been enough affordable housing to rent or buy to meet demand, and there probably never will be, especially in hotspots such as Devon and Cornwall. Because the area is such a delightful destination, as we have heard, many people seek to retire to our region, pushing prices high, often out of reach of local people. The recent spasm of people selling their homes in cities and moving to the countryside in the pandemic years has exacerbated the problem.

That has resulted in many local people being unable to save the necessary deposit and fulfil their aspiration of home ownership, as recognised in paragraph 43 of the recent House of Lords report, “Meeting housing demand”:

“Given that average deposits are £59,000, ‘saving for a deposit is impossible for many renters on lower incomes’, especially as research before the COVID-19 pandemic showed that 45% of private renters in England did not have enough savings to pay their rent for more than a month if they lost their job…Although it may be the case that preferences have shifted towards renting in the short term as a lifestyle choice, the main constraint on achieving home ownership remains an inability to save the required deposit, a goal that becomes increasingly out-of-reach if house prices rise faster than savings.”

That is exactly what we are seeing. The deposit barrier problem remains a significant challenge in the south-west.

I have maintained an interest in social rented housing ever since I was housing chairman on Plymouth City Council in the late 1980s. As I said, there has never been enough of it—not when councils were the main providers, not under 13 years even of a Labour Government, and not under the last 25 years or so when housing associations have been the main providers.

During those years, there was always a buoyant private sector rented market for those who could not afford to buy and could not access social rented housing. That is an insecure way to live—I would hate to live like that—because renters are at the whim of a landlord who might decide to sell the property and or for whatever reason evict them on just a few months’ notice. But at least there was plenty of it in our region. Many people had a second property that they let out as an additional or retirement income. It was a buoyant market until two years ago.

The impact of covid-inflated prices and the rise and rise of Airbnb have meant that in our region, landlords have been quitting the private rented sector in droves, either selling their property to catch the rising tide or turning their properties over to Airbnb where they can make three or four times the return. That has decimated the market, meaning that many key workers—as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon, who led the debate so well—simply cannot find accommodation near their jobs or at all. This unprecedented shift in market conditions is putting enormous pressure on families desperate for a home in our region.

Naturally, the market has responded to scarcity as it always does: by rising prices. A two-bedroom property in Plympton in my constituency, which two years ago would have been £650 to £700 a month is now £850 to £900. When added to spiralling energy costs and council tax always creeping up, many are simply priced out of the market. The housing allowance of £550 has not kept pace.

[Derek Thomas]

My hon. Friend raises an important point about the housing allowance. The average price in Cornwall of three-bedroom rental is £1,400 a month; does he agree that that is completely out of reach for most working families on an average Cornish income?

[Sir Gary Streeter]

I do agree. People used the word “crisis” earlier—none of us likes to use it, but this is a crisis. Many constituents are struggling to find a suitable home.

I want to add some questions to the others posed to the Minister. Let us be honest: we know this Minister has the intellect and stamina to grapple with these complex problems. What is the Government going to do about this current gross distortion of the private rented market in regions such as Devon and Cornwall to ensure our constituents can access reasonably priced housing? Is he having discussions with the Treasury about taxation policy on Airbnb? Is his Department looking at new regulations to ensure that Airbnb standards and safety are at least as high as in the general rented market, to ensure a level playing field? Why has the consultation on these issues taken so long? We are Conservatives and we believe in the market, but where it moves so dramatically and quickly against our constituents, we have to find effective ways to intervene.

On the wider long-term affordability problems, the Government appear to be placing their trust in two main pillars: First Homes and shared ownership, with very little between. I wonder whether the First Homes policy, with an in-built discount to be handed on in perpetuity, will survive the test of time. I must confess that I foresee tremendous problems when owners of their first house have to pass on the discount when they sell it. How will they then make the jump to their second house, which will be priced in the open market? I have never understood how that is going to happen, so I question that policy.

Then there is the continued focus on shared ownership, which few people like and where few people ever end up owning the whole property. It has not delivered the scale of accessible homes that was originally envisaged.

[Anthony Mangnall]

I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour, who is making a brilliant speech on this point. I thought I would remind the House and this gathering of MPs that we have the highest rate of second homes and Airbnb properties in Devon, at 8.2%. My hon. Friend is making a point about how we can help people get on to the housing ladder. Could I add a third suggestion? We should enable people to use their pensions as their deposits to get on the housing ladder, which are then ring-fenced in the value of their house and, if they ever sell it on, can be put back into their pension for the future.

[Sir Gary Streeter]

My hon. Friend is full of interesting ideas. That is another one, which I am sure the Minister will look at carefully and be sympathetic to.

There is a significant gap in the middle between the two main policy pillars that the Government are currently pursuing, and many of our constituents are falling into that gap. As such, here is a thought for the Minister, with which I will conclude. Will he give some thought to calling a conference or roundtable in the south-west this summer to discuss our challenging housing needs? We could hear from key workers and employers about the frustrations and costs of accessing housing in our hotspot area, from housing providers and landlords about the current landscape, their frustrations, and the things that work and do not work, and from innovative providers of housing how, working together with Government, they might help meet the needs and aspirations of our constituents. Such a collective brainstorm could help find both short-term and long-term solutions to our housing crisis.

The housing market in Devon and Cornwall, whether to rent or to buy, has always been challenging for local people, but in my 30 years, it has never been as bad as it currently is. It is a crisis, and urgent remedial action is required.

15:17

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the hon. Member for South West Devon (Sir Gary Streeter)—my constituency neighbour—for those remarks. There is cross-party agreement on this issue that I have not seen from Devon and Cornwall for quite some time, and I thank the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) for her introduction, in which she summed up the problem very well. I am on the opposite side of Devon to her, but the challenges on the south coast are similar. They are all part of the same pattern.

This problem is a frustration for many of us in the west country, because it has been growing for years and years. I like this Minister—I think he is a good Minister—but I also know that Housing Ministers are ticking time bombs who will get replaced at the next inevitable reshuffle. We need to make sure that an impact is made early—not long consultations, not long discussion documents, but action delivered in the near term. That is what I hope the Minister will be able to achieve.

My starting point for this debate is a simple one: every family in the south-west should be able to afford a first home, be it to rent or to buy. However, we are fast becoming a region of second homes, Airbnbs and holiday lets. Our communities are being hollowed out, and that is proceeding at pace. The pandemic is turbocharging the housing crisis in the south-west, but the measures to react to it are not coming at the same pace, so we need to look at this issue again.

Far too many people are on housing waiting lists—nearly 10,000 in Plymouth. Those people are living in overcrowded accommodation, living in bed and breakfasts—not the Airbnbs we have spoken about, but accommodation that is not suitable for long-term occupancy. We need to do something about it that will mean everyone can have a first home.

Plymouth operates the Housing First model. I commend the council, be it red or blue, for adopting an approach that says the first thing we should do for any person who is in crisis or having difficulties is provide a safe and secure roof over their head. I wish all councils would follow suit, but it is a good approach. However, we are running out of roofs to put over people’s heads. We need to make sure that we are building at the right pace and making sure those homes are genuinely affordable. I agree with the remark about 80% affordable not being affordable—that is a simple spin to try to persuade the public that enough action is being taken, when it is not. Eighty per cent. affordable is not affordable, and we must not fall for that. Nor should we believe that the dream of home ownership is available for everyone—that is spin from decades ago. Home ownership is out of reach for the vast majority of young people in the south-west. It is something that is accentuating the brain drain in our region, at the very point when we have an opportunity to seize the potential of the south-west to have more people living there.

The average house price for a first-time buyer in Devon is £258,000, and people need a 10% deposit to get a mortgage. That is £25,000, which is too much for many people on low incomes in the west country, and we need to ensure that there are alternative routes. With more families struggling to pay bills, it makes saving up for a house deposit, be it for the private rented sector or for purchase, so much harder. We have seen a massive surge in houses being purchased to become second homes, which is contributing to the hollowing out of our communities. At the same time, we have also seen people renting a property on the private rented market and being removed under a section 21 no-fault eviction, with the property appearing on Airbnb on the same day as the eviction. It is a good way for landlords to make a lot of money, but it is a bad way to have a sustainable community, and the cost of the family now in crisis falls on the taxpayer. It is completely unsustainable.

The private rented sector in large parts of the south-west has collapsed, and we are experiencing market failure. There is a need for urgent intervention, which we have not seen in the past decade.

[Anthony Mangnall]

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech, and I totally agree with his point, but what we need to do—exactly as my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) said—is look at having covenants on properties that say “primary residence only”. That must be on new builds, but it can also be on buildings that are bought into housing associations or on houses that are sold on the market. We must look at how we can adopt that strategy.

[Luke Pollard]

I think there is a good route for covenants. As someone whose little sisters work in farming, I know that the agricultural ties on some properties are a really important way to ensure that some people are able to afford to live in a rural area and work in agriculture. However, we know that those agricultural ties are too often being severed from properties, which are then turned into holiday lets or empty homes.

I agree with the suggestion made by my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for South West Devon, about an urgent housing conference in the south-west. There is a special need for it, because the south-west is experiencing this problem ahead of many other regions, notwithstanding the constituency of our Lib Dem friend from Cumbria, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). We are hitting this problem first, because we have the highest number of second homes and Airbnb penetrations, but it will come to every other region of England and the rest of the country. Instead of receiving bright ideas from London, let the bright ideas come from the communities that are being affected the most. I think that is an excellent suggestion, which I am sure will enjoy full cross-party support to ensure it works, but there are other opportunities in this space.

As I have badgered the Minister and shadow Minister, they will know that the proposals for a First Homes not Second Homes campaign that I have worked up with colleagues from Cornwall and across Devon put the policy emphasis on ensuring that everyone can afford a first home. We need to have a principled moral stance on home occupancy, and I hope the Minister will look carefully at Devon and Cornwall’s devolution proposals on what additional powers over second homes and Airbnbs could be included in our devolution deal to ensure that we are better able to take that on board.

The personal stories are harrowing. Ellen from Plymouth told me that she and her seven-month-old daughter have had to flee domestic violence and be placed in a hotel, but there is building work outside from 8 am to 8 pm. It is simply unaffordable for her to move into the private rented sector, and there is no social housing available in her band. Colleagues from Cornwall have also shared stories of working people who are unable to afford the rent increases this year and who are now facing homelessness or the need to move out of our region.

There is one case that I have been working on for many years, which is about the lack of not just affordable housing but accessible housing for those with disabilities. The problem is especially acute in a city such as Plymouth, where our housing stock is already compressed. It might be possible to accommodate a person with a disability in a one-bedroom flat—we have a few of those—but if they have a family, as many of them do, they are not able to access accommodation, because it simply does not exist. There is no vehicle for their accommodation to be built and funded, so they sit in no man’s land in perpetuity, which is simply unacceptable.

I agree with nearly all the suggestions that have been made so far. The First Homes not Second Homes campaign has been picking up some of the suggestions that are not always in the public domain. I would like the Minister to consider allowing local councils to quadruple council tax not just on empty properties, but on second homes. The Welsh Labour Government introducing that 300% council tax on second homes is, I think, an interesting pioneer project here. I would encourage the Minister to look at it, notwithstanding the difference between party colours, because we must get this right.

Our communities are being hollowed out by second homes. That means looking at how they are getting hollowed out. I would like the Minister to look at the enforcement of covenants on right-to-buy properties. Councillors Jayne Kirkham and Kate Ewert, two Labour councillors in Cornwall, have been pressing Cornwall County Council to ensure that covenants on right-to-buy properties, which exclude those properties from being used as holiday lets, must be enforced, because far too many of them are being used as such. That, I think, is an opportunity for us to reconsider, and I commend the work that they have been doing.

The First Homes not Second Homes manifesto also deals with the fact that our communities have been hollowed out to the last shop in the village. It is about the bus routes going because there is not enough daily traffic and about the shop not being able to make enough money all year round, even though they might do well in the summer months. There is a real opportunity for that.

My final point is that we must build more homes, but must also retrofit the homes we have. Far too many of our homes—especially in places such as Plymouth—are frankly too poor in quality. Some 43% of the people I represent live in the private rented sector. There are some brilliant landlords in Plymouth but, sadly, a number have let their houses deteriorate, so we must ensure that there is an incentive to properly insulate and secure properties. That will lower the bills, which might make the end product more affordable.

However, we are in a state of housing crisis here. Our market is failing. That is why I look to the Minister for urgent action that can be delivered this year—not some time ahead. I commend the suggestions that have been made on a cross-party basis here today.

15:26

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Hosie. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing this debate, on the thoughtful way in which she opened it, and on her tenacity in returning to this issue time and again. I know that she has been highlighting it since she was elected. I also thank all Members who have participated this afternoon. We have had a series of excellent contributions, as well as a range of practical suggestions and questions, which I hope the Minister will respond to.

As many of the hon. Members present will be aware, having taken part in them, this is not the first debate this year to grapple with the issues of access and affordability relating to housing in rural and coastal communities. Indeed, there have been several Westminster Hall debates over recent months in which Members from across the House have raised serious concerns, particularly about the impact of second homes and short-term and holiday lets on the availability and affordability of homes for local people to buy and rent. That, in itself, speaks to the importance of this matter to a great many people across the country, as well as the pressing need for more to be done to address the problem so that we get the balance right between the benefits that second homes and short-term lets undoubtedly bring to local economies and their impact on local people.

It is clear from the strength of feeling expressed in this debate, and in those other recent debates, that there remains a clear view among a sizeable number of hon. Members, on both sides of the House, that as things stand the Government have not done enough, and have not got that balance right. That lack of action on the part of the Government has real consequences. I do not think it is hyperbole to use the word “crisis”, as many hon. Members have done. I think that this is a crisis, particularly as it applies to Devon and Cornwall—but also to other parts of England, as we have heard.

What does that crisis look like? As we have heard, as well as entailing the loss of a significant proportion of the permanent population—and the impact that loss has on local services, amenities and the sustainability and cohesion of communities—excessive and growing rates of second home ownership are, in a great many rural and coastal areas, directly impacting the affordability, and therefore the availability, of local homes, particularly for local first-time buyers. The staggering growth in short-term and holiday lets in many rural and coastal constituencies is having the same detrimental impact, albeit on not only the number of affordable homes for local people to buy, but access to private rentals—as we heard—for those who cannot buy and also cannot secure social housing.

Incidentally, when it comes to the shrinking private rental markets in many rural and coastal communities, the issue is not only of access but of security. Many renters in these parts of the country—particularly key workers—are finding that their landlord wishes to begin using their property exclusively as a short-term or holiday let, and they are evicted as a result. That is yet another reason for the Government—who I must say have failed to bring forward a renters’ reform Bill in this Session, despite promising to do so in the Queen’s Speech—to get on with it and finally introduce the legislation necessary to ban no-fault evictions, rather than delaying matters for another year or year and a half with a White Paper.

What, then, needs to happen to ensure that we make available more affordable housing in Devon, Cornwall and other rural and coastal communities across the country? First, as I have said on previous occasions, there is clearly more that could be done to mitigate the negative impact of excessive numbers of second homes and holiday lets.

When it comes to non-planning levers—primarily taxation—we accept that the Government have taken action over recent years by reforming stamp duty, allowing local authorities to increase council tax to 100% for second homes, and proposing that properties be required to have been let for 70 days in any given financial year to be liable for business rates, rather than council tax. However, there is a strong case for going further. We believe the Government should explore providing local authorities with powers to, for example, introduce licensing regimes for second homes and short-term lets, and giving them even greater discretion over their council tax regimes, perhaps, as my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) just mentioned, allowing local authorities, as Labour has done in government in Wales, to levy a premium or surcharge on second homes and long-term empty properties if they believe that is what is required in their locality.

I believe there remains a strong case for reviewing whether the current 3% rate of stamp duty surcharge on second homes and the 5% rate levied on non-UK buyers are set at the appropriate level in light of the boom that we have witnessed over the course of the pandemic. When it comes to planning levers, the system does now enable residents to put in place local neighbourhood plans that can go some way to managing second-home ownership rates, but again it is clear that further measures are required. We believe that the Government should explore further changes to planning restrictions and enforcement that might enable local authorities to bear down on excessive numbers of second homes and holiday lets in a way that, if designed well, would not exacerbate the problems of affordability and availability that have been touched on in today’s debate.

Secondly, as well as doing more to mitigate the negative impact of, in particular, second homes and holiday lets, Ministers really do need to start grappling with what reforms are required to deliver the right quantity of new housing in the right places, at prices that local people can actually afford. They need to do so because at present the Government are failing to deliver on this front, both in terms of sufficient numbers of new affordable homes to rent—where Ministers are presiding over a system that sees a net loss of thousands of genuinely affordable social rented homes each and every year—and new affordable homes to buy.

The hon. Member for South West Devon (Sir Gary Streeter) mentioned shared ownership and the first homes scheme. I could spend a long time speaking about the deficiencies of shared ownership as an intermediate model. I gently suggest to the Minister that, like its starter homes forerunner, the Government’s flagship first homes scheme, as a policy, looks to all intents and purposes like it is already an abject failure. Not only is it leading to a significant reduction in the number of social and affordable homes to rent by top-slicing funding secured through section 106 agreements, but since it was first introduced, rising house prices, coupled with a rising new build premium, have already eroded the value of the first homes discount, by my calculations, in almost three quarters of local authority areas.

The simple fact is that the policy does not address the underlying reasons why young people and key workers cannot get on to the housing ladder, particularly in areas with overheated housing markets, such as Devon and Cornwall. Labour is committed to giving first-time buyers first dibs on new homes in their local area, and to establishing a new definition of affordable, set at a rate of 30% of local incomes, rather than the present definition, which is linked to those overheated market rates that we have discussed.

I conclude by saying that this has been a worthwhile debate, and I have no doubt that we will return to this subject once again in the next Session unless the Government decide to heed the demands of hon. Members, including many on their own side, and act quickly on this issue. I very much look forward to hearing from the Minister, both that the Government are minded to do so and precisely what that action will entail.

15:34

[The Minister for Housing (Stuart Andrew)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) for championing this cause and bringing this debate before us today. I had literally been in the job for about four and a half minutes when she came hurtling up towards me and said, “I have two words for you.” Those two words were more polite than other words that people gave me—“Second homes,” she said. She has been relentless, as hon. Members have said, in ensuring that, in my head, this is high on the list of issues that need to be dealt with. Hon. Members across the south-west, in other parts of the country and across party have been presenting the real issues that their communities face. They are all incredibly important challenges in the housing sector. I thank my hon. Friend for being a torch bearer for the concerns of her constituents, in particular Carol, Rachel, Kathryn and Stephanie, whose responses she highlighted.

I will start my response with a statement of the obvious: people in communities up and down the country deserve access to good-quality and affordable housing. However, that is not the reality that many people in this country live with. To deliver on that ambition, we should keep a laser-like focus on the need to level up the country by increasing the supply of affordable homes in all regions. We as a Government are acutely aware of the unique set of circumstances that exists in our coastal communities around supply, second homes and the looming effects of climate change.

I believe that we are all in agreement that we need more affordable homes and that successive Governments —of all colours, frankly—have fallen short of that goal. We have made it a fundamental part of our levelling-up agenda so that we can start to rectify that, recognising that it is in our national interest for every community in the country to have a strong supply of high-quality, sustainable housing. Where people live should not limit their access to that supply.

We are making progress. Since 2010, we have delivered more than 574,000 new affordable homes across the country. In the south-west alone, we have delivered more than 63,000 of them. Ultimately, however, we know that we need to build more because, for a variety of reasons, supply has simply not kept up with demand in recent decades.

That acknowledgment underpins the affordable homes programme, which comprises £11 billion-worth of investment designed to tackle the twin issues of affordability and supply. It is the largest investment in a decade, and I am hopeful that my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon is aware that the south-west receives one of the largest allocations from it, with £1 billion earmarked for the delivery of 17,500 new affordable homes across the region.

The programme fits with our determination to turn generation rent into a generation of homeowners. Through the programme, we have said that approximately half of the homes constructed will be for affordable home ownership, supporting aspiring homeowners to take the first step on the housing ladder. The programme will also deliver more than double the number of social rent homes than the current programme, with about 132,000 homes for social rent. I accept that that is an incredibly important element of what we have to do. I am keen, as the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) said, that we also explore how we help councils start to build council housing again. The points he made are interesting ones, which I will take away and am happy to respond to in writing, if he is in agreement.

Our aim is to support thousands of hard-working people with funding to help them experience the unique sense of pride that comes with owning their own home. In turn, that will help us to level up parts of the country, such as the south-west, by creating new jobs for homebuilders, small and medium-sized enterprise developers, electricians and plumbers alike. The programme recognises the scale of the challenge in front of us, with major investments to tackle affordability, to re-energise the housing sector and, most importantly, to build back better from the pandemic.

As a Government we also recognise the need to address the impact that the large numbers of second homes and short-term holiday lets has, not just on the local housing market, but on the communities themselves, which all hon. Members have mentioned today. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon illuminated powerfully in her speech, that is particularly true in our rural and coastal communities, including her constituency.

I want to be clear: this Government wholeheartedly support responsible short-term letting. We absolutely recognise the economic benefits that that can have in our favourite holiday hotspots, but the benefits should not be to the detriment of local communities. Landlords who let out accommodation on a short-term basis must do so responsibly and in accordance with the law. We are taking action to address the fact that there is such a high concentration of second homes in these regions. I am of the view that it is only fair that owners of second homes pay their fair share towards the local services that they benefit from. It is important to re-emphasise the point about the introduction of stamp duty land tax for those purchasing additional properties, and tightening tax rules for second home owners. Large numbers of second homes should not block the path to home ownership for local people and the measures we have introduced will help mitigate their impact.

As I said at the start, I am aware of the seriousness of the situation. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Sir Gary Streeter) suggested that I hold a roundtable in his region. He will be pleased to know that I have already suggested that to officials in my Department—I look forward to making those arrangements as soon as possible. I want to hear the suggestions that local partners may have. I want to fully understand the impact that the situation is having on local communities from those who are actually there. I now expect that there will be a million invitations for me to visit each constituency while I am there; I would very much look forward to that.

I want to move on to the planning issues mentioned by some hon. Members. Central to tackling the issues that have been raised is the need to deliver the right homes in the right places. Existing planning tools are already helping. Local plans such as those in the Yorkshire dales can protect a share of housing for local residents. Some communities, particularly in the south-west, have chosen to include policies in their neighbourhood plans to require new open-market housing to be occupied as a principal residence. In addition, section 106 agreements can apply a local connection test to protect a share of new housing for local people. Our first homes scheme enables local authorities to prioritise discounted homes for local people through section 106, with discounts at a minimum of 30%.

We have also made changes to the planning system to meet some of the numerous challenges that hon. Members have rightly drawn attention to. In August 2021, we introduced a new permitted development right that allows buildings in the new commercial, business and service use class to change to residential use. I was interested to hear of the challenges that are being faced; while I am not promising to bring my trowel and bucket, perhaps on my visit to the south-west I can see some of the problems that my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon alluded to. The new right means that a wider range of commercial buildings can make the change to residential use without the need for planning applications; for example, it can apply to the spaces above shops. We have also introduced new permitted development rights to allow two additional storeys to be added to existing buildings such as houses, flats and commercial buildings, to create new homes. Those rights will continue to deliver new homes that might not otherwise come forward through the planning system.

We recognise that there are currently capacity challenges, and we want to ensure that local authority planning departments are equipped and have the right skills to make creative decisions, enabling us to take forward ambitious proposals for levelling up. We are engaging with representatives from across local government, the private sector and professional bodies, to consider ways in which we can ensure that local authorities are equipped to deliver places that people can be proud of and have the skills needed to deliver an efficient planning service.

I want to mention levelling up. I think about levelling up as the tool that exists to prevent the Kansas-style twisters that my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon described. I will not go as far as to say that levelling up is a miracle on the scale of “The Wizard of Oz”—and I cannot promise her that I have my ruby slippers on—but I appreciate the reference. Levelling up is a blueprint that has the potential to transform the fortunes of towns and cities all over the country. My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon was right when she drew attention to regional disparities running through this country like faultlines. Those issues transcend every part of society; they are issues of lack of opportunity, lack of good quality jobs, and of life prospects being diminished by areas’ being overlooked and undervalued.

Across the country, places with proud histories such as North Devon have seen generation after generation leave the area with the promise of a better, brighter future that simply did not feel possible or affordable in the area in which they were living. We need only to look at some of the high streets in communities across the country to see that such places have been taken for granted for too long. Even places such as Devon and Cornwall—which draw millions of tourists and have rich cultural heritages—have, at times, been like a jet plane being powered by only one of its engines. We know it is not enough to simply identify the problem and say we are going to fix it. We need to walk the walk, and our levelling-up blueprint sets out exactly how we are going to do that.

Hon. and right hon. Members have raised a number of points today and I am looking at all those issues. I have heard loud and clear—literally—about such issues from colleagues not just in the south-west, but in the Lake district, Norfolk and other tourist hotspots. I appreciate the way that colleagues have conducted the debate today; it has been useful and interesting to hear all their suggestions. I will take them away and consider them very carefully so that we can try to address the problems that colleagues have raised with me beforehand, have spoken about today and, I am sure, will be causing them to keep knocking at my door in the days and weeks to come.

15:46

[Selaine Saxby]

It has been a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I am delighted to have welcomed colleagues to speak this afternoon and I thank them all for coming. I thank the Minister for his response; the roundtable will of course welcome him to North Devon as the first bid for that trip—[Interruption.] I had already texted.

This afternoon, I really would like to stress the urgency of this issue. We have been talking about it for a very long time, and although we recognise that the Minister is relatively new to his post, we have been here before and we need something to happen this summer. I hope that he will be able to nudge his colleagues in the Treasury and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to deliver the other bits of the jigsaw puzzle.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the availability of affordable housing in Devon and Cornwall.

15:48

Sitting suspended.

International Thalassaemia Day

Wednesday 27th April 2022 Westminster Hall

14:56

[Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)]

I will call Bambos Charalambous to move the motion and then the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention in 30-minute debates.

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered International Thalassaemia Day 2022.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie.

International Thalassaemia Day is on 8 May, and this year’s message is “Be Aware. Share. Care.” The first part of the message is about raising awareness, so what is thalassaemia? Thalassaemias are inherited blood disorders that lower, alter or stop the production of haemoglobin in the blood. That leads to anaemia, which might be severe or life-threatening if not managed appropriately. There are several types of thalassaemia, depending on the severity of the mutation inherited. The most severe type is beta thalassaemia major, or transfusion-dependent thalassaemia, followed by beta thalassaemia intermedia and haemoglobin H disease.

Those living with transfusion-dependent thalassaemia receive blood transfusions every three weeks for life and daily iron chelation therapy. All patients develop secondary conditions and complications due to thalassaemia and iron overload. Sadly, they develop conditions such as diabetes, heart failure, osteoporosis and liver failure. Patients therefore have to spend a lot of time in hospital, whether it is for blood transfusions for thalassemia, or for the treatment and monitoring of secondary conditions.

Thalassaemia is not transmitted by transfusion, infection, environmental conditions or other factors, but is recessively inherited. It is more prevalent in individuals with Caribbean, South American, African, Mediterranean, south Asian, south-east Asian and middle eastern ancestry. Due to migration over centuries, it is found throughout the world, and it is estimated that there are 100 million people worldwide with a thalassaemia trait who are asymptomatic.

The prevalence of thalassaemia varies across different regions in the UK. Data published in 2020 by the National Haemoglobinopathy Registry—the NHR—indicates that there were more than 900 people living with beta thalassaemia major in the UK, 238 living with beta thalassaemia intermedia, 280 with beta thalassaemia/Hb E disease, and 300 with haemoglobin H disease.

The majority of patients with thalassaemia in the UK come from a British Pakistani or British Asian community. Each year, around 20 to 30 couples in the UK are identified as being at high risk of having a baby with a form of thalassaemia. My constituency of Enfield, Southgate has the highest number of people with thalassaemia in the UK and is home to the UK Thalassaemia Society, which campaigns for greater awareness and better health outcomes for people with thalassaemia. It has also given me advice and shared its findings for this debate.

The second part of the message for International Thalassaemia Day is about sharing—sharing essential information and knowledge to support the best health and social care outcomes for people with thalassaemia. The Department of Health and Social Care published its UK rare diseases framework last year, which acknowledged a number of challenges and set out the Government’s four priorities, which include increasing awareness of rare diseases among healthcare professionals, better co-ordination of care, and improving access to specialist care treatments and drugs, all of which I and the thalassaemia community very much support.

I want to focus on the last point about improving access to specialist care treatments and drugs. Thalassaemia is a rare disease and there are very few treatments for the condition. Some gene therapies have been developed, but have often not been able to progress beyond the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence’s criteria because either the formula for quality-adjusted life years is loaded against people with rare diseases or there is a smaller sample of people upon whom the gene therapy trials have been conducted. That is primarily because people with rare diseases are often few in number, and that limits who the therapy can be trialled on.

I note that NICE has done its methods and processes review, but I ask the Minister to ensure that the highly specialised technology and standard technology appraisal pathways are both fit for purpose for people with rare diseases, and that the uncertainty of cost effectiveness due to small population sizes is a serious consideration for NICE in assessing the appraisal of new gene-therapy technologies. Gene therapy and other technologies for people with rare diseases are literally a matter of life and death, and much more work needs to be done by the Government to ensure that people with rare diseases are not disadvantaged by the bureaucratic processes that fail to take into account the unique nature and impact of rare diseases on those who have to live with them.

The final part of the message is about care. This is about the experience of people with thalassaemia when receiving healthcare. I have met a number of people with thalassaemia who have shared their experiences with me. They require regular blood transfusions, and they told me about their pain and suffering following transfusions and how debilitating that can be. I have also read testimonies of people with thalassaemia who have experienced differing levels of treatment by health professionals. Because the condition tends to be extremely specific to a particular ethnic group in the UK and there are very small numbers of patients, the UKTS has found a huge disparity in services throughout the country with regard to the accessibility of thalassaemia care.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the speech he is making. On care, I do not know if he has had a chance to read the report from the sickle cell and thalassaemia all-party parliamentary group entitled, “No One’s Listening”. Sickle cell is not exactly the same thing as thalassaemia. There are differences, but there are similarities too in people’s experiences. Does he share my hope that that report will serve as a turning point to win a resolve for better treatment and greater understanding of these conditions, all the way from the Department of Health and Social Care through to the decision makers in the NHS?

[Bambos Charalambous]

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I am aware of the report and have read it. He is absolutely right that much more needs to be done to ensure that people with thalassaemia, sickle cell and other rare diseases get the treatment they need. It is also about better training for health professionals to identify the symptoms of thalassaemia, sickle cell and other such conditions, so that people with thalassaemia are not disadvantaged when they come into contact with health professionals for the first time.

According to the UK Thalassaemia Society, the experience of their members is that the UK’s thalassaemia services are under-resourced, underdeveloped and understaffed, even compared with the treatment received by those with other blood disorders. Part of the work that the UK Thalassaemia Society has been involved in over several years is to review sickle cell and thalassaemia units throughout the country and all aspects that make up the patient pathway, from emergency care to in-patient and out-patient services. There appears to be evidence of health inequalities between the treatment of patients with thalassaemia and patients with other conditions.

As we know, thalassaemia particularly impacts specific ethnic groups, such as the British Asian population in the UK, and patients have reported to the UK Thalassaemia Society that they often feel that their ethnicity is linked to below standard treatment, and they have on occasion reported distressing instances of overt racism in connection with their treatment. That has sometimes severely impacted patients’ mental health, with patients describing feeling defeated and, in the worst instances, not wanting to live any more.

The UKTS has found that patients and families in some cases are afraid to talk to the managers and nurses involved about the instances described as they are fearful that they will receive worse treatment and be stereotyped further. As a result, they have chosen to suffer in silence. That is obviously extremely concerning, and I will happily share more information about that with the Minister outside the debate. I am sure that, like me, the Minister will find it entirely unacceptable that the ethnicity of patients in any way affects treatment or, in the worst cases, leads to deeply offensive racism.

It is worth noting that thalassaemia affects many ethnicities, though predominantly those of Asian heritage, and the average life span is considerably lower in the Asian population than in the Mediterranean population. That may be for a variety of reasons; however, there is certainly worry among members of the UK Thalassaemia Society that the racial disparity they encounter may have an impact on their health outcomes. Again, I would be grateful if the Minister took that concern on board and raised it with health professionals.

I hope this debate will help raise awareness of thalassaemia and the particular difficulties that patients face. I hope the Minister will tell us how she will work to improve equal access to care and equal health outcomes for this community. How does she believe we can tackle the explicit and implicit discriminatory attitudes that still exist in healthcare settings? I thank the UK Thalassaemia Society, Genetic Alliance UK and the Royal College of Pathologists for providing me with information for the debate. I hope the Minister will take my points into consideration and re-evaluate the Government’s position on thalassaemia and rare diseases, to see what more can be done to improve health outcomes for people with thalassaemia and to raise awareness of the condition among health professionals and the wider public.

16:11

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie.

I thank the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) for securing today’s debate so efficiently ahead of International Thalassaemia Day on 8 May—we may well be prorogued by then, so it is a timely debate. Let me take the opportunity to thank him for all his work to champion the community as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for thalassaemia. I understand that the UK Thalassaemia Society is based in his constituency, and I am sure it is thankful for all his help and support.

Like sickle cell—I note the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) is here—thalassaemia is a blood disorder that affects ethnic minority communities in the UK. It is right that the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate raises the inequalities and inconsistencies around services that people with thalassaemia face. We are determined to address some of the long-standing issues in many areas.

16:12

Sitting suspended for Divisions in the House.

16:48

On resuming—

[Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)]

We now resume the suspended debate. I call the Minister.

[Maria Caulfield]

To go back to where we were, the Government are determined to address long-standing health disparities, particularly for those with thalassaemia. The NHS Race and Health Observatory was established just over a year ago with a remit to tackle some of the issues that minority communities face, particularly in health inequalities. Last year, the Government launched the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, or OHID, which is doing huge amounts of work in these areas.

Health features quite heavily in the levelling-up White Paper. We want to reduce the gap in life expectancy between the areas with the highest and lowest, and by 2035 we want life expectancy to have risen by five years. Tackling the issues raised is key to that, particularly for the groups most at risk. I am mindful that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East raised the “No One’s Listening” report, which features issues that those with thalassaemia face—the lack of understanding of the condition among healthcare staff and the treatment that patients need to receive. Those receiving blood transfusions might look well compared with a typical patient receiving a blood transfusion, but a three-weekly blood transfusion for life is very difficult even if things go smoothly. I want to reassure the right hon. Gentleman that we are trying to improve the experience of those with thalassaemia in a number of areas.

In 2019, NHS England concluded the review of haemoglobinopathy services, which resulted in the development of the new model that we now have, based on haemoglobinopathy co-ordinating centres and the national panel. That brings specialist services together to improve the experience of those using the services, and addresses health inequalities and improves outcomes for those with haemoglobinopathies, which includes thalassaemia patients.

To touch on thalassaemia in particular, four specific centres, alongside 10 sickle cell centres, have been commissioned to provide clinical expertise. We hope that even if patients cannot access those, the experience and good practice will ripple out across the country and improve the service and experience for patients and improve standards of care.

One of the main treatments for thalassaemia is, as the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate touched on, regular blood transfusions. We need people to donate blood, and I want to use this afternoon’s debate as an opportunity to encourage people to come forward not only to give blood but to think about stem-cell donation as well, which can be used as a treatment. Anyone interested can go on the Anthony Nolan website, which can register people and give them information about what is involved.

We also need to touch on the issue of training for healthcare staff. I am encouraged that the training curriculum for haematology set by the Joint Royal Colleges of Physicians Training Board has now included sickle cell and thalassaemia as core competencies, so we can make sure that healthcare professionals are informed. Even though these are rare diseases, they affect a significant proportion of people, particularly in certain communities.

In addition, Health Education England now provides two relevant e-learning healthcare programmes on the NHS screening programme, including sickle cell and thalassaemia and the maternity support work programme. That is important because of the breakthroughs we are making in screening everyone for both sickle cell and thalassaemia. All women should now be screened during pregnancy for thalassaemia, along with partners’ screening, and an affected pregnancy could be identified at the 12-week gestation period. That helps not just to prepare parents for their child, but to make sure that services are in place as soon as the child is born.

Nearly all sickle cell affected children born in England and the majority of thalassaemia babies will be identified by the NHS sickle cell and thalassemia screening programme, which will make a difference to the outcome for people. It will help us to co-ordinate and develop services to make sure that there is a better experience for patients going forward.

The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of treatment. I am keen to look at that because although blood transfusions are a treatment for some, ideally gene therapy is potentially curative for the affected population. I know there are ongoing issues with NICE approval for a number of drugs, and I am happy to meet him to discuss that further after this debate. I am really keen that, where we can make significant drug developments, which are available in other countries and not necessarily here, we make progress and discuss with NICE the issues that might be preventing approval or slowing down progress at the moment.

I want to also touch on some of the research being done, because that is the key to improving treatment outcomes for patients to make sure that their life chances and their experience in the health service are improved. There are a number of research studies going on. I am hopeful that we can improve their outcomes and make sure that access to research is available for patients, too.

The disease is rare; as the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate pointed out, there is only a small group of patients. We are making sure we take part in international studies and speak to bodies such as NICE to say that, although there will only ever be a small number of patients, that should not deter approval for drugs because of the difference they may make overall.

I very much take the points made by the hon. Gentleman. Following on from the recent debate on sickle cell patients, which raised very similar issues, I suggest that I meet both him and the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East to see whether we can pin down some of those issues, particularly as the health disparities White Paper is coming forward shortly. It presents a good opportunity for the communities affected by both diseases to try to iron out some of those problems.

I thank the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate for tabling today’s debate, as well as all the Members who are interested in this issue. We had a big turnout in the sickle cell debate a few weeks ago, where very similar points were made. I reassure colleagues that progress is being made, whether that is in screening, which will be a game-changer for patients; the gene therapy treatments that will come through online; or the general experience of patients being treated with dignity, respect and knowledge of their condition. I place on the record my thanks to all those working hard behind the scenes in specialist units to improve care for thalassaemia patients, and I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman to see if we can make a difference for those patients.

Question put and agreed to.

Public Transport Authority for South Yorkshire

Wednesday 27th April 2022 Westminster Hall

16:55

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of a public transport authority for South Yorkshire.

It is a pleasure to serve under your tutelage today, Mr Hosie. In this debate, I am calling for the creation of Transport for South Yorkshire: a local government body responsible for co-ordinating South Yorkshire’s transport network and delivering a clear, unified regional strategy.

Since my election, I have heard loud and clear the repeated calls for change to the dismal transport network in our region, both from my constituents in Rother Valley and residents across South Yorkshire. So pressing is the issue that I raised the sorry state of our buses at my first ever attendance at Prime Minister’s questions. I set up the Rother Valley Transport Task Force to work with constituents on improving our local transport facilities and have heavily canvassed local opinion. I have held many meetings with local bus executives and organised residents’ meetings with the managing director of First Bus, so that my constituents can pose questions directly to the decision makers at the operators. My engagement with constituents has informed my views on what residents want and why Transport for South Yorkshire is so necessary.

For too long, we have endured terrible provision, which is fragmented between operators, with unreliable and infrequent services.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I am with the hon. Gentleman on the arguments he has mounted so far. However, does he recognise that we had the sort of cheap, reliable, popular and well-used service that he aspires to in South Yorkshire until a Conservative Government took it apart in the 1980s?

[Alexander Stafford]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point. Unfortunately, as I was born in the late 1980s, I cannot recall such a service. When I look to London and Manchester—even when I look to West Yorkshire—I see what can be done. I will get to that later on in my argument.

At the moment, we have limited and slow routes and expensive fares, which results in poor social and economic outcomes for South Yorkshire. Our residents are unable to access employment opportunities and key public services in health and education, as well as social gatherings. The lack of connectivity cuts off our towns and villages from each other and large regional cities, reducing our ability to pool world-class services in our population clusters. Most worrying of all, the most vulnerable in our communities are left isolated and denied access to a key lever for poverty alleviation: reliable and affordable transport.

It is clear that enough is enough. My campaign to create Transport for South Yorkshire is a core part of my transport plan, and will utilise the devolved transport powers that lie with the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority and the Mayor of South Yorkshire. Transport for South Yorkshire must be in charge of a bold and ambitious regional transport strategy for the decades ahead. It must place capital transport investment and sustainable green technology at the heart of transport in South Yorkshire. Transport for South Yorkshire must integrate buses, the Sheffield super tram, local trains, principal road routes, taxis, waterway travel and cycling provision, into one comprehensive, holistic and unified network. Furthermore, Transport for South Yorkshire will ensure that the wants and needs of local communities are a crucial part of the decision-making process and are accounted for at all times. Our rural communities will also benefit from the investment in both the transport service and infrastructure.

I will first address the state of our bus network, and how Transport for South Yorkshire will transform bus travel. The creation of this body provides the opportunity for huge investment in our buses, with the benefits overseen by local residents rather than private company shareholders pocketing large revenues with little investment in return—as we currently see. Transport for South Yorkshire will ensure the integration of the bus network across the county, and will feed into the Bus Back Better national bus strategy. The proposals that I have mentioned have been supported by the managing director of First Bus, who, in a public meeting, noted that bus franchising based on the Greater Manchester model is good for business, good for operators and ultimately good for the public.

[Paul Blomfield]

I am fascinated that the focus of the hon. Member’s speech on bus improvement is on structure. Would he not agree that investment is critical, and therefore that it was deeply regrettable that the Government turned down the £474 million bid for bus improvements that we made?

[Alexander Stafford]

I thank the hon. Member for his point; it will be no surprise to him that I will address it later on in my speech—it makes up a good part of my speech. Unfortunately, those plans were not very ambitious. What I am outlining is a more ambitious programme. The subject of this debate is the public body, but, do not worry, I will address that failed and lacklustre bid later on in my speech. [Interruption.] There will be opportunities to intervene later if the hon. Member wishes to.

Transport for South Yorkshire must achieve the following vital objectives. First, it must preside over a fully integrated, high-capacity bus network for South Yorkshire. In order to do this, it must set standardised, affordable bus fares across the county to apply to all services and routes, regardless of the private operator. That means a ticket or pass can be used on any bus, anywhere in the county. Additionally, the transport body must subsidise more affordable fares for eligible pensioners, children and disabled people. Furthermore, it must centrally plan and control all routes, timetables and funding. All services must operate under Transport for South Yorkshire livery and branding, as is the case in London.

Secondly, Transport for South Yorkshire must deliver more frequent bus services and many more routes. There should be a mixture of routes that link up every town and village in our region, and superfast direct routes between large towns and cities. The transport body must pay for better services at times and in areas where no commercial bus services are provided, or should make the awarding of certain lucrative franchises contingent on the provision of universal service obligation routes by private companies.

Thirdly, there must be clear performance targets and benchmarks to guarantee reliable service, with the option to remove the franchise from an under-performing private company if necessary. In line with that, there must be an easily accessible central complaints procedure for passengers, with the right to official response.

Fourthly, Transport for South Yorkshire must invest in the region’s physical and digital bus infrastructure, making bus travel easier and smarter. The body must introduce a clear and consistent network map and a bus numbering system that can be easily understood and remembered. There may need to be a wholesale revamp of South Yorkshire’s bus stations, bus stops and bus shelters, with new modern transport interchanges where necessary. In terms of digital infrastructure, there should be a mobile app, allowing people to plan their route and track their bus; electronic bus boards at every stop that indicate the time until the next bus; and tap-in and tap-out contactless fare technology, as operates in Manchester and London.

I have laid out what Transport for South Yorkshire must achieve in the realm of buses. However, my ambitious vision lies in stark contrast to what has already been proposed by the combined authority. The hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) is clearly keen for me to talk about the fact that the UK Government did not accept the combined authority’s bid for the bus service improvement plan, signed off by the Mayor. The plan purportedly aimed to bring in a fare cap, new bus shelters and an improved fleet. The Mayor claimed that central Government had “shafted” South Yorkshire by rejecting the bid. The truth, however, is that the bid failed because it was nowhere near ambitious enough. The people of South Yorkshire want a similar integrated transport system to the one in London. The lack of ambition is why the combined authority’s bid failed.

This is not a red or blue thing: the Government awarded transport funding to Labour-run Greater Manchester and Labour-run West Yorkshire because they were miles ahead of us in their thinking and ambition. Transport for Greater Manchester is a prime example of replicating the successes of Transport for London from the same base as ours in South Yorkshire. Put simply, all other mayoral combined authorities are far more advanced in this process than we are in South Yorkshire. South Yorkshire is no further ahead, and the combined authority has just said that it will look into franchising. It is not good enough; there can be no more excuses.

This is the truth about transport in South Yorkshire: the combined authority has the power to change transport and be truly ambitious and country-leading, but it always plumps for the minimum it can get away with and then blames the Westminster Government. South Yorkshire leaders should rush to embrace franchising powers and take back accountability, but too many would rather continue to blame the past or what happened many years ago in the ’80s, rather than their current inaction. That is why we need Transport for South Yorkshire with a clear mission statement, as well as effective, transparent leadership and governance structures, all held against discrete and ambitious targets.

However, buses are not all that Transport for South Yorkshire would oversee. Trains are an efficient and environmentally friendly model of transport, and Transport for South Yorkshire would make transport by train a priority.

It is also disappointing that the combined authority ignores the small communities, which badly need rail connections. My campaign to reopen the old South Yorkshire Joint Railway would regenerate those former mining towns and link them up. Despite the line being for the occasional freight train, and my plan securing provisional backing from the rail operator, the combined authority has not yet endorsed the project. Transport for South Yorkshire should look to reopen closed lines that connect our former mining towns and villages.

Furthermore, we need a new train station at the growing village of Waverley. There is no point having high-skilled industrial jobs at the manufacturing park there if residents from small towns across South Yorkshire cannot reach it by multiple modes of public transport, such as by train. My constituents tell me constantly that they need bus routes and active transport options that connect communities to where employment options are. There are few, if any, direct services in my part of South Yorkshire to the Advanced Manufacturing Park or Crystal Peaks, or to the big employers around Manvers and Doncaster. It is time to invest in South Yorkshire’s rail network to make it the envy of every other region and ensure residents have access to amenities and employment opportunities.

[Paul Blomfield]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Alexander Stafford]

I will give way one more time to the hon. Gentleman, but I am sure he will want to make his own speech at some point.

[Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman asked you to give way and you said yes. We do not need a commentary.

[Paul Blomfield]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way one more time. He talks ambitiously and grandly about the need for investment, and he is absolutely right, but how does he think that sits alongside the practical experience of this Government, who have cut spending on public transport from £3.9 billion in 2009 to £2.4 billion in 2020? Where is the ambition there?

[Alexander Stafford]

That is an interesting point, but once again I look at what happened in Manchester and West Yorkshire. They got Government funding because their plans were ambitious. There is no point putting money into a plan that will not work, or will provide only minimal benefits. We want a grand plan to get the funding and resources we need, and I hope Transport for South Yorkshire will be the body for that.

This is not just about buses and trains; active transport should be at the heart of operations. Currently, there is a chronic lack of cycle routes for rural communities, leaving cyclists at the mercy of dangerous stretches of road. The combined authority is in charge of active travel and has been given a pot of money to that end. However, its cycling plans exclude rural towns and villages, and are mainly focused on the big towns. The combined authority is spending money on poorly designed cycle lanes in Rotherham town centre, but the communities that need them are not on the radar. For instance, in one local to me there is a great appetite for a cycle lane between Harthill and Kiveton Park. Transport for South Yorkshire should focus on cycling for all communities in the county. After all, cycle lanes are good for the environment, health and connectivity, and they reduce the danger of cycling on the roads.

As with active transport, I believe that a good transport system is holistic and recognises the worth of modes of transport beyond road and rail. A good example is the Chesterfield canal, a beautiful and varied 46-mile stretch of waterway that links Nottingham, South Yorkshire and Derbyshire. Transport for South Yorkshire should make the nine-mile Rother Valley portion of the canal fully navigable from start to finish. It should also fund a new marina at Kiveton Park and make the Rother Valley link a reality, connecting the Chesterfield canal to the rest of the waterway system. Transport for South Yorkshire’s support for the regeneration of the canal would have benefits for transport connectivity, health, leisure and economic rejuvenation.

We must also consider the condition of our roads in South Yorkshire. The combined authority is in charge of pinch points, but it has not tackled them in areas such as Rother Valley. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council admits that there is an issue, but it and the combined authority always seem to focus on pet projects in Sheffield city centre and Rotherham town centre, instead of addressing issues on our roads in South Yorkshire. [Interruption.] There is chortling on the Opposition Benches, but where is the solution for the A57 Todwick roundabout, which constantly has accidents and congestion? Where is the solution for the Whiston Worrygoose roundabout congestion? We do not have it.

Transport for South Yorkshire would ensure that residents could not be penalised for using their cars to get to work if viable, efficient and affordable alternatives are not provided. Currently, the combined authority is considering a workplace parking levy on companies that have a certain number of parking spaces for employees. That is altogether unreasonable, and it is essentially a tax on business and workers. It is completely irrational to impose that on residents of areas outside Yorkshire’s four conurbations because, unfortunately, driving a car is the only way to get to work in the light of the combined authority’s failure to institute a robust local transport system. We want to reduce reliance on cars, but it has to be in line with the quality of transport provision locally.

Other transport issues that must be addressed include the installation of electric vehicle charging points across South Yorkshire to encourage the transition away from fossil fuel-powered combustion engines, as well as the need to work with the Government to remove the safeguarding of local land for the now scrapped phase 2b of High Speed 2, which I welcome. All of this can be achieved with Transport for South Yorkshire. However, the power to create the body lies with the South Yorkshire Mayor. The authorities in Sheffield must realise that the South Yorkshire passenger transport executive is not sufficient to deal with the transport crisis and does not have the powers to revolutionise travel in our region. Any plans that have been put forward so far by the combined authority exclude rural communities in South Yorkshire, such as mine in Rother Valley, and do not correspond to residents’ wants and needs. I therefore call on the new Mayor, from whatever party they are, to work with me to establish Transport for South Yorkshire. I stand ready to begin discussions with them on this issue.

I have a couple of asks of the Minister before I wrap up. The first is that Transport Ministers should strongly encourage the combined authority to franchise transport by creating Transport for South Yorkshire, based on the London and Manchester models. Currently, the people of South Yorkshire are being left behind by proposals that are lacklustre and unambitious. The second is that once the combined authority finally submits a funding proposal to the Government to create Transport for South Yorkshire, with the full powers and remit that I have outlined, the Department should judge approval of funding for the plan based on the plan’s ambitions and whether it actually addresses the systematic inaction and underfunding in transport locally, which has failed residents for years. Only an ambitious proposal that is fit for purpose should be accepted. The people of Rother Valley and South Yorkshire deserve better than half-baked, half-thought-out schemes. We want the full gamut, and we want what Manchester and London have—we deserve that.

I look forward to the long-overdue creation of a transit system of which we can all be proud. I cannot wait to be an eager passenger on a wonderful Transport for South Yorkshire service in the very near future.

17:14

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Hosie. I should perhaps begin by declaring a very relevant interest as the Mayor of South Yorkshire—at least for another week or so.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) on securing this important debate, but let us now inject some reality into it. In my four years as Mayor, I made transport a central priority. I knew just how important it was for productivity, access to opportunity and quality of life. By 2023, we will have invested £87 million in cycling and walking, with more to come. We are getting people fit, making it easier to get around and cutting car use. We are investing £100 million to put our trams on a solid footing and, I hope, to lay the foundation for expansion. We have put millions into bus concessions as well as into better infrastructure and services. We gave young people 80p fares so that they can afford to get about, get to work or to their studies, and we began the formal process of investigating bus franchising.

We have been working under huge pressure to protect and, where we can, improve our bus network across the whole region—in rural villages just as much as our urban centres. I am immensely proud of our record, but I am also deeply frustrated that we could not do more. More powers would have been invaluable. Of course, regional governments like South Yorkshire should play a role like Transport for London has in London, with a fully empowered public transport authority providing co-ordination and local control.

We already have a strategic role, but the truth is that powers are not enough without funding. For all the fine words, the reality is that from 2009 to 2020, Government spending on public transport in the UK declined by almost 40% from £3.9 billion to £2.4 billion. The Government spend almost three times per head more in London that in Yorkshire and the Humber. Meanwhile, amid all the talk of devolution, the Government’s default model is still forcing local government to endlessly compete for disparate, uncertain, centrally controlled and inadequate pots of money, sapping resources and hamstringing any attempts at strategic planning. South Yorkshire shows that especially well.

The national bus strategy expressed a grand aspiration, so we produced—let us be very clear about this—an ambitious, detailed £474-million bus service improvement plan, including free travel for under-18s, daily and weekly fare capping and a network of bus priority routes, but we were rejected along with 60% of other applicants. That was perhaps inevitable given that the available funding, which was originally promised to be in excess of £3 billion, ended up being just over £1 billion. Let me say that again: most areas will get nothing under the Government’s flagship bus improvement programme.

[Alexander Stafford]

On that programme, will the hon. Member acknowledge that there was just over £1 billion available from the Government for the whole country, yet South Yorkshire put in a bid for £400 million? That is almost half the money for the entire country. Surely that shows unrealistic expectations from South Yorkshire. Surely we should be more realistic.

[Dan Jarvis]

Oh dear, oh dear. I thought we would get through this in a reasonable way. The hon. Member for Rother Valley cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, he says we are not ambitious enough; on the other, he has just said that, actually, we are being too ambitious. The truth of the matter is—and the hon. Gentleman really needs to do his homework—that when we began the process of submitting the bus service improvement plan, the steer from national Government was that the money that would be available nationally from revenue funding would be well in excess of £3 billion. That is a statement of fact, and I am sure the Minister would not demur from it. The truth is that we have ended up with a pot of money that is just above £1 billion for the whole country. The hon. Gentleman has to do the maths and understand that, in conversation with the Government, we were given assurances that there would be in excess of £3 billion. That £3 billion was massively reduced to £1 billion. That is the reality of the situation we find ourselves in. I wish that were not the case—honestly, I do—but it is.

[Alexander Stafford]

I would be grateful if the hon. Member outlined why West Yorkshire got the money whereas South Yorkshire did not. To me, that shows that the money was available and was on the table. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, our bid was not good enough to make the cut, whereas West Yorkshire’s bid was. Clearly they got it right and we got it wrong.

[Dan Jarvis]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point in terms of getting detailed feedback from the Government. He may have received that; we have not. Let us be honest about it: it would be foolish and naive of anybody not to assert that this is a political decision taken by the Government. Where is the hon. Member for Rother Valley when it comes to lobbying the Government to ensure that we secure the resources we need to invest in our services? It is not the case that our bid lacked ambition. We will see what the Minister has to say, but I honestly do not believe that any Minister of this Government could look this House in the face and say that the bid lacked ambition, because it just did not.

[Alexander Stafford]

It still failed, though.

[Dan Jarvis]

So let us get detailed feedback from the Government as to why they did not want to put money into what was a detailed, ambitious proposal. A huge amount of time and investment was put into it; frankly, it is not the case that it was not ambitious. That is a ludicrous assessment of the work, and is actually pretty offensive to some very dedicated and professional officers who worked with local authorities and a range of stakeholders, including nationally and in the Department for Transport, with whom I think we have a good relationship. I have a lot of time for the Minister. He is good at his job, and I do not blame him or hold the Government entirely responsible for this decision. The answers to some of the questions that need to be responded to lie in No. 11 Downing Street. Why was it that the Treasury, having initially promised £3 billion, got us down to £1 billion?

The hon. Member for Rother Valley can seek to argue that our bid was not ambitious, but I will rebut that at every point, because it is not the case. A lot of good work went into it, based on the very good report that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) produced a while ago. A lot of time, energy and investment went into drawing that plan together. The decision taken by the Government was entirely political, and did not in any way reflect the quality of the bid.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I apologise for coming in late, Mr Hosie; I had a meeting that I could not avoid. My hon. Friend is right to mention the bus review, because an attack on these proposals is an attack on all the people who contributed to that review—the 6,000 people who told us what was wrong and what needed putting right. If the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) is going to make a serious contribution, does he not have to set out what, of the £400 million or more that was bid for by the combined authority, he thinks was excessive; which bits he would have taken out; and how much he thinks it would have been realistic to bid for? That is what we need to hear; not vague accusations that the bid was too much on the one hand, and that it was not ambitious enough on the other hand.

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. For the remainder of my term—which, admittedly, is a pretty short period of time—I am very happy to sit down with the hon. Member for Rother Valley and go through the detail of the bid that we submitted. The hon. Member has chosen today to make these points; he has not come to me previously. I routinely brief local Members of Parliament, and I have not seen the hon. Member at any of those meetings. It is only today that he takes the opportunity to raise these points.

[Alexander Stafford]

That is not true. I have been on numerous calls, and I have regular conversations with the South Yorkshire passenger transport authority and the hon. Gentleman’s offices and officers about a whole range of transport issues.

[Dan Jarvis]

I hope the hon. Gentleman has clocked that the South Yorkshire passenger transport executive is being subsumed into the mayoral combined authority, and what we are waiting for is Government time so that the order can go through this place to complete that process. That is something I decided was in our interests as a region, to allow for more effective and more accountable decision making.

I am conscious of time, so I will move on. However, given that we are rightly focusing on the importance of investment, I will just make the point that our plight was not helped—to say the least—by the fact that the £50 million levelling-up fund that the MCA put forward, which would have drawn down vital resource to invest in our bus network, was rejected. Again, that was a good, detailed, ambitious proposal that we put forward to the Government as part of—

[Alexander Stafford]

indicated dissent.

[Dan Jarvis]

The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I look forward to hearing his detailed critique of why that £50 million bid that was put forward to Government was rejected. I am happy to give way, if he wants to offer a critique of what was wrong with that bid—was that not ambitious enough?

[Alexander Stafford]

I find the hon. Member’s argument quite astounding. On the one hand, the South Yorkshire mayoralty failed to get one pot of money; it has now failed to get another pot of money. Surely, this is just a failure of leadership. If it keeps getting things wrong, it is not a problem with the process but a problem with how the bid has been written. Surely, it undermines his argument completely—if it is not getting any of the bids right, it needs to review how they do bids.

[Dan Jarvis]

Honestly, the hon. Gentleman’s approach is somewhat blinkered. Even if it is not today in this place and in this debate, he needs to have conversations with Ministers. If this Government seek to be serious about the levelling-up agenda and unlocking the potential of South Yorkshire, they will have to do much better than just saying that our bids were not ambitious enough. That is not the case. I give the House absolute assurance that the bids put forward would be independently assessed as very high quality. We have been here before with freeports, where the Government’s own analysis showed that our bid was better than some of the successful bids. Let’s keep this real.

Our concerns about investment in public transport extend way beyond buses. The Minister is an expert on Northern Powerhouse Rail and HS2, which I know is the favourite subject of the hon. Member for Rother Valley, so I will not get into all that detail. I have a lot of time for the Minister, so it would be remiss of me not to say—I am afraid this undermines the hon. Gentleman’s argument—that we have been successful in some areas. The same team of people who put forward the bid for the city region sustainable transport settlement, who worked with the same local authorities and closely with the Minister’s Department, successfully secured £570 million. Why was that bid successful and others were not? It is not clear to me. To be fair to the Minister, the same team of people put forward a successful bid for zero emission buses regional area funding for our electrical bus fleet.

The problem for the hon. Member for Rother Valley—whether he is prepared to admit to us or to himself is unclear—is that the resources made available by Government are inadequate for the transformation that the Government want. I support the levelling-up agenda, but the truth of the matter is that the potential of the north and places such as South Yorkshire will be unlocked only with serious long-term investment. The Government need to provide a step change in funding for revenue and not just of capital spending, to give it everywhere, not just where it is politically convenient and suits the Government, and to allocate the majority in a way that we can count on, plan for and control.

The hon. Member talks about a strategic approach; it is entirely impossible, as I believe the Secretary of State for Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities would acknowledge, to be strategic because we have no certainty whatsoever about our funding streams. The funding needs to be much more certain than it has been, genuinely transformative and genuinely devolved. I am sad to say that it is impossible for me to conclude that the Government are serious about the process, which is a terrible shame, because without it we will not unlock the huge potential of areas such as ours. People not just in South Yorkshire but right around the country deserve much better.

17:28

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to serve with you in the chair, Mr Hosie.

Constituents have raised with me time and again the desperately poor standard of public transport links in South Yorkshire. For the majority of Rotherham constituents, public transport means buses. In early 2020 I conducted an extensive survey to gather a clear picture of bus services in Rotherham and the day-to-day frustrations that my constituents face just trying to get around. Suffice to say, the results were damning: 80% of respondents stated that their bus was usually late, 85% said the service did not offer value for money and a staggering 91% condemned services as unreliable.

The survey was conducted just prior to the pandemic, and in the subsequent two years the service has got remarkably worse. Getting to work, the shops or home in the evening should not be such a challenge, but for many in South Yorkshire, public transport is simply not a viable option. If we are serious about encouraging people out of their cars, sustained investment in a reliable, efficient and cost-effective bus network is vital. Instead, we are left with failing bus companies, poor reliability, a lack of interconnectivity, slow services and really high fares.

In South Yorkshire passenger transport executive, we have a body that has neither the funding nor the power to drive up standards. I agree that an alternative model for the delivery of public transport in our region is long overdue. Poor public transport links are holding us back, but the reality is that without the funding to drive up standards, I cannot see structural change alone delivering the improvements for people in Rotherham. That is why it is so bitterly disappointing to see the Conservative Government rejecting South Yorkshire’s detailed and ambitious bid for funding to transform our bus networks.

I would like to personally pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) and for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) and, indeed, the four local authorities and their staff, for working tirelessly to put the bid forward. The outgoing Mayor of South Yorkshire, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central, has worked relentlessly to make the case for investment to the Government. I share his profound disappointment that, instead of delivering for our constituents, South Yorkshire has, as he put it, “been shafted”.

Sadly, this was all too predictable. The Government talk about levelling up; they talk about investment, and the Prime Minister talks about “a bonanza for buses”, but that is it—just talk. When it comes to putting their money where their mouth is, delivering on promises and proving that levelling up is anything more than a buzzword, the result is always the same: zero. My constituents are not interested in arguments about regulators or transport authorities; they want a bus service that is fit for purpose. Instead, this Government have made it clear that, when it comes to the desperately needed funding to make that bus service a reality, South Yorkshire is, once again, back of the queue.

17:31

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I will be very brief, Mr Hosie; I thank you for allowing me to contribute briefly.

I support what my hon. Friends have just said. First of all, in a cross-party way, I absolutely support franchising. I was critical of the Labour Government in the noughties, when I thought they should have moved faster on that. The Local Transport Act 2008 was not sufficient to give authorities the real powers they needed, and the current transport legislation is an improvement. It gives the powers to mayoral combined authorities—although I think it ought to also give powers to other transport authorities—but the problem is that it is no use giving authorities Transport for London powers without Transport for London money. It just will not work.

Franchising can help, and taking buses back into public control was clearly supported by the people we consulted as part of the bus review. However, it does not, of itself, improve the service. It can do a little bit, in moving the resources around into a more efficient and effective way—by moving some buses from oversubscribed routes to routes that do not exist at all, in some cases, because they have been removed completely. However, in the end, with companies such as First Bus in Sheffield, which loses money, there is no way to manoeuvre the routes to get better services from companies that are losing money without putting extra money in.

That is the fundamental issue. If we are to do anything more with franchising, other than having a different way of organising the buses, and to have a way of improving bus services, then it requires extra money from Government; and I do believe that if money is put in, it should be put under the transport authority’s control. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) to lobby his Ministers.

If we are to deliver the sort of bus services that we want, with a service where the public are in control of their own public services, through franchising, we need that extra resource from Government. It is as simple as that. Without it, there will be failure, and a lot of upset and discontent among our constituents.

17:34

[Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, yet again, to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Hosie. I thank the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) for securing this important debate. Improving our local transport links is incredibly important to me, not only as shadow Transport Minister but as a Member of Parliament representing a constituency in South Yorkshire.

I also thank other Members for their contributions. In particular, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) for his unique insight, given his role as Mayor of the region. In the face of lacklustre central Government support, he has delivered on local priorities, as he outlined in his speech. That includes an investment of £87 million in active travel by 2023, £100 million for our trams and millions for bus concessions to make affordable for young people.

Concerning governance, the mayoral combined authority already has a strategic role in transport policy. The reality is that more powers are not enough without the proper funding to back them up, and I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) made that point eloquently. Time and again, our critical public transport services have been left to wither way under this Government. The hon. Member for Rother Valley must recognise that this Government have been in power for 12 years now, and this is where we are.

Post-pandemic, our public transport links should be driving our economic recovery, but instead timetables are failing to return to their pre-pandemic levels and the Government have been asleep at the wheel. Bus coverage is at its lowest level in decades and our communities have been left behind.

At a regional level, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East recently conducted a review of bus services in South Yorkshire for the Mayor. His findings presented a series of challenges facing public transport services. He identified that bus miles in South Yorkshire fell by an average of 12% between 2010 and 2017 alone. He also highlighted issues of reliability, with over 60% of respondents saying that they were dissatisfied with services in the region. Passengers are therefore forced to take cars and taxis, modes of transport that are more expensive and worse for our planet.

The mayoral combined authority has taken bold steps to improve transport links. Its transport strategy sets out a comprehensive plan to connect our major urban and economic growth centres, and promotes our rural and visitor economies. Despite this Government’s rhetoric, they are failing to step up to these challenges. The national bus strategy is simply more hot air, and yet another missed opportunity to support our transport links.

Between 2009 and 2020, Government spending on public transport across the UK was cut by £1.5 billion. The Prime Minister said that £3 billion would be made available to

“level up buses…towards London standards.”

The funding has been slashed to less than half of that original figure for the next three years. Furthermore, Transport for the North is set to lose 40% of its core funding in the next financial year. This will undoubtedly have an impact on services and passenger experiences. This is not levelling up but holding back our communities at a time when we should be unleashing their full potential.

I once again thank all Members who have contributed to this debate. I hope it feeds into the wider discussion on the future of our transport networks in South Yorkshire. Labour in power is delivering for our public transport. The South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority keeps investing in these vital links, but that is not being backed up by the funding they need from central Government. The reality is that while the Government are too mired in scandal to tackle these important issues, Labour offers a clear alternative.

Labour would invest in the infrastructure our communities depend on as part of our contract with the British people. I conclude by quoting my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), who said that people out there just want a reliable bus service.

17:38

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Andrew Stephenson)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hosie. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) on securing this important debate, and I thank the hon. Members for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) and for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) for their contributions.

Efficient, integrated and sustainable local transport is a key priority for my Department, not just for South Yorkshire but for the entire north of England and, indeed, the whole of the country. The Government are wholeheartedly committed to delivering on their vision to level up all areas of the country, not least South Yorkshire, ensuring that we have a transport network that serves all communities. That is why my Department, led by the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, who is also the Cabinet Minister responsible for the northern powerhouse, is at the forefront of making this vision a reality.

On the potential merits of a public transport authority for South Yorkshire, while that has been covered by a number of speakers, it might be helpful if I briefly outline the current state of affairs. Strategic responsibility and political accountability for local transport within South Yorkshire lies with the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority. The MCA works in close partnership with the South Yorkshire passenger transport executive, which has operational responsibility for delivering against the MCA’s priorities.

In 2019, the Mayor of South Yorkshire, the hon. Member for Barnsley Central, commissioned the South Yorkshire bus review, chaired by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts). Published in 2020, a key recommendation of the report was to provide the Mayor of the MCA with greater control over the planning of bus timetables and to increase accountability with a single local leadership of bus service provision. The report therefore recommended the merger of the South Yorkshire passenger transport executive into the combined authority, an ambition that my Department supports fully. The Government have committed to exploring a practical timetable to bring forward the merger with appropriate legislation.

The decision to merge the combined authority and the passenger transport executive was made and adopted by the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority and its constituent local authorities. They are taking the practical steps to merge the two organisations, but that also requires legislation, which the Government will introduce. That will bring all the powers of the PTE, the combined authority and the Mayor together, which they can use to deliver transformative change for South Yorkshire.

In the meantime, my Department is working hard to ensure that all communities in South Yorkshire have access to first-rate transport infrastructure, whether in the larger conurbations of Sheffield and Rotherham, or in the smaller but no less important corners of Dinnington, Maltby and many other villages and hamlets. Since 2010, we have invested more than £33 billion in transport infrastructure in the north of England. We all accept, however, that we have much more to do and much further to go with investment. Levelling up all parts of the country is at the centre of the Government’s agenda, and our levelling-up White Paper committed us to improving public transport networks outside the capital closer to the standards of London by 2030.

We have already made significant progress. More than 60% of the north is now covered by mayoral combined authorities, offering a strong voice for communities and new opportunities for investment in those places. In addition, the Government announced the £4.8 billion levelling-up fund. Projects from the first round of that fund are already under way to improve connectivity and to restore pride in our local areas. My Department is looking forward to receiving bids in the second round. I encourage all Members to engage with their local authorities on how they can provide priority support to those transformative schemes being bid for.

As a mayoral combined authority, South Yorkshire will receive £570 million from the city region sustainable transport settlements programme. The CRSTS represents an unprecedented investment in South Yorkshire’s local transport network. Among proposals such as the renewal of the Sheffield Supertram, CRSTS will deliver improved bus priority measures to create a seamless, integrated public transport experience for all passengers across the region.

The Government recognise the importance of buses to all communities across our country. From big cities to rural villages, buses are essential for many people to access jobs, leisure and essential services, and to see loved ones. That is why we supported vital bus services across Yorkshire and the Humber with the bus recovery grant throughout the pandemic—to the tune of £12 million—and we continue to support services with a pledge of a further £150 million nationally in the final tranche of funding to October 2022.

Last year, to strengthen our bus services in the long term, we published the landmark national bus strategy, an ambitious plan setting out how we can ensure that the market works effectively with the public sector to deliver transformational bus improvement across our country. To meet the requirements of the strategy, all local transport authorities must either implement a statutory enhanced partnership or pursue a franchising assessment.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley for sharing his views on the importance of bus franchising, which I know he cares deeply about and has campaigned on extensively since his election. My understanding is that South Yorkshire is currently pursuing the enhanced partnership option, but all mayoral combined authorities, including South Yorkshire, have access to franchising powers that enable them to implement a bus franchise, following assessment and consultation, should they wish to pursue that approach.

Under the national bus strategy, every local transport authority in England outside London was asked to produce a bus service improvement plan; the BSIP has been the focus of several hon. Members’ contributions today. This month, we announced that 31 counties, city regions and unitary authorities had been chosen for indicative funding to implement their BSIPs and level up local bus services. As is often the case in any funding process, the ask for BSIP funding exceeded the funding available; I do not wish to comment on speculations about why certain bids were approved and certain bids were not. Although South Yorkshire was one of the areas that did not receive an indicative BSIP funding allocation on this occasion, the Department has written to the MCA to outline the practical support that we are making available. That will ensure that it has the right resources to help to deliver the critical bus priority measures that its CRSTS investment will fund.

We will continue to work with South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority to support the delivery of its enhanced partnership. Other funding streams such as round 2 of the levelling-up fund, for which applications close on 6 July, can also support investment in the priorities that have been identified in the BSIP bids.

In addition to BSIP, my Department is supporting bus networks across the country through other funding avenues. As has been mentioned, we announced last month the outcome of the second round of the ZEBRA—zero-emission bus regional areas—scheme, which is part of the £525 million that is being invested in zero-emission buses over this Parliament. I was pleased to see that South Yorkshire received more than £8 million of ZEBRA funding, supporting the introduction of 27 zero-emission buses, supporting infrastructure and demonstrating our commitment to level up the local transport network in South Yorkshire while reducing our impact on the environment.

It is important to emphasise that our focus is not just on buses. The Government are making the largest investment in rail infrastructure in this country through the integrated rail plan, a £96 billion plan to transform the network in the north and the midlands—an issue on which my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley and I do not always see eye to eye. We will continue to invest in services across the country.

My fundamental point is that the Government are clear that our mission is to level up and deliver world-class local transport networks, and we want to work with local communities across the country to do so. My Department is working closely with partners in South Yorkshire to deliver that vital objective in the region. I can confirm that the Government will seek to bring forward appropriate legislation in due course to allow for the creation of a single public transport authority for South Yorkshire to help to realise that vision.

17:44

[Alexander Stafford]

May I thank everyone for such a lively debate? We may not all agree about the solutions, but at least we all care about our region. Before I sum up the arguments, I put on record my thanks to the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis). We may disagree profoundly about a lot of things that go on in South Yorkshire, but I know that he cares passionately about the region. I thank him for his service over the past four years.

We have had some very interesting speeches. My neighbour, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), is right that services have got worse and that change is long overdue. We all agree on that; we may disagree on the funding models, the ambition or whatever, but at least we are all coming from the starting point that things need to get better. No one is sitting around arguing that the service is good. It is woeful.

I really enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts). I am glad that he supports franchising, because I am a very big supporter. He raised an interesting point: I think he said that there is no point in giving powers without any additional money. Actually, I would argue the opposite, because we need to show what we would do with the powers before we get the money and put the plan in place—it is a chicken and egg situation. However, I think that overall the hon. Gentleman and I are looking from the same perspective.

The hon. Member for Barnsley Central made an impassioned speech about what he has done as Mayor in the past few years. Dare I say that perhaps there was a bit too much focus on the failed bids? It would be nice to see what the future holds as well. One point that I would like to pick up is that he called it a political decision of this Government not to give money in the last round. I say that it cannot have been a red/blue political decision: the Labour-controlled authorities of West Yorkshire and Manchester got funding, while blue areas such as North Somerset did not, so I just cannot accept that point. There has to be another solution.

The Minister made a very interesting point about funding. The Government have given £570 million for transport in our region, so we need to use the money wisely.

I hope that all hon. Members present will take forward the arguments, put aside our political differences and look towards what we all want: a bold, ambitious programme for South Yorkshire. We all agree that our transport, our buses and our connectivity need to get better. Whoever is Mayor in 10 days or so, I hope that they will take that point to heart when they listen to this debate or read it in Hansard, so that we can all get together and try to achieve that ambition. We in South Yorkshire deserve a system akin to Manchester’s or London’s. We should not be left behind, but our transport is woefully left behind.

Thank you, Mr Hosie, for your chairmanship today.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the potential merits of a public transport authority for South Yorkshire.

17:44

Sitting adjourned.

Written Statements

Wednesday 27th April 2022 Written Statements

Wednesday 27 April 2022

Energy Update

Wednesday 27th April 2022 Written Statements

[The Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change (Greg Hands)]

Today I will lay before Parliament a departmental minute describing a contingent liability arising from the issuance of letters of credit for the energy administrators acting in the special administration regime for Bulb Energy Limited (Bulb)—These letters of credit replace previous ones provided in January, announced within a written ministerial statement on 6 January, which has now expired.

It is normal practice when a Government Department proposes to undertake a contingent liability of £300,000 and above, for which there is no specific statutory authority, for the Department concerned to present Parliament with a minute giving particulars of the liability created and explaining the circumstances.

I regret that, due to negotiations with the counterparties only concluding late and parliamentary recess, I have not been able to follow the usual notification timelines to allow consideration of these issues in advance of issuing the letter of credit.

Bulb entered the energy supply company special administration regime on 24 November 2021. Energy administrators were appointed by court to achieve the statutory objective of continuing energy supplies at the lowest reasonable practicable cost until such time as it becomes unnecessary for the special administration to remain in force for that purpose.

My Department has agreed to provide a facility to the energy administrators, with letters of credit issued, with my approval, to guarantee such contract, code, licence, or other document obligations of the company consistent with the special administration’s statutory objective. I will update the House if any letters of credit are drawn against.

The legal basis for a letter of credit is section 165 of the Energy Act 2004, as applied and modified by section 96 of the Energy Act 2011.

HM Treasury has approved the arrangements in principle.

[HCWS789]

Plan for Protecting the Taxpayer

Wednesday 27th April 2022 Written Statements

[The Minister for Brexit Opportunities and Government Efficiency (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)]

The Efficiencies and Value for Money Committee, established at the request of the Prime Minister and chaired by the Chancellor, is meeting for the first time today.

At the Committee, the Chancellor will launch his plan for protecting the taxpayer which will drive efficiency, effectiveness, and economy across Government. This efficiency drive will ensure that Government Departments justify their projects with clear value for money and will challenge departments that are not delivering.

As part of this plan, the Government are developing a new counter-fraud body which will tackle economic crime across the public sector. The new authority will be funded with £25 million, as announced by the Chancellor in the spring statement. The authority will bolster the existing Government counter-fraud function, based in the Cabinet Office, to create the new Public Sector Fraud Authority (PSFA), which will jointly report to HM Treasury.

The new authority will be staffed by fraud experts and backed by cross-Government data analytics tools. It will focus on increasing counter-fraud performance across the public sector. This data driven focus on countering fraud is in line with business best practice and will improve fraud prevention and the pursuit of fraudsters for both the opportunistic individual and organised economic crime.

The efficiency drive will also include reviews that scrutinise the work and effectiveness of public bodies, aiming to identify a minimum of 5% savings for each organisation, and doubling the NHS efficiencies target.

The full membership of the Efficiencies and Value for Money Committee, confirmed today, is the right hon. Steve Barclay MP (Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster), the right hon. Oliver Dowden CBE MP (Minister without Portfolio) and the right hon. Michael Ellis QC MP (Minister for the Cabinet Office and HM Paymaster General). The Committee is chaired by the Chancellor and is deputy co-chaired by Simon Clarke (Chief Secretary to the Treasury) and myself.

[HCWS794]

Correction to PQ62745

Wednesday 27th April 2022 Written Statements

[The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)]

I would like to inform the House that I wish to correct the formal record in relation to written answer 62745 to the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) on 28 October 2021.

The reply stated that neither the Department nor the former Public Health England has any collaborative, commercial or contractual links to the Beijing Genomics Institute or its subsidiaries.

The correct answer is that BGI Genomics UK Limited was awarded a call-off contract from a framework contract held by Public Health England in August 2021 following a mini competition. This call-off contract lapsed on 14 November 2021 and no further contract with BGI has been let.

[HCWS793]

Impact of the Ending of Freedom of Movement on the Adult Social Care Sector: Independent Review

Wednesday 27th April 2022 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)]

Today, the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) published its independent review into the impact of the ending of freedom of movement on the adult social care sector. This report (CP 665) has been laid before both Houses today, and it will also be published on www.gov.uk.

This review came about during the passage of the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020, when the Government committed to commission and publish an independent report into the impact of ending free movement on the adult social care sector.

In July 2021, the Government commissioned the Migration Advisory Committee—as experts in both the immigration system and wider labour market issues—to undertake this review. The MAC has been working closely with the social care expert advisory group, utilising its insight and experience, to produce this report.

The MAC made an interim recommendation, in its annual report published on 15 December 2021, to add care workers and home carers to the shortage occupation list as well as making them eligible for the health and care visa. On 24 December, the Government announced we were accepting this recommendation.

We laid revised immigration rules on 24 January 2022, and these came into force on 15 February. We are already seeing many providers seeking to take advantage of the new rules, to become sponsors and to bring in much needed additional care workforce capacity.

I would like to thank Professor Brian Bell and the MAC for their continued work. I would also like to thank all those who have been involved in this report for their valuable contributions.

The Government will consider the report and its recommendations carefully before deciding what steps to take next.

[HCWS792]

Forensic Information Databases Strategy Board Annual Report and Updated Governance Rules

Wednesday 27th April 2022 Written Statements

[The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)]

I am pleased to announce that I am today publishing the annual report of the forensic information databases strategy board for 2020-21 and the updated Governance rules. This report covers the national fingerprints database and the national DNA database (NDNAD).

The strategy board chair, DCC Ben Snuggs, has presented the annual report of the national DNA database to the Home Secretary. Publication of the report is a statutory requirement under section 63AB(7) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 as inserted by section 24 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

The report shows the important contribution that the NDNAD and the national fingerprint databases (policing collections) make to supporting policing and solving crimes. I am grateful to the strategy board for their commitment to fulfilling their statutory functions.

Both the report and governance rules have been laid before the House and copies will be available from the Vote Office.

[HCWS791]

Terrorism in Prisons Update

Wednesday 27th April 2022 Written Statements

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Dominic Raab)]

In accordance with section 36 of the Terrorism Act 2006, Jonathan Hall QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation (IRTL), has prepared a report on terrorism in prisons which was laid before the House today.

Today, I am publishing our response to the IRTL’s report, setting out how we are implementing the changes that he has recommended. This will also be published on gov.uk.

I welcome the IRTL’s review of terrorism in prisons, and thank him for carrying out such a detailed and thorough review. His findings present an invaluable opportunity for us to assess progress and further strengthen our approach in prisons, covering areas including terrorist risk behaviour, governor accountability, separation centres, joint working and legislation.

In his report, the IRTL acknowledges the significant improvements made to the counter-terrorism system since the horrific terrorist attacks in 2019-20 at Fishmongers’ Hall, Streatham, Reading and in HMP Whitemoor. We have already strengthened the law through the Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Act 2020 and the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2021, putting an end to the automatic early release of terrorist offenders and introducing tougher sentences for the most serious terrorist offences. We have also invested in our ambitious step-up programme which provides a step change in our counter-terrorism capabilities through a raft of improvements including a joint intelligence hub to boost information sharing between security partners, a counter-terrorism assessment and rehabilitation centre to research, implement and evaluate rehabilitative interventions, and overhauling our counter-terrorism training offer to frontline staff.

These measures are critical to strengthening our approach to fighting terrorism in prisons, but we are determined to go further. That is why I have accepted 12 of the IRTL’s recommendations, partially accepted another, and in some areas propose going beyond them.

We will invest an additional £1.2 million over three years to create a new separation centre and high-risk casework team. The specialised team will ensure that decisions to place prisoners in separation centres are taken in an effective and targeted way, in order to avoid the dissemination of poisonous ideology, prevent terrorist recruitment, and more generally protect the public.

We will also invest £6.1 million over three years to create a new close supervision centre unit with an extra 10 cells, increasing our capacity by 20%. These will hold some of the most violent men in the prison system who pose a significant risk of harm to our staff and other prisoners.

We have collaborated widely in considering each of Jonathan Hall’s recommendations, and I am grateful to the Home Secretary and partners across the criminal justice system for supporting this work. We honour the victims, families and communities that have been traumatised by terror by doing all we can to prevent future atrocities.

[HCWS790]

Grand Committee

Wednesday 27th April 2022 Grand Committee

Wednesday 27 April 2022

Arrangement of Business

Wednesday 27th April 2022 Grand Committee

Announcement

16:15

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)]

My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells ring and resume after a few minutes.

Gambling Harm (Social and Economic Impact of the Gambling Industry Committee Report)

Wednesday 27th April 2022 Grand Committee

Motion to Take Note

16:15

Moved by

[Lord Grade of Yarmouth]

That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report from the Select Committee on the Social and Economic Impact of the Gambling Industry Gambling Harm—Time for Action (Session 2019–21, HL Paper 79).

[Lord Grade of Yarmouth (Con)]

My Lords, it is now three years since, out of the blue, I was appointed chairman of the Select Committee on the Social and Economic Impact of the Gambling Industry. Being chairman of this committee taught me a number of things. The first was how Members of your Lordships’ House, of all parties and none, can come together as a committee to pool their diverse knowledge and experience and produce a unanimous report on such a complex, contentious and important subject—a matter of life and death. I am immensely grateful to all the most diligent members of the committee who worked with me on this inquiry. The second thing that I learned was the importance of the large volume of written and oral evidence that we received from all interested parties in the sector, which we were able to evaluate and on which our report is, I hope, securely based. The third thing that I discovered as our inquiry progressed was how urgent is the need for action—a matter to which I shall return.

I start by making clear what the committee did not do: we did not recommend preventing gambling. For those who enjoy it, we recommended nothing to make it less enjoyable. Everyone spends money on things that they enjoy, such as travel, sport, the arts and other things, and, if people wish to spend their money on gambling, that is their prerogative. But “affordability is absolutely key”—that was said to us in evidence by the then CEO of one of the largest gambling operators. The problems start the moment someone begins to spend on gambling more than they might otherwise happily and safely spend on any other leisure activity. As we heard time and time again in evidence, once the problems start they escalate until, in too many cases, they get out of hand and what was once an enjoyable leisure activity becomes an addiction.

As with so many addictions, things can deteriorate disastrously and quickly but with gambling, unlike other addictions, this can happen unknown to even the closest family and friends. The committee held an informal meeting with the families of gamblers who had taken their own lives and heard heart-rending stories of how they discovered only after the deaths of their loved ones that their husbands, sons or brothers had been gambling far beyond their means. We also took formal evidence on this, and I pay particular tribute to Charles and Liz Ritchie, whose son Jack took his own life at the age of 24. They have set up a charity, Gambling with Lives, so that other parents and relations in the same situation can join with them to promote reform of the law and regulations and improve the treatment available to problem gamblers.

What is the size of the problem? As I said, our inquiry was entirely evidence-based, as it should be. Although some of the evidence is conflicting, the best estimate is that some 0.7% of the adult population—about 340,000 people—are problem gamblers. Some 55,000 of those are schoolchildren aged 11 to 16. In excess of 2 million family and friends are affected by harm to physical and mental health, loss of savings and homes, loss of jobs, criminal activity, family breakdown and sometimes, tragically, ultimately death.

When we said in our report that, on average, one problem gambler committed suicide every day, a fact-checking organisation wrote to take issue with us. It said that the annual figure was only 250—as if that was acceptable. In fact, our evidence was that between 250 and 650 people commit suicide every year. Since we reported, a survey by Public Health England has estimated that there are 409 suicides associated with problem gambling each year in England alone. Since our committee was set up three years ago, not less than a thousand young men—it is almost invariably young men—will have taken their own lives, and this will continue for as long as nothing is done.

Who, then, should be taking action to ensure that no one gambles more than they can afford? All of us, of course, but principally the industry, the Gambling Commission and, ultimately, the Government. First, on the industry, it will take every opportunity to tell you that problem gamblers are only a small number compared to the many who enjoy an innocent flutter. It will not be so keen to tell you that although only a small proportion gamble excessively, the profit from those gamblers is out of all proportion to their number. The greater the problem, the higher the profit.

The industry’s story—in particular the story of the Betting and Gaming Council, the trade body—is that it recognises the problem but that much has already been done on a voluntary basis. The industry accepts that more needs to be done but says that it is making a major contribution to research and treatment, while working with the Gambling Commission and the Government to change law and practice so that problem gambling can be reduced. The industry welcomes the Government’s review of the Gambling Act, which will give it another opportunity to argue that a few small changes—preferably on a voluntary basis—are all that is needed. I call this approach “confess and avoid”.

Nobody, problem gambler or not, can place a bet unless an operator is prepared to accept that gamble. The operators are ultimately in control. They have an immense amount of data about their customers, especially those gambling online, which is where most gambling happens these days. They know how much their customers spend, their spending patterns and the time they spend gambling. They know who spends three hours gambling at night and who gambles heavily immediately after payday. They can access detailed information on a customer’s financial situation from bank statements, proof of income and credit checks. They know whether a customer has previously self-excluded or tried to do so, and whether a customer has more than one account with them or with other operators. They know the transaction history and risk indicators. They already have to do money-laundering checks. They could be using all their information to make sure that they accept bets only from those who can afford it. If in doubt, they should refuse the bet. Since they will not do this voluntarily, the rules must be changed to force them to do so.

One obstacle that the sector has repeatedly thrown up is the issue of data protection. It points out, correctly, that most problem gamblers have accounts with more than one operator; it says that no single operator can deal with affordability issues if it does not have the whole picture. Operators told us in evidence that they could not share the information they have with other operators. We put this to the Information Commissioner’s Office, and the ICO told us categorically that data protection legislation does not prevent gambling operators sharing the personal data of vulnerable users. That was two years ago.

Since then, there have been tripartite conversations between the industry, the ICO and the Gambling Commission to formulate ways in which data can be processed, exchanged and used. The ICO is there in an advisory capacity, and it is not for it to take the initiative. The industry has no incentive to advance matters. The Gambling Commission, which should be taking matters forward, seems to detect no great need for urgency. That is why the exchange of data is still very partial and very patchy.

I harbour a faint hope that, when my noble friend the Minister replies to this debate, he will tell us what the Government have in mind as a solution to this crucial issue. I fear, however, that your Lordships will be told in reply to this and many other questions that we will raise that we must wait even longer for the White Paper, when all will be revealed.

I can already confidently identify one major failing in the White Paper: its title. The whole exercise is labelled a review of the Gambling Act 2005. It is nice and catchy to say and a good soundbite that the Act is an analogue law in a digital age. That is true, but the full truth is much more nuanced. Although in 2005 the smartphone—in this context, a betting shop in every teenager’s pocket—was in its infancy, the Act had flexibility built into it. It is indeed a law passed in a largely analogue age, but it was already able to cope with most digital developments. It is not the Act itself that is at fault; the fault lies with those who have failed to use the powers already enshrined in it.

The Act gives the Gambling Commission almost total control of licensing conditions and codes of practice. The commission has always had the power needed to enforce them, with the ultimate sanction of suspension or removal of an operator’s licence. By amending the licence conditions as developments occurred, it could have kept pace with them. It could have dealt with most of the affordability issues that I have mentioned. To be fair, it has tightened the rules on the age and identity checks that operators must do before allowing someone to gamble online. It has also banned the use of credit cards for betting—at last. But so much more could have been done. So many lives might have been saved. The Government need to address the lack of accountability of the gambling regulator.

Among the many recommendations that the committee made, the Gambling Commission could have established a system for testing all new games against a series of harm indicators, including their addictiveness and whether they will appeal to children, and not approving a game that scores too highly on the harm indicators. It could have introduced equalisation of speed of play and spin, so that no game can be played quicker online than in a physical casino, betting shop or bingo hall. It could have required the licensing of affiliates. It could have prohibited bet-to-view and other inducements. It could have required every operator that has been notified of an individual’s self-exclusion not to send them any communications during the period of self-exclusion and thereafter to do so only if the individual removes the self-exclusion. All of this would have led to a significant reduction in problem gambling—and it still could, if action is taken now.

There are inevitably changes—just a handful—that need primary legislation. One of these is the setting up of a statutory gambling ombudsman service to settle disputes between gambling operators and gamblers. This is not a matter for the regulator. It is right that the Gambling Commission should adjudicate on breaches of licence conditions, such as when Sky Betting & Gaming distributed a promotional offer of “Bet £5, get 100 free spins” to 41,395 self-excluded customers and a quarter of a million customers who had unsubscribed from the operator’s marketing emails. However, where a punter has lost money or been otherwise affected by the failures of an industry giant, it is right that there should be an ombudsman to adjudicate, similar to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

It would also take primary legislation to create a duty of care owed by operators to their customers. To be clear, I am not just referring to operators being careful of the interests of their customers; I am talking about a duty, the breach of which could give rise to proceedings brought by a customer against an operator for breach of statutory duty. But, I repeat, the changes that need primary legislation are very few.

I conclude with a little history. It was in 1999 that Ministers of the Labour Government first considered reviewing and liberalising the law on gambling. The Budd review reported in 2001, a draft Bill was published in November 2003 and it was sent to a pre-legislative Joint Committee, which reported in April 2004. The Bill received Royal Assent in April 2005 but did not come into force until September 2007—eight years after reform was first proposed.

Fast forward 20 years: the Government promised a review of the Gambling Act in their manifesto before the 2019 election, as did the other major parties. The consultation paper was not issued until a year later. The consultation closed in March 2021, more than a year ago. A White Paper was promised by the end of that year; we are now promised it next month. If primary legislation is needed, it will be lucky to get a slot next Session but might be passed by the end of this Parliament in 2024. If, as in the case of the 2005 Act, we have to wait another two years before it is brought into force, that takes us to 2026—seven years after the first undertakings for reform. Given the gambling-related suicide rates, that cannot be acceptable.

If, in replying to this debate, the Minister tells the Grand Committee that reform of the Gambling Act itself needs to wait for an opportunity for primary legislation, that will of course be true, since the Act can be amended only by further primary legislation, but if my noble friend tells us that other gambling reform must also wait, I shall be deeply disappointed—as, I am sure, all the members of my committee will be. As I have tried to explain, so much could be done—indeed, could already have been done—by Ministers, but mostly by the Gambling Commission with the powers that it already has. The title of the committee’s report was Time for Action. That was two years ago. Meanwhile, today, like every other day, a young problem gambler may already have taken his own life. I beg to move.

16:31

[Lord Layard (Lab)]

My Lords, I had the honour of being a member of this committee. It was beautifully chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Grade, and had a brilliant secretary. It is an outstanding report.

I will talk about the problem of addiction. As we know, there are many forms of addiction—tobacco, alcohol, drugs and gambling—which are all very serious. Gambling is as serious as the others. The numbers addicted to gambling are, in fact, very similar to the numbers addicted to drugs and alcohol. Each affects roughly 1% of the population, yet we treat these addictions completely differently. It is quite extraordinary when you look at it.

On tobacco, for example, we ban all advertising and the NHS spends billions on treating the consequences of tobacco consumption. On drugs, we ban their consumption totally. On drug and alcohol dependence, we spend more than £1 billion each on treating those who suffer from them. What about gambling? Regulation is pretty minimal, as the noble Lord, Lord Grade, pointed out, and we provide almost no treatment to the victims. This all has to change.

I will focus on just two issues: the regulation of gambling advertising and marketing, and the treatment services for those addicted to gambling. Until the 2005 Act, most advertising of gambling was banned. Quite simply, that is the position that we need to re-establish. Nearly half of all children aged 11 to 16 report that they see gambling advertisements at least once a week. No wonder the rate of problem gambling is higher in that age group than in any other. Is this not an incredible fact about our society? It is illegal to gamble under 16, yet people aged 11 to 16 have the highest rate of addiction. That is also, of course, extremely serious for their future. As a committee, we met many gambling addicts, who almost invariably said that they had got hooked before the age of 18. At least a third of all gamblers say that it was advertising that brought them in and there is other good evidence that advertising directly causes more people to gamble.

Surely we should be banning the advertising of gambling, and with it the sponsorship of sports by the gambling industry, which is another form of advertising. The only exceptions could be horseracing and other similar sports, which children do not watch. The ban should also cover all forms of direct online marketing.

This is not a draconian approach, compared with what is done with other forms of addictive behaviour and substances. In fact, the YouGov poll says that two-thirds of the British population want gambling advertising banned. So why can we not have that? It simply means going back to where we were before 2005.

Since 2005, of course, a massively profitable industry has developed, with a yield of £14 billion in 2019. But 60% of those profits come from 5% of gamblers—the 5% who are either addicts or at risk. We have to protect people from getting hooked, and that means protecting them from advertising.

Then, when people are hooked, we must provide help. As the chairman said, roughly one gambler a day dies through suicide. This is a major public health problem. Yet of all addicts, only 2% to 3% get any form of treatment. This compares with 30% of those with drug and alcohol problems. There are good treatments for gambling disorders and the NHS should be providing them. As we know, 15 clinics have been promised, which should open as soon as possible, but rapidly after that we need there to be a comparable number.

There is a good model of how to organise all this in the NHS’s so-called Improving Access to Psychological Therapies—IAPT—programme for depression and anxiety disorders. In remarkable contrast to the speed of the Government’s gambling proposals, this set up nearly 100 services within its first three years. How can we tolerate just 15 clinics being proposed over an unspecified period? It is not good enough.

This problem must not get muddled up with the levy issue, because it is a duty of the NHS to treat health problems, and we know there is going to be a problem over the levy—its method of disbursement, and so on. The Government should be mandating the NHS in its annual mandate to rapidly expand the number of clinics for gambling disorder.

We know that this is not a marginal problem. The noble Lord, Lord Grade, referred to 340,000 addicts, including 55,000 aged under 16, but, of course, in addition to those numbers, their families and colleagues are affected, the community is affected and crime increases. It is estimated that altogether some 2 million people in our community are affected by this problem. The main point I am trying to make is: let us think about gambling addiction as a problem as serious as tobacco, drugs and alcohol.

I believe that we have a Minister who understands the issues and I really hope that his department can produce a White Paper which matches the scale of the problem.

16:39

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Layard, and I found myself in much agreement with what he was saying. I pay tribute to the committee and particularly the chairman, my noble friend Lord Grade of Yarmouth, for the work it has done and the very balanced, erudite and compelling report it produced, Gambling Harm—Time for Action.

There is a widespread if not universal view that more action is needed, and urgently. Although I accept that there is a balance to be struck between the leisure aspect of gambling and the protection of the public, particularly vulnerable members of the public—we have heard the truly chilling statistics about young children problem gamblers—the scales at present are heavily weighted in favour of the betting industry, in broad terms. There is a need for action and the public health dimension needs accentuating more. I have the greatest respect for the Minister but DCMS and the Gambling Commission have been slow to act. They need to do much more, and much more quickly.

There is a need to protect the vulnerable much more. The committee heard clearly about the problems of debt, homelessness and relationship breakdown, career and work problems, and particularly the problems of depression and suicide, which should cause us all to stop and think. The betting industry makes considerable profits; I note what the noble Lord, Lord Layard, said about distinguishing the levy from the need for the NHS to step forward, but a 1% levy on the betting industry would generate £140 million per annum, which would help to fund some of the organisations doing such great work at present. But they could do far more and, on the “polluter pays” principle, I see no problem with saying that the betting industry should pay towards the treatment of addiction services so that we can improve them to the extent of having first-class services, which is what we really need.

As I say, the Gambling Commission and DCMS could be doing more. We need not to wait for legislation but to act urgently now. The fines and penalties are not sufficient in their impact on large corporations, as I think the committee found, and there is a need for increased powers for the Gambling Commission. It may be that that needs to wait for legislation, but I am not convinced that it does. I thank the LGA for its briefing on this, as local authorities need additional powers to stop clusters of betting shops in communities, and those would be very welcome.

Perhaps I may say something about the fast-changing nature of the gambling industry, which is why urgent and forward-looking action is needed. During the pandemic, we obviously saw a slowdown in relation to casinos and betting shops—indeed, a shutdown of them. That was temporary but meanwhile there has been a large growth in online gambling, which continues. It was of course happening before the pandemic started; between 2015-16 and 2018-19, online gambling grew by 18%. There has been a massive and continued growth online during the pandemic, as would be expected, and that continues with home working. That presents problems, particularly with the young who, as we have seen, tend to be more vulnerable. Action is therefore needed to stop the exacerbation of harm that we see in that area.

The Government and the Gambling Commission need to act decisively here and I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Layard, in relation to advertising. It contributes to and exacerbates the harm, and urgent action is needed on that. The Government need to extend the remit of the Gambling Commission to act to prevent future harm. As my noble friend Lord Grade said, the sharing of information on affordability problems and that exchange of data is crucial. Too often, in all areas, the excuse given is of the GDPR. I sit on the Select Committee on Public Services and we have heard the same thing: “We’re restricted on the exchange of information between government departments by the GDPR”—nonsense. This is not the case, or if it is it needs changing swiftly to ensure that the reason for the legislation is to protect personal freedom and data. It is not to stop the greater good that we need to step forward to do.

There is a need for urgent action and we should not wait for legislation. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on that but it really is the time for excuses to end. The time for action is now.

16:44

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, I too served on the Select Committee and am grateful for the contributions of so many people, as we worked away at this subject and took evidence over an extended period. I also declare my interest as a vice-president of the LGA.

I became involved in this area long before the Select Committee started its work because, in my day job, a family came to see me and simply broke down as they told me the story of their son’s addiction and how he eventually took his own life. It was the most extraordinary and transformative hour, for me, as I listened to the sheer, raw pain of a family that had been destroyed—and to this day is still destroyed. They have not gone public; they still feel a mixture of deep hurt and shame because of what has gone on. They have not been able to rebuild their lives.

At the end of that hour, I found myself rather lamely trying to make a few comforting comments. Then I came to the House and put down a series of Questions over two or three weeks to find out about the nature of the problem, because I knew nothing about this. Much to my surprise, my inbox was filled with people contacting me to say, “Can we come and talk to you to tell you our story? Do you know what this has done to our family? My cousin’s son has just died”. Another family had lost their home. I was absolutely shocked by what I heard.

I hear the arguments that many people enjoy gambling. Our committee decided that we are not prohibitionists and do not want to stop people gambling, but there is an underbelly to this that simply has not been seen. Even on the Select Committee, some were shocked by the testimonies we heard of what is going on. It is a very different story from the wall-to-wall adverts of groups of people happily shouting and being joyful; it is actually one of lives being destroyed.

I will highlight and comment on three areas. So far, I feel the response of Her Majesty’s Government has been deeply disappointing. It does not take account of the depth and scale of the problem, and the Gambling Commission has not been much better. Often, the commission has acted because there has been a head of steam and a number of people have been raising issues. Rather than taking a proactive stance, shaping this industry and people’s response to it, it is rather lamely following behind. There are some notable exceptions in one or two things it has done, but that is my general point.

Recommendations 54 to 63 are about the statutory smart levy for research, education and treatment, and the need for it to be independently funded. This is fundamental to what we are doing and arguing for. If we are not able to provide independent funding, virtually no respectable researcher or university department will be taken seriously in today’s world. This really matters. We need to ensure that we make a division between the money coming from the industry and the way it is bounded and then distributed. As has been pointed out, the powers to introduce a statutory smart levy already exist within Section 123 of the 2005 Act. It would produce significantly more money for us to undertake the research that is currently funded by a cash-strapped NHS. As one person summed up the problem, the gambling industry has brilliantly privatised the profits and nationalised the costs: taxpayers are paying to treat the problems created by these gambling companies.

I shall say a brief word on affordability checks. It is self-evident that limiting how much an individual can deposit, based on their income, will inevitably reduce the overall harm caused. The important thing is that affordability checks have to be meaningful, not symbolic. It would in reality be no good to set the affordable limit before checks are required at £300 when, particularly at a time of rising costs, that £300 might be crucial to feeding, housing or clothing a family. I know the committee’s report never committed to any specific affordability mechanism, although my opinion is that the £100 per month soft cap proposed by the Social Market Foundation represents a sensible, evidence-based solution that would enable the majority of gamblers to continue “having a flutter”—to co-opt the industry’s language—while protecting the most vulnerable from harm.

I also want to say something on advertising and the social normalising of gambling through its very close association with—some would say hijacking of—sport. The number of adverts that you see when you watch, say, a soccer match, is striking. It is so much so that, as the Committee knows, groups of passionate soccer fans are now campaigning against them and a number of important clubs have taken a principled stand of not taking any money from the gambling industry. I salute them for what they are doing and point out that they are managing to fund their clubs without relying on the gambling industry. The argument at the moment is that if this money were not available, the whole edifice of professional football would collapse. That was the argument about tobacco a few years ago: that if football did not have the advertising revenue from tobacco, it would all collapse. It did not. Football found new ways to fund what it was doing.

On advertising, the prime recommendation is to try to end the association between sport and gambling. As has already been said, we know that something between 55,000 and 62,000 children are diagnosed with some sort of gambling problem when in law they should not be able to gamble at all, so goodness knows how many are gambling if that number are diagnosed with it. I think ending it is in the industry’s best interests. I now know three families who have decided that they do not want their young children to watch some Prime matches because they feel their children are being groomed—they use that language—and given a message which they strongly disagree with. I agree with that point.

When I was young and watched football matches, I did so because I found excitement in watching the sport, with the two teams competing. Watching a soccer match nowadays with one of my young relatives, I thought he was texting somebody but I discovered that he was placing bets on it throughout. His understanding is that you get your pleasure not by watching the sport but by betting on it. Is that not a brilliant move by the industry? It is very clever how it has changed.

There is a fundamental issue here. The independent economic research by NERA shows that the worries of the industry that it will not be able to fund itself are dubious when you look at the facts. We provided that research for those who need it. If the principle underlying the Government’s gambling reform is a public health approach, they simply cannot continue to allow gambling to dominate every facet of sport and to promote an industry that was previously merely accepted, rather than being the norm. I am proud to have been part of this Select Committee. I am dismayed to feel there is a complacency, and I urge Her Majesty’s Government to look seriously at this empirical data and take some radical steps quickly to try to stem this serious social problem we face, even if it is not quite an epidemic of suicides. I hope we will see some action on this before too long.

16:55

[Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-chair of Peers for Gambling Reform. I, too, was a member of the House of Lords Select Committee on the Social and Economic Impact of the Gambling Industry, which was so excellently chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Grade, and supported by a splendid secretariat, as has been said.

I found membership of this Select Committee a sobering experience. As we have heard, gambling is a very big industry and it brings enjoyment to many people. but there is another side of the picture. The committee heard how addictive gambling causes homelessness, loss of employment, imprisonment, depression, alcohol dependency and, most seriously, suicide. When we take into account the figures for problem gambling, particularly among young people, as quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Grade, it is clear that this is a really serious problem in our society. All political parties have acknowledged that by committing themselves to addressing it—and that now needs to take place. But effective action to prevent the excesses, while allowing the pleasure to continue, needs joined-up thinking across government.

I and the Select Committee feared that my old department, the Treasury, would be one of the things that would drag the anchor on reform of this problem. We thought the Treasury would be inhibited by fear of killing the goose that lays the golden egg, in the form of contributions to the Exchequer each year. But this is to look at only one side of the account. It is not just about the yield from the revenue, but, even if it were, Peers for Gambling Reform commissioned NERA Economic Consulting, as the right reverend Prelate said, to assess the economic effects of the reforms that the Select Committee recommended. NERA’s report is well worth reading. It assessed, first, that the industry’s profits are easily robust enough to exceed the effects of a mandatory levy, which could fund education and treatment of those addicted.

On the Exchequer side of the account, NERA’s report assessed not only that there would be a net gain to the Exchequer on the revenue side, but that this would be all the greater when one takes into account savings in the amount that the Government currently spend on dealing with the effects of gambling, primarily through healthcare costs. This really is a problem that can be addressed only by looking across the range of departments. In addition, by diverting some of the expenditure by the public in the form of problem gambling to other sectors that are more labour-intensive, there could be a net gain of some 30,000 jobs to the economy. So it is not simply an Exchequer matter; this is an issue where there are gains to the economy as a whole—

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)]

If the noble Lord will forgive me, I am afraid that we are about to have a vote. We will take a small moment to press our buttons and then reconvene in a moment. I apologise to the noble Lord; he was mid-flow.

16:59

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

17:02

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)]

My Lords, we would normally delay for 10 minutes for a vote, but I suspect your Lordships have all pressed your buttons already. We might be able to continue if the Committee does not mind occasional interruptions by the jingling Bells. Shall we do that? Lord Butler, do you wish to continue?

[Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)]

My Lords, before the interruption I was saying that this is not just an issue for the Exchequer. There are gains for the economy as a whole if expenditure by the public in the form of problem gambling is reduced and diverted to other sectors which are more labour-intensive. The gambling industry itself is not very labour-intensive and the expenditure of those sorts of sums will generate more employment elsewhere. NERA has assessed that there could be a net gain to the economy of as many as 30,000 jobs and up to £400 million in employee earnings, which of course in itself would generate revenue to the Exchequer.

The coming publication of the White Paper is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to address deep-seated social issues. By addressing the harms of addictive gambling, the Government’s review has a chance to bring about not only a major social reform but one which is economically viable and fiscally advantageous.

17:04

[Lord Kirkham (Con)]

We live in a world that is hungry for data, where every business, charity, NGO and government department is eager to gather more and more information about our health, habits, motivation, interests and desires. Whether we like it or not, every journey we make is tracked by CCTV, and every keystroke we make on a laptop, tablet or smartphone can be analysed so that we can be ever more effectively targeted by marketeers. I am sure we are all familiar with the eerie way that typing the name of a place, product or service into a search engine immediately leads to our being swamped with ads for that very thing.

As a lifelong professional retailer of scale eager to grow my business, I quickly recognised the value and importance of data and communications in fulfilling my corporate ambitions. The more I could learn about a prospective customer and their needs and aspirations, the better I could target and personalise my communications to persuade and encourage them to do business with my company. It worked for me then, and it is working for the gambling industry now, but with several key differences. To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever become addicted to buying sofas—and we certainly tried hard—I never attempted to sell our products specifically to children, and I was working in the age before the smartphone became universal.

Now nearly every adult, young person and very many children in this country carry around a device that allows them to play games, have fun and gamble around the clock, and provides constant feedback on what they enjoy. This gives unscrupulous operators in the gambling industry the perfect opportunity to identify an individual’s weakness and exploit them—accentuating the thrill of risk taking, the adrenaline rush and the chance of winning money, and giving them every possible encouragement to gamble irresponsibly to the maximum. The speed of change facilitated by advancements in technology has been stellar. Regulations, legislation and implementations have clearly been left far behind, and they now desperately need to catch up and become relevant to fit the digital era.

I am no puritan; I have never been strongly against gambling as a legitimate source of entertainment. Social gambling can add interest, enjoyment and spice to sporting events, and it has become a cultural norm, but we still must take care. Giant oaks from tiny acorns grow, and the current proliferation of the compulsive behaviour of dangerously addictive gambling, particularly among young people looking for a buzz and easy money—including those under 16 whose participation is already illegal—is an evil that we just cannot allow to continue. It is a rich seam for the gaming operators to mine, but, as we have heard, it is literally destroying lives. It creates financial hardship, emotional pain, and social, job and relationship problems, and poses a major health and suicide risk. It has progressed to a magnitude and extent that I believe are not generally recognised and acknowledged. Having spent many years working with young people through the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award and Outward Bound to help them build their confidence, maximise their potential and realise their ambitions, I find it heartbreaking that so many young people are now at risk of being blighted by gambling addiction and gambling to excess, with lives even being lost because of it, as we have heard.

Gambling is not going anywhere. It has been around for ever, and it is here to stay; of that I think we can be assured. More than half the nation’s adults are regular gamblers. While most people do not develop a gambling problem, it can be a nightmare of epic proportions for those who do—at a massive cost to the gambler, their family and society at large, appealing as it does to those from all walks of life. It is a big money business and, consequently, it wields power and influence and can easily succumb to the temptation to compromise values and standards in the race for big profits.

We need to inform and regularly remind the public of the true magnitude of the problem, and urgently add gambling education to the national curriculum to make young people aware of its risks as clearly as we teach them about the dangers of drink and drugs and the importance of safe sex. Gambling is a bigger problem among teens than it is in adults, and research by the Mayo Clinic indicates—perhaps unsurprisingly—that gambling during childhood and teenage years increases the risk of developing compulsive gambling tendencies. Addressing this must be our priority. More widely, we need to look at ways of achieving a change in public attitudes to addictive gambling in the same way that we have successfully persuaded the overwhelming majority of the public that drink-driving is socially unacceptable, that it is irresponsible to get into a car without wearing a seatbelt, and that cigarette smoking is passé.

In the short term, we need urgent action by the Government to enforce the existing law that makes gambling by children illegal, and for the Gambling Commission to make much more use of its existing powers to mitigate the encouragement of problem gamblers spending more than they can afford. The Government have a manifesto commitment and a moral responsibility to invest in making gambling safe and honest, with strong and substantial protection for the most vulnerable.

This report is substantial, comprehensive, wide-ranging and most impressive. The process to start implementation is crucial and pressing. It should begin right now, with particular focus on online gambling, protecting the young specifically; stricter operator control; tighter statutory regulations on both gambling advertising and the promotion of inducements—the noble Lord, Lord Layard, went further and suggested a total gambling advertising ban; and the introduction of regular and hard-hitting education and information campaigns. It would be irresponsible in the extreme to add further delay.

Gambling is a compulsive behaviour, a process addiction that is chronic and progressive and can start off from the lightest touch: making a casual, recreational wager, simply buying a lottery ticket or scratchcard, or even having a flutter on the Grand National. I do not think we should make it easy for the young to be lured into gambling. Let us not make the gateway to gambling tempting and attractive, spurred by loosely restricted, heavyweight, focused marketing.

Gambling has brought pressure on society for generations, but now technological advances have allowed new, highly addictive games to be developed and made personalised communication easy and gambling convenient and accessible from almost anywhere at any time, allowing problem gamblers to wager and place bets at all hours of day or night, exacerbating the problem and fuelling its growth. The time is long overdue to mitigate this chronic scourge of society. Problem gamblers are gambling not only with money but with their lives. We should not. It is time for action.

17:12

[Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)]

My Lords, I add my praise for the insight and care with which the Select Committee has put together this report. It quotes the Government’s evidence that 0.7% of the adult population of this country are problem gamblers. However, much of this information is self-reported and it is inevitably an underestimation.

I find more convincing a report from HSBC, which investigated the accounts of 1.5 million of its customers to look at their actual gambling spend compared with their disposable income. It concluded that 2% of customers, classed as “Very Concerning”, spend more than 60% of their disposable income on gambling, and 8% spend more than 20% on gambling; these were classed as “Concerning”. These figures not only show the need for the banking industry to become the first responder for these vulnerable customers but emphasise many of the report’s recommendations.

I will focus my speech on the exponential growth in online gambling and the increasing gamblification of online gaming, which is affecting users as young as three. As the noble Lords, Lord Bourne and Lord Kirkham, said, we have seen a huge increase in online gambling, available 24/7 on all sorts of devices, including mobile phones. Researchers’ anxiety is that the fastest growing of these apps are not regulated by the Gambling Commission.

There has been a big increase in what are called social casino apps, which fly below the radar. These include simulated casino games, roulette and slot machines. All involve the original chips or plays being paid for with money, but the rewards are not in money but in tokens that can be used only in the game. One of the most successful is 777 Slots, which allows users to make fast, repetitive slot plays online. The players are nudged into continuing to play and put down stakes, using a software program carefully crafted to excite and engross them. The operators make massive amounts of money, of course, but the apps do not qualify as gambling because, as the Gambling Commission points out in the report, under UK legislation the definition of gambling is that the prize includes “money or money’s worth”. If it does not, it is not gambling. Surely, with the growth of these social casino apps that fall outside this definition, there is potential to cause addiction. The definition has to be changed to create an important extension to the Gambling Commission’s remit.

Nowhere is the revision of the definition of gambling more important than in the world of online gaming. Many researchers talk of the gamblification of the gaming world. In the last decade, it has changed out of all recognition. A decade ago, video games were products to be bought and taken home to be played on a console; now they are given away free as online sales platforms. They lure players into spending more and more money on buying additional benefits in the game to enhance their chances of performing better. Recent studies online show the skilful design techniques that keep players in the game, spending ever greater amounts of money.

This is also happening in the new generation of virtual reality games that are coming through the metaverse, but nothing has attracted as much attention as the loot boxes, which are so worrying because they are accessible to children, especially young males under 18. There is little information about the money being made by the operators, although Juniper Research estimates that the worldwide market is worth $30 billion annually. Young players can buy in-game features that allow them to either spend real-world money or take a stake on in-game items for the chance of winning something of unknown value.

I have read the evidence given to the committee by Dr Zendle—he is the expert on loot boxes—and I have spoken to him at length. He says that loot boxes are similar to gambling in many ways; they provide a powerful gateway for many young people to train as gamblers. They encourage spending, often excessive spending. More importantly, Dr Zendle confirms that, in all his studies, there is a link between problem gambling and spending on loot boxes. His finding is that young people who spend money on loot boxes are more than 10 times as likely to become problem gamblers as those who do not. This rings alarm bells in the report and it should among all of us.

Two Select Committees have already recommended extending the Gambling Act to cover loot boxes and bring them into scope but, in reply to this committee’s report, the Government pointed out that the call for evidence on this issue closed in November 2020. There have been over 30,000 responses. Last summer, the Minister in the other place announced that the government response would come in months. Now we are told that the response will come two years after the consultation has closed—a shockingly long time on this important issue.

I understand that the Government do not want to impose unnecessary regulation on the booming gaming industry, but there are now so many studies and reports to show that loot boxes look and feel like gambling that they should wait no longer. They should urgently ensure that they are regulated under Section 6 of the Gambling Act, as soon as possible.

I ask the Government to look at the bigger picture online as the gambling and gaming worlds collide. They need to take deeper preventive action to deal with problem gambling, particularly among the youngest users. I ask the Minister whether he could look at some of the provisions in the Online Safety Bill, which he will be shepherding through this House. Its duty of care provisions compel larger platforms to take into account the protection of users from harm, both legal and illegal, within the algorithms and software programs which moderate and disseminate content.

This should be the best model for the future of online gaming and gambling. The Gambling Commission’s remote technical standards specify that games should not include features to encourage players to chase losses, nor continue playing when they want to exit the game. Clearly the level of problem gambling in this country means that this is not working effectively. I urge the Minister to consider imposing a duty of care on operators that is baked into the design of games. That would go a long way to alleviating many people’s concerns and, more importantly, would future-proof the technology against the dramatic and unforeseen changes that are coming down the line.

17:18

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. I agree with everything he said on both loot boxes and unconventional games that are currently not classified as gambling. I will not repeat any of it, but I agree with pretty much everything he said on those issues.

I declare my membership of Peers for Gambling Reform. I am also a vice-president of the LGA and the NALC.

I begin, as I think everyone has, by welcoming this important report and the clear and powerful introduction from the noble Lord, Lord Grade. As everyone has noted, this was published two years ago and yet we are here today. Often, when we talk about reports, we say that things have moved on, but none of the issues covered by this report has got any better in the last two years.

Those are two lost years during which, as we have discussed, so many individuals and families have suffered so much, but communities have also suffered. I want to focus on those communities—the place-based damage which is highlighted in the report—but the Government’s response is sadly lacking in acknowledgement of the damage done to communities; it acknowledges the individual but not the community damage.

When we think about what has moved on since then, the focus in the past few months has been the cost of living crisis. We have heard a lot of talk about gambling as a leisure activity, an optional thing, so one might expect that the gambling industry would be seeing a big collapse when there are reports out just today that more than 2 million meals have been handed out at food banks in the past year and almost one in 10 parents expects to go to a food bank in the next three months. You might think, “Well, people won’t have money for gambling.”

However, we need to think about what gambling is for very many people. It is not a pleasure or a leisure activity; it is a tax on desperation, on people’s desire for some kind of hope. They cannot see anything improving in their day-to-day life, with their zero-hours contract, gig economy job, low wages and costs going up and up. In that moment when you put down a bet, you think, “This could really make a difference, things could change.” You know that the chances of that happening are vanishingly small, but you really need that moment of hope. It is a very human need to think, “Suddenly things could be much better for me.” That is a tax on the state of our society.

I agree with many things that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans said in his powerful speech, but the report powerfully highlights the link between sport and gambling. We have seen a perversion of sport: it has become a vehicle for gambling. We talk about gambling being a leisure activity. How many other leisure activities have effectively been denied to people? We think about sport. We might hope that people might have watched that Premier League football game and then gone out to the local football pitch, had a kickaround and tried to recreate the brilliant free kick they had just seen, but, very likely, that local football pitch has been privatised and now has a significant charge for access to it. So many other leisure alternatives have been closed off.

Again, picking up on what the right reverend Prelate said, paragraph 524 of the report is worth highlighting. It is the report of a carefully considered, evidence-based Select Committee investigation. It says:

“Gambling operators should no longer be allowed to advertise on the shirts of sports teams or any other part of their kit. There should be no gambling advertising in or near any sports grounds or sports venues, including sports programmes.”


That is the carefully considered recommendation of a committee of your Lordships’ House. The right reverend Prelate’s comparison with tobacco is interesting. There was a huge row and expressions of concern when tobacco was banned from such advertising, and from all the advertising, but no one would go back now. We have in view the idea of zero tobacco: think of what social progress that is.

The Gambling Commission’s chief executive Andrew Rhodes gave a speech this month which pointed out that the gross yield for the gambling industry equates to taking £450 a second off customers in the UK. That is a lot of money. He made a very interesting comparison. He said that the industry is worth some £14 billion, which is roughly the same size as the agriculture industry. Elsewhere in your Lordships’ House, we are rightly having lots of debates about food security. We have an industry that is the same size as the industry feeding us, but it is the gambling industry.

When I was putting this speech together, I thought, “I’m going to come out here sounding like a real radical by saying, ‘Let’s shape our society according to what kind of society we’d like to have’”. But I had some unexpected support earlier from the noble Lord, Lord Butler, who in our previous debates has identified himself as a Treasury man. We heard the Treasury man say, “We want to think about and shape the size of gambling in our economy, and how we might better allocate the resources to see that capital used to create more and better jobs”. I thank him for that support; I was very pleased to hear it.

Coming to the point of not just the broader issue of the general economy, in paragraph 112 this report clearly focuses on how the damage done by the industry is not evenly spread across the country. Go down to Chelsea, or up to some of the posh bits of Manchester, and you will not find very much sign of the gambling industry. The report cites evidence that

“‘more than half of the nation’s 6,000 bookies are in the UK’s most deprived areas’, and that 56% of all the big four’s betting shops are … in the top 30% most deprived areas in England”.

I put it to the Minister that if we are, as I believe, to expect a levelling-up Bill in the Queen’s Speech then action to address gambling, particularly place-based gambling, should surely be in that Bill.

Looking at the time I have spoken already, I am not going to go through this report in great detail, but I want to go back to the Local Government Association and highlight a couple of points made in the detailed briefing that it released on this debate. If people have not looked at that, I really urge them to do so because it very much addresses how concerned our local authorities are about their lack of powers, or inadequate powers, to deal with this place-based situation. Although we often focus on what is happening on the internet, a lot of this damage is still very place-based. The Local Government Association is calling for more flexible powers for councils to determine the number and location of local gambling premises in their area, and the levelling-up Bill might very well help with that.

I have focused mostly on area-based issues but also want briefly to address problem gambling and the need for treatment for gambling addiction. Again, the Local Government Association is calling for the mandatory levy. We saw this on big tobacco, and the “polluter pays” principle has become a big thing, given Grenfell and the Building Safety Bill that we were debating yesterday. Surely, we need “big bet” to pay its way for the damage that it is causing.

My final thought is that, as I think the right reverend Prelate and several other speakers referred to, we saw a huge change to and growth in gambling after 2005. That was a result of policy choices and decisions made by government that gave us the position we have today. Very often we are told, “Oh, we can’t regulate or control—we can’t create new rules. That’s restrictive and anti-liberty”. But choices were made that allowed the situation we have today, and they allowed the industry to operate at vast profit without paying taxes or for the damage it is causing. It is not a case of acting or not acting; we have acted and created where we are now. We can act to create a different kind of model for society.

17:29

[Lord Smith of Hindhead (Con)]

My Lords, it was an honour to serve on the Select Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Grade. I thank him for his leadership, and I thank the staff who supported the committee and our witnesses, as well as colleagues who together produced a report which I believe is both balanced and considered. I declare my interests as a member of this committee and my other related interests as set out in the register.

Having become so used in recent months to a speaking time of just three minutes—and, in one case, two—I hardly knew what to do with myself when I learned that today we would have an advisory speaking time of five to six minutes. However, as the subject of gambling is so wide-ranging, I shall endeavour to stick to just a couple of topics.

As we are aware, a great deal has changed since 2005 in the way we gamble, socialise and spend our leisure time and money. The internet is the biggest catalyst in this change, with 24-hour access to online gambling in our pockets. The review our committee undertook was overdue and I hope our findings and recommendations will provide a measured framework for responsible and safe gambling while, at the same time, protecting the individual rights of those who enjoy gambling. As we said in our report, our aim was to make recommendations which

“will make gambling safer for all, but no less enjoyable for those who do participate safely.”

I hope our recommendation that triennial reviews should be reinstated will be given serious consideration. This is an efficient way to officially and systematically evaluate the gambling industry, the social landscape and key players such as the Gambling Commission, GambleAware and others. Can my noble friend the Minister clarify this point?

I clearly recall the look of panic, followed by temporary blankness, when I asked the then CEO of GambleAware what GambleAware does. The additional funding it had recently received seemed to have increased the size of its offices and admin staff, yet it was still unable to confirm its funding of, for example, GamCare, one of the excellent providers of help for people with gambling problems, for more than 12 months.

My question is whether GambleAware remains fit for purpose—whatever that purpose is—and, importantly, whether the funding of GambleAware is to be removed from voluntary industry donations and provided instead by the new, often mentioned levy. If that is the case, I ask my noble friend the Minister whether the Government are considering any alternatives to a statutory levy to fund research, education and treatment. Critically, do the Government recognise the disproportionate impact that a one-size-fits-all rate might have on land-based operators, which carry fixed costs and support large numbers of local jobs in their venues, compared with online operators?

If a statutory levy is being considered, will it apply to the National Lottery? Your Lordships will be aware that I have often set out my views on how the National Lottery has moved so far away from its original objectives that it is really now a gambling operator, albeit one governed by a separate Act. With the number of draw-based players declining and more of Camelot’s record profits being made via scratchcards and online instant win games, that would appear to be the case.

However, the mixed message continues when one considers that a person who plays just the six draw-based games each week, excluding scratchcards and online games, would spend £1,092 each year—and would be considered as being socially responsible as well as supporting good causes and, of course, Team GB. By contrast, a person who wishes to spend the same amount of money in a casino or betting on sports should, in the view of some experts, have to undergo an affordability check and might be regarded by others as some sort of social degenerate.

Camelot has recently been fined £3.15 million for mistakenly telling 20,000 players that they did not have winning tickets and sending marketing material to 65,400 people with potential gambling addictions. Noble Lords will not be surprised that I welcomed the Gambling Commission’s decision not to renew Camelot’s licence to operate the National Lottery beyond 2024, but I urge the new operator not to fall into the same trap as the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan did of “Dream Big Play Small”.

Finally, I hope that a happier balance between those who enjoy gambling and those who are rightly concerned about gambling harm can be achieved. Significant strides have already been taken by the industry to make gambling safer. Yes, it is an important industry in terms of tax yield and employment but a shared view that more can always be done without spoiling the enjoyment for the overwhelming majority who enjoy the occasional flutter is a target we should all collectively hope to achieve.

17:35

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Grade of Yarmouth, on setting out the case for gambling reform so eloquently. I regret that I was not a member of his Select Committee. I declare my interests as a vice-president of the LGA and a vice-chair of Peers for Gambling Reform.

The report Gambling Harm—Time for Action covers many aspects, including personal and economic. It made more than 50 recommendations to alleviate the problems associated with gambling harm, including bringing loot boxes in video games within the scope of the Gambling Act 2005. Children are particularly targeted via these, as the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, alluded to. Gambling can take place in many ways: at a racecourse, at a sporting event, online, at a casino or in a betting shop—there are myriad ways to do it.

District and unitary licensing authorities have a statutory role in regulating local gambling premises. Licensing and planning teams do their best to prevent gambling-related harms occurring on premises. This may include identifying specific local gambling risks. Currently, councils do not have the power to prevent new gambling premises opening. These could be sited close to schools, treatment centres or housing estates, thus leading to a situation where several gambling outlets may be close together, making it very difficult for those with addictions to avoid the temptation to gamble beyond their means. It is therefore important that councils are given powers over the possible location of gambling outlets in their areas in order to prevent clustering. This would help reduce the risks to the vulnerable. Are the Government prepared to consider this?

There is a difference between gambling in betting shops, online gambling and the gambling that takes place at a racecourse. Being shut indoors with a computer or mobile phone and continually betting online because you have an addiction that is ruling your life is a miserable existence. But the gambling that takes place in the open air at a racecourse needs a more nuanced approach. The business models that apply to off-course and on-course gambling should be acknowledged and dealt with differently. In both instances, the identification of problem gamblers should be simplified, and effective measures should be taken to ensure that those addicted cannot gamble beyond their means.

Running up thousands of pounds’ worth of debt is deeply depressing, and help should be readily available to those affected. Gambling can be fun—many enjoy the occasional flutter—but it can also become an overwhelming addiction that ruins lives. It is important that gambling harms are clearly understood and that education, prevention and treatment programmes are sufficiently well funded to be accessible and effective. The isolation caused by the pandemic and the current cost of living crisis, coupled with a significant move to online gambling, are putting an increased number of people at risk of becoming entrapped by gambling.

The introduction of a mandatory 1% levy on gross gaming yield for the gambling industry, to help to fund a significant expansion of gambling treatment services, is essential. During the passage of the Environment Act, the phrase “the polluter pays” was frequently used. It is appropriate to use the same phrase in relation to a levy on the gambling industry.

Much of the support and prevention work for those suffering from gambling harms is provided by charities outside of the NHS. However, it is often the case that the NHS picks up the cost of dealing with the aftermath of the mental health issues of families affected by gambling-related suicides. The National Gambling Treatment Service, which is funded by GambleAware, provides advice through a helpline and essential treatment for sufferers of gambling disorders—I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Hindhead, says. Raising awareness is essential, especially for young men, who may regularly gamble at sporting events. It is clear that no one organisation has a catch-all solution but, by working in partnership, more is achieved, much suffering is alleviated and tragic deaths are avoided.

A levy would help pay for extra capacity in health officials, debt advisers and faith leaders to respond to the likely growth in the number of those suffering from gambling harms. Can the Minister say whether the Government are ready to acknowledge the need for a 1% levy on the gambling industry? Raising awareness of gambling harms is essential before young people and children become entrapped. Children are particularly susceptible to online games and television advertising, which draw them in. The stigma associated with gambling harms needs careful handling in order to allow those affected to access the services which will help them.

I am pleased that we are holding this important debate shortly—I hope—before the publication of the gambling White Paper. One crucial reform the committee called for was online gambling affordability checks to ensure that people do not lose more than they can afford. There can be catastrophic consequences for those who gamble beyond their means and for their families, who are often left devastated. I was encouraged to hear that in a speech to the GambleAware conference in December 2021, the Minister responsible for the gambling industry recognised that these checks are key in helping to prevent gambling-related harm. The question now is how they should apply.

The Social Market Foundation published a powerful report in August 2020 which recommended the introduction of a standardised affordability threshold set at losses of £100 per month. At this stage customer due diligence checks should be applied by gambling operators. However, this does not always happen. A study carried out by the University of Liverpool found that 73% of slot players and 85% of non-slot players have a monthly loss of £50 or less. Other studies have similar conclusions, with the PwC report for the Betting and Gaming Council stating that the median spend is up to £75 per month. The proposed soft cap of £100 would allow most gamblers to enjoy a flutter without any major checks. Do the Government agree with the SMF’s carefully developed proposals and will they consider setting the affordability threshold at £100 per month?

The Government’s review of the gambling White Paper has taken place, but it has not yet been published. Can the Minister give an undertaking that that will take place in the next Session of Parliament and before the Summer Recess? Public Health England estimates the economic cost of gambling harms at £1.27 billion per year. Given this figure, surely there can be no reason not to take action now, especially as many families are suffering as a result of the increased cost of living and energy prices as well as struggling with gambling debts.

17:43

[Lord Trevethin and Oaksey (CB)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness. I declare various interests. I was honoured to be on the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Grade. I make a very modest contribution as a vice-chair of Peers for Gambling Reform, which is so ably and vigorously led by the noble Lord, Lord Foster, who will be speaking shortly. I also draw attention to the interests I declared in the committee which might be thought to travel in conflicting directions. I grew up in a horseracing family; I have been surrounded by gamblers all my life; I gamble, usually with enjoyment but almost invariably unprofitably; and I still have family connections with the horseracing world. Those are my amateur interests which might be thought to be relevant. I have a professional connection with gambling problems in that I have acted as a barrister in a number of cases involving very serious allegations against gambling operators. In the course of that work, I have seen alarming evidence of deliberate and, it might be said, even cruel exploitation of gamblers with serious problems, and it is with that in mind that I shall address only one recommendation that the committee has made.

Before I do that, I echo what the noble Baroness just said about the distinction to be drawn between, as she put it, open-air gambling at the races on the one hand and online gambling on the other. Horseracing, which is dear to me and my family and about which the next speaker may well have a bit to say, is part of the fabric of British life. There is a danger, which I am sure the Government will be mindful of, that the necessary reforms in this area might have an unfortunate effect on the horseracing industry. The time to address that will be when we know what the Government’s proposals are, but I am aware from contact with the horseracing authority that there are concerns in respect of restrictions on advertising and affordability checks. Horseracing should, within reason, be protected.

Having made that modest plea for horseracing, of which I am fond, I will now briefly speak from a forensic perspective, if I am able to achieve that, about one recommendation that I think is critical. The starting point is to recognise that gambling operators are subject to a considerable conflict of interest when they are asked by the law or the regulator to take steps to protect problem gamblers. The conflict is obvious: the bigger the problem, the more profit the gambling operator makes. I have seen cases in which that problem is vividly brought out. The existence of that problem means that the Government’s reforms must recognise that it is completely unrealistic to expect the gambling operators to cleanse their own stables and act properly in future. The necessary standards have to be imposed on the gambling operators, and I suspect that they would accept that. It is almost unfair to expect them to behave entirely properly, given the commercial interests at work.

The recommendation that the committee has made and that I wish to speak to is that the office of a gambling ombudsman be created. I am quite familiar with the work of ombudsmen in my world, the legal world, so I know how they operate. They have very important powers. When a complaint is made to an ombudsman, the ombudsman normally has the power to drill down into the underlying evidence and, in particular, to get the relevant emails—which is where the devil is to be found—if the ombudsman thinks it appropriate to do so.

I am doubtful that effective redress will be available in every case in which a gambler has been unfairly treated by a gambling operator; sometimes it will and sometimes it will not. It will not be obtained in the courts, because the courts are too expensive. It might sometimes be provided by the ombudsman, but the real value of creating an ombudsman is that in cases of abuse and unfair exploitation, where a complaint is made to the ombudsman, the ombudsman can then make a comprehensive and searching inquiry into the underlying facts. That is critical, because it will expose misconduct by the gambling operators. The misconduct can be referred to the Gambling Commission, which I think is beginning to wake up to the scale of the problem that confronts us. The Gambling Commission has the power to impose extremely substantial fines, as it is beginning to do.

That seems to me to be one very effective potential route to a reform of the industry and a mitigation of the harms of which so many of your Lordships have spoken. I am not entirely confident at the moment, but I very much hope the Government’s proposals will include that which the committee has suggested in relation to the creation of an ombudsman. We shall see.

17:49

[Viscount Astor (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome this very good report from the Select Committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Grade, which we finally have a chance to debate this afternoon. I will address my remarks primarily to gambling in relation to horseracing, but it is important to start by pointing out what is missing from this report: the huge growth of illegal gaming sites. A PwC report published in February 2021 estimated that there were 260,000 users of these sites, gambling £1.4 billion a year. We know that those numbers have risen since that report, and there are now estimated to be at least half a million people spending over £2 billion a year on illegal sites.

The reason that this is such a serious concern is that problem gamblers barred from legal sites move seamlessly to illegal ones which have absolutely no protections—no player protection, no anti-money laundering, no tax collection and no sporting integrity. What is even more worrying is that the Gambling Commission seems to concern itself only with legal operators and ignores the evidence of the problem of illegal gaming. It may be that the commission does not see its remit extending to illegal operators based either in this country or outside it. If that is the case, its remit should be extended and it should have those necessary powers.

With the rise of internet gambling, the Government have to make a judgment on regulation. Too little, and it does not work; too much, and it will lead to an explosion in the growth of the black market. Too often in the past, as my noble friend said, the Gambling Commission has not used the substantial powers it already has, whether by fines or orders to make book- makers or gaming companies return bets.

I declare that I own a racecourse—sorry, a racehorse, not a racecourse. I occasionally put a bet on the horse when it runs. It does not win very often, but it did win last year. I ought to also declare that many years ago, on behalf of what was then the Department of National Heritage, I took the Bill which introduced the National Lottery through your Lordships’ House. After the Bill became an Act, we were encouraged to buy a lottery ticket, which we all did. There was then a sudden panic, because we had a letter from the Cabinet Secretary—perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Butler—asking us to promise to give the money to charity should we win. My response, which I am not sure ever got back to the Cabinet Office, was that if I won a fiver, I would certainly give the money to charity, but that if I won the jackpot, I would consider my position in Her Majesty’s Government very carefully.

[Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)]

Not guilty, my Lords.

[Viscount Astor (Con)]

I am grateful for the noble Lord’s response.

Turning back to the Select Committee report, it thoroughly highlights the difficulty of gambling issues. We need some workable basis of affordability which protects without pushing problem gamblers into the illegal unregulated sector. As I understand it, the remit of affordability was not originally part of the role of the Gambling Commission. If it is to be, the Gambling Commission must improve its understanding of the new technology faced by the punters. I believe that that should be a major part of its role, but it must be up to the Government to bring forward guidelines that have a sensible system for both the commission and the industry to manage affordability, and that process must be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The guidelines on affordability to be followed by operators having been set out by the Government, the Gambling Commission must be the regulator.

Gaming operators have the technology; they are quite capable of rigorous checking and spotting those who regularly lose significant amounts of money. It should be in their interest to manage affordability, but, as my noble friend said, it is a conundrum that this business faces all the time. We must make sure that the gaming companies have to prove that they are managing the issue of affordability. If not, they should be fined or, as a last resort, have their licences withdrawn by the Gambling Commission. Indeed, the idea of having an ombudsman to deal with problem gambling is a very good one.

It is important to stress how illegal gaming is spreading throughout the world. For example, in France and Norway, where there are state monopolies for gaming, the black market is now 60% of all money staked, so it is a serious issue. Gambling companies are quick to entice one to have a bet, but I know from talking to those who occasionally bet on horses that if you win three races three days running, they are quick to close your account. They have the technology; we must make sure that they use it and that must be enforced.

Racing is one sport that benefits from a hypothecated tax: the horseracing betting levy. It is based on the gross profits of bookmakers. It provides over £80 million a year to racing and, without the levy support, many racecourses would not be viable. The Horserace Betting Levy Board does a very good job of helping racing. As an aside, I hope that the Government have given up the ludicrous idea a couple of years ago of abolishing the levy board and subsuming it into the Gambling Commission—not a good idea.

As some of your Lordships will know, the levy needs reform because it is based on gross profit. Over recent years, as turnover has increased, gaming companies’ gross margins have fallen but they still make the same net profit, so the levy income is under threat of decline. This is a lesson for anybody who promotes a levy or a tax to deal with problem gambling: if there is to be one, it cannot be based on gross margin, it must be based on turnover; otherwise, it is subject to huge fluctuations.

Your Lordships would expect me, as someone who is keen on racing, to say that online games and slot machines are a much more serious problem than betting on horses. That does not mean to say that racing does not have issues; it has problems and we must deal with them. There is a strong argument that there should be an age limit on betting on horseracing. It might be 21, some even argue for 25, but there certainly should be a rise in the age limit for those betting on horseracing either at a racecourse or online.

I hope the Government will not allow themselves to be bullied by the large gaming companies, now capitalised in their billions and focused primarily, I have to say, on the rapidly expanding US market. I am glad that the Select Committee report recognised that bookmakers should still be allowed to sponsor horseracing and greyhound racing; it allows them to give something back to racing, and racing needs their support to have decent prize money.

I should also say that racing is affected by illegal gambling by the loss of media rights income. If you go to a racecourse, you often see a drone flying adjacent to the course relaying pictures to illegal operators at a much faster rate than television, because they operate at a high-spectrum frequency, as opposed to the low spectrum used by terrestrial television. This allows illegal betting not only in this country but offshore and beats the standard bookmaking market, so it is affecting the integrity of racing. It is very difficult to control, because drones can fly higher or slightly further away and their cameras are so good that you cannot stop them.

I believe there is a solution: follow the money. That is my key message to your Lordships. It is a way of dealing not only with drones but with illegal betting, whether in this country or through foreign-based operators. It is a £2 billion problem and growing. We need an amendment to the Gambling Act 2005 so that we can follow the money, trace it and stop it; otherwise, all the hard work to be done to help problem gamblers will be wasted. It is important to note that black market bookmakers target those who are self-excluded from regulated bookmaking sites. They go for those vulnerable people, and that is why it is important.

I hope the Government will look seriously at an amendment to the Gambling Act 2005. If they do not, I have drawn up a Private Member’s Bill that I hope to get a chance to propose in the next Session of Parliament that will do the same. I have it in my back pocket and am happy to give a copy to the Minister.

17:59

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, it is fascinating to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. I will come back to some of the issues he raised. It is quite a relief, in the midst of frenetic ping-pong, to have a chance to discuss potential legislation changes and to look at something dispassionately and objectively. I appreciate that this has been a slow process for members of the committee, but it is quite nice to take a step back.

I have a few declarations. I do not gamble and have never gambled. I do not own a racecourse. Some close family members and friends have had serious issues with harmful gambling, and I have lived with the grim reality of that. I find the relentless gambling adverts everywhere we go to be tiresome, repetitive, crass and over the top. But it has to be said that even though I feel like I have seen tens of thousands of them, I have never been tempted to gamble. I do not know that we can always draw the inference that, if you see an advert, you will rush out to gamble; that is not quite the way it works.

I also think we need some proportionality and calm assessment of the facts, when considering legislating and regulating. I worry that the issue of gambling brings with it an emotive quality and some negative cultural assumptions about gambling, the portrayal of gamblers as vulnerable and a demonisation of the industry. I was glad to hear so many noble Lords say that they are not puritans—that was a great relief—but the gambling industry employs 119,000 individuals and brings billions of pounds into the Treasury. It is a legitimate industry, but it is treated as something of a pariah. The emphasis today was that it makes huge profits but, as far as I know, that is not yet considered to be completely morally reprehensible. I wish that more British businesses did the same. I sometimes think we can get ourselves into a state of confusion.

For balance, I suggest that gambling is a normal and popular activity, enjoyed by millions of people. For the vast majority, it is not a problem. The perception that problem gambling is on the rise is not based on evidence. Indeed, according to all the evidence and facts, it is statistically stable and has been for some years. We should not encourage misinformation by challenging the figures and facts that we know: 0.7% are problem gamblers.

The narrative we always hear focuses almost exclusively on the potential harms of gambling. As such, it treats everybody who gambles as being at risk. That can end up misleading us about the threat of gambling, creating a climate of fear and leading to some dangerously illiberal policy proposals designed to save people from this sort of evil. I am concerned that a paternalistic framework does not focus just on underage gamblers—I am not talking about children in any way, and completely accept that they need to be protected—but sometimes treats adult gamblers as though they are children. That worries me.

I pick up particularly the demands for affordability tests that we have heard put forward today, referenced and backed up by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, in the Social Market Foundation’s affordability proposal that would limit people’s maximum spend to £100 a month, across multiple gambling operations. I hope the Government will just throw that idea out. It is notable that, in no other area of life or leisure, is there even discussion of a legislative cap on how individuals spend their own money—as I would hope.

However, if we take it out of the realm of gambling, let us take my friend Mrs Smith, who goes to the shops and decides to treat herself to a dress that she cannot really afford and then goes off for a pricey meal and even treats the family to an extravagance, such as a holiday they cannot afford without getting into debt. With the cost of living crisis, there are all sorts of decisions that will mean that all sorts of people will get into debt and there will be an affordability issue. Are we advocating that the Government put a cap on what people can spend because they cannot afford it?

I noted that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, made the point that HSBC challenges the statistics because it says, “We’ve looked at your bank accounts and you’re all spending too much on gambling.” I hope HSBC does not reveal what I am spending all my money on. It might not be gambling but I am spending too much money on things I should not spend too much money on. Such is life but such is the freedom of an adult in a free society.

Of course, a small minority of gamblers can get into some terrible, escalating problems, with tragic consequences for themselves and their families—as I know too well. Yes, perhaps the gambling industry has historically been negligent in deploying common-sense intervention when alarm bells signal a problem. But we should also recognise that there is a moral dilemma here. A de facto demand that individuals open up their financial details to betting companies, casinos and so on would not, in other contexts, be something we would encourage. We warn people not to share such sensitive data. This is not just the GDPR being used as an excuse. It is legitimate to say to people, “Be careful about letting your personal financial details be harvested by outside agencies.” There is a question of privacy, and that matters, yet here we are advocating that we allow big business to use our data to control our behaviour and manage the choices of adult citizens. This sets a dangerous precedent that should at least give us pause about the expansion of corporate control over our data and our choices—or, indeed, the encouragement of state intervention in our spending habits and our individual liberty.

I also want to query any proposed ban on gambling sponsorship of and advertising at sports events. Despite everything, there is no evidence of an increase in problem gambling since gambling advertising was made legal by Tony Blair’s Government in 2007. I am concerned that we have become complacent about a soft form of censorship, but this is likely to cause devastating financial damage to a whole swathe of cash-strapped sports clubs.

The right reverend Prelate suggested that sports clubs should just get different sponsors. That suggests that he may not have been part of a small organisation trying to get sponsorship, but I have and, believe me, it is not easy to raise money. Lower-league football clubs face ruin if they are deprived of this revenue. We have heard that it was okay after the banning of tobacco advertising, but actually snooker nearly collapsed as a national sport. Then it was saved. Who saved it? The gambling industry and its sponsorship. While I am glad that horseracing may be protected, and I am sure that is appropriate, I wonder why it has this special measure. I want all sports clubs and all sports to be allowed that sponsorship. I do not think it is damaging.

I listened to a brilliant podcast recently on the potential huge problems all this could cause across sport, with a particular emphasis, actually, on horseracing. It is called “Wright on the Nail”, hosted by Chris Wright, and I encourage noble Lords to listen to it. It tackles this assumption that as soon as, for example, football fans see a logo on a football shirt they will rush off and place a bet, as though they are being groomed and are just one punt away from addiction. They just go to watch the sport and they want their sport funded and they see some adverts. But as one snooker fan noted, consumers can benefit from gambling advertising without ever using a product or putting a bet on, although some of them will. He said that

“those of us who actually watch the sport are delighted to have them on board, pouring in the money and keeping the tournaments rolling.”

I believe that sport matters and community sports need that support.

Just as we should trust sports fans to cope with the adverts, we should trust the millions who gamble and remember that, for them, spending leisure time at the bookies, at the races, in casinos or playing poker is enjoyable and can involve skill. Yes, there can be escapism. You want to earn some money because you are poor but there is also the thrill of risk taking. It is not all negative. In fact, the thrill of risk taking also fuels big business and entrepreneurial instincts. As gambling writer and poker player Jon Bryan notes:

“Gambling is fun. It has certainly cost me money but I would not change anything about it.”


I think this antidote is necessary. I understand the harms but it is not all harmful and it is not harmful for most people.

18:10

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, I would normally begin by saying how much I enjoyed the speech of the previous speaker, but I have to say that I fundamentally disagree with quite a lot of what the noble Baroness said—I will touch on that in a few moments.

I declare my interest as the chairman of Peers for Gambling Reform, which has over 150 Members of your Lordships’ House and was established to press for the implementation of the recommendations contained in the report of the Select Committee so ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Grade, on which I served. I too pay tribute to the excellent clerk, Michael Collon, and his staff. The committee was concerned by some of the information that we were given very early on in our deliberations, when we heard about gambling companies making billions of pounds in profits—and about the CEO of one company getting a pay cheque of nearly £500 million, for example. At the same time, there were over one-third of a million problem gamblers —probably far more, as the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, said—with, staggeringly, 60,000 children also being problem gamblers, 2 million people affected by it and, most tragically of all, more than one gambling-related suicide every day, as the noble Lord, Lord Grade, said.

We concluded that we simply cannot continue as we are with the outdated legislation from 2005, introduced long before the advent of the smartphone. Of course, we reflect that we are no longer just talking about trips to the casino or the betting shop for a flutter on the horses because, with smartphones, everyone has a mini-casino in their pocket. The gambling on offer is largely unrestricted, with no limits on stakes or prizes and with VIP deals from gambling companies offering huge incentives for gamblers to chase their losses and ever more new gambling opportunities regularly coming online. We are bombarded by gambling adverts on TV, around football pitches, on shirts, online and often directly sent to us in emails, pop-ups and so on. This means that we and our children are constantly being exposed to advertisements and incentivised to gamble. No wonder that the noble Lord, Lord True, speaking from the Dispatch Box—although perhaps in a personal capacity—recently said that, as a sports fan, he was

“sick and tired of gambling advertising being thrust down viewers’ throats.”—[Official Report, 27/1/22; col. 446.]

As we have heard, the recommendations of the committee were wide-ranging. But central to all of them was the need to adopt a public health approach to gambling, just as we already do for policies in respect of tobacco, drugs and alcohol, as the noble Lord, Lord Layard, pointed out. This is where I fundamentally disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. For far too long there has been an assumption—which she expressed—that, if only we could identify and protect those relatively few people who are supposedly vulnerable to gambling, we need not worry about the rest. But, as illustrated and demonstrated by the excellent video made by Gambling with Lives, which supports family members of those who have committed suicide because of gambling, anyone can become addicted. The gambling companies, which, as we have heard, make a high percentage of their profits from problem gamblers, design their offerings and marketing strategies to persuade as many of us as possible to start down that road and, once on it, to continue.

Last month, in a debate on gambling advertising in your Lordships’ House, I referred to Annie Ashton’s description in the Guardian of the predatory actions of gambling companies and of how her husband Luke committed suicide after relapsing into his gambling addiction. She said:

“the pattern of his gambling was obviously harmful. He took advantage of a free bet offer, deposited money, lost money, was immediately advertised another free bet offer, and the cycle would begin again.”

Luke found that being “bombarded with ads” on his mobile

“made it a problem that became impossible to escape.”

Such examples, and there are many more, illustrate the need for a public health approach.

I am delighted that the gambling Minister Chris Philp says that he agrees, but it requires, as the noble Lord, Lord Layard, said, a co-ordinated effort between several government departments and policymakers from education to health, to DCMS and beyond, but from what I have been able to ascertain there seems to have been little involvement of the Department for Health and Social Care in developing the anticipated White Paper. When he winds up, can the Minister confirm whether that is correct and, if so, why?

The public health approach informed the committee’s recommendations. They include, as we have heard, the establishment of a gambling ombudsman and the introduction of affordability checks, to which many noble Lords have already referred. Incidentally, the Gambling Commission just announced that it is going to look at them. I am surprised that the proposals supported by Peers for Gambling Reform have attracted so much criticism from the gambling industry and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. After all, the majority of gambling companies already do affordability checks, in one form or another. We are arguing for one that is standardised across all gambling companies and independently monitored.

We are not seeking a hard limit on what people can spend, merely a soft check to ensure that they know what they are doing, that they can afford to do it and have decided to do it. Since this is for online gambling only, it would not, as some are concerned it would, apply to on-course betting. So the noble Lord, Lord Trevethin and Oaksey, and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, need not fear. I point out to him and to others that there is a huge difference between horseracing and online gambling. If you bet at a racecourse—he does not have one, but other people do—there is a huge time gap between placing a bet on one race and on another. In modern online gambling, the rate of play is so frenetic that you can go on and on, chasing your losses. There is a significant difference between the two.

We want a change from the current voluntary levy to a statutory one. I note, as the noble Viscount did, that the statutory levy for horseracing brings in about £80 million. It is worth reflecting that the voluntary levy for other forms of gambling on two-legged animals brings in only £20 million or less. It seems at least reasonable to get the two to be comparable. The report makes clear that this can be done immediately. We have not specified precisely how—a formula could be based on profits, fees or something else—and the point made earlier was that it could be done in such a way that it is less for land-based businesses, which often have products that are less addictive, than for online gambling.

The object is to raise enough money for research, education and treatment and to raise it compulsorily so that the industry cannot opt out abruptly. It would break the link between giving the money and deciding what should be done with it. We need independence in determining what the research, education and treatment activities should be. I believe that there is lots of support for that from all sorts of communities.

Two other reforms have been referred to: reform of online gambling, not least to introduce stake and prize limits, just as we already have for land-based gambling, and, as we discussed in that earlier debate, limitations that curb gambling marketing. Currently £1.5 billion is spent marketing these products to us, with all sorts of inducements and so on. We believe that there should be a ban on direct marketing, an end to all inducements, such as those free bets, and a phasing out of sports sponsorship. We have suggested—I again suggest that the Minister have a look at the details of this—that there are ways of finding alternative funding for sports clubs, for instance through the introduction of sports rights, which would also begin to address the concerns the noble Viscount expressed in respect of drones.

Many of the recommendations do not need primary legislation, as we have heard, and I am delighted that there has been some movement since the report came out: the banning of credit cards, tighter restrictions in some aspects of gambling advertising and, not least, the establishment of more problem gambling clinics, with more to come.

As we have also heard, some raise the concern that this will have an impact on the Treasury. I am delighted that reference has been made to the NERA report that we commissioned, which demonstrates that not only would there be a reduction in gambling harm but that at the same time there would be huge benefits to the economy, with something like 30,000 additional jobs, more money going into the Treasury and so on, and more money available for research, education and treatment.

I welcome the fact that there has been some movement, but I desperately believe that much more is needed. As has already been said, the report was introduced more than two years ago and it said it was time for action. That action is now long overdue.

Earlier, before I came here, I went to a meeting of GambleAware, which has changed dramatically in the past two or three years. Only today it published a document, and I noticed this paragraph in it:

“The ongoing impact of the pandemic, a growing cost-of-living crisis and shift to online gambling means there is a potential increased risk of people experiencing gambling harms that remains unseen until an individual reaches a crisis point. Without action now, many more people and families could suffer.”


I hope the Government will at last get on with it. Unless they do, there will be more gambling harm and more lives ruined.

18:22

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been an extensive and well-informed debate, and I express my thanks to noble Lords on all sides for their contributions. I have felt privileged to listen to the contributions, particularly those from members of the committee, of course led by the noble Lord, Lord Grade, who I congratulate on securing this debate. I join the other tributes made today, both to his chairmanship of the committee and to the contribution of the many committee members—one of whom, I note, was the Minister before he was the Minister. I hope that even such a short spell on the committee during the course of the inquiry engendered a personal sympathy to many of the extremely sensible and wise points made in the report.

18:23

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

18:27

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I shall refer to a couple of points made in opening by the noble Lord, Lord Grade. He observed that affordability is key when we are talking about gambling harms. We are in the middle of a perfect storm when we consider affordability. As we heard earlier in the debate, the shift to online gambling, the increased cost of living and the continued financial impact of the pandemic come together to make that perfect storm in which gambling harms can thrive. The other point from the introduction by the noble Lord that I want to pick up is that we are talking about addiction; we are not talking about the pursuit of a simple leisure activity. It is important in this debate that we acknowledge the seriousness of that point.

While there have been some changes to gambling regulation since this report was published more than two years ago, as was observed in the debate, for example in the operation of online slot games, the current piecemeal approach is just not delivering the change that we need, and I am left with a feeling that the Government have just not kept pace with the changes that we observe and with the impact of those changes.

Her Majesty’s Government clearly agree with the need for broader reform, and I welcome that. Otherwise, the review of the Gambling Act would not have been launched way back in December 2020. While we appreciate that this is a very complex area, that there must be due process and that it is vital to preserve the general right, of course, to partake in gambling-related activities, it is not acceptable that this review process has taken so long. With each passing day, a significant number of people remain vulnerable to gambling-related harms, while others are being sucked into gambling through a never-ending stream of adverts.

As the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, observed, even the existing definition of gambling has limitations. The Advertising Standards Authority argues that while changes—such as the recent announcement that celebrity endorsement of gambling firms are to be banned—will reduce the appeal of gambling to under-18s, in isolation, this ban will do nothing to reduce the prevalence and general appeal of gambling adverts. I also ask the Minister why it has taken so long to take action to protect the young and to clamp down on what I believe is a very irresponsible move by celebrities to endorse gambling in the way they have. My noble friend Lord Layard referred to the YouGov poll that said that two-thirds of the public want to see a ban on gambling advertising: that is the public mood and it is not there by accident.

The committee warned in its report that the young are most at risk. That has led campaigners, including Annie Ashton, the widow of a gambling addict who took his own life, to accuse firms of grooming children and young people. The right reverend Prelate reminded us all of the very human face of gambling harms when he spoke about the impact upon him personally of hearing from a family that was bereaved, and the shame, the hurt and the loss that they were feeling. It is the human face as well as the facts that we need to be remembering.

The committee also warned that some gambling operators are using unscrupulous methods to exploit their customers. While operators carry messages around responsible gaming, time after time we all hear of firms not respecting customer self-exclusion requests and/or failing to act when there is clear evidence of problematic behaviour. Last month, 888 UK Ltd was fined some £9.4 million by the Gambling Commission following a series of social-responsibility and money-laundering failings. As the commission noted, 888 was also fined in 2017, which suggests, of course, that current sanctions are insufficient to change behaviour. Just as many responsible gaming initiatives are voluntary, so are the contribution of firms to research into and treatment of gambling-related harms. I think it is right that we should expect more from them.

I am sure the Minister will shortly outline progress towards the opening of 15 specialist gambling clinics by 2023-24, and yes, we welcome a greater emphasis on treatment, but it begs the question of why the Government allowed demand for such services to grow exponentially in the first place. If there is one positive from all this, it is that more people are engaging in what is becoming a national conversation on gambling harm. Increased awareness of the risk of gambling is important, as is enabling people to speak out about their experience without fear of judgment and shame. More clearly needs to be done to make this pastime safer and we very much hope that the eventual publication of the Government’s work in this area, which we hope will be earlier than “soon”, will show genuine understanding, ambition and drive. Let us hope that, as in the name of this report, the time for action is soon.

18:35

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all the members of your Lordships’ Select Committee for the thorough and diligent work which led to the report before us today. I hope that does not sound self-congratulatory given that, as has been noted, I had the privilege of serving on the Select Committee, albeit for a limited period. It gave me a deeper appreciation and understanding and the opportunity to hear directly from not just those working in the industry but those whose lives have been affected by problem gambling. It has informed my thinking and approach to the issue, which we have discussed many times since I have had the privilege of speaking from this position. My time on the committee also means that I can congratulate from personal experience my noble friend Lord Grade on his expert chairing of the committee and thank all the staff and witnesses who contributed to its work, as well as all noble Lords who sat on the committee.

Peers for Gambling Reform has been especially well represented today, as it often is when we discuss this issue, but I know that gambling reform is a priority for many people across your Lordships’ House, whether they are a member of that group or not. Indeed, it is a priority for Her Majesty’s Government as well, and it is clear that change is needed to respond to risks and capitalise on the opportunities which have emerged in the 17 years since the Gambling Act 2005 was passed.

As my noble friend Lord Grade and others highlighted, many people enjoy gambling and do so without harm, but technology has very clearly transformed where, when and how people gamble as well as what they gamble on. We have heard some powerful examples in today’s debate. While it is certainly true that the Act gives broad powers to the regulator, the time is right for the Government to take a wide-ranging look at the evidence for change. That is why we have been carrying out a review across many aspects of the regulatory framework to make sure that our law and regulation are right, particularly for the digital age.

Evidence is an important point and one that has been echoed in many noble Lords’ contributions today. Throughout our review we have looked to consider the best available and highest-quality evidence. As part of that, we have looked at the extensive oral and written evidence received and published by your Lordships’ Select Committee. We are again grateful to the committee and its clerks for having put together such a wide-ranging evidence base. We have been able to consider it alongside the 16,000 submissions to our call for evidence last year, as well as the hundreds of stakeholder meetings which Ministers and officials have held and other sources.

I now turn to the recommendations in the report. Clearly, many of the more than 50 recommendations are within the scope of the review of the Gambling Act and are being considered through that process. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, was glad that we are having today’s debate shortly before the publication of the White Paper, but unfortunately it means that I will disappoint but not surprise my noble friend Lord Grade when I must say that I cannot pre-empt everything that the review will conclude and the publication of our White Paper, which will be in the coming weeks.

However, the report of your Lordships’ Select Committee identified a number of areas for action in which we, working together with the Gambling Commission and others, have made significant progress since it was published. A key priority for the Select Committee was rightly the protection of online gamblers. It was while the committee’s report was being finalised that the Government took the important steps of banning the use of credit cards for online gambling and mandating integration with the national online self-exclusion scheme. Self-excluded customers cannot log into their gambling accounts and must not be contacted by operators. If they are, the operators have clearly breached the rules and will face enforcement action by the Gambling Commission.

A few months after the committee’s report, in October 2020, the Gambling Commission brought in significant new rules on VIP schemes to tackle many of the risks identified in the Select Committee’s report. There are now tough checks to make sure that customers on such schemes are not being harmed and that they can afford their losses. Personal management licence holders are now individually accountable for the schemes and, as the report recommended, the rules are clear that incentives for relationship management staff should not be based on customer losses. These measures have led to a reported 70% reduction in the number of customers on such schemes, but we are none the less looking at the issue again through our review to ensure the right mitigations are in place.

There was also significant progress last year to make online slot games safer by design, the need for which was underlined by the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. Features that make games more intense or that give a player the illusion of control have been banned. These include slam stops, turbo boosts and auto-play. Also banned were losses disguised as wins, which can give players a false idea of their gambling success. As your Lordships’ committee recommended, online slots have had their spin speeds equalised with the land-based equivalents in bookmakers, bingo premises and casinos. We are exploring whether further controls are needed through our review.

The committee’s report rightly recognised that customer data can be key to protecting online gamblers at risk of harm, and progress has been made here too. Earlier this month, the Gambling Commission announced new measures on customer interaction to make sure that operators use the wealth of data they hold effectively to identify and intervene with people at risk of harm. It is bringing in new requirements on markers of harm, which operators have to monitor, the automatic nature of interventions, and evaluating the impact of customer interactions. These new protections will improve the standard and consistency of how online operators protect their customers, and leave no room for excuses for failure in this regard.

My noble friend Lord Grade and others spoke of data sharing between operators, which has great potential within the array of tools that form harm-prevention measures, as online gamblers have an average of three accounts. Significant progress is being made in this area, driven by the Gambling Commission, which has worked with industry and others such as the Information Commissioner’s Office. The Betting and Gaming Council is currently leading a pilot, with GAMSTOP as the delivery partner, which has been accepted into the ICO sandbox process for real-world trials. This will make sure that there is close scrutiny from both the data and gambling regulators as the system is developed and refined, and that the system is used only for harm prevention, never for commercial objectives.

A further protection the committee highlighted was transaction blocks offered by financial services firms to customers who do not want to be able to gamble. I am pleased that around 90% of current accounts now offer this service, as do other payment service providers such as PayPal. Many of these have followed the gold standard by including a cooling-off period of at least 48 hours.

Many noble Lords touched on advertising in their speeches. The report made several recommendations on advertising, many of which have been mentioned. This is a complex area, as the contributions from the noble Lord, Lord Layard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, perhaps exemplify. Advertising can help reputable companies to differentiate themselves from the black market, the dangers of which were powerfully outlined in the contribution from my noble friend Lord Astor. We deliberately called for evidence on advertising and sponsorship in our review, so that we can look at this area properly. We will set out our conclusions in the White Paper but, as I was pressed on this by the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, I will highlight the recent changes made by the Committee of Advertising Practice, which will help to protect young people from gambling-related harm.

Earlier this month, that committee announced that content with strong appeal to children will be banned from gambling adverts. This responds to research on the topic commissioned by GambleAware, which showed the impact that certain aspects of gambling advertising can have on young people, in particular depictions of the association between football and gambling.

Children’s exposure to gambling advertising has declined over recent years but, in the Gambling Commission’s survey of 2020, some 58% still said they had seen gambling advertising or sponsorships. The new rules will help mean that, if children do see adverts, these adverts will be less appealing to them. The use of prominent celebrities such as Premier League footballers will be banned, as will the use of influencers associated with youth culture.

This is not the only action we have taken to protect children and young people. A few months after the Select Committee’s report and in line with its recommendations, we announced that we would increase the minimum age to participate in the National Lottery to 18. That change came into effect early last year. Through the review of the Act, we are looking at whether other products, such as society lotteries, should have their age limits raised as well. A significant number of operators have already made the change voluntarily.

Additionally, your Lordships’ committee made recommendations about education. I am pleased that, shortly after the report’s publication, the risks associated with gambling, including the accumulation of debt, were added to the relationships, sex and health education curriculum for all secondary school pupils—reflecting a point raised by my noble friend Lord Kirkham. As the report envisaged, Ofsted has a role here and its school inspection handbook sets out that inspectors will consider the provision of such education as part of a wider judgment of pupils’ personal development.

A further recommendation with particular relevance to children was in regard to loot boxes in video games—a point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and a number of other Peers. We launched a bespoke call for evidence on loot boxes and received more than 30,000 responses, which we are considering carefully. We will publish a response to that soon.

Recommendations about the regulator were prominent in the report and have featured heavily in the debate today. Of course, the Gambling Commission’s powers and resources are being thoroughly examined through the review, but I would like to highlight some of the action we have taken. For example, from October last year we increased the fees that the commission charges operators. This is projected to increase its resources by about £5 million per year, or 25%. It will help it to tackle some of the challenges that continual innovation in the gambling sector has presented.

Similarly, like your Lordships’ committee, the commission has now formally recognised the value of listening to people with personal experience of gambling-related harms. It has appointed a lived experience advisory panel, which feeds into decision-making and any advice the regulator provides to government.

A key recommendation in the report was that fines issued by the commission should reflect the seriousness of the offence and the size of the offender. I am pleased that since the revamping of its enforcement strategy, the commission has continued to take increasingly robust action against operators that breach the rules. In the last financial year, operators paid more than £20 million in penalty packages as a result of regulatory failures.

I will also touch on the recommendations regarding research, where there is some progress to report. As the committee recognised, and as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and others mentioned, good evidence on gambling participation and the prevalence of harm is essential to informing policy. I am pleased that the commission is making progress with work on a new approach to collecting participation and prevalence data. This will make sure that we have timely, accurate and robust data. It will improve on the current system of gold-standard but infrequent health surveys and the regular telephone surveys by the commission, which use shorter problem gambling screening. A number of key pieces of research have also been published since your Lordships’ report, along with the Public Health England evidence review of gambling-related harms, which we have heard cited in our debates on many occasions.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, my noble friend Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and others referred to proposals for a levy on the industry to fund the costs of treatment and research. We called for evidence on the best way to recoup the regulatory and societal costs of gambling. We have also been clear that if the existing system fails to deliver what is needed, we will look at a number of options for change, including a statutory levy. We will set out our conclusions in the White Paper.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, talked about the place-based impact of problem gambling and the clustering of betting shops in certain parts of the country. Local authorities already have a range of powers under the planning system, and as licensing authorities under the Gambling Act, to grant or reject applications for gambling premises in their areas. We have also been looking at the powers that local authorities and other licensing authorities have in relation to gambling premises licences as part of our review.

My noble friends Lord Smith of Hindhead and Lord Astor spoke about the National Lottery. Since its launch in 1994, it has contributed more than £45 billion to good causes, supporting more than 660,000 projects up and down the UK. National Lottery legislation imposes a duty on the Government and the Gambling Commission to ensure that the interests of all those who participate in the National Lottery are protected. The lottery operator is held to account for doing so and must have controls in place to stop underage players and to prevent excessive play. Evidence from the latest Health Survey for England in 2018 shows that National Lottery games were associated with the lowest rates of problem gambling of all gambling products considered.

The noble Lord, Lord Trevethin and Oaksey, and my noble friend Lord Astor spoke about the horseracing industry, and we are certainly aware of the long and close relationship between horseracing and betting. The main area of concern from the racing industry is in relation to affordability checks. As I said, these are important but must also be proportionate. We are carefully considering the impact of all our proposals.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, asked about the work we are doing with the Department of Health and Social Care in preparing the review of the Gambling Act. We have worked closely with the Department of Health and Social Care and other departments throughout the review to consider the links between gambling policy and their remits. As ever, the White Paper will be agreed across government in the normal way, but I can confirm that the Department of Health and Social Care has been involved in its preparation.

The Government made their formal response to the Select Committee’s report in December 2020. None the less, today’s debate on its conclusions remains important and timely, especially given that we will publish our White Paper soon. Like the members of your Lordships’ Select Committee, many of whom I am pleased to have heard speaking today, I recognise that we in government have an important responsibility to get that reform right. We need to strike the right balance between protecting people from gambling harm and respecting the freedom of adults who gamble as a leisure activity. I also recognise and agree with the sentiment widely expressed today that we must take action as swiftly as possible where we can; clearly, not every reform measure will need primary legislation. Following the publication of the White Paper, we will work with the Gambling Commission, and others as needed, to make the necessary changes as swiftly as we can.

I am sure that we will continue this debate following the publication of the White Paper and on many other occasions, but I am very glad to have had the opportunity to debate this issue again today. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Grade and all the members of the Select Committee on their work in informing this important debate.

18:51

[Lord Grade of Yarmouth (Con)]

My Lords, I have no desire to impair those who are addicted to ping-pong by continuing their withdrawal this afternoon. At the risk of sounding like an Oscar winner, I have to thank my agent—no, I thank all those who have taken part, particularly the absolutely brilliant committee, and the brilliant team behind it, which produced this report. On the evidence of what my noble friend the Minister said, I do not think that this report is going to languish on the shelves of government departments like too many other Select Committee reports which leave this great House. I am encouraged by my noble friend’s response. To paraphrase the late, great Bernard Levin, a moron in a hurry would get the messages that have emanated from this debate today.

I thank everybody who has taken part. This is a difficult subject, and I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for addressing the balance and reminding us of civil liberties and so on in this debate. However, in trying to compare these activities with shopping and other things, we must not forget that gambling can have a toxic side-effect. That is proven over and again, and I do not think anybody in this Room or outside it would wish to deny that fact. We have a duty of care to do what we can to reduce the incidence of harm and addiction.

I am very proud of this report, and I hope that all my colleagues share that feeling. It was unanimous. The task of chairing the committee was not difficult because of the brain power and commitment of all its members. I thank my noble friend the Minister for his reply. I am encouraged, but your Lordships can rest assured that the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and the group that he has put together will be holding the Government’s and the Gambling Commission’s feet to the fire. We look for immediate action, and we look forward to the White Paper. Again, I thank everybody who has taken part.

Motion agreed.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

I propose to allow a few moments for the changeover to take place before I announce the next business.

18:54

Sitting suspended.

Off-Payroll Working (Economic Affairs Committee Report)

Wednesday 27th April 2022 Grand Committee

Motion to Take Note

18:57

Moved by

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report from the Economic Affairs Committee Off-payroll working: treating people fairly (1st Report, Session 2019–21, HL Paper 50).

[Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to open this debate on the Finance Bill Sub-Committee’s report Off-payroll Working: Treating People Fairly. I will try to be quick because I gather that we are under a bit of time pressure. Before I go any further, I thank my noble friend Lord Forsyth, who was chair of the Sub-Committee when the inquiry took place, our excellent clerk, Tristan Stubbs, and our advisers, Robina Dyall and Sarah Squires, all of whose input was invaluable.

Onlookers might be surprised that we are debating in 2022 a report written in 2020. They may think that its findings have passed their sell-by date but they would be very wrong, for it anticipated many of the problems that might result from extending the IR35 reforms into the private sector. Our committee concluded that the approach to this issue—that is, off-payroll working —should be certain, simple, supportive of growth, administratively straightforward, enforceable and, above all, fair. We found the current approach lacking on all counts.

In light of Covid, the Government wisely delayed extending the rules to the private sector until April 2021, so the committee recommended that the Government use that time to rethink their approach, learn lessons from the public sector’s rollout and address issues that our inquiry unearthed. At the end of last year, we conducted another inquiry into the implementation of the rules, and we wrote to the Financial Secretary with our conclusions, to which she replied. I thank her, her predecessor Jesse Norman, and the Treasury and HMRC officials for all of their co-operation. Therefore, now is a good time to take stock of our report and letter-writing and see where we stand. I will draw on both the report and the letter that we sent to the Financial Secretary.

My first question is on whether businesses and contractors are finding that the new rules are simple, are administratively straightforward and offer certainty. We flagged problems regarding HMRC’s tool for checking employment status for tax, CEST, in 2020. Last year, we were told that it was still “not fit for purpose” and did not provide accurate results. The CBI said that, although businesses had found CEST helpful, where HMRC guidance and case law diverge, businesses are left in a position of being told that they can rely on an outcome that would likely differ from that which would be handed down by a court. CEST cannot and should not be a substitute for law. Although it cannot be expected to cater to every scenario, a 20% undetermined rate means that a significant number of people need additional support to identify their status. This support must be improved.

Furthermore, the continued absence of questions on mutuality of obligation within CEST means that many people affected by the off-payroll rules do not have confidence in the accuracy of the results. Only today, we see the lack of clarity on this point highlighted by another current case between HMRC and Atholl House. This uncertainty has contributed to unfair employment practices, blanket bans and decisions. We heard that 21% of freelancers had reported that their client had simply determined all engagements as inside IR35, a blanket assessment. Although the Financial Secretary said it was legitimate for companies to decide against using contractors working through personal service companies, the committee concluded that it is regrettable if such decisions are driven by tax rather than commercial considerations. Tougher compliance action is needed where engagers are effectively evading their obligations under the rules to make individual determinations.

Then there is the issue of appealing against a state of determination. Research from IPSE showed that more than three-quarters of those who disagreed with their status determination challenged the outcome and, of those, 79% reported no change as a result of the challenge. The National Audit Office has said

“there is not a clear legal route to appeal further. If workers believe they have been taxed incorrectly, their recourse is to use HMRC’s self-assessment and NIC reclaim routes.”

On appeals, HMRC told the Public Accounts Committee:

“If everyone co-operates and there are no challenges, it will take a few months. If it is complex and there are multiple reports, it can take years”—


years, my Lords.

So, in response to my first question, this system is not simple, not easy to administer and does not offer certainty. Let me ask a second question: are these changes supporting growth? Here, I freely admit, it is difficult to disentangle the impact of Covid, Brexit and other macro events. But in the words of one of our witnesses, the UK’s reputation as

“an easy place to start up”

businesses has been replaced by a “huge compliance burden” and a “punitive tax regime”. That is why research into the impact of the measures must consider changes in the UK’s labour market and the broader economy. The committee said that the scope of this research should be more comprehensive and invite input from affected contractors as well as engagers and intermediaries.

Specifically, the actual cost of these changes on business is still unclear. HMRC estimated the one-off administrative cost incurred by business in preparing to operate the off-payroll rules would be £14.4 million, with a negligible ongoing impact. The committee challenged this estimate, as witnesses judged it to be too low. HMRC revisited its estimates and increased that one-off cost to £19.7 million, with an ongoing net saving of £0.3 million. The CBI told us that that £19 million is still an underestimate, and the NAO agreed that HMRC might have underestimated the cost to employers. So, to answer my second question, there is no evidence that this change is supporting growth.

I turn to the question of whether these changes are making the system fairer and whether they are enforceable. For contractors assessed as within the off-payroll rules by an engager, we were told there is likely to be a financial cost, given the difference in employee tax and NIC treatment compared to contractors. We were told that a key issue is employer NICs: how the cost of contributions is allocated between the engager and the contractor.

The CBI and the Federation of Small Businesses explained that people in the more skilled end of the market are more able to ensure costs are paid by the engager. However, for the lower skilled end of the market, it seems many engagers are passing costs on to contractors via reduced rates of pay. It is these lower paid contractors who are falling into the clutches of so-called rogue umbrella companies. In our 2020 report, we warned of the risks presented by umbrella companies and the likelihood that their use would increase when off-payroll rules were extended to the private sector. Look at what has happened: HMRC estimated that 100,000 individuals were working through umbrella companies in 2007-08, but that by 2020-21 this had increased fivefold to at least 500,000. External commentators estimated the figure to be 600,000.

No doubt some of these umbrella companies perform a useful function, but the committee was told there is

“very clear evidence that it”—

IR35—

“has driven up tax avoidance.”

Here lies the tragedy and irony of this sorry saga. This whole policy was meant to tackle tax avoidance, yet it seems that it is giving birth to a new cottage industry of tax avoidance.

I have not the time to go into the measures that HMRC is taking to tackle rogue umbrella companies, but the sub-committee was obviously concerned and remains concerned about this and that the off-payroll rules are encouraging the insertion of unnecessary intermediaries into the supply chain, increasing the opportunities for rogue operators. A nagging question is whether HMRC is focused too much on non-compliant contractors and not enough on individuals and others who set up these rogue companies, often offshore. That is why the committee has said that the Government should commit to a date for introducing legislation to create the proposed single enforcement body to regulate umbrella companies.

As I am conscious of time, I shall end with a final question: are these changes, and the entire IR35 edifice, achieving their overall aims and objectives? It was said that these changes would protect the tax base. HMRC assessed that the loss of tax from non-compliance with IR35 could cost £1.3 billion. It now states that improved compliance raises much more—£4.1 billion in 2024-25—so it appears that revenue raising, not simply protecting the tax base, has become the main driver of changes.

The second objective is the word in the title of our report—fairness. Everyone doing the same job should pay the same tax. We agreed with this in principle, but the assessment of what is fair cannot be restricted to just tax; it must also apply to rights. It is unfair to tax individuals as employees while denying them the rights of employees. That is why we recommended that the Government take forward proposals set out in the Taylor review, which considered tax, rights and risk together. Failure to address these issues in the round has created the muddle we are in today. Listen to what the Office of Tax Simplification said way back in 2015. It said that

“the tax system is still in many ways stuck in an out-of-date mindset: of categorising workers as either employees, firmly on the payroll, or self-employed … This made sense in the 1950s and 1960s but the huge growth in freelancing as a way of life (and work) doesn’t fit readily into this traditional model.”

The need to properly define employment rights for the purposes of both tax and employment is now ever more urgent. Two years on, nothing has been done about this. We are told that the Government will set out more detail in due course—Whitehall speak for “we don’t know when”. The report’s title was Treating People Fairly. For a Government who want to level up, they are doing the reverse. They are perpetuating a system that is uncompetitive, complex, burdensome and, above all, unfair. Fundamental change is needed. I beg to move.

19:08

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Bridges has given us a masterly summary of the work of the Finance Bill Sub-Committee on off-payroll working, and I pay tribute to his chairmanship of the sub-committee’s latest look at off-payroll working. I agree with everything my noble friend said, in particular on CEST, which is widely regarded outside HMRC as unsatisfactory.

I was a member of the Finance Bill Sub-Committee for its latest update work, though not when the initial off-payroll working report was produced. I did, however, chair the Select Committee of your Lordships’ House on Personal Services Companies, which reported in 2014 and was the first time your Lordships’ House ventured into this difficult territory. When we prepared the 2014 report, we had a very unsatisfactory engagement with the Treasury, which flatly refused to provide either Ministers or officials to give evidence, and the Treasury response to our report was disappointing, to say the least. I concluded the debate on the report in your Lordships’ House by saying that the issues would not go away and that your Lordships’ House would return to them, and I am very grateful that the Finance Bill Sub-Committee has enabled the House to do just that. I am also pleased that the Treasury has engaged with the sub-committee this time—though that engagement does not mean, however, that the Government have fully engaged with the issues.

In principle, I support the Treasury’s efforts to ensure that tax is not avoided on earnings if they are, in truth, disguised employment; there is a genuine fairness issue here. Work which is identical and carried out in substantially the same circumstances should be taxed in the same way. The problem is that the solutions the Government have used do not achieve fairness in an holistic way, as my noble friend Lord Bridges has said. In particular, the latest set of actions that, in effect, outsource IR35 compliance to employers has produced a new form of unfairness—namely, the creation of a class of zero-rights employees. These are contractors who are not technically employees of the engaging employer but are brought on to the payroll for tax purposes. They pay tax as employees but have no rights as employees to such things as maternity pay, and this is most definitely not fair. The Government have allowed this to happen because they focus on tax yield at the expense of seeing the issues in the round.

It was good when the Government commissioned the Taylor report into modern working practices, but very disappointing that, since the report came out in 2017, it has been consigned to the long grass. The Financial Secretary’s latest letter to my noble friend Lord Bridges following the recent Finance Bill Sub-Committee’s work confirms that it remains solidly in the long grass.

The Government’s sole focus on collecting tax has also resulted in employers pushing workers into the use of umbrella companies, as my noble friend said. This avoids them taking those workers on to their own payrolls. As we heard, there has been a fivefold or sixfold increase in the number in the last 15 years, with 500,000 or 600,000 individuals working through umbrella companies. While there are some well-run and responsible umbrella companies, there are also some very bad ones, and there have been egregious cases of tax avoidance associated with them. Many of the workers in this category are low-paid workers, not the higher paid IT contractors; these are relatively low-level manual workers. These people have a relatively dim understanding of their worker entitlements and rights in any event, but they are pushed into this model. The Government’s priorities ought to be to ensure that they have appropriate employment rights and protections, but the Government have been focusing on tax collection and that alone.

The call for evidence last year was a belated attempt by the Government to wake up to the problems in this area, but I am not sure that I have confidence that there will be a good outcome from that. In other instances, employers have either declared that they will not hire contractors or have made blanket decisions that they will put all contractors on to the payroll for IR35 purposes. Some contractors have in turn decided that they will not work for those engagers, and we had evidence that some were now working from outside the UK in order to get away from IR35. The one thing that seems highly likely is that the off-payroll rules themselves have distorted the labour market and may well have diminished the prized flexibility of the UK labour market. The Finance Bill Sub-Committee has urged the Government to undertake research into the impact on the labour market, but I do not have high hopes that the research currently being undertaken will provide definitive answers, based on the Treasury’s response to the sub-committee.

The root of the problem is the foundations on which our tax system has been built. The UK taxes income according to its source and we treat income from employment and self-employment differently and, in particular, have made a conscious decision to tax unearned differently again. The tax system positively incentivises people to work on a self-employed basis and to seek to convert earned income into dividend income via service companies. The biggest distortions arise from the choices that have been made in the design of national insurance, including the new health and social care levy. These are taxes in all but name. There is a fairly big difference between the way in which employed versus self-employed people pay national insurance—the gap is three percentage points in the main national insurance rate—but there is a massive difference in employers’ national insurance contributions. It is now just over 15%, for which there is no equivalent for the self-employed. Therefore, employment income can attract a tax rate of 18 percentage points higher than self-employment income, and dividend income attracts no national insurance at all.

Last year, the Institute for Fiscal Studies published a study on taxing work and investment across legal forms. The clear finding was that the distinctions between different forms of income involved unproductive work in policing the boundaries. In particular, in relation to IR35 it said that this approach is failing, and will continue to fail, because it cannot overcome the core problem:

“there is no coherent principle underlying the distinction”

between legal forms.

A fundamental reform of the taxation of income, including national insurance, is now long overdue. It is the root cause of the problems with IR35 and the many types of unfairness that IR35 promulgates. I know that there are no easy solutions and that it will take a brave Chancellor to reorient the basics of our tax system, but equally there is no easy answer to the IR35 problem, as the past 20 years have shown. It is time for the Treasury to be bold.

19:17

[Lord Desai (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I served on this committee. I was specially drafted to serve on it and it was a great experience, because I found it very difficult to understand the problem. I was aware that various people had suddenly declared themselves to be self-employed which I knew to be completely fraudulent, especially when Ken Livingstone, my socialist friend, decided that he could avoid tax by becoming self-employed. I always regarded this particular thing as a problem of fairness. It is quite clear that if you give people half a chance they will invent themselves all sorts of ways of avoiding paying tax. As far as I am concerned, that is a tax avoidance problem.

Obviously, there are different kinds of income. Some are more uncertain than others. It seems to me that the principle is that you treat more uncertain incomes differently from incomes that are more or less certain. All my life I was a lecturer—or a professor, at LSE. My income was known, I had to pay my PAYE and that was that. However, there are people who are actors, musicians or playwrights or whatever and whose income is uncertain, so to some extent I think what we need here is a preliminary anthropological study by the tax authorities into how different people make their money in different ways. You have to have genuine uncertainty of employment to be able to qualify as self-employed. That seems to me to be absolutely standard.

Actually, while I was doing this work, the Equity trade union contacted me and asked if I could give my learned opinion on this matter. I said that I had absolutely no idea how to tackle this problem, because it is not the size of income but its uncertainty that determines the fairness—or unfairness—of the tax system.

I still consider that we should find a way of distinguishing between different incomes, not so much by size but by variability over a period. We should distinguish people who are not sure of employment, such as actors or musicians, who may make a lot of money while they are employed but whose employment is not guaranteed from month to month, from people who have absolutely no reason to think of themselves as self-employed because they are just contracting themselves differently with an employer and have a perfectly well-known and certain contract between them and their employer. So, to the extent that this is a tax avoidance scheme which helps both the employer and employee, it is a very damaging phenomenon, because it makes people doubt the fairness of the tax system.

All I can say about this matter is that I still find it very hard to get to grips with this problem. As and when HMRC, or whoever else, wants to do a different study, they ought to do an empirical study of different kinds of employment and incomes and genuinely establish the variability of employment prospects and income. They are the two aspects in which employed people differ from the self-employed. If we can establish that distinction in some legal way that is guaranteed not to be evaded, I think we can set up this concession that some people can be treated differently for tax purposes.

There are problems with employment rights and all that that involves as well, but I presume that it is the variability of employment and income likely to be earned when you are employed that are the main things. That cannot be dealt with without a proper anthropological survey of what kinds of employment people have. To that extent, as and when anybody wants to do research again, please let them do it properly. I know that there is the Taylor review, but we need something more than that. We need proper anthropological research into what kinds of employment and incomes there are in this economy.

19:23

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, for instigating this debate. I did not serve on the committee, and this is not my area of expertise, but I would like to offer a few thoughts. It seems to me that this is a very classic case of when the market works out a solution to or a way around a problem that has been given to it by the Government.

The key thing here, of course, is the figure in the report that the number of individuals working through umbrella companies has increased from 100,000 to 500,000 in the last 15 years. This has clearly happened because it is of value to work for an umbrella company, although the report also makes the point that

“many contractors had been left in an undesirable ‘halfway house’: they do not enjoy the rights that come with employment, yet they are considered employees for tax purposes. In short, they are ‘zero-rights employees’”.

This is the problem.

As we come up to a new Queen’s Speech, now would be an ideal time for the Treasury to try to get to grips with the whole problem of how you treat people who are earning money from others. The problem is not just as outlined here; it is endemic in society, and I have come across it many times. I wonder whether other noble Lords have—I would be surprised if they have not come across the tradesman who says, “Cash only, of course”. I do not know of a single cleaner in the city of Cambridge, where I live, who pays tax. My wife had a very interesting conversation with a Polish cleaner whose child had gone into hospital. She said to the cleaner, who was a very nice lady, “Who do you think is paying for this hospital?” The cleaner said, “The Government”, and my wife said, “No, we are, because you are not paying any tax on the money that you get from us”. There is this great gap.

One of the things that not just the Government but the country has got to get to grips with is the way in which people are remunerated. I remember when I was an MEP and we had a nanny, and I was advised very firmly by the Labour Party that I should make sure that I paid tax on what we paid the nanny, because the one thing it did not want was a scandal involving an MEP who was hiring a nanny and not paying tax—so we paid tax. Most of our friends were absolutely astonished; they just could not believe it, until it was explained to them that it was because the Daily Mail might get hold of it and we would be all over the papers.

In this country, we run a system in which the evasion, frankly, of tax is built in and widely accepted. We need to look at this, keep the efficiency of off-payroll payments under review and make sure that the legislation is fair. But we also need to look at the Taylor report, which is what brought me into this, because there are a number of trade union issues that need to be looked at to ensure that workers are being given a fair crack of the whip. This has to be done by legislation: you cannot go around the country saying to individuals, “You must do this”, but you could get them to sign a form saying that any payments they have made have been declared to the Revenue. Alternatively, you could get them to sign a simple form for taking tax.

But my view is that, unless we tackle the very basis of the problem, gradually there will be another way around the situation, and another. It will be rather like our garden hose: every spring, when we turn it on, somehow, without any help from us, it seems to have sprung four or five new leaks, which then need binding up—and, by the next spring, you have four or five more. That is what our tax system seems rather like at the moment.

I ask the Minister, who I realise is strongly constricted in what she can say today, at least to say that she will go back to the department and see whether we can have a root-and-branch look at the ways in which remuneration is paid and rights are given to and taken away from people. It is a matter of basic fairness that, if you live in a society, you should pay your taxes and you should all get the same benefits. It should not be possible for employers to get out of giving benefits, in a fiscal way, because it is good for them financially not to give them to the people who are doing the work.

There is a big challenge ahead, a much bigger one than some would like to admit, but one that has been left to lie dormant for probably the last 20 years. This is not a matter of this Government and this Prime Minister; it has not been faced since the Blair Government came to power. It was resolved to make it easy for people to work and move around, and that laxness has been in the system for a long time. I hope the Minister assures us that she will try to make some reforms.

19:30

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

My Lords, I was a member of the Economic Affairs Committee and the sub-committee at the time of this report and I mainly want to address those principles. I agree with the analysis of what has happened since, which has already been brought forward by other members, referring back to the principles. The problem is that IR35 has not worked from the start and, as the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, explained, it is still not working fairly.

A key issue in the IR35 space, as has already been said, is non-compliant umbrella companies. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury told the committee that HMRC recognised umbrella companies as a strategic risk in its compliance plan. Note that “compliance plan”, its tax-collecting plan. It is clear that HMRC had only a tax-collection perspective, rather than what might be compared to a consumer or worker protection perspective and fair treatment.

We should not forget that non-compliant umbrella companies brought us the loan charge, effectively scamming people. How HMRC handled that is still among the most egregious injustices of recent times. Its treatment was tantamount to, “It doesn’t matter that you were, in effect, swindled; here is your extra tax bill because we cannot find the swindler or the client company, so it is all on you”. HMRC caused ruin and suicide by the intransigence of its perspective. That is unforgivable.

When it comes to IR35, and individuals and small businesses in particular, there is a valid comparison with consumer protections when the biggest financial risk to which individuals are being exposed is around their work, how they are paid for it, and when employment law and its benefits are not applicable. But then, you do not get the same kind of protection that you would, for example, if you put that amount of money at risk in a financial service fund.

Against that background, I would like to know more about what the Government are doing to ensure the quality of umbrella companies. With scamming and fleecing active in this area, amplified by the rules on recovering tax, a step change is required. Many more people are looking to umbrella companies to sort out their compliance and IR35 issues, as others have said. It is easy to find the adverts. This morning, I found an umbrella company promising compliance solutions, keeping the same Ltd status and income, and carrying an ERA certification mark. Can it be trusted? Is it right to rely on a private certification organisation anyway? Do the Government endorse that and should there not be more regulatory protection around umbrella companies? They are clearly responsible for the creation of the leaky hose that the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, described.

HMRC has looked only at tax and NI contributions, not at rights, responsibilities, risks or benefits. It rejected a new kind of body, as suggested in the Taylor review, but then created one by carving out an “employee just for tax purposes” that brings manifest unfairness to the individual and condones undermining employment protections. The HMRC approach also seems to miss the whole picture about risk management and particularly how smaller and new businesses get started and grow. They will be caught before they even have lift-off.

Determinations focus on tests, such as the red herring of mutuality of obligation, which is a description—effectively, a definition—that can apply to any contract, whether of employment or not. That is a fact even admitted in HMRC’s Employment Status Manual. What else does the contract do other than define your mutual obligations to one another, whatever it is about? Other tests such as substitution and not relying on the skill of a particular individual fly in the face of how businesses and reputations are established in the professional field, and certainly discriminate against microbusinesses, start-ups and sole traders.

I am not sure how some businesses are supposed to get started with this hanging over them. I founded my own business from scratch and operated it for 30 years, but this would have stopped me in my tracks, because I started as a sole trader and, believe it or not, on day one or day 10, or in month three, you might get your first client—and whoops! Oh dear, you are an employee.

Other tests are equally absurd. I can see many reasons why things that are prohibited will become desirable. Of course you want a timetable of when you will function, because you want to know when you can offer services to other potential clients you might raise or because you have other matters you want to attend to. But if you have a fixed timetable, they say you are dancing to an employer’s tune. In the real world, there can be other reasons for wanting a more generalised contract. How many of your Lordships have wrestled with some of the rather difficult and complex purchase order systems of many large companies, which make it difficult to keep having a new one for every new project, as HMRC now suggests should be the case? It is much easier and less time-wasting to have an overarching contract that, yes, flexes as you need it to.

I am not surprised by the number of 20% that do not get a decision under CEST, but given HMRC’s track record, I have no confidence that an enlightened and sensitive approach will be taken. Indeed, I would not even be surprised if bonuses were paid for allocating a business to employee status and upping returns. In fact, will the Minister find out the true situation on bonuses paid to those who are dealing with allocations and let me know in writing? I recall being given some very wrong answers about this kind of thing and bonuses given by HMRC when we were discussing the loan charge. Given where we are at, as I said, my greatest concerns are for small and developing businesses, which are given new responsibilities to sort out status and yet are the most likely to be in uncertain, developing and changing positions, having fewer resources and where these tests about timing, location and substitution really do not work.

As a final point, will the Minister explain what work has been done on providing exemptions for microbusinesses and start-ups, so as not to apply tests that are inappropriate and clearly discriminatory to the circumstances? For example, could there be a three-year period of consideration before any assessment and determination starts, or exemptions for small turnover that rules out looking at a building-up phase?

Overall, I still consider the Taylor review proposals better, not least as the Government have not avoided the creation of a different body—no matter that it is hybrid and, unfairly, for tax purposes only.

19:39

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I first join in the congratulations for the noble Lord, Lord Bridges of Headley, and the rest of the Finance Bill Sub-Committee on their work in this area.

I am surprised at the extent to which I have been impacted by this debate. I knew peripherally that this was a bag of worms; this debate has brought out what an enormous bag of worms it is. The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, criticised CEST and illegal or dodgy umbrella companies. I found myself agreeing with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes—I get very worried when that happens, but she is absolutely right. She talked about the Taylor report and this conflict between tax and rights, and the word fairness came through. “Fair” is an incredibly complex issue, and the phrase I took from her speech was “no coherent principle”. That is the issue; you just cannot do it from one point of view.

The noble Lord, Lord Desai, brought in this concept of uncertainty and the issue of start-ups. The noble Lord, Lord Balfe, said that the whole point is that this has to be root and branch and that it is a big challenge. The words I come back to are that it needs an holistic approach. I will say very little more about the debate, but I somehow pray that this issue will not be allowed to go away. Until it is tackled on an holistic basis, it will generate its own industries, there will be lots of people from all sides making it more and more complicated and there will be more and more laws to patch up little points here and there. Any Government, whatever their general political persuasions, should really be addressing this issue and getting back to that lovely idea of trying to see a coherent principle.

Through the sub-committee’s 2020 report and the subsequent February 2022 correspondence with the Treasury, it has held the Government’s feet to the fire. It was clearly right to raise the concerns it did. The trends we are seeing with off-payroll working very much reflect the sub-committee’s warnings.

When the so-called IR35 system was established under the last Labour Government, it was with the intention of ensuring greater fairness in the tax system. It could not have failed more, could it? I think that was not a political failure but a failure to grasp the complexity of it. There had been a steady increase in the number of employees managing to become contractors and enjoying significant tax benefits as a result. As others have observed, the system was designed to identify so-called disguised employees. These individuals may have been working under the same conditions as an employee but avoided certain tax liabilities by entering a contract through an intermediary, such as a personal service company.

For many years, the IR35 determination was made by the contractor themselves. Such a determination is based on several factors and can be complicated, inevitably leading to incorrect decisions. The sub-committee flagged in its original report that the Government’s own “check employment status for tax” tool may not be fit for purpose. Listening to the debate, clearly it is not. As we have heard, the burden for determining whether IR35 rules apply has gradually shifted from the contractor to the fee payer. This occurred first in the public sector, and those reforms have since been extended to the private sector.

The Government were right to delay the extension by a year, citing the pandemic. We endorsed that decision, as to delay gave businesses and individuals more time to adjust in an already uncertain world. However, in truth, the extra year was already desirable, or even necessary, before the pandemic struck. As the sub-committee noted, there was early evidence that the 2017 public sector reforms were not working as intended. I believe we have now reached a total of five Whitehall departments that have admitted incorrectly classifying contractors. These departments—Work and Pensions, Home Office, Health, Justice, and Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—have had to compensate HMRC for their oversights to the tune of around £250 million.

Part of the problem seems to be the use of blanket declarations, which is a topic covered by the sub-committee, but other forces may have been at play too. For example, it may reflect the simple fact that IR35 has become too complicated. If Whitehall departments cannot correctly apply the rules, what hope is there for others?

Earlier this year, the broadcaster Adrian Chiles won a long-standing legal dispute with HMRC. The authority believed that the IR35 rule should apply to his work for the BBC and ITV between 2012 and 2017, but the tribunal disagreed. What assessment have the Government made of that ruling? Can the Minister comment on how much was spent pursuing the case, given that it ran over several years?

Taken collectively, these events raise the question asked by an increasing number of commentators in the light of the rapidly changing nature of the UK employment market: does the IR35 system continue to serve its original purpose?

Other questions raised by the sub-committee, including how to counter the potential misuse of umbrella companies, are by no means new either. There are genuine fears around the exploitation of workers, particularly those on low incomes, as people seek to avoid tax through rogue umbrella companies and, indeed, former employers seek to avoid tax by forcing low-paid workers into these unsatisfactory conditions. Addressing these questions is therefore increasingly urgent. The sub-committee has pointed to a variety of other possible risks and the Government have at least acknowledged the need to understand them better. In her response to February’s correspondence, Lucy Frazer outlined several workstreams which are under way, as well as committing to ensuring that they are conducted expeditiously.

To be fair to the Government, not all the concerns raised in the report and during this afternoon’s debate could have been addressed during the 12-month delay from April 2020. However, should not some of this work have been under way well before that decision was taken? IR35 rules came into force in 2000. Our economy clearly functions very differently in 2022. While the tax system has seen some changes, it has not kept pace with the developments and trends in the employment market. It seems that there is consensus around the need for modernisation and simplification and the problem appears to be with the political will to deliver.

Of course we must consider this topic in the context of the Government’s continued failure on the Taylor review of modern working practices. As others have noted, employment status for tax purposes and status under employment law have long been separated. The Taylor review made some important recommendations in this area. They include the creation of a special category for those who are neither employees nor genuinely self-employed. These people pay taxes as if they are employees but lack many of the basic employment rights enjoyed by others. It cannot be right for certain workers, often those operating in the gig economy, to remain what the sub-committee labelled zero-rights employees. In some instances the courts have acted to grant new rights to such workers. However, as a rule it should be for the Executive rather than the judiciary to confer adequate protections.

Workers’ rights were prioritised in the Conservative Party manifesto, but the Government seem to have forgotten their promises since the election. Addressing some of the loopholes identified by the sub-committee will improve the situation, but so too would bringing forward the long-promised employment Bill. This question may not directly relate to IR35 but, had the Government legislated to improve employment rights, would we have witnessed the recent P&O ferry situation? We await Her Majesty’s most gracious Speech in a couple of weeks’ time, but if reports are to be believed it will not contain anything on tax reform or employment protections.

The Government want us to believe that everything is under control. However, that is clearly not the case if they are repeatedly unable to deal with pressing issues such as these. We await the findings of HMRC’s research but what we really need is a joined-up approach. We must look at these issues in the round and then, crucially, bring forward that long-awaited legislative package. The sub-committee has called for an off-payroll working regime which is simpler, fairer, more straight- forward, properly enforceable and provides greater certainty to all involved. Which one of these wishes can the Government possibly disagree with and what exactly is the hold-up when it comes to achieving that?

19:50

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Bridges for securing this debate. He is right that it remains a timely debate, because of the recent extension of IR35 to the private sector, which was delayed by a year due to Covid, and with the update provided by the Finance Bill Sub-Committee in its letter to the Financial Secretary, and because, as I will touch on and as has been touched on in the debate, there are live issues with regard to the implementation of IR35. The Government are committed to continuing to learn lessons as we press ahead with its implementation. This matter is not closed but one where we want to continue to learn and improve on how we do things.

The Committee has also shown clearly that there are a number of issues for the Government to consider. There has been a remarkable amount of consensus on that from this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, should not be so worried about agreeing with my noble friend Lady Noakes. I may not like it, but she can often be right.

Let me also thank the Finance Bill Sub-Committee for the time it has taken in making its careful analysis of this important policy area, both in 2020 and in its more recent follow-up inquiry.

I am grateful to noble Lords in this select group today for their well-considered points. Noble Lords are right that the issues we are debating are key for workers and businesses, and of course to the UK’s financial health. Before I respond to specific points raised in the debate, it is perhaps worth taking a step back to remind noble Lords of the reasoning behind the introduction of the off-payroll working rules.

As I am sure noble Lords are aware, these rules have been in place for over 20 years. Ultimately, they aim to ensure that people working like employees but through their own limited company are taxed like employees. Initially, it was for workers to decide whether they were working like an employee and in scope of the rules. However, it became clear over time that individual workers were often not best placed to properly assess their own employment status; as a result, there was widespread non-compliance. HMRC estimated that only one in 10 people who should have been paying tax under the off-payroll working rules were paying the right amount, prior to the reforms. In fact, non-compliance was forecast to have cost £430 million in 2015-16.

As a result, the Government brought forward legislation to change who made the decision on whether a worker met the rules and should pay tax like an employee. The reform shifts the responsibility for determining employment status and ensuring the right tax is paid to HMRC from the individual’s intermediary to the client, which could be a business or a public sector body. The Government started by implementing these reforms with regard to the public sector in 2017, and then, following significant engagement, extended them last year to medium and large organisations in the private and voluntary sectors, where non-compliance had been forecast to reach £1.3 billion per year by 2023-24 if it had not been addressed.

I stress that these changes simply ensure that the rules that have been in place for the last 20 years are actually followed—and that two people who are doing similar jobs, but through different structures, are not paying very different amounts of tax. It is about ensuring fairness and protecting the tax base. It is not about revenue raising, as has been implied at points in this debate. This is not to ignore the wider points—which I will come on to—about the status of employment with regard to tax and rights, which are two different systems, as all noble Lords have noted. This question has been considered by the Government over some years.

The Government have not changed the way in which the genuinely self-employed are taxed. If someone is running their own business through their own company, these rules will not apply to them. The reform does not create a new tax on contractors or change the principles of tax status in any way. It simply moves responsibility for determining employment status to the party in the labour supply chain that is best placed to take it on: employers who already make these assessments for their regular staff on a routine basis.

So far, the evidence suggests that the reform is successfully achieving its primary objective: to ensure fairness and improve compliance with existing rules. As a consequence, it has resulted in additional tax revenue of £250 million in 2017-18 and £275 million in 2018-19—money that has helped to fund vital public services, as noted by my noble friend Lord Balfe. It is therefore heartening that the Finance Bill Sub-Committee acknowledges that these reforms are helping to reduce non-compliance.

However, I recognise that the sub-committee raised further issues. As noble Lords will be aware, last month the Government set out a comprehensive response to the sub-committee’s conclusions and recommendations in its follow-up inquiry into the off-payroll working rules. In that response, we first set out how our engagement work with taxpayers, businesses, agencies and other organisations has been at the heart of our approach to this reform. Indeed, before extending the reform to the private and voluntary sectors, the Government carried out two consultations in 2018 and 2019. We listened closely to stakeholders’ feedback on how the legislation was working and introduced changes that provided more certainty to parties in the supply chain. To answer the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, about an exemption for micro-businesses or start-ups, we decided not to include 1.5 million small businesses in the reform’s scope. The Government also carried out a further review of the off-payroll working rules in 2020 and have acted on stakeholder feedback by expanding the consequences for those who provide fraudulent information and introducing anti-avoidance provisions.

The sub-committee welcomed the fact that HMRC has learned some lessons from the public sector reform when rolling it out into the private sector. This additional insight has led to a range of important improvements, including adapting HMRC’s education and support to better suit the needs of specific stakeholders and customers. When the rollout of the reform to the private sector was delayed by a year due to Covid-19, we put this extra time to good use by expanding the support offered to taxpayers, businesses and other organisations to help them prepare, and this has continued since the reform’s implementation last year.

The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, made several points about the implementation in the public sector. He talked about the use of blanket declarations being the most significant reason why the public sector got its determinations wrong. The most common error that HMRC identified through its compliance work with public bodies was the understanding of the impacts of substitution clauses in their contracts. HMRC has worked with the Tax Centre of Excellence to improve understanding in this area. HMRC has not seen any evidence of the widespread use of blanket determinations, which is supported by its internal data and external research. In fact, HMRC compliance activity has found that many public bodies did take reasonable care when implementing the rules. None the less, many lessons have been learned from the 2017 reforms, as I have noted, feeding into the approach that we took in the expansion in 2021.

Another issue raised was the Check Employment Status for Tax tool, CEST. HMRC has spent £1.1 million enhancing that tool to help employers, workers and agencies determine their tax status, following feedback. On the point raised by my noble friend Lord Bridges about a tension between case law and the CEST tool, the tool was rigorously tested against known case law and settled cases and is the only status determination tool for which HMRC will stand by the result produced, provided the information inputted is accurate and the tool is used in accordance with the published guidance. However, while we believe we have responded to some of these points, as I said to noble Lords, monitoring the impact of the reforms is still very much a priority for the Government. We have commissioned external research into the 2021 reform that will gather further information on the effects of the reform on the way contractors are engaged, rates of pay for contractors, challenges with implementing the rules and the effectiveness of HMRC’s support and guidance.

Noble Lords asked whether this research would take into account the changing post-Covid labour market. Indeed, it does ask for information on the reasons for any changes in the use of contractors since March 2021, including Covid. In addition, insights from our evaluation of the 2017 reforms show that the impact is broadly in line with HMRC’s expectations so far.

Almost all noble Lords in the debate raised the issue of umbrella companies. We have seen some evidence since 2017 of some contractors changing the way they provide services, moving to the use of other structures. As noble Lords noted, some clients and contractors will reasonably take the view that direct employment on the payroll of the client, an employment agency or an umbrella company is preferable to having contractors work through their own limited companies. This is expected and perfectly acceptable. None the less, we recognise the concerns about the scope for non-compliance in the umbrella company sector. As my noble friend noted, there is no problem where an individual is working with an umbrella company that is compliant with the rules; it simply means that the right tax is being paid and that the individual may be receiving the benefits that come with employment. But we have published guidance for those working for and with umbrella companies and have also recently completed a call for evidence on the umbrella company market. We are analysing the responses to that call for evidence and, at risk of aggravating my noble friend, the Government will respond publicly in due course.

At the same time, the Government are focused on tackling the promotors of tax avoidance schemes. Indeed, we introduced a tough new package of measures at the Autumn Budget which came into force in February this year. These included new powers for HMRC to freeze promoters’ assets, so they pay what they owe; steps to deter offshore promoters; and legislation allowing HMRC to shut companies and partnerships that promote these dubious schemes.

I am conscious of time. I think the main point of substance that all noble Lords touched on is the difference between employment status for rights and employment status for tax. Noble Lords are correct: those systems are separate. However, officials across HMRC, the Treasury and BEIS work closely to ensure joined-up thinking on common issues. It is worth emphasising that the current employment status frameworks for both tax and rights work for the majority of individuals and businesses. However, we recognise concerns about employment status, and we are considering options to improve clarity, making it easier for individuals and businesses to understand which rights apply to them. We are working externally and across government on how best to address this in a post-Covid scenario.

The work of the Taylor review is an example of the Government considering this question, and while we are progressing on a number of aspects of that review, it is important not to forget that we have already implemented a wide range of its recommendations. We have delivered non-legislative commitments such as launching a holiday pay awareness campaign. We have passed a raft of secondary legislation to boost workers’ rights and deliver the Taylor review recommendations, including by extending the right to a written statement of core terms of employment to all workers and introducing a right for agency workers to receive a key information document when signing with an employment business. I would say that it is right that we do not change the employment law framework until we are sure that any changes will address the needs of businesses and workers in the post-Covid economy. In the meantime, we will continue to take the necessary action to support businesses and protect jobs.

The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked me a specific question about the ruling in the case of Adrian Chiles. While I cannot provide information on specific cases because of taxpayer confidentiality, I should answer his broader point. HMRC has disputed a number of cases regarding television and radio presenters in the courts. Just yesterday, it won two cases in the Court of Appeal, setting down useful principles in such cases. Since April 2019, HMRC has won more than 80% of cases in litigation. Where no other route to resolving issues is possible, it is right that some cases are decided in the courts. In terms of the wider approach, I hope that would be the last place that we want to end up, even though it is necessary in some cases. The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, asked me a question about bonuses, which I am happy to write to her on—and, indeed, if there any other points that I have not managed to cover.

I reiterate my thanks to all those who have contributed to this debate. I end by emphasising that our changes to the off-payroll working rules have been made with the aim of improving compliance with existing rules and increasing fairness in the tax system. As a consequence, these changes have brought in additional revenue to fund vital public services. However, I reassure noble Lords that we are not complacent. Our approach to these reforms is a collaborative one. Therefore, we look forward to very much continuing the conversation with those affected by these changes, so that we can work together to build a tax system in which everyone pays their fair share.

20:07

[Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that response. Indeed, I thank everyone—this little band of us—who has debated this topic. It is rather appropriate that we are meeting in the Moses Room, because I somehow feel that IR35 has become a tablet of stone for the Treasury and HMRC. I fully accept what my noble friend says: there are some sort of scratchings or graffiti on the tablet of stone that have made alterations here and there, but it essentially says that we must not change IR35 in a profound way.

The problem that my noble friend grappled with—I was not expecting her to announce grand changes in tonight’s debate—is that, as all of us have outlined, the underlying unfairness of this system remains. Let me remind everyone of what the committee concluded:

“It is unfair that contractors within the rules are treated as employees for tax purposes but do not qualify for employment rights, thus creating a class of ‘zero-rights employees’. The Government is replacing one unfairness with another.”


That is the fundamental truth that we have to confront and why we have to see change. I fully accept that aspects of the Taylor review are being implemented but that is not enough, and we have to grip this. Indeed, it is even more important that we grip this post Covid because of the need to have a flexible workforce.

I do not want to delay everyone with lots of changes but to make just two points. The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe—he is my noble friend tonight, because we agree on this—said that this policy could not have failed more. I was really struck by that; it is a very interesting point. I accept that the Government made changes to IR35 before implementing it in the private sector, in light of what we saw in the public sector, but let us just understand what has happened in the public sector.

The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, mentioned the figure of £263 million. That is the amount owed or expected to be owed by government departments for failing to administer the reforms correctly. That is an eye-watering amount of money. What do we already know? HMRC told the Public Accounts Committee in the other place that key personnel in those departments did not understand the contractual framework they were operating in and how they were engaged as the contractor in the labour market. The NAO found that half of all respondents found the reforms difficult to comply with. It also found that

“public bodies have reported incurring additional costs … and challenges in recruiting or retaining contractors … Public bodies we interviewed explained that they had dedicated a lot of ongoing resource to employment status determinations, such as full-time staff, supporting teams and review panels.”

This is a problem we are already seeing in the public sector, and we are now beginning to see what it is meaning for the private sector. I am delighted that my noble friend says there will be research on this, because it is well overdue. I make just one point. Computer Weekly showed that the number of self-employed is falling fast. It has gone from 130,000, or thereabouts, in 2016-17 to 97,000 in 2020-2021. The impact on the nature and shape of our workforce is quite profound, so we need that research and we need it fast.

As my noble friend Lady Noakes and others pointed out, this is having a real impact not just on professions at the high end of the workforce, the more skilled, but on those who are on low pay, the people who are being hit really hard right now by the cost of living. I very much hope that we will learn those lessons and that the Government will publish that research very quickly. Most of all, I live in hope that something might come along soon—if not in the Queen’s Speech, soon thereafter—that will address this fundamental unfairness that must be gripped quickly. I thank noble Lords for taking part in the debate.

Motion agreed.

Committee adjourned at 8.12 pm.

House of Lords

Wednesday 27th April 2022 Lords Chamber

Wednesday 27 April 2022

15:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford.

Retirement of a Member: Lord Young of Graffham

Wednesday 27th April 2022 Lords Chamber

Announcement

15:07

[The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

My Lords, I should like to notify the House of the retirement, with effect from today, of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his much-valued service to the House.

West Coast Main Line

Wednesday 27th April 2022 Lords Chamber

Question

15:07

Asked by

[Lord Snape]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have, if any, to replace Avanti Trains as the principal operator on the West Coast Main Line.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)]

My Lords, the department is currently in discussions with Avanti West Coast, as per the prior information notice first issued in October 2020, about a subsequent direct award. A decision will be made later in the year.

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that not-too-helpful response. Does she regret the replacement of Virgin Trains by this particular organisation? Does she agree with me that the problem of national rail contracts is that, under the present system, they are, in effect, cost-plus contracts? There is no incentive on train operating companies either to run trains or to provide a decent service, something this particular company has taken advantage of. Will she send Avanti a short message—how about, “Arrivederci”?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for that. I also am aware that he has written to Avanti West Coast citing his concerns. It has no record of any correspondence from him; however, the managing director is very happy to speak to the noble Lord—perhaps he can say that Italian word at that meeting. It is the case that both for the ERMAs and the national rail contracts, there are very firm incentivisation elements. For example, Avanti earns a fee based on performance and, for the six months to March 2021, it was judged as getting a score of one for customer experience—that is the lowest, not the highest. Therefore, because it got the lowest, it got no fee for that element. So there is incentivisation, and we hope to make it better because we want to see excellent customer service across our railways.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, I shall ask the Minister a straight question. If she came to this Chamber 17 minutes late to answer these questions, how does she think the House would feel? If she was summoned again at 9 pm with a Statement from the other place and she was 38 minutes late, does she think that we would be impressed with that performance? Those were the train delays on my journey from Stockport to London on the Thursday before we broke for Easter. That is by no means a one-off—the timetable is fantasy island. The morale of staff is at an all-time low. Until last week, they were wearing Virgin uniforms—three years on—with the badge cut off. The morale of staff is down, the service to customers is poor and I see no reason for carrying on with this franchise.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My Lords, had I turned up late to the Dispatch Box, obviously I might have had to resign—but not today. It should be remembered that we understand that there have been various issues relating to services. We work extremely closely with all the train operating companies, as the customers come back to the railways, to make sure that they run on time. There has been an issue around cancellations regarding staff-related absence, but we are working through that and things are improving. Of course, part of having these contracts in place means that we will be able to get better service for customers.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I have heard the same stories as my noble friend about the pretty appalling customer service from Avanti, and I reflect on the fact that the present structure seems to require the Treasury to micromanage everything—even if Network Rail wants to paint the railings on a station, it has to get Treasury approval. This is probably not a very efficient way of working. Can the Minister assure the House that, when we hear details of the Great British Railways, which is going to save us all from appalling services, that will be taken into account and somehow there will be some delegation and authority for the railways to run on their own with incentives and not too much bureaucracy?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

I absolutely agree with what the noble Lord has just said. Of course, the Great British Railways transition team is already focused on delivering improved services for customers and driving revenue recovery. At the moment we know that passenger demand is about two-thirds of what it was pre-pandemic. It is looking very closely at boosting strategic freight again which is really important and developing this whole 30-year vision for how we want our railways to operate in the longer term.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

If my noble friend had time during the period of the Prorogation, perhaps she could think of undertaking a journey, heavily disguised, on this unfortunate and benighted railway and reporting her experiences to the House when we resume.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

I am always very happy to take the train. When I take my local train, I am actually always pleased with the service, although I look around and see that there are not as many passengers on it as I would like to see. I think that is one of the biggest challenges we face. We have the railway infrastructure and operating companies which have historically been operating at much higher passenger levels and we have to look at how we are going to adjust the railway in the future, maintaining excellent customer service but also good value for money for the taxpayer.

[Lord Jones (Lab)]

Will the Minister acknowledge the great importance to the Welsh economy of the Holyhead to London Euston route, acknowledging that there are not many highly skilled or well-paid jobs in north-west Wales? Can the Minister indicate when the pre-Covid rate of service might be reconstituted, particularly the hourly service that existed from Chester to Euston which has been much emaciated? Can she help?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

I do not think that I would be able to stand here and commit to every single service coming in the same form as it was pre-pandemic, because life has changed and the reasons why people are travelling by rail have also changed. Avanti West Coast started off with four trains per hour plus extra peak trains. Back in February, that went up to six trains per hour—on 28 February—and then as we approach the summer timetable which comes in in May, we will be up to seven trains per hour and eight on key hours. That will improve the service to Chester and, I hope, to north Wales.

[Lord Polak (Con)]

My Lords, it is always easy to complain and make comments, but yesterday I was on an Avanti train from Euston to Liverpool, where my mother was having an operation. I waited until she was conscious and therefore I missed my train, which I had booked at 2.47 pm. I would like the Minister to agree with me and call out the train manager at Liverpool Lime Street on the 3.47 pm Avanti train. When I explained my situation, that I had missed my train, he said, “Don’t you worry whatsoever. Go and sit down.” It was great customer service, and I would like to call that out.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for that contribution and I have nothing further to add.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, can we go into this Avanti contract a little more? Modern Railways magazine, which tends to be an authoritative magazine in the industry, says that Avanti will be taking over the service on a national rail contract on 16 October. Can the Minister confirm that that is true? When does she expect to actually conclude the contract with Avanti? Can she explain what revenue risk, if any, Avanti will be taking? Will she perhaps illustrate what other risk Avanti will be responsible for? The key question, I think, given that there is not going to be a competitive process, is: how do we know we are getting value for money?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

Avanti already has an emergency recovery measures agreement, which was awarded to First Trenitalia, which is Avanti, in August 2019. That was initially for seven years, so the national rail contract we are currently negotiating with Avanti will replace that. It will start on 16 October if negotiations reach an appropriate point. We will not award the contract if it is not right to award the contract, because, of course, there are alternatives. As for the revenue risks, obviously these contracts operate as all rail contracts do, whereby the Government take on the revenue and the costs; however, the train operating companies do annual business planning every year, which has to be agreed with the department. On that basis, within that, there are various performance measures that have to be met, and that is how we are able to control the railway and ensure companies are delivering value for money.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, I use the Avanti West Coast every week and, frankly, the customer service is pretty good. It has introduced standard premium, which is a vast improvement, with at-seat ordering, et cetera—I think it is pretty good. But can the Minister tell me about what is laughably called TransPennine Express, which has been on strike for weeks now every Sunday? What are the Government doing to bring the strike to an end?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

Yes, I am aware that the TransPennine Express is subject to some industrial action. Of course, we are working very closely with the train operating companies, and we hope to bring that strike to a resolution as soon as possible.

Amnesty International Report 2021/22

Wednesday 27th April 2022 Lords Chamber

Question

15:18

Asked by

[Baroness Chakrabarti]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of Amnesty International’s Annual Report 2021/22, published on 29 March; and what steps they intend to take in response to the findings about human rights issues (1) globally, and (2) in the United Kingdom.

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)]

My Lords, we recognise the huge contribution that civil society, including Amnesty International, makes in promoting respect for human rights and holding Governments to account for their actions. The UK has a long-standing commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights, both internationally and domestically, and we will continue to show global leadership, encouraging all states to uphold international human rights obligations and hold those who violate human rights to account.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for his ever-courteous response. No country is perfect when it comes to human rights. Is there anything at all in Amnesty’s assessment of the UK position that the Government are looking to improve? Is there a particular priority for the Government in their approach to trying to encourage at least their friendlier international partners to do better on their record?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, first, I agree with the noble Baroness that the issue and the challenge of human rights is never a job done, whether we are talking globally or domestically. I often say that it is the most challenging part of my portfolio at the FCDO but also the most rewarding. Of course, the United Kingdom Government have prioritised human rights in a range of areas. We will be focusing, for example, on freedom of religion or belief in the conference in July this year. I myself will be leading in the conference on preventing sexual violence in conflict, already brought starkly to all our attention by the conflict in Ukraine. Also, domestically, I think we have a very vibrant civil society space, and I think that needs to be recognised.

On Amnesty International, as the noble Baroness knows, as Human Rights Minister I had a very strong relationship with its previous director, Kate Allen, and we continue to work actively with civil society groups, including my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, who has an advisory group on human rights that works directly with her on this important priority.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, in this House this week we debated and approved an order which, for the very first time, placed the UAE on a legislative list for high risk of money laundering, fraud and financing of terrorism. The Amnesty report highlighted arbitrary detentions, cruel and inhumane treatment of detainees, suppression of freedom of expression, the undermining of the right to privacy, death sentences and reported executions. I cannot see, in our £10 billion investment partnership with the UAE, any trigger clauses on human rights abuses that could limit market access to the UK. Are there any such clauses in our investment relationships with the UAE that could trigger such a mechanism?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, our relationship with UAE is very broad, and the noble Lord focused on the investment and business relationship. That is an important aspect of our bilateral engagement, but as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, just pointed out, no country, including our own, is ever going to complete this journey of human rights. However, we have very positive discussions with the UAE; I have held discussions on various aspects of human rights, including issues of freedom of religion or belief within the context of the UAE and broader. Where there are particular concerns I will raise issues directly, candidly and privately with the UAE administration.

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that there will be no erosion of the human right to due process, under the rule of law, in prosecutions in the United Kingdom, and particularly that there will continue to be prosecutions for killings in Northern Ireland which occurred during the Troubles where there is evidence to justify prosecution?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, the United Kingdom prides itself on being a country which upholds the rule of law, both internationally and domestically. Wherever crimes have happened, and wherever there is evidence in support of those crimes, the justice system will ensure that victims get access to justice, and one hopes that justice would be served as quickly as possible. I am proud that I represent on the world stage a country that upholds these values. As I have said before, we are not perfect—no country is—but we have proud traditions and a strong justice system, and that is something I am very proud to extend across the globe.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, at the annual session of the United Nations Human Rights Council earlier this month, the Minister welcomed the resolution on human rights defenders, who are facing unprecedented restrictions and abuse in every region of the world. The Government’s integrated review set working with human rights defenders and civil society as a priority. Could the Minister tell us what progress has been made on developing a meaningful plan of action to make this commitment a reality? Will the human rights and civil society directorate develop a strategy that addresses these key issues?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord is right to raise the issue of a human rights strategy, particularly on human rights defenders. I pay tribute in this context to Amnesty International, which works with us on developing key aspects of the structures and support that we provide to our network to support human rights defenders. In 2019 we launched the document UK Support for Human Rights Defenders, which sets out in detail how we will engage with human rights defenders to promote and protect human rights throughout the world. I know Amnesty has also talked about a specific government strategy on human rights, and that is something I am considering with officials in the team as part of our broad approach, which includes the international development strategy.

[The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for referencing freedom of religion and belief. Amnesty International’s latest annual report sets out the parliament of Iran’s introduction of two articles to the country’s penal code that further undermine the right to freedom of religion and belief. These articles prescribe up to five years’ imprisonment and/or a fine for insulting Iranian ethnicities, divine religions or Islamic denominations, or for engaging in

“deviant educational or proselytising activity that contradicts … Islam.”

On this basis, three Christians were sentenced to lengthy imprisonments, just last July. I declare an interest in that I am originally from Iran. Could the Minister outline what representations are being made to the Iranian authorities on the matter of freedom of religion and belief?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I was present when the right reverend Prelate delivered her maiden speech and reflected on her experiences. She is of great value on the Benches she represents, and on this important issue. Yes, we raise the issue of human rights, and we raise quite candidly and specifically the issues of consular cases which are ongoing in Iran around the broader issue of freedom of religion or belief. I speak as a person of faith: the strongest test of your faith is when you have the ability to stand up and defend the rights and obligations of another belief or faith. That is something we pride ourselves on here in the United Kingdom. Speaking on the broad issue of human rights, it is a proud tradition we carry around the world, and long may it live on.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I am sure my noble friend would agree that on this subject there is real concern about many areas of the world. May I single out two? One is Hong Kong and the other is India, where the Prime Minister paid a visit last week and where those who worship according to the Muslim, Christian and other faiths are constantly in a degree of difficulty and often treated abominably. Was the Prime Minister able to raise this? What have we been able to do recently in the context of Hong Kong?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, first, in Hong Kong, particularly with the introduction of the national security law, the issue is less one of freedom of religion or belief and more one of freedom full stop. The concerns we have in Hong Kong are well documented. We have an extensive support scheme through the BNO scheme, run by the Home Office, and more broadly when it comes to China’s suppression of rights. We see the abuse of freedom of religion most vividly in Xinjiang, and we have led on the Human Rights Council on that aspect. My noble friend also raises India, which is a strong democracy. I am the Minister responsible for our relations with India. As someone of Indian heritage, in part, and as a Muslim by faith, I assure my noble friend that we have very constructive engagement on a broad range of rights. India has a strong constitution and justice system and, within both those processes, the rights of every community, irrespective of faith, are fully protected.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

But my Lords, we are talking about Article 18 violations for 1 million Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang and Article 19 violations in Hong Kong—the denial of media and press freedoms. What can the noble Lord say to us about the position we take in the United Nations Human Rights Council, of which China is also a member? When do we hold it to account on these violations? Which of the 30 articles in the 1948 convention—the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—is China not in breach of?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, on the noble Lord’s second question, I would hazard a guess and say that, regrettably and tragically, most if not all may have been breached when it comes to the application of human rights in China. On the earlier point about the situation of the Uighurs, as I have already said, we have led the way on the Human Rights Council. It has not been easy; it has been challenging. However, the fact is that on every vote we have had at the Human Rights Council we have had an increasing number of countries supporting the position that the United Kingdom has led on. There is an egregious abuse of human rights in Xinjiang, for not just the Muslim Uighur community but other minorities as well.

Covid-19: Global Vaccine Inequity

Wednesday 27th April 2022 Lords Chamber

Question

15:29

Asked by

[Lord Londesborough]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to increase the United Kingdom’s role and contributions to address COVID-19 vaccine inequity across the world.

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)]

My Lords, the United Kingdom is at the forefront of the international response to Covid-19, spending over £2.1 billion since 2020 to address its impacts. We are keeping further support under review. Our funding has enabled COVAX to deliver over 1 billion vaccines to 86 developing countries. With supply no longer a major issue, the United Kingdom is also now focusing on tackling delivery bottlenecks and improving uptake to meet country targets, working closely with the COVAX Covid-19 vaccine delivery partnership.

[Lord Londesborough (CB)]

My Lords, we are now just two months away from the WHO target of vaccinating 70% of the world, yet across Africa just 17% have had their first jab. The pandemic is not over—far from it. Some 700,000 Covid deaths have been recorded across the world in the last three months, and the vast majority of those were unvaccinated people. Can the Minister say when Britain will follow Germany’s example and provide 2022 funding to the global Access to Covid-19 Tools Accelerator, specifically our fair share contribution of £750 million? For wealthy countries, this is surely a small price to pay, not just to help vaccine supply but to support struggling health systems across low-income countries, and indeed to protect us all from the emergence of another variant.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, we have worked very much at the heart of the COVAX facility. We were the first country to commit over £0.5 billion to COVAX so that vaccines could reach the most vulnerable. The noble Lord is of course correct that there is more to do, and we fully support the World Health Organization’s target to fully vaccinate 70% of the world’s population. We have committed over £1.6 billion of UK aid to address the impacts of Covid-19, including £129 million to support the global development, manufacture and delivery of Covid-19 vaccines. These include projects such as in Ethiopia, where the UK leads the partner co-ordination group, and in Nigeria, where our health programme is supporting vaccine delivery in five of the poorest states. I agree with the noble Lord that there is much more to do, but we are very focused on reaching the most vulnerable and are working with the World Health Organization in pursuit of that objective.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, on 13 December, my noble friend informed your Lordships’ House in answer to a similar Question that 131,000 doses of vaccine had been donated bilaterally to Nepal. That was very gratefully received, but with a population of some 30 million, it barely touched the sides. Can my noble friend say whether there are any further plans to donate bilaterally to Nepal? I declare my interest as on the register.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend’s work in Nepal, and I am grateful for his briefings on his work there. We delivered 131,000 AstraZeneca vaccines to Nepal in October and since August, overall through the COVAX facility, we have delivered a further 2.2 million donated vaccines to Nepal. COVAX remains in our view the best way to allocate vaccines, but we are also working directly with the Nepalese Government to ensure that we focus some of our support directly on the medical, social and economic consequences of Covid-19. I hope to visit that country soon, and we will be focused on these priorities bilaterally with the Government of Nepal.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, on 12 May, the White House will co-host the second global Covid-19 summit, a gathering intended to build momentum for vaccine donations, discuss efforts to end the pandemic and prepare for future health threats. Can the Minister confirm that we will participate in that summit meeting, and if so, can he tell the House what our priorities are for the meeting and whether the Government plan to make any announcements of actions there to address the continuing global vaccine inequity challenge?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I can confirm to the noble Lord that we will of course be actively engaged and working with the United States on that very event. In terms of priorities, as I have already said, we are very much focused on the most vulnerable. When we look at the global south there is much work still to be done. Indeed, two weeks ago during our UN presidency of the Security Council, I chaired a meeting of the Security Council specifically on Covid-19 which focused on reaching the most vulnerable, particularly those affected by conflict or humanitarian crises.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

With just 15% of those in the lowest-income countries vaccinated and less than 1% having received a booster, the UK committed 100 million doses to COVAX last summer with the target of delivering 30 million by the end of 2021. I have checked on COVAX this afternoon and we have delivered just 29 million. Of the top 10 donor countries to COVAX we have delivered the lowest amount, so I point out to the Minister that we are not at the forefront but are lower than the top 10. Why is that? Why have we not delivered what we have committed to deliver?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I have great respect for the noble Lord, but on this point, I must disagree. We have led the way, including on the COVAX facility itself. Had it not been for UK investment of more than £0.5 billion, that facility would not have got off the ground. That is fact. Secondly, we have reached over 52 million vaccines. The noble Lord shakes his head, but the fact is that we have donated. We are living up to our pledge; we have focused on the 100 million doses, which we seek to achieve. I know the noble Lord reads a lot of reports, but perhaps we can share our data and exchange notes on this and address this point directly. As I have illustrated, we are working directly—bilaterally—with countries around the world. Yes, there are certain problems, such as with the AstraZeneca vaccine, because of, for example, shelf life. There may be another vaccine which is perceived more valid because it has a longer shelf life. Supply is not the issue: the real issue at the moment is one of logistics, and we are very much focused on that priority as well.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, let us turn to that issue. It is absolutely vital. Supply is not the issue, but it is the delivery mechanisms that the Minister addressed in the first place. At a time when we need universal health coverage in Africa—the means to deliver vaccine—this Government are cutting funding to that facility. When will the Government get their priorities right?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, this is a serious matter that requires a serious response. The fact is that the Government have got their priorities right. It was entirely appropriate, when it came to vaccine delivery and vaccinations, that we ensured that our own population was prioritised, and we delivered on that. We have led the world on manufacturing. The noble Lord knows that it was our association with India—a country mentioned in the previous Question—that led to the upscaling of manufacturing when it came to the vaccines, when the world needed it most. Yes, logistics is an issue: the noble Lord and I have talked about this. That is why we are currently working in Sierra Leone, Ethiopia, Uganda and Nigeria on that very issue of logistics and structures to ensure—whether it is for this variant or the next or for any vaccine—that the structures set up, particularly in the global south, are robust enough to deal with this continuing pandemic.

[Baroness Greengross (CB)]

My Lords, is stockpiling not one of the issues we should address? It seems to me very immoral that wealthier nations stockpile. Amnesty has pointed this out. If we had a proper human rights framework, it could not happen. Should we not do something to ensure that many of the wealthier nations do not stockpile while others are finding it very difficult to get adequate amounts of vaccines? We need to find solutions as a matter of urgency.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness refers to the earlier stages of the vaccines. As vaccines were being developed, undoubtedly those countries that were first in production and manufacturing held vaccines in reserve, but the whole essence of the accelerator within the COVAX scheme was to ensure that the most vulnerable were provided with supplies of vaccines. As I said in response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Collins, the issue within countries has been one of logistics. There have, sadly, been examples where the supply has reached a port of a given country, but where the challenge has been the duration of the shelf life of the vaccine and the logistics within country. That is where we are currently focused, particularly when it comes to second doses and booster vaccines in the global south.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, the BMJ published an article on 22 March that stated that 2.8 billion people in the world remain totally unvaccinated. In view of that, would the Minister take on board the need to reinstate the overseas aid budget to 0.7% of GNI to help address that same inequity?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I hear what the noble Baroness says; as I said, I firmly believe in the 0.7%. However, equitable access to vaccines is not an issue of money. It is one foremost of logistics, which I have pointed to. There have also been issues of vaccine hesitancy in areas such as the Caribbean and Africa. In that regard, we talked in the previous Question about the important role of civil society at the heart of finding solutions. That is exactly what civil society has helped to do in partnership with the British Government and others, to ensure that vaccine hesitancy is addressed. In this case, I pay particular tribute to faith leaders, especially in Africa and the Caribbean, who have helped to address getting over that initial hurdle of taking the vaccine in the first place.

European Research Council

Wednesday 27th April 2022 Lords Chamber

Question

15:40

Asked by

[Viscount Stansgate]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of reports that the European Research Council has written to 150 researchers based in the United Kingdom to say that they must move to institutions in the European Union within the next two months, or else give up their grants.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and update the House on my interests in the register, as I was recently elected president of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, which, as the House may know, is Parliament’s oldest all-party group.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)]

My Lords, the UK government guarantee means that eligible successful ERC applicants will receive the full value of their funding at a UK host institution and need not leave the UK. Therefore, this communication from the ERC does not accurately reflect the options available to UK applicants. The UK remains committed to association, but the EU is not honouring commitments made when the TCA was agreed. If the EU continues to delay, we will introduce a bold alternative package.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, but it is still disappointing. I shall put it in context for the House: €625 million-worth of grants were announced this week, with 61 grants to people based in Germany and the second highest number, 45, to people based in the UK. It is these people who have been told that they will lose their money if the Horizon Europe agreement is not reached by the deadline, which the European Research Council today told me is 19 September this year. Does the Minister accept that time is running out for an agreement to be reached between the EU and the UK on Horizon Europe? Does he accept that the problem is the Northern Ireland protocol and that, to some extent, science is being held hostage by the failure to agree the protocol arrangements between the UK and the EU? Is this a situation that we should be proud of when all of us in this Chamber want the UK to be a science superpower? Finally, the last time I raised this question, the Minister said that the money was safeguarded. Can he assure the House that the amount allocated by the Treasury will be spent on science and, if so, on what, where and by what mechanism?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I partly agree with the noble Lord. I agree that time is running out but not that the Northern Ireland protocol is the problem. The EU entered into an agreement which it is now refusing to implement; that is the long and short of the problem. As soon as some Members stop making excuses for the EU’s bad behaviour, we might succeed. We stand ready to associate with the Horizon programme as soon as the EU is prepared to sit down and implement the agreement that it signed.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, everyone agrees that UK participation in Horizon is of benefit to researchers in the UK, the EU and beyond, but also of mutual benefit is the UK’s commitment to stick to legal engagements that it has made. I am afraid that there is some pot and kettle going on from the Minister. Why are this Government again threatening to breach the Northern Ireland protocol and to take powers—we expect this in the Queen’s Speech—and undermine the trust that is essential to making other co-operation work? This is linked to the Northern Ireland protocol, but it is the Government’s failure to honour their commitments which is the problem.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I am sorry that the noble Baroness refuses to accept where the blame lies in this circumstance. The UK has not breached any agreements that we signed with the European Union. We have abided by all of them. The EU signed an agreement to say that we would associate with the Horizon programme but is refusing to implement that agreement. The Liberal Democrats and others should stop thinking that everything which the EU does is perfect and believe that there are some cases where it gets things wrong.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, despite what the Minister has just said, the problem is the Northern Ireland protocol, as the last two questioners have said. The EU Research Commissioner confirmed last September that this is why we are being shut out of Horizon Europe while other non-EU countries are being welcomed on board with open arms.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The Northern Ireland protocol is a completely separate agreement. It is different from the agreement that the EU signed. I am sorry, but we should not accept the EU’s excuses on this. The EU signed an agreement, and it should abide by it. I wish that noble Lords would sometimes be on the UK’s side rather than wanting to see fault in everything that we do. We should allocate the blame where it belongs.

[Lord Lennie (Lab)]

We should all live by the agreements that we sign. Should the European research grants be withdrawn from the UK-based researchers, have the Government sought or received any assurances that these grants will be restored once associate membership of the Horizon Europe programme is re-achieved?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The UK has provided a guarantee to all those researchers. If the ERC continues to say that they will not be eligible for grants, as long as the EU itself refuses to agree participation in the Horizon programme, then the Government have said that we will guarantee all those researchers’ grants.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, of the world’s top 40 universities, seven or eight—depending on which ranking we use—are in the United Kingdom. None is in the European Union. Does the Minister really think that the success of our higher education sector is dependent on participation in the Horizon programme?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My noble friend makes a very good point. We think on balance that it is worth associating with the Horizon programme, which is why we agreed to participate, paying our full amount into it of course for that participation. However, if the EU refuses to stand by the agreements that it signed, we will put alternative arrangements in place, and all the sums that would have been allocated to researchers under the Horizon programme will instead be funded directly by the UK.

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

My Lords, we should soon be admitted to the Horizon Europe programme for funding research and innovation if the Government were to undertake not to invoke Article 16. However, what progress can the Government report in their endeavour to seek collaborative research arrangements with other countries, in particular with the Swiss, who have also not been readmitted to Horizon?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The noble Viscount makes a very good point and, of course, alludes to the previous answer that I gave to my noble friend Lord Hannan. There are many good universities around the world, not just necessarily in the EU. We have a number of different, collaborative research programmes with other parts of the world. Ironically, under the Horizon programme, it is of course possible for third countries to associate in collaborative research programmes, provided they pay their fair share of the bills. The EU is not just treating us unfairly in terms of the agreement it signed, but is actually treating us differently from other countries in the world.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister understand that top-quality academic research is inherently an internationally co-operative effort? Oh, my phone is ringing. Pending the completion of the Horizon project, the UK’s universities—despite what his noble friend Lord Hannan might suggest—are inherently at a disadvantage, because of the complexity and the fact that they will no longer, in practice, be able to be the co-ordinator of the project, with the loss of the academic prestige and indeed funding that it involves.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

Perhaps we should all have musical accompaniments to our answers and questions; I am sure they would be much improved. The noble Lord makes an important point: the leadership of these programmes is important and international collaboration is important in science, but we should not make the mistake of thinking that the EU is the repository of all knowledge and wisdom on scientific matters. There are many other parts of the world. Yes, of course we want to co-operate with EU institutions, but we also want to co-operate with others across the world.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I am sure the whole House welcomes what the noble Lord has said about the importance to the UK Government of observing international treaties and agreements that we have signed. Does he intend to imply clearly, and would he like to clarify, that this means there is absolutely no question that the Government will go back on the Northern Ireland protocol?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The Northern Ireland protocol is built into the treaty. The exercising of the Northern Ireland protocol, if we chose to do so, would be in compliance with the treaty obligations. It is a section of that treaty. I merely make the point that the UK has not broken any of its obligations that it signed with the EU. It is the EU that is in default, and it is about time the Liberal Democrats recognised that.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, the Horizon programme is actually very complex. It would not be completely easy for us to begin the programme, say, 18 months late, without some element of further negotiation. Are the Government already dealing with that on a “what if” basis or will be a further delay, assuming that the protocol is finally sorted out?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

As I said, we stand ready to commence negotiations for our association as soon as the EU is prepared to do so. In the meantime, of course, as the House would expect, we are putting in place alternative arrangements if that proves not to be possible.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for making good the shortfall if we are not remaining part of the Horizon programme. But does he accept that universities have benefited from match funding from other universities in other member states and that that is going to be lost? Do the Government intend to replace that with other establishments from outside the European Union?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I am afraid I do not understand the point my noble friend is making; there is no shortfall as such. The UK pays its fair share for our participation in Horizon and has always done so, and a similar amount of money will be made available in the future if association proves impossible.

Arrangement of Business

Wednesday 27th April 2022 Lords Chamber

Announcement

15:50

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)]

My Lords, yesterday I updated the House on arrangements for consideration today of Commons amendments and reasons on the Judicial Review and Courts Bill and the Nationality and Borders Bill. In addition, we are expecting the Commons to send back a message on the Elections Bill. The House will be asked to consider amendments and/or reasons to that Bill today. The deadline for tabling amendments will be 30 minutes after the message is published. The precise deadline will be displayed on the annunciator.

Should today’s initial proceedings not resolve all outstanding questions on these three Bills, the Commons will deal with them again today. We expect that this House will then be asked to consider their amendments and/or reasons this evening. We will make further announcements throughout the day on the arrangements in this scenario. The Government Whips’ Office will continue to ensure that the latest information on how business will proceed and on deadlines for tabling amendments is circulated, and Members can, of course, speak to my office for advice.

High Speed Rail (Crewe–Manchester) Bill

Wednesday 27th April 2022 Lords Chamber

Motion to Agree

15:52

Moved by

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

That if a High Speed Rail (Crewe–Manchester) Bill is brought from the House of Commons in the next session of Parliament the Standing Orders of the House applicable to the bill, so far as complied with or dispensed with in this session, shall be deemed to have been complied with or (as the case may be) dispensed with in the next session.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I would like to speak very briefly to this Motion. I emphasise that I am not suggesting that I oppose it; it is a normal procedure Motion, and it should in my view carry over. However, I want to raise two issues of some concern about the progress of a Bill that will start in the other place and eventually come here.

First, I detected serious disagreements between different authorities in the Midlands and the north about what is in the integrated rail plan and the present Bill, which concerns Crewe to Manchester. There were quite public disagreements, and I am not sure how they can be resolved, but they clearly do need resolving to meet the objective—which the Government have rightly followed —of prioritising east-west improvements in the Midlands and the north. I am hoping that the noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin, who has just been appointed chair of Transport for the North, will be able to help with this.

My other concern is over budgets. The integrated rail plan budget of £96 billion was designed to set out the rail improvements that need doing as well as HS2, but it includes the HS2 budget. If you deduct from that £96 billion what is already going to be spent on HS2 from London to Crewe, there is actually no money left at all for other projects. That is really serious from the point of view of the people in the north and Midlands who want improved east-west connections. One of the main questions is whether the Manchester terminal for HS2 should be a surface station or underground so that you can carry on through to other places. I think the second option is more important and modern. But that is not the point; it needs agreement between all the parties.

One of the problems with a hybrid Bill is that once Second Reading has been agreed in the other place, it is very difficult—in fact, almost impossible—to make any changes. I know that some colleagues from all parts of the House of Commons would like to kill the Bill. This would be a very great shame. I am not saying I support what they are doing. It would be a shame to kill it, because so much work has gone into it.

I think it would be useful if the progress of the Bill were paused until there were proper agreement between all these authorities and the Department for Transport about what is really wanted. Is there a sufficient budget to achieve it? If that were to delay things by a few months, so much the better. It is difficult to start a Bill in the other place at this stage when one, if not more, of the major mayors in the area is highly critical of what is being done. I hope that this can be resolved. I am sure the Minister will have some views on this and I look forward to her comments.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)]

My Lords, I simply do not recognise many of the noble Lord’s concerns, particularly around things such as budgets. I am well aware of his feelings about the HS2 project. We have had many conversations and debates, both in your Lordships’ House and beyond, about it. His views are well known. I am not surprised that the noble Lord has raised these issues in the manner in which he has done, and I am sure that he would like to see the Bill paused—but it is not going to be.

This hybrid Bill will probably take three to four years to complete its parliamentary passage, which is perfectly normal for a hybrid Bill. The noble Lord raised important issues about getting people to agree and understand. The petitioning process is part of that process, to ensure that we make people as happy as we possibly can in the context of building a very substantial transport infrastructure project. So, no, the Bill will not be paused and I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

Pension Schemes (Conversion of Guaranteed Minimum Pensions) Bill

3rd reading
Wednesday 27th April 2022 Lords Chamber

Third Reading

15:57

Motion

Moved by

[Baroness Redfern]

That the Bill do now pass.

[Baroness Redfern (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to emphasise again that this is a rather technical Bill, which has been made easier because some noble Lords here in the House today are very knowledgeable in this area. Those who spoke during the progress of the Bill have made it very clear that this is an important and long-awaited Bill. There cannot be many Private Members’ Bills that have been repeatedly called for in other debates over the course of several years.

This Bill was expertly presented and taken through the other place by Margaret Ferrier. I thank her, the departmental officials and my right honourable friend the Minister for Pensions for all the work that was done to get this Bill to this place. Though it might look complex as a piece of legislation, the Bill has a simple purpose of helping pension schemes meet their legal obligations. Specifically, it will help occupational pension schemes use the GMP conversion to correct the issue of men and women being treated differently in formerly contracted out defined benefit occupational pension schemes because of the impact of having a guaranteed minimum pension.

It is therefore with very great pleasure that I stand here today to present this Bill as it reaches its final stage in this House.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I briefly pay tribute to all involved in this Bill, including Margaret Ferrier MP, who steered it through the other place, and the noble Baroness, Lady Redfern, who has done the same for us here.

As the noble Baroness said, my noble friend Lady Drake and I can now stop badgering the Minister for a Bill on GMP equalisation. Although the Government Whips never did come through with government time, I commend the DWP for its wholehearted support of a Private Member’s Bill that happened to cover just the right territory at just the right time.

16:00

I am sorry to have missed the earlier stages because of Covid, but I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Merron, who did such a marvellous job in my place. There are a couple of outstanding issues, such as the position of pension schemes already in the Pension Protection Fund, raised by my noble friend Lady Drake, and the concerns raised by the Delegated Powers Committee, to which Ministers were only able to respond yesterday. However, we do not wish to hold up the Bill, so we will take these offline and hope to deal with them with the Minister before regulation. The key thing is that we are finally about to pass a Bill which the Government are confident will give the necessary legal certainty to schemes seeking to equalise guaranteed minimum pensions. This is good news, and we are pleased to support it.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I must again thank my noble friend Lady Redfern for presenting this Bill so ably today. I am pleased to be to here to give my support, and that of the Government, to the Bill. It is an important step towards schemes finally laying to rest the issue of the unequal effect of guaranteed minimum pensions. I pay tribute to my noble friend for her stewardship of the Bill and to other noble Lords who have contributed their views during its passage through the House.

I pay tribute to the late Lord McKenzie of Luton. I am saddened that he is not here to see this Bill through today, and I know that many others here feel the same way.

It is also right that we acknowledge and thank Members of the other place for their contribution. Margaret Ferrier, the honourable Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West, took the Bill through. It is down to her, and to my noble friend Lady Redfern, that we have the Bill in front of us now. I also thank the Members in the other place who contributed to the debates on the Bill. The cross-party support the Bill has achieved in both Houses shows the long-standing commitment of Members to resolve this issue. This Bill will now provide the industry with the legal clarity it has been seeking in relation to GMP conversion legislation. Once again, I thank my noble friend Lady Redfern and express my and the Government’s strong support for the Bill.

16:02

Bill passed.

British Sign Language Bill

3rd reading
Wednesday 27th April 2022 Lords Chamber

Third Reading

Motion

Moved by

[Lord Holmes of Richmond]

That the Bill do now pass.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

My Lords, before we begin consideration of the British Sign Language Bill, I would like to point out that a British Sign Language interpretation of proceedings is available to watch on parliamentlive.tv and on screens in the Chamber.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, at Second Reading we had a first in your Lordships’ House: proceedings were signed for the first time. As the Lord Speaker has pointed out, there is another first for your Lordships’ House today: signing is available for the benefit of Members and all others in the Chamber this afternoon.

The British Sign Language Bill takes a ministerial commitment in a Statement in 2003 and puts it on a statutory basis: to recognise British Sign Language as a language in England, Scotland and Wales—enabling, empowering, including. What does this mean in practice? Take, for example, hospital appointments. The news may or may not be good but, whether good or bad, it will always be personal, perhaps the most personal interaction we have with the state. As a result of this Bill, BSL signers will be able to have such appointments and/or communications with the state in an inclusive manner, rather than having to rely on parents, spouses, siblings or children to communicate such news.

I pay particular thanks to Rosie Cooper MP, who perfectly piloted this Bill through the Commons; she joins us at the Bar of your Lordships’ House today. I thank the ministerial team, my honourable friend Chloe Smith in another place, and my noble friends Lady Stedman-Scott and Lady Scott in your Lordships’ House.

I pay tribute to the Bill team and to all the officials at DWP who have worked tirelessly to get the Bill to this stage. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I pay tribute to all those individuals and organisations who have campaigned for this change for so many years: the BDA, the RNID and David Buxton, a man who has done as much as most in this area, and who rightly joins us in the Gallery of your Lordships’ House for this historic moment.

My Lords, the British Sign Language Bill: enabling, empowering and including BSL signers, and benefiting us all.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, this is an historic day for the deaf community, who have campaigned for many years for recognition of their language. But it is also our language, and the clue is in the title: British Sign Language. It is the language of the deaf community of Scotland, Wales and England.

It is also the means by which the deaf community integrate and exchange with the hearing community. This Bill is not the end; it is the beginning of the deaf community’s ability to take their rights forward, to use their language and to develop it to advance their quality of life across the range.

I urge deaf people to take advantage of the law to demand their rights and to ensure that we get more interpreters in more situations, enabling them to communicate in every way possible—personally, privately, commercially, professionally—as the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, has said, in education, health and all the spheres which we, as hearing people, take for granted.

David Buxton is in the Gallery with other representatives of the deaf community and Rosie Cooper is here at the Bar. They have all worked so hard to make this day a historic start for the deaf community. It is a beginning, not an end, and I urge deaf people to take advantage of it.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I too pay tribute to all those involved with the Bill, especially my honourable friend Rosie Cooper, who not only steered this Bill through another place but built such wonderful cross-party support to bring us to where we are today. The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, did a fine job carrying it through this House, so I thank and commend him too.

It is such a privilege to know that finally, the words we say here are being interpreted for BSL users at home, so I thank and congratulate all those BSL users who have campaigned to get to this point today. I encourage them to keep up the pressure.

I was sorry to miss the earlier stages of this Bill—also due to Covid—but I was very grateful to my noble friend Lady Merron, who did such a great job at the Dispatch Box that I was not missed in the slightest. Indeed, there were no calls for me to return. I am also grateful to Milton Brown from our Opposition Whips’ Office, who worked very hard on this Bill and the other DWP Bill that concluded today.

I was very moved by the stories told during the passage of this Bill of gifted BSL users being denied opportunities, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, said, of children having to interpret for their parents in situations they should never have been exposed to, simply because they could not get the interpreters they should have had a right to.

I hope that as the Bill goes through, people watching at home and in the Gallery are confident that it is one more step in making our country a better place for BSL users and their families. We are very pleased to support this Bill.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, it is indeed an historic day for our deaf community. I thank all noble Lords who have participated in the passage of this Bill through our Lordships’ House, but I also want to say a particular thank you to my noble friend Stedman-Scott, who at Second Reading set out a range of support that the Government will provide to ensure that the commitments in the Bill are taken forward.

I particularly congratulate my noble friend Lord Holmes on leading on this Bill. His plea for haste and a smooth passage was sincere in its purpose: to recognise British Sign Language in statute without delay. He has brought together noble Lords from across the House in united support on this important issue. I know he has consulted closely with noble Lords who have had a long-standing passion to promote British Sign Language and support deaf signers. I am so pleased that he, and all noble Lords who have spoken in support of this Bill, have succeeded.

By passing this Bill, we will start to remove some of the barriers to deaf BSL signers’ increased participation in work, education, culture and wider society. By increasing their participation, the richer and more inclusive all our lives will be. I extend my congratulations to the Member for West Lancashire in the other place, who introduced this Bill, and to all those involved in the BSL Act Now campaign, who have campaigned tirelessly for this important piece of legislation. Many of them have joined us today to witness what I sincerely hope will be an historic moment for deaf communities and every citizen in England, Scotland and Wales. The Government are committed to supporting all people with a disability, including deaf people, to lead fulfilled and independent lives. Supporting this Bill is part of that effort, and I am delighted that we all have played our part today.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

As Lord Speaker, I welcome the BSL organisation and its members here today. I congratulate them and fellow parliamentarians who have steered this historic Bill to its successful conclusion—[Applause.] I will tolerate that disturbance.

16:10

Bill passed.

Judicial Review and Courts Bill

Consideration of Commons amendments
Wednesday 27th April 2022 Lords Chamber

Commons Amendment and Reasons

Motion A

Moved by

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 1, 2 and 3, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 1A, 2A and 3A.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, in moving Motion A, I will also speak to Motions B and C. A number of changes were made to this Bill in the House of Commons. I will cover both those changes and the amendments tabled to the Bill today.

Turning first to the Motions on judicial review, the Government have listened to the varied concerns, and the Bill that returns to us puts forward a compromise. The presumption, which was the issue of most concern to your Lordships, is gone, making use of the new remedies entirely discretionary. However, the other changes that your Lordships made to the JR measures, such as removing the ability to limit the retrospective effect of quashing orders and addressing the judgment in the Eba and Cart cases, have been undone in the other place. I will therefore set out again the Government’s reasoning for these measures.

Starting with prospective-only quashing, the aim of Clause 1 is to provide courts with flexibility in remedies, allowing them to respond effectively to the case before them. Conventional retrospective quashing can be a blunt tool, which sometimes does not allow complex circumstances adequately to be addressed in a remedy. My noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar and others have already set out persuasively circumstances where limiting or removing the retrospective effect of a quashing order would be in the interests of justice. The counter-arguments, I submit, have not really disputed this, but rather raised hypothetical circumstances where such a remedy would likely be inappropriate.

My view is that we should trust our courts to determine when these powers should and should not be used, with help from the skilled advocates who appear before them, who will no doubt address remedies when they make submissions. That there are circumstances where they would not be appropriate is an argument against this power only if you do not trust courts to use it properly.

We have substantial evidence that judges can and do use these remedies to good effect. Canada, another common-law jurisdiction, has made use of these remedies for decades. There, a court will use such a remedy if its ruling involves a substantial change in the law and if issuing a suspended or prospective order will not be unfair to the plaintiffs. Canadian jurisprudence shows a nuanced approach where fairness and harm are consistently considered alongside other factors, such as the proper remit of the court and separation of powers. For example, in the Canadian Supreme Court case of Hislop, the court said:

“The key question becomes the nature and effect of the legal change at issue in order to determine whether a prospective remedy is appropriate. The legitimacy of its use turns on the answer to this question.”


After considering various factors, it went on to say:

“They may include reasonable or in good faith reliance by governments … or the fairness of the limitation of the retroactivity of the remedy to the litigants.”


Finally, the court considered the effects on others, aside from the litigants, drawing on an earlier judgment in the case of Kingstreet Investments Ltd. v New Brunswick in which the court held that taxes collected pursuant to an ultra vires regulation are recoverable by the taxpayer. A similar question was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, at an earlier stage of this Bill. The Supreme Court of Canada’s view was expressed trenchantly:

“Where the government has collected taxes in violation of the Constitution, there can be only one possible remedy: restitution to the taxpayer.”

16:15

I submit that we can trust our judges to follow the example of their Canadian counterparts and to use these remedies as and when they deem them to be appropriate for all parties involved, with consistent regard to interests and expectations of those who may benefit from or be disadvantaged by retrospective quashing, as set out in new subsection (8)(c) and (d), as inserted by Clause 1.

I think it also worth noting that, although separate, the removal of the presumption should reduce concern about prospective-only remedies. I remind your Lordships that the vote on this issue on Report was very narrow. I hope some of those who previously opposed giving judges this new power will now be able to remove their objection.

At this point, I should also touch on Amendment 1B by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, on the interests of other parties who may be able to claim a remedy if a retrospective instead of prospective order is used. I do not think that this amendment is necessary. New subsection (8) sets out what judges should consider when determining an appropriate remedy, and as I have set out already, that includes the interests or expectations of persons who would benefit from the quashing of the impugned act. I believe this is sufficient to include the concept that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, puts forward. The court may also set conditions on the orders it makes, which means it has the capacity to tailor the remedy further. I am also reluctant that the list of factors should direct the court in any way, which this amendment appears to do. I trust the court to decide what is appropriate in each case. Therefore, I urge the noble Lord not to press this amendment.

I turn now to the Eba case measures and to Clause 2. The judgment in the Eba case in Scotland, and the Cart case in England, made permission to appeal decisions of the Upper Tribunal subject to judicial review. The ouster clause, which will prevent this type of review in future, save for jurisdictional or procedural errors, is returned to the Bill in amendments made by the other place. This removes the alternative approach your Lordships adopted, originally proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, which would have allowed judicial review of this sort to continue but made that judgment final. This effectively moved the bar one stage higher in the court system than the Government’s original proposal. I recognise that it was a thoughtful and considered attempt by the noble and learned Lord to find a middle ground. It is legitimate to argue that the bar should be set higher. As the Government set out, this is a question of where to draw the line, and there is no absolute, correct answer.

We will all, I think, agree with the principle that there has to be finality to judicial processes to ensure that the court system can serve individuals efficiently and effectively. We believe that the scrutiny offered by appeal to the First-tier Tribunal, and then the Upper Tribunal, is sufficient—a proposition which is made out by the very low success rate of Cart or Eba judicial reviews. The Government are firmly of the view that our original proposal was the correct approach and that, unlike with the presumption, we must insist on this matter.

I know that a number of noble Lords, in particular Lord Marks, have expressed more general concern about the Government using an ouster clause to give effect to their policy on Cart and Eba and that it has been suggested as a template for future potential ouster clauses. To be clear on to this, we describe this clause as a template because it is clear about Parliament’s intent, targeted at a specific and clearly identified policy mischief—in this case invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court over a refusal of permission to appeal from the First-tier Tribunal to the Upper Tribunal, itself a judicial body—and has appropriate protections in the form of the natural justice exemption. In these ways, it seeks to learn the lessons of previous failed attempts at ouster clauses that were too broad, too vague and did not offer adequate protections. Overall, I believe that removing the presumption strikes a balance on the judicial review measures. It is sensitive to the aims of the Government but also accommodates the concerns expressed in your Lordships’ House.

Noble Lords will have also seen that the other place disagreed with the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, on legal aid for coroners’ inquests. Although the other place formally disagreed with this amendment because it engaged financial privilege, I assure noble Lords that the Government considered it carefully and did not disagree with it on a technicality. I know that your Lordships have debated that amendment twice already, so I do not intend to go into it in great detail. However, the Government have always believed that families should be at the heart of the inquest process and that there should be a fair funding system to support them. During the debates on the Bill and elsewhere, the Government have listened to the arguments made about the nature of inquests where public bodies are represented. I also note the argument that, while the inquest process is inquisitorial, the reality for many bereaved families is that it can feel adversarial where a public body is represented and a bereaved family is not.

The Government continue to ensure that inquests put bereaved families at the centre of the process. Our legal aid means test review is currently out for consultation and proposes to make access to legal help for bereaved families at inquests non-means tested, which follows our change in January to make access to legal representation at inquests through the exceptional case funding scheme non-means tested. However, I have heard the arguments that the Government’s recent reforms to exceptional case funding do not go far enough. The means test review invites views on our proposals to remove the means test for legal help at inquests where the case relates to a potential breach of ECHR obligations or significant wider public interest. If anyone, whether a charity such as Inquest or a bereaved person, does not think that these proposals go far enough, they can of course respond to the consultation to that effect, proposing alternative solutions. The Government will consider all responses to the consultation and respond in the usual way. On that basis, therefore, I do not believe that Amendment 11B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, which calls for a further review of legal aid for inquests, is necessary.

More widely, the Government are committed to supporting bereaved families going through the inquest process. Of course, how bereaved families are supported in the wake of a major disaster and proposals for an independent public advocate have been an important part of this debate. That will require further detailed work to ensure that any new functions such as those proposed are in the wider public interest; that they properly meet a need that inquests and inquiries do not; and that they do not adversely cut across established structures and processes. The Government will consider this further as part of our work to respond to Bishop James Jones’s review of the experience of the Hillsborough families. I beg to move.

Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

Moved by

At end insert “and do propose Amendment 1B in lieu—

1B: Page 2, line 23, at the end insert—“provided that the court should seek to avoid exercising the power under subsection (1)(b) in such a way as to deprive a remedy from any persons who would have been entitled to seek a remedy by reason of the unlawfulness of the impugned act but who had not themselves been party to the application for the quashing order.””

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for the careful and comprehensive way in which he opened this debate. Nevertheless, I regret the fact that the House of Commons rejected our Amendments 1 to 3 on prospective-only quashing orders. However, I greatly welcome the acceptance by the other place of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, removing the presumption that the court must generally exercise the new powers unless it sees good reason not to do so.

That presumption was by far the most offensive part of the Bill. It was rightly opposed across the House by lawyer and non-lawyer Peers alike. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, is to be congratulated on the success of the amendment and I am grateful to the Government for accepting it. What we now have is an unfettered judicial discretion, circumscribed only by the requirement to consider the factors listed in Clause 1(8).

I have made it very clear that I oppose prospective-only quashing orders in principle. I do so first on the basis that their effect is to give retrospective validation to actions or decisions previously taken or regulations passed by government that the court finds unlawful and merit a quashing order. They breach the principle that it is for Parliament, not the courts, to change the law.

The second main reason for my opposition to such orders is that they do not protect those disadvantaged by unlawful government action taken before a quashing order takes effect. Where such an order is made, therefore, persons who are not before the court to present their cases are left with no remedy in respect of the unlawful action so they lose out against the well-funded, well-represented litigant who secured the prospective-only quashing order and the Government do not have to remedy the wrong for those affected before that order takes effect. That is a serious breach of the principle that proven wrongs should carry a remedy.

I pointed out on Report that this involves us or may involve us in breaching our international obligations, in particular in environmental cases, under Article 9 of the Aarhus convention, the obligation to provide an adequate and effective remedy to all affected by a breach by public authorities in environmental law, and in ECHR cases under Article 13 to ensure provision of an effective remedy for breach of the convention. I believe those principles outweigh any possible usefulness of the availability of a tool in the judicial toolbox to relieve government of the effects of unlawfulness.

It is said that unlawfulness may have worked to the benefit of some who relied on the law as they erroneously, as it turned out, believed it to be. For such unusual cases, any unfairness can be cured by administrative action or by suspended quashing orders with conditions to which we have not taken objection and/or by changing the law if Parliament sees fit to do so.

That said, the elected House has rejected our amendments, so my amendment in lieu is tabled to bring into sharp focus only the second factor that I have outlined—the lack of a remedy for all those adversely affected by previous government unlawful action if a prospective-only quashing order is made. My amendment in lieu would require the court to seek to avoid making such an order in cases where a person who would have been entitled to seek a remedy because of the unlawfulness in question would be deprived of a remedy by the fact that the quashing order was prospective-only. The amendment would address the point I have been making and would keep us in line with our international obligations.

I would like the Minister to accept it but if he cannot do so, as he indicated from the Dispatch Box in opening, then in line with the confidence that he expressed that it is intended that the courts should exercise the discretion, now thankfully presumption-free, with a view to avoiding the deprivation of a remedy that my amendment seeks to address, I would like to hear that assurance repeated and clarified.

I should add that I have been very grateful to the Minister and to this colleague in the other place, Minister Cartlidge, for engaging with me on this issue in two meetings and to the Bill team for the helpful pack it has put together relating to the principles applied by the Canadian courts addressing the question of prospective-only quashing orders. Those cases in Canada have, of course, persuasive authority in this jurisdiction and it is clear that the Canadian courts have exercised the discretion with great care. They have worked on the basis that before a prospective-only quashing order may be justified, first, the court’s decision on unlawfulness must represent a substantial change in the law and, secondly, the interests of all litigants and potential litigants must be carefully considered and balanced. I point out that without the removal of the presumption, those principles would not be applied in this jurisdiction. They are, however, principles that I endorse and which underlie my amendment in lieu. I await the Minister’s further response with interest.

16:30

On Cart JRs, while I regret the rejection of the amendment from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, which I thought was an elegant compromise and removed what I see as a pernicious danger of this clause being used as a template for future ouster clauses, I am prepared to trust that this clause will be treated, as the noble and learned Lord assured us in his opening that it would be, as strictly limited to the circumstances it addresses.

On legal aid at inquests, I look forward to hearing the amendment to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. I do not believe, as has been advanced by the Government, the proposition that there is a distinction between inquisitorial and adversarial processes which justifies the inequality of arms that is inherent in a system that allows rich and powerful bodies, public and private, to outspend and outdo bereaved families at inquests. In our view, legal aid exceptional case funding does not meet that case. I beg to move.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

My Lords, the presumption in Clause 1 was a curious and misshapen thing—so much so that I did wonder when moving against it whether it was always intended to be the hunk of meat that would be thrown off the back of a sledge to distract the ravening wolves. But these things do not dispose of themselves and I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, to the Justice Minister, James Cartlidge, who is also my MP, and, before them, to the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, for the good grace, courtesy and good sense with which they agreed to put it out of its misery.

I do not share the principled objection of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, to prospective-only quashing orders. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, wrote about this in the Times and I respectfully endorse what he had to say. But I am pleased that the noble Lord agrees at least that these prospective-only orders, whose place in our law is confirmed by Clause 1, are at least mitigated by the removal of the presumption.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, may I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, on his resignation as Minister of Justice? He played a significant role behind the scenes in ensuring that the Government have made the welcome concession of agreeing to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, to remove the presumption. The noble Lord’s resignation has confirmed, if there were any doubt, his commitment to the rule of law. His resignation will be welcomed only by his senior clerk at One Essex Court Chambers in the Temple as he returns to the commercial Bar, as well as to the Back Benches.

On topics as diverse as the Cart jurisdiction and breastfeeding, the noble Lord’s contribution as a Minister was marked by his hard work, his eloquence, his ability to respond constructively to the concerns of other noble Lords, and his wit. He is an enormous loss to the Front Bench and I very much look forward to his Back-Bench contributions.

As I said in Committee, echoing the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, the only thing to be said in favour of Part 1 of this Bill, on judicial review, is that it could have been a great deal worse. I cannot work up any greater enthusiasm at this stage for these provisions. The Bill, in Part 1 on judicial review, is not quite as much of a damp squib as the efforts of a former Lord Chancellor, Chris Grayling, in his infamous Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Act 2015—but it is a close call.

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)]

My Lords, I rise diffidently to agree wholeheartedly with the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, to this legislation. I strongly support Motion A; I cannot, I am afraid, support Motion A1 from the noble Lord, Lord Marks. I suggest that it would in fact compromise and complicate what is a valuable, new, flexible, broad power that gives a judge the ability to make whatever order he or she thinks is best calculated to do justice in the individual case, and to meet the problem that we have encountered over many years of not having any power to validate retrospectively anything that has happened in the past. I do not know whether anyone noticed the piece I wrote in the Times about my noble and learned friend Lord Hope’s Ahmed case, but that was a classic case in point which shrieked out for this new power.

So there it is: orders can now be made subject to whatever limitations or conditions the judge thinks right and appropriate, and I respectfully suggest that this is so much better than the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, with whom I am almost always in agreement—but surely not on this. He prefers retrospective legislation, but how unwieldy, inflexible and incapable of being adapted to the individual case that is, and how unwelcome as a whole we consider retrospective legislation—so I support Motion A.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, I join the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, in all that he has said, and I say with greater confidence, albeit with some reticence, if that is not a contradiction, that I disagree with my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Marks, with whom I am a fellow member of chambers. I think it is fair to say that the Back Benches of the Conservative Party in this House are now more greatly adorned by the promotion, I would say, of the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, to these Benches, and I look forward to his contributions from his Back-Bench seat. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, correctly described my noble friend, but he and I need to be very careful because we now have yet another competitor for a car park space in Brick Court.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I too would like to thank the Minister for his careful introduction to the Motions before us today. I would also like to thank all those who worked to improve this Bill during its progress through both Houses, and I single out my honourable friend the Member for Hammersmith, Andy Slaughter, and Alex Cunningham, the Member for Stockton North. I would also like to thank noble, and noble and learned, Lords from the Cross Benches who have taken an active interest, particularly in the judicial review parts of this Bill, which has led to the substantial improvements which we have just heard about.

There has been a spirit of consensus on parts of this Bill, particularly those concentrating on court procedures. I thank the noble and learned Lord’s predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, for numerous discussions about court procedures and how they might be monitored and improved. That is not a point of contention we are considering today.

I start with Motion A and the amendment to it, Motion A1, from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, on Clause 1 of the Bill. Yesterday the Government accepted the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, which would do away with the presumption that quashing orders would be prospective. As my honourable friend said yesterday, this

“extracts the worst of the sting in clause 1”. —[Official Report, Commons, 26/4/22; col. 604.]

I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, on this achievement. It is in the spirit of recognising this compromise and move by the Government that, while we are sympathetic to Motion A1, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, we would not support it if it were pressed by the noble Lord.

In Motion B, on Clause 2 of the Bill, the Government propose that the House do not insist on its Amendment 5, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. The amendment would have retained Cart reviews in the High Court and Court of Session in limited circumstances. I understand the noble and learned Lord will not be revisiting this issue, and we will not oppose the Government’s Motion. For the avoidance of doubt, I should make it clear that we see no purpose in Clauses 1 and 2 of this Bill. It would be our preference to remove these clauses from the Bill in their entirety, but we recognise the votes yesterday and we will not be opposing the Government’s Motion.

I now turn to the Government’s Motion C and my amendment to it, Motion C1. The original amendment in my name ensured that bereaved people, such as family members, would be entitled to publicly funded legal representation in inquests where public bodies, such as the police or a hospital trust, are legally represented. The original amendment in this House was won with a handsome majority. The purpose of the amendment was to achieve an equality of arms at inquests between bereaved people and state bodies. This is an issue not just of access to justice, but of fairness. How can it be right that state bodies have unlimited access to public funds for the best legal teams and experts, while families are often forced to pay large sums towards legal costs, or risk representing themselves or resorting to crowd- funding? This fundamental point was acknowledged and agreed with yesterday by Sir Bob Neill, chairman of the Justice Select Committee in the other place.

The reason given by the Government for objecting to this amendment was that it would involve a charge on public funds. I acknowledge that point and the amendment now asks for a review. I also acknowledge the point that the noble and learned Lord made—that that is not the sole reason for the objection to the amendment in my name.

Five years have passed since Bishop James Jones delivered his report on the experience of the Hillsborough families. In that report, Bishop Jones made recommendations, which included publicly funded legal representation for bereaved families. In May 2021, the Justice Committee recommended that for all inquests where public authorities are legally represented, non-means-tested legal aid or other public funding for legal representation should be available for people who have been bereaved. This is a long-standing issue which, to be fair to the Government, as we have heard today, they acknowledge there is more work to be done on.

I have had a number of meetings with the Minister and his colleague Mr Cartlidge. Unfortunately, we have not reached an agreement on this matter, although I thank them for the efforts that have been made. I want to run through the arguments they advanced during our meetings. First, as the noble and learned Lord has said, there is a means test review under way. The Government’s argument is that by highlighting one particular group—namely, bereaved families—it would raise expectations for that group and that may not be fair to that group while the review is under way.

16:45

The second point which was made to me is that other groups which are being considered within this general review of legal aid may feel disadvantaged if a spotlight is shone on this particular disadvantaged group. That was the essence of the arguments that we had in our discussions. I have to say that that is a weak argument. The Ministry of Justice—indeed any government department—is well used to managing expectations, and managing competing claims for public funds. It is what it does every single day. We are suggesting to recognise the strength of feeling through a multitude of family groups, well-established pressure groups—not least Inquest—through well-established bodies and indeed through what the Government themselves have said in acknowledging that this is a real issue.

We therefore have an opportunity here today to press home the view which this House took on Report with a handsome majority, to ask the Government to think again and to put in place a review of the funding for these families so that there can be a sense of fairness in coroners’ courts, where many people feel they are not getting a fair hearing or a fair crack of the whip.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, I have listened to submissions from your Lordships in the course of this short debate at the ping-pong stage. I think the House and those who spoke were united in the warm words for my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, who is indeed, as your Lordships said, a grievous loss to the Front Bench. That loss is offset only by his arrival on the Back Benches, where I am sure he will contribute his wisdom, his ready wit and his good sense to our debates going forward. As to the matter of car parking at the chambers of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and those of my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier, I regret that that matter lies outwith the power of the Government to seek to resolve.

On the point just taken from the Opposition Front Bench by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, I reiterate my point. I accept all that he said about the impact of inquest proceedings on families and the well-expressed and carefully considered arguments advanced by family groups and pressure groups, and in this House and in the other place. However, I return to the central point, which is that in light of the review procedure put forward by the Government—a review published on 15 March that is to be followed by a full consultation, after which the Government hope to publish a consultation response in autumn 2022—I urge the House to take the view that the amendment the noble Lord proposed from the Front Bench is premature.

On the point taken by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, I am happy to reiterate what I said about the nature of the ouster clause in these proceedings, in the manner in which it has been formulated, in the hope that what I have said from the Dispatch Box indicates that the Government treat this as a particularly focused instrument.

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, speaking as he does with particular knowledge of these matters, having sat in the Cart hearing itself. I accept and adopt respectfully his confidence in the ability of our judiciary properly to use the tool in the judicial toolbox—the club in the judicial golf bag—which the Bill seeks to give.

In those circumstances, I return to my invitation to the House to accept the Bill as received from the Commons. I express my gratitude to all noble Lords who have contributed today, who have courteously and thoughtfully engaged with me and, for that matter, the Minister in the other place. On behalf of my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, who of course carried out the bulk of work on this measure, I thank noble Lords for their thoughtful engagement with him, in the course of his stewardship of the Bill in your Lordships’ House.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, I would like to say something about the proposal in relation to the coroners’ court. The problem in the coroners’ court is that well-heeled litigants are allowed to participate in the coroners’ inquest when the people with real interest, namely the relatives of the deceased whose death is being inquired into, are not able to afford any protection at all. The well-heeled litigants are able to use litigation experts—counsel, senior counsel maybe—and leave the relatives of the deceased without anything at all in the way of legal assistance.

This point arose in this House in connection with the Liverpool situation some years ago. The suggestion was that these well-heeled people should not be allowed to participate in the inquest, unless they were prepared to make available to the relatives legal advice and help to exactly the same limit that the well-heeled people were proposing. That applies to those well heeled by the taxpayer, and applies to those who are well heeled in other ways. It is much more general than legal aid.

Therefore, it seems to me that the inquiry that the Government are proposing would be well added to by taking account of this possibility, which we certainly advocated here. I think I am right in saying that my noble friend Lord Hailsham was also involved on that occasion. At that time, it seemed to be a Home Office responsibility, because it was the Home Office that was responding to the report from Liverpool. It was said that we would get an answer to this very obvious way of dealing with this and making it fair in due course. “Due course” is a very flexible expression. I would think it highly likely that it should be involved in this inquiry. Just restricting it to legal aid seems to make it impossible to really get adequate representation. It is much better that the representation should be equal and level on both sides.

Of course, in some of these inquests, there may be more than one well-heeled participant. Therefore, it should be made a condition of them being allowed to participate, if it is joint and several or if it is just one, that they are prepared to make resources available to the relatives of an equal standard to the resources that they wish to use. That seems abundantly fair; it is not a charge on a public interest or the public purse, except in the case where the well-heeled people are supported by the taxpayer. The taxpayer will have to pay what they seek to put out for their lawyers. I cannot see why dividing this between themselves and the other parties is not a fair way of dealing with it. It does not in any way increase the responsibility of the public purse.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, may I make one observation about Motion C1, which I am minded to support? It will bring a clear recommendation to Parliament within a year. This seems to be a very strong recommendation for it.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, I thank everybody who has spoken in this short debate. I also thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, for the spirit of what they said on the legal aid point. I thank the noble and learned Lord for his helpful suggestion. I am also grateful to the Minister for the way in which he opened this debate and for his careful response. I add my warm thanks for the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, during his time as Minister, and for his engagement with all of us on the Bill and on many others, going back to last year and to what is now the Domestic Abuse Act.

I will not press Motion A1 to the vote. I maintain my opposition to prospective-only quashing orders. I have read and appreciated the contribution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, to the Times newspaper on this point. I understand his point of view. He puts it as eloquently and as highly as it can be put. Nevertheless, there are two arguments.

At this stage, we should recognise the importance of the Government’s withdrawal of the presumption which would effectively have fettered the discretion of the judges. I will seek leave to withdraw this Motion on the basis of the description of the discretion as given by the Minister. I do so with confidence that the Government will apply the principles applied in the Canadian courts and develop the jurisprudence in a way that secures protection for all parties or potential parties before the courts. I beg leave to withdraw Motion A1.

Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A) withdrawn.

Motion A agreed.

Motion B

Moved by

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 5, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 5A to the words restored to the Bill by the Commons’ disagreement to Lords Amendment 5.

5A: Page 4, line 2, leave out “passed without” and insert “the Bill for which would not require”

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion B. I beg to move.

Motion B agreed.

Motion C

Moved by

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 11, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 11A.

11A: Because it would involve a charge on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this reason may be deemed sufficient.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion C. I beg to move.

Motion C1 (as an amendment to Motion C)

Moved by

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede]

At end insert “and do propose Amendment 11B in lieu—

11B: Insert the following new Clause—
“Independent review of publicly funded legal representation for bereaved people at inquests
(1) The Lord Chancellor must commission an independent review of the need for provision of publicly funded legal representation for bereaved people at inquests not more than six months after the passing of this Act.
(2) The review must be chaired by a person appointed by the Lord Chancellor.
(3) The review must include a consultation with interested stakeholders, whose submissions must be published.
(4) The Lord Chancellor must publish the outcome of the review and lay it before Parliament no later than one year after the passing of this Act.””

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg to move Motion C1.

16:58

Division 1

Ayes: 219

Noes: 229

Motion C agreed.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Consideration of Commons amendments
Wednesday 27th April 2022 Lords Chamber

Commons Reasons

17:16

A message was brought from the Commons, That they disagree to an amendment made by the Lords to the Nationality and Borders Bill in lieu of an amendment to which the Commons disagreed, which was in lieu to a Lords amendment to which the Commons disagreed, for which the Commons assign a reason. They disagree to certain other amendments made by the Lords in lieu of amendments so restored to the Bill by the Commons disagreement to a Lords amendment, for which the Commons assign a reason. They disagree to the remaining amendments made by the Lords to the Bill in lieu of Lords amendments made in lieu of certain other amendments in lieu to a Lords amendment to which the Commons disagree, for which they assign a reason.

Motion A

Moved by

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 5D, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 5E.

5E: Because the Commons consider that the provisions of Part 2 are compliant with the Refugee Convention without the need for an interpretation provision; and that it is not appropriate to give the courts a power to make a declaration of incompatibility.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move Motion A that this House do not insist on its Amendment 5D, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 5E. With the leave of the House, I will also speak to Motions B and C.

We return again to consider the Nationality and Borders Bill, and I am grateful to noble Lords on both sides of the House for the careful consideration they have given to the issues at hand and the care with which they have scrutinised this Bill. We must now make progress to pass this on to the statute book.

I turn first to Motion A and Amendment 5F, which would require that the provisions of Part 2

“must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Refugee Convention”.

The Government’s position remains that the provisions of this Bill are compliant with the refugee convention. The other place has consistently accepted this position. Ultimately, though, I cannot support this amendment as it is an attempt to copy Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998, the effect of which on the interpretation of the legislation is unique and far outside the ordinary rules of statutory interpretation. The amendment goes on to provide a mechanism for the courts to declare that certain provisions may be incompatible. Again, I must take issue with this for the same reasons, because we absolutely assert that the interpretations of the refugee convention which we are taking in this Bill are fully compliant. I will explain to the House why it is open to us to take this view.

The refugee convention leaves certain terms and concepts open to a degree of interpretation by contracting states. This ensures that it can stand the test of time and be applied across many jurisdictions with different legal systems. Necessarily, therefore, there is a need to define and apply such terms in domestic legislation in accordance with the principles of the Vienna convention —the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, made that point yesterday —taking a good-faith interpretation in accordance with the ordinary meaning of the language of the convention.

The provisions in Part 2 are in line with this. They are clear and unambiguous, and are a good-faith interpretation of the refugee convention. The plain fact is that there may be differences in interpretation in different contracting states—that is how international law necessarily must work to allow it to remain relevant and applicable across a range of jurisdictions—but this does not mean that the interpretation we are taking here, to which we ask Parliament to agree, is not a good-faith interpretation. We have considered carefully the compatibility of these provisions with the refugee convention, and a great deal of the Government’s position was comprehensively set out in the all-Peers letter sent by my noble friend Lord Wolfson.

We need to consider one of the primary purposes of Part 2: to provide a clear interpretation of key components of the refugee convention. This will benefit all those who interact with the asylum system, be they Home Office decision-makers, the courts, legal representatives or, most importantly, asylum seekers themselves. We have talked at length about how people seeking protection deserve a clearer, quicker and more just system. Let us not take away from the gains made by this Bill by casting doubt on what Parliament has agreed are fair interpretations of the convention.

The new amendment is not only unnecessary because the contents of Part 2 are fully compliant with our international obligation; it is also contrary to a fundamental purpose of this Bill, which is, where possible, to tightly define the nature of our obligations under the refugee convention while remaining compliant with those obligations to support consistent and accurate decision-making.

Yesterday, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said that her Amendment 5D, to which this amendment is similar in effect, was intended to do

“no more, but no less, than that already provided for in law by the ECHR”.—[Official Report, 26/4/22; col. 148.]

The ECHR has been given effect in domestic law through the Human Rights Act 1998 and is constitutionally different, as the ECHR has a supranational body whose judgments relating to interpretation are binding. The Human Rights Act therefore gives courts the authority, so far as it is possible to do so, to read and give effect to primary legislation and subordinate legislation in a way that is compatible with the convention rights.

However, the Act goes further and recognises the primacy of Parliament, as a declaration of incompatibility does not invalidate either the primary legislation or subordinate legislation where primary legislation prevents removal of incompatibility. The refugee convention has no supernatural court—I mean supranational court; things are getting spooky—and is not incorporated into domestic law. It is no different to other international instruments beyond the ECHR, and there is no rational reason to treat it or Part 2 of this Bill differently to other parts of the Bill in this regard. The amendment would have wider cross-government implications.

The amendment now includes a requirement for the Secretary of State to be notified when the court or tribunal is considering whether to make a declaration of incompatibility with the refugee convention, and allows the Secretary of State to join proceedings. Unfortunately, that does nothing to alleviate our objections to the amendment, as I have just outlined. Our position remains that the provisions in Part 2 are fully compliant with our international obligations, in particular those under the refugee convention.

Turning to Motion B and Amendments 6H and 6J, I must again insist that we cannot accept anything that goes against one of the absolutely fundamental aspects of this Bill: deterring people from making dangerous and unnecessary journeys. The status of Clause 11 as a deterrent is closely tied to the “first safe country” principle. Although the inadmissibility policy encourages asylum seekers to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach, it might not always result in an asylum seeker being removed to a safe third country; for example, due to some documentation or logistical issue. Consequently, the differentiation policy is required to add an extra layer of deterrent to the asylum policy framework, and we have a moral obligation to act to prevent such dangerous and unnecessary journeys. I cannot, therefore, accept this amendment.

I turn now to Amendment 6H, which again seeks to shift the burden of proof in applying Clause 11 on to the Secretary of State and seems to intend to make it more difficult for the Government to apply one of their core principles. First, I assure noble Lords that my officials are developing detailed guidance for decision-makers to assess whether the claimant qualifies for refugee status and, where they do, whether they are a group 1 or group 2 refugee. As is currently the case, we will continue to support claimants throughout the asylum process to ensure that they are able to present all evidence substantiating their asylum claim, including in relation to whether they are group 1 or group 2 refugees, for example via a substantive asylum interview with a Home Office official. As I explained, while Home Office officials will continue to provide this support, it remains necessary for the claimant, not the Secretary of State, to demonstrate whether they are group 1 or group 2. I therefore cannot accept this amendment.

I turn now to Amendment 6J, which, to be clear from the outset, is completely unnecessary. The Government, as I and my colleagues in the other place have said many times, are fully committed to complying with our international obligations. All the clauses in this Bill, the changes to the Immigration Rules which will be required to implement them, and the New Plan for Immigration more broadly will be compliant with all our international obligations. This includes our obligations under the refugee convention, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

In fact, there is already legislation which ensures compatibility between the Immigration Rules and our obligations under the refugee convention. Section 2 of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 already sets out the primacy of the refugee convention in the Immigration Rules. It states:

“Nothing in the immigration rules (within the meaning of the 1971 Act) shall lay down any practice which would be contrary to the Convention.”


I remind noble Lords that it is our unwavering position that all provisions in the Bill, including Clause 11, are compliant with our obligations under the refugee convention. I also assure noble Lords that Section 2 of the 1993 Act will continue to act as an additional safeguard for policies covered in the Immigration Rules, which will include differential treatment of refugees. As such, I cannot support the amendment.

Turning lastly to Motion C, Amendments 7F and 7G would effectively create an amnesty to allow people who have claimed asylum prior to the commencement of the Bill, along with their adult dependants, the right to work after six months rather than the current 12 months, as well as removing the condition restricting jobs for people who are allowed to work to those on the shortage occupation list. The amendment would not only reward people who have in many cases arrived illegally in an attempt to undermine our economic migration system, but it would create enormous operational burdens for the Home Office to implement, very likely—as per the findings of the Government’s review into the policy —leading to a net yearly loss to the department in running costs.

I reassure noble Lords that the Government want to see all claims being settled within six months, so that people can get on with rebuilding their lives, including working. We are making every effort to ensure this is a reality under the New Plan for Immigration. I therefore advise the House that we cannot accept this amendment. I conclude my remarks there and beg to move.

Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)

Moved by

[Baroness Chakrabarti]

At end insert “and do propose Amendment 5F in lieu—

5F: Insert the following new Clause—
“Interpretation of Part 2
(1) So far as it is possible to do so, the provisions of this Part must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Refugee Convention.
(2) If a court or tribunal determining a question which has arisen in connection with the provisions of this Part cannot read and give effect to those provisions in a way which is compatible with the Refugee Convention, it must make a declaration to that effect.
(3) Where a court or tribunal is considering whether to make a declaration of incompatibility, the Secretary of State is entitled to notice in accordance with rules of the court or tribunal.
(4) In any case to which subsection (3) applies the Secretary of State is entitled, on giving notice in accordance with rules of the court or tribunal, to be joined as a party to the proceedings.
(5) Notice under subsection (4) may be given at any time during the proceedings.””

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, once more I thank noble Lords for caring about the refugee convention, and I thank the Minister for the courtesy of each and every one of our exchanges over many months.

17:30

Last night, however, her colleagues in the other place gave barely one thought, and certainly two fingers, to your Lordships’ House. The Minister there made just one argument, a shorter version of the noble Baroness the Minister’s, which I will come to. He gave just one argument against my amendment: that courts should not be able to declare laws incompatible with human rights. Therefore, the Government’s position in the other place moved from “this Bill complies with our obligations and so do we” to “and what’s more, the courts have no place at all in scrutinising our compliance.” Yet earlier today, on the Judicial Review and Courts Bill, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, for whom I have enormous respect, urged us to trust courts. That was in relation to prospective-only quashing orders, which generally will be more likely to suit the Government than individuals, let alone desperate, vulnerable refugees.

The Minister developed her colleague’s argument a little more just now, and I am grateful for that. She made a distinction regarding being able sometimes to declare laws incompatible with the ECHR, on the basis of the European convention having a court in Strasbourg that sits as an occasionally perhaps supernatural, but certainly supranational court. However, I am afraid that that distinction does not work for me, not least because many of her colleagues spent many years complaining about that international court and saying that our courts know better and that therefore, we should pay less attention to the court in Strasbourg and more attention to empowering our own courts. That is what the courts themselves have done in recent years in relation to the jurisprudence of the Human Rights Act. They have been more confident as domestic courts empowered to defend our rights and freedoms here. That is what our courts should be doing in relation to the refugee convention as well.

What is more, one minute, the Minister said that the refugee convention was not incorporated into our law, and the next she reminded us that it is, by way of Section 2 of the 1993 Act, which provides that Immigration Rules must comply with the refugee convention. How odd it is that Immigration Rules, which are a legislative device, should comply with the refugee convention but individual acts of discretion, whether by Home Secretaries, immigration officers or prosecutors, need not necessarily do so. That seems very odd indeed—an internally illogical and incoherent argument.

We talked about human rights all over the world at Oral Questions earlier and had the privilege of hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon. Democratic states have written constitutions which entrust supreme courts with the authority to hold Governments to account and even to strike down legislation that violates fundamental rights. Here, in our system, courts can only ensure that executive discretion is lawfully exercised, including by prosecutors, immigration officers and Home Secretaries. Executive discretion is lawfully exercised and very rarely can declarations, which are only persuasive, be issued. The incompatible law remains in place and the declaration is simply, “Please think again, Government and Parliament.” That is done when a law is found to be absolutely in violation of fundamental rights. However, it now seems that even that level of judicial scrutiny is too rich for this Government’s blood.

I recognise that we may be only a revising second Chamber, but if not to defend the rule of law, what are we for?

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)]

My Lords, I rise, I hope for the last time—a hope which will be shared by every Member of this House—to support this amendment. There are not many issues that it is worth going to the stake for, but surely the rule of law is one. I have spent 60 years of my life on it and do not propose to stop here. I suggest that your Lordships support this too.

This Motion as now put fully respects the sovereignty of Parliament, just as the Human Rights Act does. It is the one simple provision that is needed to ensure that questions about the legality of this Bill can be brought before our courts and decided by an independent judge, and it is surely the least contentious way of achieving that. Indeed, it is beyond logical objection. In truth, the only objection raised is that it is unnecessary —surely the weakest objection that one can ever produce. If we never passed a provision which was unnecessary, the statute book would be a good deal lighter and the better for it. But here, it is needed, unless Parliament—your Lordships’ House and the other place—is happy to oust the courts’ jurisdiction in the whole area of what constitutes a right to refugee status, to asylum sanctuary.

It did not appear seemly yesterday to intervene during the short contribution of—if he will allow me to call him this—my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. My reverence for him is boundless, not least because 30 years ago he had the sagacity to promote me to the Court of Appeal. However, he surely cannot maintain that, because the Attorney-General advises, as she may well have done, that this Bill is refugee convention compliant, that is that and we should just buy into it without thought: that this would be a sufficient basis for putting the whole Bill beyond the purview of the courts. Think about Miller 2; think about the prorogation order. We were told very plainly, and none of us doubts, that Geoffrey Cox, QC and then Attorney-General, had said that this is perfectly lawful. But that did not put it beyond the courts. If ever there was a case for not putting compliance with international law beyond the courts, this surely must be it.

I will make three short points on the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Horam, yesterday, which attracted a rather ungenerous rebuke, although that is by the way. His first point was the general one that this is merely “an enabling Bill” giving the Government “power to do something”. That is surely not so in respect of the important group of clauses we are considering here, which, under the heading “Interpretation of Refugee Convention”, redefine it. Without our amendment, the courts would have no alternative but to apply those provisions, whether or not they are regarded as compatible with the convention. There is nothing by way of this being merely an enabling Bill; it is a declaratory Bill beyond question.

Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Horam, reminded us of the five-page letter circulated by the then excellent Minister, whose ears must be burning already from the previous debate, and quite rightly, because his loss is a terrible one for us all. The letter set out the Government’s legal arguments for contending that these definition provisions can be viewed as convention-compliant. I have the greatest regard for the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, and certainly there is not a soul at the Bar who could have made more persuasive arguments to that effect. But they are just that: arguments. They should not therefore, of themselves, necessarily win your Lordships’ support. Included among those arguments were many that had been roundly rejected in the course of this country building up a quarter of a century’s worth of plain, authoritative jurisprudence that decided the questions of what the refugee convention required, which the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, acknowledged are now being overturned by the Bill.

Thirdly and finally, the noble Lord, Lord Horam, at col. 157 of yesterday’s Hansard, said that he fully agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and myself,

“about the 2001 refugee convention”.

He called it the 2001 convention; obviously there is the 1951 convention. He continued:

“I do not want this Government to step outside that in any way. It would be a tragedy if that happened. It should not be allowed to happen; I believe that it will not happen.”—[Official Report, 26/4/22; col. 157.]


But surely he must accept that there needs to be scope, therefore, for somebody to look at it independently once the statute is enacted.

Finally, if we look at the front cover of this Bill, we will see a statement, required by the Human Rights Act, by the Minister—the noble Baroness, Lady Williams —which says, under the heading of the European Convention on Human Rights, that it is her view that

“the provisions of the Nationality and Borders Bill are compatible with the Convention rights”.

She may well indeed have been so advised by the Attorney-General, but surely nobody has ever doubted that that means that it is enough in itself; it is not. What the Act says is that you should try to construe it compatibly and if you cannot you declare it—precisely the mirror image of what is now proposed for this self- same legislation.

I urge your Lordships—not at this stage because it is so late in the day and the ping-pong ball has been returned two or three times already—to consider whether we really should quit on the constitutional issue on this vital rule-of-law question. At this stage, I urge the noble Baroness to divide the House on the issue and let it be supported by all those who want this country to abide by the rule of law.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I support what was said by the noble and learned Lord. When this matter went back to the House of Commons last night, the Minister there said that the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, was “unnecessary, inappropriate and unconstitutional”. What the Minister failed to recognise, with great respect, is that whether there has been compliance with the refugee convention has been a matter for the courts of this jurisdiction for at least the last 40 years.

17:45

In the case of Sivakumaran, which is reported in [1998] Appeal Cases, pages 958 and 990, Lord Keith of Kinkel said, for your Lordships’ Appellate Committee, that the provisions of the refugee convention

“have for all practical purposes been incorporated into United Kingdom law.”

That principle was recognised by Parliament in Section 2 of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993. With the greatest respect, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, is simply wrong to suggest that the refugee convention is not part of our law. It is distinct from most other international agreements for that reason.

I well appreciate that this Government do not like their decisions to be subject to supervision by the judiciary for legality. But, even for this Government, to present political expediency as a constitutional doctrine is a hard sell. What is inappropriate and unconstitutional—to use the Commons Minister’s words last night—is for the question of compliance with the refugee convention now to be determined not by the courts but a whipped House of Commons exercising its judgment.

There is another constitutional error, and a fundamental one, in the Government’s approach to this issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, told the House yesterday that

“there may of course be more than one good faith, compatible interpretation”—[Official Report, 26/4/22; col. 170.]

of the convention. She is nodding her head. Again, with the greatest respect, that is incorrect as a matter of law. In the case of R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Adan, reported at page 477 of [2001] 2 Appeal Cases, on pages 516-17, Lord Steyn, speaking for the Appellate Committee, rejected a submission made by counsel for the Home Secretary that there was a range of acceptable interpretations of provisions of the convention. I well remember the case, because I was the counsel for the Home Secretary who made that very submission. I repeat the declaration that I made yesterday that I practise at the Bar often in immigration cases.

What Lord Steyn emphasised in rejecting the submission that there were a range of possible acceptable interpretations was that:

“The subject of the Refugee Convention is fundamental rights”.

Noble Lords will forgive me if I again quote, because it is such a fundamental point, but he also said, on behalf of the Appellate Committee of this House, that:

“In principle … there can only be one true interpretation of a treaty … In practice it is left to national courts, faced with a material disagreement on an issue of interpretation, to resolve it. But in doing so it must search, untrammelled by notions of its national legal culture, for the true autonomous and international meaning of the treaty. And there can only be one true meaning.”

That is why the views of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees—who is so critical of the provisions of the Bill—are so important.

So the suggestion by the Minister, on behalf of the Government, that the Bill is a good-faith and therefore permissible interpretation of the convention is wide of the mark. The question is whether the Bill is a correct interpretation of the refugee convention—to which the answer is plainly no. To return to the phrase used by the Minister in the Commons last night, what is inappropriate and unconstitutional is for the Government, by the Bill, to try to prevent the judiciary of this country giving the correct answer to the question of whether the application of the provisions in the Bill would breach this country’s international obligations under the convention. I think we all know what answer the judiciary would give if that question were put to them—and we all know why the Government are so determined to resist the Motion from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti.

So why are we pursuing this; why should we pursue it? The reason is very simple, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, has just said—because the Government are inviting Parliament to act in breach of this country’s international obligations and to prevent the judiciary from passing judgment on that question, contrary to the views of UNHCR, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, your Lordships’ Constitution Committee, the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law, Amnesty International and so many other informed bodies. As your Lordships’ Constitution Committee said at paragraph 59 of its report on the Bill, published on 26 January:

“Compliance with the UK’s international obligations is a constitutional issue.”

When the Government’s position is based, as it is, on fundamental misunderstandings of our constitution and breaches of our international obligations, this House should exercise its power to invite the other place to think yet again. If, as I hope, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, wishes to test the opinion of the House, she shall have my support.

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

My Lords, I attended throughout the debate on the Bill yesterday and remained completely silent, and I arrived today intending to follow that good advice again, because I was actually unable to attend the earlier stages of the Bill at any scale and thought it would be quite wrong for me to join so late. But this is an important issue, which I have listened to very carefully, and I would quite like to register my views.

Yesterday, I voted with the Government against all the amendments to the Bill, because I think we have reached the stage where the opinion of the Commons should prevail, and I am not fundamentally against them trying this new innovation of offshoring illegal immigrants. I very much doubt that it will work, but I think they are allowed to have their way and see what happens. But I did vote yesterday in favour of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the more I listen to the debate, the more it seems to me that there are hugely important constitutional issues here. We are not getting a satisfactory reply, and we are not even getting, in the House of Commons, any very considered response from the Ministers available.

We all know that the present Government particularly dislike their important subjects being subject to judicial review: they were very upset when their Prorogation was overturned. Many other Governments have rather regretted it, but I think it is a vital protection. The Government’s view that what they are doing complies with our international legal obligations and with our own unwritten constitution—which has no force if the courts could not sometimes apply it—is very unwise. I think we should just defend that essential protection. The idea that the opinion of the Attorney-General, whoever he or she may be, in a Government of whatever complexion, if accepted by the Government, should not be a matter that goes any further or be a subject either for Parliament or for the courts, is sweeping and, with the greatest respect, slightly absurd, because no Attorney-General, however distinguished, has ever been infallible on these matters. So I do believe that, among the many important provisions of the Bill, this is the most important of all because of its wider constitutional questions.

I congratulate the parliamentary draftsmen on their ingenuity in producing terms that exclude the jurisdiction of the courts entirely on such matters. I am sure that, if it were done this time, we would find it happening with ever more regularity, in Bill after Bill presented by future Governments to this House. We should make one last attempt to stop that and I am afraid that I have not been persuaded to turn away from my support for the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, if she presses her amendment again.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords, it is a great challenge as well as a great honour to speak after the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke. I shall speak to Motion B1, which again seeks to bring the Bill into line with our international commitments. I believe there is a very important point of principle at stake here. There may actually be two points of principle—I am not sure about the second one—but the key one is pacta sunt servanda. The rules-based system works only if the rules are respected by all. We have just heard again—and we could hardly have heard more authoritatively —that this Bill is in breach of our commitments under the refugee convention.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, reminded us yesterday that UNHCR, to which we gave the job of supervising the interpretation of the convention, has confirmed yet again, authoritatively, in the strongest possible terms, that the Bill breaches that convention. We have heard from the Government Front Bench chop logic about how the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties allows conflicting national interpretations—but that really will not wash, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has reminded us. We agreed to UNHCR’s supervising role: it is in the convention. We can complain from the stands when the referee rules our man offside, but we are not allowed to send on a substitute referee, and the referee’s ruling stands. So, it is not surprising that this House has voted three times to remove or improve Clause 11, which is where the breach of the convention is crystallised.

Yesterday, we heard from the Conservative Back Benches suggestions—I think it was just one suggestion—that all this was foreshadowed, and so legitimised, in the 2019 Conservative manifesto. Not so. I have checked. What the manifesto says is:

“We will continue to grant asylum and support to refugees fleeing persecution”—


and, later on:

“We will ensure, no matter where you come from, your rights will be respected and you will be treated with fairness and dignity.”


“Fairness” and “dignity” are fine words, but how can they be reconciled with depriving desperate people of their convention rights and their access to public funds, condemning them to destitution without even the miserable £5 a day subsistence that we pay to those stuck for years in the asylum process queue? Can we honestly say that those to whom we would in future be giving nothing at all would be being treated with fairness and dignity? No: Clause 11 is wrong in principle—pacta sunt servanda—and it would be shaming in practice.

My second point I put much more tentatively. Again, it is one the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, touched on yesterday. I put it tentatively because I have never served in the other place, but he has, with some distinction. It seems to me that this House is being treated with contempt. Of course, the elected Chamber must have the last word, but its view must surely be informed by an understanding of the considerations that led the revising Chamber to propose the changes it did. If I am right, are the Government, with all due respect, not cheating when they blandly assert no incompatibility the convention, when they make no attempt to refute—but simply ignore—this House’s demonstration that there is clear incompatibility, and when they allow minimal time to discuss an issue that is so important to our reputation as a law-abiding country?

18:00

A revising Chamber surely has the right to have its revisions properly considered. That is why I would have wished us to give the other place a last chance to reconsider Clause 11 and the case for putting respect for international obligations plainly on the face of the Bill. But I have been advised by those whose judgment I respect that there is a limit to the number of issues that can be kept in play at this stage of the game; and I have been advised that, after three successful votes, I have reached that limit. Three strikes, and I am out, it seems. So, I will not be putting Motion B1 to the vote. I am very grateful to all those who have supported it three times. The record will show that this House believes in pacta sunt servanda. I am grateful to the Minister for the courtesy she showed in dealing with obstreperous points from me. I urge all those who would have voted for Motion B1 to vote, as I will, for Motion A1 from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, if she puts it to the vote, as I very much hope she will.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, whom I have the greatest respect for, I am not a lawyer, so it is with some trepidation that I enter the arena. But that is my role. As far as my common sense tells me, international agreements such as the 1951 refugee convention mean nothing if each and every signatory to the convention can reinterpret the agreement to suit its own political ends. The whole point of the refugee convention, like the European Convention on Human Rights, is to prevent rogue states passing domestic legislation that overrules the rights of refugees or the basic human rights of their own citizens in the wake of what was then the recent history of the Second World War.

On the back of their attempts to reinterpret the 1951 refugee convention, this Government appear to be about to remove the United Kingdom from the European Convention on Human Rights, judging by the comments of the Deputy Prime Minister on BBC Radio 4’s “Today” programme this morning. In the context of those convicted of terrorism offences challenging their segregation in prison, Dominic Raab said, at two hours and 21 minutes into the programme,

“it shows you why our Bill of Rights is so important to replace the Human Rights Act.”

So much for the Minister relying on the Human Rights Act in her arguments. I am reminded of “First they came” by the German Lutheran pastor, Martin Niemöller. If we do not speak out about this Government eroding the rights of refugees, as they seek to do in this Bill, the next step will be to erode the rights of each and every one of us.

Motion A1 is a final attempt to at least make the Government honest. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said yesterday, if the Government were to say, “We know this Bill does not comply with the refugee convention, but we are going to enact it anyway”, they would at least be being honest. Motion A1, as I understand it, simply allows the courts to make a declaration that any parts of the provisions in Part 2 of the Bill are incompatible with the refugee convention and require the Government to take note of the finding—the Government having been given the opportunity to be joined as a party to the proceedings. If the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, divides the House, we will support her. I understand why she may not want to divide the House, but if this were our amendment, we would. This time, it is refugees’ rights; next time, it could be our rights that are in danger if the Lord Chancellor, the Secretary of State for Justice, the Deputy Prime Minister, gets his way.

We also strongly support Motion B1 for similar reasons. It should be for the Secretary of State to prove why a genuine refugee is to be categorised as a class 1 or class 2 refugee. In any event, any Immigration Rules that are applied to whichever group a genuine refugee is categorised by the Secretary of State as falling into must not permit any practice that would be contrary to the Government’s international obligations. If this were our amendment, we would be dividing the House, but we respect the noble Lord’s decision.

On Motion C, I can understand why the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, having won the argument yesterday by one vote, has chosen not to pursue the right to work for refugees, despite the Government being unable to produce a shred of evidence to counter the comprehensive and compelling evidence provided yesterday by the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, which clearly demonstrated that the right to work is not a so-called pull factor. The arguments made by the Minister about costs, devoid of any facts based on real-world experience unlike those of the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, were speculative and, never having been presented before during the passage of the Bill from my recollection, smacked of last-gasp desperation.

Liberal Democrats have long campaigned and will continue to campaign for the right of asylum seekers to pay their own way, to secure the dignity that comes from being able to support themselves and to integrate more effectively in society by being able to work. In case this is my last opportunity to speak on this Bill, may I say how appalled and disgusted I am by it? There is only one political party to blame for this shameful legislation, and that is the Conservative Party.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, let me start by saying that I totally agree with my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti; I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr; I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and I totally agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown. Along with many noble Lords and Baronesses in this House, I have argued time and again against a Bill that most of us think is wrong and unethical. We have argued against the Government time after time on these issues, and I am going to spend a couple of minutes saying why I support the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti.

I wanted to put that on record to start with because I do not want the position that we have taken—thinking that we have come to the end of the parliamentary political process with this—to be misunderstood to mean that we do not agree with my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti or with the noble Lords, Lord Kerr, Lord Pannick and Lord Paddick, or with any other Member who supports these amendments, because I do, and we do. But there comes a point—even I accept this, after what I said yesterday—where you have to recognise that this would be the fourth time that we would have sent this back.

The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, was kind enough to say what he did about me in the Commons, but I think that the Commons currently guillotines legislation far too quickly, which means that things are not properly considered. Frankly, that causes resentment—as happened the other day when we sent 12 amendments back and they were discussed in an hour—and people to ask why we should not send things back more often.

That is the root of the problem. But as someone who has stood for election on many of these issue and, like others, lost, fighting for this out in the community, I accept that the battle or argument now has to go beyond Parliament and out into the country. This is what elections are about. The Government get their way in the end because they won the 2019 general election and can pursue their agenda in Parliament. I can be angry, and this House can send a Bill back 10 or 12 times, but if the Conservative Government have a majority in the Commons, they will simply reject it. Of course we have a right to ask the Commons to think again, and in some cases it has done. I accept that there is a debate around how many times we should send Bills back, and whether we should send this one back once more; there is a legitimate question as to whether three times is enough or whether it should be four. But the position we have come to is that we think we are now at the end of the line. That is clearly not a view that everyone agrees with, but let it not be said that the disagreement is about the content of the Bill or the worth of the amendments; it is not. It is just about the best way to take this forward. That is the point I wanted to make.

It is worth reiterating that, as much as any other, the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, goes to the heart of the Bill. Essentially, it was trying to say that the differential treatment of refugees would mean that vast numbers of people who come and claim asylum in this country would be criminalised. I cannot believe that that is acceptable, and that is what the amendment is getting at. We had the almost farcical situation where we were trying to imagine how someone could actually get here legitimately to claim asylum. We are an island, so what country can you come through unless you fly? But you cannot fly, because of the database checks that are carried out when you get on a plane, and so by definition you must come through a safe country to get here. According to the Bill we have before us, anybody doing that is coming illegally and should be stopped—unless they have come on one of the safe routes, but these are unavailable to large numbers of people.

The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, goes absolutely to the heart of the matter. He and other noble Lords pointed out that this would have criminalised Ukrainians fleeing at the beginning of the conflict, and Afghans who had helped the British Army. That is why the noble Lord’s amendment is crucial, but these arguments have to be won not only in this Chamber but out in the country. But instead, to be frank, the Government say that we have a real problem with illegal immigration in this country and they are the only ones who will fix it—ignoring the fact that they have been in power for 12 years and have not managed to sort it out in that time.

The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, will appreciate that this is not a debate as to whether the amendment is right but about where we go to now. That is a position that noble Lords will have to consider for themselves, but we have considered it very carefully and come to the view that we have.

I have not always agreed with my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, but on this she is absolutely right and I totally agree with the points she has made. Other noble Lords have joined in: the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made his usual excellent contribution, as did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke, who pointed out the importance of obeying international law and respecting our international obligations.

18:15

I will read out the UNHCR’s observation, because it is so damning of our country and our global reputation. In talking about this Bill and the importance of my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti’s amendment, it said that

“the United Kingdom’s international obligations under the Refugee Convention and with the country’s long-standing role as a global champion for the refugee cause”

are at risk because of the Nationality and Borders Bill.

That is absolutely tragic. It is not the Government’s intention, but that is what the UNHCR is saying would be the consequence of passing the Bill as it stands. I support absolutely what my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti is trying to do around the refugee convention.

As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke, says, that is why it is so important. If the Government say that they are complying then they should put it in the Bill, so there is no doubt about it. But the Government refuse to do that and use words such as “compatible”. You then get into semantics. Is “compatible” the same as “complying”? I do not know, but as a non-lawyer I would think that it would carry more weight if it was on the face of the Bill than if it was not.

Again, it comes down to this point: which is the best way forward? From our perspective, my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti is absolutely right and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, is absolutely right, but we are at the point in the parliamentary process where sending it back a fourth time would not be the appropriate way forward. Noble Lords will have to make their own judgment, but that is the judgment we have made. The battle will carry on and the campaign for a proper refugee system will carry on. That campaign will take place not only in this Parliament but in the various communities up and down the country, as we fight to remain the global champion that we have always been, and to offer asylum to those who deserve it and need it.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I made the point yesterday about the time we have spent on this; I do not think your Lordships have ever felt that we in any way have tried to rush this or any other legislation. We have gone many days in Committee, for 12 hours or more, discussing at length all the concerns and issues at hand. Many of the points have been remade today in a very articulate way.

I think my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay feels that he has been slightly misrepresented by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. I wonder if he might check Hansard and come back to my noble and learned friend.

In response to the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, this has been clearly set out, as I have said before. These provisions are clear and unambiguous and a good faith interpretation of the refugee convention. The courts of course have an important role in ensuring that legislation is applied correctly, but it is for Parliament to make that legislation. That is the rule of law and is the result of our dualist system.

Turning to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, we maintain that the general rule of interpretation in Article 31(1) of the Vienna convention requires a treaty to be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to its terms in their context and in the light of its object and purpose. On that basis, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick has quoted, we have taken a wide-reaching exercise to understand this and considered relevant factors, such as the law in other jurisdictions, case law and the words of academics. We believe that all provisions reflect a good faith, compatible interpretation of the refugee convention.

With those words, and echoing the words of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, I think that it is time to pass this Bill.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I thank all noble Lords once more. It is often a huge privilege to hear debates from all sides in this Chamber, but sometimes that privilege comes with an awesome burden, as the Minister knows all too well. I am referring not just to this Chamber but to noble Lords in other places in this building where they beaver away at their work.

I have had the privilege in recent months to serve on the new and important Justice and Home Affairs Committee, chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, which had the privilege of hearing not so long ago from the Home Secretary. While I will repeat my admiration for the Minister and the way in which we can disagree well, this is not the case with everyone.

I want to say a word about good faith, which has been cited a few times. Before that committee, the Home Secretary gave evidence about the pushback policy. The committee has members far more august than me, including my noble friend Lord Blunkett, who quizzed the Home Secretary about the legal basis for pushing back boats in the channel and the controversy that had raged. She assured us that there was a legal basis and that the purpose of the policy was to deter refugees and the evil trade. The purpose was to deter asylum seekers and we were assured that there was a legal basis, as was Parliament and the public. When that policy was judicially reviewed, the Home Office sought public interest immunity over provisions in the policy document that revealed that the Home Office knew that it would be contrary to the refugee convention to ever repel a boat with a person who said, “I need asylum. I am a refugee”. It was only because the courts were able to say no to the public interest immunity that the Government and the Home Secretary were exposed and that policy is now over. That is how important the rule of law is.

I have been torn in making my mind up about this Division right now. I have been so grateful for the support of my noble friends—my noble friend Lord Coaker in particular— but when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood says he will go to the stake for the rule of law, I will go with him. I have moved the Motion and would like your Lordships’ House to agree it.

18:23

Division 2

Ayes: 157

Noes: 212

18:43

Motion A agreed.

Motion B

Moved by

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 6D, 6E and 6F, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 6G.

6G: Because the provision in Lords Amendments 6D and 6E conflicts with clause 36; and because the provision in Lords Amendment 6F is unnecessary.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to this Motion, so I beg to move.

Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B) not moved.

Motion B agreed.

Motion C

Moved by

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 7F and 7G, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 7H.

7H: Because the Commons consider that asylum-seekers (save in limited circumstances) and their adult dependants should not be permitted to work while a decision on their claim for asylum is pending, even for a trial period of 3 years.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to this Motion and I beg to move.

Motion C agreed.

Energy Security Strategy

Wednesday 27th April 2022 Lords Chamber

Statement

The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Tuesday 19 April.

“With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a Statement on the British energy security strategy.

Our strategy provides a clear, long-term plan to accelerate our transition away from expensive fossil fuel prices set by global markets we cannot control. It builds on our success over the past decade in which we gave the go-ahead to the first nuclear power plant in a generation and achieved a fivefold increase in renewables. The British Energy Security Strategy marks a significant acceleration in our ambition. It is confirmation of three mutually reinforcing goals of our energy policy and, indeed, of any well-constituted energy policy: security, affordability and sustainability.

We recognise the pressures that many people across our country are facing with the cost of living. This has been greatly influenced, as we all know, by global factors. That is why my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a £9 billion package of support, including a £150 council tax rebate this month and a £200 energy bill discount in October to cut energy bills quickly for the vast majority of households. We are also expanding the eligibility for the warm home discount, which will provide around 3 million low-income and vulnerable households across England and Wales with a £150 rebate on their energy bills this winter. As I speak, our energy price cap is still protecting millions of consumers from even higher wholesale spot gas prices. Furthermore, we are investing over £6 billion in decarbonising the nation’s homes and buildings—set out very clearly in last year’s Heat and Buildings Strategy—which saves the lowest-income families around £300 a year on their bills. I want to reassure the House that the Chancellor has promised to review his package of support before October and will decide on an appropriate course of action at that time.

Cheap renewables are our best defence against fluctuations in global gas prices. By 2030, 95% of our electricity will be produced by low-carbon means. By 2035, we aim to have fully decarbonised our electricity system. We will double down on every available technology. The strategy sets out a new ambition to propel our offshore wind industry. It will increase the pace of deployment to deliver 50 gigawatts by 2030, instead of the 40 gigawatts committed to in the manifesto. Of that 50 gigawatts, up to 5 gigawatts will be floating offshore wind. The strategy also commits us to slash approval times for new offshore wind farms from four years to one year. We also feel—this is reflected in the strategy—that our solar capacity can grow by up to five times by 2035.

As is well known, most of Britain’s nuclear fleet will be decommissioned this decade. We need to replace what we are losing, but we also need to go further. From large-scale plants to small nuclear modular reactors, we aspire to provide a steady baseload of power that will complement renewable technology. Obviously, the right time to take those decisions would have been 20 years ago, but of course the Labour party all but killed off the British nuclear industry. That is why we will be reversing decades of underinvestment and building back British nuclear. We aim to deliver up to 24 gigawatts of nuclear power by 2050, approximately three times more than today, which will represent 25% of our projected energy demand.

We are also doubling our ambition for low-carbon hydrogen production. The capacity we aim to reach by 2030 is 10 gigawatts, with at least half of that total coming from green, electrolyser-produced hydrogen. This fuel will not only provide cleaner energy for vital British industries to move away from fossil fuels but will be used for storage, trains, heavy equipment and generating heat. The transition to cheap, clean power cannot happen overnight. Those calling for an immediate end to domestic oil and gas ignore the fact that it would simply make the UK more reliant on foreign imports. It would not, in fact, lead to greater decarbonisation globally.

Producing more of our own energy will protect us into the future. We feel that this historic change, this decarbonisation challenge, represents a huge opportunity for the United Kingdom: more wind, more solar and more nuclear, while also using North Sea gas to transition to cheaper and cleaner power. This is a long-term plan to ensure greater energy independence and to attract hundreds of billions of private investment to back new industries that can create hundreds of thousands of high-quality jobs and stimulate business across the UK. This is not only a matter of reaching net zero, vital as that is, but an issue of national security. These are all objectives that everyone across the House, I am sure, shares. We all wish to see a homegrown clean energy system that will protect our people into the future, create good clean jobs, attract private investment and, above all, drive down bills for the British people. I commend this Statement to the House.”

18:45

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for coming here to answer our questions. However, I am disappointed that we only have this opportunity 20 days after the publication of the strategy, due to the Government’s decision to publish it while the other place was not sitting and thereby avoid immediate scrutiny.

On the Statement itself, I will begin with the aspects that we welcome. The last Labour Government gave the go-ahead for new nuclear sites in 2009, which have seen little-to-no progress. It now time for the pace to pick up on Sizewell C and the development of small modular reactors. The establishment of Great British Nuclear, if it achieves its goals, should be welcome, but, frankly, what is needed is action rather than additional bureaucracy and figures plucked out of the air without regard to cost, speed or deliverability. Can the Minister set out a timetable for the establishment of this body and, more importantly, the delivery of the eight reactors the Statement suggests could be set up at a rate of one per year?

We also welcome the Government’s target for offshore wind of up to 50 gigawatts by 2030. We need to ensure that developments of this kind lead to creating British jobs, which is not always the case under schemes from this Government. Can the Minister offer assurances that this will be addressed as the strategy is implemented and that other necessary steps to achieve it, such as grid investment in the North Sea network, will be taken?

However, the main issue with the strategy is what is missing. In short, these steps, while welcome, will not provide for households struggling with the cost of living crisis. They do not constitute the green-energy sprint that is needed to cut household bills, reduce reliance on Russian imports and cut emissions this decade. Measures that could have made an immediate difference to households and businesses have been ignored. On the cheapest, quickest, cleanest renewables such as onshore wind and solar, the Government have caved to Back-Bench pressure.

Onshore wind is four times cheaper than gas and overwhelmingly popular, but hundreds of projects that communities want, and are ready and waiting for, have been blocked. Earlier versions of the strategy showed that the Government were well aware of this, yet this strategy contains little beyond vague platitudes, and nothing to reverse the results of their ban on onshore wind projects in 2015, which destroyed the market, with only 20 new turbines granted planning permission between 2016 and 2021. Doubling onshore wind capacity to 30 gigawatts by 2030 could power an extra 10 million homes, add £45 billion to the UK economy and create 27,000 high-quality jobs. Does the Minister accept that bills will be significantly higher as a result of this failure?

The story with solar is not much different. Slashing solar subsidies in 2015 crashed the market, and many projects that could have been enabled are waiting in abeyance. Why have the Government watered down their ambition, rather than properly committing to tripling solar power by 2030?

The main hole in the Statement, for all those millions of people paying at least an extra £170 per year on energy bills, concerns energy efficiency. Energy efficiency is the best, quickest, most effective way to reduce energy bills, but there is no new money for it. Vulnerable people in this country need a national emergency plan to insulate homes, which could cut bills for the millions of pensioners and low-income households who need it most. At the same time, it would create new, skilled jobs. Instead, vulnerable people are being condemned to live in cold, draughty homes and paying more than they need to. The Minister previously admitted that the Government were keen to go further. So, who stopped them, the Secretary of State or the Chancellor?

The Government have missed another opportunity to close the door to fracking and continue to float the idea of a new coal mine in Cumbria. They have also failed to adopt Labour’s proposal of a windfall tax on oil and gas firms that are making record profits while bills skyrocket. Overall, it is fair to say that the energy strategy is disappointing and underwhelming. We can only ask how the Minister expects to reassure your Lordships’ House of the Government’s commitment to net zero if they continue to act to the contrary.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, there are things to welcome in this Statement but unfortunately, there are also many missed opportunities. Energy security is obviously critical at this time, but we must understand that it is about not just security of supply to the United Kingdom but the fact that millions of households right now feel a complete lack of security regarding their ability to pay their energy bills going forward, and particularly as we go into the next cold period.

The Government had an opportunity to take up my right honourable friend Edward Davey’s proposal: a windfall tax on the super-profits of the oil and gas industry, which the Labour Party has also argued for. That could have unlocked finances to give further support to people who will be desperately vulnerable this winter.

As the Liberal Democrats and many others in this House have repeatedly stated, curtailing the wasted energy that leaks out of our buildings should be the No. 1 priority in the hierarchy of measures we take to improve our energy security, reduce carbon emissions and cut costs for households. But there was nothing new in the Statement on this front. I asked the Minister at Questions yesterday why the number of insulation measures installed annually in the UK had fallen from a high of 2.3 million during the coalition to an average of less than 10% of that peak since then. He did not really give me an answer, to be honest, but I do not blame him for that. If he was unconstrained by collective responsibility, he would be able to be clear that it was down to the myopic foolishness of the Treasury, which has kyboshed many of the schemes that have been brought forward in the past. Not least of these is the green homes grant, which was destroyed by its lack of understanding that this has to be a long-term project, not a short-term stimulus measure. I hope the Minister will not be deterred, however, by that myopia, and will continue to urge his government colleagues to take a more creative approach to this issue, including fiscal measures such stamp duty discounts and council tax rebates for homes that improve their energy performance certificate ratings.

Can the Minister also tell us when the new ECO4 regime, which he mentioned yesterday, comes into effect? Am I correct in thinking that there is gap between ECO3 and ECO4 coming into effect? If so, why is that being allowed to happen?

Like the noble Baroness speaking for the Labour Benches, I welcome the extra commitments on offshore wind, but I also share her view that this is a massive missed opportunity for onshore wind. Onshore wind, as has been said, is one of the cheapest ways of powering green energy, and it is absolutely reckless that we are putting it aside.

On oil and gas, I hope the Government are really thinking about the danger of stranded assets on any new exploration. That is a dangerous thing.

I should declare my interest as a member of the UK Hydrogen Policy Commission in saying that I very much welcome the Government’s commitment to doubling their ambition to 10 gigawatts by 2030, and that for the first time, at least half of that will be green or electrolytic hydrogen.

Our ambitions are now similar to those of many of our international competitors, which is welcome, but the funding allocation behind them is completely different. We are not putting in anything like the money that our competitors are. Could the Minister look at that issue in particular?

Finally, will the Minister also look at the support that will be needed by local authority planning departments and councillors, which will have to deal with an increasing number of hydrogen-related planning applications? Currently, most do not have the necessary skills or resources to deal with them or to address the inevitable concerns. Will he also look at the regulatory environment that will be required? The hydrogen strategy suggests that regulations will be made on a piecemeal basis as hydrogen is scaled up, but this misses the point that regulatory certainty is absolutely required if the scale-up is to happen at all. I hope he can address a few of those questions.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, and the noble Lord, Lord Oates, for their relatively constructive comments. I know they do not necessarily agree with everything we are doing and would like us to go further in some respects, but I know that in general, their hearts are in the right place. The strategy is of course a long-term plan to accelerate the transition away from expensive fossil fuel prices that, obviously, are set by global markets we cannot control. I know that both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will support us on that.

Starting with the vital issue of concerns about energy prices, correctly raised by the noble Lord, the strategy reconfirms that the Government are committed to helping with the cost of living. That includes over £9 billion of help for families struggling with their bills. We are aware, of course, that Ofgem will set the next price cap in August, and we will want to review the current support arrangements at that point, well in advance of them taking effect in October.

The noble Lord also raised issues concerning energy efficiency. I know that he and I agree on the critical role that energy efficiency plays in both our energy security and in helping consumers to manage their energy bills. I disagree with him, however, in that this Government have gone further than any other in setting out an ambitious energy efficiency strategy, including through our landmark heat and buildings strategy. I know he will want to push us to go further but, in essence, we are heading towards the same destination—although apparently, we have different rates of getting there.

In response to the noble Lord’s question about ECO, there is no gap between ECO3 and ECO4. There is a delay due to legal considerations in tabling the SIs to implement ECO4, but we are certainly in touch with the industry bodies to explain that, and there is no gap in the implementation. The increased budget associated with it, at £1 billion a year, takes effect.

The noble Baroness, Lady Blake, raised the subject of onshore wind—I am sure there will be further questions on this as we proceed through the Statement—and also solar. Noble Lords are correct: onshore wind and photovoltaic solar are the cheapest forms of renewable energy. We are fortunate to have more onshore wind that pretty much any other country in northern Europe, and we continue to promote it passionately.

That said, both onshore wind and large solar projects —which can be controversial in some circumstances—should be pursued on the basis of local community support. Clearly, where that local backing exists, the strategy includes support for new projects and the enabling national network infrastructure.

Offshore wind is an area in which we have been hugely successful, and it has had a transformative effect compared to other renewables. Offshore wind is especially suited to the UK’s geography, and we truly are leading the world in its technology and capacity. It rightly forms one of the centrepieces of the strategy. As the noble Lord, Lord Oates, referred to, we are increasing our ambition to deliver up to 50 gigawatts by 2030, including up to five gigawatts of innovative floating wind capacity. By 2030 we will have more than enough wind capacity to power every home in the United Kingdom.

In response to the question by the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, I say that this is all bringing vital investment into the UK, particularly to our coastal communities. It will support 90,000 direct and indirect jobs by 2030. I met the Mayor of Tees Valley last night, who was telling me about some of the enormous projects being built on his patch, entirely to benefit from this expansion of offshore wind capacity.

I also welcome the support of Labour—if not the Liberal Democrats—from the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, for nuclear. It is very welcome. Energy security means being able to meet demand even on the coldest days of winter when there is neither sun nor wind. We need a baseload of decarbonised power to complement the renewables we are installing and while most of the current nuclear fleet is reaching the end of its lifespan and will be decommissioned this decade. We will be reversing decades of underinvestment and we will build back British nuclear.

In response to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, about the new body, I say that this will be set up immediately to bring forward new projects backed by substantial funding. We will launch the £120 million future nuclear enabling fund this month. We intend to take one project to a final investment decision in this Parliament and two in the next—subject to value for money and the appropriate approvals, as always.

On the subject of fracking, which the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, also asked about, it is right and sensible that, with wholesale gas prices around 10 times their level at the end of 2019, we review the science and evidence picture around fracking. The strategy commits to assess whether the previous conclusion against licensing has shifted or if scientific developments have changed, and we will do that.

I welcome the support of the noble Lord, Lord Oates, for hydrogen. I am happy to look at the comments he made about support for local authorities in terms of progressing hydrogen applications. I am sure we want to provide as much technical support as necessary and I agree with his comments about the importance of regulatory certainty in this area.

19:03

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests in energy as in the register. Can I couple that with a plea that we have a full debate in the new Parliament on all these issues? There are things here which affect both the immediate situation for all of us—certainly most of the households in this country—and the long-term condition of this country facing its energy needs in the future. We have heard some very unchallengeable and sensible ideas on this, but I am not sure they meet the immediate crisis effectively.

Can I draw the Minister’s attention to the section in the energy security policy paper which points out that there is “no contradiction” at all between short-term concerns to boost oil and gas production, referring to the North Sea, and the long-term climate aims? On the contrary, the two are linked together; that is what it rightly says in the paper. Can the Minister extend that thought to say that there is no contradiction in now seeking major oil producers in the Middle East to produce a lot more oil and gas to cause prices to tumble and partly replace Russian exports? It would really help bring down electricity, petrol and gas prices, and begin to meet the further huge increase coming our way like a rolling wave in October.

Can I plead that we go back to the great oil producers and press them hard that, unless they do this, they are financing Putin’s child murder in Ukraine? If they do it, we will begin to see a much greater easing of prices than any of the present well-intentioned short-term subsidies and additions we have had so far. That is the aim. Anything else is splendid, but it does not help the huge crisis in energy which will affect 70% of households of this country. I have heard nothing from either opposition party which will do that.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

As usual, given his experience of the subject, my noble friend makes important points. On the subject of a debate, regrettably that is above my pay grade, but I will pass on his comments to the Chief Whip. Obviously, I stand ready to assist the House in any debates that it wishes to have. Regarding my noble friend’s comments about North Sea oil and gas, I say that he is completely correct. We are clear that oil and gas will continue to have a role as a transition fuel in the medium term. In carbon footprint and security terms, it makes eminent good sense to source these from the North Sea. That has to be preferable to importing them either from Russia or as LNG. That is why we will ensure a future for the North Sea, making use of our great reserves as we transition. We are holding a new licensing round in the autumn subject to the climate compatibility checkpoint.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I am going to ignore the quagmire of nuclear, which cannot come on stream for decades, and the quagmire of fracking, which is a ridiculously expensive and disruptive process, and all the other ridiculous ideas about more oilfields in the North Sea. I will talk specifically about biomass companies like Drax, which in fact produce more carbon than burning fossil fuels, yet the Government choose to give them renewable subsidies. Will the Minister meet me and one or two scientists who can explain the whole process to him, and possibly take that back to his department?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I am sorry that the noble Baroness has ignored the quagmire, as she puts it, of some very important subjects. I am sure we will want to debate them in future. She raised this matter with me yesterday. In principle, I understand the point she is making, but I point her to the website of Ofgem, which does the appropriate sustainability checks on the biomass used in Drax. It is from waste sources, and it is renewable. The Greens are shaking their heads, but I am afraid there is a case for it. It is sustainable and renewable, which is why it qualifies, but it is subject to strict sustainability criteria. They are checked and published.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

There is much in the Statement to welcome about the long term but, as Keynes said, in the long term we are all dead. What worries me is that there is not a word in the Statement about how we are going to help people deal with the very real household energy crisis we are in now that will vastly increase in October. The reference period that will decide by how much the cap goes up ends in July. We know now that there is going to be a big increase again; there is no reason for us to wait. It is not very reassuring to be told that

“the Chancellor has promised to review his package of support before October”.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/4/22; col. 75.]

Why is he not doing it now? I suggest that, when he looks at it, he looks not just at little packets of money here and there, but at the possibility of indexing the energy element in universal credit to the energy component in the household expenditure of the people on universal credit. That is the most efficient way of targeting it. It is sad to see a long-term strategy which tells us nothing about onshore wind, storage or the improvements to the grid which are badly needed. The more we invest in wind, the more we will need grid improvements.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The noble Lord’s question was somewhat contradictory. He complained that the strategy did not address some of the short-term problems but in the end, he referred to it as what it is: a long-term strategy. The clue is in the title. The reality is that it takes many years to put in place energy infrastructure, and it is right that the Government address these factors and look to the long term to make sure that we are putting in place the appropriate steps, such as the nuclear RAB Bill, to provide the long-term security of supply and power that the country needs. That does not obviate the difficulties that we have in the short term. As I suspect the noble Lord knows very well, I cannot comment on what the Chancellor may do in response before any future fiscal event, before the next price cap comes in. However, I can assure the noble Lord that the problems the nation faces with high energy prices are at the forefront of the Government’s consideration.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

I will make two brief points to the Minister, but as an aside on Drax, if memory serves me correct, when it started using the pellets, they were from trees in north America that had been grown for the printing industry, and the paper industry completely collapsed. Communities had been destroyed, and the fact that they could use this wood seemed a positive benefit. However, that may not currently be the case—it has been many years since I paid a visit.

On the nuclear issue, my noble friend is right in the sense that in 2009 the Labour Government left half a dozen sites for nuclear power stations, but the Statement is correct in that we lost 20 years. The Labour Government Cabinet was discussing this issue in late 2002 and early 2003. I was a simple Minister of State—I was not involved in that—but I remember writing a note for my Cabinet colleague, my senior. That is the kind of thing I remember because it was Christmas Day and I was sitting in Charing Cross Hospital at the time, as a visitor. The issue had been discussed but it was flattened by two or three members of the Cabinet. I will not name anybody, but that was a lost period.

The central issue I want to ask the Minister about was not referred to: batteries. The International Energy Agency has said that because of the use and storage of batteries for transport, propulsion and homes, the world will need a sixfold increase in lithium, cobalt and rare earths. Where are they processed? Some 60% of the world’s lithium is processed in China, as is 65% of the world’s cobalt, although it is mined in the Congo, where 40,000 children are involved in mining it. Some 87% of the world’s rare earths are processed in China. Therefore, the issue has to be, what do we do with colleagues and friendly countries—we cannot do it ourselves—to avoid in 20 years’ time being in the same position we are in now with gas and oil from Russia: being hooked to China for the metals we need for batteries? It is a grip that has enormous potential, and it needs dealing with now. I used the word “processing”; China is not mining it all but is controlling the process from the mining. A huge amount of cobalt comes from the Congo but it ends up being processed in China. China has a grip on this and I know people are trying to deal with it—I think the EU is—but the Government have to be part of a plan. They will not be able to do it on their own; they have to work with others. We need to cease dependence on such a large scale on metals that will be vital for our industries and our energy security.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The noble Lord raises a number of important points. On the biomass supplying Drax, he is right that it is mainly produced from waste-wood sources that would otherwise not be utilised. I think he was agreeing that that was a mistake on the part of the Labour Government, who got elected in 1997 on a manifesto that said there was no case for new nuclear. It is easy for us to look back at mistakes made in the past but in retrospect, that was a mistake. This comes back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr: that in an advanced industrial country, this infrastructure takes many years to put in place. We let the UK nuclear industry wither on the vine because, of course, at the time we had ample supplies of clean gas and not so much concentration on climate change.

The noble Lord is in essence right about rare earths, but the Government are very well aware of this. A number of innovative battery technologies are also being developed but we are looking very closely at the necessity of various rare earths for existing battery technology, such as cobalt and lithium, and at where alternative supplies can be procured.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, I declare my interest as both a Church Commissioner and a board member of a housing association. As things stand, a community with local renewable generation is not allowed to sell the energy it generates directly to local people. Instead, it has to sell it to a utility, which sells it on to customers, creating disproportionate costs. Moreover, community-level generation could be further promoted by ensuring that new housing developments include green energy or even a requirement that they place no increased demand on the grid by generating more of their energy needs. The Bible assures us that the sun shines on both the righteous and the unrighteous. Indeed, I can assure the Minister that it does so even in my notoriously rainy city of Manchester. Can he outline what will be done to promote greater take-up of community energy generation programmes?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I thank the right reverend Prelate for saying that the sun shines on all of us—I am delighted to hear that. Community energy is important and we are supporting a number of community projects within Ofgem. I realise that there is a campaign to increase the take-up of community energy and we are in principle supportive of that. However, if those community energy projects also wish to be connected to the national grid and take advantage of other forms of energy and supply, it is right that they pay a proportionate share of costs for that. They are not insulating themselves from the national grid and from other forms of energy production and supply. Nevertheless, we want to see what we can do to support community energy, Ofgem is engaged in it, and we will look at what more we can do to help.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, reference was made in the Statement to low-carbon hydrogen production. Does the Statement mean that the Government have in effect taken a long-term strategic decision—by which I mean well beyond 2030—that the hydrogen they intend this country to produce will be green and not blue?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

Ultimately, yes, but in the short term we will want to support both forms of hydrogen production to get the market started and we will look towards providing something similar to the contracts for difference scheme for hydrogen production. As the noble Viscount is aware, we announced an expansion of hydrogen production in the strategy.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, is it still the case that despite this plan, just one person in a local community can in effect veto an onshore wind plan for that community?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I do not think so—I do not think it would be that specific. We will not have one person vetoing an application. However, we would want to make sure that there was general community support for further onshore wind capacity before development proceeded.

[Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)]

Ukraine has certainly focused all our minds and minds in all countries, particularly across Europe. In particular I welcome the Government’s policy on expanding our nuclear energy programme and that they have now agreed to acknowledge that shale gas extraction should be considered. Notwithstanding that the shale gas extraction programme was halted, the initial work has been done. The technology has improved and horizontal extraction techniques take up a much smaller land area. This could come on stream as soon as 18 months’ to two years’ time, given the work that has already being done, albeit that it will be a long-term programme. Will my noble friend assure the House that the Government will crack on with this programme, as it is vital that we become energy self-sufficient as soon as possible?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I know that my noble friend feels strongly about this subject but it is important that we take account of the recent scientific consensus, and we will do that. We have always been clear that the development of shale gas must be safe and cause minimum disruption and damage to those living and working near sites, and that is not a new position. However, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has asked the British Geological Survey to look again at this process. I think my noble friend is wrong in thinking that we could get large amounts of fracking on stream within 18 months. So far, we have had maybe two wells; to get significant amounts of fracked gas you would need many hundreds if not thousands of such wells, so it is quite a disruptive process and can take quite a long time. Nevertheless, we will be guided by the science and will look again to see whether it is possible to do it, with the consent of local communities.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as co-chair of Peers for the Planet. I return the Minister to his answer to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson: he said that he would not want one person to be able to veto an onshore wind development. Is that not precisely what is implied by the ministerial Statement that now governs these issues? Is that not why we have had a complete standstill on onshore developments? In an earlier answer, the Minister said that community support was important; it is in all planning applications, but why should these planning applications have a far higher standard, which requires unanimity from the local community? I ask why the Statement said that we would double down on every available technology, yet did not look at that issue, and why it makes a very limited proposal for developments that would support local communities in terms of cheaper electricity. That is fine but it does not give the volume that we need. May I ask specifically about the part of the Statement that says that we will look at arrangements to support the repowering of existing onshore wind sites? This is a real issue: we will not only not expand but contract because of the difficulties of repowering. What is the nature and timescale of the inquiries that will be made?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I know that the noble Baroness is a passionate supporter of onshore wind. She brought her Bill on it recently and we debated the subject at great length. I know she will continue to probe and push me, as is correct, on this subject about which she feels so strongly. The Government are clear: we want to see an expansion of onshore wind and we would like to see the communities that host this new Bill’s infrastructure benefit from developments in their areas. We hope that will drive greater levels of community consent, which will allow more of the procedures to come forward. I will write to the noble Baroness with details of repowering existing onshore wind infrastructure.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

Will my noble friend look closely at the possibilities for energy from waste and distance warming that are tried and tested and work so successfully, not just in this country but across most of Europe? Will he also ensure that many of these projects could be fed into the local grid rather than into the national grid, as happens currently?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

Energy from waste is an important topic, both in generating electricity but also for heat networks. I have visited a number of very innovative energy from waste plants; there is one in particular in east London that is extremely successful and powers and heats thousands of local homes in the community. By the very nature of a heat network, under an energy from waste plant, it does of course benefit and help the local community.

Elections Bill

Consideration of Commons amendments
Wednesday 27th April 2022 Lords Chamber

Commons Amendments and Reason

19:24

A message was brought from the Commons, That they agree to certain of the amendments made by the Lords to the Elections Bill. They disagree to another amendment made by the Lords but propose amendments to the words so restored to the Bill, to which they desire the agreement of the Lords. They disagree to a further Lords amendment but have made amendments in lieu thereof to which they desire the agreement of the Lords and they disagree to the remaining amendment for which they assign a reason.

Motion A

Moved by

[Lord True]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 22 and 23 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 22A to 22I to the words restored to the Bill by the Commons disagreement to Lords Amendment 22 and in their Amendments 23A to 23K in lieu of Lords Amendments 22 and 23.

22A: Page 21, line 13, at end insert—
“(3A) The statement must not include provision in relation to elections, referendums and other matters so far as the provision would relate to the Commission’s devolved Scottish functions or the Commission’s devolved Welsh functions.”

22B: Page 21, line 15, at end insert—
“(5) For the purposes of subsection (3A)—
(a) the Commission’s “devolved Scottish functions” are the Commission’s functions in relation to—
(i) Scottish Parliamentary general elections, elections held under section 9 of the Scotland Act 1998 (constituency vacancies), and local government elections in Scotland, so far as those functions do not relate to reserved matters within the meaning of the Scotland Act 1998, and
(ii) referendums held throughout Scotland in pursuance of provision made by or under an Act of the Scottish Parliament;
(b) the Commission’s “devolved Welsh functions” are the Commission’s functions in relation to—
(i) general elections of members of Senedd Cymru,
(ii) elections held under section 10 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (elections for Senedd constituency vacancies),
(iii) local government elections in Wales, and
(iv) referendums held under Part 2 of the Local Government Act 2000 or Part 4 of the Local Government (Wales) Measure 2011 (referendums relating to local authority executive arrangements), so far as those functions do not relate to reserved matters within the meaning of the Government of Wales Act 2006.”

22C: Page 22, line 14, leave out “Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs” and insert “Levelling Up, Housing and Communities”

22D: Page 22, leave out lines 15 to 18 Page 22, leave out lines 15 to 18

22E: Page 22, line 34, leave out from beginning to end of line 16 on page 23

22F: Page 23, line 21, leave out “Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs” and insert “Levelling Up, Housing and Communities”

22G: Page 23, line 25, leave out “Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs” and insert “Levelling Up, Housing and Communities”

22H: Page 25, line 16, leave out “Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs” and insert “Levelling Up, Housing and Communities”

22I: Page 25, leave out lines 17 to 22

23A: Page 21, line 13, at end insert—
“(3A) In preparing the statement, the Secretary of State must have regard to the duties imposed on the Commission by section 145(1) (duties with respect to compliance with controls imposed by this Act).

23B: Page 22, line 23, at end insert—
“(aa) must prepare a report containing the Secretary of State’s response to the consultation.”

23C: Page 22, leave out line 24 and insert—
“(3A) If, after complying with subsection (3), the Secretary of State proposes to designate the statement, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a document that—
(a) explains the Secretary of State’s proposals,
(b) sets them out in the form of a draft statement, and
(c) contains the report prepared under subsection (3)(aa).
(3B) Where a document is laid before Parliament under subsection (3A), no draft of the statement that the Secretary of State proposes to designate is to be laid before Parliament before the end of the 60-day period.
(3C) In preparing a draft statement for laying before Parliament, the Secretary of State must consider any representations made during the 60-day period in relation to anything in the document laid under subsection (3A).
(3D) If, after the end of the 60-day period, the Secretary of State wishes to proceed with designating the statement, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament—
(a) the draft statement (incorporating any changes made in light of any representations made as mentioned in subsection (3C)), and
(b) a report containing the Secretary of State’s response to any such representations.”

23D: Page 22, line 25, leave out “(3)(b)” and insert “(3D)”

23E: Page 22, line 33, at end insert—
“(aa) “the 60-day period” means the period of 60 days beginning on the day on which the document mentioned in subsection (3A) is laid before Parliament (or, if it is not laid before each House of Parliament on the same day, the later of the days on which it is laid);”

23F: Page 23, line 17, leave out “for the purposes of subsection (5)(a)” and insert “or the 60-day period for the purposes of subsection (5)(a) or (aa) respectively”

23G: Page 23, line 42, after “consultation” insert “and other pre-designation”

23H: Page 24, line 18, leave out “9 months” and insert “12 months”

23I: Page 24, line 32, at end insert “, or
(c) at the request of the Speaker’s Committee, where the request—
(i) is made by notice given to the Secretary of State, and
(ii) gives details of the changes to the statement that the Speaker’s Committee propose should be made.
(2A) Where a request is made in accordance with subsection (2)(b) or (c), the Secretary of State must inform the Commission or the Speaker’s Committee (as the case may be) how the Secretary of State proposes to deal with the request.”

23J: Page 25, line 2, leave out “4C(2) (consultation requirements)” and insert “4C(2) to (3C) (consultation and pre-designation requirements)”

23K: Page 25, line 29, leave out “4C(3)(b)” and insert “4C(3D)(a)”

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will also speak to Motion B.

On Motion A, the Government have listened with respect to your Lordships’ concerns but they consider the measures in these clauses necessary and to take a reasonable approach to reforming the accountability of the Electoral Commission, while respecting their operational independence. Much concern has been expressed about the duty to have regard. The Government’s firm view is that this duty will not allow the Government to direct the commission’s decision-making, nor will it undermine the commission’s other statutory duties. However, while the other place has by a large majority reinstated Clauses 14 and 15, we have listened carefully and respectfully to the concerns expressed. I have also had the pleasure of meeting the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and others, and consulted colleagues in government. As a result of these conversations, and in a sincere effort to address the concerns raised by your Lordships, my colleague in the other place, Minister Badenoch, also tabled government Amendments 23A to 23K in lieu, which were accepted by the House of Commons. I will briefly outline them.

Amendment 23 underscores the independence of the commission by requiring the Secretary of State, when preparing a statement, to have regard to the duty placed on the commission by Section 145(1) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, to monitor and ensure compliance with the rules set out in that Act. Further, this amendment would prohibit the statement from including any provision about specific investigatory or enforcement activity.

Amendments 23C to 23H, 23J and 23K provide for enhanced parliamentary scrutiny of a statement—another thing your Lordships have asked for—that has been subject to statutory consultation by providing both Houses with a supplementary opportunity to consider the draft statement and make representations before it is laid for approval. The amendments also make consequential changes to Clause 14.

Furthermore, Amendments 23B and 23I would require the Secretary of State to publish a response to the statutory consultation on the statement, and to respond publicly to a request for the statement to be revised that comes from the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission.

Taken together, the Government believe that our amendments, in addition to provisions already built into Clause 14—but which I accept failed totally to persuade your Lordships—should now put beyond doubt the question of whether the Statement could be used to unduly influence the commission to take a particular course of action in its investigatory or enforcement activity.

Turning to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Judge, the Government do not, respectfully, share the view that it is necessary to clarify in the law how the duty to have regard to the statement will be interpreted. I was pleased to have the opportunity to hear the noble and learned Lord’s views, and I know he has discussed those also with officials. The Government do not agree with the proposal to amend the provisions to expressly state that the commission would not be bound to follow the statement when carrying out its duty to have regard to it. The duty to have regard works in similar ways to other existing statutory duties without the need for such language as proposed in the noble and learned Lord’s amendment to be included. Any further elaboration of this duty might have unwanted implications for how the many other duties to have regard that appear on our statute book should be interpreted. For these reasons, it is simply not a proposal that the Government can accept and I urge the House to reject it.

The Government do not agree either with the proposals from noble Lords which would require Ministers on the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission to recuse themselves when the committee considers how the commission has discharged its duty to have regard to the statement. Executive representatives have always had a role in the parliamentary oversight of the commission via the committee, which, set in the context of the overall framework, is entirely appropriate. Furthermore, the Speaker’s Committee, not the Government, determines its own procedures. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to impose legislative constraints on the operation of the committee in this way. This is rightly left to Members of the other place to consider. For these reasons, the Government also oppose this amendment and respectfully urge the House to reject it.

19:30

I turn to Motion B on voter identification. I bring to the attention of noble Lords their Amendment 86, to which the other place has disagreed by way of Reason 86A, and to Amendment 86B in lieu, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. The Government’s policy on voter identification has been clear and consistent. In the pilots undertaken by the Government in 2018 and 2019, the Electoral Commission found that photo identification was the best approach to pursue, which gave the public the greatest confidence. The experience in Northern Ireland has shown that photo identification does not present a barrier to people voting. In the first parliamentary election after the introduction of photographic identification in 2005, turnout was higher in Northern Ireland than in Great Britain. For these reasons, I urge the House to support the Government’s decision to disagree with Amendment 86 and to reject Amendment 86B in lieu.

I have heard and appreciate the concerns raised. I hope that noble Lords will understand the earnestness with which I and the Government have listened to and sought to answer many of the concerns about the Bill raised by noble Lords on all sides. This is an important matter, but I firmly believe that the policy is strong. To reassure your Lordships, I will say that this is not a static position. Should further forms of photographic identification become available and sufficiently secure, the Bill already makes provision to enable the list to be amended so that additional identification can be added by secondary legislation.

We have accepted responsibility for post-legislative scrutiny. We will ensure that the list of documents is regularly reviewed so that it remains up to date and fit for purpose. We are already considering potential future additions. For example, we are aware that the Office for Veterans’ Affairs is developing a veteran’s card, which may be appropriate. Furthermore, we will monitor existing forms of identification. For example, should rail cards, such as those proposed previously in the amendment from my noble friend Lord Willetts, become more secure, we will of course look to consider them, along with any other secure forms of identification. Our work will take into account technological advances, too, and we will carefully monitor the development of digital forms of identification.

I repeat that the Bill includes provision for the evaluation of the effect of voter identification to be completed following the first three sets of elections where the requirements apply. This will provide further opportunity to review the specific practicalities of this policy. This is in addition to the statutory post-legislative scrutiny review of the whole Act that will take place, as provided by the amendment that I tabled after discussions with your Lordships at previous stages.

Finally, a list of existing identification types in the Bill is one element of this policy. To ensure that the implementation of the requirement is as accessible and effective as possible, a voter card will be freely available to electors who do not have one of the other forms of photo identification. There will be an extensive national communication campaign, conducted by the Electoral Commission, to complement the local efforts of electoral registration and returning officers. As I have said from the outset, we are determined that every eligible voter will continue to have the opportunity to vote. The Government are confident that our plans will ensure that photo identification works for all voters.

We have developed the debate on these topics at length, and more than once. The hour is late. The other place has considered these matters. In relation to Motion A, my colleague Minister Badenoch has laid before your Lordships genuine and significant changes which the other place has approved and which bring into legislation safeguards that your Lordships felt might be necessary. The Government have made concerted efforts in a range of areas to address the concerns raised by noble Lords throughout the passage of the Bill, and I respectfully submit that now is the time to put it on the statute book. I beg to move.

Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)

Moved by

[Lord Judge]

At end insert “and do propose Amendments 23L and 23M as additional amendments to the words so restored to the Bill—

23L: Clause 14, page 21, line 19, after “to” insert “, but is not bound by,”

23M: Clause 15, page 25, line 40, at end insert—
“(1A) When the Speaker’s Committee carries out the function in subsection (1), members who are Ministers of the Crown must recuse themselves.””

[Lord Judge (CB)]

My Lords, I must get this right. I beg to move Motion A1, as an amendment to Motion A, to insert the words at the end as printed on the Marshalled List. So we are all very much wiser, are we not?

What I am actually talking about is the words in one amendment,

“but is not bound by”.

In the other amendment, the text is much lengthier:

“When the Speaker’s Committee carries out the function in subsection (1)—


to which I shall come—

“members who are Ministers of the Crown must recuse themselves.”

So now I hope we know what we are talking about.

On Monday, we had a very interesting debate. A substantial majority of your Lordships’ House—cross-party, I hasten to add—thought it right to remove the two clauses from the Bill. These two clauses have been renumbered, upnumbered and their numbers changed, so I will go back to the original numbers, 14 and 15. We are dealing with the power given to the Secretary of State by this Bill to issue a strategy statement setting out his or her priorities and the guidance to which the commission would have to have regard. This House took the view that that provision would have left the commission exposed and would have been inconsistent with the need for the commission to be—and to be seen to be—independent of the Government and indeed of all political parties.

Perhaps it is just worth looking at the way in which the Electoral Commission came to be founded. The Fifth Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life used these simple words:

“Those who have advocated the establishment of an Electoral Commission have been emphatic that it should be independent both of the government of the day and of the political parties. We agree. An Election Commission in a democracy like ours could not function properly, or indeed at all, unless it were scrupulously impartial and believed to be so by everyone seriously involved and by the public at large.”


Today, the other place has considered the amendments that this House suggested, and it has restored the original Clauses 14 and 15, with some amendments. I welcome the amendments; they are a step forward. But they are a step forward on a ladder on which we had not reached the first rung in the original legislation.

On a separate matter, I am very grateful to the Minister for the conversations we have had. If I may say so, we had a robust exchange of views. I am pleased that there have been improvements, but they do not add very much. What they amount to is this: they make it absolutely clear that the Secretary of State must not issue a statement that might lead the commission to act inconsistently with its statutory duties. Well, that is important, but nobody ever thought that anybody would be able to issue instructions to be unlawful. Well, I suppose somebody might have thought, “We’ll issue instructions to be unlawful”—but I do not think we will consider that in this particular situation. I am perfectly happy to accept that these amendments increase parliamentary supervision of the processes, but I respectfully suggest to the House that, although there is an improvement, it does not address the independence and the perception of independence of the commission.

I respect the decision of the other place—and that is it. I am not seeking to restore the original decision of this House. However, I am proposing that there should be these small amendments to ensure that the independence is established. I also propose to ask the other place to think again about these two amendments; I am not being critical in any way about this because it did not have this material to consider. I will deal with these amendments very briefly, including the words “not bound by”.

I will refer back to the letter which the Minister kindly sent today to all Peers, which includes this passage in relation to “must have regard to”: “The Government’s view is that this duty will not allow the Government to direct the commission’s decision-making, nor will it undermine the commission’s other statutory duties or displace the commission’s need to carry out these other duties. It simply means that, when carrying out their functions, the commission will be required to consider the statement and weigh it up against any other relevant considerations. Therefore, the commission will remain operationally independent and governed by its commissioners”.

I do not understand the words “operationally independent”; the commission is either independent or not. That is at the foundation of the argument against this amendment. Even if it were correct, it does not address this crucial question: the issuing of the statement must mean that the Secretary of State will have an influence on the decisions of the commission. Self-evidently, the commission cannot say, “Aha, here’s the statement, yippee”, and chuck it out the window or put it in the bin. It will influence the decision; that is the point of it and exactly its purpose. On this issue, my amendment is very simple. As I have discussed, I recognise the argument that “must have regard to” also carries this implication of “not bound by”—I do not think that it does, but I recognise the argument. Assuming that I am wrong, and assuming that it does carry that implication, in the context of an elections Bill and the sensitivities which surround all electoral questions, surely it is so much simpler to express plainly and unequivocally in the Bill that the Electoral Commission will not be bound by the statement issued by the Secretary of State. That is what I am seeking with this amendment.

As to the other amendment, your Lordships will remember that I suggested that having two Ministers of the Crown on the commission would ultimately mean that the judge—that is the way in which the commission would do its work—would include two Members of the Government whose Government had issued the statement. In my old life, we called that “judge in his own cause”; that is what it amounts to. Whereas I understand the need for an examination—I am not happy about it, but I understand the argument—it would be much more appropriate and consistent with an independent commission that Ministers of the Crown should not be judging whether or not the commission had followed and had proper regard to the statement given to it by the Secretary of State.

I am asking this House to send back the amendments I have put forward on the basis that the other place could have a chance to look at them for the first time and make up its own mind about whether they are sensible. I urge that they be accepted, that they would make the improvements necessary to the Bill, and that they would make it possible to look everyone in the eye and say, “This is an independent body exercising an independent function”. I beg to move.

19:45

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

I support the noble and learned Lord’s amendments. I will be as brief as humanly possible, first because of his brilliant and forensic analysis of where we are and the importance of the amendments and, secondly, because there has been a tendency over recent times for noble Lords to filibuster their own amendments—I have seen it again and again. Therefore, I just want to comment on the second part of the amendments before us, the recusing of Ministers in dealing with the statement drawn up by the Secretary of State.

The Minister, in dealing with this element, talked about elected Members having traditionally been on the commission. I do not dispute that for a minute, but we are back to where we were when debating this earlier in the week: there seems to be a sad misunderstanding of the difference between Government and Parliament, and the role of Ministers representing a Government dominated by a political party and the role of elected Members, and therefore the commission, in carrying out their duties independently. This is a substantial constitutional matter; I am sorry that there are not more Members in the Chamber to hear it because, obviously, the troops outside will be rallied at the appropriate moment. Given that this is so fundamental to the way in which we conduct our democracy, election processes, and therefore the transparency and trust that people should expect, I believe that we should vote on this tonight. I am surprised that the Minister has not been able to convince his colleagues in the other place that they have got this very badly wrong. I promise them that it will come back to bite them.

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

I speak to Motion B1. We have already agreed in this House that compulsory photo ID at polling stations is not necessary. At no stage in any of our debates have the Government presented any evidence that compulsory photo ID is necessary, or proportionate, to what they try to claim is a risk of impersonation. In fact, there is proof that impersonation at the polling station is not a significant problem. The number of replacement ballot papers issued in the last general election, mostly because of a clerical error in crossing off the wrong name, was just 1,341 out of over 32 million ballot papers issued. That is an average of two replacement ballot papers in each constituency, or just one for every 30 polling stations. Mostly, they were issued due to clerical error, not fraud. Therefore, spending £180 million over the next 10 years to make photo ID a requirement to be allowed to vote is wholly disproportionate and unnecessary.

In an earlier debate, it was stated by a Minister that if someone claimed your vote, they had stolen it and you could not get it back. However, the replacement ballot paper system means that this is not the case. Unlike someone stealing a parcel of yours at the Post Office, you can get a replacement ballot paper if one has already been issued in your name and an investigation is made, if necessary.

The Minister referred to Northern Ireland and the recent increase in turnout, which I am sure is not due to the popularity of photo ID. If we look back to when photo ID first came in for the 2003 Northern Ireland Assembly election, we see that estimates were that around 25,000 voters did not vote because they did not have the required ID, and almost 3,500 people—2.3% of the electorate—were initially turned away for not possessing the required ID. There are 20 times as many people in Great Britain, so you can do the maths.

However, there is a sensible alternative to the Government’s proposals. It should be seen as a sensible compromise. It would safely address any legitimate concern that the Government claim to have about impersonation at the polling station. Perhaps significantly, it would also fulfil what was in the Conservative Party’s manifesto in 2019.

In addition to the documents considered acceptable to the Government as proof of identity, there is a document already issued to every voter by the official electoral registration officer. That document is the official polling card. In the local election pilots conducted under the Government’s own rules, the poll card was deemed an acceptable form of voter ID in some council areas and was chosen by 93% of voters where it was an option. This compares with 5% choosing to use their driving licence and 1% choosing their passport. Most significantly, the number of voters turned away from polling stations was half the level of that in areas requiring photo ID. That is the real point of the Electoral Commission’s analysis of those pilots.

Every voter on the electoral register is issued with a polling card. There is therefore no additional cost in making it an acceptable form of ID. A fraudster would have not just to impersonate someone at a polling station but to have stolen their poll card in advance. In the unlikely event of it being stolen, it could be replaced, and someone using the original could be arrested at the polling station for using it. So let us offer this compromise from this House. It offers greater security but no discrimination and no great expensive additional bureaucracy.

I believe that we do not require substantial further debate on this issue tonight, but we do need to act to prevent abuse of a majority in the other place.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I will not say very much about the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, because I wish to concentrate on that in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. All I will say is that I think we need identity cards in this country, full stop.

I feel very troubled tonight. At Second Reading, I made it quite plain that I was strongly opposed to Clauses 14 and 15. I made a similar comment in Committee. On Monday, I was glad to be able to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, the noble Lords, Lord Blunkett and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, and my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, when, along with nine or 10 Conservative colleagues, I voted for the amendments in the name of the noble and learned Lord to delete those two clauses.

I am troubled because, frankly, although I accept the good intentions of the Minister, my noble friend Lord True—his integrity is not in any doubt whatever—I do not think that tinkering will really meet the points that were made by those of us who wanted to delete the clauses. It is not for me to say that we should insist, because it is very much the noble and learned Lord’s amendment and he has made his decision, which, again, I respect totally. However, faced with a choice between tinkering and tinkering, I personally think that we have missed the opportunity to put this Bill in order by deleting two clauses that are fraught with danger to our constitution and election system.

The best we can hope for now is really scrupulous post-legislative scrutiny to see how this works out—it is essential that that happens—but we are put under a degree of pressure. Although this is the first stage of ping-pong on this Bill, when I came in this morning, all the robes for Prorogation were hanging up. The Government are clearly determined to prorogue Parliament tomorrow and not to use time later this week—which could have been used—or next week for a battle. I therefore find myself very much in the position of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, at an earlier stage today, when he praised the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, but said, “Really, the time has come”. I believe it is quite clear that the time has come for the end of this Session of Parliament. It is not one that will go down in the history books as a Session of glory or a Session that has enhanced the democratic credentials of government. It will not go down in history as a Session that has seen our country maintain its staunch defence of the rule of law, as it has done in the past, but that is where we are.

Frankly, the most honourable thing I can do tonight is not to vote. I believe that we should have deleted the clauses, but we have not done so. We gave the Commons an opportunity to delete the clauses, but they completely spurned us. They are entitled to do that, but I do not necessarily think that they were wise in taking the line they took. However, that is the line they took, and it is the line they will take if the amendments in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, are passed tonight.

We should just mark this as a pretty sad episode and, as I say, scrutinise the legislation once it is on the statute book. We will need to come back to these issues. We must make absolutely sure that the Electoral Commission is not trammelled in its work and is able, as similar bodies in other democratic countries are, to ensure that our elections are scrupulously controlled, totally impartial and never subject to the whims of any political party—right, left or centre. This is a sad day for me, but that is the conclusion I have reached.

[Lord Willetts (Con)]

My Lords, I want briefly to refer to Motions B and B1. In this House, we moved and passed an amendment that would have significantly added to the list of possible identifications that could be used by voters. I continue to believe that that would have reduced the risk of genuinely eligible voters finding themselves unable to vote. Nevertheless, that amendment has been substantially rejected in the other place and, as we have just heard from my noble friend Lord Cormack, we are drawing to the end of this Session.

I take some comfort from the words we have just heard from the Minister; I thank him for his engagement with this issue. He assured the House that it will be perfectly possible through secondary legislation to add to the list of identifications that can be accepted. He also assured the House that the Government will monitor the potential for new forms of ID to be used and improvements to the security of IDs, which appeared in our original amendment but have now been rejected. I hope that the evaluation he has promised will show that it is possible to add to the list of further IDs that can be used; that would be desirable. I very much hope that the Minister and the Government will be as flexible as he has said. In the light of his assurances and the clear rejection from the other place, I do not think that it is now our role to pursue this issue further.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I support Motion A1, but I want to speak briefly to motion B1, which I also support. My primary concern throughout our debates has been the impact on the ability of people experiencing poverty to exercise their right to vote. I am not going to repeat the arguments, but I hope I can get a couple of assurances on the record from the Minister.

First, I thank him, as I understand he has asked officials to include organisations led by people in poverty— such as Poverty2Solutions and, I would add, the APLE Collective—in their ongoing consultations about the implementation of the Bill, so as to get their expertise on the experience of poverty. I would welcome it if the Minister could place that commitment on the record.

20:00

Secondly, I welcome the commitment he has made today to post-legislative scrutiny for evaluation and to keep under review the list of documents that will be acceptable as identification. Ideally, I would like to see a review immediately after the next general election, and I ask that the review looks explicitly at the impact on the ability of people experiencing poverty to exercise their right to vote.

A point I have made consistently is that, yes, while we have looked at groups protected under the Equality Act—although that does not seem to have made much difference to the outcome—it has been quite clear to me that there has been no attempt to look at the impact on people experiencing poverty who are not in a protected group. Given the evidence from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and others, there is a real danger that their ability to exercise their right to vote will be seriously affected.

So that is all I am asking—those two assurances on the record.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, in relation to my noble and learned friend’s amendment, I have a short but I believe very important question to ask of your Lordships. What is your Lordships’ House here for if it is not this? My noble and learned friend has demonstrated beyond doubt that there is a risk—a measurable risk, not a fanciful risk—that the Electoral Commission might have its independence damaged and impugned if these amendments are not introduced into the Bill. What would the Government lose by accepting these amendments?

I therefore suggest to your Lordships that we have not yet heard any good reason why these amendments should not be sent back. I am unpersuaded by the argument that because some robes are hanging on hangers somewhere in the building, no doubt losing their creases—which is as good an argument as anything I have heard against my noble and learned friend’s amendments—we should not delay matters for another day, which is available. There is an option: the Minister can go and consult his ministerial colleagues and come back to the House in a matter of minutes and say, “I have listened to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge; he has argued a brilliant case and it may well be that he is right”. And if there is a risk that he is right—which is what I believe—we should not let this pass just because it is inconvenient to delay the end of the parliamentary Session.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, I had not intended to speak, but the fact is that, following what we have just heard, the Order Paper for Tuesday and Wednesday next week has Questions down from noble Lords. It is not as though we are slicing off tomorrow: the Order Paper is there, and it is there for a reason. Somebody worked out, in terms of the management of this place, that the House would sit. People put bids in for Questions, and they are sitting there on the Order Paper. The Minister —to whom I pay tribute for the way in which he has dealt with this Bill—did leave a gap open, which is not completely closed.

On what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said, we are certainly going to find out what the mettle of the electoral commissioners is made of, as a result of this kind of legislation. This is going to test those individuals—both the officers and the commissioners—in a way that they never contemplated when they applied for or were appointed to their posts.

I do not want to delay the House, but the other day I was reading—and I have not finished it—David Runciman’s How Democracy Ends. I came across this page where he quoted an American political scientist Nancy Bermeo, who had identified six different varieties—David Runciman called them “coups”—of ways in which things get manipulated. These are two of them. I would just like the Minister to explain how this Bill differs from these two examples:

“‘Executive aggrandisement’, when those already in power chip away at democratic institutions without ever overturning them. ‘Strategic election manipulation’, when elections fall short of being free and fair but also fall short of being stolen outright.”


Now where does this Bill differ from those two definitions?

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I was not going to speak in this debate, but, having listened very carefully, I am deeply troubled at the idea that we would not try to see whether we can persuade the Minister and Conservative colleagues in the other place, right-thinking Conservatives, that there is a significant risk here of gerrymandering elections—something one would think was impossible to imagine in this country.

I think the House has been done a great service by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, who has challenged us to stand up for what we can see is a significant risk. Indeed, when we think about what happens in the other place with the amendments that we are trying to point out are really important to insert in the Bills that are coming through in these final days, we see that they are not even being sufficiently debated. With a significant majority there is a risk that a Government can try to gather for themselves permanent or long-lasting powers that are not designed for the kinds of constitutional arrangements that we have in this country.

I therefore am finding myself deeply conflicted and troubled as to—in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile—what we are here for if it is not consider, and ask the other place to consider, these matters.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, briefly, we on these Benches will vote for both amendments on matters of principle, because we believe in constitutional democracy and citizens’ rights. Sadly, throughout our discussions on this Bill, the Minister has resisted attempts to discuss this as a constitutional issue and as a matter of principle. Indeed, as the Bill has gone through the Government have removed this area from the Cabinet Office and put it in with housing and local government under the Department for Levelling Up, so that the Commons committee on constitutional affairs will no longer cover such things as this. I regret that, too; it seems to me entirely improper.

I recall the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, making a very powerful speech some while ago on the importance of process in politics. By “process” I take him to mean the way in which we conduct ourselves in the political world, including the rule of law and institutional checks and balances Those conventions of political life are a fundamental part of democracy. That is what this Bill has failed to reinforce. I think we all recognise that a future Prime Minister or a future Government will have to return to this issue and produce a much better Bill that can command more cross-party support.

The amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, addresses the question of parliamentary sovereignty—not Executive sovereignty. My noble friend Lord Rennard’s amendment addresses the question of the right of every citizen to take part in the political life of the country and not to face unnecessary barriers. One of the many adverse effects of the Bill is that it makes it much easier and without barriers for overseas citizens to vote but more difficult for domestic citizens to vote. That is very odd, not entirely democratic and undesirable.

For those and other reasons, and on matters of constitutional principle, which the revising House should have particular concern for, we will vote for both amendments.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, in his opening remarks, the Minister talked about the post-legislative scrutiny that is going to be on the face of the Bill and said that this would include reviewing and monitoring further forms of acceptable ID. He mentioned that the Bill includes the provision to add further acceptable forms. We welcome that. I hold the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, in the highest regard and thank him for pressing the Government in his previous amendment on the importance of furthering the number of IDs that can be used.

Having said all that, we believe, as the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, said in introducing his amendment, that the Government have simply got it wrong on requiring voter ID to be presented at polling stations. We are disappointed and unhappy that there has been absolutely no movement whatever from the Government on this and that they have not wished to include any further accepted forms of ID in the Bill. If the Bill moves forward on ID as it stands, will the Minister provide assurances as to how the requirements for photo voter ID will be introduced, how local government will be supported, and what mitigations will be put in place to ensure that no elector will be disfranchised as a result of the Bill?

We very much welcome the amendments in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, on the Electoral Commission. There is clear concern, right across this House, about the undermining of the independence of the Electoral Commission. I will not go into any detail because we need to move on. The noble and learned Lord clearly laid out why there are still deep concerns in this House. The small amendments that he has offered would resolve these issues and greatly strengthen the Bill before it reaches the statute book. We agree wholeheartedly with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, is trying to achieve and support his decision to ask the other place to think once again on what is a matter of extreme constitutional importance.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, for the convenience of the House—I know it is late and I have made my arguments and placed them before your Lordships—but I was asked a couple of specific questions.

In response to the queries of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, there has been correspondence with her and officials through the list of organisations that we consulted. We have affirmed that there is and will be ongoing consultation as part of the implementation programme. I can certainly say in the House that we will undertake to continue to consult the organisations that have been discussed as we go forward. I can give her that assurance.

One thing raised in the debate was that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, said that we were doing this because of Prorogation. That was something injected into the debate by another Member of your Lordships’ House. I remain at the disposal of your Lordships. If noble Lords wish to be here again and again on this matter, I will rise to respond. The matter referred to is immaterial.

20:15

However, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, also asked whether I could go and consult colleagues in the other place. Because of the exquisite courtesy of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, the Government had been advised of what he was proposing. When I said to your Lordships that these proposals would not be acceptable to the Government, and potentially, perhaps your Lordships might consider, to the other place, that was not off the cuff; it was an advised response. That is the advised position from me at the Dispatch Box, and should these additional amendments be sent back, I would not anticipate that the short passage of time would alter that advised position.

It is a matter for your Lordships to decide whether you wish to pursue things further. I believe, in all humility, that with the amendments laid by my colleagues in the other place—which the noble and learned Lord has, with his utter civility, accepted—improvements have been made to the position in the Bill. On balance, given what I have said about the Government’s position on this proposition and given the offer on the table, in effect, from the Government in the Commons’ proposals, and given the many changes and improvements that have been made—to the noble Baroness opposite I say that we will of course keep the House informed on the vital measures that we need to take to ensure that people are fully informed—and having listened carefully to another brilliant speech of advocacy by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, the judgment ultimately to be made by your Lordships’ House is whether it is appropriate to continue pursuing these matters for a further stage. I respectfully submit that, given that the Government are not likely to—indeed will not—accept the proposals that have been put forward, it may be to the convenience of all that that is accepted. It is of course absolutely within the right of your Lordships to vote and decide as you wish, but I thought it was important that the House should understand the likely position and the Government’s view of these proposals.

[Lord Judge (CB)]

My Lords, I had no doubt whatever that I would ask the House to consider its views and to agree to the Motion in my name. I regret to say this but, having heard the last few observations by the Minister, I am encouraged to make sure that, if this becomes part of the law without the amendments that are included in this Motion, it will be the responsibility of those in the other place who voted for it. Therefore, I respectfully ask the House to agree to my Motion.

20:18

Division 3

Ayes: 181

Noes: 202

Motion A agreed.

20:31

Motion B

Moved by

[Lord True]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 86, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 86A.

86A: Because the Commons consider the requirement to provide adequate photographic identification to be the most effective means of securing the integrity of the electoral system.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion B, so I beg to move.

Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B)

Moved by

[Lord Rennard]

At end insert “and do propose Amendment 86B in lieu—

86B: Page 79, line 44, at end insert—
“(1HA) In this rule a “specified document” also means an official poll card issued by the returning officer for the election at which the voter intends to vote.””

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, I beg to move.

20:31

Division 4

Ayes: 150

Noes: 208

Motion B agreed.

Ukraine Update

Wednesday 27th April 2022 Lords Chamber

Statement

The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Monday 25 April.

“It is 61 days since Russia invaded Ukraine, and 74 days since my Russian counterpart assured me that the Russian army would not be invading. As the invasion approaches its ninth week, I want to update the House on the current situation and the steps that we are taking to further our support for the Ukrainian people.

It is our assessment that approximately 15,000 Russian personnel have been killed during their offensive. Alongside the death toll are the equipment losses. A number of sources suggest that, to date, over 2,000 armoured vehicles have been destroyed or captured. That includes at least 530 tanks, 530 armoured personnel carriers, and 560 infantry fighting vehicles. Russia has also lost more than 60 helicopters and fighter jets. The offensive that was supposed to take a maximum of a week has now taken weeks. Last week Russia admitted that the Slava-class cruiser “Moskva” had sunk. That is the second key naval asset that the Russians have lost since invading, and its loss has significantly weakened their ability to bring their maritime assets to bear from the Black Sea.

As I said in my last Statement, Russia has so far failed in nearly every one of its objectives. In recognition of that failure, the Russian high command has regrouped, reinforced and changed its focus to securing the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. A failure of the Russia Ministry of Defence command and control at all levels has meant that it has now appointed one overall commander, General Dvornikov. At the start of this conflict, Russia had committed more than 120 battalion tactical groups, approximately 65% of its entire ground combat strength. According to our current assessment, about 25% of those have been rendered not combat-effective.

Ukraine is an inspiration to us all. Its brave people have never stopped fighting for their lands. They have endured indiscriminate bombardment, war crimes and overwhelming military aggression, but they have stood firm, galvanised the international community, and beaten back the army of Russia in the north and the north-east.

We anticipate that this next phase of the invasion will be an attempt by Russia to occupy further the Donbass and connect with Crimea via Mariupol. It is therefore urgent that we in the international community ensure that Ukraine gets the aid and weapons that it needs so much.

As Defence Secretary, I have ensured that at each step of the way the UK’s support is tailored to the anticipated actions of Russia. To date we have provided more than 5,000 anti-tank missiles, five air defence systems with more than 100 missiles, 1,360 anti-structure munitions, and 4.5 tonnes of plastic explosive. On 9 March, in response to indiscriminate bombing from the air and escalation by President Putin’s forces, I announced that the UK would supply Starstreak high-velocity and low-velocity anti-air missiles. I am now able to report that these have been in theatre for more than three weeks, and have been deployed and used by Ukrainian forces to defend themselves and their territory.

Over the recess, my ministerial team hosted a Ukrainian Government delegation at Salisbury plain training area to explore further equipment options. That was quickly followed by the Prime Minister’s announcement of a further £100 million-worth of high-grade military equipment, 120 armoured vehicles, sourcing anti-ship missile systems, and high-tech loitering munitions for precision strikes.

However, as we can see from Ukrainian requests, more still needs to be done. For that reason, I can now announce to the House that we shall be gifting a small number of armoured vehicles fitted with launchers for those anti-air missiles. Those Stormer vehicles will give Ukrainian forces enhanced short-range anti-air capabilities, day and night. Since my last Statement, more countries have answered the call and more have stepped up to support. The Czech Republic has supplied T-72 tanks and BMP fighting vehicles, and Poland has also pledged T-72 tanks.

The quickest route to help Ukraine is with equipment and ammunition similar to what they already use. The UK Government obviously do not hold Russian equipment, but in order to help where we do not have such stock, we have enabled others to donate. Alongside Canada and Poland, the Royal Air Force has been busy moving equipment from donor countries to Ukraine. At the same time, if no donor can be found, we are purchasing equipment from the open market. On 31 March, I held my second international donor conference, with an increase in the number of countries involved to 35, including representatives from the European Union and NATO. So far these efforts have yielded some 2.5 million items of equipment, worth more than £1.5 billion.

The next three weeks are key. Ukraine needs more long-range artillery and ammunition, and both Russian and NATO calibre types to accompany them. It also seeks anti-ship missiles to counter Russian ships that are able to bombard Ukrainian cities. It is therefore important to say that, if possible, the UK will seek to enable or supply such weapons. I shall keep the House and Members on each Front Bench up to date as we proceed.

The MoD is working day and night, alongside the US, Canada and the EU, to support continued logistical supplies, but not all the aid is lethal. We have also sent significant quantities of non-lethal equipment to Ukraine. To date, we have sent more than 90,000 ration packs, more than 10 pallets of medical equipment, more than 3,000 pieces of body armour, nearly 77,000 helmets, 3,000 pairs of boots and much more, including communications equipment and ear defence.

On top of our military aid to Ukraine, we contribute to strengthening NATO’s collective security, both for the immediate challenge and for the long term. We have temporarily doubled the number of defensive personnel in Estonia. We have sent military personnel to support Lithuanian intelligence, resilience and reconnaissance efforts. We have deployed hundreds of Royal Marines to Poland, and sent offshore vessels and Navy destroyers to the eastern Mediterranean. We have also increased our presence in the skies over south-eastern Europe with four additional Typhoons based in Romania. That means that we now have a full squadron of RAF fighter jets in southern Europe, ready to support NATO tasking. As the Prime Minister announced on Friday, we are also offering a deployment of British Challenger 2 tanks to Poland, to bridge the gap between Poland donating tanks to Ukraine and their replacements arriving from a third country.

Looking further ahead, NATO is reassessing its posture and the UK is leading conversations at NATO about how best the alliance can deter and defend against threats. My NATO colleagues and I tasked the alliance to report to leaders at the summit in June with proposals for concrete, long-term and sustainable changes. Some of us in this House knew that, behind the mask, the Kremlin was not the international statesman it pretended to be. With this invasion of Ukraine, all of Europe can now see the true face of President Putin and his inner circle. His intention is only to destroy, crush and rub out the free peoples of Ukraine. He does not want to preserve. He must not be allowed to prevail. Ukrainians are fighting for their very lives and for our freedoms. The President of Ukraine himself said as much: if Russia stops fighting, there will be peace; if Ukraine stops fighting, there will be no more Ukraine.”

20:44

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, in this House and across Parliament and beyond, as the Minister knows, we are united in our support for Ukraine and the actions the Government have taken. The courage shown by the Ukrainian people, both military and civilian, has been remarkable, and this bravery has echoed across the globe since the Russian invasion began, inspiring us all.

We have all condemned the invasion of a sovereign country and the barbaric acts that have been carried out in its name. We remain determined to end this unjustifiable war and ensure that all those responsible are brought to justice for their war crimes. These efforts have seen Russia forced into a new phase of changed tactics this week. The goal of outright conquest has been abandoned and the focus is now on the east.

Can the Minister share what further military assistance the Ukrainian Government have requested from the UK to deal with this new offensive? As Finland and Sweden are reportedly seeking to join NATO in response to the invasion, what steps are the Government taking to reassure our democratic partners that we will stand with them against any Russian aggression and consider quickly such applications?

Is it not the case that, rather than weakening NATO, Russia’s actions have strengthened it: the complete opposite of what it intended and indeed expected? Overnight we have heard reports of false flag attacks in the breakaway Transnistria region of Moldova, as well as a renewed attack on the Azovstal steel plant, which houses resilient survivors of the brutal siege of Mariupol. It was also reported this morning that hangers in the Zaporizhzhia region, containing European and US weapons and ammunition, were destroyed by Russian missiles.

Can the Minister share what intelligence she can on this, particularly whether any UK-supplied provisions were lost? Talking of intelligence, does the Minister have any update on our assessment of Russian threats to attack Western targets? It is vital that we stand together to show that we will not be intimidated by any such threats. We welcome the announcement made by the Secretary of State on Monday to further supply Ukraine. Armoured vehicles fitted with anti-air missiles will enhance the short-range anti-air capabilities of the Ukrainian military. We also welcome efforts to move equipment from other allies to Ukraine.

Could the Minister say what logistical support the UK is providing to our allies to ensure that military aid reaches the front lines? The Secretary of State has said that the UK will seek to enable, or supply more long-range artillery and ammunition, as well as anti-ship missiles which Ukraine needs. Alongside that, what aerial reconnaissance is being provided? It has been only two days since the announcement, but I wonder if the Minister can update the Chamber on what is being done to deliver these weapons?

What is required next is a shift from old Soviet-era weapons, which enabled a short-term response to the initial offensive, to a medium term strategy in response to the latest phase. This will require newer NATO weapons and training for the Ukrainians to use them. Can the Minister outline what steps the Government are taking to facilitate that?

I also understand that approximately 1,000 UK troops are on standby for humanitarian support in the countries immediately adjoining Ukraine. Is there anything the Minister can tell us about their deployment and work?

I now turn to the front page of the Daily Telegraph this morning and the article which reports the Foreign Secretary making a speech, this evening I think, calling for plane parts to be sent to Ukraine and for increased defence spending. Will the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Ministry of Defence be involved in signing off these plans, and what plans do the Government have to review defence spending? Can the Minister update us on the Foreign Secretary saying that the free world will need to “reboot, recast and remodel” its approach to tackling aggressors, and that Ukraine has to be a catalyst for wider change. What does that mean for our current defence posture, and is that being reviewed?

Could the Minister update us on the total amount that the Government has now spent on military aid to Ukraine, including non-lethal equipment and how does this compare to our key allies? Are we now confident that all NATO partners, including Germany, are united in the provision of military equipment?

To conclude, it is the case that the Ukrainians’ fight is our fight, and it is vital that we stand together against this unprovoked aggression, and prepare if necessary for the long haul. This country has a proud history of standing up for freedom and democracy and we must continue to do so today. We know the consequences of not doing so.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, on these Benches we also stand in support of the Ukrainian President and the people of Ukraine, who have so robustly stood up to the Russian invasion, I think for 63 days now. Normally, perhaps, your Lordships’ House is relieved that Ministers are not required to rehearse the Statement, yet in this Statement there was a lot of detail which might have merited some rehearsal today. The Secretary of State went through in some considerable detail the losses Russia has faced and how Russia had assumed that it was going to be a short incursion into Ukraine and a rapid victory, which has clearly not been the case. From these Benches we support the efforts of Ukraine and our NATO allies on its borders.

Many of the questions that I wish to ask are similar to those raised by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. We have had a lot of detail about the anti-ship and anti-tank missiles the United Kingdom has been supplying. There is a question of how far and for how long we are able to keep supplying them. I think it was some time before Recess that the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, who is not in his place, asked to what extent the Government are replenishing their own missiles. Is the Minister able to say how long the Government are able to offer the sort of support they have been giving? What is the medium-term thinking?

The Secretary of State said:

“Looking further ahead, NATO is reassessing its posture and the UK is leading conversations at NATO about how best the alliance can deter and defend against threats.”—[Official Report, Commons, 25/4/22; col. 463.]


Is the Minister able to go into any more detail about what sort of “posture” we are thinking about and what role the United Kingdom expects to play? In light of the French elections three days ago, we would assume that the response from France will be a supportive one. What conversations have Her Majesty’s Government had with France and other NATO partners about the way forward?

In particular, what assessment are the Government making, not just about Russia in the Donbass, but also of the further actions being taken in Moldova, Transnistria and other areas? Has any assessment been made of Russian thinking about Kaliningrad? At the moment we have all been focused on Ukraine, but there is a whole set of other flashpoints which need to be thought about. It would be a Pyrrhic victory if we found that the situation in Ukraine was, if not resolved, at least held at bay, then we started looking at other entities that Russia might have its eyes on. What are the Government thinking in that regard?

Finally, I echo the questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. The Foreign Secretary appears to have a very clear view about sending aircraft. Is that the government position or simply the view of the Foreign Secretary? What thought are the Government giving to support for partner countries—Finland and Sweden—if they decide they want to be NATO allies? How does that affect the UK’s thinking? If one of the excuses for the Russian actions in UK was that Ukraine had an interest in joining NATO or the European Union, does that affect Russian thinking about Finland and Sweden? What action does the United Kingdom think we may need to take in that regard to support countries which may become NATO members?

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)]

My Lords, first, I say again to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, how much I appreciate the tone of their contributions. As I have observed before, it is extremely important that the tremendous contribution coming from the United Kingdom to support Ukraine is seen externally as an absolutely united endeavour. I express my appreciation to both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness.

The noble Lord asked what further assistance is coming from the UK. The Statement that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State gave to the Commons on Monday detailed a lot of the information that your Lordships wanted. I observe that, as your Lordships are aware, there has been very close engagement between the United Kingdom and Ukraine. I understand that there are conversations in some form or another almost on a daily basis, as we listen to what Ukraine wants, what it needs and how we as a country can, either bilaterally or in concert with our allies and partners, try to provide that.

It was interesting that, yesterday, at the meeting in Germany, the Secretary of State met US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, Ukraine Defence Minister Reznikov, and representatives from nearly 40 other countries to collectively discuss Ukraine’s military needs. Our allies thanked the UK for its leadership in securing key military assistance to date. All countries agreed to continue discussions on an enduring basis. This goes some way towards explaining how we approach this. We can do a lot bilaterally but I think the real impact is from what we do in concert. I wish to reassure your Lordships that that is at the forefront for NATO member states.

In relation to what further equipment we are giving, the Secretary of State, when he made his Statement, was asked about the Brimstone missile. He mentioned that we had, in 2020-21, agreed in principle to develop and sell a maritime variant of the Brimstone missile. Ukraine recently asked for a longer-range ground attack missile, and the Government have been exploring if existing stocks of Brimstone could be released for such purposes. At the time of my right honourable friend’s Statement, we thought that some time might be required to realise that aim—the request from Ukraine—and that that would then give the Defence Secretary an opportunity to return to update the House on sending Ukraine this new capability. I am pleased to say that our technical staff—here I wish to pay tribute to the tremendous calibre of expertise within the MoD, which has absolutely been on display in stellar form in our response to the situation in Ukraine—have had quicker successes adapting and providing the system. Instead of a further Oral Statement before Prorogation, I can inform the House that the UK will now provide Ukraine with Brimstone missiles. We will update the House on future developments and, in the meantime, we will continue to provide briefings. Obviously, Prorogation intervenes, but as Defence Minister in this House I will endeavour to keep Members up to date with developments.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, also raised the issue of Sweden and Finland. Although not members of NATO currently, these are very important partner states of NATO and valued friends of the United Kingdom. We take their interests very seriously and would wish to support them as friends and allies. In relation to their NATO application, it is obviously their decision how they process that and deal with it. We work closely with them already in the JEF partnership, which, as your Lordships will know, is a very effective alliance of like-minded states operating in the Baltic. There is total interest in these two countries by the United Kingdom and a desire to support them in every way we can.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, made the interesting observation that, in a paradoxical way, Russia has managed to strengthen NATO. That is an astute, perceptive and absolutely accurate analysis. President Putin’s appalling, unjustified and illegal invasion of another sovereign country has seen the reasons he adduced for this, and the very threat he said he was frightened of, fortify and intensify before his very eyes. Of course, it was never a threat, because NATO is a defensive alliance, but he has seen the potency of what happens when leaders of countries, and countries themselves, appalled at what someone else does, band together. They want to offer support and do the right thing, and that is what we have seen very much in evidence in the response to the situation Ukraine.

An important point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, about whether there is a threat that Russia may seek out targets in the West. We have been clear from the beginning that we would be consistent in supporting Ukraine. It is not a NATO member but it is a friend of the United Kingdom. We had already been involved, for several years, in helping, training and providing advice to Ukraine. Quite simply, the UK and our allies and partners are providing the tools for it to defend itself against a brutal and unjustified Russian invasion. Once weapons have been donated, their use is a matter for Ukraine, which has a right to defend itself by targeting legitimate military objectives. That is the business of Ukraine in defending itself against a completely illegal invasion and is a necessary response. That is why countries such as the United Kingdom, together with our international partners—not least our NATO partners—have been as one in responding to this. I think that has given President Putin cause for thought.

I was also asked about the logistical support that the United Kingdom is able to provide. It was a very welcome outcome of the second international donor conference—which took place on 31 March this year and was attended by 35 international partners—that we have offered to conduct logistics operations to support the delivery of donations from partner nations. That is very important support that the UK is providing, and it is received very positively by our partners.

A question was also raised about the discussions taking place in NATO. As I said earlier, the whole raison d’être of the meeting in Germany yesterday was to ensure that the critical discussions being prosecuted by the Defence Ministers of the member states were focused on both what we need to do at the moment in responding to the challenge in Ukraine and what the posture should be for the future. These are under very active consideration and are important questions to ask.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, raised the matter of the Foreign Secretary’s statement and her view about warplanes going to Ukraine. I can say that we are working with our allies to ensure that Ukraine has what it needs to defend itself. I cannot comment on specifics, but we and many other western partners are now providing longer-range weapons systems to help counter the indiscriminate artillery fire that the Russian armed forces have been raining down on besieged Ukrainian cities. As I said earlier, the UK is taking a leading role in co-ordinating the delivery of military aid. It is important that we continue to listen to Ukraine and assess what stage the conflict has got to and what is needed to facilitate the response, and work with our allies to both analyse and reflect on what is needed and then deliver that.

On the matter of budget, as your Lordships will be aware, and as I have frequently observed from this Dispatch Box, the UK has a very good record of contributing to NATO. We have consistently met our 2% of GDP, and sometimes we have been above that. We are the most important contributor to NATO in Europe. That is a significant position, which we seek to maintain. In so far as our indigenous defence budget is concerned, we have had what I think has been universally regarded as a very good settlement from the spending review; it certainly enables us to fund the immediate needs and our planned priorities. But of course, as we look to the medium and longer term, we shall constantly do that through the optics of what we think we need and the resource package that may be required.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, raised the matter of humanitarian aid. I have indicated what we have been doing on the military front, and I have a summary here of our role in lethal and non-lethal military support. We have gifted approximately £200 million in aid to Ukraine, which we propose will grow to £500 million. On humanitarian aid, we have supported about £400 million, including £220 million which will be used to save lives and protect people inside the country and the wider region, and £174 million in economic support to bolster the Ukrainian economy and reduce Ukraine’s reliance on Russian gas imports. We have also contributed £25 million from the Conflict, Security and Stability Fund to support the payment of salaries for the Ukrainian armed forces.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, raised the matter of the situation Russia finds itself in. It is important to reflect on the reality of what has unfolded on the ground and what President Putin’s projected plan was—quite simply, the two have not matched up. What he thought would be a simple and short-lived incursion into Ukraine has been anything but. Such information as we have been able to secure—which is difficult to do—is very interesting. There is a now deleted post on Russian social media site VK from pro-Kremlin media outlet Readovka which claimed on 22 April 2022 that Russia’s defence ministry stated at a closed briefing that it had lost 13,414 soldiers in Ukraine, plus another 7,000 missing, and 116 were reportedly killed aboard the Russian cruiser “Moskva”, with 100-plus still missing.

All that is a reflection of two things: the extent to which this is proving to be a very bitter conflict for Russia, and—almost more importantly—it is a most appalling waste of lives, many of them young lives, and an appalling legacy of President Putin to leave families in Russia grieving lost family members and friends, who have faced such an appalling prospect in being committed to this barbaric incursion into Ukraine. That indicates that the situation for Russia is much grimmer than President Putin would ever wish to concede.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked, how long we will keep this going. We will provide support for as long as it takes. There will be and are conversations with the EU. We look at Moldova very carefully, and it is something we consider with our allies and partners.

21:08

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, today I was on a call with the Ukrainian Culture Minister, who was describing how the Russians had been systematically trying to destroy cultural assets and had been taking and burning books in the places they took over. They are actively destroying that whole Ukrainian heritage. In her response, the Minister has pointed out the danger to civilians there, many of them women and children. Hundreds, it seems, are still waiting for their visas and permission to travel under the Homes for Ukraine scheme. In many of these families, one family member has not had permission to travel but others have. I do not expect the Minister to be able to answer that point specifically today because it is outside her remit, but I ask her to make representations to our Home Secretary and to the Minister for Refugees that the situation is intolerable and must be rectified urgently. The number of people queuing today at the hub in Portcullis House wanting to raise individual cases that they have been contacted about was testament to the fact that we are not managing our promise to provide shelter to these refugees with the intention originally laid out in the Statement.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness, who raises an important issue which resonates across the House. The information I have is that as of 20 April 2022, the UK visa schemes have issued 71,800 visas via the family and sponsorship schemes. I appreciate that many will regard that pace as too slow. The noble Baroness has clearly described the frustration and anxiety of those who feel they are not getting the response they seek. I certainly undertake to relay her concerns to my colleague in the Home Office. I suggest that a correspondence be entered into between the Home Office and the noble Baroness.

[Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)]

My Lords, may I ask the Minister about the very sad situation with Ukrainian casualties, both military and civil? Our medical teams during the Afghan situation developed very specialised skills in this area post-conflict. The Statement refers to our sending 10 pallets of medical equipment. Has Britain offered any more help on the medical side? Has there been any offer of our willingness to bring Ukrainian military casualties to this country or to send more medical teams to Ukraine to help with the pretty ghastly situation on the ground there?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

Part of the humanitarian assistance to date has included granting in kind to the Ukraine Armed Forces medical equipment from the MoD’s supplies. This includes items for combat medical needs, field dressings, bandages, tourniquets, splints and chest seals. I understand that the possibility of our offering more assistance from the UK end is being looked at. I do not have any further information on that, but I undertake to make inquiries and report to the noble Lord.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I offer my support for everything the Ministry of Defence, the Secretary of State and other government departments are doing. Is the Minister aware of one difficulty: the paucity of briefing that we are receiving? This means that we will know what the media want us to know, but not what Ministers and officials need to tell us and can tell us. This is important, because without these briefings we cannot speak with authority outside the House and be more effective in supporting the policy, while not ignoring our constitutional duties.

Does the Minister also agree that it is premature to consider our defence expenditure at this point without knowing what the outcome of the conflict will be? On the point about resupply made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, I hope the Minister will be able to state that she will not hesitate to increase the production of defence materiel as required and without any artificial constraints.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

First, I say to my noble friend that I certainly would wish to co-operate in every way I can with providing information and briefing to your Lordships. With the intervention of the Recess and imminent Prorogation, that has logistically proved a little difficult, but I undertake to resume these briefings and hope that provides reassurance to my noble friend.

On the budget, as I said earlier, we constantly review the immediate need and the potentially committed expenditure that we have embarked on. We also look at the medium to longer-term interest. That is what we will be doing, because critical to that—my noble friend is quite right—is what we think the implications are for this sustained and continuing contribution from the UK. Regarding what has been supplied already and what will be supplied, I reassure him that we do not compromise our core reserves—our stores—that we need for our national security and the other global contributions we make. We keep a careful eye on that.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I have three brief questions for the Minister. First, the Statement says:

“The next three weeks are key.”


Will the Minister outline in what way that is meant, given that this war has continued for much longer than we had originally thought it would? Secondly, what is the Government’s current assessment of Russian capability and intention to occupy the whole of the south coast of Ukraine, thus creating the possibility of a landlocked Ukraine state? Thirdly, in respect of the impressive range of equipment that is outlined in this Statement, do the Government have any concerns about the West’s ability to get it through to the Ukrainians who are going to use it? As I understand it, Russia has begun to target things like railway lines, which might well be the means by which this equipment is transferred from the West to the Ukrainians, who are fighting so bravely.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I think that when the Secretary of State referred to the next three weeks, he had in mind what has been a clearly discernible change of approach by the Russian leadership and military. That has involved two things. It has involved a new command structure, which indicates that the previous structure was not working. It also indicates that Russia realises that it is going to have to consolidate its resources and it therefore wants to focus on the eastern part of the country. That is a critical part of the conflict, because it is very clear that Russia is determined—we see it from the activity already taking place in towns and cities within that area—to try to strike this land bridge down through the south-eastern part of the country. That is what the Ukrainians are determined to resist, and it is what the UK—with all our allies and partners—is determined to support Ukraine in repelling.

On the issue of the next three weeks, we all know that President Putin has set his May Day parade day as an iconic, tokenistic opportunity to—no doubt—declare how successful he considers this illegal war has been. That would always raise an expectation that he might be prepared to escalate activity, and therefore there is a critical need to anticipate and respond if that is the case. This is a critical part of the conflict, but I think it is clear from the response in the support for Ukraine that the Ukrainians know that they have a lot of friends, and they now have a lot of really substantial equipment and weaponry to help them in the defence of their country.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, I very much welcome the Statement and the support which the Government are giving to Ukraine. I was very grateful to hear the assurance from the Minister that the kinetic capabilities of our own forces are being protected. I hope that industry is rising to the challenge, which it obviously must be facing. One thing which was not mentioned was the impact of economic sanctions on the fighting capability of the Russians. Has any assessment been made of those sanctions as they affect the military capabilities of the Russians, both immediately and in the longer term?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

The noble and gallant Lord has asked an interesting question. There is no question that the broad mechanism of sanctions applied both by individual countries and in concert by united nations is having an impact on Russia. I do not think that there is any question about that. The extent to which that will impact on the Russians’ military endeavour and their capacity to, quite simply, pay salaries or fund equipment or buy new equipment is probably much more difficult to anticipate, but it is a very interesting question. As time passes, we might begin to get a clearer picture of what this means for the Russian military endeavour.

We all understand at the moment that what we are seeing are, quite simply, signs of the failure of that Russian endeavour, because there have been clear indications of failure. Part of that might be down to incompetence and ineptitude on the field, but some of it might be increasingly down to inability to keep supplies coming, logistics flowing and the normal support necessary to sustain armed forces in conflict. It is an interesting point, and I will take it back to the department. If I come across any further information, I shall share it with the noble and gallant Lord.

[Lord Pickles (Con)]

My Lords, it is clear that getting the necessary equipment through to the Ukrainians and dealing with humanitarian help is of the first order. However, I would like to ask my noble friend the Minister a question which is of the second order but is likely to become increasingly important. She will recall that one of the reasons that the totalitarian regimes started to collapse in the late 1980s and early 1990s was because their blood-soaked dictators were unable to keep the truth from their populations. Things have changed in the last few years. There may be censorship in Russia but, with the growth of the digital economy, there simply are not enough secret policemen to monitor the web. Part of the decline of Russia as an economy is that the amount of material out there in Russian has diminished. While the views of what is happening can come through from western sources in English and other European languages, they are not coming through in Russian. Will my noble friend see that the United States and our European allies look at trying to get as much information out there in basic Russian? It is certainly my view that the Russian people are a noble and a great people, and they have a right to know what is the new barbarity being done in their name.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I entirely agree with my noble friend. One of the great frustrations of this whole tragedy has been the stranglehold that President Putin has placed on the dissemination of information in Russia. It is a stranglehold. Outlets have been closed down and criminal law has been invoked to threaten people who share information or appear to be disloyal to the state. My noble friend is correct that trying to reinform the Russian people with the correct version of what is happening is clearly an important and desirable objective. He makes a good point about language. One of the challenges has been not so much the language but just finding a conduit to get the information through. There are some signs that sadly because of these appalling tragedies that have been befalling Russian military personnel, their families now are aware of that. Their families are hurt, sad and in many cases maybe angry and frustrated and not understanding why this has happened and why they have had their own family members sacrificed. There is the possibility that more information will begin to spread through Russia. My noble friend makes an important point and I will certainly bear it in mind.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Smith asked a question at the start that the Minister did not answer. Are the comments of Liz Truss, the Foreign Secretary, on providing fighter jets to Ukraine the official policy of Her Majesty’s Government? If not, why is she making such statements which, in such a sensitive situation, could have very dangerous consequences?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I apologise; I endeavoured to respond to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. The Foreign Secretary has expressed a view and of course is perfectly entitled to have it. My role as a Defence Minister is to explain how we in the MoD are working with our NATO partners and our allies and how we are trying to co-ordinate delivery. At the end of it all, as I said earlier, in conjunction with Ukraine we are trying to work out and supply not just what it needs but to do so when it needs it. Part of that is reflected in the response that I was able to give in explaining to the House that we can now confirm that Brimstone will be provided. That is something that the Ukrainians specifically wanted because of its capacity.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

One of the things that the Ukrainians really do need is the capability to clear up the incredible amount of unexploded ordinance, some of which has been seeded deliberately by the Russians as they remove themselves from around Kyiv. We should be proud of the Halo Trust, which has gone back to Ukraine and has over 40 locally employed people who have been doing that work, even during some of the dreadful violence that has been going on. I know the Government are supporting them. Apart from anything else, the trust needs funding to pay the people who work for it and who do this dangerous, difficult but much-needed work.

The second thing the trust needs is an appreciation by the Ukrainian Government of the importance of certain senior people avoiding national conscription to other jobs. It might be helpful if our Government, in conjunction with the Halo Trust, argued that the Ukrainian Government should allow these key people to this work. They are experts who have been doing it for eight years in that country, in the most dangerous of conditions, supported by this organisation. Can the noble Baroness, perhaps on their behalf, make some of these arguments?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I am indebted to the noble Lord for a perceptive contribution. He is quite right that that has emerged as an issue in the area; indeed, it was referred to in the other place. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State, Ben Wallace, said that we were looking at it to see what we could do to help. I will take those comments back to my department and will see whether we can produce something more positive.

[Lord McDonald of Salford (CB)]

My Lords, we have seen the shortcomings of diplomatic efforts focused on the person of President Putin. We can hope that after his re-election, President Macron will recalibrate. However, contacts with the Russian authorities are important through conflict, so could the Minister please tell your Lordships’ House what the main channel is now for contact between Her Majesty’s Government and Moscow?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

In respect of diplomatic channels, that question is probably better responded to by my noble friend Lord Ahmad. However, it is very difficult to sustain normal diplomatic relations with a country where such appalling things have been happening, at the instigation of that country. There has to be a proper acknowledgement by the UK and other countries that may feel similarly minded that we are appalled by what President Putin is doing, and it is therefore very difficult to maintain a diplomatic relationship. What I would say is that the Russian embassy remains open in London and the UK embassy remains open in Moscow. On a defence level, we endeavour to maintain some kind of dialogue with the Ministry of Defence in Russia because that is for the purposes of risk and escalation management and trying to support broader HMG efforts to ensure an internationally accepted negotiated settlement of the Ukraine conflict. We will continue to make efforts to maintain these communication channels but that is a two-way process, and I have to make it clear that the parameters of that discourse are obviously pretty narrow; they are defence related.

House adjourned at 9.29 pm.