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]