House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
Kate Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Neil O’Brien)
Regenerating our high streets and town centres is essential to the Government’s commitment to levelling up the country. The Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill includes measures to tackle vacant properties, improve compulsory purchase powers and make temporary pavement licensing permanent. It builds on the comprehensive funding package already announced, including the £3.6 billion towns and future high streets funds, the £4.8 billion levelling-up fund and the recently launched £2.6 billion shared prosperity fund.
Jack Brereton
I thank the Minister and the whole Cabinet for visiting Stoke-on-Trent last week. In towns across Stoke-on-Trent, encouraging new uses of property on our high streets has often been held back by complex ownership and the council not having the resources to tackle the issues. What more are the Government doing both to incentivise property owners to bring derelict spaces back into use and to make it easier to use enforcement powers where owners prove unwilling to do so?
Neil O’Brien
My hon. Friend is completely correct. It was a pleasure to join the Cabinet meeting in Stoke last week and talk about how we drive forward regeneration there. Stoke is really powering ahead, and the measures in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill—particularly those to reform compulsory purchase orders and crack down on empty shops—will help things go even faster. That is in addition to the specialised support that Stoke-on-Trent is receiving through the high streets task force. I have also set up a meeting next month with all the infrastructure and regeneration bodies across Government to plan how we can build on Stoke’s three levelling-up fund successes.
Kate Griffiths
Burton town deal board has worked hard over the past two years in putting together a town deal we can be proud of. It is clear that constituents are passionate about our town, and they have worked with the board to ensure that the final plan will offer a great future for Burton. The plan has now been submitted. Can my hon. Friend offer any thoughts on Burton’s plans, and can he give an indication of when approval might be granted so that we can crack on with levelling up in our area?
Neil O’Brien
I praise the proactive approach that East Staffordshire Borough Council has taken, which includes working cross-party to build consensus. Its plans for the riverside regeneration in particular will be absolutely transformative. The business case documents are currently being reviewed by officials, and I hope to be able to sign those off shortly so that the projects can get under way.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The Rhondda is absolutely beautiful, but some of our town centres are let down by hideous old buildings which, frankly, do not need any levelling up; they need some levelling down. So will the Minister please put in place a levelling-down fund that will allow us to destroy some buildings, such as the bingo hall in Hannah Street in Porth?
Neil O’Brien
At the same time as making an amusing point, the hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. The powers for compulsory purchase will help to unlock sites, including sites that the hon. Gentleman mentions which need fundamental change. The funding schemes we have put in place—the shared prosperity fund and so on—will help put financial firepower behind those regeneration schemes, too.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
One way to regenerate high streets is to repurpose old retail units as co-working spaces, and increasing the number of remote jobs available means people do not have to leave the place they love for the job they want. Would the Minister, and indeed any Member across the House, like to come to my Work Hull: Work Happy event on 23 June at 11 am to find out more about the benefits of remote working for productivity and opportunity?
Neil O’Brien
It sounds extremely interesting, and I would be very interested in coming along. The hon. Lady is completely correct that remote working is potentially a really powerful driver for levelling up, and some of the measures in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, such as repurposing shops through the high street rental auction scheme, can potentially be really transformative for our high streets.
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and Minister for Intergovernmental Relations (Michael Gove)
The Building Safety Act 2022 protects leaseholders from costs associated with historical building safety defects. Qualifying leaseholders and buildings of above 11 metres in height are fully protected from unsafe cladding remediation costs. There are also robust and far-reaching protections from non-cladding costs, with leaseholder contributions being a last resort and firmly capped. Where a freeholder is linked to the original developer, leaseholders will now pay nothing.
Kelly Tolhurst
Leaseholders in my constituency have been pleased with the progress that has been made through the Building Safety Act. However, it is disappointing that some developers are yet to sign up to the building safety pledge. Could my right hon. Friend outline what support is in place for leaseholders in buildings of over 11 metres who find themselves in that situation?
Michael Gove
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that particular question. Some 45 of the biggest 53 developers have so far signed the pledge to remediate buildings for which they are responsible. However, I know there are developments in my hon. Friend’s constituency where the developers are not among those who have signed up yet. We will be moving developer by developer and owner by owner to ensure that those responsible relieve leaseholders of their obligations, and I will stay closely in touch with my hon. Friend as we make progress.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
We have all had cases where a developer who is at fault closes down on a Friday evening and then reopens on the Monday morning under a different name, as that avoids any kind of sanction or prosecution. Will the Secretary of State look at allowing the prosecution of individual directors only in those extreme cases of deeply questionable developers?
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has done excellent work on protecting leaseholders over the cladding scandal as a result of revisiting Government policy. Will he revisit another Government policy that affects leaseholders badly: the encouragement of building new floors on top of existing apartment blocks? Having experienced this disaster myself, I know only too well how shoddy workmanship then leaves leaseholders picking up the bills for a development that they did not want and they had to endure for months on end.
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend has, with his characteristic assiduity, already raised this question with me both formally and informally, and I appreciate the unfortunate consequences that some have to face, but we obviously need to balance protecting the rights of leaseholders with ensuring that, through the proper application of permitted development rights we can in a sensitive way increase accommodation and make sure that we have a process, particularly in urban areas, that allows us to provide more homes without encroaching on valuable green land. As ever, however, we need to keep under appropriate supervision the use of permitted development rights, and the case my right hon. Friend raises will be one that weighs on my thinking.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will know that an associated problem for many leaseholders is the very high cost of insurance premiums; that affects many of my constituents in Cambridge. What is he doing to address that?
Michael Gove
My noble Friend Lord Greenhalgh, Minister for building safety and for fire safety, has been in conversation with the Association of British Insurers, and Baroness Morgan of Cotes has been discussing with him exactly how we might move to a happier situation. I hope to be talking to both insurers and mortgage lenders in the next few weeks in order to move the landscape forward.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
I greatly welcome the legislation that will protect leaseholders when developers are at fault, but what happens if a developer undertakes work, such as cladding, which at the time met building regulations but subsequently has been shown to be unsafe? Who gets protection then?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend raises an important question, and here I have an opportunity to thank those developers, as well as the House Builders Federation, who have acknowledged that they were part of a regulatory system and that even those who sought to do the right thing were on occasions required to accept an ethic of shared responsibility; they have accepted it and for that reason leaseholders, who have no responsibility and no blame to shoulder, are protected.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and Minister for Intergovernmental Relations (Michael Gove)
The United Kingdom Government have engaged with each of the devolved Administrations on the design of the UK shared prosperity fund both at official and ministerial levels, and our engagement with Ministers from the devolved Administrations in the weeks leading up to the publication of the UKSPF allocation helped to inform the most appropriate mix of interventions and specifically the allocations for each nation.
Peter Grant
No doubt one thing that will have been raised in those discussions is the fact that this year Scotland’s share will be £151 million less than we would have got in EU structural funds had we not been dragged out of the EU against our will, despite the fact that both the Tory party manifesto in 2019 and a personal pledge from the Secretary of State at the Holyrood Finance and Public Administration Committee earlier this year assured us we would get at least as much as would have come from the European Union. Why have those two promises been broken, and, most importantly, what has happened to Scotland’s missing £151 million?
Michael Gove
The normally pertinacious Member is misinformed: it is the case that Scotland receives just as much. I fear he is probably missing out the money Scotland receives from the European Union as a result of money we gave to the EU, and as funding slowly moves down, the great thing about leaving the EU is that we have control of how these funds are spent; we can decide how they are spent. If the hon. Member wants to take us back into the European Union perhaps he will explain to voters in Scotland why he wants to take us back into the common fisheries policy, why he wants to abandon the trade deals we have secured that benefit Scotland’s distillers and farmers, and why he wants power to be exercised by unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels rather than elected representatives here.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
The Minister for Housing (Stuart Andrew)
The Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill will improve our planning system and give residents more involvement in local development. The Bill will strengthen and scale up neighbourhood planning and enable the piloting of street votes supported by new digital tools to give communities more say in the developments that affect them.
Huw Merriman
The 2020 White Paper promised us a once-in-a-generation reform to planning policy. The present proposals appear somewhat unambitious and modest in contrast. Can I meet the Minister so he can explain to me how we can deal with the following situation in my constituency? Wealden and Rother District Councils have issued 10,000 planning permissions that have not been built out, and yet they still have to deliver 2,000 new homes between them each year. The developers responsible for building the homes deliver only 1,000 new homes. Surely, at the very least, we can have annual housing targets that take into account houses that are not yet built out, so that developers build rather than land bank.
Stuart Andrew
I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend. There are measures in the Bill to try to address build-out rates, which are an important element that we have to tackle. Under the Bill, it will be necessary to supply the local authority with a commencement notice, an agreement on the number of houses that will be built each year and a completion notice. We are absolutely on this, and I assure my hon. Friend that we will do everything we can to ensure that the houses that have got permission are built.
Henry Smith
I welcome the Government’s reform of the planning system, but Homes England proposes the development of up to 10,000 houses on flood-prone green fields to the west of Ifield, just outside my constituency. That will put unacceptable pressure on local infrastructure, and although local people in my constituency will be most affected, they have no say over it. How will these planning proposals allow the people of Crawley to say no to the West of Ifield development?
Stuart Andrew
I am absolutely clear that communities must have a say on developments that affect them, and that is why we are making it easier and simpler to engage with the planning system. At the moment, it simply is not good enough. I recognise the specific concerns that my hon. Friend and the leader of Crawley Borough Council have raised about this development. The site itself is included in the Horsham draft plan that has been produced with Crawley council. Residents of Crawley are able to comment on that, as well as on any subsequent planning applications.
David Johnston
Constituents object not simply to the sheer number of developments in my constituency and the pressure that they place on local infrastructure, but to the environmental impact of the way the homes are constructed. My hon. Friend knows that I would like to see a requirement for homes to be built to the latest environmental standard, rather than the one that was in place when permission was granted. Can he tell the House whether local communities will be able to have a say on how the homes are constructed, rather than just what they look like from the outside?
Stuart Andrew
My hon. Friend is right to raise that. It is a crucial area for me in this role, and I hope that he will be reassured that improving environmental standards and community engagement are key elements of our reforms. Clear local plans, tested against environmental outcomes and with strong community input, are central to that, alongside the steps we are taking through the future homes standard and the Environment Act 2021.
Mr Speaker
We come to the Chair of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, Mr Clive Betts.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
We look forward to seeing the Minister and the Secretary of State at the Select Committee to discuss these matters early after the recess. It seems there are some genuine improvements in the proposals, particularly, as described in paragraphs 50 and 60 of the explanatory notes, the clauses that give greater strength to local plans in looking at individual planning applications.
There are two areas where the Bill might be strengthened. The first refers back to what the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) said. Yes, developers will have to set out what they intend to build, but what sanctions will the local authority have if developers do not follow those promises? The second is about what happens if a developer does not observe conditions attached to a planning permission. That has happened with Avant Homes at Owlthorpe in my constituency—I have talked to the Minister about this—where the developer is refusing to comply with a whole range of conditions, including on wheel washers, compounds for workers and engaging with the local tenants’ association. I notice that the other day, the Daily Mail drew attention to the fact that the same developer has not met conditions in Nottinghamshire. What sanctions will the local authority have to deal with a developer in such a situation and to take into account those failures when a future planning permission is put in for?
Stuart Andrew
I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee and for the reports that fed into many of the changes we have made. He is right to raise those issues. One issue communities see far too often, and the reason why they are sometimes opposed to development, is that they do not actually get what was promised at the beginning. I am really keen that, through the Bill, we give that power back to local communities and ensure neighbourhood plans are strengthened.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
York is being overrun by investors hoovering up our new build by either leaving those properties empty or using them for Airbnb. That is causing the market to heat up, which is having a really disruptive impact and choking off opportunity for future buyers in my constituency. How will the Minister use his planning reforms to ensure we are not just building to numbers, but to local need?
Stuart Andrew
The hon. Lady is right. The reforms are about empowering local communities to develop local plans and engage with the development of those local plans to identify the housing needs of each area. She is right to raise the issue on second homes and Airbnb. As I said to her the other day in the meeting we had, I look forward to potentially hosting a roundtable with her and colleagues around North Yorkshire to address those very issues.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
On the point the Minister was making about developers or planners going back on previous agreements or advice, I have a case in South Leamington, which was consulted on six years ago, where we were to have social and truly affordable housing built on a particular site. As of last week, that has been changed and we will have 80 units with 92 beds in more or less the same space. Will he meet me to discuss that matter and will he explain how the planning changes will ensure communities get what they want, which is truly affordable housing?
Stuart Andrew
Of course, I would be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the issue he raises. The whole point of the Bill is to strengthen the development of local plans in the first place, so local planning authorities can address the housing needs they have in their area, including the types of housing they need; and to strengthen enforcement issues around planning applications. I am more than happy to speak to him further to understand the issue in greater detail.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
The Minister for Levelling Up Communities (Kemi Badenoch)
The levelling-up fund announced at the last spending review saw £1.7 billion awarded to 105 successful projects across the UK, including projects to improve access to employment for those without the use of a car in rural areas.
Helen Morgan
Market Drayton and a number of other towns in North Shropshire are seeing cuts to their bus services, with Market Drayton set to lose them all together at weekends. It has received none of the funding that it has applied for to date, including from the Bus Back Better fund. Like many other towns across Britain, its beautiful high street is struggling to recover from the pandemic. For such towns that have been unsuccessful in their bids so far, and where people are struggling to get in and out of them, what is the Government’s plan to level them up?
Kemi Badenoch
The hon. Lady needs to work with her local transport authority—that would be Shropshire Council—to look into resolving those issues. The pandemic had a huge impact on the delivery of local services and the Government provided nearly £1.86 billion in grant funding for bus services in England. Shropshire Council received about £2.17 million of that, so I encourage her to speak to the council to see what it, along with commercial bus operators, can do.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Neil O'Brien)
Our levelling-up White Paper sets out our plans to support economic growth across the whole of the UK. Since September 2020, we have allocated more than £7 billion through our levelling-up funds, including the recently announced allocation for the shared prosperity fund.
Peter Aldous
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Coastal communities such as Lowestoft and Waveney are the forgotten powerhouse of the UK economy. Can my hon. Friend confirm that the opportunities and challenges they face will be given the highest priority as the Government set about delivering their levelling-up agenda, and will the money from the Crown Estate that was originally used for the coastal communities fund be targeted at realising the full potential of coastal areas and meeting their needs?
Neil O’Brien
I have met my hon. Friend about this issue several times and I agree that coastal communities have the potential to be real powerhouses for our economy. That is why the future high streets fund has allocated £149 million to coastal local authorities, and why coastal local authorities got £287 million of funding in the first round of the levelling-up fund. That comes on top of the £229 million, which he mentioned, that we have invested in coastal towns and communities since 2012 through the coastal communities fund.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
Look, can the Minister not see the crisis unfolding across the country? There has been the biggest fall in living standards since the 1950s. Pensioners are boarding buses just to keep warm. On every measure, the gap is widening; there is less for the regions, in terms of public spending; salaries are falling; homes are less affordable; and local economies are on the verge of collapse. Surely he recognises how absurd it is that all we have had from the Secretary of State in the past week is the promise of an al fresco dining revolution, and three full pages of legislation giving us the power to rename our Mayors. What exactly is stopping the Government scrapping business rates, bringing in a windfall tax to cut money off energy bills, uprating benefits now, rather than waiting till later, or doing any of the things that will get money back into people’s pockets and get our economy growing?
Neil O’Brien
The hon. Lady could also have mentioned the fact that our national living wage, which this Government introduced, is putting £1,000 extra in the pockets of working people. She could have mentioned the changes to universal credit, which will make full-time workers £1,000 better off. She could have mentioned the record increase in the national insurance threshold, which will make nearly 30 million households better off, or any of the other measures that we are taking through the levelling-up agenda: the £4.8 billion being spent through the levelling-up fund; the £3.6 billion being spent through the towns fund; and the £2.6 billion that is helping to transform town centres across the country. I notice none of those things got a mention in her question.
Lisa Nandy
It is increasingly as though the Government are living on a completely different planet. The other day, the Secretary of State was in Stoke, which has had £35 million taken off it by him—that money used to flow freely back to us via Brussels—and £20 million stripped out of the local economy because the Government scrapped the £20 million universal credit uplift.
The bigger problem is that a pattern is emerging. The Secretary of State could not get money from the Chancellor. He could not get visas from the Home Secretary. He could not convince his former junior Ministers to stop closures of Department for Work and Pensions offices in the north. He could not even persuade his civil servants working on levelling up to move out of London. For all the nonsense that there has been, two thirds of his civil servants working on levelling up are trying to level us up from the capital. At least now he knows what it is like for the rest of us—in the north, Scotland, the midlands, Wales and the south-west—to be treated with total contempt by a bunch of Ministers in Whitehall. Seriously, what hope has he got of convincing us in this country that he can level us up when he cannot even convince a single one of his colleagues around the Cabinet table?
Neil O’Brien
I thank the hon. Lady for drawing attention to the Cabinet’s visit to Stoke the other day; if she had been a Government Back Bencher, people would accuse her of toadying for teeing up this answer so brilliantly. She mentioned several things that allow me to mention the three successful levelling-up bids that we have had in Stoke, and she mentioned the shared prosperity fund, about which I will make a point. Under the last Labour Government, money was decided on in Brussels and then given to remote regional development agencies. That money is now going directly, with no strings attached, to the fantastic Conservative-run council in Stoke, which is transforming the fortunes of that city after years of Labour neglect.
Mr Speaker
I call the Scottish National party spokesperson, Patricia Gibson.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Despite the bullish posturing, the Minister knows that households across the UK are suffering terrible hardship because of the cost of living crisis, which has the Tories’ name written all over it. Despite the rhetoric, the reality is that Scotland’s resource budget allocation has been cut by Westminster by 5.2%, and the capital budget allocation has been cut by Westminster by 9.7% in real terms. How can he claim to support economic growth across the UK when the Scottish Government’s ability to support business, investment and people through the cost of living crisis can only be severely constrained by these cuts?
Neil O’Brien
The hon. Lady talks about Scottish public spending. The truth is that the record block grant that Scotland has just received is the biggest settlement since devolution—it is huge. For every £100 of spending elsewhere, there is £126 of public spending in Scotland. The implication in the hon. Lady’s question is just not correct.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
The problem for the shadow Secretary of State is that some of us remember what 13 years of a Labour Government meant for the north of England: we received very little. Since the Government came to power, not only have they cut the Humber bridge tolls in half and supported the development of the Siemens wind turbine factory in Hull and the new Siemens train factory in Goole, but we have received huge sums of cash, including through the town deals that are coming our way. However, we want even more. Although we missed out on the levelling-up fund bid the first time round, will the Minister assure me that he will look very closely at the bids that are about to be submitted for my area for the next round of funding?
Neil O’Brien
I will look very closely at them. I hope that through the very exciting talks that are going on, and through the Hull and East Riding devolution deal, we can pick up many more of the exciting opportunities in the area. Of course, the reviews of Labour’s performance in Hull are so good that it has just been kicked out of the council.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
The Minister for Levelling Up Communities (Kemi Badenoch)
We know how important multi-year certainty is to local authorities and we aim to provide it whenever possible. We are making £54.1 billion available to local government in England through this year’s settlement—an increase of up to £3.7 billion on last year. We are also providing an additional £1.6 billion of grant funding per year across the spending review period.
Justin Madders
Long-term challenges need long-term solutions. We have had too much of an ad hoc bidding war, which creates winners and losers. A perfect example is my constituency: in the past three years, we have had our bids to the future high streets fund, towns fund, Restoring Your Railway fund, levelling-up fund and Bus Back Better fund rejected. Any one of those could have made a real difference to the constituency, but after each bid, we have been back at square one. Can the Minister not see that to truly level up, we need a strategy, not a lottery?
Kemi Badenoch
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman’s area has not been successful in bidding for funds, but I remind him that it has received £12.6 million from the shared prosperity fund. The levelling-up bids are competitive, and the strength of the bids is part of what is measured, so I encourage him and his local authorities to continue trying.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
A new study by the Centre for Business Research shows that by the end of next year, more than half the UK’s slowest-growing economies will be in the north of England. So much for the Government’s commitment to levelling up the country! If we want true levelling up, we need proper regional investment. Instead, we have a rolling series of beauty parades: the levelling-up fund, the towns fund, the high streets fund, the buses fund, the brownfield fund and all the others. Do Ministers really believe that levelling up is best served by making communities come cap in hand to Whitehall, where only some can win, and most must lose?
Kemi Badenoch
Competitive funding has its place, and we think that it has been an effective tool for protecting value for taxpayers’ money. The hon. Gentleman knows that, as I said in answer to his colleague the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), that is not the only funding that we are providing. We have increased funding for local government by £3.7 billion.
Alex Norris
The hon. Lady knows that the story for local government over the past decade has been a devastating one. Even if an area is successful in the bids that I have talked about, it will still be worse off overall as a result of Government cuts. With this Government, the reality never matches the press release, and we see that once again with the shared prosperity fund: the Tory party promised, in its 2019 manifesto, that the amount in the fund would match the what used to be received, but now we can see that the fund is worth hundreds of millions less. So I ask the Minister what I asked the Secretary of State last month, when I received only a grammar lesson in response: levelling up is a sham, is it not?
Kemi Badenoch
I completely reject the hon. Member’s assertion. It is not true that the shared prosperity fund is less; it is more. The Opposition are looking at different sources of funding to arrive at their inaccurate figures. If he would like us to explain how it works, I would be very happy to provide him with a letter.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Bloomberg’s devastating forensic analysis of the Government’s progress with their so-called levelling-up agenda has found no overall levelling-up progress in Scotland. On the contrary, the UK Government are levelling down Scotland compared with London, which has had significant levelling-up funding and gains since 2019. Disparities across the UK are widening. To what extent does the Minister agree with Bloomberg’s analysis that the Tories are levelling down Scotland and prioritising the south of England?
Kemi Badenoch
I am afraid that is not a statement that we accept. I looked at the Bloomberg figures, and I noticed that Bloomberg was using a 2019 baseline, when the whole purpose of levelling up is to ensure that we solve the problems identified. I would like the hon. Lady to look at the metrics that we have included in the “Levelling Up the United Kingdom” White Paper, and at the missions in it; it is through those that we will level up across the country.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
The Minister for Housing (Stuart Andrew)
The Government remain committed to the right to buy and to spreading the dream of home ownership to even more people. The midlands pilots for the voluntary right to buy were completed in 2021. An independent evaluation was published; we are reviewing the findings and will announce further details in due course.
Mick Whitley
There is a desperate shortage of social housing in this country; more than 1 million households are waiting for social homes. However, rather than taking the decisive action that is needed to get to grips with this housing crisis, Ministers have threatened to jettison their manifesto commitment to building 300,000 affordable homes a year, refuse to commit themselves to building the council housing that we so desperately need, and are openly considering extending the right to buy to housing association properties. Will the Minister concede that an extension of the right to buy scheme will make the housing shortage much worse, will cause continued misery for many millions, and will deal a grievous blow to the hopes of thousands of my constituents who just want somewhere that they can call home?
Stuart Andrew
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. We have a very ambitious affordable homes programme. More than £11 billion is being spent on a range of different options. We are also introducing an infrastructure levy that makes as many, if not more, contributions to the delivery of affordable homes. I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman has a problem with giving people in social housing the opportunity to become homeowners. I have to tell him that on the council estate where I grew up, it made a real, transformational difference to the social mobility of the families who were able to enjoy that great policy.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
The Minister for Levelling Up Communities (Kemi Badenoch)
As I mentioned before, this year’s local government finance settlement makes available £54.1 billion for councils in England—an increase of £3.7 billion on last year’s settlement—to ensure that councils have the resources that they need to deliver key services. That includes more than £1 billion for councils to meet social care pressures, and a new un-ringfenced 2022-23 services grant worth £822 million.
Mohammad Yasin
As a result of the Government’s actions—they cut Bedford Borough Council’s revenue support grant from over £30 million in 2015 to just £6.1 million in 2022-23—local authorities have been forced to raise council tax precepts to meet vital costs. The adult social care burden is ever increasing, and cannot be paid for unless the RSG is increased to a realistic level. Will the Minister tell us when the fair funding review will finally be published?
Kemi Badenoch
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue. We recognise that adult social care costs are increasing, which is why we have provided additional funding. For the hon. Gentleman’s borough of Bedford, we have provided an additional £2 million for this settlement year. We will continue to look at the pressure that councils are under, but I remind him that this settlement increased budgets significantly. Bedford Borough Council received a core spending power increase of 6.5% this year, worth £9.6 million. That makes available up to £156 million-worth of spending.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Ministers cannot escape the fact that according to the National Audit Office, 50% of central Government grant funding has been cut from the budgets of local authorities up and down the land since 2010. Ministers are living in a parallel universe where less is more. Millions have been taken out of the shared prosperity fund. The consequences are all too plain. We even have Sir Rod Stewart doing DIY, filling in potholes in Essex—a county with which the Minister will be familiar—and a third of libraries are closing. Those are real consequences.
At what stage will the Minister grasp the bull by the horns and provide fair funding for local authorities, based on genuine need? This should not be about competition or jumping through unnecessary hoops; we should be providing first-class public services for all.
Kemi Badenoch
I remind the hon. Gentleman that the reason we have had such difficulties in local government spending is the terrible state of public finances that this Government found when they came into power 10 years ago. It is only because of the hard work that we have done over the last decade to repair the public finances that we have been able to provide additional funding for local government.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Minister for Housing (Stuart Andrew)
This is essential to our planning reforms. The Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill introduces a new infrastructure levy. It will ensure that developers contribute funding for infrastructure such as schools, GP surgeries and new roads, and it will give local authorities control over how that is provided to best meet the needs of local people and development.
Richard Fuller
Can I encourage the Minister in his push for an “infrastructure first” approach with an example from my constituency? Quite a few years ago, a developer in the village of Biddenham proposed that a GP surgery be located there, and gave some land for it. It was to bring in patients from Biddenham and the neighbouring village of Bromham. All the houses have been built, but no part of that new GP surgery has been built. The good news is that the building will start later this year, but can the Minister assure me that the problem regarding the interactions between the clinical commissioning group, Bedford Borough Council, NHS Estates, GPs, the developer and the builder will be cleared up? No one is to blame, but I bet that if he had already introduced “infrastructure first”, we would have that GP surgery today.
Stuart Andrew
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Councils, health bodies and everybody else need to get much better at this. Local planning authorities and CCGs should work together to provide the planned provision. Under our new levy, councils will be able to borrow against future levy receipts to forward-fund the infrastructure that is needed. I am arranging meetings with colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to discuss the very issue that he brings to our attention.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is vital that infrastructure is provided before development is allowed. It is also vital that houses that are given planning permission are then used for the purposes agreed on when the permission was granted. I am talking about second home ownership. Homes that are built for local families become second homes, and that leads to communities being hollowed out. Will the Minister look again at bringing in new change of use rules through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, so that second homes and holiday lets fall under a separate category of planning use, and homes in Cumbria can remain for local families, and do not become part of ghost towns?
Stuart Andrew
I seem to be dealing with the issue of second homes daily; colleagues from around the country are raising it with me and highlighting their concerns for their communities. The Bill allows local councils to increase council tax on second homes, but there is more that we need to explore. That is why I am holding a series of roundtables across the country. Perhaps I could come up to the Lake district and hold one there.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
On-site community facilities are also vitally important. Last summer I was at the St Clements development in east Ipswich, where Bovis, Vistry and Trinity Estate Management have failed to meet many of their obligations. The Foxhall community centre was meant to be brought back into use, but has not been, and there are many concerns over littering and lighting. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can hold developers to account to make sure they do not let residents down, as they have over the St Clements development?
Stuart Andrew
Again, I am happy to meet my hon. Friend. He is right: when communities think that a development is coming and that there will be a particular benefit for them, and it is then not developed, it erodes trust in the whole planning system. That is exactly what our Bill is designed to address, so that communities can have more engagement, and more confidence that what has been agreed will be delivered.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Minister wake up to the reality of what is going on in local authorities up and down the country? Cuts since the 2010 election have run down the resources of every planning department in the country. There are not enough professionals being trained, and not enough people to provide an adequate service. What will he do about the planning authorities across this country that cannot deliver for the public?
Stuart Andrew
One of the points of the infrastructure levy is that it takes out the necessity for negotiation. It will be a set levy that developers cannot wriggle out of, and it will be for local authorities to set the levy. Of course, we are looking at the broader issues that the hon. Gentleman raises, and I will hopefully report further on them in future.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Neil O’Brien)
The Department is delivering the Government’s plan to empower local leaders, including offering devolution deals by 2030 to anywhere in England that wants one.
Simon Fell
I thank the Secretary of State for visiting Barrow recently to see how the £25 million town deal and the £16 million levelling-up funding will transform our community.
Cumbria has just elected its first ever councillors to the new Westmorland and Furness Council and Cumberland Council. This is a historic moment for our county. Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that there is further to go and that the new councillors have the opportunity to secure a bountiful devolution deal that supercharges the county with an elected Mayor? What advice would he give to them?
Neil O’Brien
I agree with my hon. Friend. I was in Barrow and Furness a couple of weeks ago, and I was struck by the fantastic progress he is helping to drive using levelling-up funds, such as the marina village, the new bridge, the new university campus and more. I was also struck by the common linkages and opportunities across Cumbria, and I can see the case for an ambitious devolution deal covering both new authorities once they are up and running.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and Minister for Intergovernmental Relations (Michael Gove)
Across Government, the Places for Growth programme has seen civil servants relocated from London and the south-east to different parts of the United Kingdom, whether it is Treasury civil servants going to Darlington in County Durham, Home Office officials going to Stoke-on-Trent in Staffordshire or indeed my own officials relocating to Wolverhampton in the west midlands.
There was speculation in some newspapers at the weekend that that estimable effort by civil servants should be joined by Members of the other place. I would wholeheartedly welcome the relocation of the House of Lords to one of our great cities. In particular, the attractions of the six towns that constitute Stoke-on-Trent, as I saw last week, are formidable. If the House of Lords were to relocate to Stoke-on-Trent, it would be assured of a warm welcome in one of the most attractive places in England.
Anthony Browne
Northstowe in my constituency is the biggest new town in the UK for 50 years—the biggest since Milton Keynes. It now has 1,000 houses, but it has no dedicated community centre, no permanent café, no pub and no shop. Thousands of frustrated residents lack anywhere to go for a pint of milk or a pint of beer. This new town is also causing environmental problems. There is flooding in the neighbouring village of Swavesey, and the neighbouring village of Longstowe is running short of water. Both problems arise from the failure of the local planning authority. Will my right hon. Friend tell me what his Department might do to address these problems and to make sure they do not happen again as Northstowe is built out to 10,000 homes?
Mr Speaker
I remind people that topical questions are meant to be short and quick, not “War and Peace.”
Michael Gove
Steps taken in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill and changes to the national planning policy framework should absolutely address the problems my hon. Friend identifies. Of course, the biggest problem he identifies is the fact that, sadly, South Cambridgeshire has a Liberal Democrat-controlled local planning authority that does not care about community but pursues a narrow political agenda, to the detriment of all.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
With rent levels surging in the private sector and with the local housing allowance frozen once again, millions of hard-pressed tenants across the country are at risk of arrears and eviction. We know that rent tribunals are not an effective safeguard against punitive rent rises, and that the risk of such rises is likely only to increase when section 21 no-fault evictions are finally scrapped. Will the Secretary of State therefore tell the House why his planned renters reform Bill appears to be completely silent on protections for tenants against unaffordable rent rises?
Michael Gove
Our renters reform Bill will specifically ensure that people in the private rented sector are protected, and I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman to ensure that the Bill satisfies the need of the hour.
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Neil O’Brien)
I pay tribute to David Wright and North Warwickshire Borough Council, because they have done a fantastic job, particularly during covid, in supporting the local community and local business. I would be delighted to visit—to hop across the A5—not least because it is only 20 minutes away from Harborough.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Michael Gove
We allocate levelling-up fund bids, as the Local Government Minister pointed out earlier, on the basis of appropriate competition in order to ensure value for money, but I have had a chance to talk to the excellent Conservative leader of Shropshire Council, Lezley Picton, to make sure that she and her superb team of Conservative councillors can deliver for the people of Shropshire, as Conservatives always have.
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
Neil O'Brien
One reason why mid-Wales has one of highest shared prosperity fund allocations in the country is precisely because we have taken rurality and the additional costs that come with it into account, and I look forward to building on that.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
Michael Gove
That scored quite high on the cliché count, with “postcode lottery”, “moving the goalposts” and “narrow political calculation”. Instead of rehearsing for YouTube clips, the hon. Gentleman would be better employed looking at what we have done, not just for Portsmouth and Southampton, but for communities including Liverpool and Birkenhead, where this Government have been responsible for ensuring that local government receives the support it needs. If he wants to hang on to his seat, he would be better employed concentrating on delivering for his residents, not making party political points.
Mr Speaker
Secretary of State, don’t spoil a good day. You are having a good day so far, don’t ruin it.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Eddie Hughes)
My hon. Friend is right to say that the social housing Bill will help social housing tenants in Kensington to hold their landlords to account, but we are not waiting for the new legislation; we are driving the “Make Things Right” campaign to make sure that tenants understand—[Interruption.] I am disappointed that Opposition Members think it is funny, as I think it is completely appropriate that tenants are able to hold their landlords to account. We are making sure that they understand how to do so and how to escalate complaints to the housing ombudsman should that be necessary.
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
Last week’s Bloomberg report suggests that levelling up in Scotland is just not happening. Given that Scotland is self-sufficient in gas and has great offshore renewables, should not the stewardship, licensing and revenues be linked to the Scottish Government budget, rather than to Her Majesty’s Treasury? Minister, when will these negotiations start? Can we kick-start some serious levelling up?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue of the importance of the Scottish Government and the UK Government working together on levelling up. That is why I am so pleased that, working with the Finance Minister in the Scottish Government, Kate Forbes, we have been able to agree a prospectus for two new freeports in Scotland. I am sure that Fife will be one of the communities, areas and local authorities that will be working with the UK Government to exploit the opportunity that freeports provide outside the European Union.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
The Minister for Housing (Stuart Andrew)
High street rental auctions will apply to commercial property and make tenancies more accessible to businesses and community groups. We recognise the importance of diversifying high streets and have introduced permitted development rights to allow a wide range of commercial buildings to be changed to residential use without the need for a planning application. My hon. Friend is right: depending on the circumstances and the type of building, there could be opportunities to increase housing in areas such as hers where there are real challenges.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
In the Homes for Ukraine scheme, it is left to the individuals involved to sort out matches with hosts for themselves, often through ad hoc Facebook groups. It is not surprising that that has led to reports such as:
“Ukrainian refugees using Facebook groups to seek a safe home in the UK are being put at risk of sexual exploitation”.
Criminal record checks on their own cannot prevent such exploitation. What assurance can the Secretary of State give in respect of the rigour and effectiveness of the separate home checks that are undertaken for the scheme?
Michael Gove
The right hon. Gentleman raises an important question. I am very grateful to the more than 100,000 UK citizens who have signed up to offer their homes for the scheme. As well as criminal record and police national computer checks before visas are granted, there are vetting and barring and other checks, often conducted by local authorities, at the time that individuals find themselves in homes. I would be more than happy to provide the right hon. Gentleman and others with a full briefing about the processes we undertake.
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)
Eddie Hughes
I thank my hon. Friend for his service to his country. The Government are committed to making the UK the best place in the world to be a veteran. Veterans with urgent housing needs are always given high priority for social housing, and we are investing £11.5 billion under the affordable homes programme to deliver more social homes, including housing for veterans.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
For many in the privately rented sector, the Government are like Nero, fiddling while Rome burns. When are they going to get on and publish the timetable for the renters reform Bill? Last week’s was the third Queen’s Speech in which the Bill has been mentioned, yet there is still no timetable, while section 21 evictions are on the increase in many of our constituencies.
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady suggests we are being Neronian in fiddling while Rome burns, but I prefer to think that we are like Julius Caesar: we have crossed the Rubicon, alea iacta est—the die has been cast—and the Bill will be on the statute book in this parliamentary Session.
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)
The Forget-Me-Not group in Blyth is working hard to secure better opportunities for everyone in its local area of Cowpen Quay; however, the group needs a base in the community to house and deliver its services. This is grassroots levelling up, so will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agree to meet me to discuss exactly what we can do to help these people?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the work of the Forget-Me-Not group in Blyth, which is doing amazing work in Cowpen Quay. I will do everything I can to support the group and will meet my hon. Friend to do so.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Will Ministers join me in recognising and commending the work of Ellel parish councillor Lisa Corkerry? She is never afraid to don the marigolds, grab the litter pickers and clean up Galgate. Lisa would like to know when the Government are going to provide adequate funds for local authorities such that she can put her efforts into making her community better rather than clearing up the mess left behind by others.
Michael Gove
The local councillor the hon. Lady mentions sounds like an absolutely brilliant champion for her local community. I would love to know more, particularly about what we can do to help in practical terms, and I look forward to working with her.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
Energy performance improvements to domestic dwellings are an important part of the Government’s agenda in respect of climate change obligations, as well as in respect of the cost of living. May I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to private-rented off-grid properties, for which it is much more difficult and expensive to achieve energy performance improvements than for normal domestic dwellings?
Eddie Hughes
It will indeed be much more challenging, which is why I am working closely with the Under-Secretary of State at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Lord Callanan, to see how we can address the problem. I look forward to discussing the issue further with my right hon. Friend to see how we can find an appropriate solution.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Many agree that investment in levelling up should be not a competition but a considered plan created in partnership between central and local government to address the areas of greatest need. Ministers are meeting many Conservative MPs, but will the Minister meet me to discuss the levelling-up bid for my area to fund the Horden masterplan as well as to identify funding for other much-needed regeneration schemes in Easington Colliery and Peterlee town centre?
Michael Gove
Durham is on the up and east Durham must be part of that story, so, of course, we will make sure that a Minister meets the hon. Gentleman to discuss what we can do to help.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Full fibre broadband coverage is essential to the Government’s aim to level up, but we lag behind most of Europe in rolling it out. What discussions has the Minister had with the Culture Secretary to ensure that the Government have a strategy to work with industry to improve coverage and speed up progress in rural and urban areas of the devolved nations, which currently have the poorest broadband?
Michael Gove
The Culture Secretary and I talk daily. One thing at the top of our agenda is ensuring that we have connectivity across the whole United Kingdom. We are, of course, working with the devolved Administrations to make sure that every citizen of the United Kingdom benefits from UK Government investment.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
I am sure that the Secretary of State will want to acknowledge the increasingly important role played by metro Mayors. May I therefore encourage him to make contact with Mayor Tracy Brabin, the excellent metro Mayor for West Yorkshire who now chairs cross-party group of Mayors, the M10, to ensure the closest working relationship between national, regional and local government?
Michael Gove
I take the opportunity to thank the hon. Gentleman for his years of service as metro Mayor for South Yorkshire, during which, all party political differences aside, he did a superb job. I also congratulate his successor, Oliver Coppard. I look forward to working with Oliver and, of course, Tracy Brabin in the years ahead.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
One of my constituents wants to sponsor a family of Ukrainian children, but the pause in applications has delayed the family’s ability to travel to the UK because they are travelling separately. The delay cannot be about safeguarding, as Ministers have claimed, because it has made them less safe. Will the Secretary of State intervene with his ministerial colleagues and enable Ukrainian children who are at risk to reach sanctuary in this country as soon as possible?
Michael Gove
I cannot comment on any individual case, but it is absolutely the Government’s responsibility to ensure that as many Ukrainian parents and children benefit from our scheme as possible. We have to balance safeguarding concerns with the policy of the Ukrainian Government, but the hon. Gentleman raises an important question, and more will follow.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The levelling-up White Paper offered practically no new investment for the north-east, but it did have grandiose missions. Now we see from the draft Bill that those missions—and targets—can be changed at will by Ministers. Is not that a cheater’s charter, and are the missions worth the White Paper they are written on?
Michael Gove
Newcastle has benefited from great civic leadership from Nick Forbes, who, sadly, is no longer the leader of Newcastle City Council as a result of a Corbynite coup. I want to thank him for his leadership. I stress that the missions can change because we live in a democracy, and this House should be capable of deciding the destiny of this nation. For that reason—[Interruption.] I know that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) finds the idea of democracy laughable, but democracy, I am afraid, returned a Conservative Government in 2019 to level up and unite this country, and that is the mission we will fulfil.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
The Secretary of State likes to discuss the shared prosperity fund in abstract policy terms, but let us bring it back to brass tacks. In Angus, in 2019, we received £2,750,186 from the EU’s structural fund. Can he assure my constituents that we will get at least that, plus inflation, minus the Union Jack ribbon?
Michael Gove
Whether they are in Arbroath, Montrose or Kirriemuir, people will recognise the vital importance of UK shared prosperity funding and other funding. When the hon. Gentleman talks about “no Union Jack ribbon” is he really suggesting, for example, that UK armed forces based in Arbroath and Montrose should leave? Is that what he is suggesting? Is he suggesting that we rip up the Union Jack in order to make a narrow, nationalist political point? Does he want the Marines to leave his constituency? That is what it sounds like to me. It sounds to me that he is more prepared to make a narrow, partisan nationalist point than to see this country defended at a time of testing.
Mr Speaker
I am almost tempted to call another question, but let us move on.
Shireen Abu Aqla
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if she will make a statement on the killing of Shireen Abu Aqla.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Vicky Ford)
The United Kingdom Government was shocked to hear of the very sad death of the respected and renowned journalist Shireen Abu Aqla while working in the west bank. On 11 May, the Foreign Secretary and UK Ministers made clear our concern, and we have called for a thorough investigation into the events. On 13 May, in company with the other members of the United Nations Security Council, we strongly condemned the killing and stressed the importance of an immediate, thorough, transparent, fair and impartial investigation. We also stressed the need to ensure accountability.
The work of journalists across the globe is vital and they must be protected to carry out their work and defend media freedom. We were also deeply distressed by the scenes at the funeral of Shireen Abu Aqla on Friday. Her death was a tragedy and those mourning must be treated with respect and dignity. The situation on the ground makes clear the need to make progress towards a peaceful two-state solution and the UK stands ready to support.
Bambos Charalambous
Shireen Abu Aqla was a veteran correspondent of al-Jazeera’s Arabic news channel and on Wednesday 11 May she was killed while covering Israeli army raids in the city of Jenin in the northern occupied west bank. Her killing has been widely condemned by world leaders, the UN and civil society, and it has shocked the world.
The killing of Shireen Abu Aqla was not only an outrageous act, but an attack on the freedom of the media and the independence of journalists working around the world, playing a crucial role in reporting conflicts, seeking truth and telling the stories of those affected. On Friday, deeply disturbing footage was released from Shireen’s funeral. The scenes of violence at the funeral were appalling: Israeli police were seen firing teargas at mourners and attacking them with batons, almost causing the pallbearers to drop the coffin and send it crashing to the ground. The attacks on mourners were indefensible and only heightened demands for justice and the pain felt by Shireen’s family.
The Labour party unequivocally condemns the violence by Israeli forces. International and human rights must be upheld, and we stand with all those demanding accountability for the killing of Shireen. There must be an urgent, independent and impartial inquiry to secure that. More widely, we will continue to support justice and the protection of the human rights of the Palestinian people and a sovereign Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel. Tensions in the region were already high: Israel has seen a number of deadly terrorist attacks and both Israelis and Palestinians have been killed in what has been the worst wave of violence and attacks in Israel in years. We are deeply concerned that Shireen’s death and the treatment of mourners at her funeral could spark further cycles of violence.
Has the Minister made any representations to her Israeli counterparts on the killing of Shireen Abu Aqla? Will she condemn the violence at Shireen’s funeral? Can she confirm that her Department will stand up for international and human rights by encouraging an independent inquiry into Shireen’s killing so that we can ensure that there is accountability for her death?
Vicky Ford
I thank the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) for his comments. He is right that Shireen’s death was outrageous and shocked the world. He is also right to mention the very disturbing scenes at her funeral. It is so important that mourners are given respect and dignity, and indeed that the deceased is shown respect and dignity. That was immediately called out over the weekend by my fellow Minister, Lord Ahmad.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the investigation and we are working with other members of the UN Security Council to give that firm statement that we want an investigation, which needs to be immediate, thorough and, crucially, impartial.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for her answer to the urgent question. Clearly there is a concern that we do not know exactly what happened on that terrible day when the journalist was killed. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority need to co-operate so that there can be a full and thorough investigation that is seen to be independent? Does she regret the fact that the Palestinian Authority are refusing to hand over the bullet that killed the journalist?
Vicky Ford
My hon. Friend, as ever, is right; it is absolutely key that the investigation happens swiftly, and that it is thorough and impartial.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
We on the SNP Benches unequivocally condemn the murder of Shireen Abu Aqla, one of the Arab world’s most respected journalists, who was shot dead by the Israeli army despite wearing full press coverings, body armour and a helmet. Shireen’s death takes to 50 the number of journalists who have been killed by the Israeli occupation forces over the past 20 years—deaths for which no one has ever been held to account. It is therefore absolutely essential that, along with the EU, the United States and the UN, all democracies unreservedly condemn the killing, and all who support a full, impartial and transparent investigation must be supported.
Does the Minister agree that the investigation should be carried out by the International Criminal Court, so that the person responsible for this awful crime can be found, tried and, if convicted, given an appropriate sentence? What sanction against Israel does she think would be appropriate in those circumstances? Finally, will she also unreservedly condemn the disgraceful actions of the Israeli police when on Friday they attacked Shireen’s cortege with batons and stun grenades, denying her even in death any sort of dignity or respect?
Vicky Ford
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the killing has been condemned across the world, and indeed by us in the UK. As I have said, we have called for an immediate, thorough, transparent, fair and impartial investigation. It is really important that that happens soon and that it is very thorough. I think that we were all completely shocked by the scenes at her funeral. We are deeply concerned about the rise in violent attacks in the area, and we continue to call for peace, as we always have done; working to deliver peace is our top priority. She was an incredibly respected journalist and the hon. Gentleman is right to point to the risk to journalists across the world. I believe that across the world 26 journalists have been killed so far this year, including six in Ukraine—it might even be more since the last update I received. We must stand for journalists and for media freedom.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
My hon. Friend is entirely right to express concern about the scenes at the funeral of Shireen Abu Aqla, but given that there can be absolutely no doubt as to what happened at the funeral, when mourners and pallbearers were attacked by Israeli police officers, will she confirm that the Government have already made representations to the Israeli authorities expressing concern and indicating how deplorable those scenes were?
Vicky Ford
Yes, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right about the deplorable scenes. We have already stated that we are deeply disturbed by those scenes, and we are looking at what further measures might be taken. Most importantly, we continue to call for urgent steps to de-escalate tensions and for restraint in the use of force. It is absolutely vital that tensions are reduced and that we get parties back to dialogue and working towards peace.
Mr Speaker
Let us help each other by trying to be brief because we have major pressures afterwards—but I understand the feeling in the House. I am now going to call the others who put in for the UQ that unfortunately was not taken. I call Naz Shah.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
First, I send my condolences to the family and friends of Shireen Abu Aqla, a true Palestinian heroine who was brutally shot in the head and murdered. Let us be clear: this is not a one-off attack on journalists by Israel. We cannot forget that Israel had a raid last May on the al-Jalaa building that hosted Al Jazeera and the Associated Press office. This is not just the story of Shireen either, but many other journalists, including the 55 Palestinian journalists killed since 2000. How can the Palestinians have any faith in Israel to hand over any bullet and with this whitewash of an idea that they are going to investigate when nobody has been held to account over lots and lots of years? What representations are the Minister and this Government making to their Israeli counterparts to make sure that we get justice on this occasion, not just for Shireen but for all the Palestinians who are continually being brutalised?
Vicky Ford
The UK is very concerned by the number of Palestinians who have been killed by Israeli security forces in recent weeks. We continue to urge for thorough and transparent investigations into the deaths of Palestinian civilians and call again for restraint in the use of force.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend aware that 19 Israelis, not including foreign nationals, have also been killed by terrorism since 21 March, and that Jewish lives, and Israeli lives, matter as much as the life of the journalist who tragically lost her life? Is she also aware that a Hamas leader recently incited the Palestinians to act in ways of terrorism with the use of the knife and the gun? What is she doing to help the Israelis to combat terrorism and these awful murders of Israeli citizens?
Vicky Ford
This is an important point. Israel does have a legitimate right to self-defence and the right to defend its citizens from attack, but it is absolutely vital that all actions are proportionate and in line with international humanitarian law, and they must make every effort to avoid civilian casualties.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
I send my condolences to Shireen’s family, friends and colleagues at Al Jazeera. She was unlawfully killed while doing the job she loved and was greatly respected for, while clearly identified as a journalist, in what can only be described as a targeted attack for reporting actions of Israeli forces in the occupied territory of Jenin. Does the Minister agree that an international criminal court should undertake a full independent, not just impartial, investigation, and that swift action should be taken to bring those responsible to justice?
Vicky Ford
I thank the hon. Member for reminding us that there are family and friends involved. I add my condolences and those of the Government to the family and friends of Shireen. In losing such a talented person in such an awful situation, my thoughts are with them. We have called for an immediate investigation that does need to be fair and impartial, because it needs to have the trust of all those in the area. That is why it is so important that it happens soon.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
I draw the attention of the House to my declaration in the register as a founder director of the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians. In that respect, I have since then avoided engagement on Palestinian issues in this House. However, this Opposition urgent question about the killing of journalist Shireen Abu Aqla, almost certainly by a targeted shot coming from the forces who are in illegal occupation of a Palestinian territory, allows me to ask how long we must wait for the United Kingdom to actually do anything to enforce accountability on the state of Israel for its gross and worsening breach, over 55 years, of the fourth Geneva convention, while noting the shaming contrast with our own brave and principled policy towards Ukraine.
Vicky Ford
My hon. Friend is right to be concerned. The UK Government are very concerned about the very fragile security situation in Jerusalem. We continue to call on all parties to de-escalate tensions. The British ambassador to Israel and the British consulate general in Jerusalem have been engaging with Israeli and Palestinian leaderships to support them in restoring calm. We have made it clear that there is a need to protect holy sites. This sort of horrific violence against civilians is truly contemptible. We absolutely call on all sides to de-escalate the situation and come to the dialogue tables to work towards peace.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I acknowledge my role as chair of Labour Friends of Israel. The killing and the events at the funeral are shocking by any standards. I absolutely condemn what happened at the funeral, but as I understand it Shireen Abu Aqla was killed during a gun battle; the facts have not yet been established, and the Palestinians have rejected an offer of a joint investigation with the Israelis. Surely in this place it helps no one to state as fact what people want or feel inclined to believe. Will the Minister do everything to offer British resources and assistance to ensure that an independent, impartial investigation is established, and that we participate in it, if that would be helpful?
Vicky Ford
We are not only calling for that investigation but working with other members of the UN Security Council on that joint statement from countries around the world strongly condemning the killing and stressing the importance of the investigation.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
Shireen Abu Aqla has been referred to as the voice of events in Palestine as part of a much-needed open and free press, but there are fears that her killing will spark refreshed conflict in the west bank. Can my hon. Friend assure the House that if anything can come from this tragedy, it is that it is the Government’s priority to secure peace in the region?
Vicky Ford
Our priority in the region has always been to work towards peace; that is why it is vital that tensions are de-escalated now. That is what we are urging the authorities to do on the ground: de-escalate, come back to dialogue and work towards peace.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
I acknowledge my role as chair of Labour Friends of Palestine and the Middle East and of the Britain-Palestine all-party parliamentary group. Will the Minister state exactly how the Government intend to support an impartial investigation, which needs to be independent? Under this Government this country has a poor track record on impartial investigations, including on the issue of the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, which the Prime Minister opposed, as well as the UN commission of inquiry report on Gaza, from which the UK abstained.
Vicky Ford
The immediate actions that we have taken have been, first, to condemn the situation and then to work with the UN Security Council on that joint statement of condemnation which also calls for the investigation. We are obviously using our own diplomatic links both in Israel and in Jerusalem, engaging with the leaderships; and, of course, we will always look at what further measures should be taken.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
The Minister is right to condemn the recent terror attacks on innocent Israelis, which are increasingly being directed from the west bank by Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. She is also right to condemn this killing and to express her belief, which we all share, that journalists should be allowed to report anywhere safely. However, too many people, for whatever reason—sinister or otherwise—have already determined what the facts are, and did so as soon as the story broke. I urge my hon. Friend once again to ensure that the UK Government’s position continues to be in support of an independent inquiry, and emphasise that any inquiry, if it is to be worth anything at all, will require the buy-in of both the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Authority, or else it will simply become a political dividing line.
Vicky Ford
That is precisely why it is so important that the UN Security Council has described in such detail the need for the investigation to be immediate, thorough, transparent and fair, as well as impartial.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
Shireen Abu Aqla was a Christian Palestinian like my family, and her death feels like we have lost a sister. The scenes from the funeral were deeply upsetting, but the Minister may be aware that the Israeli police were trying to segregate the Christians from the Muslims in their mourning. Indeed, the day before they had stormed Shireen’s house. They went in, disturbed the wake and took a Palestinian flag from the room. It is disgraceful, and it is a clear provocation. I ask the Minister simply this: has she summoned the Israeli ambassador to make it clear how unhelpful to the peace process this is?
Vicky Ford
We have made very clear the need to restore calm, we have made it very clear that we condemn this action and we will always look at what further steps should be taken.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
Shireen Abu Aqla was a respected journalist, and I thank the Minister for her statement. I am pleased at the role the UK played, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, in securing unanimity in its condemnation. Does the Minister share my concerns about what this means to the relationship between the Palestinian and Israeli communities over the long term, and does she agree that the best action in memory of Shireen Abu Aqla would be an open and transparent investigation participated in by all parties?
Vicky Ford
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I said in my opening statement, both those who mourn her and she herself should be treated with respect and dignity. Again, that is another reason why this investigation needs to be so thorough. It needs to be deep, it needs to fair, it needs to be impartial and it needs to happen soon. We are very concerned about the escalating tensions we have seen over recent weeks and months with increased violence, and it is really important to fight for calm rather than see more violence.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
The reality remains that every time a Palestinian child is born there is one certainty—that in life they will face persecution, oppression and humiliation at the hands of an occupying Israeli military. However, the soul-shattering scenes we saw last week, with the funeral procession of Shireen Abu Aqla brutally attacked by the Israeli security forces, now mean that they will be stripped of their dignity in death as well. Yet again, all the international community and this Government do is offer empty words, so I ask the Minister: just what are this Government waiting for, and why will they not immediately recognise the state of Palestine? What message are this Government sending to Palestinians, who have now been stripped of their dignity in life and death?
Vicky Ford
We consistently call for an immediate end to all actions of violence, and we immediately call out—and continue to do so—against all actions that undermine the viability of a two-state solution. We are also a key development actor in the region, especially working to lift the overall standards of living for Palestinians and to meet humanitarian needs. The hon. Member asks about recognising a Palestinian state. We will recognise a Palestinian state at the time when it best serves the objective of peace, because achieving peace is our primary objective.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in relation to a recent delegation to Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
As has already been stated, the Palestinian Authority have so far refused to participate in a joint investigation into the tragic death of Shireen Abu Aqla. An initial autopsy has found that it is not possible to tell whether she was killed by Israeli or Palestinian gunfire. Facts matter, so does my hon. Friend agree that those who, for whatever reason, are jumping to blame Israel will only deepen division and make peace harder to achieve?
Vicky Ford
It is really important that there is a proper investigation—a thorough, fair and impartial investigation—but I repeat that we are concerned by the number of Palestinians who have been killed by Israeli security forces in recent weeks, and we urge thorough and transparent investigations into the deaths of civilians as well. It is really important that there is restraint in the use of force, and we will continue to say that again and again.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
A constituent of mine who went to school with Shireen Abu Aqla has been in touch to share her sense of helplessness at what seems to be yet another state-sanctioned killing in the occupied territories. She said to me at the weekend that it seems to her that it is always incumbent on the Palestinians to prove their innocence and fight for basic human sympathy for the events that befall them. I fully accept that the killing has to be investigated independently, but having regard to what followed—the raiding of the home, the appalling behaviour of the Israeli authorities at the funeral—can the Minister please answer the question she was asked earlier: will she summon the Israeli ambassador? Clearly, the Minister feels outrage at what has happened—she has been very honest about that—so will she summon the Israeli ambassador to communicate her outrage?
Vicky Ford
We have been very clear that we have condemned this killing. We absolutely share the hon. and learned Member’s concern for the distressing and disturbing scenes at the funeral. We have called for a thorough investigation, we have called for respect and dignity, and we call for all parties to reduce the tensions and to come and work together towards peace. Delivering peace is what Shireen would have wanted and is what we all want.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), the chairman of Labour Friends of Israel, said earlier, this was in the middle of a gun battle between Israeli forces and Palestinian forces. The Labour Friends of Israel chairman is right, and my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) is also right in saying that the initial autopsy—which was conducted by the Palestinian authorities, not the Israeli authorities—said that it was impossible because the bullet removed was a 5.56x45 mm NATO round used both by the Israelis and the Palestinians. Therefore, may I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure and put pressure to ensure that this is an independent inquiry, because justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done?
Vicky Ford
My hon. Friend is right about justice: justice is really important. We absolutely condemn this killing and will continue to stress the need for the investigation to be fair, impartial, thorough and prompt.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I am secretary of the National Union of Journalists parliamentary group and we have raised these issues before, but, with regard to this killing, let us put it in the context of the systematic abuse of Palestinian journalists. The International Federation of Journalists already a month ago referred these incidents to the International Criminal Court. May I therefore, in that context, and in view of the happenings subsequent to the killing, which were disgraceful, repeat the question for the third time? The minimal action any Government can take is to call the ambassador in to express the concerns of the Government about the Israeli state’s behaviour, so can we ask for the third time: have the Government invited, or do they intend to invite, the Israeli ambassador to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office for that discussion?
Vicky Ford
I have been very clear about the actions the Government have taken to date. We continue to condemn this, we have called for an investigation, we have, through our ambassadors and the British consul in Israel and in Jerusalem, made very clear our position supporting the leaders to restore calm, the need to protect holy sites and the need for dialogue to move towards peace, and of course we always take any future measures into consideration.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister will have heard Members across the House calling for not just an impartial investigation, but an independent investigation. I will tell her why it matters: because in this modern world, independent fact checkers have been able to put together compelling, open-source evidence that points clearly to the responsibility of the Israeli forces for the murder of Shireen Abu Aqla. Given that, will the Minister confirm that the UK’s official position is that there should be an independent inquiry, not just an impartial one, so that the Israelis and the Palestinians can both have confidence in the outcomes? Will she clarify that: yes or no?
Vicky Ford
I think that it is really important that we work with partners across the world through the UN Security Council. It is the UN Security Council’s wording, agreed among all those countries, that calls for an impartial investigation. That is the wording that has been agreed by the UN Security Council.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
I find it heartbreaking that, after decades of violence, illegal occupation, demolition of Palestinian homes and complete disregard for human rights, the UK has failed in its obligation and duty to recognise the state of Palestine. It took the Foreign Secretary more than 24 hours to put out a statement after the murder of al-Jazeera’s esteemed journalist Shireen Abu Aqla. What message does that send to those responsible for Shireen’s tragic murder? In the light of the history, why are the Government not pushing for a full independent inquiry? Given the close relationship between the UK and Israel, now, for the fourth time of asking, will the Minister summon the Israeli ambassador to demonstrate the outrage at the behaviour of security forces during Shireen’s funeral?
Vicky Ford
Shireen’s death was a true tragedy and we have condemned it. On 11 May, the Foreign Secretary condemned it. We have also worked very rapidly with our colleagues at the UN Security Council to deliver the joint statement of condemnation and to call for the investigation that I have mentioned. We continue to press for peace. We saw those very distressing images at the funeral and will always look at what further steps should be taken.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, including my role as co-chair of the cross-party National Union of Journalists group and on various Palestinian groups. I want the Minister and Members to imagine for a moment attending the funeral of a family member or friend. In what circumstances would what we witnessed on our TV screens happening to the pallbearers carrying the coffin be reasonable or proportionate? How can it be acceptable for the police or security services of any nation to attack pallbearers to the extent that the coffin falls on the ground? Not only do we call for the Minister’s condemnation, but, for a fifth time, I call on her to summon the Israeli ambassador here to account for her actions.
Vicky Ford
I have attended many funerals in my life, from early childhood, and that is one that will always stay with me. Mourners should always be treated with respect and dignity. Shireen and her family should have been treated with respect and dignity. We totally condemn her death and the manner in which she died. We believe that this really urgent investigation is needed to help to rebuild peace. That must be our priority.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr, Mr Llefarydd. The International Federation of Journalists’ complaint to the ICC about the treatment of Palestinian journalists is about not only protecting the human rights of journalists, but safeguarding the work that they do as a profession to protect collective human rights. The Secretary of State has spoken many times about the need for an independent and impartial investigation. To ensure that independence and impartiality, will she support the IFJ’s complaint to the International Criminal Court to ensure those very virtues?
Vicky Ford
As I said, we have been working with our friends and other members of the UN Security Council on the joint statement about the investigation. I do not have any further details that I can share with the right hon. Member at present.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
As if the ongoing dispossession and discrimination faced by the Palestinian people was not enough cruelty, Israel continuously targets Palestinian journalists. There is not only the murder by Israeli snipers of Shireen Abu Aqla, who for decades bravely reported the crimes inflicted on her people. Since 2000, Israel has killed an estimated 51 Palestinian journalists and an independent UN commission of inquiry found that, during the 2018 march of return, Israeli snipers intentionally shot Palestinian journalists who were clearly marked as such, killing Yasser Murtaja and Ahmed Abu Hussein. What will it take for the Government to stop equivocating over these horrific crimes and hold Israel to account for its routine violations of international humanitarian law? And for the seventh time, will the Minister summon the Israeli ambassador?
Vicky Ford
We stand by journalists all across the world and it is a tragedy that so many journalists have been killed in recent years, and particularly this year. That is why we continue to raise issues of media freedom on the global stage. In February in Estonia, we announced support for the secretariat for the Media Freedom Coalition, which we founded and which now has 52 members. We will absolutely stand for media freedom and for journalists all across the world.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
It is important that the Minister has condemned this killing this afternoon and I thank her for doing so several times. Many of us are puzzled by her reluctance to summon the Israeli ambassador; that seems like the first step that should have been taken. Will the Government now commit to supporting the International Criminal Court investigations into not only this incident, but the wider behaviour of the Israeli Defence Forces in the occupied territories?
Vicky Ford
Not only have we worked with other members of the UN Security Council in strongly condemning this incident and needing to have this investigation, as I have mentioned, but we have been very clear that we are very concerned about other incidents of Palestinian civilians being killed by Israeli security forces in recent weeks. We continue to urge further transparent investigations of those killings as well.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Another journalist is murdered in occupied Palestine. Next, the occupying power raids her family home, and then its forces brutally attack pallbearers and mourners at Shireen’s funeral. In the light of that, the Government’s response has been pathetic and inadequate. The Minister will not even call for an independent investigation—that is, independent of the Israeli forces, who have whitewashed previous deaths in this way. Will she do that? Will she say what single step the Government have taken—not said, but taken—to oppose the occupation of Palestine, which is at the root of this violence? Will they recognise Palestine? Will they ban trade with illegal settlements? Will they sign up to the ICC inquiry? If not, her words are completely empty.
Vicky Ford
As I have said really clearly, we have led work at the UN to make sure that there is a joint statement not just from us, but from the entire security—
Vicky Ford
I am answering the question—please do not heckle me.
This is a tragic death—a really tragic death. We have led the work at the United Nations to put the pressure on to make sure, to the best extent that we can, that this investigation happens, that it is fair and transparent, and therefore, to use the word that the UN has used—I will repeat this, because it is the word from the statement—that it is “impartial”. The hon. Gentleman asked about the settlements. We are very clear that settlements are illegal under international law. They call into question Israel’s commitment to the two-state solution. We urge Israel to halt its settlement expansion—that threatens the viability of a Palestinian state—and we will continue, always, to press for peace.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
Does the Minister appreciate that everyone in this House regrets the killing of men and women in Israel, whether they are Israeli or Palestinian? It is quite wrong to imply anything else. There has been talk of the necessity of establishing the facts. Does she appreciate that the facts of the terrible scenes at Shireen’s funeral are beyond doubt? Millions of people around the world have seen those images. Finally, does she understand that it is no use telling us that Shireen’s death is a tragedy? We know that. We will take her words seriously only when she commits this afternoon, in this House, to calling the Israeli ambassador to the Foreign Office. Otherwise, her words are just words.
Vicky Ford
The right hon. Lady is absolutely right that all deaths in this situation are a total tragedy. What happened at Shireen’s funeral should not have happened. I cannot give further comment at this point; I have told her what we are doing, and that Ministers always consider what further steps can be taken. Our fundamental priority must be to continue urging a de-escalation of tensions, an end to violence and a pathway to peace.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
The murder of Shireen Abu Aqla and the attacks on mourners at her funeral have shocked the world. It is not enough to condemn those actions; we must take action. When will the UK Government stop authorising arms sales to Israel, as we know they are killing innocent Palestinians?
Vicky Ford
We take the export of arms extremely seriously. As has been said many times in this House, the United Kingdom has one of the most robust arms export control regimes anywhere in the world. I hope all hon. and right hon. Members would agree that the important thing now is to call on all parties to de-escalate the tensions and to work towards peace.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
In the Minister’s statement and subsequent answers, she mentioned her attempts to get a statement at the United Nations. The problem is that Israel has consistently ignored any critical statements coming out of the UN, and has even sought to undermine the legitimacy of the UN and other international institutions. Why does she think this time will be any different?
Vicky Ford
It is important that voices from across the world have condemned this awful deed.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
This is not the first time this has happened; nor will it be the last. Under occupation, Palestinians’ human rights are abused, and as we have seen, they cannot even bury their dead with dignity. Does the Minister understand that until we have a lasting peace, we will not tackle the situation at its root? Does she understand that although the UK has committed to a two-state solution, we cannot have two states if only one is recognised? Perhaps she would like to reconsider her answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) and tell us when exactly she will recognise the Palestinian state.
Vicky Ford
It is clear that unilateral recognition, by itself, will not end the occupation. We need the parties to come to talks and to work towards peace.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
The killing of Shireen Abu Aqla by the Israeli military and the subsequent attack on her funeral in Jerusalem demonstrate the reality of the occupation of the west bank. Amnesty International has said that it constitutes apartheid, which is a crime against humanity as defined in the Rome statute and the apartheid convention. Will the Minister not only condemn this act of inhumanity but commit now to summoning the Israeli ambassador? Will she take steps to ensure that the UK ceases all arms trade with Israel, and to ensure that Britain is not complicit in the illegal occupation of Palestine?
Vicky Ford
I have already stated many times the actions that we are taking. Of course Ministers consider, at all times, what further steps might be taken.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I have had a great many letters from my constituents since the brutal murder of Shireen Abu Aqla, as have, I am sure, many other Members from across the House. They are saddened. They are sickened by the scenes at her funeral. They are also deeply angry about the lack of reaction. The Minister said the word “impartial”, but can she not press the Government to push for an independent investigation into this death? Will she please place on record for the House the dates and agendas of the meetings she has had with the Israeli ambassador? We need some sort of resolution, and to establish a two-state solution in that land.
Vicky Ford
The most important thing about the investigation is that it be accountable and ensures that those who carried out this act be held to account. That is why we worked towards wording that says it should be immediate, thorough, transparent, fair and impartial; and the most important thing is accountability. I cannot, from the Dispatch Box, tell the hon. Gentleman what meetings I have had, as I am not the Minister with responsibility for the middle east, but I am sure that we can follow up in writing.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
Surely the appalling desecration of the funeral of Shireen Abu Aqla is evidence, if any more were needed, of the crime of apartheid that is being inflicted on the Palestinian people and has been rigorously documented by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the Israeli human rights organisation B’Tselem. Instead of passing laws to ban local authorities and civil society from taking action against this brutal occupation, is it not time to accept the legal analysis of those human rights organisations, and do the right and moral thing and impose sanctions in response to this appalling criminality?
Vicky Ford
I am afraid I need to disagree with the hon. Gentleman, because we do not believe that boycotts, divestment or sanctions would help to create an atmosphere conducive to peace. I note that he used the word apartheid. We do not use that terminology, and we do not agree with its use, because it is a legal term, and a judgment on whether it can be used under international law needs to come through a judicial decision; that is really important. One thing I agree with him on, however, is that civil society always plays an important part in a democracy.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
The sad reality is that the horrific murder of Shireen is just another tragedy in 74 years of unaddressed ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people, yet rather than sanction Israel for that behaviour, 55 years after occupation began, the UK Government are busy strengthening relations with it through new trade deals. I ask the Minister, for the first time: why will she not summon the ambassador of Israel to the Foreign Office?
Vicky Ford
The most important thing we need to do is try to work towards peace. That is why we condemn this incident and are working for it to be condemned internationally, and why we called for the investigation. We want people to be held to account. That is why we are working with our ambassadors and the British Council in Jerusalem in Israel to try to de-escalate tensions.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
We know that Shireen was wearing a press vest and helmet, yet in addressing the circumstances of her murder, an Israeli military spokesperson said:
“They’re armed with cameras, if you’ll permit me to say so.”
Will the Minister be unequivocal in her support for journalists and transparency in Palestine, condemn any sense that to carry a camera is to be armed, and reaffirm that respect for a free press should be fundamental in any state calling itself a democracy?
Vicky Ford
The United Kingdom stands on the side of journalists all around the world, wherever they are. Media freedom is a vital part of our democracy and our freedom as individuals, and we stand for journalists.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
May I first declare an interest as a member of a Friends of Israel group? May I also thank the Minister for her response to the urgent question? I have seen innocent bystanders killed on numerous occasions in Northern Ireland. As the Minister will know, similarities are being drawn with Lyra KcKee, a journalist reporting on the unrest in 2019 who was killed by the new IRA. Does the Minister not agree that the loss of life is truly tragic, and that all possible steps must be taken to ensure the safety of those who seek to report the news from an unbiased position? What steps does she feel her Department can take to send that message internationally?
Vicky Ford
We absolutely continue to call out attacks against journalists and media internationally. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that attacks against journalists have happened in the United Kingdom in our history, and I remember that particular tragedy well. We are one of the leading countries in the world standing for media freedom. We founded the Media Freedom Coalition; it now has 52 members, and we should like to see more.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
I send my condolences to the family and colleagues of Shireen Abu Aqla. Can the Minister confirm that, contrary to the statement of the Israeli military spokesperson, the fact that a journalist is armed with a camera does not make that journalist a target?
Points of Order
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 27 April, I raised the issue of the Prime Minister’s comments about increased employment since the pandemic. After that, I wrote to the UK Statistics Authority about the issue. In its reply on 11 May, the authority’s interim chair said that the Prime Minister needed to be clearer about employment statistics, and that he was running the risk of
“a misleading impression of trends in the labour market”
being given. The UK Statistics Authority has also contacted the 10 Downing Street briefing team about this matter on numerous occasions in the past few months, but the Prime Minister has continued to reiterate the claim. May I ask your advice, Mr Speaker, on what a Minister should do if they use statistics in a way that they then find could inadvertently mislead the House, and what action is open to the House to ensure that that advice is followed?
Mr Speaker
I thank the hon. Lady for giving me notice of her point of order, which will have been heard by those on the Government Front Bench. As Madam Deputy Speaker said on 27 April,
“it is important for information given to the House to be accurate…if necessary, the matter will be addressed appropriately and action taken to correct the record”.—[Official Report, 27 April 2022; Vol. 712, c. 800.]
If the hon. Lady continues to be dissatisfied, the Table Office can advise her on ways in which to take the matter further.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance. Today the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office released its long-awaited international development strategy. This is the most significant change in policy on UK Government development since the announcement of the aid cut in November 2020. Indeed, the strategy is apparently
“'the Government’s vision for the future of UK…development”
and
“the heart of the UK’s foreign policy”.
Those are the Government’s words, not mine.
I was very disappointed that the strategy was released as a written statement, rather than the Foreign Secretary’s coming to the House and answering questions from Members. We spend a significant sum on official development assistance every year. Given that the strategy is highly evasive, in what I consider to be a very concerning way, about when the 0.7% of gross national income target for ODA will be restored, it deserves proper debate. Can you advise me, Mr Speaker, on how we can get the Foreign Secretary to come to the House and answer questions?
Mr Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for giving me notice of that point of order. I have received no notice from Ministers that they intend to make a statement on this matter, although, as the hon. Member said, the international development strategy has been laid before the House today. The House knows that I have no power to compel a Minister to make a statement. Those on the Government Front Bench will, however, have heard the hon. Member’s point of order. She is, of course, free to pursue the matter through other means, and I am sure that she knows which routes to take.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This morning, the Prime Minister visited Northern Ireland to ascertain from all the parties the position in relation to the Northern Ireland protocol. Have you been notified that he is to come to this House to make a statement on those talks and discussions, so that we can make sure that the Northern Ireland protocol is ditched—that is No. 1—and know exactly what the Government’s intentions are on this matter?
Mr Speaker
I can honestly say that nobody has been to me to say that they wish to come to this House, neither the Prime Minister nor anybody representing the Government. I am sure that through your good offices, you will not leave it at that. I am sure that you will pursue it, and your colleagues from Northern Ireland will do the same.
Debate on the Address
Making Britain the Best Place to Grow Up and Grow Old
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Nadhim Zahawi)
It is a great honour for me to open this debate on the Loyal Address. In Her Majesty’s jubilee year, I want to thank her for her dedication and service to our country, the Commonwealth and all its people. That includes young immigrants arriving on these shores, who feel her warmth and generosity; of course, some of them end up as her Ministers. I also thank Prince Charles and Prince William, the Duke of Cambridge, for opening Parliament on her behalf.
During Her Majesty’s 70-year reign, this country has been the best place in the world to grow up and grow old, yet during these seven decades the British people have overcome major challenges, time and time again. We have just lived through what I am sure you will agree has been an incredibly difficult period, Madam Deputy Speaker. After years of sacrifice by people up and down the country, this Queen’s Speech focuses our attention exactly where it should be—on the future.
The future, full of promise, will not be without its challenges, both at home and overseas. Our country needed a Queen’s Speech that rises to the scale of the challenge we face, and we have delivered it. Our communities needed a Queen’s Speech that keeps them safe, secure and prosperous, and we will deliver it. Our constituents needed a Queen’s Speech that shows them that the door of opportunity is always open to them, and we will deliver it. Our relentless focus is on delivery, delivery, delivery.
Before I outline how our legislative programme will make sure that this country remains the best place to grow up and grow old, I reaffirm this Government’s solidarity with the people of Ukraine. I am pleased to say that all Ukrainian children and young people arriving in the United Kingdom have the right to access state education while in the UK. With memories of my own childhood, leaving Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and building a new life here, I know how important education is to helping young people integrate into their new communities.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Secretary of State is absolutely right to say that there is no better place in the world to live than this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—always better together. Can he confirm that through the Government’s policies and this Queen’s Speech, every step will be taken to ensure that every child in this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland achieves academic success; to improve the health system for every person who is on the waiting list; and to help every elderly person who depends on a better income for energy, food and heat?
Nadhim Zahawi
I think the hon. Gentleman speaks for the whole of Northern Ireland when he says that the focus has to be on the education, healthcare and public services that the people of Northern Ireland so badly need.
Not only do we need to make sure that Ukrainian refugees are well integrated, but we need to give them the same skills that we are giving our children, so that they can take on the challenges of the future.
Not only do we need to make sure that Ukrainian refugees are well integrated, but we need to give them the same skills that we are giving our children, so that they can take on the challenges of the future. I want to take this opportunity to commend schools and local authorities across England for rising to the challenge of welcoming and supporting children arriving from Ukraine, and offering thousands of them a school place, in the same schools that are at the heart of our plans to level up. One of the first Bills introduced this Session, in the other place, is the Schools Bill, which will deliver a stronger schools system that works for every child, no matter where they were born or live in our country. It will work alongside close to £5 billion of investment in our ambitious multi-year educational recovery plan, investing in what we know works: teacher training; tutoring; and extra educational opportunities, including of course extra hours for those who have the least time left in education—the 16 to 19-year-old students.
The evidence is clear that our plan is working and the recovery is happening, with primary pupils recovering about 0.1 months in reading and 0.9 months in maths since the summer. Combined with our £7 billion cash increase in the total core schools budget by 2024-25—this is compared not with 10 years ago but with 2021-22—this means we are giving schools the resources they need to focus on student outcomes. It is money that will help schools increase teachers’ pay, including by delivering on our manifesto pledge of a £30,000 starting salary. This is money that will help schools deliver resources for students and meet inflationary pressures in these uncertain times.
However, there is more to do, because too many children leave primary school unable to meet the expected standards in reading, writing and mathematics, despite the remarkable progress in the past decade. Through our Bill, 90% of primary school children will achieve the expected standard in reading, writing and maths by 2030, and the percentage of children meeting the expected standard in the worst performing areas, which need the most help, will have increased by more than a third. To meet our ambitious targets, the Schools Bill will go further, taking steps to make children safe and addressing standards in attendance, with this all underpinned by a fairer and stronger schools system. Because our best multi-academy trusts—those families of schools—are delivering improvement in schools and in areas where poor performance had become entrenched, by 2030 we want all schools either to be in a strong multi-academy trust or to have plans to join or form one.
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
The Secretary of State is making a powerful point. Is he aware that in my area the strong Odyssey Trust for Education, which runs the successful Townley Grammar School for girls, is already ahead of the game on this one and has taken over the failing Erith School and made it King Henry School, and is determined to make it a great success?
Nadhim Zahawi
I certainly am aware of the Odyssey Trust for Education, and indeed it is exactly that passion for transforming young people’s lives that we need on this journey; I know that that school and many other grammar schools—I believe it is 90 of the 165 grammar schools—have already joined those families of schools and will do the same.
Our ambitions are for all children, including those with special educational needs and disabilities, who may need additional support, to reach their potential. The SEND and alternative provision Green Paper, published in March, sets out our ambitions for children and young people with SEND. Our proposals will build a more inclusive and financially sustainable system that delivers the right support in the right place at the right time for every child and young person. We want to establish a new single national SEND and alternative provision system and are investing now to secure future sustainability for that system. We have also set out clear roles and responsibilities, and of course accountability measures, for everybody working in the SEND and alternative provision sector. That includes the new national and local inclusion dashboards to give a timely, transparent picture of how the system is performing across education, health and care, which is what parents have asked us to do.
Children and young people are the future of our country, but they cannot succeed if they are not safe and secure at home. That is why under my stewardship the Department for Education has been laser-focused on families. With strong families, we can make a fairer society, one in which children can escape the quicksand of disadvantage. With strong families, we can help to ensure that every child can grow up happy and of course with that vital opportunity. We are taking steps to strengthen families. We are funding 75 local authorities—half of England’s local authorities—with the highest levels of child deprivation to create family hubs and transform that support for families. Our investment includes a focus on babies, children and families in the early years, with funding for breastfeeding, parenting and parent-infant mental health services. Where families need more help, we have expanded the supporting families programme so that up to 300,000 families with more complex needs can work with a key worker to help to resolve problems.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
Safety is at the heart of what so many parents think of when they send their child into these settings, and I welcome the family help. Last week a child died in a nursery in my constituency, and I send my heartfelt condolences to the family. It must be a heartbreaking time. Ten years ago two other constituents lost their child, Millie, in a nursery. Dan and Joanne Thompson set up Millie’s Trust in her name, and now Millie’s Mark accredits staff in nurseries who have paediatric first aid training. Does my right hon. Friend agree that safety in nurseries and other childcare settings is vital and that paediatric first aid is vital so that members of staff know how to deal with these emergencies? Would he join me in—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. A lot of speakers are trying to get into this debate, so interventions need to be very brief.
Nadhim Zahawi
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend on Millie’s Mark, and of course child safety in nurseries is vital and non-negotiable. I am grateful to her for bringing that accreditation to the House’s attention.
As I was saying, where families need additional help we have expanded the Supporting Families programme so that those 300,000 families with more complex needs can work with a key worker to help to resolve problems.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Nadhim Zahawi
I will just make a bit more headway, then I will take the hon. Lady’s intervention with pleasure.
To improve the lives and outcomes of children with a social worker, we need to make fundamental changes to the current system. I look forward to seeing the recommendations from the independent review of children’s social care—the MacAlister review—which will be published in the coming weeks. It is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to improve outcomes for children and families. This Government are acutely aware of how important childcare is to both children and their mums and dads. In each of the past three years we have spent in excess of £3.5 billion a year on our early education entitlements, and we will continue to support families with their childcare costs. At the spending review last October we announced additional funding for early years entitlements worth £160 million in 2022-23, £180 million in 2023-24 and £170 million in 2024-25 compared with the 2021-22 financial year.
Providing quality childcare is vital for children to develop from the earliest opportunity, but there is another point to all this. We know that women are the most likely to shoulder high childcare costs. The aim of the Government’s universal credit childcare offer is to support parents for whom paid childcare is a barrier to work to overcome that barrier. This works alongside tax-free childcare, helping parents return to work and making sure it pays to work. For every £8 that parents pay into their childcare account, we add £2, up to a maximum of £2,000, in top-up per year for each child up to the age of 11, and up to £4,000 per disabled child until they are 17. Overall, the Government have spent more than £4 billion on childcare each year for the past five years in the United Kingdom through childcare offers led by the Department for Education, tax-free childcare and employer-supported childcare. Addressing the issue means that women can, if they wish, go back to their careers. That is fair to them and it is good for business and the economy.
Our long-term economic success will turn on our ability to nurture and utilise talent, including that of new mothers. Human potential—human capital—is the most important resource on earth. To steal a phrase from my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), the Chair of the Education Committee, we are determined to build a skills-rich economy. We are committed to delivering those skills through massive investment in and reforms to skills and further education provision.
We have already embarked on revolutionising the post-16 education sector, transforming apprenticeships, driving up quality and better meeting the skills needs of employers through more flexible training models. We have launched T-levels, boosting access to high-quality technical education for thousands of young people, and, of course, creating our skilled workforce of the future. I pledge to the House that I will make T-levels as famous as A-levels—watch this space. In the previous parliamentary Session, we successfully passed the Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022 to do just that. That Act, alongside our wider reforms, including an additional £3.8 billion investment in skills over this Parliament, rightly places employers at the heart of the skills system, supporting our ambition for everyone to be able to access the training that they need to move into highly skilled jobs. There is, of course, a crucial role for our universities in making sure that our country remains the best place in which to grow up and, given the link to future earnings and opportunities, to grow old.
We will bring forward further legislation through a higher education reform Bill to ensure that our post-18 education system promotes real social mobility, is financially sustainable and will support people to get the skills they need to meet their career aspirations and help grow the economy.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for what he is saying, but will the Bill address the injustice that Muslim students face? At the moment, they cannot access student loans. Suitable loans were promised by David Cameron in 2014, and they are still waiting. Will he address that?
Nadhim Zahawi
I made that pledge to the Education Committee a few weeks ago. We are looking at how we deliver on that.
As I was saying, we will introduce further legislation through the higher education reform Bill to ensure that our post-18 education system promotes real social mobility and, as the hon. Lady has just said, is financially sustainable.
Alongside that, we are meeting our manifesto commitment to challenge any restriction of lawful speech and academic freedom. The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill will strengthen existing freedom of speech duties and will directly address gaps within the law, including the lack of a clear enforcement mechanism.
For both universities and technical education, one of the most important policies that we are implementing as part of the Skills and Post-16 Education Act is the paradigm shifting lifelong loan entitlement. A new and flexible skills system, it will provide people with an entitlement equivalent to four years of post-18 education, to be used over their lifetime in modules or as a whole, and is worth £37,000 in today’s money. We are writing a new chapter—no, we are writing a new book in skills education. The entitlement will give people the ability to train, retrain and upskill in response to changes in skills needs and employment patterns. In a dynamic economy in which sectors can be crushed and reborn in double time, that has to be our priority.
The world is different now from how it was when I entered the world of work and business. It is different now compared with when I became an MP 12 years ago. We must not only keep up with a changing world but lead the change, and the Queen’s Speech lays out how we will do that. As I said at the start of my speech, we are focused on delivering against the ambitious targets that we have set ourselves across skills, schools and families, and on holding ourselves to account against them. The sharing of our plans and performance data is a key lever to drive rapid improvement through the complex systems we oversee.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The Secretary of State talks about skills, which are so important. Does he recognise the real crisis we face with skills in the health service, and particularly the number of people we lack as regards the prevention and treatment of cancer? Will he and his friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, who is sat next to him, consider the amendment on the Order Paper in my name, which calls for a strategy to tackle the cancer backlog? More than a third of my constituents with cancer are waiting more than two months for their first treatment.
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention and have a couple of things to say in response. First, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care will address this, but I know that his priority—his laser-like focus—is on dealing with the backlog. There is also investment in Cumbria and the University of Cumbria for clinical training and the needs of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents.
As I said at the start of my speech, I am focused on delivery. I am passionate in my belief that performance data is a key lever to drive rapid improvement through complex systems, whether in education or in health. On transparency, as we did with the vaccine we will do the same again with education and health. I have committed to publishing a delivery plan setting out what we will achieve and a performance dashboard showing progress so that the House and the country can hold us to account. I have already written to all schools stating that we will publish data on the uptake of the national tutoring programme this summer. Many schools have helpfully given us access to their attendance data, and I am conducting a trial over the coming weeks to share that data back in a way that prompts helpful actions in schools and local authorities.
The spirit with which our education sector responded to the pandemic demonstrated why this is the best country to grow up in.
Rachael Maskell
The Secretary of State is talking about the best place for young people to grow up; will he explain why not a single placement of special provision for children at risk is available throughout the country, as my constituent is experiencing right now?
Nadhim Zahawi
The hon. Lady raises an important point. That is partly why the MacAlister review of children’s social care is so important. I shall say more on that in the coming weeks.
Let me return to praising the incredible spirit of our education frontline: those brilliant teachers, school leaders and, of course, support staff—we must never forget the support staff—demonstrated why this is the best country to grow up in. We see that spirit across our public and private sector, including, of course, in the work of the national health service with our great vaccine companies, which has led the way in protecting lives and livelihoods in the battle against covid. Thanks to the astonishing roll-out of the vaccine and booster programmes, we were the first European nation to protect half our population with at least one dose and, thanks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the first major European nation to boost half our population, too.
Following the unprecedented challenges placed on the NHS by covid, we will spend more than £8 billion from 2022-23 to 2024-25, supported by the revenue from the health and social care levy, to clear the covid elective backlogs. But we must be honest: our NHS faces long-term challenges too, including an ageing population and people increasing living with multiple long-term conditions. At this critical moment, we must seize the opportunity to put our healthcare system on a more sustainable path for the future, while meeting the immediate urgent recovery challenges. The Health and Care Act 2022 has created the structures for that sustainable future.
At the same time, as my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary will outline later, we will publish draft legislation to reform the Mental Health Act so that patients suffering from mental health conditions have greater control over their treatment and receive the dignity and respect that they deserve. I know that the NHS is an institution that makes people proud to be British. I and this entire Government share that sentiment, which is why we are safeguarding its sustainable future.
In closing, this was a Queen’s Speech filled with substantial policies, not least those that give young people the education they need to succeed in life; policies that will provide more rungs on the ladder of opportunity, and opportunity for older people who want a chance to learn and retrain; policies that put skills at the heart of our economy to unleash its potential; policies that back our public services so that they can deliver what our country needs; policies that sustain the truth that this is the best place in the world to grow up and grow old.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before I call the shadow Secretary of State, it will be obvious that a large number of Members wish to participate in the debate. I will not impose a time limit at the start, but I expect Members to speak for a maximum of five minutes.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in today’s debate on behalf of the Opposition, and to set out the contrast between a Conservative Government who have spent 12 long years failing Britain and a Labour party determined to make our country the best place to grow up and grow old.
As the Leader of the Opposition set out last week, at the heart of the Government’s programme there is a poverty of ambition for our public services, entirely inadequate for the challenges we face. We see that in the Government’s ongoing refusal to commit to a children’s recovery plan to support children after the disruption of the pandemic on anything like the scale that either their adviser, Sir Kevan Collins, or the Labour party has set out. I remain disappointed but sadly not surprised. After all, this is the Government who reopened the pubs before they reopened schools.
Twelve years in and the Conservatives are out of ideas, out of touch and out of steam. The challenges we face as a country demand vision, leadership, energy, drive and determination. Of course there are the challenges that every country faces, and now there are the challenges bequeathed by the pandemic and its legacy. But there are also the challenges brought by 12 years of Conservative failure, and what they all have in common is that every single one of them is a challenge from which this Government flinch.
A generation of children have been through the education system in this country under Conservative Governments since 2010. Their experience is the core narrative of this Government’s failure: not simply a failure to deliver, but a failure to think, a failure to plan, a failure to resource and a failure to learn. I think of what a child starting school in 2010 will have seen in that time: real-terms cuts to funding per pupil; secondary school classes at their largest for a generation; hundreds of thousands more children eligible for free school meals; school building repairs cancelled or postponed; hundreds of days lost to the pandemic; botched examinations not for one year, but two; and now this historic failure to invest in the children’s recovery plan that the Government’s own expert recommended and that our children desperately need.
The only thing on the up under this Government is child poverty. Now, as that young person looks ahead to university and the years that follow, they can see higher costs than ever before, stretching almost to retirement.
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
I thank the hon. Lady for drawing comparisons with what it is like to go to school under a Conservative Government. I went to school under a Labour Government. When I left my secondary school in 2005, it had a pass rate of 11% and one in three teachers were supply teachers. Was that not the real legacy of a Labour Government: a failed generation?
Bridget Phillipson
The last Labour Government transformed the life chances of people across our country—child poverty down, investment in our schools, schools rebuilt, teachers properly supported. That is a record of which we are very proud.
This is a generation of children let down from primary school right the way through to university, a generation of children failed by the Conservatives. I can tell you why they have been failed. The Government have stopped thinking in terms of children, people, parents and families. They have been too long in power, and they are mistaking changing institutions and regulations for improving the lives of our people.
Look at the Schools Bill, published last week. I had genuinely hoped for better, but what did we find? It is narrow in scope, hollow in ambition and thin on policy. It has 32 clauses on the governance of academies and 15 on funding arrangements. On funding, what a sorry sight it is to see a Conservative Chancellor and Secretary of State seeking plaudits merely for aiming to restore, by 2024, a level of real-terms school funding achieved by the last Labour Government, when their Government have spent a decade slicing it away.
The newspapers this weekend made it all too clear that whichever children the Secretary of State cares about, they are not always the children in England’s state schools.
We learnt that he is concerned that the success of our young people in accessing their first choice universities from England’s state schools—the schools which the vast majority of children attend and for which he is primarily responsible—is evidence of “tilting the system” away from private schools, of which, he tells us, he is “so proud”. What an extraordinary remark by the Secretary of State for Education about the success of students in state schools in this country.
If that were not enough, the next day brought further clarification. Not only does the Secretary of State appear concerned by the growing success of state-educated children in entering the universities of their choice, he is not bothered that their schools are crumbling around them. His own officials, within the last two months, have said:
“Some sites a risk-to-life, too many costly and energy-inefficient repairs rather than rebuilds, and rebuild demand three times supply”.
Children are being educated in schools that are a risk to life, and the Government have not lifted a finger.
The children of this country are being failed by an Education Secretary more interested in appealing to Conservative party members than in ensuring the success of our young people.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
The hon. Lady has made two points in the last few minutes about school funding for buildings and about children from private schools. May I address both? Does the hon. Lady welcome the more than £1 million given to Carre’s Grammar School in Sleaford to improve the school buildings and facilities? I went to a comprehensive school in Middlesbrough until I was 16. Just before I was 16 I was on a walk in the hills when I met somebody who went to Gordonstoun, a brilliant public school. They gave me, an ordinary working-class girl from Middlesbrough, a scholarship, for which I am eternally grateful. Were I to have applied for Oxford University, should I have been penalised for that scholarship?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I emphasise that interventions should be brief.
Bridget Phillipson
I am afraid that I did not catch most of that intervention—it was a bit hard to hear the hon. Lady—but I repeat that the last Labour Government rebuilt schools across our country. That has not been the record of the last 12 years.
The next Labour Government will build a Britain where children come first, where we put children and growing up at the heart of how we think about the future of our country, where Britain is the best place to grow up and the best place to grow old, and where young people leave education ready for work and ready for life.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
Since we are all talking about when we were at school, I should point out that I am probably the only Member of the House who grew up under a Tory Government and was at school in 2010. Does my hon. Friend agree that the reality of that was class sizes that were the biggest on record and school buildings that were falling apart, and, with education maintenance allowance having been cut, all we had to look forward to was the prospect of paying £9,000 a year in tuition fees if we went to university?
Bridget Phillipson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The last Labour Government transformed the life chances of a generation, and it will fall to the next Labour Government to do the same. Because, in a country where we think about children as both a society and an economy of the future, we build a better Britain for everyone: a Britain of children and families where the Government work to enable and empower success and, in particular, a Britain in which the Government see the soaring cost of childcare not as a statistic to be observed but a problem to be solved. That cost is crippling: families suffer financially; children suffer socially, and our country suffers economically. When the cost of childcare, not just for our two to four-year-olds, but the whole time from the end of maternity leave to the start of secondary school—from ensuring that parents can choose, and afford, to go back to work, to affordable breakfast clubs and afterschool activities so that parents do not always need to be at the school gate—is quite literally pricing people out of parenting, children and families are being failed.
That failure is not just about the individual children and families whom the Government fail, though there are millions of them and that is bad enough; our whole country is failed when we let our children down. It is not just childcare. We see it too in the Government’s failure to face up to the damage that their mishandling of the pandemic did to the education of a generation. The Secretary of State’s failure to convince the Chancellor to invest properly in children’s recovery from the pandemic; his failure at the last spending round in the autumn; his failure in the spring statement, and his failure now—that series of failures—above all he does or says now or in the future, is what he will be remembered for. The Prime Minister’s own adviser had the dignity to resign rather than accept such failure, and Labour would have been very different from the Government.
We have a plan where the Government have failure. On the very day that schools and nurseries closed to most children in March 2020, a Labour Government would have started work on three plans: an immediate plan to support children’s learning and development remotely and as fully as possible while lockdown went on; an urgent plan to reopen schools safely and quickly, and then to keep them open so children could learn together and play together; and, critically, a plan to ensure that when lockdown ended, children’s education and wellbeing did not suffer in the long run. Our children’s recovery plan put children and their futures at the heart of how we think about moving on from the pandemic because, after all, every child in Britain did more to follow the covid rules than our Prime Minister. The impact that had on their health and educational attainment needs addressing, not ignoring.
We would introduce breakfast clubs so that every child starts their day with a proper meal; afterschool activities, so that every child gets to learn and experience art, music, drama and sport; mental health support because every report that we see tells us that children’s development has fallen behind in the pandemic; continued professional development for our teachers because every child deserves teachers second to none in support of their learning; and targeted extra investment right from the early years through to further education, to support the children at risk of falling behind, because attainment gaps open up early and need tackling early.
We would go further to lock in the gains of a recovery programme for the long term, with a national excellence programme to drive up standards in schools, because every child deserves to go to a school with high expectations and high achievements. There would be thousands upon thousands of new teachers in subjects that have shortages right now, because every child deserves to be taught maths and physics by people who love their subject and to be introduced to a love of sport, music, art and drama; a skills commission, because every young person needs to leave education ready for work and ready for life; careers guidance in every school and work experience for every child, because each of us deserves to succeed at work, and Labour believes that the Government have a role to play in making that happen; and a curriculum in which we teach our children not just the past that they will inherit, but the future they will build, and in which they learn about the challenge of net zero and the climate emergency that we face.
It is precisely because we have a plan that we would enable our education system to deliver it. It is why we want an approach to how our schools are run that focuses on how children achieve and thrive, not the name on the uniform or the hours that they are there. It is why we have a determination to see childcare not as a passing, costly phase in the lives of others, but as the foundation of opportunity in the lives of every child and every parent.
As our children grow and as they interact more and more with my party’s proudest achievement to date, the national health service, it is sadly not the case that their experience of this Government’s record on public services improves. With health, as with education, there was a decade of failure even before the pandemic began. The national health service did not go into the pandemic strong, well-resourced and resilient. No, the NHS went into the pandemic with record waiting lists, 100,000 vacancies and 17,000 fewer beds than in 2010. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) has rightly said:
“It is not just that the Government did not fix the roof while the sun was shining; they dismantled the roof and removed the floorboards.”—[Official Report, 14 December 2021; Vol. 705, c. 954.]
Last autumn, the Government announced that they would raise tax to fund clearing the backlog and improving social care. The tax rise is happening during a cost of living crisis, sure enough, but it is not clear how they will manage the rest. That is why today, in our health service as in childcare, we are paying more but getting less. The Government are raising taxes on working people in the middle of a cost of living crisis, yet patients are expected to wait longer for care.
Conservative Members would do well to remember that NHS waiting lists are at a record 6 million. Ministers cannot blame the pandemic, because the figure was already at over 4 million before covid struck. Let us think of those millions of people waiting—waiting longer than ever before, often waiting in pain and discomfort, waiting while working or trying to find work, waiting while walking their children to school, waiting while trying to find somewhere affordable to live, waiting while looking after their grandchildren. They are waiting at a cost to themselves, of course, but at an astronomical cost to our country that is not just financial, but economic and social. They are waiting for their Government to give our public services the priority they deserve.
Mental health services are on the brink of collapse. In 12 years of Conservative Governments, a quarter of mental health beds have been cut, and right now 1.6 million people are waiting for mental health treatment. How on earth can any Minister defend that record? The Government’s approach to social care is up there with their failure on childcare: it is not fair, and it will not work. The less people have, the more they will take. Those with homes worth £150,000 will lose almost everything, while the wealthiest are protected.
It does not need to be this way. Labour will build an NHS fit for the future and get patients seen on time. We will provide the NHS with the staff, equipment and modern technology required so that the NHS is there for people when they need it. We will fix social care so that those in need do not go without. Our new deal for care workers will provide fair pay and secure contracts to plug the more than 100,000 vacancies in social care. We will transform training to improve standards of care. Across our public services, Labour will build a better Britain. We have done it before; we will do it again.
I remember a previous Conservative Government who cared little for the challenges that my family faced—a Government keener on judging my family than on supporting it. Then I saw, growing up and as a young woman, the difference that an incoming Labour Government made. I saw a Government who acted decisively to tackle disadvantage, cut child poverty and support families and children. A generation grew up with Sure Start and with children’s centres. A generation like me were supported after 16 with the education maintenance allowance and a level of investment in our NHS unmatched in history, with waiting lists driven down from months and years to days and weeks. I saw then, in my own community, the difference those changes made, and I still see it now in the better lives of young people who grew up with that advantage and the support it unlocked.
For 12 long years, Conservative Ministers have failed a generation of our children. Labour in power will be different, because we see Britain as its people—our children, our families, our future—and we will never swerve from making this country the best place to grow up and the best place to grow old.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Nominations closed at 5 o’clock this afternoon for candidates for the post of Chair of the Backbench Business Committee. One nomination has been received. A ballot will therefore not be held. I congratulate Ian Mearns on his re-election as Chair of the Backbench Business Committee. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
I remind hon. and right hon. Members of my stricture about sticking to five minutes, at least for the opening contributions from the Back Benches.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in support of this Queen’s Speech. It is tempting to respond to a number of the points made by the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), whose speech sounded remarkably like a bid for the leadership of the Labour party. However, given the lack of time, I want to concentrate on just four Bills, all of which emanate from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and all of which I had a small hand in part of the preparation of.
The first is a carry-over—the Online Safety Bill. I welcome this opportunity to speak on it because I had only five minutes do so on Second Reading, although I will have rather less this time. I reiterate that the Bill is tremendously important and will protect our young people as they grow up. It is pioneering legislation to introduce some regulation of online activity.
We also have an ambition in this country to be the technological leaders of the world, so I remain concerned that the Bill is very vague in a lot of aspects. Since Second Reading, I have had meetings with mid-sized platforms such as Pinterest, Reddit, Eventbrite and Tripadvisor, all of which are committed to this country but concerned that, while they want to comply with the provisions of the Bill, it is not clear to them what those provisions are going to undertake. I again say to the Government that what is important is to protect people who are at risk, not necessarily just regulate every large platform because of their reach.
Mr Whittingdale
No, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, as I am under a lot of pressure to keep this short.
The second Bill is the media Bill, which is vital for the future of public service broadcasting in this country. A lot of attention will be given to the provisions on Channel 4, which I welcome, although it is important that we debate those and discuss the model that Channel 4 should operate in future. The Bill contains other important provisions. The prominence of public service broadcasters has been argued for by ITV, Channel 4 and the BBC for many years, and it is essential if we are to protect public service broadcasters and ensure that they are visible in a world where competing channels are increasing in number almost every week.
In support of commercial public service broadcasters, I welcome the absence from the Queen’s Speech of a Bill to introduce advertising bans for HFSS—high in fat, salt or sugar—foods before 9 pm. I support the Government’s wish to reduce obesity, but I firmly believe that an advertising ban would have no effect on that and, at the same time, would massively affect commercial broadcasters.
I regret the absence from the Bill of provisions for radio prominence. This was an important part of the outcome of the digital radio and audio review. The Government accepted the recommendations from that but they seem to have dropped out of the Bill. I hope that we might try to correct that during its passage.
I look forward to the inclusion in the Bill of the repeal of section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, which is a sword of Damocles hanging over a free press allowing a future Government to impose punitive costs unless they sign up to the Government’s version of regulation. The removal of that was in the Conservative manifesto and I very much hope that we will fulfil that manifesto commitment in that Bill.
The third Bill is the digital markets and competition Bill, which, if anything, is even more important to the freedom of the press. At the moment, the press are at a disadvantage in their negotiations with the big platforms such as Facebook and Google, which take their content and decide how much, if anything, they are going to pay for it. The digital markets unit is being established to address that, but it needs to be put on a statutory basis; it needs to be underpinned by law. I therefore welcome the provision in the Queen’s Speech for a draft Bill but hope the Government will move forward to implement that legislation as soon as possible.
Finally, I turn to a Bill I again played some role in: the data Bill. One of the great opportunities from Britain taking back control of its own laws is our ability to write our own data protection laws. Of course we want to ensure that people’s privacy is protected, but at the same time the existing rules have acted as a disincentive. They are overburdensome and not properly understood by large numbers of small firms in particular. This is a real opportunity to have a modern data protection regime which others across the world will admire and follow.
On that basis, I am delighted to support the Queen’s Speech.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call SNP spokesperson Carol Monaghan.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
In this Queen’s Speech, I would have expected to see some radical interventions that are urgently needed to tackle the cost of living crisis, to tackle climate change and to properly support our elderly community, including elderly veterans, but there is a real lack of ambition in the speech, and this Government have done the absolute opposite of making Britain the best place to grow up and grow old. While they have lined the pockets of their cronies, they have limited the opportunities of young people. They have caused and then ignored the cost of living crisis, which has left many children and elderly without enough to get by, and delayed action on climate change, which arguably will have the biggest impact on our younger generations.
For us in Scotland, this is a tale of two Governments. The Scottish Government are determined to make Scotland the best place in the world to grow up and grow old, regardless of household income or social demographic, but only as an independent nation will Scotland have the levers, the decision-making powers and the full fiscal autonomy to see that ambition fully realised. [Interruption.] There is heckling from those on the Government Benches. I would have thought that the results of the elections two weeks ago would have shown them something—perhaps they would have learned some lessons. People in Scotland more and more are waking up to this.
Let us compare the two Governments. A woman in Scotland who is expecting a child is given a baby box filled with essentials for her baby—clothes, books, teething toys, blankets. The message is clear: your baby is important, your baby is valued and your baby is welcomed. At the same time as the baby box was introduced in Scotland, the UK Government introduced a two-child limit on child tax credit and universal credit. It is apparently okay to have up to two children. Beyond that if you are a low-income household your baby is neither welcomed nor valued by this Tory Government.
The British Pregnancy Advisory Service said that over half the women it surveyed who had an abortion in the coronavirus pandemic and knew of the two-child limit said that that policy was important in their decision-making around whether to continue the pregnancy. That is pretty damning evidence. It is no surprise that, since 2016—since mothers have been expecting babies who would be born after that policy came into force—there has been a sharp increase in the number of abortions. Women are choosing abortions because they cannot afford to have a baby. The best place to grow up?
In Scotland, the Scottish Government have introduced the Scottish child payment—£20 a week for every eligible child and that will be rising to £25 a week—and that is mitigating some of the worst impacts for families. Frankly, the progressive policies of the Scottish Government must be matched with similar interventions from Westminster.
Last week, we were treated to the comments of the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson), who said that people were only using food banks because “they cannot budget” and
“cannot cook a meal from scratch.”—[Official Report, 11 May 2022; Vol. 714, c. 185.]
Today, Gareth Mason, head chef at Absolute Bar & Bistro in Westhoughton, has said that the hon. Member’s comments were “tone deaf” and “insulting”. He has set about proving this by cooking seven everyday meals, such as spaghetti Napoli, beans on toast, baked potato—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Can I just check that the hon. Lady has informed the hon. Gentleman that she was going to refer to him? That is perhaps just a reminder that that is what she would do.
Carol Monaghan
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have not. I was not making a point of order; I was referring to something that was said in a debate and has been said in the press.
The chef, Gareth Mason, said:
“I’ve come to the conclusion it’s a load of rubbish. These meals I’ve done, as soon as you put any protein or dairy into them, it’s not feasible to do it for 30p. If you eat beans on toast for every meal, it might work, but even if you did cheese on toast, the cost of cheese would be more than 30p on its own”,
and that is before considering the cooking cost of the food.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) was very clear that he offered anyone on the Opposition Benches to go and join him down in Ashfield. Given the problems the hon. Member has outlined, is she planning on going down to see what happens in Ashfield and how that food bank functions?
Carol Monaghan
I would love to do that, but more than that, I look forward to the cooking book from the hon. Member for Ashfield, because I am sure that will be a really popular volume. I will even buy some copies for my own food bank if we think we can be making meals for 30p a day—incredible!
The fact is that people on low income or on benefits are far superior with managing their finances because they have to be. According to Jack Monroe, the bootstrap cook who gave evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee, the impact of the cost of living crisis on
“millions of children living in poverty in Britain today”
is
“going to be, in some cases, fatal”.
This is first and foremost due to the rise in the cost of everyday essentials, not because families on low incomes cannot budget or cannot cook a meal from scratch.
But it gets worse. The Minister for safeguarding—the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean)—said on Sky News today that people struggling with the cost of living should just “take on more hours” or “get a better-paid job”. This shows how detached this Government are from the lived reality of so many people in our communities that we represent. Hunger impacts on the ability of children to learn. As one Member has said, they cannot concentrate and they cannot think. I know of teachers who are keeping cereal bars and snacks in their desk drawers to give to children to make sure they have something in their tummies.
In his opening remarks, the Secretary of State talked about extracurricular activities, and I think every Member here understands the importance of these. But for families who are just about managing—they are just about managing to pay bills and to feed their children—the things that will go are the little extras. These are the sports clubs, the activities, the birthday parties, the days out, the holidays—in fact, all the little things that together make childhood so special, and that enrich their experience and their ambitions.
It is good to hear the Secretary of State also talk today about the importance of teachers. As a former teacher myself, I know the difference that good teachers can make to young people. It is good to hear him talking about his ambition to make the starting salary for teachers £30,000 a year. That will only be £3,000 below what Scottish teachers currently start out on, with £33,000 a year.
In Scotland, we want to create a more equal society. One way we aim to do that is through widening, rather than restricting, the opportunities for our young people once they leave school. The Scottish Government’s young person’s guarantee ensures that every young person from 16 to 24 has a chance to go to university or college with no tuition fees, or has a chance to secure an apprenticeship or high-quality job. It is significant that, of anywhere in the UK, Scotland has the highest proportion of young people with positive destinations post school.
Time and again, we see this Tory Government undermining progress towards a better society for our young people. They talk of untapping aspiration, yet just a couple of weeks ago the chair of their Social Mobility Commission said that fewer girls than boys are studying physics because they dislike “hard maths.” That perpetuates outdated and harmful gender stereotypes about girls, particularly in science, technology, engineering and maths, which is close to my heart. That is no way to untap aspiration or ambition.
Students in England are considering their career and whether they are willing to take on a lifetime of debt. The Government’s equality analysis found that their student finance reforms will likely have a negative impact on graduates from disadvantaged backgrounds, while benefiting those who are already more privileged. The reforms will not, in fact, increase social mobility. This Government are making policy decisions that will hinder opportunity, to the obvious detriment of so many young people.
I could talk about Brexit and our lack of mobility across Europe, and about the international collaborations that have been lost, but I want to speak a little about our elderly community. According to the Centre for Ageing Better, one in five pensioners—more than 2 million people—is living in relative poverty. Worse than that, many are living in abject poverty. This represents an increase of more than 200,000 in just the last 12 months, and the problem will only get worse.
The report also presents a stark picture of up to a 10-year difference in lifespan between wealthy pensioners and poor pensioners. Pensioners have been abandoned by this Government, who scrapped the pension triple lock. Pensioners will be among the hardest hit by the rising cost of living; some already have to resort to spending the day on buses or eating one meal a day just to keep warm, as we heard last week. “The best place to grow old”?
Many UK citizens abroad, including a significant number of veterans, are living in poverty because of the freeze in overseas pensions. Their pension is frozen at the point at which they moved. Countries such as Canada have formally requested a reciprocal arrangement to cover pension uprating, but this UK Government have declined.
Our pensioners include veterans who have given the very best of themselves through their service. We have a duty of care to them, and I will talk briefly about one particular group that I know has support from both sides of the House—the nuclear test veterans. Their numbers are dwindling and they have had a lifetime of health issues, yet they have received neither a medal, recognition nor compensation. This is the only country not to have compensated its nuclear test veterans. Surely we can do better for this small group.
The SNP Scottish Government are doing what they can to support households during these difficult times—fully mitigating the bedroom tax; mitigating council tax; doubling the Scottish child payment; providing free tuition, free prescriptions and free school meals for all primary schoolchildren—but just as Scotland tries to mitigate the worst excesses of this Tory Government, the Scottish Government are suffering from budget cuts by them. A lack of powers for the Scottish Government means that we can only really deal with things around the edge—with the symptoms of poverty, not the deep-rooted causes of inequality in our society that deliver child poverty and pension poverty. Only with full independence can we realise our ambition for our children, our young people and our pensioners.
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to speak in support of the Queen’s Speech. In this debate on making Britain the best place to grow up and grow old in, I will focus on education. I appreciate, however, that inflation and the cost of living are top priorities for my constituents at this time. The Government need to do more to alleviate the consequences of rising prices, and I believe that they will.
The UK is, and always has been, one of the best places to grow up in, and I am convinced that it remains a great place for those of all ages to live in. Through education and the opportunities that it gives, and especially through great state schools and teachers, people from my background have been fortunate enough to reach our potential. However, despite the fantastic opportunities, and the increase in finance that the Government have put into our education system, a number of issues still need to be addressed, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education is determined to tackle them. We congratulate him on his March White Paper. I know that he aims to improve standards and achievement. I look forward to participating in debates on the schools Bill when it comes to the House.
I have worked as both a teacher and a lecturer, so I know how vital it is that every child receives the best possible education. Education and social mobility have always been key political issues for me, and I passionately believe that every child deserves the best possible start in life. I am a strong supporter of lifetime learning. Education is not just for the young, but for all age groups, particularly at a time when the world is changing rapidly.
As we all know, parents are a child’s primary educator. A parent’s education level has a significant impact on their children’s success and can significantly affect opportunities later in life. However, talent and hard work alone should determine how far people can go, whoever they are, wherever they come from, whatever their background. Opportunity is key, and this Government believe passionately in opportunity. I believe that talent is widespread across our nation. Unfortunately, there are certain groups and areas where opportunity is not open to all, for many and varied reasons, so fair funding, accountability, a safe environment and attendance are vital. I look forward to further debates on the Bill.
In my Bexleyheath and Crayford constituency, we are very fortunate to have a diverse and fantastic collection of schools at primary and secondary level. The borough is a social mobility hotspot, and a wide variety of education offerings are available, including church, grammar, comprehensive and single-sex schools, all of which achieve good results and give young people excellent opportunities to develop their talents. Children from across Bexley, from advantaged and disadvantaged backgrounds, achieve great results at school and benefit from the wide range of opportunities.
We have an excellent local further education provider—the Bexley campus of London South East Colleges—that offers a wide range of choices and courses. When I visited recently, I particularly enjoyed the media and special needs facilities. Last week, I also visited Woodside Academy, a special school that supports children from the age of four to 19 with a wide range of learning difficulties. It is part of the London South East Academies trust, and is another example of working together. It does innovative work to support the children under its care, both with their education and with wider health concerns. I watched, listened and learned about their specialist eye testing on site. The trust’s chief executive, Dr Sam Parrett OBE, and her team are doing a superb job.
However, even in areas such as Bexley, where we are making great progress, more can always be done. I recently visited Bedonwell School with my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) and the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare). It has outstanding special educational needs provision, but it highlighted concerns about SEN funding. I have written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the concerns it raised during our visit.
The Schools Bill will make it easier for schools in England to join multi-academy trusts, strengthen the regulatory framework, reform the schools funding formula to make it fairer, and strengthen the school attendance regime so that children can benefit from being in school. Those are vital issues, which is why I strongly support what the Government are doing. Madam Deputy Speaker insists that I keep to five minutes, so I cannot talk about the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill, which is also great news. I think we all agree with it on the Conservative Benches, so I do not have to go into detail on it.
To conclude, by levelling up skills and education, we not only help to unleash the potential of every area in our United Kingdom, but grow the economy and boost our GDP. There is a clear theme from the Queen’s Speech that needs to be promoted loud and clear: the Conservative Government believe in social mobility, opportunity and an education system that offers the best to all, so that every individual can maximise their life chances.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I am delighted to speak in this Queen’s Speech debate on making Britain the best place in which to grow up and grow old. I want to focus on what my part of the country needs if we are to meet our full potential to contribute to future national prosperity, and to ensure that the people of Hull and the rest of the United Kingdom do not just survive but thrive, with strong public services and opportunities for all.
It is 12 years since the coalition Government talked of rebalancing the economy and boosting UK economic growth by taking pressure off the congested south-east. It is 10 years since Lord Heseltine’s 2012 “No Stone Unturned” report, eight years since the northern powerhouse was launched, and three years since the Prime Minister took office and re-badged the idea as levelling up. Levelling up was only recently defined in the White Paper. After 12 years, we now have 12 missions.
We all know that a growing UK economy is the key to improving standards of living, ending poverty and having well-funded public services, but we are stuck with low productivity, low growth, high inflation and high taxes. Escaping that requires a major contribution from the Humber. Hull is a freeport city with a multi-sector industrial base; it has the UK’s fastest-growing digital economy, a strong local arts sector and a great university. New maritime industries are expanding around the green energy estuary, and there are opportunities for growth, ending fuel poverty and energy security.
However, alongside those success stories, Hull has setbacks. Local unemployment remains above the national average. Hull is usually in the top five areas in the UK for deprivation. In-work poverty weakened our local economy even before the austerity decade and the cost of living crisis. Hull needs more skilled, higher-paid jobs. The Minister doing the media round this morning seems to think that those jobs are shared equally around the country, but sadly they are not. Hull has several of the 225 left-behind neighbourhoods, where physical and mental health outcomes lag considerably behind those in wealthier areas.
Raising educational standards in Hull has been challenging. Too many local youngsters are not in education, employment or training. Many of our brightest feel the need to leave to get on. Like many left behind areas, over the past decade Hull has lost not just shops, but banks, pubs, youth clubs, churches, children’s centres, police stations and post offices. Access to GPs and NHS dentists is worsening. Hull has, however, gained food banks, gambling outlets, junk food sellers and loan sharks.
Opportunities to bid for the community wealth fund will hopefully help to repair some of our depleted social infrastructure, but so far, the talk about levelling up has been unmatched by deeds. Independent research from Bloomberg and others shows that levelling up has barely started for most of the north. Indeed, the gap between it and the south-east has grown over the past decade, including, most shamefully, when it comes to life expectancy. The excuses for failure do not convince my constituents. Of course, covid and Ukraine have been economic shocks, but Ministers presented Brexit as an opportunity to boost levelling up, not another excuse for failing. We also know that crisis can create opportunities, as happened in 1945. Hull has received some levelling-up funding for our city centre sites, but it is a small proportion of the funding package required to turbocharge our regional economy, and it is nowhere near the sustained public and private investment that has transformed the London docklands over the past 40 years. It does not even replace funding lost since 2010. I always fight in this place for the people of Hull, but a fair share of not very much will not be transformative in boosting UK economic growth and increasing the opportunities that we all want to see for the people of this wonderful country.
Hull’s digital connectivity is good, but our poor road and rail connectivity hold back economic regeneration. The Government’s integrated rail plan delivers no genuine transport levelling up. Another obstacle to Hull’s progress has been Ministers’ insistence—behind the guise of devolution—on permanent, made-in-Whitehall changes in political structures, without proper local consultation, as a precondition for funding. I draw attention to the fact that London never had to make such changes before getting schemes such as Crossrail. The ambition must be to transform, not tinker. We must go beyond the rhetoric of a Medici-style renaissance—or a Victor Meldrew charter to level down next door’s conservatory.
The whole country needs a levelling-up Bill that is bold, lifting the dead hand of Whitehall bureaucracy, cutting waste and boosting investment. Only failure is unaffordable for our country.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), who represents an exciting area of the country on the Humber. Thurrock may be in the south-east, but I share her exasperation about London-centric policy making, which has gone back decades. In that sense, we should welcome the commitment to levelling up, although she set quite a high bar for proving what it means in practice. I share some of the concerns that she has expressed. When I look at my local road infrastructure in Thurrock, I can see that a national approach has not served us especially well. We must make sure that levelling up really means something in practice.
We are talking today about making this country the best place to grow up and grow old, and it is the greatest country in the world. When I look at what is happening around the world, I think, “Aren’t we lucky to be here in the United Kingdom?” When I read our newspapers, watch our TV or listen to Opposition Members, I often think that this country is much better than they say it is, and that should be celebrated. That is not to say that we cannot do better and there are not challenges that need to be addressed.
In this place, we talk too often about how much we are spending on solving a problem, rather than about the outcomes that we are trying to deliver. Success is not measured by how much we spend; if we try to measure it in that way, we end up with a very short-term approach that does not fix the problem. That is why we end up having the same debates over and over again.
One area I want to highlight in that regard is social care. For the last 10 years, we have been obsessing about how we pay for social care, without properly looking at how we design a social care system that is fit for purpose. The challenge is that we are all living longer, and we have not revisited our systems and policies to address that. We need a life course approach to our housing. We know that falls are the biggest source of elderly ill health, so why are we not doing more to incentivise people to approach how they live in a way that suits their new length of life?
We also need to give younger people hope that they will be able to buy their own home, and this is where the two policies come together. Too often, we look at policies in silos. Why are we not encouraging people to make better use of their housing assets for their whole family? We can incentivise granny annexes, and we can give young people some hope by ensuring they have greater access to the wealth in their parents’ home. If we can do that, we will save money in the health service, because unnecessary hospital stays are much more expensive than dealing with a little inheritance tax problem, which might unlock some investment.
Housing is a big challenge, and we need some radical approaches to it. Council housing is a big part of it, and we must have a Macmillanesque expansion of our housing supply. We can deal with that by having fixed-term tenancies, to make sure that we are giving the most help to those most need it and not having homes being stuck.
I also wish to say something more widely about health, because I have always said that government perhaps works too well for the pointy-elbowed middle classes who are good at fighting for their interests and not for those who most need it. In that respect, I am disappointed that we have not made more progress with reform of the Mental Health Act 1983. It is now four years since Sir Simon Wessely brought forward his review. We spent a great deal of time consulting users, who often had to relive their own trauma in order to give us their advice. So we have really let those people down in delivering material change. We know that deprivation of liberty can be an important part of looking after people with severe mental ill health, but we also know that it is misused, as Sir Simon Wessely’s report shows.
I have little time left, but I wish to highlight a couple more things we need to properly address in that regard. We are still using the Bail Act 1976 to remand people in custody for their own protection. The criminal justice system should not be the place where we deal with people with severe mental ill health; in 21st-century Britain, that is completely unacceptable. We have made much of acting to remove prison cells and police cells as places of safety, and I assumed that we were making considerable progress on that—I thought that this was used in a very limited way. So I was horrified to hear from Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons that in the three women’s prisons it visited last year 68 women had been remanded for their own protection. That is not acceptable and I want more speed in dealing with it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I now call Paulette Hamilton to make her maiden speech.
Mrs Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
Today I stand, Madam Deputy Speaker, to thank you for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech. It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price).
I can only say how proud I am to be a Brummie today. I am overwhelmed but privileged to be standing here today in this great institution. Being elected to Parliament is not a right, it is an honour, and it is an even greater honour knowing that your community voted for you to be here. When I was elected on 4 March, people found it difficult to understand that I was the first female to be elected for the Erdington constituency. They were even more shocked to learn that I was the first person of African and Caribbean descent to be elected as a Member of Parliament in Birmingham. I hope the constituency shares my pride in knowing that they have made history.
In saying that, I cannot go any further without talking about the late, great Jack Dromey MP. Jack was elected in May 2010 and worked relentlessly to serve our community. He said in Parliament, and often within the constituency, in his speeches:
“Erdington may be rich in talent, but it is one of the poorest constituencies in the country.”—[Official Report, 15 September 2021; Vol. 700, c. 984.]
Until his death he worked to support his constituency, in so many ways. Any job lost in the area was a personal blow to Jack. The many tributes that have been made to him in this place and in the community show how much he is deeply missed.
I grew up in Handsworth, in the neighbouring constituency of Perry Barr, but Erdington is a place I have called home for 35 years. Over 103,000 people live in the constituency, and we have a diverse community: 26% are BME people, and over 69% are under the age of 45. Some families, sadly, have not worked for three generations. It is important to get those people back to work. We need to invest, instil confidence, give opportunity and build aspirations into our young people.
I am looking forward to being involved in debates relating to people living with mental health issues. Serving as the mental health champion for Birmingham City Council, the first ever to be elected, I have seen at first hand the increase in the number of people living with mental health issues, and the massive increase, since the pandemic, in the number of young people living with severe and enduring mental illnesses. The funding in this area has been cut, and it does need to be increased, as mental health services are struggling to access adequate in-patient beds when they are needed.
In Erdington, the community has also seen an alarming increase in the number of houses in multiple occupation. We have the second highest number in the city. My constituency needs to see an urgent change in legislation to ensure that poor, unscrupulous landlords are punished, fined and removed from the market if they fail to comply with the rules that are designed to protect residents.
These are just some of the many issues that I will be raising on behalf of my constituency, as I heard about them time and time again while out campaigning.
My children were born in Erdington—some of them are up in the Public Gallery—and they went to Erdington schools, of which we have over 40 in my constituency. I have 40 schools to visit, and I promise I will be visiting all of them. I know I will feel at home when I do, because arriving in Parliament after a by-election has truly made me feel like the new girl at school.
My husband opened his first shop on the Slade Road in the late 1980s, in an area where the high street was dying, so as a family we were acutely aware of the difficulties that other small businesses were experiencing back then. At the same time, I trained as a nurse and worked at the local health centre in Warren Farm Road, Kingstanding, for several years. My career in the health service lasted for over 25 years, and it has truly shaped my political career.
As I have already noted, Erdington is a very diverse part of Birmingham, with a wonderful strong community and neighbourhood spirit, and people who work very hard and look out for each other. One day you could be celebrating Eid in Stockland Green, or Vaisakhi in the local gurdwara; on another, you could be working with our strong Irish or African-Caribbean community to celebrate the Good Friday walk along the high street. Our manufacturing history is well known, but sadly too many of our workplaces have closed. It is vital that new business comes into the constituency, so it is important that through the levelling-up fund we are given funding to develop our high streets, particularly Erdington High Street.
The Erdington constituency can look quite dark and lacking in green space when you drive through it. That is because of roads like the Gravelly Hill interchange, which I am sure everyone here knows as spaghetti junction. If you look more closely, however, under spaghetti junction—as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Gary Sambrook) will confirm—you can walk along some of the most beautiful canal walkways in the country. We are also fortunate to have many lovely parks such as Pype Hayes Park and Rookery Park, Short Heath Playing Fields, and the beautiful 13-acre site owned by Erdington Rugby Club. I would also like to mention the stunning bowling facility in the constituency run by the Erdington Court Bowls Club. The Brookvale lakes and Witton Lodge lakes, where residents take part in a duckling watch to ensure that we preserve the natural beauty of this area, are truly incredible. Alongside that is the amazing eco-hub run by an organisation called the Witton Lodge Community Association.
When I won this election, my husband looked on and said, “Well done. Now the work starts.” How right he was. After receiving more than 2,000 emails plus sacks of mail in my first month, I am under no illusions that the role of an MP is many things to many people. We are here to help, guide, advise, support and represent our constituents.
I want to thank the people of Birmingham, Erdington for putting their faith and trust in me. It is an amazing privilege to be here. My promise to you is that I will work tirelessly on your behalf, both in this place and in the community. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
I must congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mrs Hamilton) on her speech, which she delivered with such feeling. I was sitting here waiting for clapping from the Gallery above—she must warn people not to do that, but she would have deserved it. Her speech was absolutely brilliant.
Given the time strictures, I will touch on just one little Bill. It would not be hard for people to work out that it is a trade Bill—the Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill, which will help to make Britain the best place in which to live. There is great kith and kin support between the United Kingdom and the antipodes. Most of my parents’ generation used to talk about this country as home, even if they had never been here. Many a New Zealand coffee table of that generation displayed a copy of one of those amazing books of beautiful photographs of the United Kingdom. The amazing thing was that they were all taken on a sunny day!
The deal with New Zealand and Australia is the UK’s first new free trade agreement since leaving the European Union. It is long overdue. New Zealand and Australia were sore when we went into the Common Market. I am a member of the UK National Farmers Union and, locally, there has been some concern about the deal as both Australia and New Zealand are agricultural juggernauts. The biggest dairy farmer in my Mole Valley constituency has about 350 cows. I think my largest sheep farmer probably has about 1,000 sheep. A couple of dairy farmers in the north of the South Island are milking 1,500 and 2,500 cows. The farm I left to come here, after lambing, had 30,000 sheep. Fortunately, the balance of timing means that we can work together. Moreover, the New Zealand NFU equivalent is looking to work with our farmers to assist in fulfilling some of the bids going into Europe.
The economic opportunities under the agreement will be considerable across a range of sectors and businesses. Any visitor to New Zealand or Australia will be struck by the fact that cars, trucks, and agricultural machinery—I do not just mean tractors—are dominated by south-east Asia, particularly by Japan. There is a desire to buy British trucks, cars and so on, but they are too expensive. The tariff change should give us an opportunity, but we need to get in there. I have been urging the appropriate Minister to get onto the manufacturers and to promote our goods in Australia and New Zealand. I have already suggested a campaign and have offered to translate. I hope that with the Government stimulating our industries we will get in there, open the doors and work towards going into the trans-Pacific partnership.
Given the time limit, I will stop at that point, but I reiterate that I am willing to help and need to help. This is an opportunity for huge sales to make Britain the best place in which to live.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
The hon. Gentleman has been exemplary in watching the time limit but, although he has set such an excellent example, I am just going to make sure that everyone else adheres to the five minutes by setting a formal time limit. It is still five minutes, which is a long time if you speak quickly.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
I will speak very quickly, Madam Deputy Speaker. When I became chair of the all-party parliamentary group on dyslexia and other specific learning difficulties in 2016, the implementation of the Children and Families Act 2014 was under way. I had taken that piece of legislation through Parliament as a shadow Minister so I was hopeful that it might lead to an advance in SEND provision in schools, but things have obviously not gone to plan. The new SEND Green Paper implies by its very existence that something has gone wrong.
Let us look at some numbers. Pupils with SEN are less likely to meet the expected standards on reading, writing and maths by the end of key stage 2, with only 22% of children with SEN achieving that compared with 74% of those with no recorded SEN. This continues at GCSE with only 27% of SEN children achieving a grade 4 or above in English and maths compared with 71% of those with no recorded SEN. In 12 years of a Conservative Government, those with SEND have endured a broken system, leaving a lasting impact on their futures.
As we know, special educational needs and disabilities are sometimes invisible, making them hard to identify and support. Many working class children are categorised as poor readers, not because they might have dyslexia but because they come from disadvantaged backgrounds. Others who might have dyslexia but do not have the money to access private assessment and diagnosis might never get the support that they need. Far from levelling up, this Government imprison those children in lower expectations.
As we make the necessary strides in special educational needs assessment, so the system supporting those needs faces greater strain on capacity. This is all about cost. I hope that that is not the reason for the conspicuous absence from the Government’s recent Green Paper of the three Ds: dyslexia, dyspraxia and dyscalculia. The Government finally recognise the need for new high-level alternative provision, but I implore them to expand their priorities to specific learning difficulties. They can have a profound effect on a child’s educational development, and without wider assessments we can only guess at the incidence rates of the conditions. In the meantime, children will struggle through their school years and lose the chance to fulfil their potential. That is not to say that those with specific learning difficulties are less able than their peers. On the contrary, neurodiverse individuals exhibit problem solving, lateral thinking and innovation skills often in excess of those exhibited by neurotypical individuals.
This year I was proud to be involved in the launch of Neurodiversity in Business, an initiative that at last count has seen more than 100 companies across the country, including the likes of Deloitte and the Bank of England, championing neurodiverse workers. They recognise the unique skills and benefits that neurodivergent employees bring to an organisation, and that is to be greatly welcomed and encouraged as it is so true. I welcome the Government’s consultation on SEND provision, and I will certainly engage with the consultation in due course. I encourage all colleagues and organisations in the sector to do the same.
On another topic, I would like to take a moment to draw the House’s attention to food insecurity. We know that families are struggling with the cost of living crisis—a crisis that is only going to get worse. More adults are reporting skipping meals—57% more in April than in January—and more children are unable to access nutritious food. At the same time public sector caterers, who make up an important part of the protection against food insecurity, are facing supply chain disruptions and what have been described to me as stock price explosions. It is getting more expensive to run the industrial kitchens in our schools, hospitals and prisons. It is therefore getting so much harder to ensure that services offer the same nutritious food.
The Government are allowing food insecurity to become worse, allowing standards to decline and doing nothing to prevent a public health crisis along the way. This is happening on their watch and there was nothing in the Queen’s Speech to address it. That means it will only get worse until we have a change of Government to one with the will and the plan to grow the economy and be on the side of working people.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson). I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mrs Hamilton) on her maiden speech—I assure her that the case load continues year after year. I also offer my appreciation for another formidable lady: Her Majesty the Queen. I was delighted to see her join in the celebrations of her jubilee unaided yesterday.
On the Gracious Speech, I wish to talk about several of the Bills that are coming up. First, the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill gives us the opportunity to level up each part of the United Kingdom. I was absolutely over the moon at the local election results in Harrow last week, when we took eight seats from Labour and took control of the council for the first time since 2006. I look forward to the hard-working councillors levelling up Harrow and putting right what has been going wrong for far too long.
On the transport Bill, my constituents depend on good public transport, which we need throughout the UK, and we need to get people out of their cars and on to public transport, so I was delighted this morning that the developer Catalyst withdrew its planning application to build high-density multistorey flats on the Stanmore station car park. I trust that Transport for London will now abandon that plan completely.
On the social housing regulation Bill, I hope we are going to go further in not just regulating social housing but expanding the amount of it throughout the UK and providing more affordable housing for the people who need it. We must stop selling public land and start building homes on it, instead of allowing developers to end up with unsustainable capability.
The renters reform Bill is central—I refer the House to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—but I have a concern. By abolishing section 21 no-fault evictions, on which the Government consulted in 2019, we will improve the security of tenure for tenants and strengthen the position in respect of which landlords can give cause for regaining possession of their properties, but that must not lead to more section 8 evictions and tenants being landed with county court judgments across the piece. I hope we will have a new lifetime tenancy deposit model that eases the burden on tenants when they move from one tenancy to the next. That would improve the private rented sector overall.
I remind the Government that a section 21 notice is a trigger for my landmark Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, which then leads to the local authority having a responsibility to help and advise people who are threatened with homelessness. I want to make sure that if we abolish section 21, local authorities are not let off the hook for their responsibility to help and assist single homeless people. It is also important that the Government stand by their pledge to develop a new ombudsman for private landlords so that disputes are resolved without the need to go to court, which is an expensive process for both sides.
On the financial services and markets Bill, I am delighted to hear that the Government are going to preserve access to cash. Far too many bank branches and ATMs have closed, and access to cash is a priority for many people in our society, so I am pleased that that will happen. In particular, this country’s elderly population still relies heavily on and is dependent on cash, and we must protect that part of society.
I also welcome the boycotts, divestment and sanctions Bill. It is quite clear that we do not want local authorities or other public bodies in this country having their own foreign policy; that is something to be determined by the UK Government. The ongoing commitment to supporting the UK’s Jewish community, and to support for Israel, is fundamental and I am delighted to see it.
The Schools Bill is clearly vital as we return to normality under the pandemic; I welcome it and the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill. I am one of those who believe that people should be free to say what they wish, as long as they can be challenged on it, but not that we should get to the point where people are shouted down and prevented from putting forward their views.
Finally, this is Dementia Action Week. For people who are getting older and frailer, we must have more action from the national health service. I welcome and support the Queen’s Speech.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
The Government are great on slogans—“get it done”, “oven-ready”, “levelling up”—but the reality is that they have consistently failed to get the right things done, their ideas are mostly half-baked, and the key statistics show that they are levelling down, not up.
After 12 years, this country is going backwards. There is no plan to fix social care, improve the health figures, address education shortfalls or tackle neighbourhood crime. The Queen’s Speech was a chance to put that right, address issues affecting the lives of ordinary people, move on from the pandemic and be in touch with the needs of business, families and the elderly. Instead, we have a programme of 38 Bills that will occupy parliamentary time over the next 12 months or so, but hardly any of them address the things that people really care about.
On education, the emphasis is on academisation—playing with structures when what is needed is catch-up, improvement, tending to crumbling buildings and giving children the best start in life. I support the work of the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), but I have to say that how a Government who have closed 2,500 Sure Start centres and plan to replace them with 75 family hubs think they can lay claim to an ambitious early years strategy is beyond me.
According to the Government, every family should receive a minimum of five health visiting reviews. Even including remote and phone consultations, their own figures show that that is not happening. Nearly 30% of toddlers have missed out on the crucial 24 to 30 months check. In speech and language, an area in which waiting lists have been exacerbated by the pandemic, nearly 70,000 children are waiting for support. Children under seven often wait for more than two years. Where is the catch-up or improvement plan to help them? The Government can find time for a Bill to sell Channel 4, which was not in their manifesto, but not to legislate for a measly one week’s unpaid leave for carers—a manifesto commitment on which every one of their Members stood.
There is no plan to reduce NHS waiting lists or ambulance delays. The reality of healthcare in Birmingham is that every day the west midlands ambulance service stacks hundreds of calls that require an ambulance response that it cannot provide. Midlands hospitals have the highest waiting lists in the country. University Hospitals Birmingham, a first-class institution for those it is able to treat, now has 185,000 people waiting for treatment. No wonder the country’s health outcomes are deteriorating.
For care homes, there is still no plan to fix social care, one of the earliest promises made and abandoned by the Prime Minister, and no assistance to deal with staff retention or rising energy and insurance costs. Care homes, while still beset by many difficulties, have lost their covid-19 support grants—rather earlier than the support for newspaper grandees negotiated personally by the Prime Minister, if Mr Cummings is to be believed.
I have no time for the behaviour of some of the Extinction Rebellion activists, but do we really need a new law to deal with the antics of that minority group when we already have the Public Order Act 1986? The latest Bloomberg analysis of the Government’s levelling-up strategy shows a 33% increase in crime in south Birmingham. Would not a law to establish viable neighbourhood policing units be of much greater value to my constituents?
On early years, speech and language, carers, care homes, waiting lists, ambulance services and the security of neighbourhoods, this Queen’s Speech is a missed opportunity from a Government who stopped paying attention to the interests of the people they purport to represent. The slogans are now morphing into, “Can’t you budget and cook on 30p a day?” and, “Why don’t you just get another job?” They are out of touch and out of ideas.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I welcome the concentration in the Queen’s Speech on the importance of levelling up and expanding opportunity across the whole country, which is fundamental to our mission. It could not be more important than in the health service. I am glad to see the Minister for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), on the Treasury Bench, because he will know how passionately I feel, from personal experience, about the importance of levelling up all health service provision, but particularly for often underappreciated conditions, such as those that affect stroke survivors—the House will know of my interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on stroke.
Unfortunately, the provision of aftercare and therapy for stroke survivors remains patchy across the country, despite it being the largest single cause of adult disability. If we are serious about levelling up, I hope that we will invest more in those services and, in particular, take up the APPG’s suggestion of transforming our already good national stroke plan into a fully-fledged national stroke strategy, joined up and fully resourced with a specialist workforce behind it.
Levelling up is also about getting education and health services right in relation to the criminal justice system, because failures there, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) pointed out, often have impacts on the justice system downstream. Poor educational outcomes, poor mental health and allied issues, failures in relation to social services and childcare, and poor housing all contribute to people falling into offending behaviour, getting into the justice system and then getting into the never-ending circle of reoffending. That ruins lives and harms the economy. Investment in those topics upstream is actually an investment in the whole public good, both societally and economically. I hope that the Government will redouble their efforts there, both in cash terms and through much more joined-up policy working across the various agencies.
I will turn to some specific legal issues, starting with the proposed Bill of Rights. I stood on and supported our 2019 manifesto commitment to update the Human Rights Act 1998 and its administrative law, and I stand by that. In pursuance of that, the Government commissioned an expert panel of independents, under the chairmanship of the right hon. Sir Peter Gross QC, a highly distinguished former Lord Justice of Appeal. Sir Peter and his team produced a thoroughly detailed, comprehensive and meticulously argued report on how best to take this forward. He followed it up with most compelling evidence to the Justice Committee. I am persuaded by and support Sir Peter’s proposals.
The Government, as they are entitled to do, appear to propose to go further than Sir Peter’s proposals. Well, up to a point there is no harm in that; I am all in favour of updates, and I see no harm in putting into statute rights that are already well established, such as the right to trial by jury in England and Wales, or the right to freedom of speech, even though they are perfectly well protected under our existing common law.
Where I urge caution, however, is in going any further beyond Sir Peter’s well researched and well argued proposals. It would perhaps be dangerous to go down the route of limiting the ability of individuals in the United Kingdom to assert their European convention rights in the domestic courts, which ultimately would simply mean more petitions being brought to the Strasbourg Court. On the face of it, that is potentially counter-productive to the Government’s avowed intention of reducing litigation in this area.
I am delighted that we remain committed to our membership of the European convention on human rights. It is a fundamental. It was essentially written by a future Conservative Lord Chancellor, the future Lord Kilmuir, and it was Churchill’s Government who took us into the convention, so it is in the Conservatives’ DNA. But we must make sure that we approach this important issue with care and caution and that we do not run beyond the evidence.
I also welcome the draft victims Bill, and I look forward to the Government delivering on their commitment to pre-legislative scrutiny of it by the Justice Committee, which will be critical to the Bill having a real impact for people who suffer from crime. I also welcome the economic crime and corporate transparency Bill. That will be important, because our Committee recently took evidence on the prevalence of, and harm done by, fraud to the economy and individuals’ lives. I hope that we will also use that Bill as an opportunity to introduce a long awaited and long argued for updating of the law on criminal corporate responsibility, an area in which we lag behind other common-law jurisdictions, especially on the other side of the Atlantic.
There are great opportunities in the Queen’s Speech, but I have given a word of caution on one fundamental constitutional issue, as well as some constructive suggestions on how we can take important parts of the Government’s agenda forward.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
I would really like every one of my constituents in Bradford West to be able to say that Britain is the best place to grow up and grow old, but unfortunately, given the failures of the Government, I cannot say that for every single one of my constituents. Actions speak louder than words, and this Prime Minister committed to levelling up “every part of the UK”. That remains an idea and a slogan, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) said.
Last week, it was seven years since the people of Bradford West put their trust and faith in me to be their voice in this Chamber. I said then that the north was being neglected, and I say it again today. At the time, I shared the fact that it was my privilege to be representing a great northern city which is the youngest city in Europe, the birthplace of the Brontë sisters, has a world-renowned literature festival and so much more. Seven years later, after enduring austerity, an unforgiving pandemic and now a cost of living crisis, this great city is applying to be the city of culture and continues to move forward, but that is in spite of the Government’s failure to level up Bradford and their other broken promises.
I am very grateful for the £20 million that my constituency has secured for a health and wellbeing centre which is long overdue, but unfortunately that is a drop in the ocean when compared to the £30-billion-worth of potential growth and 27,000 jobs that have been robbed from Bradford by the Government’s failure to deliver on Northern Powerhouse Rail.
The Government have made Bradford a priority area for education, but in reality, this is also too little, too late. During the pandemic, I repeatedly warned the Government that disadvantaged pupils in Bradford were 18 months behind their wealthier peers and that the gap was widening. It is shocking that the Government have made Bradford a priority area for education while they plan to defund BTEC qualifications, despite the Department for Education’s equalities impact assessment concluding that the move will embed inequality into our education system.
Over the last 12 years, the city of Bradford and my constituents have been robbed of investment and opportunities to grow. The Government have only supplemented that loss by providing Bradford with handout investments that are not enough to truly level up.
Children across the UK and in my constituency deserve the best start in life and deserve access to education, training and job opportunities throughout their lives. Only today, however, the Government’s safeguarding Minister has suggested that people who are struggling with the cost of living crisis should take on more hours of work or move to better paid jobs. That is shocking and another reminder that “levelling up” is just a slogan. If the Government were truly committed to levelling up, they would give each and every person in my constituency the right support and investment to thrive and not just to survive. At the moment, some are not even surviving as they have to choose between who gets fed and whether the heating can go on.
Another example of opportunity and investment bypassing Bradford is the King’s Cross-style regeneration projects, in which the Government promised to transform 20 cities and towns across the country as part of their levelling-up agenda. It comes as no surprise to me that Bradford has not so far been named as one of the 20 cities. I ask the Minister whether Bradford will be overlooked again.
The Prime Minister alone has mentioned “levelling up” 97 times since 2019 in this Chamber, and other Ministers mention it too. Unsurprisingly, he has not yet delivered on levelling up even once. I have said this before, and I will say it again: the litmus test for levelling up is Bradford. If the Government fail Bradford, they have failed to deliver on their levelling-up strategy—all of it. Without equality, equity and fairness, Britain will not be the best place to grow up and grow old. It is not going to work for people in Bradford West if there is not equality and fairness and if this Government do not put their money where their mouth is. Actions speak louder than words and my constituents will be judging everything this Government do.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah), although I must disagree with her because I believe that this country is the best place to grow up and grow old—although that does not mean there is not work to do to make it even better, and I look forward to supporting the Queen’s Speech in that regard.
To grow up and grow old well, you need a healthy pregnancy and a healthy birth, and I look forward to the women’s health strategy in that regard. Childhood needs to be filled with opportunity, and the schools Bill and the higher education Bill will provide us with that opportunity. We need to have better sport provision and better mental health services, again covered in the Queen’s Speech. We need to look at the impact of loneliness on social life, which now has a huge impact on elderly people. I was pleased to organise with my team a senior citizens’ fair last week in North Hykeham, where many people came along to hear about the clubs, activities and other support available for older people in the region.
I want to touch on two things. The first is the impact of covid on the national health service. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a doctor. The impact of covid means that a lot of people are waiting for treatment. I was somewhat perturbed to read that we want to eliminate waits of a year by 2025, because a wait of a year is a long time and 2025 is not particularly soon for someone who is waiting and in pain. However, I am pleased that we have community diagnostic services opening around the country to help to improve this. I am particularly pleased that one is opening in Grantham and will serve many of my constituents, and that two new operating theatres are being built at Grantham and District Hospital, which will also improve elective activity in the area. There are going to be 17 million more tests in the next three years. We are going to have an increased capacity of 9 million extra treatments and procedures and an increase in elective activity of 30%.
All that is very good. It is especially good to see the Government focusing on output and actions that benefit patients—treatments, tests and procedures; things that make them better—and not just inputs, as the Opposition do, of £X billion or £Y billion. I have noted in my career in hospital medicine that the amount of senior staff has increased, but demand, expectations and the number of administrative and managerial staff have increased, too. If we are to deliver for patients and not simply spend more money, we need to ensure that the extra money is spent only in those areas of clinical care that improve patient outcomes. In that regard, I support calls for more medical students and more nursing students. I would also support a relative increase in remuneration for nurses providing direct clinical care so that those roles are not disincentivised. I appreciate that the NHS is operationally independent, but I look for ministerial reassurance that we are linking all the extra money that we are taking from our constituents to improve clinical care and clinical delivery.
The second thing I want to touch on is education and opportunity, which are inextricably linked. Conservative Members share the view that talent is uniformly distributed but opportunity, sadly, is not, and I welcome the Government’s commitment to levelling up in that regard. I am lucky that we have excellent schools in my constituency and that some have seen huge investment this week, including Carre’s Grammar School in Sleaford, which is receiving over £1 million to improve the structure of its buildings. That is fantastic news for all the successful schools involved in that bid.
The schools Bill offers us an opportunity to look not only at how we educate children in maths, English and science, but at how we contribute to a positive childhood. The MacAlister report, due out very shortly, will help to guide us on safeguarding improvements. In doing so, I hope the Education Secretary will protect children’s lives and wellbeing by focusing on evidence. We often talk in the Select Committee about his focus on the evidence, so I hope that he will be looking at the evidence on how we can improve things for children, not just adding to the bureaucracy that teachers face.
I would like to see curriculum measures to improve sport, particularly girls’ sport. Many teenage girls do less sport as they get older and throughout their secondary school experience. Children’s sport is crucial to physical development. It is crucial to bone health and preventing osteoporosis in the elderly even. It is important to fitness, to mental wellbeing and to improving academic outcomes as well. I look forward to the Government bringing forward their schools Bill, where I hope to see an increase in minimum participation and the encouraging of more sport as a priority. I look forward to voting for the Queen’s Speech when that opportunity arises.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
My constituents are facing a growing number of crises that continue to pile up day after day. I accept some of these difficulties are new, but most are not. Most of these difficulties have been brewing and festering for years. The Government’s failure to solve these problems or come up with solutions has pushed many services to breaking point and now families are being left to bear the brunt. Despite the fact that day after day cash-strapped families are trying to make ends meet by working extra hours, often in multiple jobs, what do those on the Government Benches tell them? Learn to cook, learn to budget, work more hours, get a better paid job—you’re responsible, you’re to blame, it’s you who are doing it wrong.
However, what people need from the Government is help to navigate through the things that are out of their control. They need them to solve the long-term issues which continue to push down on people’s quality of living and eventually leave them out of options. It is one of those issues that I want to address today. It is an issue that is not in the Queen’s Speech, but really should be, because NHS dentistry and oral health inequality has been repeatedly unaddressed by this Government. Access to basic dentistry care in this country is often forgotten, but it is a vital part of the nation’s health.
In 2016, an NHS Digital report found that just under half of dentists were thinking of leaving dentistry, so I warned the Government not to kick the can down the road and risk a crisis in dental care. I told the Government then that the most important measure they could implement, as highlighted by the British Dental Association, would be changes to the dental contract that incentivised prevention, but nothing was done.
In 2017, the BDA told us that 58% of the UK’s NHS dentists were planning on turning away from NHS dentistry in the next five years. So again I warned the Government that we faced a national crisis. In 2019, The Times reported that 60% of dentists planned to leave the profession, or cut back NHS care in the next five years, with more than 1 million new patients turned away and some patients resorting to pulling out their own teeth. Yet again, nothing was done.
In 2020, I told the Government that a majority of NHS dental practices across England believed they could only survive for 12 months or less. The Government said they would look at the workforce issue “more broadly” and “in the round”, but no action was forthcoming and 1,000 NHS dentists left the service. Earlier this year, hearing that almost 1,000 children under 10 in Bradford had to be admitted to hospital to have decayed teeth removed, I pleaded with the Government to finally deal with the issue that had been staring them in the face for years. Then, of course, to nobody’s surprise except this Government’s, last week, it was revealed that 2,000 dentists have quit the service in the last year.
We urgently need to reform the dental contract. It is not good enough to be told time and again, year after year, that reform is imminent, because I have been asking for seven years now and still the Government have yet to deliver. If the Government need help with budgeting, I can point the Chancellor in the direction of one of his own MPs who might have a course he can take up, but I desperately do not want to be back here in 2023 still trying to open the Government’s eyes to the massive freight train coming towards them. I have sounded the alarm, other Members have sounded the alarm, and dentists and patients have sounded the alarm;. We are all waiting for the Government to act and reform the dental contract. Patients and our constituents cannot wait any longer.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
Making Britain the best place to grow up and grow old is a big challenge. Ensuring where people are born and raised does not limit their quality of life and life expectancy is an even bigger challenge and one that lies at the heart of the Government’s levelling-up agenda.
We all know the expression “You are what you eat.” In Britain, we are trapped in a junk food cycle that means we now consume more highly processed foods than any other European country except Malta and have higher levels of obesity, yet we have had decades—even centuries—of political barriers to good food policy. We often hear cries of “Nanny statism” or “Don’t tell us what to eat.” The latest Government announcements on delaying the ban on junk food advertising on television before 9 pm and delaying restricting “Buy one, get one free” promotions follow that regrettable trend. As a self-confessed chocoholic, I struggle to resist the temptation to boost my energy levels with a bar of chocolate rather than, so I know at first hand the irresistible pull of promotions and multi-purchase deals. I appreciate some hon. Members believe that attempts to tackle the bombardment of unhealthy food should be postponed so as not to increase the cost of living, but they are wrong. Research shows that promotions encourage people to buy 22% more unhealthy food and drink than intended, and to consume more of it, too. Marketing tactics have a real financial cost, as well as a negative health impact.
Let us not forget that retailers have other choices. Instead of encouraging customers on tight budgets to spend more on non-essential foods through these offers, they could simply offer 50% discounts or, as some supermarkets have started to do, have a value range of products at affordable prices that covers the basic foods for a balanced diet.
The political context has changed in recent months, and the Government’s focus is rightly on helping with the cost of living. Although that is a priority, it should not prevent the introduction of these important measures. Any delay will mean more children living with obesity and too many having reduced life chances through ill health. Our constituents will not thank us or forgive us for doing a U-turn on their health.
Obesity is a national emergency. In England, about 68% of men, 60% of women and more than one in four children aged between two and 15 are obese or overweight. Although this is a nationwide issue, rates of obesity are disproportionately higher among people living in more deprived communities. The statistics for my city of Stoke-on-Trent are shocking: 76.1% of adults in Stoke-on-Trent are overweight or obese. That is the third highest figure of all local authorities in England.
As the cost of living continues to squeeze household budgets, low-income families are forced to choose the cheapest calories, which are typically the least healthy. The Government must ensure that, when it comes to tackling food insecurity and the cost of living, they introduce policies that make nutritious diets affordable, easy and accessible to families on the lowest incomes
There is a pressing need for a good food Bill to set out in law a long-term approach and clear targets for the food system, with better systems for independently monitoring policy. We talk about the need for a resilient food system in terms of supply chains and production, but we need to widen that narrative to one of a resilient population that is both financially resilient to price shocks and resilient in public health terms, such as to pandemics.
We must not lurch from crisis to crisis. Action on the nation’s obesity emergency needs to start now. I support the right to good food as a fundamental pillar of the Government’s levelling-up agenda. I support a school food standard to ensure our young people have the fuel to learn. I support bringing cookery skills and an understanding of nutrition into the school curriculum at every key stage and through community organisations such as family hubs. I support measures to enable British farmers to produce the food we need, and to enable the food industry to innovate and adapt by incentivising the creation of healthier and more sustainable products. And I support better help within the NHS for people living with obesity, including social prescribing and fair access to bariatric services.
Good health is a vital ingredient in maximising our quality of life and longevity. Proper nutrition is the foundation of good health. Investment in access to good food will pay dividends both in savings to the NHS and in increased productivity, which will boost the economy and deliver on the promise of levelling up health outcomes.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Speaking in last year’s Queen’s Speech debate, I welcomed the Government’s commitment to bringing forward a ban on conversion therapy. A year on, we are no further forward—in fact, we seem to have gone backwards—but I hope to see progress this year.
I hoped to see a “better business” Bill in the Queen’s Speech, to give us a cleaner, greener and fairer future. Businesses in my constituency are pushing me on this, as they understand how important it is to give businesses different priorities in law. I hoped to see something about that and am disappointed by its absence.
Talking of better business, I am also extremely disappointed to see no progress on legislating to outlaw fire and rehire, of which P&O Ferries is the latest example. Ministers and Conservative Members said it was absolutely terrible but, when push comes to shove, there is no action to outlaw the practice. That is a huge omission from the Queen’s Speech.
Instead, we get a promise to bring forward legislation to abolish the Northern Ireland protocol. Whose Northern Ireland protocol was it? It was the Prime Minister’s—he wrote it, he sold it to the British people—and now, once again, he is trying to renege on something he himself wrote. It demonstrates, yet again, that he is a Prime Minister who will say whatever he needs to say to get out of whatever position he is in at the time and then have no sense of responsibility for the promises he has made. I say to the House that this does affect us internationally. Who will do deals with us if he is going to bring forward legislation to break deals that he wrote himself and signed himself only two years ago?
Of course, the biggest omission at the moment is of any kind of proposals on tackling the dreadful energy crisis we have. Millions of families up and down the country are facing soaring energy bills and ever increasing costs of living. The Government have demonstrated that they have no plan to fix this. Families are paying triple their energy bill, and they need a solution now.
I was disappointed that the Government have not adopted a one-off windfall tax on the oil and gas giants, and let us just understand exactly why that is. It is because a windfall tax would affect not simply the oil and gas companies—incidentally, as we all know, they have said that with the level of profits they are getting, at several billion pounds a quarter, they would be quite happy to pay it—but the City investment funds and City hedge funds that the current Conservative party, along with Russian oligarchs of course, exists to serve. They are not in their places now, but the Education Secretary, the Secretary of State for Health and the Chancellor all have big City investment fund backgrounds. That is what they know, and that is who they are really defending when they refuse to have a windfall tax.
Locally, in my area of Cheshire West and Chester, we are leading the way on alternative and clean energy provision. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), who is in his place next to me, and I have been very supportive of HyNet. Actually, I pay tribute to the Government for that particular scheme; they have assisted us. I know that, in his constituency, the Vauxhall Ellesmere Port plant is looking forward to an all-electric future, leading the way on green jobs. That is thanks to him and, again giving credit where it is due, thanks to the Secretary of State. However, I have to say to the Government that any attempts to bring back fracking will be given short shrift in my constituency, and I am very concerned about that.
On levelling up and transport, I was looking forward to some detail in the new transport Bill, and I will be keeping an eye on what the Government are proposing. At the moment, however, we need proper rail services. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and I are meeting the rail companies this week to try to restore direct services between Chester and London. At the moment, they have gone from 12 a day before the pandemic down to one, and now that has been doubled to two we are asked to be grateful for that. We are hopeful that we might get more services, but of course direct services are essential to economic growth. Instead, we have seen the cancellation of Northern Powerhouse Rail and the scrapping of the High Speed 2 eastern leg, which is a betrayal of the north. It is the same for buses. The Government have turned down a bid for more bus money from Cheshire West and Chester Council, even though Ministers described the bid as “excellent”. I hope the transport Bill will tackle the difficulties we are seeing with bus provision, and give more opportunity for places such as Chester to improve connectivity.
Finally, it is absurd that the great heritage asset that is the city walls of Chester has to be paid for out of the highways budget, so that money that should be spent on roads, potholes and pavements is being diverted, understandably, to pay for that great heritage asset. We need a separate fund for the walls.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
I was delighted to welcome the Prime Minister and the Cabinet to Stoke-on-Trent last week to meet local workers, businesses, educators and community groups. Stoke-on-Trent is on the up, and we are determined to deliver an even better place to grow up and grow old. We must now level up cities such as Stoke-on-Trent and seize on the opportunities of Brexit, free from the shackles of Brussels bureaucracy, through the Brexit freedoms Bill. Stoke-on-Trent is a city that has been neglected and held back for decades, but we have so much potential just waiting to be unleashed. Finally, we now have a Government and local politicians who are focused on securing the investment and delivering the improvements our city needs. We must particularly improve our local public transport, which is a barrier to jobs and skills opportunities. In parts of Meir, in my constituency, 40% of households do not have a car. For the rest of the city, the average figure is 30%. The need for rail and bus improvements is desperate, so the big win pledges that we have secured for investment from the transforming cities fund, the bus service improvement plan, the restoring your railway fund and others have been gratefully received, because they remove some of the barriers to better jobs and skills opportunities.
I was delighted to champion the improvement works proposed for Longton station through the transforming cities fund, and it is time for those funded works to be delivered. Network Rail must start playing its full and properly co-ordinated part in the delivery, which it has not been doing up until recently. I hope that Great British Railways and the transport Bill will help to resolve how we can better deliver the transport improvements needed in cities such as Stoke-on-Trent. In particular, I hope that they will help to address organisations that can hinder progress, as Network Rail has done on the works that we have been doing across Stoke-on-Trent.
I also call on the Government to announce that our plans to reopen Meir station will proceed—I have been chairing the delivery board for that—and I ask them to continue to support us as we develop our plans for the reopening of the Stoke-Leek line. In building a better city, we are not only making it easier to get around, but reviving historic sites that give our city and our towns their unique character and appeal. I particularly welcome the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, which will help us to breathe new life into our towns and high streets.
The heritage action zones that we have won for Longton and for Stoke town, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon), and the levelling-up fund pledges for major regeneration sites, including the derelict Tams Crown Works in Longton, are all key to levelling up our communities and breathing new life into our town centres. Our city is becoming the place to invest for digital and creative sectors such as the gaming industry, right at the heart of the UK and spurred on by the massive investment in fibre gigabit connectivity. I was pleased last Friday to visit a site where Openreach is installing such connectivity in Fenton.
That is alongside improving education to ensure that everyone locally has the ability to access better skills and better-paid employment. The major announcement that Stoke-on-Trent will benefit from the family hubs programme and as a prioritised education investment area will ensure that every young person gets the best possible start in life, particularly in the early years.
We need to focus on the gaps in engineering and creative skills for the high paid, high-value jobs that we want to attract locally, to fill the gaps that employers regularly speak to me about. I particularly welcome the Government’s lifetime skills guarantee, which offers free training for adults to upskill. That will be significant in places such as Stoke-on-Trent, given the number of adults there without higher level qualifications. The Schools Bill and the higher education Bill can get us on the right track to ensure that young people and everyone in our city achieve their full potential.
I hope to see some more support for the ceramics industry. There are real concerns about the current cost of energy for high energy use manufacturers, particularly the local world-leading ceramics industry. I know that the Prime Minister is listening, and he did so carefully on his visit last week to Churchill China, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis). I hope that we will not allow other countries to steal a march on the fantastic British ceramics industry. Increased energy costs remain a significant concern for much of the sector, and we must see more support, especially for the SMEs that did not qualify for much of what has been announced thus far.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Throughout the pandemic, children and young people have paid a very high price in their liberty, learning loss and mental wellbeing. We had the hokey-cokey of school reopenings and exams inflicted on parents, pupils and teachers, but our young people have shown remarkable resilience and school staff rose to the challenge. Now is the time to recognise those challenges and sacrifices. Now is the time to address the widening attainment gap between the wealthiest and the poorest children. Now is the time to embrace new ways of teaching and learning, as well as to capitalise on new levels of parental engagement. I am afraid that Her Majesty’s Gracious Speech failed our children spectacularly. Only one sentence was dedicated to children or education—yet here we are with the most severe disruption to our schools for two years and crises in children’s mental health and special educational needs and disability.
The Education Secretary has managed to secure parliamentary time for a schools Bill and he is using that precious time to tinker with school structures—what a waste. This technocratic Schools Bill tinkers around the edges of the management and governance of schools and is not what parents, pupils or employers are crying out for. They want a broader offer that equips our young people with broader life skills and experiences that nurture creativity, build resilience and teamwork, and boost their wellbeing.
All of us, on both sides of the House, want to see children in school and are alarmed by the large numbers of children missing from school. I am concerned, however, that the Government’s zero-tolerance approach overlooks the needs of children who might be struggling with their mental health or special needs. We need to identify and tackle the root causes of school absence, rather than go for the “all stick and no carrot” approach.
I hope that the Government will use the clauses in the Bill that relate to the funding formula to reverse the devaluation of the pupil premium. I am proud that that Liberal Democrat policy to support the poorest pupils was introduced when we were in the coalition Government, but it has been cut in real terms by £160 per primary child and £127 per secondary pupil over the past seven years since we left Government. With the attainment gap growing, the pupil premium must be restored to its original value if the Government really are serious about levelling up.
Time and again in this place, I have highlighted the growing mental health crisis among children and young people. We know that unhappy children are less able to learn, thrive and perform well. Our teachers are overburdened and unable to cope with the immense challenges around pupil wellbeing, yet there was no reference in the Queen’s Speech to the urgent action that we need. I suggest that we need an urgent children and young people’s mental health recovery plan. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is here, and in the same way that he has focused on the elective care backlog, I implore him to come up with a similar plan on children’s mental health, because it is desperately needed. We would not ignore a child with a broken leg, yet too many children who are mentally unwell cannot cope without access to the help and support that they need. Liberal Democrats are calling for a dedicated, qualified mental health professional in every school.
Finally, there was no reference to catch-up funding either. The Sutton Trust found that more than two thirds of primary heads are struggling to help children due to a lack of catch-up funding. Schools in my constituency are drawing on parental donations to support children with catch-up. This is a political choice. People may no longer want to talk about the pandemic, but its impact on our young people and our economy will be felt for decades if the right investment is not forthcoming.
I call again on the Government to step up and provide the full £15 billion of catch-up funding that was recommended by their adviser, Sir Kevan Collins. The Education Policy Institute said that the cost to the economy of lost learning could run into the trillions—I repeat, the trillions—over the next 80 years, and that is based on OECD data. That is many times the return on investment of key infrastructure projects, if the full £15 billion catch-up funding is committed. Let us start treating our children—the future generation on whom we will all be reliant one day—as an investment and not as a cost. Sadly, the Queen’s Speech has largely ignored them.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
May I take this opportunity to say a great deal of thanks from my constituency to the Queen for her service over almost 70 years, as I may not get that chance going forward?
The subject of today’s session is making Britain the best place to grow up and grow old. Two and a half years into my service as the MP for my constituency, I thought that it would be worth touching on a few things that are trying to move that plan forward.
We have had millions of pounds for Hinckley Academy to make sure that we have education that supports our local children. We have had £19.9 million for Twycross zoo to create a conservation and education centre to breed the conservationists of the future. We have had £28 million for internet for Leicestershire, which means that 330 houses in Sketchley Brook in Burbage now have better, faster internet access. We have had £1.8 million to improve Hinckley high street and ensure that people go there and want to enjoy it, whether they are a child or an OAP. We are working on improving the A5, which is vital infrastructure for our constituency for people to get to their jobs: £20 million has been invested and we moved through decision point 1 in March. I am keen to see that go forward.
Most importantly, £7 million has been put towards Hinckley hospital, with another community diagnostic centre coming and a plan that is ready to go. I am dead keen to make sure that there is no red tape in its way, because it puts Hinckley on the map and provides the service that we need for our community of children, adults and OAPs. That is what it is all about.
In the three minutes that I have left, I want to focus on two subjects: planning and the Online Safety Bill. I have heard the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities use the acronym BIDEN for the five crucial points of planning: beauty, infrastructure, democracy, environment and neighbourhoods. I put it to him that he has missed a trick there, because “INBED with Gove” would be a far better selling point. However, the principles are right: we need the right homes, in the right place, with the right infrastructure that is right for our environment. That is fundamental to our planning system, but the current system does not deliver it. My constituency typifies that, because under the Lib Dem borough council we do not have an up-to-date local plan, which means that every single day we are open to speculative development without that infrastructure, without those amenities and without that support.
I am pleased that the Queen’s Speech is bringing forward planning change. That should concentrate on strengthening neighbourhood plans and localism in action, especially for those without an up-to-date local plan. The infrastructure levy is important for getting funding up front for the amenities that we need: the roads, the GP surgeries, and the schools. All those things need to be rectified, so I am glad that change is being introduced. Of course, there is also the question of building out. Developers getting the land is one thing, but using it is another. We need houses for young people and their families to aspire to, but we also need houses for our pensioners to retire or downsize to, and we need to provide support for them.
I come at the Online Safety Bill through my work on body image. There are two fundamental things that I would like to see in the Bill. First, there needs to be a legally named person for the algorithm. We have safeguarding leads in schools, we have Caldicott guardians in health and we have GDPR controllers. On our social media and on the internet, the algorithm is fundamental, so naming someone who is accountable would mean that anyone in this House or in this country could hold the big companies to account. That is imperative in lifting the bonnet to see what is underneath and what is driving the content that all of us—children or adults—are served. Secondly, we should allow people to choose to be served verified authentic images. The technology exists. We are allowing people to choose anonymity, so why do we not do it with authenticated images? Those two little changes would really make sure that we grow up and grow old in the best of Britain.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
There has already been quite a lot of discussion about waiting lists, but I want to talk about another aspect of the situation. Waiting times for mental health services continue to be chronically oversubscribed, if people are actually deemed ill enough to be referred to them in the first place. If I may, I will give just one example of what that means for the person who is waiting.
I have a constituent who was advised in 2020 that she was displaying signs of post-traumatic stress disorder and emotionally unstable personality disorder. She was accepted on a dialectical behaviour therapy treatment course with a two-year waiting list. Of course, the wait has been exacerbated by covid. However, in the second year of waiting there has been no update whatever from the mental health trust, so my constituent is just left waiting and wondering how much longer it will be before she receives any treatment at all. Of course, as the MP’s office we have been chasing the trust as well, but we have not heard anything either. This is a really appalling way to treat some of the most vulnerable people in our communities.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) in what she said about dentistry. In my area, waiting lists are in their thousands, with one practice citing a waiting list of more than 3,000 people. One constituent contacted me because of the pain she was experiencing. She described her attempts to register at a practice as a fight, which I think sums up the situation perfectly. In the last six months of 2021, I was contacted by dozens of different constituents, all of whom were contacting me on behalf of their families as well as themselves. It is well documented how challenging the issues dentists face in relation to the unit of dental activity, which does not encourage dentists to take on new patients and accommodates only 50% of the population. That, in effect, means we start from a position where the Government know many people will be denied access to dental care but have consciously and deliberately accepted that their policy will leave many people either forced to carry on in pain or seek treatment from the private sector. The whole system is in desperate need of reform.
Of course, we cannot have a debate on the NHS at the moment without having regard to the impact of covid, but we should not just limit it to covid. People suffering from long covid remain a huge issue. Recent reports suggest that the number of people seeking help for long covid is in the region of 1.8 million—a huge number. It has been reported that some sufferers are waiting so long for help that they are taking advice on buying their own oxygen to help with their breathlessness, while others are seeking advice on accessing private healthcare because they cannot get anything from the NHS. That is the nub of the issue.
The pattern in just about every aspect of healthcare—surgical procedures, mental health support and dental treatment—is that people are finding the system they have paid into all their lives is no longer there for them. The founding principle of universal healthcare free at the point of use, which is supposed to be the bedrock of the NHS, is under threat. That will lead to privatisation by default and we will be all the poorer for that.
I want to say a little bit about the cost of living, because every indicator I see shows that things will get much worse before they get better: interest rates, inflation, energy bills and food bills. We are on the cusp of a tsunami that will send many people under. I will not even start to talk about the complete failure to support British agriculture and get crops planted in the ground, which will cause us problems next year. For many, the point of destitution has already arrived. I am sorry to say that the number of people I see in that situation, because they have already gone through all the emergency assistance agencies and have had their quota for the year, shows me that there is a real problem and that the state is not offering any solutions. Telling people to get a better paid job or work more hours is just patronising nonsense that just shows how out of touch this Government are.
In those circumstances, it is shocking that on the most pressing issue, which requires urgent action—that is, the cost of living—there is nothing in the Queen’s Speech. There is nothing to give families the security they need. I do not see the objection to a windfall tax on North sea oil and gas profits. The clue is in the name: windfall. The companies were not expecting that money, so it cannot be the restraint on investment that some would claim it to be. Such a tax would make a huge difference to my constituents. In my constituency alone, 12,500 families would see £400 off their bills as a result of a windfall tax. We should really continue to push for it.
In the end, we have a whole system where public services are being rowed back. Many constituents see their transport network decaying, public services decaying, local councils starved of resources and town centres closing down. There is so much more we need to address. I am afraid that, for me, the Humble Address fails to do that.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders). I congratulate him on Ofgem’s recent announcement that Ellesmere Port, as well as Redcar, will progress to stage 2 of the hydrogen village trials.
Today’s debate is on making Britain the best place to grow up and grow old, and we are doing just that. However, the Queen’s Speech must be viewed in the context of a war in Europe and a growing energy crisis, which is why the energy security Bill is one of the most important Bills in the speech. Defence and energy security go hand in hand. Putin has been emboldened because of Europe’s collective reliance on Russian gas and he uses it as a weapon, as can be seen in his rash reaction to Finland’s desire to join NATO. Not only will our energy Bill enable us to achieve energy sovereignty in a dangerous world, but it moves us further along the path to net zero and creates thousands of jobs in the process, in places such as Teesside.
In Teesside, we are quickly becoming the centre of excellence for green technology through: offshore wind; the world’s first industrial-scale carbon capture utilisation and storage project; hydrogen production, with 5 GW of hydrogen planned and the hydrogen village trials that I mentioned a few moments ago; and, of course, our nuclear power station at Hartlepool. It was commissioned in 1983, a whole 10 years before I was born. Only three power stations have been commissioned in the UK since then. In the 13 years of the Blair-Brown Government, not one new power station was constructed and six were decommissioned. New Labour turned its back on new nuclear, and we are righting its wrongs with a new power station every year for the next decade. This Queen’s Speech will help us to address that great national challenge, ensuring that our critical infrastructure remains future-proofed to the evolving needs of the 21st century.
Investment in infrastructure is a key signature of this Government’s commitment to levelling up, but I think we can go further. I look particularly to HS2, which currently has no commitment to using UK-sourced steel in its construction—that is wrong. It is nonsensical to have a situation where every few years the steel industry finds itself in further hardship and us MPs with steel constituencies go knocking at the Treasury’s door. Surely a better use of taxpayers’ money is for procurement rules to benefit foundation industries in the UK over international counterparts, and I hope that that is what the Procurement Bill allows. It is not an excuse for UK industry not to be competitive in its pricing, but we should acknowledge in any procurement decision the economic and social value that investment in UK industry brings and the levelling-up effect that such investment can have.
The purpose of our levelling-up programme is the next generation, which is why this Government are also investing in a world-class schools system to deliver the high-quality education that our young people deserve. The Schools Bill will absolutely set us on a path to achieving that. In Redcar and Cleveland we have made great strides under this Government to invest in our local schools, particularly at a primary school level, with more than £20 million invested to revitalise the 48 primary schools over the past decade, and Newcomen Primary School remains one of the best in the country. Despite that, more still needs to be done to ensure that every child has the education they deserve; in my part of the world that particularly relates to our secondary schools and I hope the Schools Bill will help to achieve that.
Finally, I wish to thank the Government for bringing forward the conversion therapy Bill again. I speak as a gay Christian who cannot wait for this Government to finally outlaw conversion therapy. Everyone, LGBT or otherwise, deserves to grow up and grow old being who they are, without the threat of disgusting, outdated and, I hope, soon-to-be criminal practices labelled as “conversion therapy”.
We are three years into this Prime Minister’s leadership. We have faced the biggest political challenge in the post-war era with Brexit and the single biggest health challenge in 100 years with covid. We now face the dual challenge of our energy security and war in Europe once again. This Queen’s Speech demonstrates our willingness to tackle the big issues of the day—becoming energy secure while levelling up across the whole of the UK. We have been tasked with delivering on the people’s priorities, and we are doing just that.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
I welcome the legislation to protect access to cash, which is a lifeline for many of the most vulnerable and one of the best budgeting tools there is. However, it needs to be enacted speedily, as closures are happening daily and the more there are, the more difficult and costly it is to reverse them. There needs to be statutory regulation for shops to offer cashback. It is a service offered by many but it could be withdrawn at any time at the moment. Shops also need to be forced to accept cash; people who choose to budget that way should be able to spend where they wish.
I also welcome the regulation to force banks to reimburse the losses through the push payment scams. Enforcement and tough penalties will be key, but I would also like to see transparency, so that customers can see how quickly and how many people banks reimburse on this aspect, and they can then choose their banks accordingly. More needs to be done to protect consumer rights, and not just by giving the Competition and Markets Authority new powers to fine firms that break the rules. We need to ensure that consumer review groups are consulted on all changes made to consumer protection, particularly when any EU laws are scrapped. We do not want a reduction in standards. There also needs to be a new duty and a clear remit for the Financial Conduct Authority to have regard to financial inclusion, and ensure that consumers are not excluded from products and services by the poverty premium.
Many comments have been made about people using food banks because they cannot budget or cook a meal from scratch. Both in my own experience and in 23 years dealing with people in debt and on low incomes, I have not found that to be the case. In fact, I have found quite the opposite, and I will give the House a little of my own experience to demonstrate that.
When I was left alone with a very young child, I did find a job very quickly. It was not very well paid, but I could manage if I was careful and if there were no unexpected bills, which are often the tipping point causing people to get people into debt. I got up at 6 am, got my daughter—who was 18 months old—ready for the childminder, prepared breakfast, drove 30 miles to work because there was no suitable public transport, did a day’s work, drove home, gave my daughter tea, bathed her and put her to bed. At 8 pm I thought about my tea, and prepared for the next day. That was what happened on every weekday; weekends were spent tidying, washing, and trying to spend some time playing with my daughter.
When people are doing that week in, week out, it is no wonder that they have little time or energy to prepare meals from scratch every day, or batch cook every weekend. I certainly did not. It is no wonder that people resort to frozen convenience food or, heaven forbid, a takeaway instead of a rushed sandwich. There is a saying about not judging people until you have walked a mile in their shoes. My work in a citizens advice bureau brought that home to me, and I think we would all do well to remember it.
There are now 2.1 million people a year using food banks to survive. It has been said that throwing money at the problem will not help, but actually it is probably the only thing that will help, as too many people have too little income to pay bills and eat and heat. A windfall tax is one possible measure; reinstating the £20 uplift to universal credit and a moratorium on deductions from benefits which leave people well below the poverty line would also help. Undoubtedly, however, there will be an increase in demand for debt advice, and an increase in the number of people who have no disposable income to pay their creditors.
I should like to know what discussions the Government are having with both businesses and their own Departments about the treatment of people who have no chance of paying off their debts owing to lack of income. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, nearly 4 million low-income households are behind with essential bills, rent or debt payments, up threefold since the pandemic. What measures are being considered to help these people? Perhaps we should listen to Jubilee Debt Campaign and write off some of those debts. There is no point in leaving people in constant debt. All that that is doing is building up mental health problems and ill health generally and placing more and more pressure on the support networks.
The Prime Minister promised to bring his full fiscal firepower to tackle the cost of living crisis. Given their performance so far, these measures have proved a pretty damp squib for most of my constituents.
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)
Today’s theme is “Making Britain the best place to grow up and grow old”. As I am still clinging desperately to my 20s, I will focus on the growing-up side of things; and as a north-east MP, I will also focus on my region and my own fabulous constituency.
We know that there are talented kids throughout our country, in every single community, but for generations—and, unfortunately, because of the actions of successive Governments—too many ambitious, talented young people feel that they have to move away from their home towns to chase their jobs and their fortunes. The Government are already making progress in that regard, particularly in our region. We see swathes of high-quality jobs coming to Darlington, thanks to the opening of the new Treasury and Department for International Trade campuses, but also as a result of the success of Ben Houchen, the Tees Valley Mayor, empowered by Government policy on devolution and on freeports. That has brought high-quality, highly skilled, highly paid jobs to our region, well within commuting distance of Bishop Auckland.
However, this is not just about jobs. We need town centres with diverse shops, enjoyable leisure activities and a vibrant night life for the whole town to enjoy. On this, the Government are helping pretty well. In Bishop Auckland, as well as the levelling-up fund, which is delivering much-needed infrastructure improvements to the A68 at Toft Hill and Whorlton bridge, we are also the proud recipient of towns fund investment. Since I became MP for Bishop Auckland there has been over £70 million of direct funding into Bishop Auckland to deliver tangible improvements to our town centres, attracting private investment and creating job opportunities for our young people. I am delighted that the Queen’s Speech will continue this ambitious plan through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill and the non-domestic rating Bill, helping empower businesses, improve our local communities and breathe new life into our high streets, which we all know they need.
Town centres are the cultural hearts of our communities. In my constituency we are very pleased to have the Bowes Museum and The Witham in Barnard Castle, in Bishop Auckland we benefit from Kynren and the British Auckland food festival, and in Spennymoor we have the Norman Cornish gallery. But it is not just town centres where we have these cultural gems; they also exist further afield, such as the Grassholme Observatory in Teesdale, the Locomotion railway museum out by Shildon and great country shows such as those in Eggleston and Bowes, which I enjoy every summer. If this sounds like a tourism pitch, it absolutely is, because the best way to turbocharge Bishop Auckland and make it one of the best places in which to grow up and thrive is by ensuring County Durham wins UK city of culture 2025. Let me rephrase that, because we do not want to be the city of culture; we want to be the UK’s first ever county of culture. I hope Ministers on the Front Bench today will send this message to the Culture Secretary, because we know what city of culture status can do in unlocking opportunities for tourism and advertising that County Durham is open for business.
Being the best place to grow up also means not living in fear of crime and in communities riddled with antisocial behaviour; we will all know about that from our own communities. I am very pleased that County Durham is already seeing its share of 20,000 new police officers; they are some cracking people and I thank them wholeheartedly for their service and engagement with our local communities. However, those unfortunate enough to be victims of crime need to feel that they get both support and justice, and both as MP for my community and chair of the all-party group on one punch assaults I greatly welcome the victims Bill and all it will achieve.
It would be remiss of me not to touch on the conversion therapy ban. It has been talked about for a long time and I am very pleased to see it in the Queen’s Speech this year, because young people—straight, gay, bi, or trans—should be free to live and love as they wish to and be supported in that by the Government. That means finally banning the abhorrent practice of conversion therapy, not just for under-18s and not just for people who are part of the LGB community, but for everyone—for the entire LGBT community. I certainly plan to continue my engagement with Government to make sure we get the right legislation on this abhorrent practice.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Over the last few days of this debate we have heard some harrowing stories from constituencies around the country of poverty, deprivation and destitution—of people living hand to mouth in some of the worst possible scenarios. However, the Secretary of State who opened the debate today seems to have missed a lot of that, because the picture according to the Secretary of State is that this is a place where people get more than enough opportunities, where young people have never had it so good, where every school is funded exactly as it should be, and where the health service is operating as it should. I have absolutely no idea what parallel universe the Secretary of State is living in.
It is fine to talk about opportunities, but what about the obstacles people face before they get to those opportunities, the biggest of which is poverty? Let us be clear about this: poverty did not arise a few months ago with the cost of living crisis. Poverty has been worsening over the past 12 years because of an ideological austerity agenda by the Conservative Government that has devastated our communities. This is the reality of where we are.
At a time when people are facing some of the worst challenges ever, we see Conservative Members, even a Minister, going on national television saying that people should budget better and work more hours, as if that is the reason they are poor. When is the last time that Members met anybody who chose to be poor? When is the last time that we heard a child who was born in poverty say, “You know what? Actually, I am glad that I was born in that household.”
I urge the Secretary of State to come to Bradford. Our young people are full of aspiration and full of ambition, but, tragically, the media does not give Bradford an easy ride. Frankly, I am fed up with the media’s unfair image of Bradford and of our young people. We are a vibrant city, with a young population. What we lack is the opportunity.
Earlier today, the Secretary of State stood at that Dispatch Box and told me, my constituents and the people in my district that, somehow, we do have that opportunity. The reality is that he could have used his time differently in this Queen’s Speech debate. Conservative Members know that. Those who represent constituencies with poverty and deprivation will know inside themselves that this Queen’s Speech is a missed opportunity. It does nothing to provide opportunity to young people in Bradford. It does nothing to address the health inequalities. A person living in the inner cities of Bradford is likely to live 10 years fewer than if they lived in an affluent city suburb. That is the reality. When it comes to educational attainment, a person from Bradford is likely to achieve a lot less than if they lived in a rich leafy suburb. That is the unfairness. Those are the barriers that we are talking about.
If the Secretary of State for Education, who spoke earlier today, and the Health Minister, who will close the debate, want to address these inequalities, they have missed that opportunity. They should listen to our suggestion. We need an emergency budget to address the destitution that is rife in our country. Poverty is a political choice, and the people of this country will remember the choice that the Government have made.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
How to follow that! Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will try to just use the microphone for amplification.
I am grateful to the Opposition for choosing this subject. It is a very good way of framing the mission that we have as a country. A nation in which it is good to grow up and grow old is one that is also ready for the threats of our times. I am with Edmund Burke who said that
“the sources the commonwealth are in the households”.
The strength of our country is found in our families and in our communities.
The threats are very real. We have seen in this century already how precarious our financial system is. We have seen very recently what a pandemic can do to global health and economic systems. We are witnessing now the appalling reality of war in Europe and the real threat of nuclear war. I think also of the threat of technological collapse triggered by accident or sabotage, and of the prospect, even if we do not fully believe the prophets of the apocalypse, of what climate change could do to the developing world, inducing extraordinary upheaval and the prospect of hundreds of millions of people on the move, heading for our safe and temperate continent. We face a series of very real threats to our country and to our civilisation.
There is a lot to be confident about in the UK, though, such is the strength of our institutions, including our democracy and, for all our disputes, the strength of this place—our Parliament. I think also of the dedication of those who serve the state on the frontline, not least in the British Army. I mention those who form the largest garrison in the UK in my constituency in Wiltshire.
Some of our country’s greatest assets are not found in the agencies of the British state. I think of two recent crises that did us proud as a country: the situation of millions of isolating people during the covid lockdowns and the plight of hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing the war in Ukraine. For all the efforts of Ministers and officials in both those situations, it is fair to say that the apparatus of the state struggled to manage fast enough to help. But society did not: millions of people stepped forward spontaneously during covid to organise mutual aid groups to support their neighbours, and hundreds of thousands of people have offered homes in support of refugees. In both cases, the state enabled and helped to fund the work of communities, but it was communities that took the initiative and did the work.
That brings me to the nub of my argument: if we are to rise to the threats of our time, the crucial thing—the watchword of our whole strategy—should be resilience. That of course means national security, and yes, we need to modernise the British state and to invest even more than we currently do in our national defence. We also need real security in our energy supplies, in our food supplies and in technology. The system we really need to be strong, though, is not the state or the economy but society itself. That is the real foundation of national resilience and national security: the security of our communities and families.
How do we strengthen our communities and families? Communities need the plans outlined in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill in the Queen’s Speech: more devolution and more community power. I also want to see more reform of our public services to put them in the hands of local people, rather than have them as outposts of the central state. Families need more power and resources, too. We need more family-sized homes, including the affordable and social housing that has been announced. I also welcome the plans for the expansion of the community hubs programme.
When it comes to childcare and social care, the answer does not lie in ever greater, larger provision, large-scale warehousing of children and the elderly, trying to arrange for the home and the family to do as little as possible. We must help people to live as they would prefer, to work closer to home and to have time for meaningful family life. We need people to be able to spend the money that is available for childcare and residential social care in the way that is best for them, to look after their children or their parents at home if they wish, or to pay for informal support among friends and family. To put it bluntly, it should not be possible to get Government money only if you put your dependants in an institution.
While I am at it, we need taxes and benefits that reward couples rather than penalising them. The family is the best and most important welfare agency that we have or possibly could have. We should invest in it and trust in it.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
When I read the theme of today’s debate, I truly did not know whether to laugh or cry. On whose deluded planet could anyone believe that Britain is the best place to grow up and grow old? Really? Have the Government had a good look at other countries? An OECD survey covering 2017 to 2019 showed that 15.5% of folk in Britain aged over 66 were living in relative poverty. Rates in Iceland, Denmark and Norway were under 4%. Small, independent countries can do it, but under this Tory Government? Nae chance.
I wish to speak for a moment on behalf of the WASPI women. In the Pensions Act 1995, the Government increased the state pension age for women from 60 to 65, with a further increase to 66 in the Pensions Act 2011. The changes were poorly communicated to the women affected, with many not finding out about them until 2012. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman found that the Department for Work and Pensions was guilty of maladministration.
The Women Against State Pension Inequality campaign for the women affected is calling for an immediate one-off compensation payment of between £11,666 and £20,000. By the end of this calendar year, some 220,190 women across the UK will have died waiting for justice in the seven years since the WASPI campaign began. The Exchequer has saved £3.8 billion in compensation through those deaths, based on likely compensation figures called for by WASPI. I could go on. Those women need justice. They paid in—the Government should pay out.
Many of our elderly are supported by unpaid carers, a much neglected group who make the difference to many. Carers UK has asked the Tory Government to take immediate action, as it feels it is not too late for the Government to step in and recognise carers’ vital role. That is in England, of course. Scotland has provided a carers allowance to unpaid carers. It was the first payment made by Social Security Scotland. It increases carers allowance by some 13%, with eligible carers receiving £231.40 every six months. The Scottish Government’s carers allowance supplement means that since 2018 carers have received more than £460 a year more in Scotland than carers in the rest of the UK. Like many of us, Carers UK was looking for an employment Bill giving immediate rights to flexible working. That is a huge omission from the Government’s programme for business.
We have heard already about Scotland’s fantastic baby box and how it supports families who cannot afford much. In Scotland, people and the Government care about those less fortunate than themselves. Could we have some of that down here in England? “Britain” is mentioned in the title of the debate, but most of the Minister’s speech today was about England and possibly Wales and Northern Ireland. There was not a great deal for Scotland. This Tory UK Government increasingly let Scotland down. The best way for Scotland to get out of poverty is for us to become an independent country, giving us the powers to make Scotland the best place to grow up and to grow old. I strongly look forward to that.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
It is a privilege to speak in today’s debate ar ran pobl Ynys Môn—on behalf of the people of Ynys Môn—and to follow many excellent speeches. The subject of today’s debate—making Britain the best place to grow up and grow old—is truly one that particularly resonates with my constituents.
In the Queen’s Speech debate a year ago, I spoke about how the UK Government’s plans were hard-wired for opportunity. I spoke of initiatives already ongoing in Ynys Môn, such as the Holyhead hydrogen hub, Minesto and Morlais, and I spoke of my hopes and aspirations for Ynys Môn. One year on, I can see genuine progress for my constituency—an island that includes some of the most deprived communities in the UK.
Last May, my island community was reeling from the withdrawal of Hitachi from the proposed Wylfa Newydd nuclear power station on Ynys Môn. The company cited financing as a major issue. The potential high-quality employment opportunities for local people from the proposed plant were hugely significant in an area of high unemployment. The potential loss hit the community hard. Since then, the Government have taken significant action. They have fast-tracked the Nuclear Financing Bill to support the funding of new nuclear. They have produced the British energy security strategy, in which Wylfa was specifically mentioned, in which the Government committed to the acceleration of nuclear and to eight new nuclear plants this decade. The Government are also setting up the Great British nuclear delivery vehicle, which will be headed up by Simon Bowen—a Welshman.
In January, the Prime Minister, who is a fervent support of Wylfa, visited the site with me to see its potential for himself. Just last week, in a first for Ynys Môn, Wylfa was visited by the Energy Minister, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Secretary of State for Wales. They came to announce the £120 million future nuclear enabling fund, and the plans for at least one freeport in Wales. I am so proud that Anglesey is now front and centre of Government policy—an island in north Wales where our most senior Ministers come to make significant national announcements.
So how does that fit into today’s debate? I regularly highlight to this House how Ynys Môn haemorrhages its young people every year as they go in search of skilled employment. The data shows that we have an average number of births and an average number of schoolchildren. We have fantastic secondary and tertiary education on the island. Grŵp Llandrillo Menai, headed up by Dafydd Evans, is one of the largest FE colleges in the UK. It has excellent facilities and gives practical vocational training across a range of disciplines, including the energy sector. Aled Jones-Griffith is the principal of Coleg Menai, which worked with Horizon to produce young apprentices, who had to leave Ynys Môn to find work at the Hinkley Point nuclear power station. Ynys Môn wants its young people to come back. Ynys Môn needs the next generation of young people to stay on the island and to have a future. Without local jobs, our bright, keen young people take their skills and enthusiasm elsewhere in search of better careers, better opportunities and better pay—and with them they take our Welsh language and culture.
I made a commitment to Ynys Môn that I would work hard and fight to bring jobs and investment to its shores. I will be supporting the UK Government’s priorities for the year ahead, including the energy security Bill, the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, Welsh freeports, and the shared prosperity fund, so that the communities on Ynys Môn will reap the rewards that will make it a great place to grow up too. Under this Government’s plans, Ynys Môn is shifting from a place that feels forgotten to one in which our young people can look forward to the same exciting opportunities that others across the UK enjoy—a place where local people can earn good salaries, enjoy fulfilling careers and buy their own homes, and where schoolchildren have local role models to inspire them. This is what the people of Ynys Môn want, this is what the people of Ynys Môn deserve, and, working with the UK Government, this is what I aim to deliver.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
Today’s theme of making Britain the best place to grow up and grow old made me think back to my childhood. I grew up a stone’s throw from where I still live in Swansea East—a proud working-class area, as it still is today. We did not have a lot but we had enough, and that is the difference.
I am honoured to represent my local community and delighted to be able to help those in need. With the summer lunch club fast approaching, my team are working out how many children we can realistically feed through that scheme. We are already looking ahead to Christmas to try to establish whether we will need to help more than the 2,000 families we helped last year. While I am privileged to be able to use my platform to do this, it breaks my heart that I have to. If we are serious about making Britain the best place to grow up in, the Government need to do more—much, much more—to tackle the food poverty and social injustice that we all see in our constituencies every day.
Despite many promises in the Royal Address, words alone do nothing: action on promises is what is needed. Warms words are not delivering on the assurances by this Government that menopausal women in England would have to pay only one annual fee for their HRT prescription. The announcement was made in October 2021 but it now looks as if it will not happen until April 2023. That is not what was said, not what was anticipated, and not what the women who attended this place on that day to welcome the Government’s commitment believed. As a result, I, other colleagues across the House and very many menopause campaigners, groups and individuals have recently launched the menopause mandate, which aims to add our voice to make sure that there is fair and equal access to menopause support and services right across the country. I am not even going to start on the HRT supply shortage, which I have written to the Health Secretary about on so many occasions that I was beginning to think we had started a pen-pal relationship—although his lack of response obviously makes it a one-sided arrangement.
There were glimmers of hope in the Queen’s Speech, but they were just glimmers. Primarily, there was the commitment to publish draft legislation to reform the Mental Health Act 1983. As a woman who spent 12 years on antidepressants after wrongly self-diagnosing a nervous breakdown and depression instead of what it was—the menopause—I know how vital it is that links are made between the two. I am pleased that depression is listed as a clinical indicator on the quality and outcomes framework, but I am disappointed that menopause is not. I am not being critical of depression being on there, or of the fact that doctors are incentivised to diagnose and treat it; what concerns me is what is being missed. All too often, anxiety and depression are diagnosed when menopause is the problem. It is really important that the similarities and links between menopause and mental health are better understood by medical practitioners. The Government have an opportunity here, through the proposed changes to the Mental Health Act, to include the menopause and the impact it has on mental health in that piece of legislation.
I am truly passionate about making Britain the best place to grow up and grow old in. I have been called a lot of things in my time—the sandwich lady, the menopause lady and, if you listen to the gambling lobby, a prohibitionist and a Methodist, as well as quite a few other things that I cannot say in this Chamber—but in last week’s debate on the Queen’s Speech, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones) gave me perhaps my favourite title when she referred to me as
“a pain in the Government’s neck”.—[Official Report, 10 May 2022; Vol. 714, c. 11.]
I am very proud of that and, for the record, I fully intend to continue that trait.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris).
This Queen’s Speech promises to deliver an agenda that reflects the ambition and aspirations of the British people. Our debate today focuses on some of the most significant periods of our lives—growing up and growing old—and the Bills in the Queen’s Speech will make Britain an even better place to do both.
Education is the ultimate expression of levelling up. It is good not just for our employment prospects but for our wellbeing and personal development. It is good not just for the individual but for the economy and society. Einstein said:
“Education is not the learning of facts, but the training of minds to think.”
An educated, thinking population creates a productive, dynamic, innovative and entrepreneurial population capable of meeting the challenges of this country, so I am pleased to see in this Queen’s Speech the Government’s determination to deliver an education for all ages, whether you are starting out at a primary school, a student at the local technical college or in your 40s or 50s wanting to retrain and learn new skills.
My constituency has superb grammar schools that consistently feature among the top state schools in the country, but as well as pure academic qualifications, we also need young people with the technical and vocational skills fit for the modern economy. Buckinghamshire University Technical College, with its offer of health and digital courses, is an excellent place for children in my constituency to learn those skills and it is one that I am proud to champion. Bucks College is an enthusiastic advocate and adopter of T-levels, a qualification that—like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education—I want to see as famous and respected as A-levels.
The Schools Bill promises to help every child to fulfil their potential by raising standards. As a former school governor, I have seen at first hand how joining a strong multi-academy trust can enable schools to flourish as they benefit from high standards and expectations. This is exactly what far more schools will do with this legislation. I am also pleased that the Department for Education has published a SEND Green Paper. My constituency has excellent volunteer organisations such as GRASPS—Greater Resources for Autism Supporting Parents and Siblings—which help parents to navigate the minefield of education, health and care plans. Many parents have come to my office in sheer desperation trying to resolve difficulties with EHCPs, and I am glad that the Government—particularly the Minister sitting on the Front Bench, the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince)—are working really hard to improve this. I would respectfully urge Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that the NHS plays its part in ensuring that children with special educational needs and disabilities are treated as they should be. Sadly, all too often the delays and difficulties that I see stem from health rather than from education.
Growing up is not just about getting good exam results, a great apprenticeship or a job; it is also about becoming a rounded adult, confident and secure in oneself. That is why I am delighted to see the inclusion in the Queen’s Speech of the conversion therapy Bill, which will ban frankly evil and abhorrent practices that are intended to change sexual orientation. We all need to be free to love who we want to love. For too many of us, it took too long to be able to do that: too long to accept ourselves for who we are and too long for others to accept us. Let us hope that this Bill will be another step to enable today’s generation of young people to feel safe and secure in acknowledging and expressing their sexuality.
We are often keen to talk about the delights and opportunities of childhood, but less enthusiastic about confronting some of the challenges of growing old. Too often, elderly people are almost hidden from view. So I am extremely pleased that the Government are putting older people at the heart of their plans for social care, with a comprehensive vision and substantial investment, coupled with the massive commitment to the NHS through funding, recruitment and the construction of new hospitals.
No one can deny that we face difficult times in the months ahead, but with the measures announced in the Queen’s Speech our country is equipped to encounter any challenge and any adversary, with skill, experience and expertise; with resilience, enthusiasm and true British grit.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
This Queen’s Speech shows that the Government either do not understand or do not care about the lives of my constituents in Nottingham South. At the top of their agenda, but sadly not the Government’s, is practical action to address the soaring cost of living crisis.
Take my constituent, a single mum of two living in privately rented accommodation. Despite working full time, when her wage goes in and her rent and bills are paid, she has just £75 a month left over to feed and clothe her family, including two teenagers. She told me that
“my daughter came home from school worried because she had a cookery exam and didn’t want to tell me because she was worried about me having to spend more on the shopping list for her ingredients. Can you imagine how, as a mother, that made me feel?”
I am sure you will agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the situation my constituent faces is not her fault, and that young people should not face those worries.
Rents and prices are rising fast, energy bills are skyrocketing and wages are not keeping pace. Yet the Government chose to scrap the uplift in universal credit and to raise national insurance contributions. I do not hold the Government responsible for global price rises, but I do hold them responsible for 12 years of failure, for making a difficult situation worse, and for failing to act now to protect those who are least able to withstand economic shocks.
Instead of listening and acting, Ministers and Government MPs lecture people, telling them that they would be fine if only they bought value brands, cooked better or improved their budgeting. They patronise people, saying, “Work longer hours or get a better paid job.” If they really cared about pay and job security, the Queen’s Speech would have included legislation to protect workers from unscrupulous employment practices, action to deliver affordable childcare and measures to enable parents to better combine work and care. It did not. Some members of the Government seem determined to add insult by injury, demanding that people stop working from home and instead spend even more time and money commuting.
For children growing up in Tory Britain, life is getting harder. The Resolution Foundation predicts that by 2024-25, more than one in three children will be living in poverty. Well, in Nottingham South they already are. That is almost 6,000 children in my constituency being let down by this Government.
There is nothing graceful about growing old in Tory Britain either. We are now at the point where many older people who have worked and paid taxes their whole lives are having to choose between heating and eating as pensions fail to keep pace with rising prices. Research by Age UK shows that three quarters of older people in the UK are worried about the rising cost of living, and a quarter of older people have said that if energy bills increase substantially, as we expect they inevitably will, they will choose between heating their home and buying food. Some of the poorest pensioners are already cold and hungry.
The Government should have used the Queen’s Speech to introduce an emergency Budget, including a windfall tax on oil and gas companies’ near-record profits, to get money off people’s bills, but they did not. They should have announced investment in energy efficiency measures, matching Labour’s plans to insulate 19 million homes in a decade, which would reduce gas imports, make homes warmer and cut bills while helping to tackle the climate crisis and create new jobs. They chose not to.
On the cost of living, on support for workers, on energy efficiency, security and sustainability, on their record NHS waiting lists, on social care and on vital public services, including youth clubs, libraries, road maintenance, parks and so much more, this Government have failed. My constituents deserve so much better, but I am afraid that they will not get it under the Conservatives.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this Queen’s Speech debate on making Britain the best place to grow up and grow old, and to follow the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood). With 38 Bills in the Queen’s Speech, covering a wide range of topics from crime and disorder to education, the economy and the cost of living, there will be much legislating to do in the next several months, but today I will focus on the transport Bill, the data reform Bill and the financial services and markets Bill.
Improved public transport infrastructure and services are vital to ensuring that this country is a good place to grow up with opportunities for all. The proposed transport Bill will create Great British Railways, which I hope will overcome some of the current fragmentation, including that between the Wales and borders franchise and the rest of Great Britain’s network. Our nearest major cities of Manchester and Liverpool and their airports can be reached in just over an hour by road, on average, from Rhyl in my constituency. In comparison, rail services take about two hours, yet a similar distance by rail in the south-east of Britain can take as little as 40 minutes.
Poor regional rail services stifle economic growth, including in our vital tourism sector, suppress efforts to reduce higher-than-average unemployment, and result in just 2% of commutes to the north-west of England being by rail—some 80% less than the national average. I urge the Government to ensure that the rail infrastructure improvements that north Wales requires are placed in the soon-to-be-updated rail network enhancements pipeline at the “decision to develop” stage.
The transport Bill is expected to contain provisions to enable the installation of more electric vehicle charge points, a move that is very much needed locally. I hope that the Bill will also contain provisions to bring “UKNET” into being—a strategic transport network for the whole UK, as recommended in the Union connectivity review.
I believe that the data reform Bill has the potential to empower citizens and improve their lives via more effective delivery of public healthcare, security and Government services. Requiring UK-wide comparable and interoperable data within our public services, but particularly the NHS, could help to identify unacceptable performance, allow learning from best practice, and drive improvement and change. It would also better enable the electorate to identify success or failure and hold politicians to account accordingly.
We must remember that cash remains an important part of life for millions of people across the UK, particularly those in vulnerable groups, as they grow up and grow old. ATMs remain the most popular way of withdrawing cash, but their numbers have been in decline recently. I have experience of that in my constituency: on Prestatyn’s high street, the number of ATMs dropped from six to zero because of the rapid closure of several banks. Cash is still important for many residents and companies in my constituency, especially the independent businesses on the high street. Following a campaign, and thanks to Cardtronics, three new cash machines have now been installed in the town centre. I welcome the fact that the financial services and markets Bill will protect cash by ensuring continued access to withdrawal and deposit facilities across the UK. It is important that the Bill be delivered as soon as possible so that existing cash infrastructure can be protected.
I hope that the legislation will set out that LINK be formally regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority to ensure access to cash, whether through mandating the installation of ATMs, recommending new banking hubs or requiring enhanced post office services. It should also ensure that communities such as Prestatyn that lost banking services before 2022, rather than only those that lose branches after the Bill is on the statute book, will potentially qualify for a hub. Consideration should be given to the ongoing availability of Welsh language banking service provision in a community—a concern that Menter Iaith Sir Ddinbych has emphasised in correspondence with me, particularly in relation to the town of Denbigh.
The Queen’s Speech delivers a promising set of Bills that will help to ensure that Britain remains one of the best places to grow up and grow old. I look forward to helping to shape the legislation as it progresses through Parliament.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
We cannot provide equal opportunities and a stimulating environment throughout life that will enable people to live truly fulfilling lives while we continue to have such high levels of poverty and insecurity and while we continue to support a society where greed is good and poverty is rife. Research provided by Independent Age in partnership with City, University of London, tracked the financial health of people past state pension age between 2010 and 2019, and the most shocking finding was that 40% of pensioners spent at least one year in poverty during that nine-year period.
The Queen’s Speech was a missed opportunity to introduce immediate measures that could help to alleviate the devastating effects of the cost of living crisis, including a commitment to ensure that pension credit reaches those who are entitled to it. Increases in social benefit income from things such as pension credit are a crucial factor in helping older people escape poverty, and that is particularly true among people aged 75-plus. As take-up remains stagnant, research from Loughborough University, commissioned by Independent Age, estimates that the lack of take-up costs the Treasury £4 billion per year in increased NHS and social care spending.
At the other end of life’s journey, 4.3 million children were living in poverty in the UK before the pandemic. That was up 200,000 from the previous year and, according to Action for Children, up 500,000 over the past five years, which is 31% of children—if Ministers are listening, that is 31% of children. Almost 60% of all children in poverty in Scotland live in a family where a child is under six, and the Scottish Government have reacted positively. Since August 2021, all councils have offered 1,140 hours of funded early learning and childcare for all eligible children, making high-quality early learning and childcare available to families and saving parents up to £4,900 per year for each eligible child.
The SNP is proud to be delivering on manifesto promises. The provision of free school breakfasts and lunches all year round for all children in primary 1 to 7, digital services for every poor child, the abolition of fees for instrumental music tuition and the removal of core curriculum charges are feeding their bellies and their minds. Barbara Crowther, the co-ordinator of the children’s food campaign, has said that universal free meals for primary schools
“could be a valuable and cost-effective lifeline for families at a difficult economic time.”
What about all those families that are struggling now and were struggling before covid or the energy price increases? Who do they turn to? A few days ago, the Chancellor tried to explain why he could not adjust welfare. He blamed the computer system at its core, yet whenever I have questioned the suitability and indeed the flexibility of the existing welfare system over the last seven years, I have always been told, “It’s doing its job, it’s just fine. Move along—nothing to see here.” It clearly is not, yet possible solutions once again are ignored, dismissed as fanciful and never fully investigated.
I know it is a concept the UK Government scorn, but councils in all four nations want to trial universal basic income, and only by trials will we be able to value its pros and cons. The UK Government should not fear the outcomes of these trials; they should be instructing the Department for Work and Pensions and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to work with council authorities so we can learn and improve based on solid data and academic research, not the prejudice and misconceptions that beset the current welfare system. Welfare must be designed to provide security and confidence, not to punish and stigmatise.
The UK’s big idea to resolve the disparity of rich and poor is levelling up. While the UK Government will point to levelling up as an example of stimulus, it prompts the question: if our society is so equal, why do we need levelling up and why are we not already level? Unless we address those issues of poverty, deprivation and a lack of aspiration, with lives wasted and unfulfilled, everything else is smoke and mirrors. If all the stated goals are to have any credence, they must be rooted in a fair society, and one with equal access to education, health, energy, food and transport.
When Beveridge wrote his report to design a post-world war two welfare system for the United Kingdom, he said:
“A revolutionary moment in the world’s history is a time for revolutions, not for patching.”
This is such a time. As we emerge from a worldwide pandemic and the gig economy increases, we need a revolution in welfare. In an increasingly unequal society, the UK Government would do well to listen. Now is the time for big ideas, and the Queen’s Speech was sadly lacking in any.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
The Queen’s Speech contains a wealth of proposals that broadly fall between how we best support the vast majority of our people for whom things such as state-funded education and state-funded healthcare are important, and how we support and focus on those who need the intervention of the state to thrive.
I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) in congratulating our colleagues, the re-elected leader of Hillingdon Council, Ian Edwards, and the newly elected leader of Harrow Council, Paul Osborn. Local government is often the vehicle through which the state supports both the most vulnerable and our communities, which is the theme I hope to develop in my brief contribution tonight.
I commend Ministers for their work on special educational needs and disabilities in the Schools Bill. I know they spend a lot of time engaging with people across the sector, and it is clear to us all that, if we are to make sure that every child has the chance to thrive, a change is urgently required. Despite the welcome reforms that have been introduced, the system remains enormously challenged.
The Schools Bill will also begin to create a more level playing field between different types of schools, and it offers an opportunity to ensure that state-funded education gives every child in England the best start in life. This will be debated, but I particularly welcome the Government’s proposals to enable local authorities to set up multi-academy trusts. Research by the Local Government Association, based on previous research by organisations such as Watchsted, shows that there remains a significant advantage for maintained schools and that local authorities remain more effective than academy trusts in improving the attainment of struggling schools. We need to make sure we can harness that to the best advantage of all our communities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) spoke about the importance of the human rights review. As a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I have heard a lot of representations on the review over the past few months. It is very important that we get it right and that we reflect the need to update our human rights legislation to take account of, for example, the growing impact of the online world on how people live their lives, but I echo the concerns about ensuring that we do not displace the problem by sending cases to Strasbourg that we could more effectively deal with at UK level.
For many aspects of our economy, education, local government and healthcare, we need to recognise that the trend of working from home has been embraced by the most productive, most efficient and most profitable parts of our economy, particularly in professional services. We can help the money we spend on taxpayer-funded services go even further by making sure that people who can work from home most efficiently do so, while making sure that those who need to be in the office to provide frontline face-to-face public services are where they are required.
It is important the House recognises that for the local authority with the greatest proportion of residents accessing some form of social care, at any stage of their life’s journey, the figure is less than one in five residents, but those residents are often the most vulnerable. Ministers in the Department for Education have been considering how to review and improve our children’s social care system and update safeguarding to reflect the challenges of the modern world. I urge them to look at the Crocker review of private equity, which considers the cost of providing children’s social care, and I hope they will find time to answer the call from the Children’s Commissioner that England should follow Wales and Scotland in abolishing the reasonable chastisement defence in respect of the disciplining of children.
Finally, on growing old, I encourage the Government to look in all their endeavours at a public health approach to ageing, so that we consider how local authorities can encourage activity such as walking football, bowls and swimming to keep our older citizens active. There is so much potential to show our pride in our communities and our ambition for them. The public will find much of that on the Conservative Benches tonight.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
On the Opposition Benches, we have been hearing about the cost of living crisis. We hear about it in the media, from our constituents and on the news. We hear about it constantly, but it feels like it is somehow falling on deaf ears, because in the Queen’s Speech the Government failed to address it.
It is with shock and horror that we hear that because of the cost of living crisis 1.3 million people in the UK are set to fall below the poverty line next year, including 500,000 children who will experience severe poverty. If we look at that in more detail, it will affect what children eat, the quality of their food, the size of their portions and perhaps the frequency with which they eat. It will affect their ability to be warm in their home. It could affect their clothing and how much clothing is purchased for them, as we heard from other Members. It could affect their health—we heard from other Members about obesity being linked to poverty. There are many areas where children will experience deprivation and disadvantage, but it seems like the Government are set to be okay on that. Before the cost of living crisis even hit, 3,500 children in Lewisham were already in absolute poverty. That figure is rising and is only set to increase further. The Government must get a grip on the cost of living so that our young children will not suffer.
If children are experiencing deprivation and disadvantage and are going to be in severe poverty, some costs will only be passed on to another area. If the Government invested now, they would be doing what is right now rather than passing certain costs on to the health service because of health issues, on to the criminal justice system because a rise in poverty often leads to an increase in crime, and on to children’s social care because the chances are that more intervention from public services will be needed. As we know, local authorities are already suffering. Those costs are being passed on, so why are the Government not making the choice to invest now in people’s lives, rather than being in the situation of controlling people’s lives?
It is vital that we protect children and new parents. Early years learning is essential to ensure that children have the best possible start in life and the Government need to get it right for all children. The Government should aim for state education to be as good as grammar schools and private schools. Each child, including SEND children, should have an equal chance of success. The Government clearly have a long way to go to achieve that.
In addition to education, older children are often perceived and managed negatively by the police and the criminal justice system, and that can affect their wellbeing and health. Many older children’s interaction with the justice system can leave them traumatised and with a negative experience of the police. We need only to look at child Q for evidence of that. There are many examples of stopping and searching young black men and women in London in particular, and we know those situations are detrimental to their health. We only need to look at Bianca Williams, the Commonwealth gold medallist, when she had that awful experience of a roadside stop.
There are stories of children across the UK being held for up to 18 hours in custody in a police cell. That is shockingly long—it should be a shock for everybody who hears it for the first time. Current legislation requires that they be detained only as a last resort for the shortest appropriate period. That is clearly not happening. Young people have described the experience as horrible and devastating. I am standing with Vicky Kemp, a principal research fellow at the University of Nottingham who specialises in this area, to press the Government to cut the statutory stay limit for children from 24 hours to 12 hours. I really hope the Government are listening.
According to a report by the Children’s Commissioner, the average waiting time for an appropriate adult is nine hours. My 15-year-old constituent was detained for nine hours before his mother was even called to be informed that he was in a police cell. I am campaigning with the National Appropriate Adult Network to speed up the attendance of appropriate adults coming to young people’s aid in a police cell. The Government must ensure that children are treated as children within the care of public bodies and in the care of the police.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
It is a great privilege to speak in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby). Making the UK the best place to grow up and grow old is an ambitious target, but we are definitely closer to it following this year’s Queen Speech. In my opinion and that of a lot of the people who live in Cornwall, it already is, but there is still a huge amount to do. A lot of work is going on in Cornwall. We have secured a new secondary school near Perranporth on the north coast and we are expecting a new women and children’s hospital to arrive at the Treliske site.
I would like to focus today on the brilliant work of some of my Truro and Falmouth constituents. Last month, I was delighted to welcome my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) to the Falmouth family hub to show some of the best practice of our excellent early years teams, led by Meredith Teasdale and Councillor Barbara Ellenbroek. Cornwall is one of the 75 local authorities to receive Treasury funding as part of the vital best start for life programme.
We began by visiting team members from WILD, the largest young parents charity in the UK. That organisation works with Cornwall Council to ensure that young parents and their babies have the best possible start to family life. We were lucky enough to see messy play and sensory play with bubbles, paint, water and foam that would make any mother twitch. Thank goodness that the facilities they have to do that are not in my house.
I know that I speak for all parents in this debate when I say that becoming a new parent is incredibly challenging and daunting. Although, for many people, becoming a parent means that their hopes and dreams have come true, it is never easy and a bit of extra support can go an awful long way. However, for younger parents and those with no support network, that extra help is absolutely vital. That is why the work of WILD, which has supported more than 13,000 mums, dads and children over the years, is so important. For example, its healthy start programme helps young parents to transition into becoming a new parent. Its infant mental health project helps to improve mental health and the wellbeing of babies and toddlers, and its first steps project focuses on children with the highest needs, in line with the early years foundation stage framework. These teams’ incredible work, along with Cornwall Council, puts Cornwall on the map for early years work. I urge the Government to consider Cornwall as a trailblazer local authority, where we could secure extra funds to excel and share our best practices with other localities.
Moving on to the later stages of life, I draw the attention of the Secretary of State and the Minister to the HAIRE—Healthy Ageing through Innovation in Rural Europe —project. It does a brilliant job in supporting rural communities with an ever-increasing ageing population facing significant health and care challenges and determining what services really make a difference in ruralities. Working together with me and Feock parish council, the HAIRE team—one of only two in the United Kingdom—has done brilliant work locally to develop an environment in the community that supports and encourages older people to feel engaged and part of their locality. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), if people can live healthily in their own home, they get much better health outcomes.
From speaking to the HAIRE team, it is clear that more needs to be done to promote healthy ageing in rural communities. I will focus briefly on the need for the Government to actively develop varied and effective accommodation, potentially, for elderly residents. It will come as no surprise to everyone in the Chamber to hear that housing is the No.1 issue for my Cornwall constituents. Only 2.5% of the UK’s 29 million dwellings are defined as retirement housing and the stock is heavily skewed towards houses with three or four bedrooms.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans) mentioned, the Government must increase the proportion of the housing stock for people of retirement age and encourage those who are over 65 in properties with surplus bedrooms to downsize—that is, those who wish to. That will allow younger families to upsize, reduce the pressure to build more houses—therefore easing the housing crisis—and improve health and wellbeing for older residents. By the way, not all retired people want to live in retirement villages only with other retired people. Some want to live with families and children and see them play and see everyday life. I am driving at the fact that we need the Bills in this Queen’s Speech to promote what we Conservatives do best: look after our communities. Cornwall absolutely shone the light during covid to show what communities can do, and we need to learn from the good practice here. Making the UK the best place to grow up and grow well is a challenging task, and I know that this Government will rise to it. Supporting the fantastic local initiatives and ensuring that our housing stock works for everyone will play essential parts in achieving that goal, for all our families and for all of our communities.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
When I was thinking about what to say in a debate on making Britain the best place to grow up and grow old, the first two constituents who came to mind were Lee and Philip, who were both born with foetal valproate syndrome. They will have a lifelong need for care and support, and for their parents it is a worry to think about them growing up. They have already had their childhood—they are adults—but they are living with lifelong disabilities. As the Minister for Health is on the Treasury Bench, I am going to take the opportunity to make the case that for victims of sodium valproate we need a redress scheme, similar to that for victims of thalidomide, to ensure that that lifelong care is in place and so that we can somewhat ease the worry that parents of these children—and young adults now—are living with.
Last week, I visited Beaumont College in Lancaster, as well Lancaster & Morecambe College and the new youth hub in Fleetwood. It was great to hear from those young people, but it strikes me that there is something missing from the Queen’s Speech: any mention of youth work and the way in which it can support our children in education and support our young people growing up. At a recent question and answer session with pupils at Cardinal Allen Catholic High School in Fleetwood, the message was clear; they wanted better access to mental health support, and their teachers agreed. They told me what we all already know: the child and adolescent mental health services waiting list is unacceptably long and the thresholds to meet their care are unacceptably high.
The Queen’s Speech confirmed that the Government plan to introduce a Schools Bill. These reforms come at a crucial time for our education system, but I have met many local headteachers and they tell me that the Bill fails to deliver on the key challenges that our schools are facing. It is indifferent to the issues of mental health and wellbeing. It doubles down on the failures of the past; setting a new target for standard assessment test performance that will not raise the quality of education. It singles out student attendance for attention, while overlooking the problems of mental health and the exam factory culture that contribute to poor attendance.
Lancaster and Fleetwood is a great place to grow up because it is a great place to learn. I am fortunate enough to have two brilliant universities in my constituency: Lancaster University and the University of Cumbria. I have had the pleasure of meeting students and researchers at Lancaster University who are pioneering research across diverse areas, from flood defences to gaining a better understanding of Alzheimer’s. Given that some 18,000 people are living with dementia in Lancashire, it is something that helps to bridge what can sometimes be a gap between the town and the gown in our community. But with the higher education Bill, we would see restrictions on who has access to this brilliant education on the basis of people’s GCSEs. To those who say that too many young people are going to university nowadays, I ask, “How can it be a bad thing that people are getting more education?”. Education enriches not only the lives of the individuals who receive it, but the communities they live in, and it changes lives for the better.
Lancaster and Fleetwood is a great place to grow up because it is a great place to work. My constituency is full of brilliant local businesses, ranging from small independent retailers to international businesses such as Fisherman’s Friend. But the reality for many in rural communities is that they feel disconnected from work opportunities. The Queen’s Speech promises a transport Bill that will “take control” of the railway system. My question on railways is simple: we have been campaigning hard to get our railway reopened in Fleetwood and it was promised to us about two years ago, but what is happening? Where is it? Will this Bill reconnect Fleetwood to the rail network or is this something else that has become derailed by this Government? We should not lose sight of the importance of local bus networks too. For many of my constituents it might be a question of travelling from Dolphinholme into Lancaster or Glasson Dock into Galgate, and those rural bus networks have suffered huge cuts. My constituents feel disconnected from access to jobs and access to social and family events.
Lancaster and Fleetwood is a great place to grow old, because people of every age and stage are embraced as part of the community; we see this in everything from the parent and toddler group at Lancaster Methodist church to the Wyre Wheels project that takes place every Friday in Memorial park in Fleetwood and supports anyone of any ability, even me, to get active on bikes and cycle. It is a resourceful community and it is certainly a compassionate one. Sadly, in the past few weeks I have received so many emails from constituents who are concerned about the rising cost of their bills and the fact that their pensions are not keeping up with these costs. My rural constituents, especially those with oil-powered heating, have been left out of Government support.
I implore those on the Treasury Bench to bear in mind the importance of remembering everyone in every community in Britain, and to ensure that Britain really is the best place in which to grow up and grow old.
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
Since the last Queen’s Speech, Southport has begun the process of seismic change, with our £37.5 million town deal being met with hundreds of millions in pledged private funding. The town deal will ultimately help to create more than 1,300 new jobs, and will bring in over a million extra visitors per year. From the individual small businesses springing up along our high street to the larger Southport Cove and Marine Lake Events Centre developments, our wonderful town—which I am proud to call my home—is rightly seeing the benefits of the Government’s levelling-up agenda.
It is important for local communities to have a say in changes in their areas, and I therefore welcome the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, which offers a real opportunity to address the housing shortage. While the Bill will also allow a further devolution of powers over local services to local elected leaders, 1 urge the Government to go further, and introduce a mechanism to allow a community to change its local authority catchment area more easily.
In Southport we have been held back repeatedly by the vindictive actions of Labour- led Sefton Council, which takes resources away from Southport and ignores local concerns about, for example, unwanted, unnecessary and unwelcome cycle lanes. Furthermore, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Children and Families knows, we discovered in the days conveniently after the local elections that Sefton Council’s children’s services had been rated “inadequate” by Ofsted in all areas, yet the responsible councillors shamelessly remain in office, and Southport’s vulnerable children continue to suffer. These children deserve excellent services from their local council, just as they deserve excellent healthcare from their local NHS. Such healthcare is crucial throughout life, and while I welcome the Government’s commitment to clear the backlog from covid, we must aim for more than simply returning to where we were before the pandemic hit and restrictions came into force. As my other hon. Friend the Minister for Health knows, Southport Hospital has been lacking a children’s A&E since 2003, with services rolled into Ormskirk Hospital. During covid, however, Ormskirk’s children’s A&E has stopped providing a 24-hour service, with the result that a child who falls sick out of hours must now travel to Liverpool. First we must see the resumption of the 24/7 service in Ormskirk, and then, most important, we must see the return of this service to Southport.
We must ensure that all people in this country, from the day they are born, are given the support they deserve. We must ensure that children are given the best possible start. We must ensure that the UK remains the best place in which to grow up. Education is crucial to allowing people to prosper and succeed, especially as we build back better from covid, so it is welcome that the Schools Bill will strengthen our education system. While Labour-led Sefton Council is content with failing to help children, this Conservative Government will use the Bill to level up opportunity, supporting children throughout the country.
However, we are not stopping there. The higher education Bill will raise education standards and increase fairness within the system, allowing students to fulfil their potential wherever they live. Southport benefits greatly when well-qualified graduates return to our town, as their innovative drive and passion for local progress are crucial to our success. For example, Southport’s hospitality developments need look no further than Southport College, where, under the fantastic leadership of Michelle Brabner, students are well supported in finding skilled, well-paid work locally.
All this relies on strong transport links. We need the Burscough Curves rail link to reopen, which would enable stronger connectivity not only within the region, but as far afield as Scotland and the south of England. We need to maintain the direct link from Southport to Manchester Piccadilly, which is crucial for jobs, businesses and leisure. I am optimistic that the transport Bill will succeed in its stated aim of making our transport system more reliable and efficient for passengers.
This Queen’s Speech brings welcome legislation to my constituency in particular, and I look forward to supporting the Government as we continue to level up our local areas, support our children, and connect our communities.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Southport (Damien Moore), who is clearly a passionate supporter of Southport. I congratulate him: I am sure he will do well in today’s Conservative party.
This Queen’s Speech fails to address the immediate cost of living crisis and does little to end the longer-term issues of growing poverty and inequality in Wales as in the rest of the United Kingdom. That is the context of this debate and the cause of the hollow laughter at its title, “Making Britain the Best Place to Grow Up and Grow Old”. In Wales, we have high levels of poverty, and we have done for decades, particularly since the destruction of our heavy industries by the Conservative Governments of the 1980s. That is why we qualified for EU support on a par with the former Soviet bloc countries of the east—that is, until we were blessed with Brexit opportunities, when that support diminished.
Our levels of child poverty in Wales are the highest in the UK, affecting a third of Welsh children, as measured in 2019. As the Children’s Commissioner for Wales said over the weekend, the rate is now likely to be around 40%. This persistent poverty has consequences for children’s development, including damaging their mental health, and those consequences carry on into adulthood. At this point, if the Whips are listening, I would like to congratulate the Government on their intention to bring in a mental health Bill and say that, as a former social worker approved under the Mental Health Act 1983, I would be very glad of the opportunity to contribute to the scrutiny of that Bill.
Poverty carries on down the generations, but not, as some would have it, as something inherently bad or morally reprehensible about working people. It is poverty that damages lives and it is poverty that kills. The cost of living crisis is having a devastating impact on children all over Wales and elsewhere in the UK, and families are being forced to choose between eating and heating. Wales has the highest rate of food bank use in the UK, with over 4,000 food parcels distributed per 100,000 people per annum. People are turning to food banks because they have no other choice.
The cut of £20 per week to universal credit, which took away £286 million from the Welsh economy, was an utter disaster for children in low-income families. As to adults in Wales, one in three people of working age and almost one in five pensioners die in poverty. That is the highest rate in the UK. This disgraceful Victorian value must be banished for good. Smoking is the largest single cause of avoidable early death in Wales, and Plaid Cymru supports the introduction of a “polluter pays” levy on tobacco manufacturers to raise funds for tobacco control, to ensure that our smoke-free ambition for Wales is met.
The real game changer for Wales would be the devolution of social security so that we can build a system of support that meets our particular needs. Control over the administration of benefits would create a more flexible approach at a time when families need it most—for example, paying universal credit weekly to reflect the way that poor people have to budget and changing the current degrading sanctions regime. Welfare support could be delivered to meet the actual needs of people in Wales, with winter fuel payments linked to home energy efficiency. Cold weather payments could be improved to take into account rurality, which has particular effects on people in the uplands of my own constituency of Arfon. Devolution would enable us to create new ways of helping to top up existing benefits. We in Plaid Cymru believe that our Senedd should create a Welsh child payment similar to that in Scotland, and much more.
Carol Monaghan
One of the difficulties is that only a very small proportion of benefits—about 15%—have been devolved to the Scottish Government. With the situation that the hon. Gentleman is talking about, all benefits would need to be devolved so that they could be properly administered.
Hywel Williams
I share the ambition of the hon. Lady and her colleagues to have a proper social security system that is tailored to the needs of our communities. The Scottish Government are leading the way, as far as I am concerned, and when we have that power, we will be emulating some of the measures that they have brought in.
Wales comes way down the priority list of this Conservative Government, whose eyes are glued both on their vulnerable red wall seats and their increasingly unhappy homelands in the south and east of England. But Plaid Cymru advocates bold policies for everyone, which will make Wales a good place to grow old and to grow up.
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
The pandemic has been particularly difficult for young people. Research by the Education Policy Institute has shown that, despite the best efforts of teachers over the last two years, pupils have lost the equivalent of more than four months of learning, with those in the north and midlands most affected. There is a real danger that covid will end up exacerbating long-standing inequalities. According to the latest Ofsted inspection reports, only 55% of Derbyshire secondary schools are rated good or better, compared with the national benchmark of 80%. This inequality in opportunity simply is not good enough. We must do better.
In High Peak, we are making progress, with St Philip Howard Catholic Voluntary Academy in Glossop being upgraded to good in its latest Ofsted inspection, compared with its 2018 rating of requires improvement. We also secured capital funding to invest in Hope Valley College and to expand Harpur Hill Primary in Buxton. The £4 million expansion of Glossopdale School is under construction, which will create an extra 240 places for the town, due in September.
However, more can and must be done. So I welcome that the Government have designated Derbyshire as one of the new education investment areas, which means that Derbyshire schools will receive much-needed extra support, with additional money for the recruitment and retention of the best teachers. The Queen’s Speech aims to build on that progress with the Schools Bill to help drive up standards.
Our schools are not the only public service challenged by the pandemic. The NHS is still grappling with a huge covid backlog. A good example is the withdrawal of the mobile breast cancer screening unit in High Peak in 2020. I fought hard to get that vital service reinstated, and I am pleased to report that the mobile unit is back up and running locally, operating at 160% of pre-pandemic levels. However, we must do more than simply restore services if we are to build a more resilient, preventive health service. That is why I am pushing so hard for new urgent care centres for both Stepping Hill Hospital and Tameside Hospital. It is also why I am supporting Derbyshire Community Health Services bid for capital funding for a major new health centre for Buxton.
Of course, not all illnesses are visible. As we rebuild from the pandemic, we must deliver parity between mental and physical health services. The proposed Bill to reform the Mental Health Act will play a key role in this mission, giving patients greater control over their treatment and ensuring that they receive a more personalised level of care. I recently visited the construction site of the £4.8 million highly specialist mental health unit that is being built at Tameside Hospital. That will replace the existing psychiatric intensive care unit at Stepping Hill, providing short-term care for men over the age of 18 experiencing mental health distress. Once that new unit is built at Tameside, the current psychiatric intensive care unit at Stepping Hill will be refurbished to create a unit specifically for women. That is particularly good news given that this service is not currently available anywhere locally. It will allow women to receive specialist mental health care closer to their homes and loved ones.
Turning to social care, I am pleased that this Government have finally grasped the nettle and introduced reforms to try to ensure that no one will have to sell their home to pay for care in future. While those reforms are welcome, we need to get on with delivery and fleshing out the details of the improvement plans.
Tackling any of these challenges is only possible if we have strong public finances to pay for the world-class public services that we need, and that requires a strong and growing economy. As we all know, we are facing global rising energy prices, a war in Europe and we are still dealing with the enormous supply chain disruption caused by covid, all of which are driving high inflation and the rising cost of living. The Government’s long-term reform plans are the right ones, investing in infrastructure, skills and public service reform to create sustainable growth and well-paid high-skilled jobs, but we need to think very carefully about what more can be done in the short term to help people to cope with soaring costs now.
There are no magic solutions and those Members who pretend otherwise are deluding themselves and the people they represent. That does not mean that we cannot do more. We need honesty, creativity, pragmatism and compassion to deal with the challenges ahead. If we work together, I am confident that we will succeed. I am glad that the Queen’s Speech put forward a series of practical measures to make Britain the best place to grow up and grow old.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
This Gracious Speech should have been an opportunity for the Government to rise to the unprecedented challenges facing our country and, in doing so, to make Britain the best place to grow up and grow old. Its lack of ambition and its stony silence on some of the biggest challenges facing the UK speak volumes about a Government who are out of touch and out of ideas. Worse still, many of the challenges that we need to address are a direct consequence of 12 years of Tory Government—12 years in which, instead of stepping up with ambition for our country, the Government have run down our public services, undermined our economy, negotiated a disastrous exit from the European Union and mired themselves further and further in defending the indefensible current occupant of No. 10 Downing Street.
Our country has been left lacking resilience, both when the covid-19 pandemic struck and as global factors have brought pressure to bear on the cost of living. The Government cannot always prevent international shocks to our economy, but they have a primary duty to ensure that we are as resilient as possible when they come. In that duty, this Government have failed.
The UK cannot be the best place in which to grow up or grow old while households across the country are struggling to make ends meet, while parents wake up in the morning and go to bed at night worrying about how they will feed their children and keep a roof over their head, and while pensioners worry about whether they will be able to eat and keep warm. Knocking on doors in my constituency in recent months, I have been really shocked to see increasing numbers of older people coming to the door wearing a coat on cold days. It is shameful that that is happening in Britain in the 21st century.
The Queen’s Speech includes new Bills to reform the regulation of social housing and private renting. Such legislation is long overdue. Next month is the fifth anniversary of the horrific Grenfell Tower fire, but tenants still cannot have confidence that changes have been made that will protect them. In the private rented sector, I have been calling for an end to section 21 evictions for the past six years, and it is very hard to understand what has taken the Government so long. Alongside the overdue reforms, it is clear that the Government have given up on the large-scale delivery of social housing that is urgently needed to address the housing crisis.
The UK cannot be the best place to grow up while children are condemned to live in poor-quality private rented accommodation that their parents can barely afford to rent or heat. I hope that the Government will consider accepting an amendment to the social housing regulation Bill along the lines proposed in my recent ten-minute rule Bill, the Social Housing (Emergency Protection of Tenancy Rights) Bill, which I called Georgia’s law.
Georgia’s law recognises the devastating impact that a threat of gang violence can have on family life. When a young person is threatened and their family have to move, they can lose all their stability, be placed in temporary accommodation and end up on a waiting list for a new social housing tenancy for years. That is what happened to my constituent Georgia, with catastrophic consequences for her family. Georgia’s law would place new duties on social housing providers to protect the tenancy of a tenant whose family are threatened with violence, helping to limit the harm of gang violence in our communities. It has cross-party support and would make a huge difference.
Finally, as a co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on adult social care, I want to say how utterly unacceptable it is that this Gracious Speech contains no mention of adult social care. The Government have introduced an unfair and unaffordable tax hike, which they justified in terms of the urgent need to provide additional funding for social care. Funding for the NHS is, of course, welcome, although there are far fairer ways to raise it, but the social care sector, which was ignored, neglected and even blamed by the Government during the covid-19 pandemic, and which faces a workforce crisis and a funding crisis, will not receive any funding for at least three years.
The UK cannot possibly be the best place to grow old while across the country people fear losing their homes to pay for their care, and while the workforce tasked with caring for our loved ones are burned out, with staff leaving in their droves to work in retail and distribution because the pay is better. I ask the Government: where is the ambition? Where is the empathy and insight into the real and intolerable pressures that our communities face? Where are the solutions that we so desperately need to the problems that they have created?
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be called to speak in this debate to support the measures in the Queen’s Speech, focusing on the core Conservative value of opportunity. Education is key to giving people the best chance to make the most of their talents, and to Britain being the best place to grow up. One of my priorities since being elected has been visiting schools across my constituency to hear directly from teachers, teaching assistants and pupils about the challenges involved in improving literacy and numeracy standards, which are fundamental to young people going on to succeed.
I welcome the Schools Bill, which sets the ambition for 90% of children to achieve expected standards in reading, writing and maths, up from 65% in the most recent year that standard assessment tests took place. It is all very well setting targets, but there needs to be a plan to achieve them. Much will rest on the new parent pledge, which means that any child that falls behind in English or maths should receive additional tailored support. The best schools already do this, and sharing evidence on what works means that more children can now get the support they need and their parents will be more closely involved in their child’s progress.
One of the issues most frequently raised during visits to schools is access to speech and language therapy, which others have referred to. Spoken language underpins literacy development. It is key to learning across the curriculum, including in maths. The Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists highlights evidence from the Education Endowment Foundation that teaching with emphasis on spoken language enables an average of six months’ additional academic progress over the course of the year. I welcome the reassurance that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education gave me when the SEND paper was published that the parent pledge should ensure that children who need help with language and communication are supported. One of the calls that the royal college and other language organisations make, which I support, is to ensure that the new national professional qualifications in literacy, special educational needs and early years include a focus on developing and supporting spoken language skills.
As we learn to live with covid, a specific ask from a recent visit to Churchill Park Academy in King’s Lynn, which serves young people with special needs, is for tests to be made available for such schools. They have particularly vulnerable pupils who are not currently attending school due to concerns about covid prevalence. I would be grateful if Education and Health Ministers could carefully consider that request.
The focus of this debate, on making Britain the best place to grow up and grow old, also includes access to healthcare. It will come as no surprise to Ministers that I return to an issue I raised in my maiden speech in the first Queen’s Speech debate of this Parliament, and indeed in last year’s Queen’s Speech and on many other occasions—the need for a new Queen Elizabeth Hospital in King’s Lynn. QEH is now more than a decade beyond its planned 30-year lifespan, and due to its reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete planks, it now has 1,500 timber and steel supports holding up the cracking roof—it is the most-propped hospital in the country—and that number is likely to increase as further failsafe work is completed. Due to this concrete cancer, the trust’s risk register has a red rating for direct risk to life and to the safety of patients, visitors and staff due to the potentially catastrophic risk of failure of the roof structure.
Last month, some of my constituents once again came to Westminster talk about the need for QEH to be one of the additional eight new hospital schemes the Government have committed to building. A major issue they asked me to highlight is just how bad an experience being in a ward surrounded by props holding up the roof is for patients. Staff at the hospital stressed how it makes it harder for them to do their job to provide the care the patients need. I warmly welcome the funding from the Department of Health for a new endoscopy unit, and the new west Norfolk eye centre that opened last week at QEH, but now is the time to make a decision to build a new hospital for the 300,000 people across Norfolk, Lincolnshire, and Cambridgeshire that QEH serves. This is not about having shiny new buildings for their own sake; it is about better health outcomes in some of the most deprived areas in the country that the Government have recognised as a priority for levelling up. By committing to this vitally needed hospital, the inevitable requirement for a replacement will become part of a funded programme rather than an unplanned demand on the Treasury requiring emergency funding. That is better value for taxpayers and will deliver the improvements that people in North West Norfolk and beyond deserve. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary has good news for my constituents soon, as they are rightly frustrated at the delay in this decision.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
It is an honour to speak in this very important debate.
Under this Government, living standards have plummeted to 1950s levels and life expectancy is falling. Office for National Statistics figures show that the inequality gap in the least deprived areas is growing even wider. Almost one in three children in Britain live in poverty. Britain is in decline under this Tory Government. Despite all this, the Government have the temerity to talk about levelling up. They can put this phrase at the front and centre of their rhetoric, but I saw nothing in the Queen’s Speech that will actually deliver it. Nothing the Prime Minister has announced in his legislative agenda will address living standards or the cost of living crisis, help people to pay for childcare, or meet the unmet care needs of over 1 million older people. His announcements will not bridge the gap between what people earn and spiralling inflation, tax rises and fuel price surges. To achieve a stronger economy, make this country fairer, make our streets safer, fund the NHS properly and improve schools and higher education, we will need to reverse the failed policies of successive Tory Governments of the last 12 years.
As I listened to the Chancellor’s spring statement in March, I thought of my constituent and his disabled partner, who is unable to work. He currently attends college to improve his skills, but earns well below the average wage. For them, living has meant relying on candles for heating and lighting, and they are not alone. It is a cruel snapshot of today’s Britain for many people—workers, pensioners and families with children—under the Tories.
I want Britain to be the best place to grow up in and to grow old in, but a baby growing up in Tory Britain today will have it harder than their grandparents. The Queen’s Speech does not go far enough to address the long-term problems facing children and young people throughout the UK, such as the frightening numbers of children and young people waiting for mental health support. The levelling-up White Paper does not include clear measures to tackle child poverty or children’s health inequalities. Where is the legislation to improve support for our most vulnerable children—those in care, care leavers and unpaid carers? Disabled young people cannot reach their full potential while they cannot access the health, care and other services they have a right to, such as respite care, therapies and specialist education.
The life-changing opportunity available a generation ago to go to university is being steadily eroded by the Government. The marketisation of higher education is a tragedy, and is hollowing out a sector that was once the envy of the world. Students who go to university are saddled with crippling debt. It is off-putting for so many who come from homes where household budgets are tight. Every child should have equal access to the education and training they desire, not have obstacles and the spectre of debt put in their way. They should not be persuaded that university is not for the likes of them.
Talking of children’s futures, the Queen’s Speech totally failed to deliver the urgent action required in response to the climate and nature emergencies. We desperately needed the Government to tackle the root cause of our energy and climate security problems and bring in legislation to speed up the transition from fossil fuels to renewables. Generations are being let down by a Government too short-sighted to plan for a more hopeful future, but who instead focus their attentions on themselves and how to keep the Prime Minister in office for another day. The Government have no new ideas and no real plan to fix their broken Britain or to build a better future for all, cradle to grave.
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
The title for today’s debate is “Making Britain the best place to grow up and grow old”. With that in mind, I would like to be the first Member of this House to congratulate Jake Daniels on coming out today—the first active footballer in UK professional football to do so. It makes the UK an even better place to live and grow older. Many people like me, who grew up in a world where we looked for role models, will know that Jake can be very proud of the role that he will play as a role model for future generations.
In that vein, I welcome the Government’s commitment in the Queen’s Speech to ban conversion therapy, and I would gently push those on the Treasury Bench to remember that we included trans people in our original promise. We should include all LGBT people in that conversion therapy ban.
Let me move on to education. I am pleased that 82% of young people in my constituency are now in schools that are good or outstanding. When I visit so many of my local schools—especially Balaam Wood; King Edward VI Northfield School for Girls, which used to be called Turves Green Girls’ School; Turves Green Boys’ School; Colmers Farm Primary School; and Hawkesley Church Primary Academy—I am always amazed by the dedication and commitment of so many of the teachers and by the young people, who have so much commitment to learning. I am also really pleased that the Edge Academy has been shortlisted for an award for its support for young people in that school right at the heart of Northfield.
Education concerns us all because it benefits young people and gives them the skills they need for the future. I am glad that there are measures in the Queen’s Speech to improve higher education. Julia Stevens from Cadbury College is pleased with the new investment in the north block and new labs. She is committed to lifelong learning, as is Principal Mike Hopkins from South and City College, which is doing good work. I was pleased to open the electric car centre there only a couple of months ago. That college is committed to ensuring that young people have the skills of the future.
When it comes to people in the Northfield constituency growing older, we have two ExtraCare retirement villages—one in Bournville and one in Longbridge—which are an amazing example of what we can do when we are creative with housing and the many activities and things people can do in those retirement villages. They live together in communities that I like to refer to as being like static cruise ships. They are amazing places to visit—as soon as I hit the age of 55, I would love to put my name on the waiting list for an ExtraCare retirement village. As Members of Parliament, we should lead from the front, which is why the other week I was keen to join so many local people in the conga line when the oompah band played at the Bournville retirement village. Such villages really are places of the future into which we can encourage many people to move as they grow older.
On social housing, I was born on a council estate in Birmingham that was one of the largest council estates in Europe when it was built. My brilliant team that assists me in the constituency has now done more than 20,000 items of casework, many of which refer to housing and housing repairs. I am glad that the social housing regulation Bill will make sure that we increase the standard of the social housing that people live in and expand tenants’ rights even further to people in the private rented sector.
We need to build more houses in the right places, in consultation with local people. When we have big projects in Birmingham, such as what was supposed to be the athletes village—unfortunately, it will not house any athletes during or after the Commonwealth games—it is unfortunate that we have a local authority that demands certain levels of social housing from private companies but falls really short of the expectation they encourage from people. At the last count, social housing made up only 4% of the thousands of houses being built under that scheme. We need to do more to make sure that the 22,000 people who are currently on the waiting list have the opportunity to get into social housing and on to the housing ladder.
I have only 10 seconds left. I would like to think that, in my near five hours of bobbing to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, I played some part in my ambition for the Government’s obesity strategy.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Gary Sambrook), and it was interesting, too, because that Bournville retirement village would not have been possible had it not been for the endowment of the Bournville Village Trust, which was set up by my forebears before the welfare state and enabled the cost of the land and so on not to have to be covered. Most areas in this country do not have such an asset, which is why the Government need to support such provision.
If the Government really want to make Britain the best place to grow up in and provide the opportunities referred to by the Secretary of State for Education, they have to do far more than the thin gruel dished up in the Queen’s Speech last week. I am not sure that many of my constituents who are at school, college or university see much to celebrate in the Queen’s Speech. Schools in Labour-led Hounslow are all good or outstanding, but that is a challenge after a lost decade of underfunding. In our borough’s schools alone, £17 million has been lost—or £500 per pupil. Parents and teachers are trying to fill the gap from their own pockets, but fewer can afford the money as the cost of living bites ever deeper. Now we read that there is a risk to life because of disrepair in too many school buildings, which cannot be fixed with income from school fetes. School buildings need a properly funded commitment from Government, like the Labour Government’s Building Schools for the Future programme.
On covid catch-up funding, the Government have ignored the recommendations of Sir Kevan Collins, whom they appointed. He said that £15 billion was needed, but the Government agreed to spent only a fraction of that. Labour’s children’s recovery plan would fund significant and targeted extra investment for our young people who missed out most during the lockdowns.
Teachers’ morale has to be addressed. Teaching is already challenging and over the past decade teachers have had to take on more responsibilities as staffing levels are cut to respond to the annual budget round and yet more central Government edicts. During the pandemic, teachers and school heads, who were at the frontline, told me that they felt let down and ignored by this Government, with announcements made on the spur of the moment and the Government lurching from one fiasco to another. At the same time, welfare, mental health and special needs support is still being cut, despite warm words from the Government. Teachers and school staff were on the frontline during the pandemic but have been left behind by this Government, so it is no surprise that seven out of 10 teachers have considered leaving the profession in the last year. The Government need to wake up to the huge amount of anger and distrust that they have created among school staff. Investing in school staff and school buildings means investing in children’s learning and development, and in their future. Labour has a funded plan to invest in school staff, to enable all teachers and leadership teams to continue to access continuing professional development.
Students have been all but ignored by this Government. Practically the only time we hear Ministers talking about universities or students is when they want to create a distraction or a row. Perhaps if the Government talked to students and higher education staff, and actually listened, they would know that students are already struggling with the cost of living, with rising rents, energy bills and food costs. Many students in my constituency tell me that they have to work full time to fund themselves through university, supposedly on full-time courses. I have heard from 16 and 17-year-olds who are terrified that they will not be able to go to university because of the costs. So much for social mobility.
In conclusion, this Queen’s Speech is the proof that, after 12 years in power, the Government have no ambition or determination to fix the problems in the education system that they have created. On school funding, we hear “Computer says no” from the Chancellor. There is no plan to support school staff and leadership teams with adequate pay or proper mental health support, and certainly little sign of a coherent and evidenced schools policy. There is no plan to support students, just a carefully hidden rise in student loan interest payments in the last Budget and, as I said earlier, nothing for Muslim students who are unable to take out student loans.
Labour would take a different path—a better path. Families in my constituency would have a Government who were on their side, with a plan to tackle the cost of living crisis with a windfall tax on oil and gas producers; a Government with an ambitious catch-up plan for education, as described by my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson). That is how we will make Britain the best place to grow up.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), my co-chair on the all-party parliamentary group for cycling and walking, where we so often agree—tonight we probably will not.
We are looking to make Britain the best place to grow up and grow old. I am delighted to represent the beautiful constituency of North Devon, which is certainly one of the most popular places to grow up and grow old, having had a surge of people move there during the pandemic, for their primary residence and for second homes. We are also an incredibly popular holiday destination, which has led to a surge in Airbnb short-term holiday lets. Although that is great for our tourism economy, it does mean that we have something of a housing crisis. Although I warmly welcome the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, I very much hope that, as it makes its passage through the House, we will see more done to tackle second homes and short-term holiday lets, to rebalance our housing economy in North Devon. While I have the opportunity to put this on record, I also hope that the long-awaited consultation on short-term holiday lets promised last June as part of the tourism recovery strategy will be forthcoming as the first step on the journey to sorting out our housing market.
I am a former maths teacher and I have spent time in this place before talking about averages and variations. When it comes to education and the Schools Bill, I very much hope that we will look deeper than the average that says that Devon is okay, because when we look at the variants in a county the size of Devon, we can see that there are some issues in my constituency. If we were to look at the social mobility index, we would see that South Hams is 49th out of 324, Exeter is 81st, my North Devon constituency is 238th and my neighbouring area of Torridge—northern Devon, as we call it up there—is 283rd. We need to look deeper than at just the large local authority if we are to enable those children to have their education levelled up, because to date we have missed out on cold-spot funding.
I am delighted to welcome Multiply, but I do not know quite how it will be delivered in my constituency, where we have only one further education college and are 65 miles from the nearest university. My FE college, Petroc College, is utterly brilliant but please don’t tell me that Multiply will come in as an online course, because what we do not have in North Devon is broadband. The Queen’s Speech talks about the elimination of the barrier of digital exclusion, but when I talk about digital exclusion, it is not so much about the gadgets that the children have; it is that we cannot even connect to the outside world.
The inequalities that I talk about as regards levelling up are about rural and coastal communities. My theme throughout my few minutes’ speech tonight is how we can ensure that, as we level up the country, we reach into those pockets of deprivation in rural and coastal Britain. Health inequalities on the coast are perhaps better documented than educational ones, but I would like to sing the praises of my tiny North Devon District Hospital, the smallest on the mainland. It has done a fantastic job for the people of North Devon through the pandemic. We have also recently seen it merge with the Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, which means that we are managing the flow of patients and medical professionals between that tiny hospital and the bigger one further south.
In Devon, we have retained our Nightingale hospital, and I am terribly proud that we will be the first to deliver our covid catch-up fund wards. On 23 May, the £1.9 million given to my hospital in December will mean that we can start to deliver operations and orthopaedic procedures such as knee and hip replacements. That is a remarkable achievement and the team is also ready to build our new hospital. We are one of the 40, and the plans are modular. While I have the attention of the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), tonight, I want to ask whether there is any chance of bringing that forward. We are in the final phase, and we could build it now. Without those new theatres and the new housing element of the hospital, we are struggling to bring people to North Devon because of the housing crisis I described earlier.
I would not say that everything health-wise was rosy. It will come as no surprise to the Minister to hear that we are a little short of dentists. If any of them are listening tonight, let me tell them that the surf is fantastic, the countryside is beautiful and they will get the warmest of welcomes. I hear that the Indians have a lot of dentists looking for work, and we would welcome them with open arms. Also, this is a Department that has managed to deliver things in buses, so please may we have a mobile dental unit to visit our children in the coming weeks and months? As we look at how we can level up rural and coastal Britain, I hope that we can morality-check our policies, because many of them that work so well in Westminster have lost that certain je ne sais quoi by the time they reach us in rural and coastal North Devon.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is right that when the Government bring forward their programme, the Opposition criticise it, but it is slightly surprising that the Government make it so easy for us. When the world is quite obviously struggling, and the country is struggling with rising prices and a climate emergency, there are obvious measures that any Government could be taking, whether that means introducing a windfall tax or insulating our homes. The question I find myself asking is: why on earth are the Government not doing any of those things?
We have a ragbag of Bills before us, and I will comment on a few of them. One that has been mentioned is the data reform Bill. I was on the Committee for the Bill that introduced GDPR—the general data protection regulation—a couple of years ago, and at that time we on this side of the House made it clear that the Government needed to be much more ambitious and forward-looking. I would caution, though, that if we go in a different way from many of our neighbours, we should think hard about what that will mean for our businesses and research institutions. It is a coded message, but we should beware of what that might bring if we do not do it in the right way.
On education, the one thing that seems to link most of the Bills is the fact they rather miss the point. What I hear from my schools is that there is a real problem with the very young children coming in following the pandemic. They need the extra help and catch-up that other colleagues mentioned.
I cannot help but notice the references to families of schools. We used to have a family of schools within each local authority, but now, of course, we have predatory multi-academy trusts circling our schools and looking to take them over, which is no way to get the kind of co-operation we need.
Similarly, the higher education Bill’s lifelong loan entitlement is largely welcome, but there is very little detail at the moment. Many worry about how that will be introduced and what they will be asked to do. The issues for universities are much more pressing than some of the Government’s proposals, particularly the future of our collaborative funding with other parts of the world and the Horizon Europe programme. We need certainty on that, as a huge amount hangs on it. As I am sure the Secretary of State knows, it is linked to other things, but those are the issues that really worry universities.
For young people in my city of Cambridge, it is about housing. The Secretary of State effectively gave up on the housing targets last week, which does not exactly engender confidence in where the Government are going. My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) spoke passionately about the issues facing renters, and there is a huge set of issues in my city. Yes, the long-promised removal of section 21 is welcome, but we need much more.
What a state this country is in for people who are getting old. My hon. Friends the Members for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) and for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) spoke about dentistry, and I never imagined we would reach a state where people in acute pain can no longer get help—that is happening all over the country, and in my city, too.
On ambulance waits, again, we have reached a situation where people are paying for the national health service but can no longer rely on it. Over the weekend, I spoke to a paramedic who works for the East of England Ambulance Service. These people are working flat out, but she is haunted that she went to serve and help an elderly person who had been waiting 18 hours, and who died as a consequence—that is happening in this country now. Lives are being lost. Where is the urgency? The Secretary of State led on the virus, and we should have the same urgency in tackling the waiting-time crisis that is affecting everyone.
There are things that were not in the Queen’s Speech but, for an area like mine, should have been. We need to get the infrastructure right. For cities such as Cambridge to prosper and drive the UK economy, we have to get housing and transport right, which means we must stop prevaricating about East West Rail and finish it off directly to Cambridge.
Finally, we must stop laying into universities, which are one of our great success stories. The research excellence framework results over the past few days prove that point. This is something we are really good at. We do not need to pick fights with one another, having pointless arguments and stoking up culture wars; we should concentrate on what we are good at and start celebrating universities. Conservative Members should look at the weekend’s press reports, which are right that graduates are voting a certain way. Frankly, we are the future.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
The title of this debate is, “Making Britain the Best Place to Grow Up and Grow Old,” but it needs to be seen against the backdrop of our recent covid pandemic and the recovery. Throughout the pandemic, parallels were rightly drawn with surviving a war. Indeed, it was often called the battle against covid, whether in the coming together of our nation at the beginning of the pandemic, in the demonstration of national unity as we appreciated the key workers who delivered all the services we needed, in the unprecedented roll-out by volunteers of health programmes to protect the vulnerable or in the eye-watering expenditure. Every year, in November, we have a day to remember those who gave their life in war, and we rightly know that is a debt we can never repay, but I am conscious that there are millions of people in our society today to whom we owe a debt, as a result of the lockdowns and the privations of covid, that must be repaid—they are our children and young people.
We knew all along that those millions of children and young people were at the very least risk from the virus, yet we still as a House consciously chose to lock them away for the safety of others, and they have suffered. I have heard from young adults who never got the chance to do the things that are seen as a rite of passage for young people and define points in their lives. Many have never experienced the pressure of having to take exams, and they are not sure if they have the resilience to be able to cope with it. Others worry that their teacher-assessed grades may be seen as devalued qualifications. They did not get to go to their prom, did not get to go to their end-of-year assembly and did not get to say goodbye to their friends. All these things, both small and large, help prepare them for the challenges of adulthood. Despite the fact that, as a whole, they were at incredibly low risk from the virus, I do fear for their mental health and I fear for their resilience—and we owe them.
I have heard from secondary schools in my constituency that children moving up to them are far behind where the professionals would expect them to be both academically and socially. Giving children laptops to work from home during lockdowns was all well and good, but the work was not always appropriate and there was not always the correct parental support; some parents just did not have the skills or the time to support their children as we would have liked them to. Once again, those children were at little risk, and they have had precious years of their education taken away from them to protect others—and we owe them.
There are infants starting out on their educational journey far behind normal development targets. Local nurseries tell me that children cannot toilet themselves, and that they lack social skills and confidence. They have the longest time to catch up, but catch up they must or they will bear the scars of the covid pandemic longer than any of us. Primary schools are also noting deficits in social skills in all years, but significantly in year 2. Those children, due to covid, lost the foundation years that are so crucial for their development, and for those who did not receive sufficient parental support, the damage is even harder.
The Government must legislate to ensure every opportunity is made available for our children and young people to catch up. Over time, the price they will be paying will be higher than any of us will pay. There was a minimal risk to them, but they have lost huge opportunities. In a civilised society, I expect adults to make sacrifices for our children and young people; I do not expect our children and young people to make sacrifices for us. We owe a debt to them, and it must be repaid. All Government legislation must take into account the damage we have done, through pandemic recovery, to our children and young people, because our children and young people are the future of our country, and they need to be protected.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
For too long, social care has been neglected. The pressures and strains on the NHS and social care are ever growing, with half a million people waiting for care assessments. People are living longer and with more complex needs, yet the funding for social care has not kept pace. The Queen’s Speech offers nothing to fix social care.
Most ageing people who require care do not want to move into a care home or be taken into hospital, which very often happens because they have not had care at home. Most of the time they do not need to go into hospital, as most of the care can be given at home, including some health services. Elderly people would much rather be in their homes, close to their families and friends. For this to happen there needs to be adequate social care and health funding.
People should be able to age with dignity in the place they want to be—this is about the quality of life that people deserve as they grow older—and that can happen if the Government invest resources to meet the needs in the social care sector. This would prevent most people being hospitalised and save many beds in the national health service. There are currently 6 million people waiting for NHS treatment. One of the best ways to free up more resources in hospitals and GP surgeries is by having adequate social care for the elderly, which would mean doctors not necessarily having to go out and save hospital beds.
St Helens’ adult social care and clinical commissioning group have integrated and developed systems that include police, housing and probation services. They all help to provide care and keep people where they want to be, and prevent them needing healthcare. That frees up beds in hospitals for other services—it can be done. Where health treatments can be given at home, elderly people should be able to stay in their own homes.
The national insurance levy will not resolve this issue. If social care was respected and funded correctly, I say again that it would free up hospital beds and NHS capacity. Funding the NHS without adequately funding social care will not fix the problem. We cannot have a fully functioning health service without a fully functioning social care system. Local authorities have had their budgets cut consistently for over a decade. Even with the additional social care levy, they do not scratch the surface of the needs of the problem of social care. According to the Local Government Association, over 57% of council tax funding already goes on social care, which is already the top priority for local authorities, yet there is only so much they can do without the Government giving the support that is needed.
Social care is a statutory duty for councils. It is a moral duty for society. Most importantly, it is the responsibility of Government to look after the public. A social care system that is adequately funded frees up GPs and other NHS resources. Social care has been the elephant in the room for decades. It needs sorting out and sorting out properly, and not from a heavy hand down—it needs developing upwards. The country cannot afford for the Government to continue kicking the can down the road. I urge the Government to face up to their responsibilities, to fund and respect social care, and to respect our elderly and disabled people.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
In thinking about how to make the UK the best place to grow up and grow old, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for disability I have been thinking in particular about inclusive growth and levelling up for people with disabilities. I saw a fantastic example of that at the weekend in my constituency, where sportscotland had partnered with South Lanarkshire Leisure and Culture to train local organisations who work in sports to make sure they are engaging with people with disabilities, encouraging them to engage and reach their full potential through the group activities and sports activities that are available. Only when growth and the work we do is inclusive to all can we make sure that we leave no one behind and ensure that we are doing our job here.
I want to ask MPs: can we do more? What are we doing in Parliament? When the all-party parliamentary group looked at including people with disabilities on work experience in our offices, we started off at 11% of MPs who were registered as accredited Disability Confident employers. Through a workshop, the all-party parliamentary group has increased that to 24% and I thank everybody who has been involved in that achievement. It has been so fantastic to hear the accounts of people who have engaged in work experience and employment opportunities in MPs’ offices, and how they have fundamentally changed their lives and the opportunities available to them. We want to do more and reach at least up to 50% this year. There will be further workshops, so please look out for them. This is not just about the Queen’s Speech and what the Government can do; it is what we can do individually as MPs to contribute more to make the UK a much more inclusive place and ensure that we are always giving opportunities to everybody that we can.
I also want to focus on wellbeing and equality, and a wellbeing economy. Countries are starting to look at happiness and at what makes us happy. Wellbeing, happiness and quality of life are becoming high priorities for many Governments, and I believe they should be a high priority for this Government. There is a Happiness Research Institute in Copenhagen which is conducting research on that. I have been looking at the research and thinking why are we not happier? We are lagging behind the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark and a number of countries where people are much happier in themselves and have greater levels of wellbeing. We should think about what makes people happy and what creates wellbeing; it would be lovely to see a happy Minister, or perhaps a Minister for happiness and wellbeing. Perhaps we could invite the researchers from the Happiness Research Institute to speak to us about wellbeing and how we can promote it across the United Kingdom. We know from its research that economic or financial hardship predicts unhappiness so part of this is about equality, but it is also about physical inactivity, because that lowers quality of life and life expectancy. Access to green spaces and to play parks and being able to engage in the outdoors is important; we all felt the impact of that during covid, but the research suggests we should pay even more attention to these issues.
Mental health and depression are the antithesis of happiness. They cause a real threat to wellbeing, impacting on the wellbeing not only of the individual but of their whole family and their family life, so we need much more focus on mental health services. Low wellbeing in later life creates costs in health and social care, so we need a holistic approach.
It was interesting to note that homes are a big factor in overall happiness—our security in our homes, being able to live in a safe home, free from threat, risk and antisocial behaviour. So local authorities have a huge role to play in this, too.
Dr Cameron
I am sorry, but I only have a minute left.
It is extremely important to make social supports and communities more available to people. So I want the Government to also have a look at wellbeing and happiness because, with a holistic approach, good lives make for happiness and wellbeing and that is also good economics.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
This has been an excellent and wide-ranging debate. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron), and I say to my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) that it was well worth the wait to hear her speech on the importance of rebalancing health and social care to help us tackle the pressures on the NHS.
We have heard some fantastic speeches, disproportion-ately from the Opposition side of the House, I might say. My hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) highlighted the increasingly poor outcomes for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities, and in particular the terrible injustice of the growing inequality between those who can pay for a diagnosis and those who cannot. My hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) and for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) made wide-ranging, powerful speeches on this Government’s failure on education catch-up, school buildings, Sure Start and so many of the pillars of educational success built by the last Labour Government and now sadly eroded under the last 12 years of Conservative Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) highlighted the link between mental health and educational outcome and the importance of prioritising mental health for children and young people.
My hon. Friends the Members for Bradford South (Judith Cummins), for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) and for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) all got their teeth into the crisis in dentistry; not for the first time, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South has sounded the alarm, but maybe the Secretary of State will listen to those alarms this time—if not to my bad puns.
My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) gave a tub-thumping speech rightly asking where the employment Bill is and the promised employment rights that have failed to materialise. He also made a powerful argument for a full ban on conversion therapy. If this is to be the best place in the world for children to grow up, it is absolutely right that we ban that abhorrent practice; it is not therapy in the slightest. I pay particular tribute to the hon. Members for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison) and for Birmingham, Northfield (Gary Sambrook), who highlighted the importance of this being an LGBT conversion therapy ban, and applaud them for making that case from the Government Benches. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield rightly said in what was a very entertaining speech, today this country has already become that little bit better as a place to grow up, thanks to the courage of Jake Daniels in becoming the first male footballer to come out since 1990. It really should not take courage in this day and age for a footballer to say that they are gay; in fact, it really should not be relevant at all, but sadly we know that it is. He has made himself a powerful role model and, I hope, an example that others will follow.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge highlighted the crisis in the NHS and the life-and-death consequences of ambulance waits. He asked “Where is the urgency?”—a very fair question that I hope the Secretary of State will answer. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) spoke powerfully about the experience of young people in the criminal justice system.
Then there were speeches about levelling up. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) highlighted the gap between rhetoric and reality. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) well summarised the Government’s approach to levelling up in their planning reform: the Victor Meldrew approach, as she called it, levelling down next door’s conservatory—hardly the level of ambition that this country needs. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) highlighted how levelling up is a slogan without substance. There was a pretty interesting—depending on your perspective—effort from the hon. Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans), who offered a new slogan for the Government’s planning policies: “INBED with Gove”, a mental image that none of us wanted but that we have been left with none the less at this late hour.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) gave a searing account of poverty in his community. He is right: this is a matter of political choices. We heard about the consequences of those choices in the speeches of other hon. Friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) highlighted the disaster of children growing up in overcrowded temporary accommodation, with huge consequences for their learning and their life chances. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) spoke about having to run summer holiday lunch clubs and Christmas hamper schemes because of the grotesque level of poverty in her constituency.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) described the embarrassment and humiliation of parents who are unable to provide for their children. Children share their parents’ anxiety about how to make ends meet, so they do not even tell them when they are required to bring in some extra kit for school, such as for cooking classes, or when there is an extra ask for school trips. That is a thoroughly damning indictment of this Government.
If I may say so, as the son of a single mum, I was really moved by how my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) described her experience. If only it were as simple as Ministers claimed on the morning round today—if only people could just put in a few extra hours or take on a better-paid job—but it is just not as simple as going out and finding more hours. Many of our constituents are already working three jobs. How many more jobs and how many more hours do the Government want them to take on?
I hope that hon. Members will forgive me, but the very best speech today was the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mrs Hamilton). We dearly, dearly miss her predecessor, our dear friend Jack Dromey, but I know that he would have been proud to see her make that speech today, as we all were.
This is a great country with a world of opportunity. I am glad that I was born in Britain, but this is also a country that is being held back by intolerable levels of inequality and by a Government who are simply unable to face up to the scale of the challenge. Half a million more children are set to be plunged into poverty, following the Chancellor’s spring statement. Two million adults are going full days without meals. Many more are relying on food banks to feed themselves and their family, as I found when I went around the country in the local election campaign. In Colchester, the food bank told me that NHS nurses were coming in and accessing it. Pensioner poverty is again on the rise, with out-of-control bills, a real-terms cut to the state pension and national insurance rises meaning that working pensioners will be more than £1,200 worse off over the next two years.
This cost of living crisis is not just a Treasury issue, but a health issue. If millions of people in this country face a choice whether to heat their homes or to eat regular meals, they will get sick or will fail to recover from sickness. Before we entered the pandemic, average life expectancy—surely the most basic measure of the progress of a country or a society—had stalled for the first time in decades. It is a mark of shame that, in 2022, in the sixth richest nation on earth, 5,000 people were admitted to hospital for malnutrition in the last six months. Cases of scurvy have doubled since 2010—scurvy! Twelve years of Conservative Government is ushering in the return of Dickensian diseases to Britain. What kind of country have we become when millions of people who work full time still cannot afford the basics?
The British people deserve a Government on their side. Instead, we have the only Government in the G7 who think that now is a good time to raise taxes on working people. We have a Government who are happy to add to working people’s tax burden but, as we know from members of the Cabinet, spend plenty of time avoiding paying their own. The Government promised 38 new pieces of legislation, but not a single one will put more money into people’s pockets. All the Government have to offer families struggling today are sneering lectures telling them to work harder, find a second or third job or book themselves in for a cookery class.
We have seen this Government’s approach when challenged on the cost of living. Blame the people. Blame the Bank of England. Blame anyone but themselves. Even when challenged about his own spring statement that plunges half a million more people into poverty, what was the Chancellor’s excuse? The computer said no. That did not stop him taking 20 quid a week off the poorest people in our country, did it? It worked then. Surely it works now.
Britain deserves better. We need a Government who understand what life is like for most people in this country. If we had such a Government, we would not have the Education Secretary talking about tipping the balance in favour of private schools. Who is he trying to kid? He is defending the 7% of people who go to private schools, who are going to have a brilliant world of opportunities available to them, but failing to stand up for the 93% who do not. Let me tell him about tipping the balance, as someone who received free school meals, went through the state education system and made it to Cambridge University. I was one of just 1% of kids on free school meals to make it to Cambridge University, and I am proud that I got there, but do not tell kids from state schools who are making it now, and who are finally being judged on their merits, that the system has been tilted in their favour. Those kids know full well from their life experience, from their childhood and from growing up under a Conservative Government that the party and his colleagues have done everything they can to tilt the balance in favour of people like him, from backgrounds like their own, at the expense of people from backgrounds like mine. That is the truth.
What the Education Secretary does not understand is that it is not talent or potential that is unevenly distributed in this country; it is opportunity. Participation in extracurricular activities is falling in state schools. Fewer children are doing sports, drama and music, and the least well-off children are three times more likely to do no extracurricular activities at all. The Conservative Government may accept this poverty of ambition for our children, but the Labour party will not. Just as we rebuilt the education system under the last Labour Government, so we will have the same level of ambition for the next one. I am very sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East, but we will be putting her lunch clubs out of business, because the next Labour Government will work to end child poverty, not to increase it.
I turn to health. There was just one mention of health in the Queen’s Speech: the long-awaited overhaul of the Mental Health Act. The proposed changes are welcome, but this legislation alone will not solve the challenges facing people who live with severe mental illness, reverse this Government’s persistent neglect of mental health services or narrow the gaping mental health inequalities that mean that black people are over four times more likely to be detained under the existing Act.
Our mental health services simply do not meet the scale of the challenge. A quarter of beds for patients struggling with poor mental health have been cut over the last 12 years. One in every three children who seeks support from mental health services is turned away at the door, and 1.6 million people in total are waiting for treatment. They are waiting too long, and those who are offered treatment are often sent to the other end of the country because there are no local beds and services available.
People struggling with poor mental health will not get the support they need if we do not have enough frontline staff. That is why Labour’s plan would guarantee mental health treatment within a month to all who need it. That would be done by investing in an additional 8,500 staff and offering specialist mental health support in every school. Because politics is about choices, let me be clear about the choices we would make. We would pay for that mental health support for every child in the country by removing the VAT exemption from private schools and closing tax loopholes for private equity fund managers. I know that the Education Secretary is pitching himself as a defender of private school privilege ahead of the next Conservative leadership election and the Health Secretary may well have benefited from these tax loopholes himself. Let me tell Members on the Conservative Benches—there will be a Conservative leadership election a lot sooner than there will be a Labour leadership election.
I hope we can agree that mental health is one of the most urgent needs of our time, particularly after the pandemic, which was difficult for so many. I am glad that the Health Secretary is here to respond, because I would like him to account for his Government’s record. Patients are being made to wait longer than ever before as we sleepwalk towards a two-tier system that betrays the founding principles of our NHS. The self-pay healthcare market in the UK has doubled since 2010. People have been forced to go private because they will not get the treatment that they need. Billions more have been spent on private insurance and operations. Private healthcare providers are rubbing their hands together because they know that people are increasingly choosing to jump the queue while the rest are left to wait for up to two years for care.
The Health Secretary will tell us, of course—let me save him some time—that our NHS is suffering from a covid backlog and that the problems facing the health service are all the result of the pandemic. There is a backlog in the NHS, but it is a Conservative backlog. The NHS was experiencing record waiting lists going into the pandemic. It was 100,000 staff short, with another 112,000 vacancies in social care. Suspected cancer patients have been waiting longer to be seen every single year since Labour left office. Not only was there just one piece of legislation across health and social care, but, as I mentioned, the Government have dropped their long-promised employment Bill. What does the Secretary of State say to the millions of family carers in this country who were promised a week’s carer’s leave—just one week a year to have a break—but who have been let down and left waiting again and again by this Government?
The fact is that the longer we give the Conservatives in office, the longer patients will wait: longer for a GP appointment, longer for an ambulance to arrive—now two hours for thousands of heart attack and stroke victims—longer for an operation, with some patients waiting since before the pandemic began, and longer for pensioners and the disabled to wait for suitable social care. We are paying more. We are waiting longer. That is the Conservative record, and the longer we give the Conservatives in office, the longer Britain waits. Well, their time is up.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before I call the Secretary of State, I emphasise how important it is that Members get back in good time for the wind-ups. It is extremely discourteous to the Front Benchers and others who have participated in the debate if people are late and, in some cases, not here at all. It has been noted.
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Sajid Javid)
It is an honour to close this debate on the Loyal Address. In this platinum jubilee year, let me extend my thanks to Her Majesty the Queen for her years of dedicated service.
I also thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part, but, I have to say, I am disappointed in the shadow Health Secretary, the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting). He has taken this once again as an opportunity to talk down Britain, as he so often does, and has chosen to use this debate as a naked leadership pitch for his own party. He talked about leadership bids in his speech because he has no ideas at all about how to improve the society for British people. He knows that both of us had to fight to get our foot in the door. He knows that our chances to succeed come from this country’s world-class public services, yet he stands there and has the audacity to attack my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education, who came to this country as an 11-year-old immigrant and rose to the position that he has today—by the way, he could rise to that position only in the Conservative party.
I speak with feeling about this country. For my family, coming to Britain was a choice, too. They came here for freedom, security, opportunity and prosperity. They came here because they believed that Britain was the best place in the world in which to grow up and grow old. They were right then and they are right today. Public services have been a lifeline for me and my family—the teachers who made my career possible, the police officers who kept me and my family safe, and the NHS that cared for my father in his dying days. This Queen’s Speech backs our public services. It invests in them and it reforms them to secure the future of Britain. Unlike the shadow Secretary of State, I have always been an optimist about Britain’s future.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Twenty-hour ambulance waiting time—is that world beating?
Sajid Javid
Of course it is not. I will come on to that in a moment. The hon. Lady knows full well why the NHS is facing its most challenging time in history.
Being the best place in which to grow up and grow old relies on keeping people safe, including from disease. We rose to the challenges of the pandemic. Brexit gave us the mindset to license and deploy a vaccine against covid-19 quicker than any other country. The phenomenal NHS got jabs into every part of the UK, and it is the wisdom of the British people that has meant that we have one of the highest vaccination rates anywhere in the world. We created a juggernaut of a testing and surveillance system. We bought more antivirals per head than any other country in Europe, and we got it right on omicron, with the most successful booster programme in Europe. As a result of all that, we were the first country in Europe to remove all restrictions. Had we listened to the Labour party, we would have been shackled to the EU on vaccines, and our schools would have been shuttered for even longer, contrary to what the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) said. Instead, because this Government got the big calls right, we are leading the world when it comes to living with covid.
From clinics to classrooms, the pandemic showed the wealth of our skills. The skills mission is a job for the whole of Government. In his opening speech, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education outlined our ambitions for the new Schools Bill to deliver a stronger schools system that works for every child, as talked about today by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) when he spoke about academy trusts, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) when she talked about the importance of early years.
We are also delivering a Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill, which will reverse the chilling effect of no platforming in our world-class institutions, while our higher education reform Bill promises to bring about a fairer and more sustainable future. I listened carefully when my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) talked passionately about putting our children and our young people first.
A skills-rich economy is about more than just the elite institutions. I am the product of Filton Technical College. It ignited my desire to go to university and helped me get to where I am today. This is a Government who treat further education colleges with the seriousness that they deserve. When I was Chancellor I was proud to put an additional £400 million into further education in this country. This is a great country in which to grow up and grow old, and a great country in which to stay skilled, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Sir David Evennett) said earlier in the debate.
On healthcare, this Government passionately believe in the NHS and its founding principles, in a world-class healthcare system that is free at the point of access for everyone. Funding from the levy, which the Labour party voted against, on top of the historic long-term NHS settlement that was announced in 2018, means that the NHS resource budget in England will increase to £162.6 billion by 2024-25. That is the highest budget that the NHS has ever had, and it includes an additional £8 billion over the next three years to tackle those covid backlogs. In a fast-changing world, with an ageing population, we need to embrace new ways of thinking. A number of my hon. Friends referred to the investment that we are making, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans). I also listened carefully, when my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) was talking about NHS investment. He made a powerful case for it.
We have set out our plans to tackle the covid-19 backlogs, we have legislated for a new Health and Care Act, and we have published an integration White Paper. We have an upcoming digital and data strategy, and we are setting out a new 10-year cancer plan. I cannot see him in the Chamber now, but the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) talked about the importance of cancer care. We are also setting out a new 10-year plan to improve mental health.
A number of Members rightly spoke of the importance of mental health, including my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler), who speaks with passion on this subject, especially when it comes to the mental health of children. We will soon publish a health disparities White Paper, which I hope will be welcomed by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), who rightly spoke of the importance of levelling up, and we will also soon publish the outcome of the Messenger review of health and social care leadership. We are bringing the Mental Health Act 1983 into the 21st century—the Queen’s Speech referred to draft legislation for that purpose—ensuring that those experiencing a mental health crisis are treated as people, not patients.
As I have said, a number of Members spoke passionately about mental health—notably the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mrs Hamilton), whom I welcome to her place in the Chamber. I agreed with one thing that the hon. Member for Ilford North said earlier: all Members, on both sides of the House, miss her predecessor, Jack Dromey, very much, but I know that had he listened to the hon. Lady’s speech he would have been very proud of what she said. She spoke with passion and pride about her community, and I know that she served for many years—for over two decades—In the NHS. When she speaks about mental health, she speaks with experience, and I know that she will have much of value to say in the House in the years ahead.
Many other colleagues made important contributions about the NHS. My hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) talked about the investment in community diagnostic centres. The hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) talked about the importance of dentistry and the need to maintain investment.
At the heart of our strategy for the NHS are prevention, personalisation, performance and people. Prevention means focusing much more on the biggest killers: tobacco, obesity and alcohol. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) spoke of the importance of continuing to tackle obesity. Personalisation means making use, where we can, of community services, something that I know my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) would welcome; and when it comes to people, there are more doctors and nurses working in the NHS today than ever before. We are on track to deliver 50,000 more nurses by the end of this Parliament, and we have a record number of medical students in England. The fact is that the Opposition have no plans for the NHS. They voted against our plan to secure resources for the NHS, and they have no idea how to meet the challenges of the future.
We are also transforming the provision of adult social care. We are investing an additional £5.4 billion over the next three years; we are introducing a more generous means-testing system by more than quadrupling the upper savings threshold to £100,000; we are protecting more people from the lottery of catastrophic care costs; and we are putting half a billion pounds behind our social care workforce. I hope the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) will welcome that. She talked about adult social care, and I hope that she and others will recognise that this is record investment. These changes matter, because whether we are growing old or a working-age adult, social care is there for all of us. My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Robert Largan) talked about that as well.
Sajid Javid
The Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), met some of the victims of that today. There are plans that we are closely looking at and when we are ready we will come to this House with them.
My hon. Friends the Members for Redcar (Jacob Young) and for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) praised the energy security Bill, and they were right to do so—it is a very important piece of legislation that this country has long needed. My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison) rightly welcomed the investment in increased police numbers. I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) said about the importance of happiness. I agree, but I assure her that the Government Benches are full of happy Ministers, so I do not think we need any more.
Her Majesty’s most noble speech sets out a positive vision of freedom, security, opportunity and prosperity. It matches the ideals that brought my family to this country: that this is, and will continue to be, the best country in the world to grow up and grow old in. Unlike Labour, we are optimists about Britain’s future. The choice for the country is clear: between a Government with an ambitious vision for the country and an Opposition without a plan. We will provide the leadership that this country needs. I commend this Queen’s Speech to the House.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Scott Mann.)
Debate to be resumed tomorrow.
City of Culture 2025: Wrexham’s Bid
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
It is an honour to have been granted this Adjournment debate on Wrexham’s bid for city of culture 2025.
We are thrilled to be in the final four, with the title within touching distance. Bradford, Southampton and County Durham have made good bids, and colleagues from across the House have put forward very convincing arguments for them. However, one key difference sets the Wrexham apart from the other three, and that is Wales. If Wrexham were to become city of culture 2025, it would be the first Welsh winner of the title since the inception of the competition. As a proud Unionist, as I know a few of us Conservative Members are, I believe that a Welsh winner would highlight the commitment of this Government to the Union. Talking of firsts, Wrexham has had a few. I am the first Conservative female MP to be elected in Wales, and 2019 was the first ever time that Wrexham turned blue. We are going for a hat-trick in hoping that Wrexham is named the first city of culture in Wales.
One huge element of this bid is that we have the Welsh language as our trump card. Since many responsibilities in Wales are devolved to the Welsh Labour Government in Cardiff, the city of culture bid presents a unique opportunity for the whole of the UK to celebrate the individualism of Wales, and its proud language and culture, while also celebrating its importance as part of our Union. Wrexham has a diverse population with over 70 languages spoken, the largest being our Polish community, who recently mobilised to send aid to Ukraine, working with local businesses to facilitate nearly £2 million-worth of donations. Working with each other for the betterment of Wrexham is what we do. Wrexham’s city of culture bid has involved over 200 stakeholders, with 50 grants being awarded to community organisations to participate, and we have held over 90 city of culture events already.
Wrexham is a town built on brewing, football and mining. To take football, which is very topical at the moment, Wrexham association football club is on a high. On Sunday, I will be cheering on the reds at the FA trophy final against Bromley at Wembley—and of course we will win. Someone would have had to have had their eye off the ball to have missed the fact that Wrexham AFC is now owned by Hollywood actors Ryan Reynolds and Rob McElhenney. Wrexham has certainly been put on the map. We are not new best friends just yet, but I am working on it, and Rob and Ryan know the importance—
Sarah Atherton
Rob and Ryan know the importance of football to Wrexham, and want to nurture and champion it. As the Minister knows from a visit a while back, the home of Wrexham AFC is the historic Racecourse Ground, which is in some ways the headquarters of our town. The Racecourse Ground is the oldest international football ground in the world and has been used to host international matches. When Wales hosted the rugby world cup in 1999, the Wrexham Racecourse was filled with more than 16,000 fans from around the world. International games have not been seen on that scale since, mainly because the capacity no longer allows it.
Like everyone in Wrexham and the whole of north Wales, I am passionate about returning international sporting events to north Wales. The redevelopment of the historic Kop stand, which I am campaigning for as part of Wrexham’s levelling-up fund bid, will allow for an extra 5,500 spectators, which will then permit the hosting of international sporting events. If you would like to sign our petition, Madam Deputy Speaker, please click on to change.org and “Redevelop the Racecourse to create a Stadium for the North”, where all signatures are welcomed. Our aim is to make Wrexham the home of Welsh football. Hollywood investment, the arrival of the national football museum for Wales, commitment by the Football Association of Wales and the redevelopment of the Kop stand—fingers crossed—could all make that a reality.
Another founding pillar of Wrexham is brewing. Wrexham Lager was founded in 1881, is the staple of the town and is steeped in fascinating history. As a former brewer myself, Wrexham Lager is close to not only my heart, but my tastebuds. The brewery exemplifies Wrexham’s business and trading prowess. The lager was one of the first international exports from Wrexham, imported to the Americas in the 1800s. It was served as the only beer on the Titanic—it went down well—and it is a firm favourite of the British Navy.
That brings me nicely onto the significance of Wrexham’s military heritage. It is a military town with a proud veteran community—I am one. Hightown barracks was the home of the Royal Welch Fusiliers, dating back to 1689. Hightown barracks was only to billet a residual military presence until last year, when the Ministry of Defence recognised Wrexham’s military significance and returned a reserve unit of the Royal Welsh back to the barracks under the future soldier programme. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for Defence for affirming his commitment to Wrexham and north Wales.
On the final pillar of Wrexham, as I see it, I must mention the importance of mining to the town. Wrexham was a proud mining town, which was rocked in 1934 by the Gresford mining disaster, where 266 men lost their lives. We are fiercely proud of our mining heritage and look forward to commemorating it further in the future.
Finally, I would like to touch on Wrexham’s potential. Wrexham is brimming with talent, especially in science, technology, engineering and maths expertise. Wockhardt UK won the UK Government contract to bottle the AstraZeneca vaccine at the start of the pandemic. Wrexham is hugely proud to have played its part in the whole of the UK vaccine programme; the vaccine was produced in England, bottled in Wales, trialled in Northern Ireland and rolled out in Scotland. We have a growing industrial estate because of ever-increasing inward investment, and it is soon to be the largest in the UK. Wrexham will be the envy of the world and will be known for its STEM innovation, manufacturing and skills. We are growing our own talent, with Wrexham Glyndwr University and Coleg Cambria both in the town, and we have ever-increasing numbers of jobs vacancies on offer. Furthering our home-grown talent, we have expanded our healthcare training in Wrexham, for example with our new nursing campus at the university and nursing cadet training at the college, all training at our local hospital, Wrexham Maelor, where I trained as a nurse some decades ago and returned during the pandemic.
In terms of art, music and tourism, Wrexham has a massive offer. Only last week it was announced that Tŷ Pawb had been shortlisted for Art Fund museum of the year, and two weeks ago 15,000 people descended on Wrexham to enjoy the FOCUS Wales music festival, which showcased emerging Welsh talent. The crowds have always been attracted to our UNESCO heritage site, the Pontcysyllte aqueduct, which recently received £13 million from the UK Government levelling-up fund to ensure its future. Many more enjoy the grand house at Erddig and Chirk castle. In fact, of the seven wonders of Wales, three are in Wrexham—St Giles’ church, which dates back to the 15th century, the yew trees of Overton and the bells of Gresford church, where I got married.
I would like to put on record my thanks to the UK Government for already committing, in the levelling-up White Paper, to moving civil service jobs to Wrexham. With the Crown Prosecution Service and HMP Berwyn nearby, I am pleased that a Ministry of Justice hub is starting to develop.
To sum up, the benefits to Wrexham of being named city of culture 2025 are endless. It would bring recognition to our beautiful town and unmatched investment—something Wrexham has not seen for 20 years—and it would strengthen the Union. When I got elected in 2019, my goal was to put Wrexham on the map. Decades of Labour neglect left Wrexham deflated. There will never be a better moment for Wrexham to be recognised as a hidden gem, brimming with history, pride, potential and passion. To me, the bid for city of culture is not only about historical accolades, or how many famous singers, architects or artists came from a place. It is about what Wrexham is achieving now, and can achieve. It is about its people and its potential, and Wrexham has that in bucketloads. It just needs someone to unlock it and the Government have the key to do that. Wrexham, “We Rise Together”. Diolch yn fawr.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) for securing the debate. She rightly champions Wrexham, as she always does. She is justly proud that the county borough was the only place in Wales to be shortlisted in the fierce competition for the highly coveted UK city of culture title. Previously held by Derry-Londonderry and Hull and currently held by Coventry, it is a growing prize and a record 20 places applied this year.
This is the final debate secured for the four shortlisted places bidding for the 2025 title, and I will briefly reflect on the passion with which all hon. Members spoke about their constituencies. They highlighted the incredible heritage and cultural assets of which people across the whole United Kingdom are proud. They spoke of the dedication of their bidding teams, the ambition for positive change and the sheer number of partners who have come together to support their bids.
While this is a competition, it is worth acknowledging the transformative power of culture in all places, not just the winners. That is why the UK city of culture programme is a key part of the efforts by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to level up opportunity across the UK. It is a proven model for harnessing culture and creativity to attract investment and tourism, to bring people together and to drive economic growth, positive social change and regeneration. The title is unique in its holistic nature. It galvanises partners across sectors to ensure systematic change, promote social cohesion and wellbeing, and create a shared vision with multiple outcomes. The competition was inspired by the success of Liverpool when it was the European capital of culture in 2008, and it was designed and is delivered by DCMS in collaboration with the devolved Administrations. The Government have recently announced that the competition will be a permanent quadrennial competition, continuing in 2029 and beyond, and I am delighted that some of the unsuccessful bidders in the current competition have already declared their intention to bid again for the 2029 title.
My noble Friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, the Minister for Arts, recently visited all the shortlisted places, including Wrexham, and has been hugely impressed with the effort and ambition of the bidding teams and partners. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham mentioned, I had the honour of visiting Wrexham myself not so long ago and had the opportunity to visit so many of the local cultural establishments and sites that she mentioned.
The impact of the title is evident in the benefits felt by previous winners. There was more than £150 million of public and private sector investment in the 2013 winner, Derry/Londonderry, and the 2017 winner, Hull, saw 5.3 million people visiting more than 2,800 events. Coventry, despite the huge challenges posed by the pandemic, has developed an extraordinary programme of events that has put culture at the heart of the social and economic recovery. Co-created projects have taken place in all 18 wards of the city, with thousands of community dancers, musicians, poets and makers participating. The city has seen more than £172 million invested in the likes of music concerts, public art displays, the new Telegraph hotel, a new children’s play area in the city centre and improvements to public transport. Coventry’s year will culminate in Radio 1’s Big Weekend at the end of May.
It is no wonder, therefore, that there were more initial applications for the 2025 title than ever before. Wrexham county borough, along with the three other locations—Bradford, County Durham and Southampton—was approved by the Secretary of State to make the shortlist for 2025. All the bids have been scrutinised by the expert advisory panel chaired by Sir Phil Redmond, which will continue to assess the finalists against criteria such as place making, levelling up, UK and international co-operation, opening up access to culture and creating a lasting legacy. The panel has now visited the locations on the shortlist and will make its final recommendation to DCMS Ministers following a presentation from each place this week. The winner will be announced in Coventry later this month.
As my hon. Friend said so eloquently, Wrexham county is a proud and passionate region with substantial cultural assets. For one, it boasts a UNESCO world heritage site, the Pontcysyllte aqueduct—I hope I pronounced that right, or was close—which is the tallest aqueduct in the world. The colour splash on the bid team logo represents coal dust, as a tribute to Wrexham’s industrial past, and the colours represent the vibrancy and diversity of everyone who lives, works and plays in Wrexham.
Wrexham is world-renowned for its textiles, bricks, beer, mining and much else. Of course it is also home to the world’s third oldest professional football team, AFC Wrexham, and the club’s recent takeover has attracted immense international interest and support. Unfortunately, I last visited Wrexham just before the acquisition of the football club by Hollywood stars Ryan Reynolds and Rob McElhenney, and I therefore also missed out on the opportunity to visit the emerging major tourist attraction that is the urinal in the gents’ toilets that was a gift from Ryan Reynolds to Rob on his birthday. I am confident that this major cultural attraction will form the centrepiece of the 2025 city of culture bid, or maybe not—I was given that opportunity to talk about urinals in the Chamber of the House of Commons, so I took it.
Wrexham is a place of myth and legend. It is a place filled with music and home-grown talent, and FOCUS Wales—one of the UK’s leading music showcase festivals—welcomes more than 15,000 international artists, industry leaders and music fans from across the world to the county every year.
Wrexham’s UK city of culture bid is led by the county council, alongside partners from local businesses to National Trust Wales and Transport for Wales. Wrexham’s vision for 2025 includes celebrating the region’s cultural diversity and becoming the UK capital of play. I am told that, on the panel’s visit to Wrexham, the chair, Sir Phil Redmond, was even persuaded by young people to take a turn on a zipwire.
The bid also aims to establish Wrexham as the home of football in Wales, as the north Wales centre for trade and events and as a leader in innovation, and to promote the Welsh language and heritage. Wrexham’s bid celebrates local and national heritage. As part of the bid process, the borough council awarded over 50 grants of up to £1,000 to individuals and organisations to host a multitude of events and projects to promote the county. Planned activities include the recreation of the historic Wrexham tailor’s quilt; a powerchair football event to highlight Wrexham’s inclusive environment for disability sports; and a special fusion event with African and Welsh food, fashion and music.
As outlined on their website, the team also aim to establish a “permanent, long-lasting legacy” of socio-economic benefits beyond their 2025 year, improving health and wellbeing and educational outcomes. As the only Welsh region in the competition, the team anticipate that, should their bid be successful, it would have a positive impact on neighbouring regions, such as Denbighshire, Flintshire and Powys, and more broadly across Wales. In Wrexham itself, regeneration—of infra-structure and disused public spaces—is a priority.
As the competition goes from strength to strength, for the first time, each of the eight longlisted places from across the UK received a £40,000 grant to support their application ahead of the shortlisting stage. This was intended to level the playing field, reduce the burden on bidders and help them develop scalable plans. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all bidding places for participating in the competition.
As I alluded to earlier, there are clear benefits to all places that bid, as was evident from the recent visits to the shortlisted places. The bidding process engages and galvanises a wide range of local communities and organisations, resulting in enduring partnerships and pride in place. The process encourages places to develop a vision and to come together around ambitions for change. It also attracts media attention, putting places on the map.
For example, Hull was unsuccessful in winning the 2013 title but came back to win the 2017 title. Sunderland, which bid for the 2021 title, created the momentum to form a new arts trust, Sunderland Culture, which achieved enhanced Arts Council England funding and mobilised a lasting team of community volunteers. Paisley, which also bid for the 2021 title, has since raised funds for its museum and hosted a range of major events, including UNBOXED’s About Us. Norwich, which bid for the 2013 title, went on to become UNESCO’s city of literature.
DCMS wants all bidders to benefit from the bidding process. We are committed to working with those who do not win to continue to develop partnerships, advance culture-led change and strengthen cultural strategies, as well as to signpost upcoming opportunities and funding.
In conclusion, I commend Wrexham’s commitment to winning the UK city of culture 2025 competition, and I applaud my hon. Friend’s continuing championing of Wrexham. I wish all shortlisted bidders good luck in the final stage of the competition.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Statements
Update on Carbon Leakage Mitigations
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Frazer)
The Government are taking ambitious domestic action to tackle climate change and recently opened a consultation on developing the UK emissions trading scheme (ETS), so the UK can become the world’s first net zero carbon cap and trade market[1] . While domestic action is critical, climate change is a global issue. When the UK took on the COP26 presidency, only 30% of the world was covered by net zero targets—now over 90% of the global economy is committed to net zero. In 2021, the UK placed climate change and nature at the top of the international agenda during its G7 and COP26 presidencies, presiding over the agreement of the Glasgow climate pact, to speed up the pace of climate action.
The Government also want to see other countries do more to drive down their own emissions and we continue to work on the global stage to support more ambitious international action. Recent global events and the resulting increase in energy prices reinforce the importance of transitioning to clean energy to ensure energy security and reduce our dependency on imported fossil fuels.
In parallel, Government are considering domestic action to continue to ensure the integrity of UK action to reduce its carbon emissions against carbon leakage, as our existing carbon leakage protection measures, including free allowances under the UK ETS, evolve to achieve our net zero objectives. This will also ensure that UK businesses are not disadvantaged. Carbon leakage is the displacement of production, and associated emissions, from one jurisdiction to another, due to different levels of carbon pricing and climate regulation across those jurisdictions.
The best way to prevent carbon leakage would be for all countries to move together in pricing, regulating, and therefore reducing carbon emissions. We are strongly committed to working with our international partners to develop a common global approach to carbon leakage. Multilateral solutions can take time to develop, however, and while we will continue to work on international solutions with partners, options for domestic action must be considered in parallel.
The Government are therefore exploring a range of policies that could mitigate future carbon leakage risk. These include policies to grow the market for low emissions industrial products, on which the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy recently undertook a call for evidence. Today, we are announcing that it is our intention to consult later in the year on a range of carbon leakage mitigation options, including on whether measures such as product standards and a carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) could be appropriate tools in the UK’s policy mix. A CBAM applies a carbon price to specified imports, in order to mitigate differences in carbon pricing between jurisdictions, and therefore reduce the risk of carbon leakage.
The Government are clear that any policy or policies would need to carefully balance a range of priorities for the UK, both domestically and internationally, including compliance with WTO rules and our staunch commitment to free and open trade, alongside taking into account the needs of developing countries. As we determine our approach to carbon leakage, we will continue our ongoing engagement with our domestic and international partners.
[1]: Developing the UK Emissions Trading Scheme (UK ETS) — GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
[HCWS26]
Condition Improvement Fund
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for School Standards (Mr Robin Walker)
My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the School System (Baroness Barran) has made the following statement.
Today, I am announcing the allocation of £498 million for 1,405 Condition Improvement Fund (CIF) projects across 1,129 academies, sixth-form colleges and voluntary aided schools to maintain and improve the condition of the education estate.
This funding is provided to enable schools to provide well maintained facilities and give students safe environments that support a high-quality education. Since March 2015 CIF has delivered 9,148 projects and continues to deliver 1,905 projects across the school estate with essential maintenance projects.
Details of this announcement have been sent to all CIF applicants and a list of successful projects has been published on www.gov.uk. I will also place copies in the House Library.
[HCWS28]
Initial Teacher Training Reform Programme
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for School Standards (Mr Robin Walker)
Today, the Department for Education (DfE) informed applicants of the outcomes of the first accreditation round of the Initial Teacher Training (ITT) reform programme. Eighty applicants have been awarded accreditation so far, and a second round will open for applications on 23 May and close on 27 June. We will announce the successful applicants of both rounds when the process is complete in the autumn.
In December 2021, the Government announced a set of reforms to ITT that leads to qualified teacher status. The reforms, which centre around a new set of “quality requirements”, aim to ensure greater quality, consistency and coherence in ITT, building on earlier reforms to teacher development.
To deliver ITT from September 2024, both existing and prospective providers of ITT must pass a new accreditation process. This process has been designed to assess applicants’ capability and capacity to deliver the highest quality ITT in line with the new quality requirements, which will become part of the ITT criteria from the 2024-25 academic year.
From the autumn, accredited providers will proceed to the quality assurance stage. In this stage, providers will work with the DfE to ensure that all ITT courses are fully developed in line with the new 2024-25 ITT criteria. The DfE will also work with accredited providers ahead of 2024 delivery to ensure that they have strong partnerships in place to provide sufficient training places in the subjects, phases and geographies in which they are needed. Further details will be published in due course.
The accreditation process was designed to be rigorous but proportionate, and I am confident that the evaluation of applications for accreditation has been thorough, undertaken jointly by trained DfE and Ofsted assessors.
Applicants who were not awarded accreditation in round one have been given feedback on their application to help them understand the areas they need to address, should they wish to re-apply in round two. Both existing and prospective providers who did not apply in round one are being encouraged to do so in round two.
If an applicant decides not to re-apply, we are encouraging them to consider partnering with newly accredited providers to build strong families of providers ready for 2024 delivery and ensure a high-quality and sufficient ITT market.
I am confident that these reforms will help create a truly world-class teacher development system that makes England the best place in the world to become a great teacher.
[HCWS27]
International Development Strategy
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Elizabeth Truss)
Today we have laid out our vision for the future of UK international development. Development will be at the heart of the UK’s foreign policy, which uses all the levers available—including development, diplomacy, investment, trade, defence and intelligence—to deliver on our foreign policy objectives.
The strategy will help address increasing global challenges, delivering investment, supporting women and girls, getting humanitarian assistance to those who need it most, and continuing our work on climate change, nature and global health.
The strategy, which builds on a proud record of global leadership on development, will challenge dependency on malign actors, offering choice and bringing more countries into the orbit of free-market economies.
We will use British international investment and other tools to provide honest and reliable finance to help low and middle-income countries take control of their futures, giving them an alternative so they are not burdened with unsustainable debt with strings attached. This approach will help deliver the clean green initiative, supporting countries to grow their economies sustainably.
The strategy will rebalance the aid budget towards bilateral programmes. This will give the Government greater control over how money is spent, allowing a focus on priorities and improving lives around the world.
The international development strategy sets out four priorities where the UK can meet the needs of partner countries around the world:
Delivering honest, reliable investment through British investment partnerships, building on the UK’s financial expertise and the strengths of the City of London, and delivering the Prime Minister’s vision for the clean green initiative—supporting countries to grow their economies sustainably.
Providing women and girls with the freedom they need to succeed. We intend to restore the bilateral budget to help unlock their potential, educate girls, support their empowerment and protect them against violence.
Stepping-up our life-saving humanitarian work to prevent the worst forms of human suffering around the world. We will prioritise humanitarian funding levels at around £3 billion over the next three years, to remain a leader in crisis response.
Taking forward our work on climate change, nature and global health. We are putting the commitments of our presidency of G7 and COP26, and our covid-19 response, at the core of our international development offer.
Our new approach will:
Spend more on country and bilateral programmes rather than through multilateral organisations, empowering the UK to deliver more aid directly to where it is needed. By 2025, the FCDO intends to spend around three quarters of its aid budget allocated at the 2021 spending review bilaterally.
Use world-class British expertise to support partner countries by providing advice, exchanging lessons and evidence of what works, and building partnerships across Government, research, business and civil society.
Cut back red tape and excessive bureaucracy around delivering aid and give ambassadors and high commissioners greater authority to get programmes delivering on the ground quickly.
Sustain our commitment to Africa and ensure our development programmes in the Indo Pacific remain a critical part of our ambition to increase our focus on the region.
This strategy sets the direction for all of the UK’s development work. The FCDO will oversee cross-Government efforts to deliver the strategy and draw upon the expertise of the private sector, civil society and academia to advise and challenge us on implementation.
[HCWS25]
High Fat, Sugar or Salt Products: Delay in Volume Price Promotion and Advertising Restrictions
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maggie Throup)
The Government are delaying the implementation of the volume price promotion restrictions and the introduction of further advertising restrictions on TV and online for high fat, sugar or salt (HFSS) products by 12 months.
We are clear that the delay to volume price promotions does not impact the locations measures which will still come into force on 1 October 2022. Under these measures, less healthy products in scope will no longer be promoted in key locations, such as checkouts, store entrances, aisle ends and their online equivalents. We expect these location restrictions to be the single most impactful obesity policy at reducing children’s calorie consumption and are expected to accrue health benefits of over £57 billion and provide NHS savings of over £4 billion, over the next 25 years.
The delay to restrictions on multibuy deals will allow the Government to review and monitor the impact of the restrictions on the cost of living in light of an unprecedented global economic situation.
A delay to the advertising restrictions is necessary because a delay in the Health and Care Act 2022 receiving Royal Assent has had a consequential impact on the timetable for the regulators’ subsequent consultations and publication of final guidance, meaning it was unlikely this would be ready with sufficient time before implementation.
We have also considered the ongoing concerns from industry about having time to fully implement the final guidance, by restructuring their funding and revenue streams appropriately, and ensuring robust compliance from implementation. We therefore believe this is the best approach to balance tackling childhood obesity in a timely way, managing the unprecedented economic situation and ensuring the smooth and effective implementation of these restrictions. The advertising regulations will now come into force on 1 January 2024.
We included a power in the Health and Care Act to delay implementation of the advertising restrictions if necessary. We will be utilising this power to amend the date of implementation for the advertising restrictions by secondary legislation. The implementation of the volume price restrictions will also be amended by secondary legislation.
This Government remain committed to halving childhood obesity by 2030 and these measures and others, including last month’s new measures on calorie labelling in large restaurants, cafes and takeaways, will play their part in delivering against this ambition.
[HCWS29]
House of Lords
Death of a Member: Baroness Afshar
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of Baroness Afshar on 12 May. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Baroness’s family and friends.
Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, following the result of the Northern Ireland Assembly elections on 5 May, when they will resume negotiations with the European Commission on the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Caine) (Con)
My Lords, the Government have been engaged in negotiations with the European Union in good faith since last summer. We are asking the Commission to go back to member states for a new mandate, but we cannot wait to fix the problems facing people in Northern Ireland resulting from the protocol. We hope that the EU’s position changes. If it does not, then it will be necessary to act.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, political stability and peace can only be protected through partnership and pragmatism in Northern Ireland. There has been mounting speculation about the Government’s proposed intentions to override parts of the Northern Ireland protocol against the express wishes of the majority of MLAs who were recently elected to the Assembly. Therefore, in this regard, can the Minister indicate whether this is correct and, if so, what format that will take? Also, will the Foreign Secretary and her team continue with negotiations with the EU on the outstanding technical issues on SPS and the customs code, to which there are solutions? I believe that is what is required to underpin political stability in Northern Ireland.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, who asked me quite a number of questions there. She will know that, like her, I was a very strong supporter of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, as are the Government. The problem that we face today is that, ironically, the protocol, an instrument that was designed to uphold the agreement, is undermining the agreement and threatening political stability in Northern Ireland: witness that we have had no First or Deputy First Minister since February and no immediate prospect of having them unless something changes. It is therefore the Government’s position that we will at some point have to make a realistic assessment of what intervention is necessary as to the precise nature of that intervention. The noble Baroness will be aware that I cannot go into any more detail today, but I do not think that she will have to wait very long.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, is it not the Government’s overriding duty to protect and safeguard the union? At a time when Sinn Féin may be the largest party in the Assembly but has absolutely no mandate for constitutional change, will my noble friend ensure that the Government continue to stand four-square for our union?
Lord Caine (Con)
I am very grateful to my noble friend, with whom I go back many years, including to my first job interview; I believe we discussed these matters even then. He makes a very important point about the result of the elections, which have also shown what the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, said, that while Sinn Féin is the largest single party in the Assembly, we should all remember that the largest designation in the Assembly remains unionist, followed by nationalist. Therefore, as my noble friend makes clear, there is no mandate for constitutional change as a result of the elections that took place on 5 May. Regarding the point about standing rock firm for the union, in a phrase associated with the later Sir John Biggs-Davison many years ago, he has my absolute guarantee that this Government remain committed to the union—something which the Prime Minister made very clear in his article in the Belfast Telegraph this morning.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, of course it is right that the Prime Minister is in Belfast today, but the Minister, who has enormous experience of Northern Ireland politics, knows that one-off meetings will not solve the problem; it requires proper, intense, round-table negotiations with the European Union, with the Irish Government and, above all, with all the political parties in Northern Ireland. Does he agree that the issue will not be solved by grandstanding, newspaper articles and megaphone diplomacy?
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, who was a very distinguished Northern Ireland Secretary and has great experience of these matters. He will be aware that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has been in fairly constant dialogue with the representatives of the five main Northern Ireland parties in recent days, which is in addition to the Prime Minister’s welcome visit today. The objective is to clear some of the hurdles that are preventing the formation of an Executive. He is right that we will maintain that dialogue and keep talking to try to achieve that objective, but we also need to be realistic: the key impediment to the immediate restoration of the institutions is the problems that have been created by the protocol, and they need fixing.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister acknowledge that unilateral action would not carry the support of the majority in the Northern Ireland Assembly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, has said, and could potentially do huge economic and diplomatic damage at this time?
Lord Caine (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness. In recent days, I have reflected on the number of people who, for decades, told us that we could never proceed in Northern Ireland on the basis of majority rule and majoritarianism, who are now the greatest champions of proceeding on that basis. It is clearly unsustainable to have a protocol in operation in Northern Ireland in its current form, which does not command the support of the largest designation of the Northern Ireland Assembly. That position is unsustainable and is what we are trying to fix.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
Would my noble friend the Minister confirm that the Assembly operates entirely with the consent of the majority of unionists, which is still the biggest designation, and the majority of nationalists? Any changes to the institutional framework of the 1998 agreement, as amended, and the St Andrews agreement require the consent of the majority of unionism and the majority of nationalism. That has been the consistent approach since the 1990s.
Lord Caine (Con)
As my noble friend rightly points out, the sufficient consensus rule has guided most political negotiations since the publication of the ground rules for political talks, published by the British and Irish Governments in June 1996. Clearly, the protocol in its current form does not command sufficient consensus. That is why the Government will be working extremely hard to build widespread community consensus that includes both unionists and nationalists, as we take things forward.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, our friends in Europe—if we have any left—are puzzled as to why an agreement that the Prime Minister lauded to the heavens is now not acceptable. Surely we cannot proceed by threats; we have to proceed by talking, talking and talking to make some modifications, if necessary.
Lord Caine (Con)
If the noble Lord will forgive me, I will not get drawn into the history of this.
Lord Caine (Con)
I am focused not on the past, but on the present and the future—not on how we got here, but on how we get out of here. I agree that there is clearly space for negotiations. We want to keep talking to the European Union, but we have been discussing these matters with it for some time, since last summer. At the moment, the clear and present threat to the Belfast agreement and to political stability in Northern Ireland—an agreement that the noble Lord and I support, have supported since 10 April 1998 and continue to support—is the continuing operation of the protocol in its current form. Therefore, as I have said and the Prime Minister made clear in Belfast today, the Government will do everything necessary to try to fix those problems for the good of Northern Ireland.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, should we not remember very carefully that there has never been a time since the war when it was more important to try to march in step with our friends and allies in the European Union? Will the Minister reflect on the fact that the late, great Harold Macmillan had a wonderful quote on his desk from WS Gilbert:
“Quiet, calm deliberation disentangles every knot”?
Lord Caine (Con)
In which spirit I am sure my noble friend will welcome the tone and content of the Prime Minister’s article in the Belfast Telegraph this morning. As I have said, we are of course continuing to talk to and work with the EU, but, whatever else is going on, we cannot allow the problems in Northern Ireland to continue to fester and the institutions continue to be in abeyance. He and I both support the Belfast agreement. Without the institutions or the Assembly, strand 2 does not work; without the Assembly, strand 3 does not work; and without the institutions, the Belfast agreement looks pretty thin. We need to quickly get into a situation whereby the institutions can be restored, and that requires dealing with the protocol.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, the Minister says that he is not keen to discuss how we got where we are, but I believe a number of people in this House are very keen to understand how we got into this predicament. The noble Lord, Lord Frost, who negotiated the protocol, has made it clear that it was an imperfect protocol, and it was agreed because it was the only way to get Brexit done. It was always clear that there had to be a border between the UK and Northern Ireland if the protocol went ahead. Does the Minister agree that Parliament—this House—and the people were misled, and that is why we are in the mess we are in now?
Lord Caine (Con)
I do not share the characterisation of the noble Baroness. Regarding a border, we have made it very clear in our discussions with the EU that we will carry out the necessary checks required for goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland whose onward destination is the EU single market. Our issue is and always has been with goods going from Great Britain to Northern Ireland that will never leave the United Kingdom, which are currently subject to the same checks. We need to achieve a situation in which both the EU single market and the UK internal market are fully respected.
Sri Lanka
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Moylan
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the economic situation in Sri Lanka; and what steps they are planning to take to support that country.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, we are closely monitoring the concerning economic situation in Sri Lanka, including issues of food security and livelihoods. The International Monetary Fund has assessed Sri Lanka’s debt as unsustainable. We welcome the start of in-depth discussions with the IMF on a financial assistance package and reforms needed to put debt on a sustainable path. The World Bank, to which the United Kingdom is a major donor, is providing support to health services and low-income families.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, Sri Lanka is an important Commonwealth country. Although I welcome the fact that the Government are monitoring the situation, I would have hoped something a little more vigorous and direct might become available at the moment. We are in danger of seeing our neglect of Sri Lanka over time leading it to drift off into the malign sphere of China. If the Government could be a little more helpful in terms of practical help at the moment, I also ask my noble friend whether we could do something in the longer term that would help: as friends of mine in Sri Lanka have requested, help them put in place the governance and parliamentary structures that would help to combat defalcation in the future and restore public confidence in the expenditure of public funds.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I assure my noble friend that we are working in very practical terms. Indeed, at the start of this year, as the Minister for South Asia, I visited Sri Lanka myself and engaged directly with the Government in Colombo, and also visited other parts of the country to ensure that all voices across Sri Lanka are fully heard and engaged with when it comes to the United Kingdom’s approach. My noble friend is also correct that we are looking at practical support and working through agencies, particularly the World Bank and the IMF, to look at the immediate issues of the debt, which needs to be put on to a sustainable footing. We are also in very structured dialogue through the high commissioner directly, with whom I am engaging on a daily basis, to ensure that the political and the security situation are sustained, which allows peaceful protest but at the same time prevents violence, which has been seen during the protests since this emergency began.
Baroness Primarolo (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his answer on the work that is being done bilaterally with Sri Lanka, but he will be aware of the issues surrounding human rights in Sri Lanka. In his answer, he touched on allowing all voices to be heard, so can he detail to the House what work is being done bilaterally to protect human rights in Sri Lanka and to encourage the Sri Lankan Government to do likewise?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, we are engaging directly with various political representatives within the Sri Lankan Parliament, including representatives of different parties and the Tamil community. We are also engaging on ensuring that communal relations are maintained. Attempts have been made by certain parties within Sri Lanka to exploit the current situation to target particular communities. We recognise that steps have been taken to ensure that the right to protest is allowed to continue. Notwithstanding the curfews that were imposed, protests have continued to take place peacefully over recent days. It is an inherent right for any Sri Lankan.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I am glad that the Minister has recovered from Covid. Eight years ago, I helped facilitate preparatory discussions for the constitutional assembly in Sri Lanka. That delicate set of discussions has been ongoing since. At that point, when the assembly met, the Commonwealth deployed human rights lawyers for a sub-committee on human rights and fundamental rights. There is one month left in the UK’s term as chair in office. Will the Government convene, through their offices in the Commonwealth, a similar dialogue to maintain those discussions on human rights and fundamental rights, which are so important and could be a casualty of the existing, very tense, situation?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, it is not just through our chairing of the Commonwealth as chair in office but, as the noble Lord will be fully aware—indeed, I briefed him on this—we have led the way on human rights in the UN Human Rights Council to ensure that the focus remains on issues of justice and accountability in Sri Lanka. The historic legacy of the conflict is not forgotten. I assure the noble Lord that through the Commonwealth, bilaterally and through UN agencies we will continue to ensure that human rights are not just sustained but are protected during this turbulent time.
Lord Naseby (Con)
Does my noble friend recognise that Sri Lanka was a founder member of the Commonwealth and stood by our country in relation to the Chagos Islands and the Falklands? First, does he agree that at this time Sri Lanka needs real, practical help rather than theoretical help? I declare that I was there just over five weeks ago. That practical help means medicines and possibly some help with energy. Secondly, should we not be promoting in the medium term the advantages of Port City Colombo, which is a major investment for our country, to renew our connections? Thirdly and finally, should we not recognise for the record that were it not for Mahinda Rajapaksa, there would have been a terrorist rogue state in the northern part of Sri Lanka and that at least he did that well?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, like my noble friend I have recently visited Sri Lanka. As well as focusing—rightly, I believe—on the important issues of justice, reconciliation and accountability, I focused on practical steps to strengthen our bilateral relationship with Sri Lanka, including on issues of trade and the port that my noble friend mentioned. On immediate support in the crisis, I have said already that we are working through the World Bank and that the $600 million includes assistance to provide economic and health support, including vital medicines and medical equipment. We are engaging directly with the new Prime Minister through our high commissioner to ensure that Sri Lanka’s priorities are fully understood. We will give support as appropriate.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister is absolutely right that, whatever their ethnicity, race or religion, all the peoples of Sri Lanka deserve justice. I know that he has been committed to that process. I am also glad that he mentioned the UN Human Rights Council, which last year mandated that the UN collect and analyse evidence of international crimes for future prosecutions. What are we doing with our allies to ensure that that process is completed?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, in the context of the UNHRC we have continued to work with our friends and supporters to ensure the processes, and to work directly with the High Commissioner’s office so that evidence can be collected and justice rightly served for those who for too long have not seen justice served. At this time, our focus in the current crisis is on the immediate needs of Sri Lanka, its people and its welfare. That is why, with the appointment of the new Prime Minister and a new Cabinet, we are working constructively to ensure that human rights—as I said earlier, the rights to protest and of media reporting on the current crisis—are sustained and maintained while, at the same time, working towards the vital reconciliation that is required, with Sri Lanka’s historical legacy, to allow all communities to move forward together as one.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, this is becoming a desperate state of affairs, as we all agree. Is there a concern that Sri Lanka’s plight, with all the shortages, could be an indicator, globally, of a stark new world order that will affect many emerging countries in a similar manner? The point has been made about China. Is it conceivable that a future Chinese military base could be stationed in Sri Lanka and therefore be at the centre of our Indo-Pacific priority?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the current crisis that Sri Lanka faces did not happen all of a sudden. It is important to look at steps such as the IMF’s intervention. With hindsight, I am sure many voices in Sri Lanka are asking whether it should have been sooner or earlier—but we are where we are, and it is important now that, through the IMF and the World Bank, we look at ensuring, first things first, that this debt can be restructured in a way that allows Sri Lanka to move forward.
On the wider issue of China’s reach in the Indo-Pacific, we need to work constructively with our key partners. That is why, when it comes to infrastructure development, as I said when I visited Sri Lanka, through our own initiatives with key partners we need to offer an alternative method that allows a country not to be indebted but to service its debt and, at the same time, to move forward constructively.
Schools: Model History Curriculum
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
To ask Her Majesty’s Government who they are consulting on the content of the new model history curriculum.
Baroness Penn (Con)
We will work with history curriculum experts, historians and school leaders to develop a model history curriculum that will stand as an exemplar of a knowledge-rich, coherent approach to teaching history. The model history curriculum will build on the history curriculum and support teachers to make sure that all children can benefit from the breadth and depth of content in the national curriculum. We will shortly announce the panel supporting this work.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, those of us who remember Mrs Thatcher’s attempts to reshape the national history curriculum, David Cameron’s praise for teaching our island story, as he would put it, and Michael Gove’s calls for a more coherent patriotic history are concerned that authoritarian states teach a patriotic history; democratic states should teach debate and inquiry. Are the Government still committed to the fifth of the six aims stated in the 2013 definition of the national curriculum, which says we want students to
“understand the methods of historical enquiry, including how evidence is used rigorously”—
I know some Ministers are not very keen on evidence—
“to make historical claims, and discern how and why contrasting arguments and interpretations of the past have been constructed”?
That is what secondary school students should be taught in history.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I do not recall Margaret Thatcher’s reforms to the history curriculum but I may have been a beneficiary of them. I should be clear to the noble Lord that the model history curriculum does not change the national history curriculum. It is designed to be an additional resource to help teachers, where they choose to use it, to fully develop their approach, consistent with the 2013 national curriculum on history and with the principles that he pointed out in his question.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Africa—I declare an interest as a member—has just carried out an inquiry on the representation of Africa and its diaspora in the national curriculum, well led by the noble Lord, Lord Boateng. This work concluded that there were some good practices but serious shortfalls and shortages of information and rightful facts on the history of Africa and Islam, for instance. Will the noble Baroness undertake to ensure that she talks to the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Africa and to the noble Lord, Lord Boateng? Finally, I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Lady Afshar, who was such a champion on education and history in this House. We will all miss her deeply.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I believe that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has engaged with a number of the groups referred to by the noble Baroness. I reassure her that the model history curriculum is being developed to reflect the richness of world history, teaching pupils about societies and civilisations within and beyond Europe.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, the National Education Union has called for England to follow the Welsh Government in making the teaching of black history mandatory. Have the Government considered doing so?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I am aware of the Welsh Government’s initiative in this area. The Government are clear that, within the existing national curriculum, there is a wide range of opportunities to talk about black history as well as other diverse histories that have shaped our country. We are focused on developing the model history curriculum, which will provide additional resources to teachers as well as providing, and signposting teachers to, other resources that they can use in teaching not just history but citizenship and other areas of children’s education.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, if we are to cohere as a democracy, should we not be teaching our children that they are not just a random set of individuals born to a different random set of individuals but heirs to a common tradition shaped by our parliamentary institutions, the common law, the tradition of personal freedom and all the rest of it, and that wherever their parents or grandparents were born, being our sons and daughters makes them partakers of this sublime patrimony?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My noble friend will be reassured to hear that the reformed history curriculum introduced in 2013 does place more emphasis on understanding British history in the context of world history. The curriculum sets out within a clear chronological framework the core knowledge that enables pupils to know and understand the history of Britain, from its first settlers to the development of institutions that help to define our national life today, as well as aspects of Europe and wider world history.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, will the Minister support Troy Deeney, the captain of Birmingham City Football Club, who is running a high-profile campaign to make the teaching of black, Asian and minority-ethnic history experiences mandatory?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I am aware of the article and campaign referred to by the noble Lord; I read it myself. I am afraid that my answer is not hugely different from that which I gave previously. We support the teaching of black history within the national curriculum; there are many opportunities to do so. We are developing a model curriculum for history that will provide teachers with more resources to teach a diverse history, and one that reflects the story of these isles.
Baroness Hooper (Con)
My Lords, may I draw attention to Latin America in this context? By that I mean not only the ancient cultures in Latin America, of which there are many, but the links with the slave trade and the important support for the independence movements there; these have created huge goodwill, very relevant to our trade and other efforts to improve relations with the countries of Latin America.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My noble friend’s question reflects the fact that, when we talk about diversity in the teaching of history, there are many different stories and parts of the world that pupils can learn about, along with how they relate to the history of this country. That is why the national curriculum and the model history curriculum provide a framework in which teachers can then use their expertise to ensure that pupils gain an understanding and the knowledge that they need to take the study of history forward.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, I have heard the noble Baroness’s replies to the two previous questions and that leads me to ask mine. With the freedom that she describes to choose the ethnic-minority and black history theme likely to be exercised among populations where there are significant populations dominated by people of colour, is the mandatory approach not the one that will see to it that people in white areas will learn about black history? Is that not the whole point?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I reassure the noble Lord that, in teachers and schools having the freedom to determine the topics of teaching within the framework of the national curriculum, it has been noted in a recent survey of history teachers by the Historical Association that more teachers have commitments to develop their content in their teaching of black and diverse histories. I think that is a pattern that we have seen across the country, and it is in the framework of the national curriculum that they are able to do so.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, I refer to my entry in the register of Members’ interests. Does my noble friend share my concern that the British Education Suppliers Association is considering legal action against her department for the way in which it has introduced the Oak National Academy, and that its attempt to effectively nationalise the provision of supply of the curriculum and severely damage our highly successful education technology market is not what one would expect from a brilliant Education Secretary who is himself an entrepreneur?
Baroness Penn
I do not share my noble friend’s characterisation of the development of Oak National Academy and the resources that it provides. I agree with him that there is a wide range of resources available to schools and teachers in developing their lessons. The Oak National Academy and its successor have added to that range of resources, and that has been a positive development.
Social Welfare Law Cases: Legal Aid
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)
My Lords, we are piloting the provision of early legal advice for debt, housing and welfare benefit matters. We will introduce legislation later this year to ensure better access to social welfare advice for people facing possession proceedings. We have reviewed the means test for legal aid and are currently consulting on plans to increase access to legal aid to an additional 2 million people for civil legal aid.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. I acknowledge the work done in this field by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson. Frankly, though, two small pilots over a two-year period hardly begin to tackle the scandal that a large number of our fellow citizens cannot get the legal advice that they need and are entitled to. The number of new cases that were helped last year was one-quarter of those helped in the year 2012-13, just before the ghastly LASPO Act came into effect—all that at a time of increasing living costs and families finding it difficult or impossible to cope. Does the Minister agree that much more must be done now to tackle this gross injustice that shames our country and goes to the very heart of access to justice?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord has acknowledged the work done by my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar. I in turn acknowledge his work in this important field, as part of the Bach commission, which he chairs. In relation to the matter of the priorities now, the Government consider it important that steps in this area be taken on the basis of the most robust data possible, which is why we are proceeding on the basis of pilot schemes that will in-gather the necessary data upon which we can base further actions.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, is it not scandalous that at a time when our newspapers are full of the vast expenditure of footballers’ wives on libel proceedings ordinary people are still denied justice in those areas which most impact on the lives of the less prosperous and the less privileged? What the Government have announced goes at least some way to help but, looking at that contrast, it really is scandalous.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, a fundamental principle of our courts is that they are open to all. If people choose to spend their money in a particular way, then the courts permit them to do that, but the Government spend on average £1.7 billion on legal aid. That is a figure which we have under review and are constantly working on it. We acknowledge the importance of this area.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, the pilot scheme put forward by the Government seeks to quantify the benefits to individuals, their support networks, the Government and, ultimately, the taxpayer. Those seem very sensible aims and I support them. But how is this to be achieved and taken forward, with the access that the noble Lord referred to in his first Answer, when the number of providers of these services has been reduced by a third and in some areas we have a complete desert of providers?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
The noble Lord makes an important point. We understand that there are areas where there are no providers, but perhaps I may offer him this assurance: the Legal Aid Agency keeps the matter under constant review and looks to engage with new providers where there are none. No part of England or Wales is without access to legal advice, because of the existence of a national telephone helpline, which can be drawn upon by people who require to access legal aid and assistance who would not otherwise have that available to them.
Restoration and Renewal: Location of House of Lords Chamber
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what consideration they have given to the location of the House of Lords Chamber during the restoration and renewal programme.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, restoration and renewal is a parliamentary programme and decisions on how to proceed are for Parliament. Both Houses are reviewing the programme’s shape and the commissions will jointly consider options and seek a revised mandate from both Houses. Further decisions, including on decant and location, would need to be considered by both Houses and debates are currently planned for before the Summer Recess. I repeat: the Government are clear that these decisions are a matter for Parliament.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I am most grateful to my noble friend, so can we take it that Mr Gove was off doing his own thing at the weekend when he wrote to the Speaker on Friday evening to indicate that the Queen Elizabeth II Centre would not be available for us? Would the Government be kind enough to ask him to put in the Library the analysis of how he thought this would enable Parliament to function, if one House was sent to Stoke or somewhere else? Will my noble friend indicate what consultation Mr Gove carried out before he made this statement and just remind the Secretary of State, as he did in his Answer, that the location of this House is a matter for this House and not for the Executive?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I will not be tempted to follow speculation about what might have been the motives of a colleague in the Government in relation to a particular letter. The Secretary of State is always inventive, but I will repeat what I have said: that these are matters for Parliament.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the simple fact is that the noble Lord answered a similar Question just over two years ago and that this is another recycled announcement from a Government who talked about this two-and-a-half years ago. For all the gimmicks, slogans and press releases, on every measure of levelling up we are going backwards. Instead of making such announcements, this Government should get on with helping families facing the worst cost of living crisis in a generation and use a windfall tax on energy grants to fund up to £600 of help for families. That is what this Government should be doing.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord is inventive in slipping the Labour windfall tax into a Question about the location of the House of Lords. For the avoidance of doubt, I do not favour that proposition. This is not an announcement; the position remains, as I have previously stated, that the decisions on how to proceed are a matter for Parliament.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, will the Minister take back to his friends in government that, if they are going to come out with rather bizarre statements like this with no notice or consultation, they should at least try to be a little more original? We have heard this all before. Dozens of us are waiting to give suggestions of our home cities, where it would be lovely to be. Might I make a recommendation for Norwich? Any city that boasts proudly that it used to have a pub for every day of the year would probably be a good environment for suggestions such as this.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am very fond of Norwich personally, but I would not encourage further speculation in this area. I will only say from my personal experience that I was in York last week on a ministerial visit and I did not look at any alternative site for your Lordships’ House.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I declare the interest of having been brought up in Burnley. Would the noble Lord care to remind Mr Gove that we are one Parliament and not two, and therefore dividing the two Houses would be a very adverse and unconstitutional act? Therefore, if he wants Parliament to be in Burnley, it should be both Houses and not one.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, again, I am not going to speak for my right honourable friend, but the noble Lord makes a cogent point which would need to be considered by all of us within Parliament in respect of its future operation. Those of us who have had experience of a Parliament by Zoom know the importance of personal contact within and across the Houses to the good operation of government and Parliament.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, can the Minister reassure both this House and the public that a full cost-benefit analysis is being undertaken to ensure the good and proper use of public funds?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, as far as the R&R scheme is concerned, that is a matter for both Houses. As far as government property is concerned, obviously that is a matter for the Secretary of State. The right reverend Prelate makes a cogent point.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend is playing an admirable straight bat, on which I congratulate him. But on whose authority did Mr Gove contact the Lord Speaker, the Speaker or anyone else? Was he speaking for the Government? If so, does he not realise that this is not a matter for the Government, as my noble friend has told us? Was this just another freelance exercise by an intellectual flibbertigibbet?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I could not possibly comment on that. The Secretary of State obviously has a standing in DLUHC in the sense that the QEII Centre is an executive agency for which DLUHC is responsible. No doubt he was addressing the matter from that perspective.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister really does have to speak on behalf of the whole Government. It was a government letter so I do not think he can wriggle out of it like that. These are really important constitutional issues. The Queen opens Parliament, and she is not allowed into the Commons; she does it from here but with the Commoners present to hear her statement. I am quite sure those issues have to be high up in the Government’s mind as well as this House’s mind. We also need Ministers by us. I do not know whether they were all planning to stay in London so that they could not answer our questions. From their way of dealing with this, maybe that is exactly the plan.
Lord True (Con)
No—I take it as the highest duty that I have to come before your Lordships and answer questions and explain things. I repeat: decisions on how to proceed in this are a matter for Parliament, and the Government do not wish to prejudge Parliament’s decisions on it. However, following what was said by the noble Baroness, whom I greatly respect, I say that it makes sense for government and Parliament to work together to support the decisions of Parliament on this matter and, yes, secure outcomes that deliver for the public and taxpayers.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the restoration of Parliament and making this iconic building safe will succeed only with real collaboration between the Lords, the Commons and the Government? Could he please answer the question that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, asked earlier—namely, which Members of this House were contacted or consulted in advance of the letter sent on Friday?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I cannot answer that specific point. No doubt the Secretary of State could explain. The noble Lord takes the very point that I made in my previous answer—that it makes sense for government and both Houses of Parliament to work together, as he said, to create and support decisions on this matter.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, although I agree with much of what has been said, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, does the Minister not agree that even the prospect, or the suggestion, that the House of Lords might move out of London might make those Members who live in London, particularly those on the Front Bench, realise the practical difficulties and problems of those of us who do not live in London?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, in a sense, that is a House of Lords point, but I understand what the noble Lord said. I have lived some of my life outside London and some of it in it. Of course those are matters to consider.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, will Mr Gove be successful in saying that we cannot use the Queen Elizabeth II Centre?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, as I have said, the QEII conference centre is a commercially run trading fund, and it is an executive agency of DLUHC. The noble and learned Baroness asks a hypothetical question, and I will clearly not pre-empt, even in this, how Parliament might decide to proceed. Each House of Parliament has the right to regulate its own proceedings and internal affairs, and we shall see what might happen.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
My Lords, the QEII Centre is probably one of the worst buildings in London, so I am totally in tune with the Secretary of State when he says that the Government do not want us there. But the reality is that this building’s problem is services, not access or modernisation; it is about dealing with the fire risk that exists in the basement of this building. If that is dealt with and it is stripped back to that, the costs and timescales are dramatically reduced and the options of the northern estate become viable. There are alternatives where we can stay on this site, but it needs a little more imagination and the costs have to be dramatically cut back.
Lord True (Con)
As a Member of your Lordships’ House, my noble friend obviously makes an important point. As I have said more than once at this Dispatch Box, the questions of the future of the R&R programme and any decant location are decisions for Parliament. I have indicated that I understand that the commissions are currently seeking to have debates in both Houses, so your Lordships will be able to express further opinions before the Summer Recess.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister has been admirably clear—as mud—about the constitutional position so far as this is concerned. I think that he accepted the point of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that both Houses should be together. What representations has the Leader of the House made on this question, both to Mr Gove and to her government colleagues? Will she reinforce the importance of the constitutional position that both Houses should be together, wherever in the country that might be, and that it is a matter for Parliament to decide this?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend the Leader of the House is alongside me here as a courtesy, listening to your Lordships’ points of view, and I am sure that she will have heard what the noble Lord said. There are many questions about what disagreements there might be, but I would be surprised if there were any disagreements between me and my noble friend on things I have said to your Lordships today.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the UK is the most centralised country in the world. Congestion in London is a nightmare and property prices are ridiculous. Meanwhile, the rest of the country has struggled to attract new investment and jobs to replace the industries that it has lost. There is a case for looking at whether Parliament’s deliberations can take place elsewhere in the country and for moving large parts of government to the regions, so I certainly do not think that these ideas should be dismissed out of hand.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the Government are seeking to move parts of government out of London for precisely the kind of reasons that the noble Lord has given. However, this is a parliamentary matter. There will be debates and discussions in your Lordships’ House, and I am certain that he will put his view—and we will see whether he is able to carry your Lordships with him.
Lord Naseby (Con)
Will the Minister make a clear recognition of what my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister said about the services? When I was Chairman of Ways and Means, an inspection was held on the key issue of the fire risk. Will the Minister look at the case history of terminal 3 at Heathrow Airport, which was renovated between the hours of 9 pm and 6 am over a period of well over a year?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, again, I am being invited to stray into questions of parliamentary management, which is not appropriate for a government Minister. However, as always, my noble friend makes a very sensible point on these matters. There are always ways of arranging necessary work.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister would be kind enough to suggest to the Secretary of State, if he is interested in the public response to your Lordships’ House and its work, that he might be better directed at looking at a programme that reduced the size of this House and at a statutory Appointments Commission, putting a rein on the use by the current Prime Minister of patronage in appointments.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, again, the noble Baroness strays slightly from the Question. On the last point, I only say that in a Session following the Session in which there was a record number of defeats for Her Majesty’s Government, it would be surprising if the Government did not reflect on the significance of that.
Procedure and Privileges Committee
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That the Report from the Select Committee Support for remote participation (8th Report, Session 2021-22, HL Paper 201) be agreed to.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, before I speak to the Motion, I wish to comment briefly on the committee’s seventh report, which was originally tabled for today’s Order Paper. That report contained recommendations arising from the revision of the Companion to the Standing Orders. Late last week, a number of noble Lords expressed concerns to the Lord Speaker and me. After careful consideration, I decided to withdraw the Motion from the Order Paper to agree the committee’s seventh report. The Procedure and Privileges Committee will be invited to look again at these issues, and a further report will then be brought to the House for consideration.
I turn to the Motion before your Lordships today. This report by the Committee invites the House to agree that,
“as a reasonable adjustment, Baroness Thomas of Winchester be authorised to call on an assistant to support her in delivering speeches while participating remotely.”
This is precedented; the House agreed a comparable adjustment in 2012 to allow the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, to call on assistance when speaking in debates here in the Chamber. I hope that noble Lords will join the committee in supporting such rare and bespoke adjustments to ensure that disabled Members can continue to make a full contribution to the work of the House. I beg to move.
Queen’s Speech
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
“Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which was addressed to both Houses of Parliament”.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the privilege of opening today’s debate on the Motion for an humble Address. Today, I shall outline the Government’s plans to support the economy, energy and the environment.
Covid-19 was an unprecedented crisis and, in response, this Government took unprecedented action, providing nearly £400 billion to protect lives and livelihoods from the pandemic’s economic impact. It is thanks to this decisive response that the economy was able to recover faster than expected. That resurgence was accompanied by a labour market that outperformed expectations, with unemployment returning to below its pre-pandemic rate. None the less, there are significant challenges ahead.
Pressure on global supply chains and elevated energy prices, as the world unlocks from the Covid-19 pandemic, had meant that the cost of living was already on the rise. And now the unprovoked invasion of Ukraine has further driven up energy prices for households. The Government are acutely aware of the pressure that people face right now. That is why we are providing support worth over £22 billion in this financial year to help people through these difficult times.
We are also mindful of our responsibility to secure the economy over the longer term. Our spending on public debt interest repayments has reached the point where it now exceeds the budget for schools. Clearly, this is unsustainable. That is why we have taken tough and responsible decisions to repair public finances and return them to a tenable path. As a result, our debt is now on track to fall in the next few years, freeing up greater fiscal firepower to respond to future shocks and build economic security. A responsible approach to our national debt is just one element of how this Government are safeguarding our future economic health and our national well-being.
The legislation we are debating today will also play a significant part in achieving those goals. These measures will support key sectors such as food and farming and financial services. They will shield people from rising energy prices and consumer rip-offs, while preventing workers paying the price of business failure. They will also protect the environment and speed our transition to a net-zero economy.
I turn first to the financial services and markets Bill. The UK’s financial services sector is one of the most open, innovative and dynamic in the world. It is not just an industry in its own right but the engine of our economy. It employs over 2.3 million people throughout the country and contributes £75 billion in tax revenue. It is therefore right that we act to secure our position as a global leader for the sector over the long term. Our departure from the European Union means that there is now an opportunity to better tailor our legislation to better suit our markets. In his speech at Mansion House last year, my right honourable friend the Chancellor set out our ambitious visions for an open, green and technologically advanced financial services sector that is globally competitive and acts in the interests of communities and citizens, creating jobs, supporting businesses and powering growth across all of the UK.
This Bill represents further progress towards making this vision for financial services a reality. It will build on the Financial Services Act 2021 and will ensure that the sector continues to deliver for individuals and businesses across the country. In addition, the Bill will help the country seize the full opportunities presented by Brexit by repealing retained EU law and establishing a coherent, agile and internationally respected approach to financial services regulation that is specifically designed for the UK. This includes giving our financial services regulators new objectives to ensure greater focus on growth and international competitiveness. We will also reform the rules that regulate our capital markets to remove red tape and promote investment.
The Bill will fulfil important priorities for the Government by safeguarding our robust regulatory standards, which are a cornerstone of our attractiveness to investors and maintain the stability and soundness of our financial markets. In addition, it will include significant measures to promote consumer protection, helping to protect the easy access to cash on which so many people rely, boosting consumer confidence by including additional protections for those investing or using financial products, and providing greater support for scam victims.
Not only has the UK been a financial services hub for centuries, it has also long been known for its pioneering infrastructure. Our railway network, Shropshire’s Iron Bridge and the Severn crossings are all illustrations of how UK engineers shaped this country. But, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has said previously, for too long now Governments of every stripe have failed to invest enough in infrastructure. If we are to deal with two of the biggest challenges facing this country—the need to level up the country and to cut our carbon dependence—we must address this challenge head on. That is why last year we launched the UK Infrastructure Bank. Thanks to £22 billion of capacity, the bank will be able to support infrastructure investment and the levelling up of the whole UK. In turn, this will boost private sector confidence, unlocking a further £18 billion of investment.
The UK Infrastructure Bank Bill will finalise the bank’s set-up and ensure that it is a long-lasting institution. It will set out its objectives—to tackle climate change and support regional and local economic growth—in legislation, as well as giving the bank a full range of spending and lending powers, so it can benefit communities across the country and help the UK achieve its net-zero goals.
As well as strengthening investment, this Queen’s Speech took steps towards ensuring that investors, employees and consumers can be confident that they have the full facts about businesses’ financial health. When big companies go bust, the impact can be far reaching, and all too often it is workers and taxpayers who pay the price. Recent company collapses such as Thomas Cook, Carillion and BHS have underlined the need for proportionate and targeted audit, corporate governance and insolvency reforms. The draft audit, corporate governance and insolvency Bill will set out measures to rebuild trust in this area. Ultimately, the Bill will seek to safeguard jobs, reduce the economic and social harm from sudden company failures and reinforce the UK’s reputation as a great place to invest. It will include measures to boost resilience, competition and choice in the audit market, and it will establish a strengthened regulator and ways of holding business directors to account. These are complex and significant measures and it is critical that we get this reform right. That is why the Government are bringing forward this legislation in draft.
I turn to economic crime, which costs the UK an estimated £8.4 billion a year. We took recent urgent action with the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act, and now, as we committed to then, we are going further by bringing forward the economic crime and corporate transparency Bill. The Bill will strengthen the UK’s reputation as a place where legitimate business can thrive, and it will ensure that there is no place to hide dirty money. The Bill will include significant reforms to strengthen the role of Companies House, reforms to prevent the abuse of limited partnerships, new powers to seize crypto assets from criminals and reforms to give businesses greater confidence to share information on suspected money laundering.
Consumers also need to be confident that they will be supported if their relationship with a firm goes wrong. Already, the UK boasts a strong set of consumer rights, which are enforced through multiple routes. None the less, problems with purchases cost consumers £23 billion annually and there is evidence that competitive pressure among firms may have been stronger in the past than it is today. Now that we have left the EU, we can take clear action to address this problem by tailoring our legislation to support both consumers and businesses in a more agile way, while maintaining our high standards. The draft digital markets, competition and consumer legislation will boost consumers’ rights, strengthen enforcement and promote more competition in UK markets. This legislation will tackle bad business practices such as subscription traps and fake reviews, which cost consumers money. It will also clamp down on cartels and other activities that stifle competition. The Bill will also give the Competition and Markets Authority more powers to crack down on bad businesses ripping off consumers. In short, this legislation will help consumers keep more of their hard-earned cash.
When it comes to the cost of living, rising energy prices are being felt by households up and down the country. The Government are acting, with support to consumers worth over £9 billion and, importantly, a long-term plan for our energy security. Our recently published British Energy Security Strategy will help tackle rising bills and, alongside the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan and the Net Zero Strategy, drive £100 billion of private sector investment into new British industries, supporting the creation of around 480,000 clean energy jobs by 2030.
The energy Bill will deliver even more for UK families and businesses as we seek to transition to a cleaner, more affordable and more secure energy system. It will ensure that consumers remain protected by the price cap and that heat networks are regulated, helping to lift households out of fuel poverty. This landmark Bill will also fire the starting gun on new low-carbon technologies, such as hydrogen and carbon capture, utilisation and storage, by introducing state-of-the-art business models. It will also support the growth of new industries, unlocking tens of thousands of new skilled jobs across the UK. This reshaping of our energy industry will be overseen by a new future system operator, which will be charged with driving progress towards net zero, energy security and minimising the costs facing consumers.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
Could my noble friend tell the House how much extra revenue the Government are receiving in taxation as a result of the increases in oil and petrol prices?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I know that the amount is substantial, but I do not have the particular figure to hand. However, I am sure my noble friend on the Front Bench can provide it to my noble friend when he concludes today’s debate.
I now turn to two Bills relating to agriculture, an industry that makes an important contribution to our economic and environmental health. The first is the genetic technology precision breeding Bill. Precision breeding describes a range of technologies, such as gene editing, which enable DNA to be edited much more efficiently and precisely than by current breeding techniques. Now we are outside the EU, we can adopt a more proportionate regulatory approach to the development and marketing of plants and animals produced through such technologies. Such techniques will enable us to grow crops that are more resilient to climate change and resistant to disease, boosting food security and reducing our reliance on pesticides. The UK is already home to world-leading research in this field, and these changes will unlock further innovations that will improve our food system’s sustainability and resilience and bring our approach in line with that of other major economies.
Finally, the kept animals Bill, which raises standards for pets, farmed animals and kept wild animals, will continue its passage in this Session as soon as parliamentary time allows. The Bill’s measures include action to tackle livestock worrying and bans on live exports for fattening and slaughter and on the keeping of primates as pets. It also tackles the cruel trade of puppy smuggling. In doing so, it delivers a key part of the Government’s Action Plan for Animal Welfare and important manifesto pledges.
These are difficult times for this country and the world, but the Bills I have outlined will play a big part in safeguarding our economy, securing key industries such as farming and financial services, and protecting our energy supply. I have no doubt that this proposed legislation will spark many substantive and insightful contributions today and in sessions to come, which I greatly look forward to hearing.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction to the gracious Speech and send our good wishes to the Queen. I also look forward with pleasure to the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich, and to his contributions for many years to come.
This Queen’s Speech shows just how much the Government are out of touch with the issues that really matter to the people of this country. We know that what really concern people are the cost of living crisis, the huge rise in energy bills, lengthening NHS waiting lists and the impact of climate change on our future well-being. However, instead of a programme to address these very real concerns, the Government have chosen to pick fabricated fights to please a dwindling group of core supporters.
The fact is that the Government have presided over a low-growth economy for more than a decade. As a result, the Conservative Party has become the party of high taxes and low pay, and the latest national insurance increase means that millions will be taking home even less. We were already facing the scandal of over 1 million people regularly using food banks, and the Trussell Trust has reported a dramatic increase in demand following the scrapping of the £20 a week universal credit uplift. As a further reminder of how out of touch the Government are, we have MP Lee Anderson blaming a lack of cooking skills for the food poverty that millions of people are experiencing. Now, on top of the existing financial pain, energy costs have spiralled, and an estimated 1.5 million people will struggle to pay their energy and food bills. However, there is nothing in the Queen’s Speech to support households with the cost of living, no proposals for an emergency budget, no compassion and no hope. No wonder Simon Hart, the Welsh Secretary, described the speech as “dull as hell”.
We have to ask when the Chancellor will stir himself to act on the economic crisis. Increasingly, we are hearing business leaders—such as those from John Lewis, Tesco and Scottish Power—begging him to get his act together, as they see first hand the damage that is being done by his inaction. Inflation is at a 30-year high, with the potential to peak at over 10%, meaning that most people are experiencing real-term pay cuts. Andy Haldane, the ex-chief economist of the Bank of England, has warned that high inflation is likely to last for “years rather than months”. The result will be higher mortgage costs and a further squeeze on incomes. The Bank of England itself has warned that, for many, the cost of living crisis will feel like a recession.
Last week’s GDP figures showed a dramatic drop of 0.1% in March, showing economic growth grinding to a halt, amid evidence that the Chancellor ignored warnings from the Institute for Fiscal Studies in October 2020 that he was incorrectly financing the large sums needed for the pandemic. Meanwhile, as a result of previous ill-conceived government policies, many businesses are unable to recruit the staff they need to create growth opportunities, so further stagnation is setting in. While it is true that there are inflationary pressures across the globe, the Government’s handling of the economy means that we are experiencing a particularly challenging time, with the IMF predicting that we will slump to the bottom of the G7 table next year.
Where are the coherent set of measures to tackle the cost of living crisis and rebalance the economy? Where are the plans to invest in green, zero-carbon industries that could create millions of jobs across the nation as well as helping us meet our international obligations? Where is the promised employment Bill, which would have provided some extra protection for workers from unscrupulous employers? Why have the Government done nothing to revisit the level of social security uprating, despite the promise of the Prime Minister to do so when he appeared before the Commons Liaison Committee earlier in the year? Why is the focus of the financial services and markets Bill on deregulation when we know that this has been the cause of financial crises in the past? Where are the measures to ensure that banks deliver greater financial inclusion, a focus on green investment and financial regulation to support our climate change commitments?
For millions of families facing catastrophic soaring energy bills, the Government’s energy Bill is hopelessly inadequate. It does nothing to bring down costs, nothing to fast-track the energy-efficiency measures we all know that we need, and nothing to speed the race to renewables. Meanwhile, profits from oil companies are reaching record levels. This is why we have consistently argued that there should be a one-off windfall tax on the oil and gas giants, along with an uplift on the warm homes discount, giving additional support to up to 9 million working families and pensioners. I read that the Chancellor is finally considering a windfall tax. He should not be embarrassed about copying Labour’s proposals: if it is the right thing to do for the country, he should just get on with it.
The truth is that we are living with the failure of this Government’s policy over a decade to properly regulate the energy market, to develop renewables and nuclear power, and to deliver the energy-efficiency programmes that the Climate Change Committee has repeatedly said are vital to meet our net-zero targets. This is why Labour is committed to accelerating the green energy sprint by, for example, insulating 19 million homes in a decade; doubling our onshore wind capacity and tripling solar power by 2030; and targeting investment in hydrogen. We will put renewable energy at the heart of our energy security programme, providing the leadership to encourage and reassure investment for a long-term strategy, as well as putting our climate change obligations at the heart of everything we do.
Unlike Labour, the Government seem to have dropped action on climate change and the environment from their priorities—and yet the need was never greater. The recent report from the Office of Environmental Protection warns of a tipping point in which gradual environmental decline becomes catastrophic, including loss of wildlife, the collapse of fisheries, and dead, polluted rivers. It highlights the many environmental targets already missed and the funding for those who monitor environmental failings being cut, and calls on the Government to implement more urgent and coherent measures.
Sadly, none of that urgency is reflected in the Bills before us. Where are the measures on the protection of the national parks and other strategic areas of the countryside that we were expecting? Where are the ambitious plans on improving land use and delivering biodiversity net gain we were promised through the new planning legislation? They have been replaced by a vague promise to factor in environmental concerns. Where is the nature Bill that could have taken forward our next steps on reversing biodiversity decline? Where is a food Bill to implement the national food strategy and deliver for British farmers and consumers? Instead, we see the Government rowing back on the simplest of measures to control junk-food marketing. Where is the further action on water quality and air quality, which we know are areas of major public concern?
The story of the Government’s environment priorities in this programme for government is more about what is not in it than what is. Similarly missing is the animals abroad Bill, which would have banned trophy hunting and the import of animal fur and foie gras—all further evidence that the Government are pandering to a small group of Tory Back-Benchers rather than following through on their manifesto commitments that have broad public support.
These Bills are a hallmark of a Government who have lost their way. They tilt at the wrong targets and highlight a lack of ambition and missed opportunities. We needed a Queen’s Speech that would tackle the cost of living crisis with an emergency Budget, including a windfall tax, to get money off people’s bills. We needed a real plan for growth to get our economy firing on all cylinders, with a climate investment pledge and a commitment to make and buy more in Britain. We needed to put action on restoring nature and biodiversity at the heart of what we do, in the knowledge that they are essential for human well-being, progress and prosperity. Sadly, these Bills will do none of these things. They excite and inspire no one, and the Government will undoubtedly pay the price at the next election.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, let me take this opportunity to join in the many thanks to Her Majesty the Queen and express our pleasure at seeing her in such good form over the weekend.
“Yesterday upon the stair,
I met a man who wasn’t there.
He wasn’t there again today”.
How better to describe this Government’s abject failure to recognise the scale and urgency of the cost of living crisis facing ordinary people? The Minister said that the Government must store up contingency resources for the future crisis. This is the future crisis: it is here now and action is required now. It has nothing to do with personal budgeting, home cooking or somehow getting a much higher paid job next week. Inflation continues to surge, especially on energy and food, and interest rates are rising. We have the spectre of stagflation.
The National Institute of Economic and Social Research reports that 1.5 million people will see soaring food and energy costs outstrip disposable income this year, forcing them to drain savings or go deeper into debt. The Yorkshire Building Society and the Centre for Economics and Business Research expect average household spending to exceed average income by over £100 a week within two years. Almost 60% of SMEs are now relying on the absolute no-no of borrowing to cover their basic insurance payments. A cost of living crisis is being followed by a debt crisis.
The Government are AWOL when they should be acting. They should immediately restore the £20 uplift to universal credit, cancel the increase in national insurance contributions and cut VAT temporarily from 20% to 17.5%, as my party has been calling for. That VAT cut would put an extra £600 into a typical family’s pocket, as well as support businesses, especially small businesses, who had hoped that they were recovering after Covid but are now slipping into crisis.
We can pay for it. The Government may finally be considering a windfall tax on the super-profits of the oil and gas companies—which interestingly my party called for while Labour was still contemplating the issue. However, a windfall tax does not undercut future investment, despite what we hear from Ministers. Shell has announced £8.5 billion in share buybacks for 2022, and BP is expecting to do at least £6 billion in share buybacks and hopes that the market will accept more. Companies buy back shares when they have set aside money for every reasonable investment and are still awash with cash. There is no investment risk.
It is not only the oil and gas companies that have had a windfall. The surge in prices because of inflation delivered the Chancellor an unexpected extra £9 billion in VAT by last January and will deliver at least another £40 billion of windfall VAT by the end of Parliament. Indeed, because of the freeze in thresholds, soaring inflation will also drive thousands more people into higher income tax brackets, with another unexpected windfall for the Treasury. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, made the point that the rising revenues of the oil and gas companies are also leading to a windfall for the Treasury. If you took less than half of that VAT windfall, along with an oil and gas windfall tax, you could pay for the cost of living rescue which I have just put forward. I understand that the Government want to hold back unexpected tax revenues for a dramatic tax cut just before the next general election, but surely even this Government cannot remain that cynical in the face of the immediate economic crisis in so many lives.
The Queen’s Speech also failed to address the fundamentals of economic growth. The OBR forecast for growth is dire. I am talking not just about the drop in GDP in March but the OBR’s longer-term running rate of growth; at just 1.75%, that is a level which cannot support our current standard of living. We have a working-age population shortage across the whole skills spectrum, with the dependency ratio rising sharply to a dangerous 57%. The OBR estimates 1.2% long-term scarring from a workforce shortage.
Our productivity growth continues to struggle, at a shade over 1%. Two key drivers of productivity are market size and market access, and we threw those out of the window with Brexit. Business investment is the lowest in the G7 by far, and CBI forecasts suggest that it will stay in that dreadful position. Remember, the trade deals and the magic deregulation that the Government boast about are already assumed in those dreadful forecasts. The OBR has identified a sharp decline in Britain’s trading capacity:
“The UK … appears to have become a less trade intensive economy, with trade as a share of GDP falling 12 per cent since 2019, two and a half times more than in any other G7 country”.
For us, dependent on commerce in trade, this is some of the worst news that we could ever have received. We must restore our trading relationship with the European Union, and quickly. The answer is certainly not getting ourselves into a trade war.
Personally, I will work on the Treasury Bills in the Queen’s Speech, and so will make a few remarks on those. We have seen the UK Infrastructure Bank Bill, and we have a reasonable idea of what will be in the financial services and markets Bill. However, the UK Infrastructure Bank is a midget compared to the European Investment Bank and the money that it used to supply here, and we are going to have to think far more ambitiously. The fact that housing does not qualify for support from the UK Infrastructure Bank strikes me as really quite shocking.
The financial services and markets Bill will be huge but, as the Minister pointed out, one of its key issues is to make competitiveness a target for the regulators. I just remind this House that we used to win the race to the bottom on competitiveness and it gave us the 2007-08 crash. This is an issue about which we have to be extraordinarily careful.
Both Bills continue—and this is a fundamental constitutional issue—the Government’s project to shift power from Parliament to the Executive and regulators, eliminating effective accountability. I struggled with this because, one day, a different Government might be in power, but a local Conservative gave me the answer. He told me, “We, the Conservatives, expect to win the next election with a very thin majority, so it is critical to take power away from Parliament now and give it to the Executive while we can”. We can best describe these Treasury Bills as massive Henry VIII Bills.
My colleagues will address many other sectors and issues, not least the inadequacy of the response to climate change, which also embeds huge economic opportunity and was pretty much ignored in the Queen’s Speech. Indeed, the Queen’s Speech Bills are basically culture wars, wedge issues and a grab of power from Parliament by the Government. Embedded within a lot of it is quite a good dose of nasty. I have been on the doorstep in the last few weeks and the public are increasingly sickened by nasty. Pretty much everyone I spoke to demanded that the Government address the cost of living crisis as an emergency and take action now.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as co-chair of Peers for the Planet. I will speak mainly on issues of climate change, foreshadowed by the speeches of the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Jones. First, I will refer briefly to two issues from the gracious Speech. I was pleased to see and am interested in taking part in the legislation on the genetic technology (precision breeding) Bill. The time that I spent at the then Ministry of Agriculture persuaded me that it is possible to use precision genetic technology to the benefit of both agriculture and consumers. As a country, we are good at regulation in these innovative situations, and we ought to pursue that.
The other issue, which gives me concern rather than enthusiasm, is the line in the gracious Speech about restoring the balance of power between the legislature and the judiciary. I worry about what that means and will listen very carefully and with some concern to the Government’s proposals in this area.
But I will speak mainly, as I did a year ago, about the climate and nature crisis confronting the country and the Government’s response to it. Today marks six months from the COP 26 conference in Glasgow and it was looking forward to that conference when many of us spoke last year. We did so despite the clouds of the global pandemic that hung above us all. We talked about the way in which it was important to find paths out of that crisis that did not set back the path on which we had embarked towards tackling the climate crisis. Today, we have different clouds above us. They are dark, and they are of war and—we talk of the cost of living crisis—of poverty. That is the problem that clouds our horizons today.
However, those dark clouds low above our heads have not taken away the clouds above them, the global clouds, or the necessity of acting internationally and nationally. I shall once again say what I have said many times: of course we are as a country a small emitter globally, but we are a leader globally. We are a leader in innovation and achievement. When we do that, we have an international heft far greater than simply our domestic achievements. It is really important, as Alok Sharma, who is still president of COP26 said today, that we do not commit
“an act of monstrous self-harm”
and that
“the current crises should increase, not diminish, our determination to deliver”
when
“the window of time we have to act is closing fast”.
So I was disappointed that the speech from the Throne did not include much greater and more comprehensive action to help people with the costs of their energy and to reduce the energy they use. We still do not do enough in a coherent and co-ordinated way to make our homes more energy efficient to reduce the cost that people incur in heating them, and we still have not capitalised on all the forms of renewable energy that we need. We should reassess the economic case for tidal power, given the economics of energy at the moment. The Minister who will reply will not be surprised to hear me say that we need to talk more about onshore wind.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, in view of the limited time to discuss the economy, I shall concentrate on inflation and, in particular, the role that the Bank of England has played in unleashing inflation in our country through failing to meet its proper mandate. The Bank has bought some £875 billion of government debt, half of that in the past two years. It has done so, including £50 billion in the last quarter of last year, against the advice of its own economist, Andy Haldane, who resigned, and, more importantly, of the Economic Affairs Committee of this House, which unanimously pointed to the stupidity of stimulating the economy when demand was increasing following the amounts that were saved as a result of Covid. We suggested that it might have inflationary consequences. The report was called Quantitative Easing: a Dangerous Addiction?. The Governor of the Bank of England’s first response to it was a rather trivial one. He said that we should not have used the word “addiction” because it would offend people who had illnesses. When we got the formal response—there are members of the committee here—it basically did not deal with the arguments, and the Treasury’s response was a two-page letter from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The effect now is that the Governor is telling us that we can look forward to double-digit inflation, when less than a year ago he was telling us that it was a transitory phenomenon when it was at 3.6%.
Being a Lords committee, we were diplomatic and kind and suggested that perhaps the Government, in printing £450 billion, might have been doing it to finance the Government’s spending. But we were told that, no, that was not the case at all and that it was in order for them to meet their mandate to get inflation to 2%. Well, it does not seem to have worked out quite like that. To me it is pretty obvious that if it looks like a duck, it is a duck, and that what the Bank of England has been doing is printing money to fund government expenditure, which inevitably results in inflation.
In response to our committee report, the governor said he was going to unwind QE when interest rates got to 1%. They are at 1% now, so what is the Bank saying? It is saying, “Well, we’re going to wait until August to take a view”—so the spirit of St Augustine is alive and well and living in Threadneedle Street: “O Lord, make me pure—but not just yet”.
Some people in the other place have said that we ought to question the independence of the Bank of England. I do not; the independence of the Bank of England is absolutely crucial. I do question whether the Bank of England is maintaining its independence and whether the Monetary Policy Committee is composed of people who will ensure that it does so. It seems to me quite extraordinary that, in the appointments made to the Monetary Policy Committee, there are very few people who actually know anything about monetary economics—and it shows. There is a dearth of experience that was not there when the Labour Government first set up the MPC following the 1997 election. It is not a healthy position when the Chancellor appoints the governor and the Treasury appoints the members of the Monetary Policy Committee. In these circumstances, we should not be surprised if we see the kind of groupthink that has led us into our current difficulties.
As I see that time is against me, I will just remind the House of something very sensible that the late Lord Callaghan told the Labour party conference: inflation is the father and mother of unemployment. The Bank may very well believe that inflation is transitory, and the governor may very well believe that with inflation running at 10% people will not ask for wage increases—but when they do, especially in the public sector, it will give a further crank to inflation. So it is high time that we held the governor and the Bank of England more to account for the important role—indeed, crucial role, given the size of its balance sheet—that it now has as a result of quantitative easing.
Baroness Drake (Lab)
My Lords, the Queen’s Speech contained no emergency measures to address the cost of living crisis that households are experiencing. Rather, the Prime Minister said that
“for every pound of taxpayer’s money we spend on reducing bills now, it is a pound we are not investing in bringing down bills and prices over the longer term … this moment makes clear our best remedy lies in urgently delivering on our mission to turbo charge the economy … and spread opportunity across the country.”
But the challenge to that trade-off—less bread today but more bread and jam tomorrow—is rising inflation. It weakens plans to reduce regional inequalities, every pound of government spending is worth less and it is deepening inequality. Is there a point at which the Government would accept that families’ current struggle with the cost of living was too great and they would have to introduce emergency measures? If so, exactly what is that point?
Reversing the UK’s economic inequalities requires large-scale measures that are well directed and backed by substantial levels of funding over a prolonged period. We heard little about future funding in the Queen’s Speech. We know from Germany that closing regional inequalities takes time and huge sums of public investment. Germany has transferred around €70 billion a year for 30 consecutive years to level up its country.
So I ask the Minister: given that rising inflation means that departmental spending plans set by the Treasury in October are increasingly worth less in real terms, what steps will the Government take to ensure that they meet their new national missions? Will they increase the budgets or lower their aspirations for what can be achieved by 2030?
The UK has one of the most centralised decision-making systems in the OECD, contributing inefficiencies to the imbalances in our country. National decisions are made without a full understanding of their impact on different geographies. The Government accept that a fundamental rewiring of the system of decision-making, locally and nationally, is required to address geographical disparities in England. We wait to see whether those leading the process have the will to deliver it, and whether the Treasury will actually relinquish powers. To quote from the Constitution Committee’s report on respect and co-operation,
“the West Midlands Mayor, Andy Street, said the future of English devolution should involve a sustainable financial settlement that ends the ‘begging bowl culture’ to Whitehall.”
A risk to achieving government aspirations on climate change and levelling up is the financial services Bill; I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. The current aims of the PRA and FCA include protecting and enhancing the integrity of the UK financial system and promoting competition. The Bill introduces a new delegated power to promote “international competitiveness”—a chilling sense of déjà vu. Previously, the FCA had a duty to promote international competitiveness. In 2012, the Treasury and Parliament both found that that approach to regulation contributed to the 2008 crisis. In 2019, the Governor of the Bank of England, Andrew Bailey, observed that, previously, the regulator
“was required to consider the UK’s competitiveness, and it didn’t end well, for anyone”.
That is true. The pursuit of the profitability of large international firms trumps public interest. Austerity and rising inequalities followed. The Government now risk making the same mistakes, and, with that, the levelling-up and net-zero aspirations faltering.
Advances in ICT and fintech have been hugely beneficial. Our economy would not have been able to adapt so quickly to mitigate the impact of the pandemic if it had occurred 20 years previously. But such advances bring new risks: communities grapple with access to cash, they face exclusion from data-driven services, and card or online transactions are the new norm.
In 2021 the UK cybersecurity agency took down a record number of online scams—four times as many as in 2020. TSB revealed that impersonation frauds are up 300%. Consumer protections in the Bill are needed, but absent is an FCA duty to have regard to financial inclusion, which is a growing risk in our economy.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
Could the noble Baroness bring her comments to a close, please?
Baroness Drake (Lab)
Sorry. Okay, well, the FCA’s new consumer duty and consumer vulnerability guidance concentrates on vulnerable consumers with access to retail products; it does not deal with those who do not have access to those products.
Finally, I look forward to hearing the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich. I am newly discovering Suffolk as my daughter and granddaughters have gone there, so I shall listen intently to his contribution.
The Lord Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich (Maiden Speech)
It is a huge honour to be able to address your Lordships’ House today. I thank noble Lords for kind words and acts of welcome. I have been very struck by the kindness and warmth of the staff who work here and who have supported me in my early faltering steps. I regret that a bout of Covid last week prevented me attending at all, but I look forward to building a pattern of regular engagement in the work of this House.
I have had the joy and privilege of serving the people of the diocese of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich, which comprises most of the wonderful county of Suffolk, for the past seven years. I previously served in Scunthorpe, New York City, St Louis, Missouri, Westminster, the Isle of Dogs and Cambridge, and I simply reflect on the curious ways of the Church of England that I ended up serving a largely rural diocese.
It has been a journey of great discovery, learning about rural life, agriculture, care of the land and the environment, the conditions of increasing rural poverty and isolation, and the challenges particularly facing young people, which are hidden behind picture-postcard scenes of beautiful landscapes and coastline. It is these concerns and experiences I hope to bring to the attention of the House and Her Majesty’s Government.
I note with considerable interest that Her Majesty’s Government intend to bring forward an energy Bill with the aspiration to tackle three related concerns, as we have heard: the affordability of energy, energy security and the urgent need to transition to cleaner energy in response to the climate crisis. I know that I and colleagues on this Bench, including my right reverend friend the Bishop of Manchester, who until a moment ago was sitting next to me, will be following this Bill closely.
I believe that the climate crisis is the multiplying factor for all the other crises we face. Global temperature rises will dramatically increase the global refugee crisis and food shortages, and the geopolitical impact will continue to be magnified. We must pursue the determined course set at COP 26, where we take actions—challenging actions—now for the sake of the long term. If we do not hold the net-zero targets before our eyes at all times and hold to the determination to achieve them, all our other crises will be multiplied.
In a rural county such as Suffolk, we are acutely aware of the challenges of determining what the long-term cost-effective forms of renewable energy really are, and that they do not undermine other environmental goals such as maintaining biodiversity. We know, of course, that changing hearts and minds requires determined leadership. I am pleased to acknowledge the leadership of the Bishop of Norwich, who heads up the climate crisis response for the Church of England, and in my own diocese it is the suffragan Bishop of Dunwich, who has a vested interest since most of his see is already under the sea and he cannot afford to lose any more.
I acknowledge too with gratitude the aspiration on the part of the Government of the United Kingdom to be a global leader in responding to the challenges of energy security without compromising our response to the climate crisis.
Many of us have made personal commitments to respond to this because we feel compelled by the nature of the crisis, and we know that we cannot expect others to do what we are not willing to do ourselves. One of my various modest actions is to start growing trees from seed, one for each of the 478 churches in the diocese, as a gift to honour Her Majesty’s Platinum Jubilee as part of the green canopy programme. Having had a faltering start a year ago—where planting 400 seeds and overwintering them generated a mere 18 hornbeam —to my surprise I now have some 470 hornbeam and field maple seedlings safely thriving in my greenhouse. Yet it is an act the full fruit of which I will never see. I might say it is an act of faith and I believe it is in this spirit that we should approach the issues of energy and the climate crisis. It is time for implementation and action—acting now for the long-term future and acting with clear and committed leadership.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, it is a huge pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich in his maiden speech. I note in passing that St Edmundsbury Cathedral celebrated its 1,000-year anniversary last weekend, so the right reverend Prelate is in a position to take the long view on certain things. He has huge international experience combined with parish experience on the ground—both angles. He is engaged, I have been informed, in a “Transforming Effectiveness” project in the Church of England. I think we could all do with a bit of transforming of effectiveness, so maybe he will take the lead on that as well. I note personally that he is an honorary canon of Ely Cathedral, a most graceful and beautiful cathedral and certainly my favourite. Aside from all that, his is just the voice we want here in London on the great social and other challenges that he has mentioned; I hope that we will hear a very great deal more from him.
I shall speak mostly about energy, climate, prices and inflation. I declare my interests as in the register, including as an adviser to the Kuwait Investment Office. The cost of living and inflation crisis is basically driven by the energy prices and energy crisis, and energy price roots are international and demand immediate international understanding and action. Obviously, we can try, and we are trying, to marginally alleviate the suffering and damage here, which affect not merely the very poorest households but more or less half the households in this nation; but the real and immediate solutions to this intolerable situation lie elsewhere. The only effective short-term—I emphasise, short-term—answer to all this demand and shortage is more supply. The OPEC countries can easily add 3 million or 4 million barrels a day in quite short order, and their current refusal to do so must be vigorously challenged.
If we followed this course and could make some precious advance there, we would send all fuel prices, and by knock-on effects gas and petrol prices and so on, tumbling and take the steam out of inflation far more effectively than any subsidies, grants, or jiggling with the bank rate—which anyway only has an effect a year ahead, if at all—or other relief measures. Even an extra £10 billion one-off windfall from the oil companies’ vast and fortuitous profits—a take which I am at all not against as it is a sensible thing to do—will be only marginal relief from the biggest cost jumps in a generation, with much more to come, so they say. I cannot see that accelerating more North Sea oil development, with results in maybe three to four years’ time, will help either the immediate crisis or our longer-term security. People forget that the North Sea is an international province, as Ted Heath discovered in 1972 at the time of the oil shock and, of course, has to supply its oil into world markets.
We should be using all our famed soft power and diplomacy to get our Middle East so-called friends to stop their dogged refusal to help and start pumping more right now, and point out the sheer foolishness and short-sightedness, both political and commercial, of not doing so. How is that to be done? If the EU is divided and cannot decide which way to go and the United Nations is hamstrung by the fact that Russia is in the chair, our own country should seek to lead a coalition of like-minded nations to confront our so-called OPEC friends with the immorality and danger of their persistent refusal to use their spare capacity now and offset the effect of Russian exports being cut. Even Iran, if we can get through the JCPOA crisis, wants to add another million barrels a day. Every day that OPEC leaders delay in pumping more ensures that billions continue pouring into Russian coffers to finance the Ukrainian butchery.
In fact, the scene for gas is changing fast. Covid has already shrunk the Chinese market, and I am told that Milford Haven and other ports are now jammed with diverted LNG ships wanting to put more gas into the UK grid system. The global price for gas has dropped sharply, so why on earth are we still being told about charging consumers hundreds more for gas this autumn? Why we cannot we get this production into our pipelines and to hard-pressed households beats me, and I hope that the Minister will explain that odd conundrum.
I turn to our longer-term energy security and to the climate struggle in the White Paper. Yes, the promise of expanded nuclear power is good, although it is disgraceful that a firm and reliable block of low-carbon nuclear power has ever been allowed to run down the way it has. Some of us tried to begin the replacement of outdated nuclear plants 40 years ago, when I announced 15 gigawatts of new nuclear in December 1979 in the other place. It was nearly all defeated by political weakness, public fears and, above all, short-termism. Only one plant ever got built—Sizewell B—and that took 15 years from my announcement.
There is much more to say on whether the programme is going the right way but, as I am over my five minutes, I shall just add that I look with sadness on the numerous blunders in our energy policy over the past 30 years under all parties. Warnings were consistently neglected and short-termism prevailed, politically and financially. Here we are in a total energy mess, and it is time to start digging ourselves out of it.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford. As a member of Peers for the Planet, I will speak on a less-discussed aspect of renewable energy. Perhaps I should also declare that one of my sons writes on energy matters.
I would first, however, like to endorse greater use of onshore wind turbines, as promulgated in the Bill proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, sadly not appreciated by the Government, for reasons which appear to further narrow interests rather than the imperative of a carbon-neutral economy. But I am encouraged by the promise of a Bill to deliver the transition to cheaper, cleaner and more secure energy, as also commented on by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Edmundsbury in his perceptive and lively maiden speech.
Our great asset in the field of renewable energy is the sea. We have sea all round our island, and its power is more predictable and constant than wind or solar outputs. We have available two dynamic forces: the tides and the waves. Tidal energy has often been discussed in your Lordships’ House, but why, since government policy to dispense with fossil fuel was established in the Climate Change Act 2008, have Her Majesty’s Government been so slow in furthering tidal power? Can the Minister account for that? Has pressure by the fossil fuel companies played a part?
Wave energy—my main theme—risks the same dilatory attitude from the Government. The northern coast of the UK is one of the best sites for development, because the westerlies blow in temperate zones so strongly in winter and make the waves more turbulent where the North Sea meets the Atlantic Ocean. The potential of waves was being discussed when I had responsibility for gas safety in the Health and Safety Executive as long ago as the 1980s. Then, technical problems deterred pursuit, but that was before the climate emergency was generally understood, with enough traction to influence policy.
Although the first patent for extracting energy from waves was taken out in France in 1799, and experiments in the use of wave power have been in play since 1890, the first commercial wave power device in the UK was not installed until 2000, on the coast of Islay in Scotland, and connected to the national grid. A marine energy test facility was established in 2003 in Orkney, on the edge of the Atlantic Ocean, to kickstart development of wave and tide energy technology. I understand three developers are using it. Research and development is being carried out in the universities of Edinburgh, Bristol and Lancaster, in the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, in the United States Naval Academy and in MIT.
It has been established that, while solar panels with efficiencies above 10% are considered viable, wave energy converters can have efficiencies of over 50%. The power density of waves is very large indeed. Wave energy can be taken directly into electricity-producing machinery and used to power adjacent generators and power plants. Ministers have repeatedly said that we need baseload power for when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine. This is where waves come in. I ask the Minister: what progress have the Government made?
Of course, there are technical and environmental issues to deal with—infrastructure and offshore grid connections. Attention needs to be paid to the possible effects on marine ecology as well as on fishing and navigation. However, huge strides have been made and much has already been learned from projects over the years. In the USA, Australia, Italy, China, Denmark, Portugal, Sweden and Gibraltar, development work is going on, but here in the UK there seems to be only some research and a small amount of installation. Our research funding is comparatively low.
The energy security strategy outlined in the other place on 19 April and later here made no mention whatever of tidal or wave energy. Surely wave energy must be a greater part of the mix of sources for us. What investment have her Majesty’s Government made so far in developing market-ready wave energy devices, and how will they encourage this most promising avenue of renewable energy? Can the Minister assure us that a boost for wave power could form part of the energy security Bill promised in the Queen’s Speech?
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, the gracious Speech in Her Majesty’s Platinum Jubilee year starts with the Government’s priority being to grow and strengthen the economy and help ease the cost of living crisis for families. It talks about supporting the Bank of England to return inflation to its target by establishing an infrastructure bank. I am proud to have worked with the British Business Bank and I pay tribute to it for increasing its book from £8 billion to £80 billion through the pandemic.
The gracious Speech talks about championing international trade, and I pay tribute to the Department for International Trade for rolling over 66 EU bilateral agreements in time and the new free trade deals with Australia and New Zealand, on which I had the privilege of working closely with it as president of the CBI. We are now in the midst of the FTA with India being negotiated with an objective of completing it by Diwali. Last week, I was in India launching the UK-India industry task force between the CBI and the CII.
The gracious Speech talks about investing in our gallant Armed Forces. I remember the debate that we had in this House on the 70th anniversary of NATO in 2019, and I remember very clearly then—three years ago—saying that we should increase minimum spend on defence from 2% to 3%. I may boast, but I think that I was prescient. Would the Government agree that we need to do this now after the sad Ukraine war?
The gracious Speech also talks about the Commonwealth Games in Birmingham. I am the proud chancellor of the University of Birmingham and we are at the heart of these Games, with the athletes’ village in the university and with the baton relay being sponsored by us going to all 72 Commonwealth countries and territories around the world as we speak. Hockey and squash are also taking place at the university and there is a business event at our exchange building in the middle of Birmingham.
I have been president of the CBI for nearly two years now. My tenure started with completing Brexit, then we had the Covid pandemic out of nowhere and now the Ukraine war; I suppose I will be known as the “crisis president”. It is a fragile recovery—already fragile before the Ukraine war—with supply chain challenges, labour shortages, very low employment but energy price inflation, indeed inflation across all parts of industry. In fact, there is a danger of wage-price spiral inflation and a danger of inflation with no growth—stagflation. I first challenged the Government by asking the Chancellor in a meeting in February last year if he was worried about inflation. Businesses are now feeling the chill. There is a cost of living squeeze on firms and on consumers. We are very worried.
And what has happened? Taxes have gone up; national insurance has gone up by 1.25% for employers and employees. This is the worst time in history to have the highest tax burden in 71 years. The Chancellor talks about reducing taxes in 2024 by 1%. We should reduce taxes now, because businesses and consumers need the help now. What is the point of this Government having spent £400 billion, which is fantastic, to save our businesses and our economy and to have a vaccine programme that was world-leading? The tennis analogy is that we take a back swing—that is, we spend the £400 billion—and we hit the ball, but if we stop there then the ball will go into the net because you need to follow through to get it over the net. The Government need to be bold enough to follow through.
The Government have cut fuel duty by 5%, but our fuel prices remain some of the highest in the world. There has been support in the shape of VAT cuts on energy-saving materials. The energy Bill that the gracious Speech speaks about is great. Big and better nuclear is terrific and small modular reactors are fantastic. Working with countries such as India on solar will be great. The hydrogen investment road map is terrific. Investment in the energy-intensive industries compensation scheme is great. But we need to extend and broaden the recovery loan scheme. Do the Government agree? We need to create a growth guarantee scheme as a long-term replacement. Do the Government agree?
I sit on the advisory council of the Chancellor’s fantastic Help to Grow scheme for SMEs, but we need far more incentives for businesses to invest and grow. In green finance, we need to leverage North Sea production as the UK transitions, because going to net zero is not an on/off switch; it is a transition. Do the Government agree?
I believe hydrogen is the future. I am the chancellor of the University of Birmingham, which created HydroFLEX, the world’s first retrofitted hydrogen-powered train, up and running at COP 26—a great collaboration between universities, businesses and government to create world-beating innovation.
We have great clusters in this country. We had the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine, produced by AstraZeneca based in Cambridge in conjunction with the Serum Institute of India, the largest vaccine manufacturer in the world, which produced 2 billion doses of it.
The super-deduction is a great idea by the Chancellor, but it is being taken away in 2023. Do the Government agree that we need a 100% deduction for investment in future? In innovation and R&D, we need to invest more than 1.7% of GDP. America and Germany spend 3.1% and 3.2% respectively. Just imagine if we spent at that level.
I shall conclude with this point. From the start of the war on 25 February, the CBI has been working with the Ukrainian ambassador and his team on a humanitarian basis, with medical products, ration packs and food boxes. No wonder the Edelman Trust Barometer has found that business is the most trusted institution. This is business as a force for good.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests, particularly to my partnership in DAC Beachcroft and my role as senior independent director of LINK.
I want to focus today on competitiveness, although it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, with his compendium of ideas for how we can build stronger foundations for the long term. As we seek to emerge from the pandemic and deal with the immediate problems of economic stagnation, falling real incomes and the situation in Ukraine, it is vital that we look to the longer term.
I strongly agree with my noble friend Lord Forsyth about the dangers that lie ahead, but I welcome the financial services and markets Bill and the commitment by Ministers to require regulators to take account of the need to promote competitiveness, although I am fearful that this is all going to end up as another missed opportunity. As my noble friend the Minister stressed, we all recognise how vital financial services are to our economy. More needs to be done to ensure that the UK, and the London market in particular, not only maintains its position but advances it significantly.
The remarkable concentration of capital and expertise in the London market attracts business from right across the world. That capital and expertise is highly mobile, and the international insurance market is innately competitive. Consequently, our regulatory system—not only its statutory powers but its character—is inevitably a factor in both the perception and the reality of the UK as a place to do business. What is needed is not yet another reorganisation and rebranding of the regulators. The system of regulation created in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis is not fit for purpose and is not working in the best interests of the nation.
If, once this new legislation is on the statute book, the same people then turn up to the same offices and the same desks, with much the same powers and, all importantly, the same culture and attitudes, nothing will have been achieved. A profound change in culture is required, and transparent and generally accepted metrics must be in place to enable us to measure and scrutinise the true extent of that change.
Creating a competitiveness duty for the regulators in the UK is a core part of maintaining the UK as a leading global and international insurance and reinsurance market—but words are not enough. Our own Lords Industry and Regulators Committee, in its letter to the Economic Secretary on 6 April, rightly observed that the introduction of a competitiveness objective alone would not be sufficient to tackle concerns around the inflexible regulatory structure.
Success depends on establishing an approach to regulation that focuses on risk and sets the right rules for the right firms in the right way. That has to be accompanied by publicly disclosed performance criteria so that Ministers and Parliament can rightly hold regulators to account. This must include annual reporting against clear objectives. It should also include international benchmarking against other regulators. So there has to be real clarity within the Bill about delivery, setting out the parameters and reporting requirements in some detail, just to ensure that this is no tick-box exercise. This legislation is an ideal candidate for pre-legislative scrutiny. Ideally, this would be undertaken by Members of both Houses—all the expertise we have is already in place.
The Bill will seek to underpin the provision of cash across the UK. In my capacity as a director of LINK, I look forward to hearing more about that, and I am confident that the good work that has already been done will be fully acknowledged and built on.
In closing, I dare say that the Government will be able to muster sufficient support in another place for whatever they propose, but I implore my noble friend the Minister to take full advantage of the considerable expertise that is available in this House, sooner rather than later.
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. I will make some remarks on the macroeconomic aspects of the economic challenge that we face.
Of course, we all know that this is a dual economic crisis: it is a crisis at household level as inflation soars—it is predicted to exceed 10% in a few months—and it is a macroeconomic crisis of stagflation, or inflation and constrained growth combined. No one should pretend that addressing stagflation is easy if you are in power, as a lot of the people on these Benches know from the past. To some extent, this is of course a global challenge and not a UK one, although I take the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on this issue, which were as stimulating as ever. But it is important to understand that there is a UK variant of this economic shock if we are going to get the policy-making response right. That is what I want to talk about briefly today.
Of course, everyone has suffered from two huge impacts—Covid and the Ukraine war—and the supply problems and commodity shocks that have come from those two crises. But, to understand how the UK should respond, we have to understand three things. First, we have to understand how serious the risks of recession are, as economic activity slows down, as well as the dangers that come with escalating prices. Secondly, we have to understand how much domestic inflation is caused by these external shocks and how much is caused by wages chasing inflation. Thirdly, we have to understand what country-specific factors lie behind inflation in the UK.
On the first issue, the risk of recession, most commentators, including the Bank of England—to the extent that it is a commentator—say that we are on the brink of a recession, or at least a very significant slow-down. The second largest hit to household incomes since records began is coming our way. Consumer confidence is at the lowest it has been for nearly 50 years. The OBR says that living standards will fall by the largest annual amount since records began 65 years ago. In my view, the risks of recession should worry policymakers as much as inflation. I suspect that, in six months, they will worry us much more.
On the second point, of how much inflation is driven by supply shocks versus a wage-price spiral—various people have talked about this issue—the evidence is quite complicated. The UK is an odd case in this regard because, like the US, where economists suggest there is clear evidence of excess demand as wages chase prices across the economy, the UK has tight labour markets and inflation is well above target. But unlike the United States, there is little evidence so far that our inflation is at the moment being fuelled by a wage-price spiral. The latest ONS data in February shows that regular pay fell year on year in real terms. The one area in which that is not true, by the way, is financial services, where large bonuses have kept overall pay growth higher. However, we do not at the moment have a systemic economy-wide wage-price spiral problem—though that is not to say we should be complacent. But we have a serious problem of lagging real wages in much of our economy, which is a key issue because it means that the Government have much more fiscal room to counter an upcoming recession than they might think.
On the third issue, the UK-specific factors behind inflation, again the UK is an odd case in one important respect—Brexit. Brexit has caused UK-specific inflationary pressures, and for a few reasons: the depreciation of sterling in the aftermath of the referendum; additional barriers at the border; raised costs; and trade barriers protecting domestic producers from efficient competition. What we have not seen, interestingly, is inflation driven by the labour shortages that Brexit accentuated. IFS studies suggest that, with a couple of exceptions, those have not led to accelerating wage growth.
That is the bad news. The good news is that we do not have a broad-based spiking of wages due to a Brexit that is causing raging inflation. This suggests that, while inflation is causing huge pains to millions of households, the far bigger risk for the UK is the unhappy combination of energy price hikes, higher food prices, fiscal tightening and monetary tightening, all leading by the end of the year to a serious slowdown and even recession. A concern about the horrific impact of the cost of living crisis on struggling families and a macroeconomic concern about the dangers of reinforcing the drift towards recession point the same way, in my view: towards the Government taking urgent, sizeable steps to stimulate the economy. By far the most efficient and targeted way of doing this is through not tax cuts but the benefits system, helping those who need it most and whose incomes are not keeping up with rising prices, who have no savings to rely on and no access to other wealth. This could be financed in various ways, such as through borrowing or the windfall tax, which noble Lords would expect me to talk about.
I will say one last word on the windfall tax. If it is designed properly and targets genuine, supernormal profits, the idea that it will undermine investment is incorrect because investment plans do not rely on supernormal profits. If they do, they are not very good investment plans. Spain, Italy, Bulgaria and Romania have introduced them and France has enforced big price reductions on EDF. Germany’s coalition is debating one and Biden’s congressional Democrats have proposed one. From what Ministers have said in public, in coded and less coded ways, I am actually hopeful that the UK looks like it may follow suit. If so, it will be not just for the families but for the macroeconomic health of our economy that it happens.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a director of Aldustria Ltd, which is into battery storage. We absolutely have an energy crisis at the moment, and it is multidimensional. The statistic that struck me most was that, in October, we can expect average—I repeat, average—energy household bills to approach £3,000. That level will, I suspect, affect some of the decisions that we in this House will make, let alone those who are far less well-off than we are privileged to be as Members of this House.
A bit like inflation, where the risk is that it becomes endemic, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said, an energy price increase at that level will not go down quickly. Through the aggression of Russia, the situation in Ukraine means that the chess pieces on the energy board are not going to stay put; they are going to move around and, if anything, get worse over the next few years. Our main concern has to be the effects of that on households and the broader economy. As we have seen, those with prepayment meters—their only source of energy, in many ways—have already stopped putting finance into those meters. That is a leading indicator of where we are going in this crisis.
I very much welcome that we have in the Queen’s Speech, and coming down the legislative road, the energy security Bill. I am sure there are some parts of that that are really important, not least such things as the future systems operator—it all sounds very technical—but we absolutely need a revived strategic approach to our energy networks. Already, getting access to the grid, whether it is for renewables or for batteries, is extremely difficult. I just do not see a pathway through in the short term, whereby we can bring many of those renewable resources on board, let alone energy storage as well, which makes some of those renewables work.
Back in November 2020, we had the Government’s Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution, and just before we finished the last Session of Parliament we had the energy security strategy. To me, there was a big difference between the two, and it was at point 7 in the green industrial revolution, on the very tedious subject of energy efficiency. Energy efficiency is really boring; it is all about bringing down the demand for energy. I sometimes think that, in energy policy-making in the Government, we have gone back to the thinking of the Central Electricity Generating Board of the 1960s: there is going to be an energy crisis, so build, build, build. Of course, we have to do that, but what we need to do as well—and we are smart enough and we have the systems to do it these days—is manage demand. I was brought up as an economist, where you dealt with supply and you dealt with demand—you dealt with both. We seem to have forgotten that entirely. It is in the area of heat and buildings, where the Government have a strategy, that we need to get energy efficiency right.
The Climate Change Committee was mentioned earlier in the debate, and I shall quote its thoughts on the Heat and Buildings Strategy in its report that came out earlier this year, I think in March:
“plans are not yet comprehensive or complete—
it is talking in its usual very restrained way—
“and significant delivery risks remain”
across the strategy. My absolutely fundamental question to the Minister is whether the energy security Bill will bring back that other half of the economy—demand, as opposed to supply. I would like him to answer that key question.
The only other questions I would ask are these. When do the Government predict that we will finally manage to decouple electricity prices from gas prices? That has to be an absolute target, to get us out of these sorts of things in the long term. Finally, coming down to the micro, what are the Government going to do particularly around those consumers on prepayment meters who will, in many ways, be discriminated against in the restricted strategies that we already have to help consumers with their energy bills?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I declare my membership of Peers for the Planet and I shall speak chiefly to my amendment. I tabled this amendment because, during recess and subsequently, on school and community visits, in the light of the fact that the World Meteorological Organization has just predicted that there is a 50% chance that in the next five years the world will break 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels—the maximum that Paris identified as bearable for people and planet—I saw a huge amount of fear and despair, and desperation about the climate and nature crises. We need to acknowledge the impact of that on mental health and well-being, as well as the very great dangers, highlighted by the right reverend Prelate in his powerful maiden speech.
The ways forward are known; they have been worked through and worked out. Indeed, I have to make mention, since it is my first time back in the House, that they proved very popular, as reflected in the wonderful Green Party local election results that we have just enjoyed.
I will run very briefly through the four elements of this amendment. The first is the climate and ecology Bill, which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, has indicated that he plans to bring before your Lordships’ House. It acknowledges that the climate and nature crises are deeply interrelated. I must note at this point that the Office for Environmental Protection, created under the Environment Act, in its first major intervention and report, has warned the Government in the strongest terms that our nation’s nature is at risk of desperate tipping points. It warns of a massive loss of wildlife further to our already depleted levels, of a fisheries collapse and of dead rivers. To quote Dame Glenys Stacey:
“A sustainable environment is not just nice to have but essential for human wellbeing, progress and prosperity.”
I do hope the Government will listen to that report.
Also in the amendment is the green new deal, acknowledging the need for investment in energy efficiency, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, set out. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, spoke about onshore wind and the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, spoke about harnessing the power of our oceans.
The amendment also calls for abolishing the maximising economic recovery duty. I note that we have just marked our six-month anniversary as chair of COP 26. I look back to that meeting in Glasgow, where global experts and independent people said, “You, the UK, as chair of COP 26, must commit to no new oil and gas”.
Finally—this might be the surprising element—the amendment calls for the extension of the right to roam. That reflects the fact that our Environment Agency has been slashed back and is desperately struggling to protect our natural world. Indeed, we have more threats to it. Citizen scientists are out there right now sampling our rivers, looking at our wildlife populations and doing huge amounts of work. The right to roam gives people the chance to fill in where the Government have failed and also of course gives them the chance to develop a love of nature to protect it.
I have two final extra points. The opening words of the Speech were:
“My Government’s priority is to grow … the economy”.
I question the deliverability of that, as other noble Lords have done. But, more, I strongly question its wisdom. We have been chasing growth, with varying levels of success, for decades—and look at the state of our society. The cost of living crisis is not a new thing arising from energy crises but a decades-long struggle, as marked by the rise of food banks. Who are we growing the economy for? Are we just making the few even richer?
Finally, I do have to point to one of the many signs of intellectual incoherence in the Government’s programme. The Speech contains the financial services and markets Bill, where we hear talk of increasing competitiveness and cutting red tape, but also the economic crime and corporate transparency Bill, which acknowledges the fact that we have a huge corruption problem in the UK and that the City of London is not just a creaking galleon with a few rotten apples in its barrels but a ship rotten to its timbers and decaying in its sails. Avoiding shipwreck and protecting the security of us all requires strong medicine and controls, not setting sail for the open seas on course for one of our nation’s many tottering tax havens.
Lord Wakeham (Con)
My Lords, I am tempted to start by saying that, for the last three or four speeches I have made in the House, I have been preceded by a bishop. I always thought that the people who organise these things thought that perhaps it was a good idea for a bishop to speak before me; however, the noble Baroness made her speech—a lot of it quite controversial —in her normal style, and I enjoyed listening to it.
When I was listening to the Queen’s Speech, given by the Prince of Wales, and some very sensible remarks were made about energy, I remembered that it was over 30 years ago that I privatised the electrical supply industry. That is a very long time ago, and it was interesting for me to think about that—and about what we were thinking about at the time. We have made a success of some of these things, but not of others.
I remember three things which concerned me at the time. First, we had to create an industry that could take its place in a market economy where there was competition, which would be for the benefit of consumers if we could do it. Many people have been in charge of these things over the 30 years since I gave it all up, and I think we have had some success—but there is still more to do.
The second thing we were concerned about—which was relatively new for us at the time—was dealing with the question of renewables, which had not really been part of the scene at all. The policy I tried to bring in was to say that renewables are important, but that they would not really survive unless they could survive in a market economy, producing electricity at a price that consumers would pay. However, in order to get there, it was right and proper that Governments should give assistance to the companies that were developing the renewable industry in order to get them going.
Well, I must say, 30 years on, that the situation is much more complicated and muddled. I get the impression that we are subsidising energy production that there is no need to subsidise, and that other types are not being subsidised which should be. I am delighted to hear that the Minister for Energy in the Commons has indicated that he is having a good look at that, because he too is not satisfied. So I think we are making some progress there, but there are still a lot of problems that must be dealt with and my fundamental view is that, if we are going to subsidise energy, we should subsidise consumers rather than energy producers, because they are the people who probably need it more.
The third area I was involved in at the time was a great plan to privatise the nuclear industry. I am afraid that I had to go to the House of Commons to make a speech to explain that it just could not be done. It was impossible to find any reliable evidence at all about what it would cost, and they had not really started to think about what the decommissioning costs of the nuclear industry were at that time. The plan had to be withdrawn. I have to say, 30 years on, that I do not believe we have made the progress with the nuclear industry that we ought to have made; it really is a disgrace that we still have not got our act together. I am pretty certain that any sensible nuclear industry will avoid building power stations the size of Hinkley Point and Sizewell, and that smaller nuclear energy projects are the way to go.
This is very important because, if one considers the question of climate change—which I will finish with—I do not believe that we can get to net zero by 1950 without a substantial increase in nuclear power. At the moment, something approaching 80% of our energy is still produced by using fossil fuels. There is a great deal to be done, but I think we stand a chance.
I will finish with this: if we succeed, as I think we might, in getting near to net zero by 1950—
Lord Wakeham (Con)
2050—I am just 100 years out. Even if we get to that, a lot of countries in the world will not. Two things follow from that. The first is that climate change will not be significantly improved. We in this country produce 1% of the world’s emissions, so if we have all the struggles and make the vast expenditures but other countries do not, we will not have achieved anything so far as climate change is concerned.
Secondly, if we have spent an enormous amount of money improving our electricity and getting it all done, our electricity will almost certainly be more expensive than it is in other countries. There is a danger we have to watch, as the heavy industrial users of electricity will build their factories in other countries, not in those that have spent all that money on this. We have the time to deal with this, but we have to be very careful that that is not the end result of what we do.
Viscount Chandos (Lab)
The Government
“will drive economic growth to improve living standards and fund sustainable investment in public services. This will be underpinned by a responsible approach to the public finances, reducing debt while reforming and cutting taxes … Ministers will support the Bank of England to return inflation to its target.”
It is worth repeating these few words from the Queen’s Speech, at first so bland and uncontroversial but, on further consideration, highlighting the challenges and choices the Government must face.
Exactly whose living standards will the Government prioritise improving? Must any improvement for any income group await the promised economic growth? How will the Government strike a balance between investing in public services, reducing debt and cutting taxes? Apart from supporting the Bank of England, what will the Government do to reduce the rate of inflation and to mitigate its impact on the most vulnerable households? Neither the Conservative Government’s record nor the Bills proposed for this new Session of Parliament provides any encouragement that these challenges are being met or difficult choices made.
I look forward to the consideration of the UK Infrastructure Bank Bill, establishing a much-needed infrastructure bank to replace the funding provided by the Green Investment Bank and the European Investment Bank, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, has already pointed out. The Minister—the noble Baroness, Lady Penn—said she looked forward to the new infrastructure bank being a long-lasting institution. Will the Minister who is winding up—the noble Lord, Lord Callanan—therefore explain why the Government decided to privatise the Green Investment Bank barely five years after its formation?
Although there are other Bills proposed in the economic sphere, as the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, set out, a former Conservative Minister quoted in the Financial Times last week hit the nail on the head in saying:
“There is only one bill that matters and that’s the finance bill”.
The macroeconomic framework is set by the Chancellor, the allocation of funds to departments is set by the Chancellor and the management of public finance is the responsibility of the Chancellor. So the Finance Bill due towards the end of the year, and the day-to-day decisions by the Chancellor in the meantime, will define the Government’s answers to the big questions posed in the gracious Speech.
Before I join the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, in speaking briefly about the Bank of England’s role in the control of inflation, I urge the Government, as he did, to at least restore the £20 per week universal credit uplift. The cost of living crisis is painful for many, but devastating for the lowest-income households, so many of which include people with disabilities.
The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, delivered a forensic analysis of the Bank of England’s performance. As a member of the Economic Affairs Committee when it conducted its inquiry into quantitative easing, under his chairmanship, I very largely agree. My sense of caution is that we should not overestimate the contribution of quantitative easing and monetary policy to the acceleration of inflation. My noble friend Lord Wood of Anfield argued this better than I could. Quantitative tightening and further increases of interest rates are likely to be required to bring inflation back under control, but the Bank needs to tread carefully to avoid triggering a severe recession.
I am also cautious about the Government seeking, as is their wont, to shift all the blame to a so-called independent body. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, set out the aspects of the Bank of England’s governance where independence is honoured more in the breach. More than that, there is very strong evidence that there was day-to-day pressure at the start of the pandemic on the Governor of the Bank of England by the Chancellor to increase QE in line with the borrowing requirement, to which the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, also referred. The Government’s ability to shift all the blame to the independent Bank is a little limited. Most of all, that independence must be restored and honoured in the pursuit of monetary policy and quantitative tightening.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, the spectre of stagflation is a stark reminder of the need to generate real economic growth, especially in challenging times. This, of course, is the only way to finance government spending in the long term so, as I listened to the Queen’s Speech last week, I was looking out for a coherent economic strategy to underpin the very first line of the Address—
“Her Majesty’s Government’s priority is to grow and strengthen the economy”—
but, amid the sea of 38 Bills in the new parliamentary programme, I am afraid that I struggled to detect such a strategy.
The Prime Minister’s call “to turbocharge the economy” is rather hollow without a fully firing economic engine. Indeed, it has echoes of the much-vaunted “oven-ready” Brexit deal which, it turned out, lacked some very basic ingredients or, some might say, a functioning oven.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, pointed out, to boost living standards in real terms, we need sustained growth in productivity—something we have not seen in more than 10 years. Since 2010, the UK’s productivity as measured by GDP output per hour has grown by just 4%, according to the OECD. Let us put this in context. France saw an 8% gain in productivity over the same period, Germany almost 10%, the US more than 10%. Current UK productivity lags both France and the US by a deeply troubling 15%.
I ask the Minister what lessons, if any, the Government are drawing from other countries and how that might inform their policy in such a crucial area. We must urgently solve the productivity puzzle, not just to generate real economic growth at home but for global Britain to compete effectively in world markets. Our current exports are down by almost 20% on pre-pandemic levels. In business, which is my background, we are taught to turn threat into opportunity. Although the recent slide of sterling against the dollar will add to imported inflation, it makes British exports that much more competitive in Asia, the Middle East and the Americas. We need to seize such opportunities.
Above all, we need a more qualitative approach to economic strategy. The Prime Minister says,
“jobs, jobs, jobs is the answer.”
Aside from his questionable syntax, I fear that he misses the point. The UK economy has generated plenty of jobs—unemployment sits at just 3.8%—but it is delivering low growth and record trade deficits.
Ask employers: they will tell you that there is little point in creating more jobs if you cannot fill existing vacancies. There is an acute shortage of both skilled and unskilled labour across the country, and that is damaging economic growth. By improving the productivity of our workforce, pay rises are earned and reflect increased output, rather than being inflationary. Yes, many factors impact productivity, including business investment—which, in the UK, has fallen to critical levels—infrastructure, technology, education and training and, now, working from home, but that is why you need a joined-up approach, a coherent strategy.
I have time to touch on only one of these factors, which is education: educating and training our workforce of the future. Back in his Autumn Statement, the Chancellor told us that per-pupil funding will return to 2010 levels in real terms by 2024, so we are talking about 14 years to return to where we were in 2010. Over this period, public spending on health will have increased by over 40%, compared with a nominal 2% for education. That is not investing in our future. We should take a leaf from the private sector, which lives or dies on productivity, profit and loss, return on investment and, above all, competition. Government policy should align itself far more closely with those factors in order to generate real and sustainable economic growth.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I agree entirely with what my noble friend has just said about the imperative of driving up productivity, but I want to speak on a niche subject which has not been addressed at all so far in the debate but which is highly relevant to the commitment in the Queen’s Speech to
“a responsible approach to the public finances”.
Under current policies, there will be an annual hole of £30 billion in government revenue because revenue from fuel duty and excise duty on cars will entirely disappear as electric vehicles are exempt. By 2030, the loss will be roughly tuppence in the pound, and if no action is taken there will be windfall gains for drivers against non-drivers, public transport will become more expensive at time when it needs to be encouraged, and there will be an increase in congestion and, crucially to the debate today, a large hole in government finances. We should think now about an alternative basis for replacing this lost tax, and I believe the case for road pricing is overwhelming.
While my noble friend Lord Wakeham was busy privatising the electricity industry, I was Transport Secretary and advocated the policy, but I discovered it was a matter not for the Transport Secretary but for the Treasury. The case is much more powerful today because of the advent of electric vehicles, the successful introduction of new technology with the congestion charge and automatic number plate recognition, and the need to make more intelligent use of a finite resource; namely, road space—no one suggests building our way out of congestion. Road pricing can do this with differential rates for congested routes, different rates for different times of the day and week, bringing it into line with other forms of transport, and exemptions for people with a disability, which you cannot do with fuel duty.
Ministers may be concerned at the hostile reaction to the policy when it was last floated. In 2006, Lord Darling—Alistair Darling as he then was, the Transport Secretary—announced that a pilot scheme would be decided by 2007 and would be up and running within five to six years, promising a 40% reduction in congestion with only 4% fewer cars on the road. The policy was abandoned two years later after a hostile public response. I believe that today’s response will be different. A survey carried out last year by the Social Market Foundation indicated a major shift in public opinion. Of 3,000 adults surveyed, more respondents supported road pricing as a replacement form of taxation than opposed it: 38% to 26%. The Social Market Foundation has published today a paper, Miles Ahead, which sets out a compelling case for road pricing.
I understand the concern that people may have about their car being tracked, but the reality is that that is already happening with ubiquitous CCTV and automatic number plate recognition, and if you carry a mobile phone with you, you are being tracked. This is not just a proposal from a Back-Bench Peer. The Transport Select Committee in the other place recently published a report which concluded that road pricing should be implemented. My question to the Minister is this: will the response to the Select Committee report confirm that road pricing is being actively considered?
I have a second niche subject, this time relating to the commitment in the Queen’s Speech on climate change and net zero. It has a common element with my first suggestion in that it relates to electric vehicles. As other noble Lords have said, over the next few years we will become more reliant on sustainable energy resources: wind, hydroelectric and solar power. The problem is that these sources are intermittent, and there is therefore an imperative for economic means of storing the electricity to avoid reliance on fossil fuels.
The Climate Change Committee has estimated that by 2030 there will be 16 million electric vehicles, each with a capacity of 60 kilowatt hours. My noble friend on the Front Bench will be able to say exactly how many power stations that equates to. These vehicles are unused for 90% of the time and, for the most part, will be parked outside homes at the time of peak energy demand. They can be recharged in the small hours of the morning at times of low demand, and 72% of homes have off-street parking. So my second niche question to the Minister is: what is being done to promote this new source of energy and to iron out the peaks and troughs of demand for energy? In particular, what is being done to promote connectivity between this potential source of stored energy in motor vehicles on the one hand and domestic energy supplies and the national grid on the other?
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Young. I agree with what he said on road pricing, although I suspect there will be several more Queen’s Speeches before that sees the light of day.
The gracious Speech contained a number of Bills designed to underpin growth in the economy, as a number of noble Lords have pointed out; I certainly support that aim. I also support the majority of the Bills, although some will need careful scrutiny. My litmus test for any legislative programme is that it should have less intervention by the state and more encouragement of private sector enterprise. At first sight, not all the planned Bills pass that test with flying colours.
Noble Lords will not be surprised to find that I warmly welcome the Brexit freedoms Bill. However, I have to say that I felt rather world-weary when the gracious Speech announced that business regulations
“will be repealed and reformed.”
We have heard all that before. Fundamentally, the business sector wants to be left to get on with the job of creating wealth and jobs. That means fewer regulators, fewer regulations and less invasive regulation. I shall be delighted if the Government really deliver a paradigm shift this time, but I am not holding my breath.
Creating growth in the economy is the only way to escape from the economic position in which we find ourselves. The Government’s policies on Covid have left us with significant levels of debt, as well as an NHS backlog that will be expensive to deal with. As we have heard, the Government’s task was made much harder by the emergence of high and persistent inflation. There was nothing in the Queen’s Speech on the impact of inflation on the cost of living, but more action will undoubtedly be needed.
My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has no easy options. Debt is already too high. Equally, the tax burden is far too high, and we need tax cuts rather than more taxes if we are to create an environment that encourages investment and growth. The Chancellor will be well aware that windfall taxes are not problem-free solutions, as they undermine our attractiveness as a destination for inward investment.
The Labour Government handed monetary policy over to the Bank of England 25 years ago and told it to keep inflation low. The Bank of England has failed in this core mission. Global central bank groupthink has kept quantitative easing in play for far too long, and loose monetary conditions have led to the inevitable rise in inflation and the spectre of a wage and price spiral, as a number of noble Lords have identified. The Governor of the Bank of England was tone-deaf when he suggested that people should not expect wage rises to cover inflation. He needs to get out more and understand how precarious the finances of many people in this country are.
Over the last 25 years the Bank has been loaded with many extra tasks. It has also accumulated extra objectives, the latest being to assist in the transition to net zero. It is perhaps not surprising that the Bank of England has lost its way. Central bank independence will be a policy failure in the UK if it continues to exist without proper accountability, and I suggest that the Government really need to start to focus on this.
This brings me to the financial services and markets Bill, which I am looking forward to scrutinising—although my noble friend Lady Penn may not welcome that. Those of us who took part in the last Financial Services Bill know that there is a big outstanding issue of securing proper parliamentary scrutiny of the actions of the Bank when it gets additional rule-making powers as part of the repatriation of powers from the EU. The Bank’s failure to deliver its core inflation mission highlights that we need a wider debate during the passage of the Bill about the accountability of the Bank and how best to achieve it. We cannot simply trust the Bank to get things right.
There were many things that should have been in the Queen’s Speech but were not. The one thing I particularly regret is the lack of commitment to a radical simplification of our ramshackle tax system, but in view of the advisory time limit, that will have to be a speech for another day.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes—the yin and yang of the Conservative Party.
As the value of the pound dips, retail sales drop, public confidence drops, car fuel sales drop and the purchasing managers’ index drops, the Governor of the Bank of England has said the situation is unprecedented. It is not, of course. Replace the invasion of Ukraine with the 1970s OPEC blackmail and the situation is quite similar.
In the next couple of years, the Executive will replay the full panoply of blame. The Cabinet are totally brilliant at blaming everyone else: the Bank of England, civil servants, trade unions, lefty lawyers, even the House of Lords. They will be on full military alert to escape responsibility for the mess they have made—signing international agreements then threatening to renege on them, making laws and then breaking them, enriching their friends, and at the same time attacking the lowest paid and most vulnerable workers in Britain.
Households face the biggest cut in their living standards since the 1950s. Private rents are rising at a record rate, and would-be tenants outnumber available properties by more than three to one. In the most deprived areas in London, life expectancy drops by 12 years compared with the least deprived. You can walk to and from the extremes in some cases. Women living in the poorest areas of England are dying earlier than the average woman in all other OECD countries except Mexico.
The Government’s levelling-up debate paper aims to narrow the gap in healthy life expectancy, but to do this they have to improve access to decent housing, healthy food, unpolluted playgrounds and parks, employment opportunities and an improved benefit system. Government action is doing the opposite: postponing implementation of the buy-one-get-one-free legislation and failing to put forward an employment Bill in the Queen’s Speech. The TUC general secretary Frances O’Grady accused Ministers of conning working people, especially after the scandalous events at P&O. Matthew Taylor, who wrote the report on employment practices two years ago, noted that the Government were “failing yet again” to act on the recommendations of the good work review.
The Queen’s Speech stated:
“Her Majesty’s Government will drive economic growth to improve living standards”,
but the Women’s Budget Group has shown that austerity policies, low wage rises and cuts to social security have left women even more vulnerable to poverty. Increasing benefits by 7% and improving employment protection and childcare rights would go some way to alleviating these hardships.
One solution might be to abolish the Treasury, as suggested by Westlake and Haskel. It is unique in western economies in combining control of government expenditure, public credit and taxation and an economic ministry meant to stimulate economic growth. It controls the political news cycle, is addicted to policy initiatives and, as Westlake describes,
“disempowers other government departments, putting civil servants who are often experts in their field at the mercy of brilliant but inexperienced young Treasury officials.”
But it will not happen. The people who run this country quite like having the equivalent of the headmaster’s study in charge.
We are in for a bumpy ride in the next two years. We need to stick together, mitigate the worst of the damage and trust in the British people at the next general election to dismiss this disreputable Government.
Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)
My Lords, as others have remarked, the spectre of stagflation now stalks our country. The make-believe world we have lived in of record low rates, inflation supposedly under lock and key, and the magic of QE has all been shattered. As others have said, the core question that overshadows the entire gracious Speech is simple: what is the strategy to tackle the economic crisis?
Before I turn to the Government’s programme, which I want to focus on, I will say a word about the Bank of England, which my noble friend Lord Forsyth and others have spoken about. As he said, last July the Economic Affairs Committee warned:
“If the Bank doesn’t act to curb inflation it will be much more difficult to rein in later.”
We asked the Bank to explain how it will curb inflation if it is more than just short term. The answer we got in September was that above-target inflation is likely to be “transitory”—that was the word. Clearly, the world has changed dramatically since then, and “I told you so” must be one of the most irritating phrases in the English language. But with independence comes accountability, and a number of noble Lords have made very good points and raised serious questions about what the Bank has and has not done. In due course, the Bank will have to answer those questions.
In the short time available to me, I want to focus on the gracious Speech. The first line states that the
“Government’s priority is to grow and strengthen the economy and help ease the cost of living for families.”
Let us just remember that sentence. If easing the cost of living for families is the Government’s priority, why are they walloping them with higher taxes? Why are they hitting businesses with higher corporation tax and a jobs tax? Why are they risking sparking a trade war with our largest trading partner? Why are they clobbering the self-employed with IR35? I could go on—examples are legion—but it is strikes me that this Government say one thing and do another.
This incoherence would be bad enough in normal times, but it is highly damaging in this economic storm. As we face the very delicate balancing act between curbing inflation and encouraging growth, we need a Government with a compass, a map, a path that they stick to and, above all, a clear set of principles that governs their thinking. I am sorry to say that I do not see any of these things.
Looking ahead, I put three thoughts to your Lordships. First, the Prime Minister now talks of stopping irresponsible spending. I am not sure what he means by that. After all, this is the Prime Minister who proposed building a bridge to Northern Ireland, and whose first Budget before Covid struck meant that day-to-day departmental spending would grow twice as fast as the economy, which, as the IFS then observed, was
“obviously not sustainable for any prolonged length of time.”
I will believe prudence has moved into No. 10 only when I see evidence of a change in ways.
My second point is that there is, however, one area where more spending is absolutely needed now: to help those on the lowest incomes. The Prime Minister told the other place that he wanted to cut the costs of getting a passport or driving licence. I am sure many of us would agree, but the people who need help now have not got the money to go on holiday abroad or often to own a car. Measures in the Spring Statement offset only about a third of the overall decline in real personal disposable income and that is why, as others have said, the Government should have made the £20 per week uplift in universal credit permanent.
My third point is on tax. As my noble friend Lord Forsyth and others have said, Treasury coffers will be boosted by inflation. But the cost of servicing our gargantuan debt is set to hit an eyewatering £83 billion. Balanced on this financial precipice, we need to tread with extreme care. If there is room for tax cuts—if—I would look to help businesses, as they are the geese that lay the golden eggs. One fact is that we now rank 31st out of 37 of the OECD countries for tax competitiveness. That is nowhere near good enough if we aspire to be global Britain.
The Prime Minister said that the gracious Speech would get the economy “back on track”. I am sorry to say that I am not clear what track the Prime Minister is on, and I am not sure he is either. Unless we get that clarity fast, we risk losing our way in an ever more violent economic storm.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, I identify with the comments on constitutional matters led by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, on Thursday. During Brexit legislation much was made of requiring primary legislation for future policy change, but such assurances are worthless. We had disappearing assurances on an even shorter timescale with the Trade Act, which legislated independence of the Trade Remedies Authority. Liz Truss then changed the primary legislation to overturn the TRA’s very first decision—a disastrous start reputationally all round.
I turn to the financial services Bill. Most of its procedures were front-run in the Financial Services Act 2021. Noble Lords on all sides were concerned about inadequate scrutiny. The Government said in their consultation response that they want Parliament to scrutinise and, sadly, the authorities in this House refused a sub-committee for financial services. I am very ashamed of that.
Although there is neither appetite nor capacity to replicate the intense EU level of scrutiny, there is no denying that the environment and dialogue it fosters is a resource for regulators as well as legislators. I am now hearing that our regulators are struggling with it, overwhelmed by their new powers, retreating to hugger-mugger with international regulators more, rather than creating the specific design for the UK that the Minister spoke of.
Solvency II will be a test. It was the invention of the then UK regulator—the FSA—taken to Brussels so that our industry would not be disadvantaged by stricter requirements. The UK bludgeoned France and Germany into legislation they hated. The UK Government and regulator bludgeoned UK rapporteur MEPs to do their bidding despite our reservations. Omnibus II corrected some but not all of the highlighted mistakes, including adding the matching adjustment.
At the time, the UK regulator sought more inflexible language than the Treasury or the final wording I negotiated. Now the PRA is actively choosing the inflexible approach. The new legislation will need to give an economically constructive steer, with scrutiny deep and frequent enough to expose monolithic and legacy-based thinking. To coin a phrase, “It’s the economy, stupid”—and that applies to the balance of regulation.
Legislation on audit reform has been relegated to draft, but various outstanding matters do not need legislation. Sir John Kingman said that the FRC should
“promote brevity and comprehensibility in accounts and annual reports”.
Instead, we have flawed standards, compliance to short timetables and “dog killer” reports dropping through letterboxes. The FRC has somewhat reformed itself, but there are still rotten patches. The worst is the Endorsement Board offshoot, which is dominated by individuals sourced from standard setters defending their legacy positions, who are used to marking their own homework and putting standards above the law.
I am not alone thinking this; the former ICAEW president Martyn Jones said the same presenting a well-received paper at this month’s British Accounting and Finance Association’s audit and assurance conference. What is needed above all else is for true and fair view, going concern and profits recognised for distribution to be applied and verified as it stands now in primary legislation, not overridden or obfuscated by the tertiary legislation of accounting standards.
I defy anyone to read the endorsement criteria assessment of IFRS 17 by the Endorsement Board or listen to its discussions and not notice the legacy thinking and gobbledegook used to justify the unjustifiable. Letters and emails that are coming to light show that private discussions are also happening which should be public. It is ripe for judicial review, not least because directors are more exposed after Brexit.
Under EU law, IFRS had primary legislative status. Accounts prepared according to it were deemed safe, even if there were differences to true and fair. That is in the Moore opinion, so relied on by the FRC and BEIS. There is now no primary law relating to standards, only tertiary legislation under the 2019 regulations No. 685. Can the Minister explain what extra steps have been taken in the light of this added risk for directors if standards are wrong?
Lord Monks (Lab)
My Lords, we know that the most vulnerable in our society are in for a very rough ride in the next few years and there is the real threat of a deep recession. Against that context, the Queen’s Speech is a disappointment, offering little hope of easement to many workers. With the very rocky period ahead, a lot of people must be extremely worried at the moment. I join those who have called for another look at the restoration of the universal credit uplift, a measure that should never have been done away with.
My remarks today are about another omission from the Queen’s Speech: a much-promised employment Bill, which has already been mentioned by my noble friend Lady Donaghy. Remember the manifesto of the Conservative Party in 2019, promising to make Britain
“the best place in the world to work”?
Promises were scattered on sharing tips, extending sick pay, more predictable contracts, flexible working, extended leave, new protections for women on redundancy and sexual harassment, and others. Since then, there have been regular promises of this new Bill on these and other matters. We have counted 20 at least, with the hapless Paul Scully, the Business Minister, responsible for 18 of them.
The need for new laws is obvious to any fair-minded person. There are 3.5 million workers in insecure work in this country; half of them get no sick pay at all. Guess what many of them did when they caught Covid? Of course, they continued to work. It was not just in Downing Street that the Covid rules were broken. Our sick-pay arrangements are among the worst in the developed world. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development found that almost half of employees went to work feeling unwell. Our absence rate is less than half the European average and one of the lowest in the OECD. It is not because we are healthier, unfortunately—it would be a good thing if we were. As little as 19% of the average UK salary is covered by statutory sick pay, again putting us very near the bottom of the league of advanced countries. The more generous occupational pension schemes, which are common for people in the higher-paid sectors, leave many others, including factory workers, carers and retail workers, at the mercy of inadequate support. Is this the best place in the world to work? I do not think so.
Another worrying feature of the UK labour market that I will just touch on is the growth of fire-and-rehire practices. We saw this recently in the P&O Ferries case, which followed a similar occurrence at Irish Ferries a couple of years ago. We currently also see it in household-name companies such as Centrica, British Airways, Clarks shoes and even the Girls’ Day School Trust, all of which have damaged their reputations by slashing terms and conditions of employment for employees. The boss of P&O even admitted deliberately breaking the law on consulting British trade unions—but we should note that he did not do that with the French and Dutch crews. The laws are much stricter in those countries, and we should match them in these kinds of protections. So I ask the Minister: when can we expect the much-promised actions that would make this country a much less nasty and brutish place to work, which it is for far too many of our fellow citizens?
Lord Tugendhat (Con)
My Lords, I feel that the circumstances in which this debate is being held are rather like those described in the American satirical film “Don’t Look Up”, which many noble Lords may have seen. Those who have will remember that it is about a meteor heading towards earth. The President of the United States is warned about this, but she is so much engaged in safeguarding her own position, scoring points off her opponents and laying traps for those who disagree with her that her attention does not turn to this terrible thing until far too late. I feel that the same rather applies at the moment to the meteor that is heading towards us, to which so many noble Lords have referred: inflation. Indeed, it is not heading towards us; it has already arrived, to a great extent. What strikes me and obviously others in this debate is the complete absence of urgency in the Government’s response. When one looks back on it, the Spring Statement is striking in the inadequacy of the way that it approached this matter. The Queen’s Speech seems to have been drawn up without any regard to the clear and present danger confronting us.
I was going to digress at this point to say a few words about the Bank of England, but my noble friends Lord Forsyth and Lady Noakes and others have said all that is to be said, and I associate myself completely with the points made by my noble friend Lord Forsyth in particular. I also agree with my noble friend Lord Bridges that with independence comes accountability, and the Bank of England will have to explain exactly what has happened—but not only the Bank of England. It has now been independent in this sphere for 25 years, and the time has perhaps come to look at the way in which the mandate is being carried out and, in particular, to look at two problems or issues. The first is whether the members of the Monetary Policy Committee are drawn from a sufficiently wide circle. The second is whether the present inflation-targeting objective should be replaced or coupled with another objective relating to nominal GDP.
The meteor of inflation is not the only one that the Government have failed to warn the country about. We have gung-ho speeches from the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary about the war in Ukraine, but nothing has been done to explain to the nation the implications of the war for our economy. I refer here not just to the fighting, obviously, but to the consequences of the sanctions. To the extent that trade is disrupted and the international economy is thrown into chaos, the implications could be very great.
We are not in a war situation, and God forbid that we should ever get in one, but we may well be approaching a situation in which we are in something akin to a war economy. Should that occur—the chances of it occurring are quite considerable—the Government have to think about which priorities they will safeguard. Clearly, one of them must be the continued improvement of the National Health Service on the one hand and social care on the other. We have talked a great deal about inequalities, but there is no area in which they are more self-evident than the nation’s health from one region to another.
It will also be very important to recognise that more money will have to be spent on defence. I was very surprised that there was no mention of this in the Queen’s Speech. This is also bound to lead to some other programmes being cut, which emphasises the need for priorities.
We are in a very dangerous situation. I agree with those who say that, unfortunately, the Government have so far not shown themselves to be in a position to face up to it.
Lord Haworth (Lab)
My Lords, I very much welcome the commitment in the Queen’s Speech to introduce an energy security Bill. This measure is designed to implement the provisions of the policy paper, British Energy Security Strategy, which was published as recently as the beginning of April. It has taken a war in Ukraine to finally convince the Government to actually take action to drive our energy policy, rather than leaving such matters to market forces. This is clearly implicit—one of the Prime Minister’s favourite words—in the decision to establish the “Great British nuclear vehicle”. This body will be tasked with helping projects through every stage of the development process and developing a resilient pipeline of new builds.
Whatever might be claimed to have been the benefits of the decisions on privatisation taken by Mrs Thatcher and her Government all those years ago, the effect of leaving major investment decisions largely to chance has undermined any effective energy security strategy. I acknowledge that there were some benefits of privatisation, particularly in the short term. For instance, establishing competition in the market helped keep electricity prices lower than they might otherwise have been, with the benefit, in the short term, of reducing the number of households in fuel poverty—that bit worked. I was very interested in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, about this, because he was so intimately involved.
However, having said that, it was always obvious that leaving electricity production and distribution to market forces was a policy of simply hoping for the best. I quote the Prime Minister’s own words, in the foreword to the policy paper, where he says that
“we drifted into dependence on foreign sources. Sometimes this was through deliberate planning; more often it was the byproduct of policy fudges, decision-dodging and short-term thinking. But … the result today is all too obvious”.
Quite so.
I made my maiden speech in your Lordships’ House as long ago as February 2005. I spoke about the growing environmental crisis due to climate change and about glaciers melting and, in some cases, collapsing altogether. I had in mind those in the great mountain ranges, particularly the Himalayas and the Caucasus. The catastrophic collapse of the Kolka Glacier in North Ossetia is now recognised by the world’s glaciologists as most probably the largest glacier collapse ever identified, at least in the past 20,000 years. It barely made a footnote in the newspapers, not even in Moscow, although it should have served as a massive wake-up call. This was in September 2002, almost 20 years ago.
At that time, little was known about the fast-melting Greenland ice sheet, or the great dangers posed by melting ice in Antarctica, matters which have now been extensively researched, especially on the Thwaites glacier in western Antarctica, revealing the dangers all too alarmingly. Back then, I urged the Labour Government to urgently consider restarting the civil nuclear programme in Britain, which had stalled after the accident at Chernobyl in 1986. In 2007, the energy White Paper opened the door to new nuclear, but without quite committing the Government; a year later, the 2008 White Paper on nuclear power announced an aspiration to restart the nuclear programme, which envisaged up to eight large new stations being built on the sites of former nuclear plants already closed or closing.
What has happened in the last 15 years? One new nuclear plant is being built, at Hinkley Point, but it is not yet finished. There is a plan of sorts to build a second new plant at Sizewell, but it still awaits planning permission. It is not exactly impressive; it is a very British way of stumbling forward and hoping for the best, and hoping that signals from the Government will result in energy firms coming forward with active plans, which is a policy failure on an almost epic scale. So I welcome the initiative that the Government have finally taken and look forward to the energy security Bill finally ending the laissez-faire approach to these matters. I welcome the commitment to provide up to £1.7 billion of direct government funding to enable one major nuclear project to reach a final investment decision in this Parliament. I welcome the investment of £100 million to Sizewell C, and the commitment to invest £210 million to develop small modular reactors with Rolls-Royce.
In conclusion, the energy security Bill is welcome news; it is long overdue. A measure such as this could and should have been introduced 20 years ago—certainly after the 2006 energy review, which explicitly recognised the threat that Russia presented to the West after the temporary suspension of gas supply to Ukraine on 1 January that year. However too little and rather too late, this Bill is surely better late than never.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to speak on the humble Address to Her Majesty’s speech, and it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Haworth. I find myself in total agreement with what he has just said on the nuclear programme, which certainly needs pushing.
Obviously, we face massive challenges at present. We have largely seen through the Covid crisis and now face an energy crisis and a crisis in Ukraine, which are international challenges. The national response has to be focused on the economy and energy, and these are fundamental. We should be aware, when looking at the economic record, of the great success that we have had on the furlough scheme and business support. It is easy to forget the economic success that we had during the pandemic, but there are new challenges now, which have rightly been highlighted by many noble Lords. There is the inflation challenge, at 7% and rising, and government debt interest—the largest item on the Government’s balance sheet, at £83 billion. That is just the debt interest for 2022-23, up by £30 billion from the previous year, as a result of inflation.
Unlike many others in my party, I do not have any visceral dislike of taxes where they are necessary and justified, and I believe that an energy windfall tax is more than justified. I find it hard to find a cogent argument against it when we have seen the massive super-profits that are being made, and when we are seeing the holes in government finances it seems sensible to bring it forward. I am glad that the Chancellor is considering it. Indeed, my right honourable friend Mel Stride, who chairs the Treasury Committee, has also said that it should be very much in play.
I recognise the dangers of inflation but like others—and many on this side of the House, too—I think that an uplift to universal credit is absolutely necessary. As a one-nation party, I cannot see how we can fail to protect the most vulnerable at this time, when inflation is racing. It must be done, and it must be done urgently.
The Queen’s Speech certainly has many aspects that I approve of, but it lacks vision. We need something more powerful than postponing the MOT for a year; we need something to aspire to to bring people together, as we did during the pandemic. We need some call to action or shared enterprise, which has got to be around the energy crisis. We have seen the rise in energy prices, which is very largely outside the Government’s control—but we have to have a response to help the most vulnerable. We heard the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, speak about the position of people on prepayment meters. That is absolutely right: we have to make sure that energy efficiency measures and help with the warm home discount is available to the most vulnerable, to help them with the cost of energy. We have to see how the energy security Bill, which I certainly think is a powerful measure and one that is potentially very useful, is extended to help those people in terms of action on retrofit and insulation measures, as well as ensuring that we are harnessing the resources that we have around this island with wave power and tidal power. Those things need doing urgently, and that would be regarded as a joint enterprise for the whole nation which we can come around to deal with a problem of long standing. It will be of even longer standing and more severe if we continue to fail to do anything about it.
We need also to look at carbon capture and storage, which we have dallied on for too long. It will create new jobs and help on energy security and climate change—but, above all, we need to help people who are not going to be able to pay their energy Bills going forward. We need to come forward now with something for those people. We have a tin ear on this, I am afraid; we need to ensure that that announcement is made sooner rather than later. If it means, as I am afraid it could well do, that we need a windfall tax on oil companies, or a one-off tax on oil and gas companies, that is something that would bring the nation together. I hope that we do that in short order.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, first, I must declare my interest as a non-practising member of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries. That is because I want to use the opportunity to ask the Minister in his reply to tell us more about the draft audit reform Bill mentioned in the introductory speech, and specifically the proposal in the Bill that the audit, reporting and governance authority will have powers to oversee and regulate the actuarial profession.
There are many other issues or gaps in the Government’s programme that I could address, but I have confidence in my noble friends to deal with them. There is not enough time to explain the entire background to the regulation of the actuarial profession, so I hope that the Minister already understands that the decision to introduce statutory regulation is simply a by-product of the broader review of the work currently undertaken by the Financial Reporting Council. No serious concerns have been raised about the current regulatory framework for actuaries since its introduction in 2005, nor have there been any material public interest concerns about the conduct of actuaries in the UK. It is also worth emphasising that almost all the work undertaken by actuaries is regulated in other ways, given the sectors such as insurance and pensions, where they tend to work. Despite the lack of pressure for such change, the proposed changes in the Financial Reporting Council mean that there is a collateral need to rework the regulation of actuarial work.
The Institute and Faculty of Actuaries, of which I am proud to be a fellow, is the UK’s only chartered professional body dedicated to educating, developing and regulating actuaries. The institute sets stringent professional obligations on its members, including qualification standards and ethical conduct requirements. However, there are also technical standards, which are currently set by the Financial Reporting Council.
Consequently, following the wider changes, there is a need to reform actuarial regulation. The institute supports reform that places the regulation of the actuarial profession on a statutory basis. However, there is some concern, which I share, that the scope of actuarial regulation—in other words, who and what is covered—must be adequately defined in any proposals. Otherwise, we could be left in a situation where the regulation of actuaries is significantly less robust than it is now, increasing the risks of inconsistency and regulatory arbitrage. For example, it should not be possible for individuals to self-identify themselves out of the scope of regulation by changing their job title or resigning membership of a professional body. On the other hand, we must avoid a catch-all definition of actuarial work that would be disproportionate.
So, first, statutory regulation should include the protection of the professional title of “actuary”. Most people will be surprised that it is still possible for someone who is not a qualified, regulated member of the institute to describe themselves as an actuary. Secondly, as proposed by the institute, the scope of the new statutory technical regulation should be defined by reference to a list of specific types of activity. No individual should be permitted to do any activity on such a list without being subject to the new statutory technical regulation. In addition, there should be a list of members of the institute who are accountable to ARGA on the statutory regulated work for which they are responsible.
I look forward to the consultation on these issues. In the meantime, will the Minister commit the Government to bring forward the draft Bill as quickly as possible—a timetable would be good—as well as to the closest possible engagement with the representatives of the actuarial profession and to agree that the result of any changes should not lead to any weakening of current levels of regulation?
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I look forward to debating the forthcoming energy Bill. Once again, it looks set to be a Christmas tree Bill on which your Lordships will be able to hang many policy favourites of their own. In parenthesis, I am not sure why this has become common practice in major Bills recently. It is one area where government Whips can understandably influence the Long Titles of Bills to minimise manifold amendments. That said, it will provide many of your Lordships with the opportunity to recommend strong support from government to ensure that the North Sea Transition Authority is well armed to encourage inward investment into our gas reserves. Only by consistent and long-term policy support will we encourage the absolutely vital inward investment necessary to maximise upstream production during the transition—which, in turn, will necessarily last until well into the 2030s, at the earliest.
Noble Lords should be under no illusion. Gas will play a crucial role in delivering net zero for many years to come, particularly given the nature of renewables, which are intermittent in a market requiring a consistent, uninterrupted, resilient source of supply. Let us put this in perspective. After 20 years and nearly $5 trillion of investment, the world has only 15 million barrels of oil equivalent in wind and solar, against the 237 million barrels of oil equivalent required every day. We will have to bolster the country’s energy resilience. Our love affair with the idea of green energy has left us exposed to high international energy prices. Had we had a more resilient transition 10 years ago, we would have seen far higher gas production in the North Sea. We have simply not optimised production of gas in the interests of energy security and resilience. Gas must become—and is becoming—increasingly green. Every year sees a reduction in production emissions and a reduction in routine flaring. By 2030, we will have halved our production emissions and eliminated routine flaring.
So, what can the Government do? Ministers can work with the Treasury to improve access arrangements to gathering platforms that inhibit the optimal development of marginal and mature fields, which rely on the gathering platforms usually owned by the large operators to secure onshore delivery. Ministers can show caution about calls for a windfall tax when we need to encourage investment in marginal fields, where the global market is highly competitive for the marginal investment dollar. We need to introduce measures to build investor confidence, not destroy it. Yes, the industry is making extraordinary profits with today’s oil price at $110, but how will it increase investment in renewables when it is paying out those investment funds to government through a spike or profits tax?
If the Government are to follow through with this route, they must include fiscal incentives for the industry to invest in renewables without deterring investment in gas. As BlackRock has realised in its approach to proxy balance, we need more short-term investment in traditional fuel production to boost energy security. It is time to move away from forcing upstream gas companies to decommission assets or setting absolute targets for companies to reduce emissions in their supply chains.
But this Bill will go further. I finish by asking the Minister a number of questions. Does he believe that 24 gigawatts of nuclear will happen—and, if so, by when? Can the market structures enable sufficient investment in the grid to match the hoped-for electricity use in transport, heating and industrial applications when only modest growth is anticipated over the next five years? How realistic are the expectations about hydrogen, given its apparent lack of cost competitiveness today, and where are the end users who will adopt hydrogen at scale?
Lastly, I mention possibly the most important point, which is that a clear business case is needed by government for a credible energy efficiency rollout. There is a clear absence of energy efficiency at the heart of our energy policy, which in turn is sadly absent as a key plank in the Loyal Address.
Lord Haskel (Lab)
My Lords, I share many of the hopes for our economy expressed in the gracious Speech, but that is what they are: hopes—hopes dressed as Bills. I agree with other noble Lords that what is required is a strategy, a coherent plan on how we will achieve these hopes, and a coherent plan to grow an economy weakened by the pandemic, weakened by Brexit and weakened by inconsistency regarding trade, taxes and employment. Central to this must be a response from the Government regarding the rules by which business operates: rules that support companies to behave properly and responsibly and prevent chaotic collapses such as those of Thomas Cook and Carillion, mentioned by the Minister.
The real answer is a kind of “better business” Bill, based on the White Paper published a year ago that was followed by several reviews, all supported by major business organisations, employers and trade unions. This legislation has been downgraded once again in favour of campaign legislation. Indeed, the Institute of Directors has said that this is urgently needed to make the economy more business friendly. I agree with my noble friend Lady Jones; we need a mini-Budget with a windfall tax on energy companies to help deal with the immediate problem of putting more money into people’s pockets.
My noble friend also asked: where is the employment Bill? A major part of our industrial strategy must deal with casualisation and insecurity at work—something brought home to all of us should we need care, especially during the pandemic. A year ago, the Government reaffirmed their commitment to a single enforcement body for workers’ rights. This was particularly directed towards umbrella companies and the so-called “flexible labour market”.
Legitimate umbrella companies are desperate for government regulation of the sector so that they are not undercut by unfair competition. Like most companies, they realise that if somebody is working for you, you have a responsibility to make sure that they are not exploited, underpaid, or victims of the race to the bottom. Our renewed industrial strategy should also focus on the new economy, where intellectual property, digitalisation, brands, knowledge and ideas are key to growth and wealth creation—the so-called “intangible economy”. Our industrial strategy must make the institutions that support this sector a lot more robust.
The gracious Speech speaks of housing and local empowerment. Yes, improving the UK’s housing supply is a critical issue and could stimulate good jobs and economic growth. This Government have presided over one of the worst housing crises in the western world. Many economists believe that restricting housing supply is a drag on our economy and puts us at a significant disadvantage. Affordable housing is essential for social mobility, and the so-called street plans could potentially deliver thousands of homes near public transport in high housing cost areas, with economic gain shared among all the community. This is one of the few proposals that we should explore further.
With the economy heading towards stagflation and contraction, this gracious Speech is a poor response to the economic problems facing us. Will the Government postpone the trivial and vanity legislation in the gracious Speech and give us an industrial strategy that unites us in dealing with our immediate and challenging problems and promises a better future for us all?
Lord Razzall (LD)
My Lords, as many noble Lords have said, the UK economy is clearly in difficulties. In economic terms, growth in GDP is stagnant. GDP even reduced in March. Inflation is forecast by the Bank of England to reach 10% and, notwithstanding recent gloating by Brexiters, it is now clear that our growth rate will be lower than in all other G7 countries. In personal terms, the increase in the cost of living has driven millions into food and fuel poverty and, whatever the Prime Minister has told the Daily Mail, we may be heading for a recession.
Obviously, many factors are not the Government’s fault—the pandemic and its aftereffects, the increase in world energy costs, and the war in Ukraine and its international effects—but one factor is entirely the fault of a Government who are run by a Tory party that most people now regard as the Brexit party. It is the effect of Brexit on which I wish to concentrate my remarks. The numbers are stark. The OBR has confirmed that Brexit will reduce our GDP by 4% per annum, significantly more than the effect of the pandemic. Investment reveals the same disaster. Between 2017 and 2020, foreign investment was at the lowest levels since the 1980s. The NGO UK in a Changing Britain calculates that Brexit has pushed our food prices alone up by 6%, and the exodus of EU workers has led to record job vacancies that will soon drive the growth in inflation. However, the greatest disaster has been the impact of Brexit on trade. As Simon Nixon said in the Times last week:
“Six years after the referendum, no one has yet been able to identify any rational alternative to integration with Britain’s closest trading partners.”
On the Government’s own admission, the recent Australia and New Zealand trade deals will have no significant economic impact.
Trade is vital for our economic growth. In January the trade deficits were the biggest on record: £26.5 billion for goods and £16.2 billion for goods and services. All G7 countries except the UK have seen growth in trade as a proportion of GDP since 2020, and the UK is down even from that low point. The OBR says that there will be a 15% drop in our trade as a proportion of our GDP and that our new trade deals since Brexit will compensate for only a tiny fraction of our losses from Brexit.
So the most effective action by the Government to ease the cost of living crisis would be to ease barriers to trade caused by Brexit. New trade barriers cause a significant supply side shock, with customs checks, rules of origin requirements and phytosanitary measures for trade in animals and plants, let alone the need for regulatory compliance with each jurisdiction separately. Of course, the Government want British-only regulation and safety certification of industries, but does it really make sense, for example, for the chemical industry to pay for distinct British registration when it already pays for the EU gold standard?
What do we have for the Government? Egged on by the noble Lord, Lord Frost, who I see is not in his place, they seem to want to tear up the Northern Ireland protocol—which, whatever the Attorney-General says, must be in breach of international law. This is intentional Russian roulette that risks the suspension of our trade agreement with the EU and the supply shock that would result. The gracious Speech provides for a Brexit freedom Bill, giving the Government the power to rewrite rules with minimum parliamentary scrutiny—are we surprised by that?—with no indication of the rules that will be rewritten.
However, do we have the beginning of an admission from the Government that Brexit is not working? Mr Rees-Mogg has announced a delay to the introduction of border checks, admitting that their enforcement would be an act of self-harm. This means costly checks for exporting UK farmers, while exporting European farmers have no such hassle. But it is a recognition that putting up barriers makes food more expensive for consumers, as we remainers always said. We also have the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitting to the Treasury Committee in another place that Brexit is inhibiting UK trade. Of course, the Prime Minister will not accept this, telling the Liaison Committee that it is a matter of exporters not trying hard enough. Whatever the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said earlier about her, the Prime Minister should listen to Swati Dhingra, the new member of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee, who says that Brexit is costing every citizen up to £1,000 per year. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, will not agree, but will the Government listen and take appropriate action to modify the disastrous impact of Brexit?
Lord Low of Dalston (CB)
My Lords, the Queen’s Speech provides little guidance as to how the Government intend to tackle the three big economic challenges that they face: in the short term, managing the immediate crisis of inflation and alleviating its cost of living impact on the most vulnerable in our community; in the medium term, promoting economic growth and ensuring that its benefits are shared across all strata and regions; and, for the longer term, but to be addressed urgently and started immediately, tackling the carbon crisis and the global threat of costly and disruptive climate change.
Looking first at inflation and the cost of living crisis, consumer price index inflation is currently running at around 7%, as measured by the increase in consumer prices over the past 12 months. The Bank of England expects it to rise to at least 10% later in the year, before falling back sharply in 2023 and returning to around 2% in 2024. The main factors pushing prices up have initially been global supply constraints during a period of economic recovery associated with the easing of Covid restrictions, with global oil and gas prices growing particularly strongly—plus, in recent months, the war in Ukraine putting further upward pressure on global energy and food prices. As well as these global factors, UK prices for food and other imports have been affected by a post-Brexit adjustment process.
However, the causes of rising inflation have been mostly global and not specifically and largely confined to the UK. This does not mean that inflation does not matter, but it does mean that the proper course for the Government’s domestic policies is to avoid the knee-jerk response of cutting demand, thereby further damaging household incomes, and instead alleviating so far as possible the cost of living impact on those most immediately and critically affected.
This can best be done by reversing at least some of the swingeing cuts that there have been to the real value of benefits to lower-income households. If the Government are unwilling to restore the £1,000-a-year uplift to benefits that they judged as essential when Covid struck—not to mention the real-terms cuts due to the benefits freeze in the preceding years—the absolute minimum they should do now is to bring forward, during this year of rapidly growing inflation, the inflation protection supposedly built into the benefits system. Under present rules, benefits rise each March by the rate of inflation recorded six months earlier. At a time when inflation is increasing rapidly, this imposes swingeing real cuts on those most vulnerable to price inflation. This year, during which inflation is expected to go above 10%, benefits rose by a mere 3% in March, meaning an immediate real cut by 3% or 4% up to that date, which is expected to rise to at least a 7% cut later in the year.
Households simply cannot afford to wait until March 2023 for help with meeting ever-increasing heating and food bills. They need support immediately to meet the current and expected cost of living increases. Moreover, the cost of such measures would be largely temporary as, in principle, this amounts to paying inflation uplifts in a more timely manner and could be met by a similarly time-limited windfall tax on North Sea oil and gas companies—I am sorry, I have lost the second half of this.
Baroness Penn (Con)
The noble Lord has just passed the advisory time limit of five minutes in any case.
Lord Low of Dalston (CB)
In that case I will bring my remarks to a close now.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate on the gracious Speech and, in doing so, I declare my technology interests as set out in the register. I will cover the two areas of financial technology, hereafter fintech, and financial inclusion, hereafter “fininc”.
It is over a year since the Kalifa review into financial technology opportunity in the UK. How should we judge the success of any review and its recommendations? Well, economies around the world are rapidly taking up the recommendations of the Kalifa review. I believe that, in the UK, we need to ensure that we take every last recommendation right across the piece if we are to take the opportunity that fintech presents. Specifically, can my noble friend say where we are currently with the start date for the centre for finance, innovation and technology, what resource the centre has and who indeed will lead it?
On the regulatory review, there is a real opportunity for us to release all the potential power of fintech for the benefit of every citizen across the UK, but that is not an inevitability. It will need the right thought-through regulatory framework if we are to enable this.
On “fininc”, it was pleasing in last year’s Financial Services Bill—now an Act—to have got in the provision around cashback without the need for a purchase. Its success has been shown not only in taking up some of the slack for the closing of bank branches and ATMs but that—perhaps most pleasing to me and others who pushed for the measure—the large majority of transactions for cashback without purchase have been for £20 or under. Not only is this picking up where ATMs have left off but, crucially, it is taking an area of the economy of our society previously largely not covered and ignored by financial services provision. What more will be done to ensure that cashback without the need for a purchase is enabled in every community up and down the country? Similarly, on the shared banking hubs, which are a great proof of concept and success, I ask my noble friend: how will we ensure scale and that, again, every community up and down the country can avail itself of such a hub?
It is pleasing to see the potential measures around cash in the proposed financial services and markets Bill, but access to cash is but one part of the deal. What do the Government intend to do around acceptance of cash? If you will, what currency cash if no place to spend it? It is crucial that we look at both elements so that the 5 million to 8 million people who rely on cash can be assured that they can, rightly, continue to do so. Cash still matters, and it matters materially to millions up and down the country.
Finally, I briefly touch on central bank digital currency. The Bank of England has done tremendous work in this space, but can the Government put even more pace into this work and look at some of the non-monetary benefits of a central bank digital currency and of programmable money? I give one pertinent and potentially huge illustration of how a CBDC could help: atomic settlement at the border. What a difference that could potentially make.
In no way do I think that fintech, artificial intelligence, distributed ledger technology or the internet of things alone can cure the current issues that we face. However, if we orchestrate them and have them converging together for the public good, the opportunity exists to human-lead on all these new technologies for economic growth and economic, social and psychological good for the benefit of us all.
Lord Smith of Hindhead (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate on Her Majesty’s gracious Speech. I will limit my comments to those relating to hospitality and, in so doing, I ask your Lordships’ House to take note of my entry in the register of interests.
I welcome the Government’s focus on levelling up and regeneration, and I commend and thank the Government on what was put in place to support hospitality during the Covid pandemic. I can think of no other industry that has benefited more from this much-needed support over the past two years.
While some businesses in the industry have very sadly closed, the vast majority are seeing a return of footfall and consumer confidence as the activities of lockdown and home entertainment are rightly replaced by a society which again socialises together. Peloton is not hitting its sales targets and Netflix subscribers have reduced for the first time. Seeing friends virtually and staying at home can never properly replace going out and meeting up with friends.
I could go through the very long list of support measures that have been put in place, but one important statistic reported by HM Treasury in December last year was that many hospitality businesses emerged with more cash in the bank than they had at the start of the pandemic and net cash deposits for all hospitality businesses rose by £7 billion pounds, £2 billion of which was held by small and medium-sized businesses. Fewer businesses have become insolvent, with insolvencies running 25% lower than pre-pandemic levels. Hospitality accounts for some 9% of all employees and it is the third-largest private sector in the UK, but staff vacancies are currently 50% above pre-pandemic levels.
As an industry, we need to attract more people into understanding that hospitality can be a fantastic career opportunity, where a person can still progress from working behind the bar to having a place at the boardroom table. I was therefore pleased to note the Government’s statement that regeneration and levelling up would be achieved by improving economic innovation to drive growth across the whole country, unleashing the power of the private sector to unlock jobs and opportunity for all.
The Government will improve productivity, boost economic growth, encourage innovation, create good jobs and enhance educational attainment across all parts of the UK. I particularly welcome the phrase that has been employed that levelling up will be achieved by
“a cross-government, cross-society effort”.
Hospitality is capable of helping to drive growth across the nation. It is already doing so in every part of the UK. Every city, town and village offers some form of hospitality and is therefore uniquely placed to assist with the delivery of the Government’s priorities to level up, generating and creating new jobs and enhancing economic strength.
As we have emerged from the Covid pandemic, I think we can all agree that this has been the most extraordinary time in most of our lives and in the recent life of the nation. There will of course be many lessons to be learned. I understand that, in a crisis, people and businesses look to the Government to wrap the arms of the state around them, and I also understand that everyone fights their corner and wants what is best for their business, their sector or their industry, but I believe that hospitality can play a major part in helping the nation to move forward into a post-Covid, post-Brexit economic world, where all parts of the UK will see the benefit of growth and job security and where more people, from whatever background, will feel that they have a stake in the future.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I follow my noble friends Lady Donaghy, Lord Monks and Lord Haskel in regretting that the Government have again broken their 2019 election promise to introduce an employment Bill. An employment Bill has been promised many times in this House and in the other place. On 6 April, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Woodley, I put to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, the simple question: when do the Government intend to introduce the employment Bill? The Minister’s response did not answer that question. We now know the answer: there will be no such Bill. However, there will be a Brexit freedoms Bill, no doubt to remove many of our workers’ rights derived from EU legislation, yet the need to strengthen employment rights and to enforce them gets stronger by the day. More than 9 million people live in poverty in working households. The real value of wages has not increased since 2008 and is falling. We are facing a cost of living tsunami.
On St Patrick’s Day, 17 March, P&O Ferries demonstrated once and for all the almost total failure of our labour laws to protect workers. P&O flouted the right to be consulted over redundancies; the right not to be unfairly dismissed; the right not to be dismissed on a transfer of undertaking; the right not to be discriminated against on grounds of nationality; the right not to be made an offer to end collective bargaining; and the right not to be penalised for trade union membership and support for collective bargaining.
Because compensation for breach of most of those rights is statutorily capped, the employer was able to make offers that were inevitably irresistible to those faced with the alternative of pursuing tribunal claims that were unlikely to be heard within 12 months because of underfunding of the Courts & Tribunals Service, where successfully obtaining awards exceeding the offers was unpredictable and where statistics show that half of all awards made by tribunals are not paid in full.
The result was that 786 seafarers were left on the beach. The law had not protected them. Yet the law also denied them an industrial remedy: to put pressure on P&O by inviting secondary industrial action by dockers, lorry drivers and others would have led to an immediate injunction, since all secondary action in the UK is prohibited by statute.
Make no mistake: P&O’s ploy will be an exemplar for other employers. There will be a race to the bottom. The situation cries out for an employment Bill. The measures in the all-Peers letter of 31 March from the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, will be useful but they do not go far enough. An employment Bill is required to do at least the following: restore the right to take secondary industrial action, particularly where the employer has avoided primary industrial action by sacking the entire workforce; provide for a right to an injunction to enforce the duties exemplified in this case; and remove the statutory caps on compensation so that compensation matches the actual loss suffered—as in virtually every other area of the law.
I hope the Minister will feel able to say that an employment Bill is now essential and that the Brexit freedoms Bill will not reduce any employment right currently enjoyed by a British worker.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a rural business owner in Wales, as a committee member of Historic Houses in Wales and as a member of the CLA.
According to the inquiry by the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Rural Business and the Rural Powerhouse, Levelling Up the Rural Economy, rural jobs pay less than urban jobs and rural homes are less affordable than urban homes. Less than half of rural areas have reliable 4G phone coverage and fibre connectivity. The rural economy is 18% less productive than the national average—a gap that, if reduced, could add £43 billion to the UK economy by creating potentially hundreds of thousands of jobs in areas so often affected by underemployment.
Rural areas urgently need better infrastructure. It takes between five and five and a half hours, via two changes, to get from Harlech to Cardiff—a journey of only 150 miles. We are way behind our European neighbours when it comes to rail connectivity and a simple fare structure, let alone high-speed rail services. This affects business and private travel for adults but is felt most severely by young people in the countryside trying to access skills training or job interviews. If the Government are serious about getting more young people the skills they need to get into secure, well-paid jobs then they should look at subsidising transport for those seeking training, further education and job interviews. Improving digital connectivity and physical infrastructure in rural areas must be a priority for this Government to generate long-term economic growth and prosperity across the UK.
The shortage of affordable housing is felt acutely in rural areas. Applications for small-scale housing developments that would sustain services within the local community, such as schools, post offices and pubs, are too frequently rejected. Too often the choice is presented as a binary one between large-scale developments that would drastically alter and overburden a community or no development at all. The approach of a small number of homes in a large number of villages would lead to welcome and sustainable growth in those areas.
Applications also take far too long to be considered without any guarantee of success. The NFU went so far as to describe the planning process in rural areas as
“often tortuous, unduly lengthy and beset by challenges”.
Coupled with that, fewer than half of local planning authorities have an up-to-date local plan. That must change if we are to get the right developments built in the right place.
This is particularly true for applicants trying to convert redundant buildings into commercial workspaces, which could boost productivity by allowing those in rural areas to expand or set up new businesses. There is often a lack of commercial spaces and services to support business, driving those people away from rural areas and putting excess pressure on urban areas. Providing additional funding for more planning officers would speed up this process and help alleviate some of the problems. Changing the National Planning Policy Framework definition of brownfield sites, which currently excludes agriculture, could have a transformative effect on development in rural areas.
Productivity could also be increased by tweaking existing taxation without the need for new legislation. The Chartered Institute of Taxation said that the current system
“does not encourage farmers to develop more efficient production processes.”
The super-deduction on capital allowances is available only to big businesses, not family partnerships or sole traders, highlighting the discrepancy between incorporated and unincorporated businesses. We should be encouraging farmers to invest in new farming technologies such as AI and automation by opening up super-deductions to these categories and allowing unincorporated businesses to access R&D tax credits.
The Government have stated that they see the best route to combating inflation and the cost of living crisis as being through economic growth. If that is true, the rural economy must also be part of this plan. The challenges faced by rural areas are equally important in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, so the UK Government must work in unison with the devolved Administrations if their levelling-up mission is to be a success.
Yes, we need to restore nature; yes, we need to build more homes and develop businesses in an environmentally sustainable way; but we must also do away with the narrow and stifling perception that the countryside is a museum. If levelling up is to be a success, we must unlock the economic and social potential of the rural powerhouse.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak briefly on three issues. The first is the economy, the second is financial services reform and the third is auditing.
A sustainable economy cannot be built without boosting people’s purchasing power, but the Government’s policies are doing the opposite. People’s purchasing power is depleted by the rate of inflation, which is expected to be around 10% by the end of this year. Higher inflation is due to profiteering by supermarkets, banks, oil and gas companies, energy companies and others, yet the Government have offered no policy to check this profiteering, which is creating inflation. Their blunt instrument is to increase interest rates. How is forcing people to pay higher charges for mortgages and borrowing going to reduce corporate profiteering and address the rate of inflation? It is the wrong remedy at the wrong time, and it will harm people.
The tax burden is the highest for 70 years and the Government have crushed the poor. Even before the pandemic, the poorest 10% of households paid 47.6% of their income in indirect and direct taxes, compared to 33.5% paid by the richest 10%, yet the word “redistribution” gets no mention in any government Statement. The Government are carrying on with the policies that led to this crisis. There is austerity for public sector workers, who are getting pay rises far less than the rate of inflation. On top of that, the Government are removing £7.5 billion from household budgets this year by imposing income taxes through stealth. Over the next three years that will add up to another £40 billion. This is the economics of the madhouse.
The Government could raise another £25 billion a year simply by eliminating the perks enjoyed by the beneficiaries of capital gains. If those were taxed in the same way as earned income, and if they were forced to pay national insurance, it would raise £25 billion, yet tax reform gets absolutely no mention anywhere.
I also take issue with the Minister’s opening statement that the finance industry is paying £75 billion a year in taxes. That is wrong. That number was taken from a press release by a trade association in the City of London. The actual taxes borne by the finance industry total £34.1 billion. It simply collects the other £41 billion from customers in the form of VAT, PAYE and national insurance. Perhaps the Minister could explain why she privileges the statements of a trade association, rather than giving us the hard numbers that HMRC cannot provide. This £75 billion cannot be independently corroborated; it is simply a guess.
The Government’s proposed reform of financial services is just going to lead us into another race to the bottom. It will give us more scandals than we have had, so I hope the Government rethink that. It is disappointing that there are no proposals to regulate shadow banking, which is bigger than retail banking. Hedge funds and private equity are playing havoc on the high street. They are killing businesses; Debenhams and Maplin are good examples, and there are many others. There is no focus on their reform.
Finally, the audit reform proposals are very disappointing. They do not deal with a fundamental problem. The BHS audit partner from PwC spent two hours on the audit and 31 hours on consultancy. The audit team was led by somebody with only one year’s post-qualification experience. Most basic tasks were not performed, and the PwC partner backdated the audit report. Nothing in the Government’s Bill would check any of that. Now we know that KPMG also fabricated—forged—audit documents and handed them to the regulator. Without reform of auditor liability and threat of prosecution and prison for the offending partners, nothing will change. Why are the Government handling the audit industry with kid gloves?
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Harlech. I identify warmly with the plea he made for rural Wales.
I am not instinctively a monarchist but, in her jubilee year, I salute the remarkable way Her Majesty the Queen has carried out her responsibilities over the years with dignity and grace. Last year, Her Majesty was warmly welcomed to open Wales’s Senedd. Plaid Cymru looks to the day when she can come to our Senedd in the same role she fulfils for New Zealand and Canada.
The economic threats facing Wales are acute, particularly for our low-income households. Our recent council elections were a telling landmark. The people of Wales much prefer the values and policies pursued by our own Government, led by Labour with Plaid Cymru’s support, to the chaotic ambiguity of Boris Johnson’s Government. Labour controls eight councils in Wales; Plaid Cymru, four. No other party controls any council, and that tells a story.
Plaid Cymru seeks independence for Wales, not to detach ourselves from Britain, but to achieve a new relationship between our constituent nations. No one in their right mind would seek to build a Berlin Wall between Wales and England. What we do seek is to take full responsibility for our life as a nation and to work in close co-operation with our neighbours, with whom we share close trade and community links.
But we must learn to trust each other in a manner that has not been apparent at Westminster in recent years. Since Brexit, the UK Government have systematically eroded the economic powers devolved to Wales and Scotland. I have been lucky in last week’s ballot of Bills, and I hope to introduce a Bill to safeguard the Senedd’s powers. Perhaps the new Procurement Bill, published on 11 May, will give the Government a chance to open a new chapter in this regard.
There is a glaring need for the UK Government to work with the Welsh Government in pursing economic policy. When it comes to levelling up, investment projects should surely be developed in tandem with the Senedd. The Queen’s Speech should have contained a shared prosperity fund Bill, devolving the management of Wales’s portion of that fund to the Senedd in order to dovetail its use with the economic priorities of Wales’s Government.
I remind the House that, contrary to the promises made during the Brexit referendum, current plans reduce the resources coming to Wales during this Parliament by £772 million compared to the assistance we got under European funding. The Senedd budget for delivering devolved services such as health, education, housing and roads should be funded by a needs-based formula, as recommended by a Select Committee of this House several years ago. Another policy initiative to help the Welsh economy would be to devolve responsibility for the Crown Estates to Wales, bringing all the natural resources of Wales under the control of the Welsh Government.
My party also advocates a local electricity Bill to support local generation and distribution of electricity by green renewable methods, encourage diversity in sourcing electricity and reduce transmission lines’ wastage. This could enable lower electricity prices in local catchment areas. Wales has a huge potential to generate much more electricity from renewable sources: wave and tidal generation, estuarial barrages and wind turbines at sea and, where appropriate, on land. We need clarity on the Government’s plans for the Wylfa nuclear power station. I press the Government to help secure a new small modular reactor at Trawsfynydd, where the Welsh Government are seeking to set up a centre for medical radio-isotope production.
The desperate plight facing low-income families stems partly from escalating energy costs. I join others in pressing the UK Government to use an energy windfall tax to finance house insulation, particularly for older houses. Perhaps one reason that the Government did not mention house insulation in the Queen’s Speech is the shortage of skilled labour in the construction sector to undertake such work. This problem relates not only to building labour; there is an acute shortage of nurses and social care workers, of agricultural labour and of vets. There is also a desperate shortage in catering and the hotel sector. All these have one common thread: the impact of Brexit. Of course, we should also train our own workforce, particularly nurses, doctors and dentists. The Welsh Government, who have responsibility for training in Wales, must have additional resources to do so but surely the Government can now see the need to get a new agreement with EU countries to facilitate those who want to come back here to work.
In under two years, I shall celebrate the golden jubilee of winning the Caernarfon seat for Plaid Cymru; the clock is ticking for all of us. If this coming Session transpires to be my last full Parliament in this House, I very much hope that progress can be made on Wales’s economic and constitutional fronts, which first motivated my involvement in electoral politics.
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry that I cannot follow the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, down the path of Welsh affairs, not being Welsh, although I will say that the Senedd parliamentary building is one of the finest I have ever seen, as parliamentary buildings go. Of course, the architect was an Englishman, or Anglo-Italian: Richard Rogers.
I want to say something about the cost of living crisis, which is really severe, particularly for poorer households. The Government must take some urgent action to deal with this matter. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, pointed out in his sadly foreshortened speech, benefits under our system went up by only 3% when inflation was already at 7%. On that alone, poorer households are worse off. We need therefore to look at the whole range of benefits affecting poorer people, particularly to have them well targeted. Universal credit needs to be looked at again immediately. I know this is difficult because it is hard to change universal credit during the 12-month period. There are also people transferring from other legacy benefits to universal credit as we speak—during this year. None the less, it has to be done, because we cannot wait for people in poorer households to be recompensed properly.
Secondly, there is a case for looking at some move to reduce the increase in energy prices, perhaps with some windfall tax on the energy companies, as in the proposal which the Labour Party has put forward. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, pointed out, those companies are awash with cash: £8.5 billion is going into share buybacks, which simply means that they have so much money they do not know what to do with it and are giving it back to their shareholders. Some of that should be sent towards those who are suffering the higher energy prices, since those are massive. Neither of these things can wait until October. They must be done as soon as possible, and certainly before this House rises in July.
In addition, we need to look at a wider issue; namely, some straightforward Keynesian move to stimulate the economy. Classically, in this situation you would reduce VAT. Those who are of my age will remember that when VAT was first brought in by Lord Higgins in 1973—sadly, we no longer have the benefit of his wisdom here—it was with an automatic regulator, so that you could put VAT up or down according to the state of the economy. It is perfectly possible to do that, classically. Therefore, there is a case for reducing the 20% level of VAT to 17.5%. Sadly, there would be a big price for that, as it would cost £19 billion, which is something that the Chancellor may balk at. Instead, he may therefore go for a reduction in income tax, as a penny off its standard rate would cost only £5 billion as opposed to the £19 billion for a meaningful VAT reduction. I hope that will follow sensibly in the Autumn Budget to augment the other measures I have suggested.
This will of course mean an increase in our debt. Debt is already running at roughly 100% of GDP, which is extremely high by historic standards, but the fact of the matter is that all countries are in the same position: Canada, America, Japan, France and Italy all have higher deficits as a percentage of GDP than the UK, so we are not an outlier on this. We should never be cavalier in looking at debt. None the less, we can afford to take the sort of measures that would particularly help the lower-paid households which I have described. That is urgent and should be firmly and right centre in the Government’s sights.
Lord Framlingham (Con)
My Lords, I want to talk about what must, alongside defence, be the most important concern of any Government: feeding the people. There used to be a great department of state called the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It did what it said on the tin. Agriculture has now been absorbed into Defra and gets only a passing mention in the gracious Speech. Now that department’s title has gone and with it, I fear, has gone the belief that maximum food production is essential for the nation’s welfare. The spotlight has turned on to all things environmental and, if we are not careful, we shall forget what matters most of all.
I have followed the fortunes of agriculture all my life and, until recently, in helping to feed the nation it has been a huge and greatly appreciated success story. So much has changed since the old days of strict planning, marketing boards and fixed prices for farm produce set by government. Grain production has increased dramatically, as has meat production with increased welfare standards. Dairy farmers, under dreadful financial constraints, have responded superbly to the demand for milk. Over the years we have drained more land and cultivated as much as possible to provide the means of feeding the nation. The result has been, no doubt, a change in the look of the countryside, particularly in some regions, but it is important to acknowledge that this was recognised and accepted many years ago and steps have been taken to correct the situation.
In any case, what cannot be denied is that anyone travelling through our countryside today, despite larger arable fields and the yellow of oilseed rape, will find it still intact and very beautiful, so our policy must clearly be twin track. We must continue to produce as much food as possible while modifying our practices in order to protect and enhance our countryside. It is not either/or; we can, with thought and care, do both.
We are already doing so much. We are laying hedges and planting new ones, planting trees, leaving headlands uncultivated and modifying ploughing techniques to improve soil condition. We are looking again at what can be learned from the old practices of crop rotation. Fertilisers and pesticides, long a bone of contention, are now applied only when necessary, rather than routinely as in the past—better for the environment and cost- saving for the farmer.
We can protect the countryside without a loss in food production. What we must not do—but I fear we are very much in danger of doing—under any circumstances is seriously damage our food production by slavishly following the demands of the extreme climate change advocates, who, not content with rewetting and rewilding good farmland, would like, I am told, to see our dairy cows wearing methane gas masks. There is a new government slogan: “Public money for public goods”. It sounds vaguely like George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four. Perhaps, when the Minister replies, he will explain precisely what this means for farmers and how it will be administered. Who will check the hedgerows for nests and birds? Who will search the headlands for wildflowers? Who will count the hedgehogs? How will this translate sensibly into payments for farmers?
We used to pay farmers by the tonne or by the pint, which made sense. We now make payments by the acre, which does not. How will these new payments work in practice? With a rapidly growing population, and now the war in Ukraine, the shortage of grain could soon become extremely serious. For the sake of the country in both the short and the long term, we must not allow ourselves to be dragooned into ill-advised and fundamental changes in agricultural policy. We must think very carefully before we make what could turn out to be a monumental blunder.
Finally, I would like to say that sometimes our farmers are criticised for what is happening in our countryside, but who is really doing damage to our environment? Planes, trains, cars, factories, pylons, substations, wind turbines, road widenings, and huge, ugly housing developments that are completely out of place. HS2 is ploughing through ancient woodlands as we speak. Water companies are spewing raw sewage into our precious rivers. Tens of thousands of householders are concreting over their front gardens to park their cars. Townsfolk drop litter and fly tippers leave mattresses. How blessed we are to have our farmers, and how grateful we should be for all they do.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, as other noble Lords have already said, there was no mention of the Government’s much-promised employment Bill in last week’s gracious Address. There is no doubt that this is a scandalous omission and nothing less than a betrayal of working-class voters, many of whom, sadly, believed the Prime Minister’s cynical pledge at the last election, as my noble friend Lord Monks said,
“to make the UK the best place in the world to work.”
Since then, Ministers have promised at least 20 times to deliver an employment Bill to protect workers’ rights, yet, sadly, it is nowhere to be seen. We have been taken for fools; promises have been made and broken time and again.
As my noble friend Lord Haskel stated, no employment Bill means no new “single enforcement body” to
“crack down on any employer abusing employment law, whether by taking workers’ tips or refusing them sick pay.”
That is a direct quote from the Tory manifesto. Here is another quote:
“We will legislate to allow parents to take extended leave for neonatal care, to support those new mothers and fathers who need it during the most vulnerable and stressful days of their lives.”
Was this just a con? Was there outrage when they did not talk about stopping the fire and rehire, which Ministers, including the Prime Minister himself, have called “unacceptable” and “bully-boy tactics”? Do they really believe that, or is it just another publicity stunt? I think we know the answer, because if they really believed, why did they block the Private Member’s Bill of my Labour comrade Barry Gardiner, which sought to outlaw the shameful practice in all but the most extreme circumstances?
Not only did Ministers block that Bill, but they blocked it as hard and as fast as they could, enforcing an unprecedented three-line Whip on a Friday and employing a variety of dirty tricks, such as not-so-urgent Urgent Statements to use up debate time and ministerial filibustering to finish off the Bill before it could achieve its Second Reading—or so they thought. Well, they were wrong, because I am delighted to tell this House that I have been successful in our own ballot with the reincarnation of Barry’s Bill. The Bill is backed by the Labour Party and the entire trade union movement, particularly my own union, Unite. I am really honoured to have the baton passed to me, especially at a time when it is more urgent than ever to ban fire and rehire, which is spreading through our economy like a virus, threatening a pandemic of poverty, adding yet more misery to millions during the cost of living crisis.
What are the Government doing to stop this cruel abuse of loyal workers? What action have they taken, as was said earlier, against P&O bosses, who went a step further by sacking 800 seafarers on union rates by Zoom and replacing them with agency staff on as little as £1.80 an hour, even after the CEO admitted to a Select Committee in the other place that he had knowingly broken the law by not consulting recognised unions? Why? Because he knew it was simpler to blackmail workers into taking enhanced redundancies. Ministers have done absolutely nothing to address this scandal, despite being in the same room when it was said that he should have been barred from holding directorships. Any decent person would have said that.
What more evidence do we need that this Tory Government will always be on the side of the bosses, despite their absurd claims to be the new workers’ party? It is laughable. Thankfully, the workers of this country are waking up to the deception and I am confident that they will not have short memories at the next general election. I ask everybody who questions this: how much more damage will Ministers do in the meantime? As well as letting bad bosses get away with abusing their workers, the Government want to scrap the Human Rights Act, removing the vital protections it provides, including freedom of conscience, expression and association, and even the right to a fair trial. Taken together with other draconian legislation, including further crackdowns on the right to protest that this House has already rejected, the direction of travel is clear. The disgraceful laws passed in the last Session, especially the elections, borders and police Acts, have all laid the groundwork for a fundamental shift in power and authoritarian control in our country.
We must learn from the mistakes of the last Session and work out our strategy for defeating this new assault on our most basic human rights. We have the Members in this place to make a real difference and the duty to restrain what has basically become a rogue Government, led by a Prime Minister who refuses to resign despite breaking his own laws and is now planning, as was said earlier, to renege on the Brexit deal that was struck. Labour, my party, founded by the movement, is committed to rolling back the Tories’ anti-worker laws, as laid out in our excellent Green Paper on employment rights, which my noble friend Lord Hendy played a key role in drafting. From Government-brokered fair play agreements—what in the past we would have called central bargaining—to day-one rights against unfair dismissal and, of course, a ban on fire and rehire, our Green Paper sets out a new agenda to address the unfair power imbalance at work, which has only grown over the past 12 years of Tory rule.
For all our faults, Labour is a real party of the workers, and in government our party will have to start by clearing up the Tories’ mess, as we always have to. Until then, our top priority must be to limit the damage and protect as many people as possible from the Conservatives’ conscious cruelty. I hope that all Members across the House worried about where the Government are taking us will continue to fight the good fight until we can turn the page of this disgraceful chapter in our democracy’s history.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, it would be hard to argue that this Queen’s Speech has sufficient urgency to deal with the climate crisis and the nature crisis that we are facing. We need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 50% within the next decade and we are among the most nature-depleted countries in the world.
That is not to say there are not things in this Queen’s Speech that we welcome. It is quite clear that the transport Bill and the energy Bill could bring much-needed green investment to support our net-zero goals, but Members right around this House—the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Bennett, the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Moynihan—have all said that there is a gaping hole in the energy Bill around energy efficiency, helping people to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels at the same time as cutting costs and helping them address the cost of living crisis. It is a major gap. Indeed, one might go so far as to say that the Government seem pathologically determined not to go anywhere near anything to do with behaviour change in order to tackle the climate crisis. The Climate Change Committee has said we cannot get to net zero purely by technological innovation; we have to address behaviour change as well. Therefore, I am sure this is something that Members in this House will wish to address when we see the energy Bill in due course.
I welcome that the UK Infrastructure Bank has a mandate not just to support economic growth but to meet net-zero goals. That is a welcome step, and therefore it is a disappointment that the financial services and markets Bill does not have that dual mandate. There is no alignment, request or even an obligation on the regulator to align the financial services markets with our net-zero and nature goals. That is a major oversight. As is the fact that, somewhere along the line, we seem to have lost the sustainable disclosure regulations, trumpeted loudly by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year as a means to be ground-breaking globally and bring our companies forward on the move towards net zero. They seem to have disappeared into the ether. That is a very retrograde step which shows that, when push comes to shove with this Government, they will put minimising regulation ahead of meeting net-zero obligations, which is very worrying.
One Bill in particular is not just insufficiently fast-paced but a significant threat to our nature in future—the planning Bill. I am delighted to see that the Government have seen sense and removed the zoning requirements. I credit the Liberal Democrats a little, with our by-election victory in Chesham and Amersham, for helping push them gently that way, but I know that plenty on the Back Benches opposite feel as strongly as many on these Benches do that zoning is completely detrimental to our future as a sustainable country and would have been a developers’ charter. It is good to see that that has disappeared. However, what remains is the rather nebulous phrase “a new approach” to environmental assessments. As I have said, we are one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world and it is the regulatory framework in the planning system that has protected so many habitats, wildlife areas, green spaces and trees—coming soon after the noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, I ought to get in the word “trees”. Environmental assessments have done so much to protect all those valued habitats and landscapes in the past.
If he were to reply to this point, I am sure the Minister would say, “Of course, you always look on the bleak side.” I think I have due cause to do so when it comes in the same Queen’s Speech that contains the Brexit freedoms Bill, which seeks—for no apparent reason—to rip up the regulations we have had from the European Union in recent decades, 80% of which were environmental. Some of them, such as the habitats directive, have been the cornerstone of environmental protection for our nightingales and bitterns and all our most precious wildlife. Noble Lords can see why I am concerned, with a Queen’s Speech that has both a planning Bill and a Brexit freedoms Bill, about what that might mean for our planning.
In the last couple of seconds before I sit down, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said, there is nothing in that Bill on animal welfare, removing foie gras or banning fur. We have a genetic precision technology Bill, which people in this country have consistently said they do not want. In opening, the Minister said the reason for doing this was to ally with other major economies. Our biggest market for food is the European Union, which has banned this completely, so I presume she means America. I for one do not want to take animal welfare lessons from a country which has growth hormones in its meat and chlorine-washes its chicken. We can do better than that.
Lord Colgrain (Con)
My Lords, my background being related to employment matters, I will first comment on the economy in that context and then touch on two environment points.
I am sure that I am not alone in admitting that I did not fully master the issues attached to passporting in financial services at the time of Brexit. I was concerned that the City of London would see an exodus of talent in favour of the pretender centres of financial expertise on the continent. Now, however, Amsterdam, Paris, Frankfurt et al have made their pitches, and it is gratifying to see how singularly unsuccessful they have been in weaning jobs from London; it has been in the thousands rather than the mooted hundreds of thousands. The fundamentals of the English language, English law and the copious and all-encompassing availability of professional services in the square mile mean that the position and importance of the City remain unchallenged—something of which we should be very proud. New concessions that may be granted to insurance companies and pension funds through the UK Infrastructure Bank Bill and the financial services and markets Bill to invest in hitherto prohibited infrastructure projects can only strengthen London’s hand.
However, we must not overlook two sources of human capital and talent which can be added to this advantage. The first, now advanced through Covid, is the increased use of part-time staff working from home. This used to be populated in the main by working parents around whom employers were trying to create better working conditions and hours. To them now need to be added early retirees and others seeking a new work-life balance. I know that the view held by my noble friend Lord Sugar and expressed by him rather forcibly at the expense of PwC last week is shared by many—including, I might add, myself. However, it is Kafkaesque to generalise, as some do, that the public sector favours staying at home and the private sector has needed to return to work. This ignores the new reality, whereby we must harness this powerful lobby of part-time workers, come what may. I hope the new employment Bill will make special reference to them.
The second, growing group is the many who have reached statutory retirement age and wish to keep working. I look around me and see the truth of this statement; 70—nay, 80—is the new 60. I was delighted when still headhunting that I was able to appoint a 70 year-old as a non-executive director for a client. The Government must do all they can to encourage older members of society to remain employed if they so wish. It is good for them to remain physically and mentally active; they will contribute to the country’s productivity and tax take, especially now with the new national insurance bands; and it is beneficial to the country and their employers to have ongoing access to their intellectual capital. Less good are the contractual issues that employers can experience around accusations of discrimination on age-related issues. Anything the Government can do in the plan for jobs Bill to make such issues less of a costly and management-time minefield would be very welcome. Can my noble friend please confirm that this will be looked into?
On environment matters, all interested parties agree that there is an urgent need for the Government to support and help structure a well-regulated and established carbon credit market. Currently, it is nigh on impossible for suppliers of carbon credits to have confidence in the efficacy of either the pricing or duration of agreements, and it is equally difficult for those seeking to offset their carbon emissions to determine where to go and at what cost. Of course, a free market will evolve over time, but we do not have such luxury as we look ahead to purported net zero. This is a textbook example of where government should show the way. Can the Minister say what the Government’s view on this will be?
Finally, in the context of the gracious Speech, it is timely to refer to the Queen’s Green Canopy, which has been taken up enthusiastically, not least by councils and schools. However, it is not being a killjoy to point out that a combination of airborne pests—most recently the spruce Ips beetle—and more traditional four-legged pests, such as squirrels and deer, means that more informed thought needs to be given to what is planted where. Otherwise, all the good intentions being shown will result in an unsightly and uneconomic outcome and a failing of green credentials.
James Pendlebury, chief executive of Forest Research, said in this Saturday’s Times that pests and diseases pose an
“existential threat to our treescapes.”
To alleviate this threat, we need to devote more attention and funding to the management of existing woodland and encourage increased coppicing to maximise the carbon retention capacity of our current silvicultural assets, fully as much as enthusiastically planting to support the Queen’s Green Canopy. This will also contribute to the burgeoning woodchip market, which can make a meaningful contribution to our renewable energy requirements, killing two birds with one stone. Can the Minister say whether additional thought along these lines will be included in the Bill?
Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my Whip, especially when I agreed with almost everything they said. The Government’s priority in the gracious Speech—strengthening growth and easing the cost of living—is something I think we would all agree with. It means better housing, better public services, making a reality—not simply an aspiration—of levelling up, reducing inflation and helping the cost of living.
However, two requirements underline those noble objectives. The first is that we must bring inflation back down to 2% and endorse 2% as the Government’s target. We have all heard stories of so many families who are really struggling, trying to help their children and themselves just to bring food to the table because of inflation. Inflation is clearly painful, but it is more than just a painful economic shock. Inflation is a corrosive force in our society. It creates suspicion, distrust and social conflict. It creates a blame culture. People think that the local corner shop is just jacking prices to do them down. What about the electricity companies, Shell and BP and the supermarkets: why is Waitrose increasing prices more than Aldi and Lidl? It is a very bad culture if we go down that road.
The Bank of England has had something of a hammering today. Frankly, I have been surprised at the ferocity of the attack on it and, as a result, I have changed my speech. I believe the Bank was right in 2020 to slash interest rates to 0.1% and increase monetary growth to finance the furlough scheme, support the NHS and offer credit to business. Unfortunately, last year, the Bank made a policy error and continued with easy-money policy. Back in August 2020, I wrote an article in the public domain, “The Spectre of Inflation”. You could see then that we were creating too much money for the supply available. I followed it up last year with four articles criticising the Bank for not raising interest rates.
However, the Bank had a point in its reluctance to raise rates. The pandemic was an extraordinary event. The uncertainty over how much unemployment was disguised by furlough was important. Other central banks, such as the Fed, were advocating exactly what the Bank of England was, and hardly anyone on the Bank’s staff had lived through the inflation of the 1970s. The last thing we need at present is for monetary policy to be politicised and the governor and institution of the Bank of England to be kicked around like a political football. The Bank knows more than anyone else that it made a mistake last year and, in future, there will be an occasion to evaluate what went wrong. Now our attention should be focused on how we strengthen the resolve of the Bank to take the action necessary to get inflation down. As the saying goes, there is no gain without pain. Reducing inflation is not rocket science. The Bank has done it before. It did it in 2008 and 2011, and it did it in the 1970s, but reducing inflation will be painful. For this, the Treasury has responsibility to see that the burden is shared equitably and, frankly, that the burden is shared before inflation is under control.
My second point—I do not have the time to develop it—is that if we are to get growth, it cannot be engineered in 18 months; it is a longer-term challenge and requires lower taxes and reduced regulation. The Chancellor is clearly in a very difficult position—there are so many demands on public spending—but unless we can really get taxes down in the medium term to restore confidence, we will not see the priorities that the Government wish to see in the Queen’s Speech.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I shall concentrate my remarks today on the energy sector and the Government’s plan as outlined in the energy security Bill, with elements necessary through the UK Infrastructure Bank Bill.
Over the past two centuries, we have grown and prospered across three major energy transitions: the emergence of coal in the mid-1800s, powering the Industrial Revolution; the discovery of oil at the end of that century, changing everything about modern society; and the emergence of natural gas, which powered the emergence of Asia as the economic power it is today. Each energy transition fuelled economic growth as the population rose from 1 billion in 1800 to nearly 8 billion today. We have seen major shocks to the energy system through the 1970s, the Gulf wars of the 1990s and the distress we see today in the aftermath of the Ukraine war and overreliance on a single source for the supply of gas and, to a lesser extent, oil—from Russia.
The current energy transition will need a multitude of alternative energy sources that have already been developed—the secure baseload made up of nuclear and fossil fuels with the continuation of elements of carbon abatement—and the rapid development of new technologies to accelerate hydrogen as the primary energy source. We must grasp the opportunity now to explore both green hydrogen and blue hydrogen, given the abundance of feedstocks we have available here in the UK. Hydrogen has the potential to make huge inroads into replacing fossil fuel dependency.
The energy security Bill does not recognise an overall energy strategy to take the country through the complexities of the necessary mix of energy sources. Rather, it continues with the scattergun approach of the 10-point plan. It continues with loading costs on to the consumer without recognising past failures. The uniqueness of this fourth energy transition is that we need to explore all sources of energy, and that should include reviewing previously rejected options, such as onshore wind and, perhaps the most neglected, tidal power. The Hendry review is now some time ago and, as we know, costs and attitudes will have changed. Although nuclear has been embraced as low-carbon baseload for energy, tidal power has the potential to bring baseload through the renewables constancy of tides. Perhaps the cost of this development needs to be assessed against the cost of nuclear as baseload, not just against costs of other sources of renewable power, now already much reduced in cost.
New targets need to be matched with speed to provide the necessary infrastructure. Although the Government can be commended for the recognition that 50 gigawatts of offshore wind, increased from 40 gigawatts, will be required, so must attention be focused on grid connections and the necessary infrastructure. Do the Government have a ready reckoner of the billions of pounds that this delivery will entail? Distribution network management issues and costs need support.
How will the challenges of empowering local communities through the UK Infrastructure Bank Bill enable the transformation of the grid through Ofgem with local democratic systems of planning? The announcement today by Ofgem that it will review the price cap on a quarterly basis does not really go to the heart of consumer problems. Although a cash-flow issue, it better enhances utility companies than it does consumers. I have previously asked the Minister whether the Government are satisfied with the operation of supplier of last resort, which has added billions of pounds to consumer bills following the collapse of more than 30 utility companies. Will the Government be conducting a more fundamental review of Ofgem? Will it necessarily challenge the structure of consumer pricing of a daily standing charge together with a unit price? Many consumers have identified that, although they can reduce their consumption on the unit charge, they cannot reduce their bills dramatically while the standing charge keeps increasing. The fundamental alignment of present-day issues and their solutions needs to feed through to the strategic goals of transforming the energy sector, including demand reduction from energy efficiency of the built environment through the nationally significant infrastructure plan.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, I will focus my remarks on an issue that is so pivotal to the economy that our failure to address it strategically makes no sense to me at all. The costs to the Treasury—and ultimately the taxpayer—of continuing to do so are astronomical. Before I elaborate, perhaps I can share some figures that will help place it in context. Business success, and thus economic growth, depend on many factors, and growing new markets is surely one of them. So, imagine a global market worth an estimated $8 trillion, of which the UK share alone is worth more than a quarter of a trillion pounds. I am part of that market—yet within a mile of this building, I am constantly reminded of why it remains largely untapped.
Some noble Lords may have gone to Prêt à Manger to get a sandwich this lunchtime. I did not because I could not: even in 2022 I cannot get into its nearest outlets in my wheelchair. They might as well stick a sign in the window saying, “Wheelchair users not welcome. Your money is worthless”. Just imagine if that happened on grounds of gender, ethnicity or sexual orientation. But that is the day-to-day economic reality for many disabled people in one of the most advanced countries and economies in the world: ours. But then there are only 14 million of us, so who cares? I say we should all care. Businesses should care and the Government should care. My noble friend the Minister mentioned our debt interest payments in her opening remarks; with debt interest spending forecast to reach £83 billion next year, the Treasury should definitely care.
Two stats highlight the serious amount of tax revenue that the Treasury is missing out on. First, 75% of disabled people and their families have turned away from a business because of poor accessibility or customer service. Secondly, at least 4 million people in the UK have clicked away from a retail website because it was inaccessible, taking with them an estimated combined spend of almost £12 billion. By 2019, that lost business—the “click-away pound”—had grown to £17.1 billion.
So this is a seriously expensive problem, yet as soon as the Government hear the word “disability”, they seem to lose the power of rational, strategic thinking. All sense and ambition are lost in a policy dead end otherwise known as the DWP—a department that takes not being fit for purpose to new heights. I will give one example: according to the Government’s own figures, only 1.3% of British employers are signed up to Disability Confident, its flagship disability employment scheme. If that is success, I hate to think what failure looks like.
Whether it is lost tax revenue, the 30% disability employment gap or the £60 billion spent on disability benefits alone in the last year, the numbers are so big that we can no longer afford to pretend that this is not a massive economic issue. In conclusion, that is why, as the cost of living gets ever higher, it is vital that the Treasury ensures that the outcomes of the DWP’s employment programmes represent taxpayer value for money; that the DWP’s approach to closing the disability employment gap matches the scale and urgency of the challenge; and that the market shares I have highlighted, and the tax revenues, are tapped. No business can afford to think in silos, and neither can we.
The Earl of Liverpool (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Shinkwin, who has just delivered a thought-provoking speech. Like other noble Lords who have spoken today, I want to say how delighted I was to see that the energy security Bill has been given high priority in the gracious Speech. My noble friend Lord Moynihan—who I do not think is in his place—referred to it as a Christmas tree Bill. Be that as it may, I hope it will give us the opportunity to examine all the non-fossil-fuel energy-creating possibilities available to us today.
I will concentrate my remarks this evening on just two green energy opportunities: tidal lagoons—mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, among others—and hydrogen. I have no interests to declare, other than a wish to see our blue planet saved for as many generations as possible.
We are blessed with having the second-largest tidal range in the world, measuring some 26 feet, or 8 metres. Unlike solar and wind, the tide tables are utterly predictable, which means that with intelligent use of sluice gates and low-head dual-flow turbines, lagoons could generate power for around 15 hours guaranteed in every 24-hour cycle. Most importantly, some of that power could be held back and released into the grid at times when it is most needed.
This technology has been known about for years. Although a number of promising sites have been identified—Swansea and Cardiff Bay among them—not a single one has so far been built. Financing these projects has, I believe, been a stumbling block because they do not fit neatly into the CfD funding formula favoured by Governments, but perhaps it will now be possible to tap into the £22 billion fund available within the UK Infrastructure Bank Bill, which is due for its Second Reading in a week’s time.
The added benefits of building tidal lagoons would include mitigating coastal erosion and the provision of leisure facilities, including marinas, general water sports activities and tourism. There are thought to be about 10 suitable sites around our shores, and collectively they could supply 10% of our energy needs. I was intrigued to discover among them the exciting prospect of the Mersey tidal power project, also known as the Liverpool Bay scheme—so I had to mention that. It seems to have great potential and has the strong support of the Liverpool Metro Mayor, Steve Rotheram, and the Liverpool City Region.
In 2016, Charles Hendry, who had been Minister for Energy and Climate Change, was given the task of conducting a report on the potential of tidal lagoons. In 2017, the Hendry review was published, as the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, mentioned. His conclusions were very favourable. To quote just one paragraph, he said:
“Most importantly, it is clear that tidal lagoons at scale could deliver low carbon power in a way that is very competitive with other low carbon sources.”
He proposed that a pathfinder project should be commissioned as soon as possible to establish at first hand the practicalities of building lagoons and the potential energy derived therefrom, and that this could be used to inform later large-scale schemes.
Another of his proposals was to set up a new body to be called the tidal power authority, established at arm’s length from the Government with the goal of maximising UK advantage from tidal lagoons. Both ideas seem eminently sensible to me, but unfortunately—perhaps overtaken by political events at the time—the report did not get the support it needed and fell by the wayside. If the Minister has not already done so, could he please get hold of a copy of this report, blow the dust off it and see how relevant its findings could be today, especially bearing in mind the huge energy price increases we are seeing and the urgent need to be as energy self-sufficient as possible?
I am afraid I have run out of time, so I will have to save my comments on hydrogen for another occasion.
Lord Redesdale (LD)
My Lords, as speaker number 49, I realise that we are now galloping into the last straight. As Graham Norton said on Eurovision, it is all about where you are placed. I very much hope that if I ask a couple of questions at this stage, the Minister might remember to answer them at the very end. Obviously, we were robbed by Ukraine, but that is another thing.
I was going to talk at great length about the Private Member’s Bill that I put in on ecology and climate. However, I have been lucky enough to secure eighth position so very much hope to regale the House at Second Reading—unless, of course, we have an election in the preceding time, which would derail that.
I will raise only two real points. The first is to ask the Government whether in this Session they will look at strengthening provisions to make sure that companies report on the streamlined energy and carbon reporting scheme, SECR. This was brought in by this Government to replace the carbon reduction commitment, CRC, and mandatory greenhouse gas reporting, and is the only measure that companies must take to report on their carbon. In their annual reports, companies must put down the scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions, including gas, electricity and other fuels, principal energy efficiency measures and a metric to show whether their emissions are growing or shrinking. This measure, which is part of the law, is not being undertaken by many companies, just from a lack of knowledge. Companies understand ESOS, the energy savings opportunity scheme, which happens every four years, but many just do not understand that they should undertake SECR. This measure would help them understand not only the carbon they are producing but ways of limiting that and limiting their costs.
That leads me to the second point. I work with many companies understanding their scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions. Scope 1 emissions under the GHG protocols are direct emissions such as burning gas. Scope 2 are indirect emissions such as electricity, and scope 3 are emissions from their supply chain. Unless we move forward and get companies to understand how to report on this and how to convey that information down the supply chain, it does not matter what targets we have for reducing carbon dioxide; they will not be achievable. The majority of carbon that most companies emit is through all the actions undertaken in their supply chain.
I very much hope that the Government can look, maybe in the energy Bill, at ways in which BEIS could increase the knowledge base around how companies should understand looking at their carbon footprint through their supply chain. One of the problems I face, with a number of companies I work for, is that you go and talk to their boards and for the first 10 minutes it is all smiling and happy because they can understand scopes 1 and 2, but then it becomes more serious and you spend an hour talking about scope 3, at which point the very size of the climate change problem we face becomes understandable and very complicated for many companies. Are there any plans to increase work on SECR? Secondly, will the Government consider working through BEIS to help industry understand its scope 3 emissions?
Lord Sarfraz (Con)
My Lords, when I think of all Britain’s success stories over the years, it is hard to look at our domestic automotive industry without a great sense of pride. I draw the House’s attention to my interests as set out in the register, particularly in early-stage battery technologies.
The United Kingdom has been blessed with industry pioneers: Frederick Bremer built the country’s first four-wheeled petrol engine car; Herbert Austin, a Member of your Lordships’ House, led the UK in capturing global market share; Michael Stanley Whittingham won a Nobel Prize for the development of lithium-ion batteries in this country; and Andy Palmer launched the world’s first mass-market electric vehicle. But sadly, our domestic auto industry has been in a steady, gradual decline.
We used to be the world’s largest car exporter and the world’s second-largest car producer, but last year we made just 930,000 cars—fewer than Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Canada and Indonesia. We now make less than 1% of the cars in the world, yet the industry still supports the jobs and livelihoods of more than 800,000 people. All the great names of British auto making have been acquired by foreign competitors. While we welcomed the foreign investment, it also means that key decisions happen in overseas boardrooms, with distinct corporate cultures and ultimately competing priorities to those of UK plc.
It is no accident that Governments in the largest economies around the world have gone to great lengths to support their auto industries. During the 2008 financial crisis, the Japanese, German, French and US Governments all stepped in and recognised the importance of their car industries to their economies and the shadow they cast on associated industries. The industry does not just make cars; it makes skilled people who end up in aviation, logistics, academia, engineering, construction and elsewhere. In 1939, the car industry was able to pivot its manufacturing capability to drive the war effort, and in 2020 it was the car makers that pivoted to create ventilators in our moment of need.
We have an opportunity now to revive the car industry. It is transforming itself with the deployment of electric vehicles. We have a chance to retool, re-evaluate and recreate a new supply chain that includes the mass production of batteries. Chief among our needs is attracting four to six battery manufacturers to the UK instead of the EU. Duty regulations mean that batteries must be made in Europe by 2026, yet almost all cell makers are setting up in the EU simply because they can access bigger grants in lower-cost countries and in a political environment that makes EV batteries a project of strategic importance.
The gracious Speech highlights levelling up, economic growth and net zero, all themes in which the auto industry can play a starring role. But we cannot level up unless there is a level playing field, and that is what the Government need to deliver to our car industry.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate on an excellent maiden speech. I spent five happy years as the Member of the European Parliament for Essex North and Suffolk South, and I hope we can work together on rural issues, not least the threat of closures of rural churches at this time.
It is indeed a special occasion to contribute to the humble Address in Her Majesty’s Platinum Jubilee year. I will focus on the rural economy, food, farming and the role of market towns. Rural dwellers rely on access to schools, hospitals and affordable homes, with good connectivity for broadband, wi-fi and mobile phones, all of which can be immensely challenging, so anything to grow and strengthen the rural economy would be very welcome indeed.
Farming lies at the heart of the rural economy. As direct payments are phased out, there will inevitably be hardship, especially for tenant farmers who may not be able to claim under the new schemes. The gracious Speech said that
“Ministers will encourage agricultural and scientific innovation at home.”
I hope this will benefit hill farmers, small family farms and, most especially, tenant farmers.
There is effectively a ban on the export of animals at the moment. I understand that it is impossible to export farm animals, even for breeding purposes, as there are simply no facilities to receive and process them at any continental port. If that is indeed the case, will my noble friend investigate and see whether the trade in farm animals for breeding purposes can resume as soon as practically possible?
The Government are to continue to champion international trade, and I wish them extremely well in that endeavour. However, I am hesitant about the Government renegotiating the commitments freely entered into in the Northern Ireland protocol which were key to securing the trade and co-operation agreement with the European Union. Will my noble friend today give a commitment that in any negotiations for new trade deals the highest possible standards of animal health and welfare will be sought for imported products, the same as for domestic production?
There is a severe need for warm, safe and affordable homes. I refer to my interests in the register. I am president of National Energy Action, and I applaud its campaign for everyone to have a safe and warm home. I am also a member of the Church of England’s rural affairs group. It is essential that the Government endeavour to insulate better, make homes more energy efficient and ensure that homes and businesses are more resilient to floods. The energy security Bill will provide an opportunity to do so. There are many people currently living in food poverty, fuel poverty and water poverty, particularly due to the spike in global wholesale prices, compounded by limited gas storage of up to only 60 days in the UK, which seems to be uniquely low among European countries. That is aggravated by the war in Ukraine impacting on fuel and food prices as well as on the supply chain for food and animal feed.
The energy security Bill should also look at the structure of the energy market, where I understand that consumers have paid £2.6 billion for the cost of failure of energy companies in the past year alone. With the green levy adding 20% to electricity and gas bills and the ever-increasing rise in the price cap, which I understand could go up to £2,800 by October this year, with a further increase in January, this is simply not sustainable. Wind farms onshore and offshore will obviously form part of our renewable energy supply, but they rely on pylons and overhead line transmission. Not only are they ugly and intrusive, but they lose 30% of their energy in transmission, so they are extremely wasteful too. We need to do much more work on offshore wind farms, which can be immensely damaging to wildlife at sea, to establish the impact on sea mammals.
Those living in the countryside will welcome the commitment in the gracious Speech that the planning system will be reformed to give residents more involvement in local development. Undergrounding overhead wires and heat and electricity generators producing energy from waste will lead to a better understanding and a warmer local welcome for such facilities, as has been seen in many European countries. Can my noble friend say what has happened to the millions raised by the unexpected windfall from VAT on fuel, which others have mentioned? We look forward to another busy year.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, Her Majesty’s gracious Speech is full of good intentions. The first paragraph states that
“Her Majesty’s Government’s priority is to grow and strengthen the economy and help ease the cost of living for families.”
The second paragraph states:
“This will be underpinned by a responsible approach to the public finances, reducing debt while reforming and cutting taxes. Her Majesty’s Ministers will support the Bank of England to return inflation to its target.”
So far, so good. However, the economic situation on the ground is far from satisfactory, with the cost of living crisis continuing to grow and inflation continuing to rise.
More immediate measures are required to tackle these crises. I am not normally in favour of a major tax rise, but, when you see companies such as BP using its surplus funds not to invest in new exploration but instead returning cash to shareholders, it seems right to me to make a one-off levy and use the proceeds to support those most affected by rising energy bills. I also like the idea advanced by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, of cutting VAT for a period. I deeply regret the national insurance rise and am nervous about the universal credit change.
Rising food prices are a much more difficult area to tackle. The Ukraine crisis has had a major effect on wheat prices, and the recent news that India is banning wheat exports will add to the problem. The Government’s policy of encouraging land to be taken out of food production seems perverse when we are going to need to be more self-reliant for our food supply. When I moved an amendment to the Agriculture Bill proposing that UK food production should be supported, it was opposed not only by my own party but by Labour. But if we produce more of our own food, we may have better control over some of our food prices.
The issue of inflation is much more complicated, but, like my noble friend Lord Forsyth, I believe that the Bank of England has been asleep at the wheel on it. In September last year, when inflation was already double the Bank’s target, I listened to the governor making an unimpressive speech to the Society of Professional Economists. He said:
“Our view is that the price pressures will be transient”.
On quantitative easing, he asked
“what impact do you get from continuing purchases in market financial conditions, and particularly at a time when inflation is rising as it is?”
He argued that QE should continue
“because we regard the current upturn in inflation as transient, our view on the continuing role of QE is conditioned by our forecast in August that had inflation returning to target within an acceptable period of time.”
Even without the Ukraine crisis, this was a complacent view, and I believe that, even without the benefit of hindsight, QE should have been discontinued before now. As I said in a debate on the Spring Statement, we should have paid more attention to the out-of-control money supply situation.
Moving to Bills proposed, I support the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill and the reform of the planning system to give residents more involvement in local development—as long as this does not produce a deadlock in any sensible local business planning projects. I also support the establishment of the UK Infrastructure Bank in legislation. This is with the proviso that it does not emulate the British Business Bank’s handling of the disastrous Covid loan scheme. I support the Procurement Bill and agree with the inclusion of measures to simplify public sector procurement to provide new opportunities for small business.
I note with interest the financial services and markets Bill, which the Speech states will
“strengthen the United Kingdom’s financial services industry”.
But how will it ensure that it
“continues to act in the interest of all people and communities”?
I welcome the genetic technology Bill seeking to encourage agricultural and scientific innovation at home. Declaring my interests in the register, I also support its intention to unlock the potential of new technologies to promote sustainable and efficient farming and food production.
Finally, I wish to register my strong objection to the possibility of scrapping the Northern Ireland protocol. Does the Minister not believe that this could lead to a very damaging trade war with the EU, which would be very bad for our economy at such a difficult time?
Are the Government in control of the situation? Like my noble friend Lord Bridges of Headley, I have my concerns. Economic growth is slow, and plans to increase it are vague. A huge burden of debt interest still exists, with a danger of stagflation and wage-price inflation, including the costs of infrastructure projects such as HS2 being out of control. Overall, the Chancellor must urgently take steps to tackle the cost of living crisis.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, I do not for one moment underestimate the herculean difficulty of planning to achieve net zero by the due date. The core difficulty is that many of the technologies that we will need are embryonic and their economics are uncertain. I was educated in the sciences, and I do not doubt for one moment that brilliant and ingenious scientists will one day come to the world’s rescue, as they have done so magnificently with the Covid vaccines—but we cannot simply sit by and wait for those inevitable breakthroughs to occur.
We know that we will need greatly to increase our electricity generation, and by non-carbon means, and that we will have to decarbonise transport and the heating of our homes and buildings. It is common ground that wind, solar and nuclear should be the prime sources in the future of electricity generation. But renewables, as we all know, are intermittent, so it is less clear how we will cope with the massive daily and seasonal variations in demand.
Battery technology for storage to meet peak demand is slow to progress. The economics of using renewable and nuclear power off-peak to create clean hydrogen as an energy source are not yet settled, as the clinical BEIS analysis earlier this year identified. Carbon capture and storage is another technology still in its infancy, and its economics are also unclear, so decarbonising the use of hydrocarbons to cope with peak electricity demand is yet another uncertainty.
The electrification of most road vehicles offers the easiest path forward to decarbonisation. The Government have willed the ends but not, so far, the means. I own an EV and can testify vividly that the UK’s current charging infrastructure is unreliable and chaotic. Let me give one tiny example. In the first days of installing our home charge point, the local DNO delivered electricity outside the statutory range and disabled our charger. It was extremely challenging to diagnose and remedy the fault. Where is the Government’s framework for ensuring that every kind of home, whether in a tower block, a terraced street, suburbia or a country village, has access to a charge point which is as easy and convenient as filling your tank with petrol?
As for rail transport, we will not be able to afford to electrify all our railway lines. Will biofuels or hydrogen power our trains on these non-electrified lines?
Home heating is a most challenging issue. Air and ground pump technology is far more energy efficient than resistive electric heating, but at the moment it produces a low ambient temperature and is ineffective without 360-degree insulation of floors, walls, windows and ceilings. We have the oldest housing stock in Europe; insulating it will be a massive and extremely expensive task. Where is our long-term approach to that? We have invested vastly in our gas grid. We could replace natural gas with hydrogen, but again, the cost currently looks prohibitive.
As I said, I really do sympathise with the scale and complexity of the challenge the Government face in identifying the optimum economic path through these uncertainties, with many Whitehall departments involved, not least transport, housing, local government, BEIS and the Treasury. In his closing remarks—or, if that is not possible, in a letter—could the Minister please explain how the Cabinet Office is herding the cats, and creating and co-ordinating a coherent path to pick a reliable way to our net-zero target?
Lord Altrincham (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the right reverend Prelate to this House, and I look forward to hearing more about his greenhouse in the future. I also thank all noble Lords for their courage in staying past position 50 in the speaking order; those of us who are past 50 are particularly touched that you are all still here.
I declare my interests as a regulated director of the Co-operative Bank in Manchester and South Molton Street Capital. I shall make a few remarks on the financial services Bill. My noble friend Lady Penn opened this debate with comments on that Bill. We might feel a little disheartened that we have to look at these things, particularly given the weight of business that we have ahead of us in the Session, but we have also heard about the range of other Bills that are coming. We have heard from noble Lords through the afternoon about various different important plans for the future—spending on battery technology and hydrogen. We have heard about tidal from the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Whitaker and Lady Hayman. More broadly, we have infrastructure and digital commitments, with the transition to net zero and the green economy. They all have in common the need for private sector financing. The key to making that possible is in the financial services Bill.
Unfortunately, at the moment we are going through a period in which regulation and financing in this country are extremely cautious. We are at the part of the cycle of maximum caution, which is mixed with a kind of absence of scrutiny, which makes it really difficult to finance almost anything long term. It is very hard for the banks to put long-term debt on their balance sheets, and it is very hard for a lot of investment companies to make long-term investments. We have seen in recent years great commitments made and stuff not happening, with half-built nuclear power stations and that kind of stuff. The key to unlocking this is in the financial services Bill, in the supervision of financial services.
All of that is to say that prudential supervision is very important. I worked closely with the Government in the bank rescues in 2008, and I very much appreciate that bank stability must be at the heart of our economy. However, with bank stability we get a bunch of other things. For example, we get extremely poor service. We all use the ring-fenced retail banks in this country, and we tolerate extremely poor service and long waiting times from businesses that are supported by the Government as public utilities. They have the taxpayer behind them—this is on the ring-fenced side, not the broader side—in return for their public utility service. But we are seeing them close down branch after branch, right down to the last branch in a community, and we are actually regulating down to the last branch and beyond. Could we ask the regulators to pause the closure of the last branch in a town, at this point? These are utilities—it is extraordinarily important. We have heard about the importance of access to cash, but it is not just about that; it is about access to regular banking services.
More broadly in banking, with this culture of prudential caution that we have, we are seeing incredible restrictions on investment activity because of the need to gold plate bank capital standards. We ask the banks to have such high bank capital standards—actually, the highest in the world—that it restricts access to long-term investment capital. There is no challenge to this at the moment until we rebalance regulation. Alongside that, we have a culture that we have heard about quite a few times in glancing references to what is happening at the Bank of England—a culture of defensiveness, and a reluctance to bear scrutiny and bear challenge. That is part of the regulatory position, but there are other things as well; we have a regulator that will delay for months approval of positions in banks, showing a complete disregard for the private sector. That is an absolutely intolerable way in which to behave—again, unsupervised. We also have a culture in which the regulators put enormous costs on to the private sector. A very good example of this was the incredible cost put on the private sector through the LIBOR transition last year—and that passes unsupervised.
I have hit my time limit, but I ask the Minister just to comment on the access to long-term capital and rebalancing the supervision of financial services. I look forward to hearing more.
The Earl of Leicester (Con)
My Lords, by my calculations I was due to speak in five minutes, so we have all done incredibly well to keep to time, or indeed to make five minutes up. I declare my interests as set out in the register, in particular farming and renewable energy production.
Renewables are a passion of mine, and as a country we are heading in the right direction. The Government are leading the way in decarbonising the economy, and the biggest win is the national energy infrastructure, which has cut CO2 emissions by 76% in the last 10 years.
The Prime Minister said that the sale of petrol and diesel cars should be banned by 2030. That led, of course, to the sale of electric vehicles outstripping the sale of conventional cars in the last two to three months. That is very laudable, but I refer to the example of Covid vaccines. When Covid came in in March 2020, or probably even a little later, we were told that we would not get vaccines for three years. Thanks to the ingenuity of the human race, we got them in nine months. I wonder whether it would not have been wiser for the Prime Minister to say to the automotive industry, “If by 2030 you cannot not produce a car that does 250 miles per gallon on a petrol engine”—your Lordships might say 300—“it will be banned.” The industry would have achieved it, and then we would have had a balance of electric, clean petrol, and, I hope, hydrogen cars too.
We will still need oil; we still have oil. You will remember from science lessons the refractory tower. At the top of it comes aviation fuel—avgas. I cannot see commercial jet aeroplanes flying on batteries for the next 40 to 50 years. At the bottom of that tower, tar comes off, which we need for making bitumen to build new—and indeed repair—roads.
We need a balance of energies in our national energy system. Mercifully, renewable energies are indeed now the cheapest source—especially wind and solar, but also biomass and ground and air source heat pumps. But until we have built up reliable battery storage—with technology and ingenuity we will get there—we will need gas for when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining. The great advantage of gas with regard to national energy is that you can switch it on in minutes and ensure that everybody still has electricity. We will need oil, nuclear and maybe even one or two coal-fired power stations—one in Cumbria springs to mind. I say this as someone who is passionate about renewables and the environment.
Some may say that we do not have time; the clock is ticking. What if I am wrong? Well, I say the safety net is regenerative agriculture. We cannot legislate to make all farmers regenerative, but the volatility of energy prices and the sky-high prices now of artificial nitrogen caused by the war in Ukraine are making more and more farmers consider how they farm. Groundswell, the regenerative farming show, now outstrips Cereals as one of the most popular farming shows to go to. The Oxford Real Farming Conference now sells more tickets than the traditional Oxford Farming Conference.
Regenerative agriculture respects mother nature and uses fewer expensive chemical inputs. Soil fertility, natural nitrogen and water retention all build up, as does, crucially, biodiversity. If all the farmers of the world converted to a regenerative system—I appreciate that it is a fairly big ask, but in third-world countries many systems are regenerative because they have not been lured over by artificial nitrogen—we would sequester carbon at scale and solve the problem of climate change in two to three years.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to speak in the debate on Her Majesty’s gracious Speech. I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich on his very thought-provoking maiden speech.
This has been, by definition, a very wide-ranging debate, and there have been over 50 contributions, many of which have been absolutely excellent—not least from my noble friends on the Benches behind me. I will not attempt to summate those 50 speeches in my 10 minutes, but I am sure that the Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Callanan—will respond in his normal enthusiastic and helpful way to all the points raised by your Lordships today.
The net-zero points raised by my noble friends Lady Parminter and Lord Redesdale were really important but I will focus my comments on economics and business, as befits my portfolio. One issue dominating a number of speeches today, which was not in the Queen’s Speech, is the role of the Bank of England. Almost everyone who spoke on this subject agreed on the facts of what has been going on; what varied was the tone. Here I think we have to be a bit careful; the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, encapsulated that in his speech. It is important that this country has an independent Bank of England with the confidence to exercise that independence properly. We have to be careful not to undermine—or set in train a process that undermines—that overall process. We in your Lordships’ House have a duty of care around this issue.
The noble Lords, Lord Bourne and Lord Bridges, were searching for vision in their speeches. I had the same issue when analysing the Queen’s Speech so I went back to the nearest thing I could find—or at least the nearest thing purporting to be a vision—which is the Build Back Better brochure. This is 100 colour pages, the purpose of which, as far as I could tell at the time, was to replace a semi-coherent industrial strategy with a series of initiatives and press releases. However, if you read the foreword from the Chancellor, you see that it is the Government’s plan for growth, so I thought it might be worth trying to test that against where we are now.
Fifteen months have transpired; how is the process going? Well, “better” is not a word that I would use to describe the situation. As we have heard from many speakers, not least my noble friend Lady Kramer, the Bank of England said this month that inflation would probably peak at over 10% this year and potentially send GDP growth into reverse. In other words, the UK is likely to be heading for either recession or stagflation, a word that many of your Lordships have used today. Yet, with inflation raging, the Government have chosen to raise the taxes that everybody pays. Thanks to this Conservative tax hike, households are paying an extra £1.6 million in tax every hour of the day—I repeat, £1.6 million per hour.
David Smith, economics editor of the Sunday Times, summed things up very well in his column:
“As things stand, we seem to be building back worse, with the worst inflation problem for 30 years and a badly functioning labour market with a reduced workforce and labour shortages. We have poor short and medium-term growth prospects—with the economy struggling to keep its head above water—and a lot more government debt. In prospect is the highest tax burden since the country was emerging from the Second World War under the Attlee government in the late 1940s.”
That encapsulates the situation in which we find ourselves today, yet the Queen’s Speech addresses none of these issues. In fact, it almost seems to ignore the horrible economic prospectus set out so clearly. This not only threatens the lives and welfare of most people in this country but bids fair to send many firms to the wall at the same time.
Quite rightly, business organisations have voiced their concerns about the Government’s economic stasis. Responding to details of the Queen’s Speech, the director-general of the British Chambers of Commerce, said that
“unless the Government takes immediate action on the economy, they will come too late to help many firms.”
Of course, at the heart of this are increased energy costs, and we should be clear that this was already an issue before the Ukraine war, but this brutal war will make a temporary issue much more long term; that cannot be ignored. As we have heard, it is clear that we have to escape absolutely our dependency on volatile oil and gas prices and deliver net zero. Global economics and geopolitics are reinforcing the overwhelming environmental arguments.
The Government have published an energy security strategy. The fact that the issue is being discussed is welcome, and indeed some of the long-term strategies are on really important matters that we should look forward to. However, the strategy really focuses only on the long term—for example, it proposes nuclear that will not be available until at least after 2030—but it is the short term that is crippling the country. To get to a point where this strategy starts to kick in, we have first to negotiate the next three winters. That is crucial and a difficult challenge, but nothing so far indicates how we are going to do it. Make UK, the manufacturers’ organisation, is very clear on this issue: the projects that are mentioned in the strategy cannot be delivered quickly and, at a time of spiralling energy costs and myriad other financial burdens on business, industry desperately needs urgent action, but nothing seems to be forthcoming. So perhaps the Minister can tell your Lordships’ House how the energy security Bill will deal with the immediate issues that we face.
One of the key pillars in the Build Back Better brochure is innovation. I have looked through the Queen’s Speech but I find nothing that seems to drive the innovation agenda. Why is it being ignored? Of course, last Session, we had the Advanced Research and Invention Agency Act, which was presented very much as driving innovation and productivity. I seem to recall a triumphant Minister at the Dispatch Box announcing the appointment of Dr Peter Highnam as CEO. I do not remember him coming back and telling us that Dr Highnam quickly withdrew his candidacy. Perhaps the Minister could update the House today on why Dr Highnam withdrew, when a CEO will be appointed, when a chair will be appointed and when the location for the HQ will be announced. When will ARIA actually have a material impact on anything that is going on in this country?
We all worked hard to deliver the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act in super-quick time in the last Session. A lot of that speed was predicated on the necessity of a second Bill in this Session, so I welcome the inclusion of an economic crime and corporate transparency Bill in the gracious Speech. However, can the Minister confirm when we can expect to debate that Bill? Will he also update the House on progress with implementing the first Bill, which we passed in the last Session? There was a lot to do in implementing that Bill, and we would like some sense of where we are. It appears to have gone a bit quiet but the whole Companies House issue needs to be started now because of the huge culture change that we need to see in that organisation.
In conclusion, when it comes to the economy and business, the Queen’s Speech is remarkable for what is missing. It seems to limp into the future without addressing how we are going to negotiate the present. We need action to help people to meet their bills, and we have to find a way of doing so now. Many noble Lords have mentioned a windfall tax on energy, not just from the Benches on this side but right across your Lordships’ House. In general I am not a fan of measures such as windfall taxes, but the logic of the case for it here is clear and the need for it seems to me to be irresistible. I think even the Prime Minister is supporting it, and there is only one person stopping him from doing it.
With energy prices soaring, the oil majors have announced eye-watering increases in profits and have accelerated share buybacks. The Government cannot reduce the cost of energy on the world market but they could use cash from a windfall tax to help the most vulnerable people and businesses. They could pull hard-pressed families back from the brink. To do that, we need an emergency Budget, not only to reinstate the £20 uplift in universal credit but to reduce VAT as soon as possible. As many noble Lords have pointed out, dark clouds of poverty are looming over our economy, and every day of inaction from this Government will force more people to make the heartbreaking decision between heating and eating. I am afraid that this Queen’s Speech does absolutely nothing to address that issue.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, the economy, energy and the environment are three of the biggest challenges that we as a country now face. It is no wonder that so many from across your Lordships’ House wanted to contribute to this debate.
I start by thanking all those who have spoken. There have been many thoughtful and thought-provoking speeches—your Lordships’ House at its best. I particularly thank my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch for her opening contribution, in which she clearly outlined the fundamental failure of this Queen’s Speech when she said:
“We know that what really concern people are the cost of living crisis, the huge rise in energy bills, lengthening NHS waiting lists and the impact of climate change on our future well-being. However, instead of a programme to address these very real concerns, the Government have chosen to pick fabricated fights to please a dwindling group of core supporters.”
I also congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich on his maiden speech and offer these Benches’ support in addressing his priority—the challenges facing young people in towns and villages—which we are more than happy to support.
The Queen’s Speech contained 39 draft Bills, of which two sit in the Treasury, two in Defra and two and a half in BEIS. It is not just the lack of Bills that worries me but the content of them. They feel woefully inadequate to deal with today’s challenges across the economy, environment and energy. Inflation is currently at a 30-year high, with the potential for it to peak above 10%. An environmental crisis is rapidly approaching and looming, while millions of families are facing the catastrophe of soaring energy bills. My question to the Minister is this: does he really believe that the Bills as set out in the Queen’s Speech address these challenges? If he does, which is what I expect him to say, can he outline how the Treasury, BEIS and Defra Bills will actually deliver on that? Will he also answer some of the questions from his own Benches, specifically those from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth?
I start with the economy. Over the last five hours of this debate, we have heard speech after speech and statistic after statistic on how the Government are failing on the economy—and that is just from the Government’s own Benches. This Government have overseen a decade of low growth. The IMF has predicted that, in 2023, the UK will slump to the bottom of the G7 league table. In March, the British Chambers of Commerce downgraded its own growth forecast for 2022 by half a per cent on its previous estimates, reflecting a deteriorating outlook for consumer spending and a weaker than expected rebound in business investment. Most people are experiencing real-terms pay cuts this year and are likely to do so for the next few years. As my noble friend Lord Chandos said in addressing these issues, it is painful for many but it is devastating for the poorest.
The Bank of England has increased the base interest rate from 0.75% to 1% in order to counter inflationary pressures, but this will further squeeze household incomes. The Bank of England has warned that, for many years, the cost of living crisis will feel more like a recession. While the Government like to talk of record numbers of vacancies, many businesses are finding that they are simply unable to recruit the staff that they need, holding back their potential and that of the wider economy. Rather than presenting a coherent set of measures to tackle the cost of living crisis and rebalance the economy, the Government’s answer to poor economic performance appears to be deregulation of financial services, which could pave the way for a repeat of past financial crises.
The financial services and markets Bill should be about how financial systems work for the people, by prioritising financial inclusion, green investment and the regulation of emerging markets such as those relating to cryptocurrencies—but I fear it will not. These Benches welcome the UK innovation bank being put on a statutory footing, but there needs to be greater and more consistent focus on green investment.
The Queen’s Speech did nothing to revisit social security uprating, as my noble friend Lord Wood and many others outlined. That is despite the Prime Minister committing to consider a more generous increase when he appeared before the Commons Liaison Committee earlier this year. As the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, said, the Government say one thing and do another. A variety of charities are warning of an exceptional growth in poverty unless the Government ensure that social security payments keep pace with inflation. In response to the Queen’s Speech, the Trussell Trust noted that, for many families, life is
“no longer about living but surviving”.
For millions of families facing the catastrophe of soaring energy costs, the Government’s energy Bill is hopelessly inadequate. There is nothing to tackle the cost of living crisis, to bring forward energy efficiency measures or to ensure the green energy sprint that could bring down bills. The current energy crisis is a product of failed energy policies. British people are paying the price of higher energy bills now, because of the Government’s failure, over the last decade, to properly regulate the energy market or to develop renewables. Fortunately, we have seen some progress on nuclear power and will see more nuclear build, but more needs to be invested in renewables.
The Government could, today, have introduced greater support for working families and pensioners facing these rising bills, funded by a windfall tax on oil and gas companies. Nor does the Bill contain the measures desperately needed to end the ban on onshore wind and to build a national mission of home insulation. A decade of failed energy policy has left energy bills too high and the UK’s energy system just too weak. Labour would have brought forward an ambitious energy Bill that took real action to bring down energy bills, accelerate the green energy sprint and strengthen the UK’s energy security.
Finally, on the environment, the Covid pandemic served to highlight the importance of open and outdoor spaces. This Session of Parliament will see us debate a number of vital environmental targets, but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, rightly highlighted, this will be done by secondary legislation enabled by the Environment Act. The process underpinning this has been chaotic from the start. That, coupled with a lack of environmental content in the Queen’s Speech, does not instil in us sufficient belief that the Government have the ambition to solve this crisis. Given the severity of the climate crisis and the level of public interest in it, it is disappointing that the Government are not doubling down on commitments relating to net zero—an opportunity missed. The Government seem to have chosen to devote more time and political capital to stopping climate-related direct action from protesters than to solving the issues they are raising.
In conclusion, this Queen’s Speech feels light and full of rhetoric, with little ambition. To quote the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, there is an “absence of urgency”. Where is the high-skill, high-tech, high-wage Britain of the 21st century? Where is the plan to rebalance and rebuild our economy? Where is the plan to reduce energy bills for consumers and businesses? And where is the promised employment rights Bill? The Government simply do not have the answers to the challenges our country now faces.
Tomorrow, Labour will give the Government another chance to support a windfall tax. As we have heard, there is much support for this across the Floor of the House. Let us hope the Government take that opportunity.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, as always, it has been a great pleasure to hear so many varied and valuable contributions over the last five hours and I thank everyone who has contributed to this important debate.
First, it was, of course, a great pleasure for the whole House to be able to welcome the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich to this House, and I congratulate him on his excellent maiden speech. The House will know that I am a great football fan, so on maiden speeches I always try to look at the football affiliations of the Member joining. Of course, Ipswich Town is where the right reverend Prelate comes from—or, rather, represents in his bishopric —but when I saw that the nickname of Ipswich Town is the Tractor Boys, I thought, maybe we will not go there on this occasion. He joins this House with much valuable experience, gained domestically and internationally, and I am glad that he is now recovered enough to speak today on the challenges that we face on the climate. To that end, I hope that his horticultural pursuits, with which he entertained the House, continue to flourish, and I agree with him that planting trees is a symbol of hope and faith in the future. We will all look forward to his contributions when the energy security Bill is brought before this House later in the Session.
Many of us have years—perhaps more years than we care to remember—of experience under our belts. We have seen many crises come and go, but these past couple of years have of course been particularly testing. The war in Ukraine has shocked us all, but, beyond the horrors it has wreaked on the poor people there, it has increased the cost of energy and food across the entire world. Many in this country have moved from worrying about living through a pandemic to worrying about the cost of simply living. But, as my noble friend set out, and to answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, the Government’s legislative agenda for the coming year will aim to meet many of these challenges head-on.
The Government of course know that the rising cost of living is making life harder for people. We know that people are worried, and we do not seek to minimise that worry, but we do seek to alleviate as much as we can. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, raised a number of points when she spoke on behalf of the Opposition at the beginning of this debate and I hope that, over the course of this speech, I can respond to many of those points. I start by reassuring her and other noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady Noakes, the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, and my noble friends Lord Bridges and Lord Horam, who all rightly talked about the challenges we face on the cost of living, that we stand ready to help shoulder the burden and we have already provided support worth more than £22 billion in 2022-23. We are boosting the incomes of the lowest paid and helping families with their energy costs.
As the noble Lord, Lord Wood, pointed out—I do not know whether he is in his place; I cannot see him—inflation adds another layer of concern, particularly for families. As noble Lords will know, monetary policy is of course the responsibility of the MPC of the Bank of England, but my noble friends Lord Tugendhat and Lord Forsyth spoke about the make-up of this committee and the efficacy of the 2% inflation target. I hope noble Lords will understand that separation of fiscal and monetary policy is a key feature of our economic framework, but, on the first point, appointments are made on merit following fair and open competition, and, on the second, the Chancellor has reconfirmed the 2% inflation target. The Chancellor is also taking practical action that will help households ride out this extremely stormy period. He has increased the national insurance primary threshold and the lower profits limit to £12,570. The Government have cut fuel duty and the universal credit taper rate. We have increased work allowances by £500 a year and, of course, increased the national living wage to £9.50 an hour.
The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, speaks with authority when he tells us about the current attitude of business and the current tax rates. However, I reassure him and my noble friend Lady Noakes that the tax plan announced at the spring Statement will allow further tax cuts in the future—conditional, of course, on fiscal sustainability and robust levels of headroom.
Equally, my noble friend Lord Bridges asked for more help for the most vulnerable in our society. I can tell him that our modelling shows that the poorest 60 % of households receive more in public spending than they contribute in tax and that households in the lowest income decile will, on average, receive more than £4 in public spending for every £1 that they pay in tax.
My noble friend Lord Altrincham asked, rightly, about bank closures. I of course recognise the importance of appropriate access to banking. However, the way that consumers interact with their banking is changing. Decisions on opening and closing branches are a commercial issue for those banks and building societies. Clearly, banks need to carefully consider the impact of planned closures on customers and ensure that those customers are treated fairly. I hope noble Lords will also agree when I say that by growing the economy and investing in the long term, and through levelling up the United Kingdom, we can help to mitigate the worst effects of the cost of living crisis.
As the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, noted, productivity has long been a puzzle that remains unsolved. The Government recognise that vacancies are at a record high of 57% above the pre-pandemic level. However, unlike the puzzles given as Christmas gifts, this is one that we are determined to complete. That is why the Government launched the Way to Work campaign to get 500,000 jobseekers into work by the end of June 2022. We are quadrupling the scale of employer-led skills bootcamps to provide more retraining opportunities for adults in high-growth sectors. It is also why, as noted by the noble Lord, Lord Monks, we must ensure that employers play their part in improving conditions and pay to attract workers. I am of course delighted to remind the noble Lord—I know he does not like hearing this—that the UK has one of the best employment rights records in the world. It is well known that in many areas the UK goes much further than the EU on worker protections.
My noble friends Lord Colgrain and Lord Shinkwin spoke about making a more favourable environment for part-time workers, retirees and disabled people. I share their views that we cannot and will not neglect these important groups.
The noble Lords, Lord Haskel, Lord Monks, Lord Hendy and Lord Woodley, my noble friend Lord Colgrain and the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, all asked why there is no employment Bill. I reassure them all that as we rebuild our country after the hardships of the pandemic, the Government are committed to building a high-skilled, high-productivity and high-wage economy worthy of the people who worked so hard to get us through that pandemic. I reassure noble Lords that the Government remain committed to bringing forward legislation to deliver on their manifesto commitments on employment as soon as parliamentary time allows.
As we look towards how we grow the economy, I agree with my noble friend Lord Hunt on the importance of competitiveness within the financial services market. The sector plays a critical role in ensuring that this country remains an attractive place to do business; indeed, it helps to attract investment. I am sure that my colleagues in the Treasury will welcome his scrutiny of the Bill, and that of my friend Lady Noakes, when it eventually comes to this House.
Let us remember that this is still a country that other nations want to do business with and one which, with its spirit of enterprise and openness, still delights in attracting global investors. The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, said that Brexit has not worked. I would respond that we are still very much a country to be reckoned with and that between 2019 and 2027, the UK is forecast to see the third highest growth in the G7, behind only Canada and the United States. Our fintech community is thriving and, as my noble friend Lord Holmes noted, can continue to play its part in growing our economy. The Government have confirmed that they will provide £5 million of seed funding for the creation of new industry-led centres for finance, innovation and technology to help tackle the barriers to growth and accelerate the UK fintech sector.
The noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Sikka, asked about audit and corporate governance reform. The audit, reporting and governance authority—ARGA —will protect and promote the interests of investors, other users of corporate reporting and the wider public interest. The noble Lord was right to say that regulation should be proportionate, and I welcome his further engagement as we refine the legislation. I particularly enjoyed the trenchant criticism from the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, of a Bill that he has not actually seen yet. Perhaps the noble Lord should wait, as we will shortly publish the Government’s response to the White Paper consultation in which we will demonstrate our approach to many of the issues that he raised.
Let me respond in this section of my speech to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, who also asked about the economic crime Bill. I cannot give him a precise date for its introduction yet, but I assure him that work is proceeding at speedily as possible: lots of draftsmen are beavering away furiously on the Bill as we speak. On the implementation of the first Act, we are also proceeding speedily with that, and I will be contacting the noble Lord shortly, he will be delighted to know, to invite him to a meeting to discuss the 12 statutory instruments that we will shortly be introducing to implement the provisions—[Interruption.] He asked the question and I am responding to it. Other noble Lords also took an interest in that, so, as I promised during the passage of the Bill, I will want to involve them in the discussion, because we want the register of overseas entities, in particular, to be implemented as quickly as possible.
On the subject of energy, we can all be proud of the way that this country has stepped up to support our friends in Ukraine: from sending packages of military aid for generators for hospitals to opening homes up for refugees, we the British people have shown that we will not abandon our allies during their darkest hours. Like many in this House, I am sure, it makes me so proud to see those brave Ukrainian soldiers saying “God save the Queen” as they launch more UK-supplied missiles at Russian tanks.
My noble friends Lord Howell and Lady McIntosh spoke about the impact of the crisis in Ukraine on oil and gas supply, and we continue to divest ourselves of Russian oil and gas. The Government are clear that we will not be the financial backers of Putin’s war crimes. Indeed, this crisis has highlighted the need for a secure British energy supply, one that is not disrupted by war or influenced by rocketing global prices. Ultimately, we want lower energy prices so that hard-working people do not worry about the basic right of a warm home. A bold drive to create energy for the UK in the UK was outlined in our recent British Energy Security Strategy. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Haworth, with his long-standing interest in this area, supports it. We will supercharge our renewables, knowing that the hostile actors I referred to cannot control the offshore winds of the North Sea or stop the sun from shining occasionally in Kent and Wiltshire, where some of our biggest solar farms have been built.
Following on from that, the noble Lord, Lord Haworth, and my noble friends Lord Bourne, Lord Moynihan and Lord Wakeham also rightly spoke about nuclear. As we decarbonise and look for a steady load of clean electricity to complement our renewables mix, the size and importance of the nuclear sector will continue to grow. We have an aim of delivering up to 24 gigawatts of nuclear power by 2050, approximately three times the level we have today. That requires reversing decades of underinvestment in this sector. The new energy security Bill strengthens and complements that strategy, and it will secure our energy needs and build a more affordable system that is fit for the future. The Bill will complement the action we are taking right now through our £9 billion package of financial support to protect consumers from the full impact of rising prices. It will also provide high-skilled jobs and help to rejuvenate our industrial heartlands up and down the country.
I turn to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. Of course, she will know that, although I disagree with many of the points she raised, I respect her passion and commitment to the green agenda. She will know that the Government are already taking a joined-up approach to delivering world-leading climate commitments through our net-zero strategy, the Environment Act and the environment improvement plan. Further, our 10-point plan, together with the net-zero strategy and the energy security strategy, is driving an unprecedented £100 billion-worth of private sector investment by 2030 into new British industries, including offshore wind, and supporting about 480,000 clean green jobs by the end of the decade.
Having said that, our oil and gas sector is still important to the UK and continues to keep us warm and strengthen our security of supply. Maximising economic recovery and oil and gas need not be in conflict with the transition to net zero: they can and should be fully integrated. The North Sea Transition Authority has therefore integrated expressly into its strategy where industry can assist the Government in meeting our net-zero target.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, also spoke about the rights of way Act, which I must say we have no plans to change. Easy access to the beauty and restorative nature of the countryside is so important for people’s health and well-being. That is why we have created and restored some 360,000 football fields-worth of habitat since 2010.
Many noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, the noble Lords, Lord Wood and Lord Low, and my noble friends Lord Howell and Lord Bourne, raised the topical subject of a windfall tax on oil and gas companies. The noble Lord, Lord McNicol, also raised it, as he should do as an Opposition Front-Bencher. I understand, as we see these energy companies report record profits just as ordinary people start to dread opening their latest bills, that the call is getting louder. However, noble Lords will know that the Government already place additional taxes on those companies which extract from the continental shelf. Indeed, their tax rates are double those paid by other businesses.
In response to the question posed by my noble friend Lord Forsyth, according to HMRC tax receipts and national insurance contributions for the UK statistical table, net offshore tax receipts from oil and gas production were approximately £1.4 billion in 2021-22. However, as always, the Chancellor and Government keep all taxes under review and the Business Secretary has made it clear that these companies must reinvest in the UK and in renewables.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I hesitate to interrupt my noble friend, but I asked my noble friend Lady Penn how much the Government were getting in additional receipts as a result of the increase in the cost of oil, petrol and so on. Some £1.4 billion is a small fraction of that; it ought to release resources which were otherwise not there and could be used, for example, to deal with universal credit.
Lord Callanan (Con)
Of course there will be other increases in the likes of VAT and other taxes, which are estimated by the OBR. I will certainly speak to the Treasury and ask whether we can give my noble friend a more complete number. However, as I said, the Government keep all these taxes under review. We made it clear that companies must reinvest in the UK. In fact, Shell and BP are already investing hundreds of millions into our economy, including carbon capture infrastructure in the Humber and on Teesside.
But it is not just about energy production. Many noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones, Lady Parminter and Lady Hayman, the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Birt, and my noble friends Lord Bourne and Lord Moynihan, talked about the important subject of energy efficiency. Huge progress is already being made in the energy efficiency of UK homes. In 2008, 9% had an energy performance certificate, or EPC, of C or above; today, the figure is 46%. We are already investing more than £6.6 billion over this Parliament to improve energy efficiency, much of it targeted at the poorest in our society. This includes a £1.1 billion home upgrade grant and the energy company obligation scheme, which has been extended from 2022 to 2026, boosting its value from £640 million to £1 billion per year.
Furthermore, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and my noble friend Lord Bourne rightly spoke about the importance of reducing energy demand. We are scaling up our consumer advice and information service to help households understand how to reduce their energy demand effectively and what longer-term actions they may need to take as part of the transition to net zero. Noble Lords also asked me about protecting those 4 million consumers on pre-payment meters. Not only were special measures put in place in March 2020 but customers are also protected by the price cap.
To move from the local to the global, my noble friend Lord Howell called on the country to stand up to OPEC. He will be pleased to know that we are in fact working with partners across the G7, the IEA, OPEC+ and other oil-producing countries to press for measures to stabilise oil prices, and with the IEA and our allies on strategic oil reserve releases. However, the current—
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
It sounds as if my noble friend is coming to the end of his very good speech. I actually asked why, when our ports are crowded with frozen gas ships anxious to put gas into the British system—this is bearing down on the gas price now—this is not coming through to consumers in the way that surely it should.
Lord Callanan (Con)
We hope that it will do. Of course the market is in turmoil at the moment, but the noble Lord rightly pointed out that we have some very advanced LNG offloading facilities in the UK. We can play our part in helping parts of the EU that do not have LNG terminals, through the interconnection pipeline. But it is an international market; there is reduced supply and, of course, we all know that the price is at sky-high levels at the moment.
However, the current volatility in global energy prices and security concerns only underscores the importance of building strong home-grown renewable sectors and reducing our reliance on all fossil fuels. The ultimate way to deal with the high gas price is of course to use less of it. That is why this Government are so excited about hydrogen, which the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, and others asked about. My noble friend Lord Liverpool and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked specifically about our plans for so-called green hydrogen. I am pleased to tell the House that we are introducing a comprehensive package of measures to get these projects off the ground and help this outstanding new technology to thrive in the British marketplace. The global market for these technologies is for the taking, and we have the innovation and engineering expertise to be world leaders, just as we are becoming world leaders in EV battery technology.
I reassure my noble friend Lord Young that we have provided £30 million-worth of funding to support vehicle-to-everything projects, and we will provide a further £11.4 million of innovation funding. The noble Lord, Lord Birt, and my noble friend Lord Leicester raised an important point about electric vehicles—EVs. We recently announced our electric vehicle strategy, which sets out our vision and action plan for the rollout of effective vehicle charging infrastructure in the UK; I actually agree that there is much that we can do to improve that. Of course, electric vehicles will not take off unless the appropriate charging infrastructure is in place.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Whitaker and Lady Hayman, and my noble friend Lord Liverpool all spoke about the important subject of tidal power, and they are right in some respects. Along with copious wind, the UK is also blessed with strong tides. The Government’s position is that tidal power could well contribute to our energy mix, as we transition towards a carbon-neutral power sector. Indeed, the energy security strategy commits to aggressively exploring the potential of tidal power to contribute to our net-zero ambitions.
Of course, building these projects requires finance, which is why the Government are introducing the UK Infrastructure Bank. This also answers the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer—
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
I apologise, but my questions were about wave power as well as tide power. It would be very helpful if the noble Lord could tell us what the Government are doing to further wave power.
Lord Callanan (Con)
We are funding a number of innovative projects—from memory, I think that there was one in the Scottish islands—helping to explore the potential for wave as well as tidal power. I would be happy to write to the noble Baroness with more details on that.
I turn to the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, on the financial capacity of the infrastructure bank compared to the European Investment Bank, which used to invest around £5 billion a year in the UK. However, the EIB has a broader focus than the UK Infrastructure Bank, which is not a direct replacement for it.
The noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, asked why the Government chose to privatise the green finance bank. The bank had a targeted mandate to mobilise private finance, and, when it did so, it was sold. However, as I said, the UK Infrastructure Bank has a broader mandate, spanning both investment in green technologies and infrastructure projects needed to tackle climate change and support economic growth across the UK.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale—I do not see him in his place—asked me about carbon reporting. The UK’s economy-wide sustainability disclosure requirements regime will require businesses and investment products to report on their impact on the climate and the environment. Legislation introducing these changes will be brought forward when parliamentary time allows. I apologise; I can see the noble Lord now.
Moving on to the environment, we know that we live on one interconnected planet and that it is our duty to guard it for the next generation. I welcome my noble friend Lord Harlech’s contribution to the debate on rural issues. His father was a champion of the countryside, and I am glad that he continues to speak passionately about rural issues. I am sure that he, my noble friend Lord Smith and the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, have already acquainted themselves with the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill introduced to the other place last week, and I encourage their contributions when that Bill makes its way to this House.
We also want to ensure that there is enough food for everyone, even as the climate changes. That is why we are positioning the country to become a world leader in precision breeding technologies such as genetic editing. I welcome the recognition from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, that this can be of huge benefit to the country.
Alongside this, leaving the EU has enabled us to improve our animal welfare standards. The Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill delivers on three government manifesto commitments on animal welfare and is a high priority for the Government.
I reassure my noble friend Lady McIntosh that the Government are committed to securing free trade agreements that are tailored to British firms and the economy, and, of course, are not compromising our environmental, food and animal welfare standards. We are also working hand-in-hand with farmers on our plans for a renewed agricultural sector, which will transform the way we support farmers in the UK.
In conclusion, I thank all noble Lords for some excellent contributions. I apologise that, with almost 60 speakers, I was not able to address all the points made in the time I have available; in fact, I am already over my allotted time. However, we covered from financial services to farming, economic crime and energy security. The Queen’s Speech we have debated this evening will help to strengthen our country after a turbulent few years.
Lord Fox (LD)
I appreciate the Minister giving way and the time constraints. I asked some specific questions on ARIA. I am sure the Minister has the answers in his head, but if he could write to me with them, I would be very appreciative.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I will be happy to write to the noble Lord, as always. I seem to write lots of letters to the noble Lord at the moment, but I will be happy to write another one.
We will continue to stand by workers and businesses while boosting economic growth the length and breadth of the UK. As always, I look forward to working closely—as do all Ministers—with every Member of this House as these Bills come to fruition and pass through the legislative process.
Amendment to the Motion
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle
At the end of the Address insert:
“but regret the failure of Her Majesty’s Government to deliver the urgent transformative action required in response to the climate and nature emergencies if the United Kingdom is to do its fair share to limit global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius; further note with regret that one million species face extinction and that access to nature is profoundly unequal; and therefore call on Her Majesty’s Government (1) to bring forward a climate and ecology bill to provide an evidence-based statutory framework to meet international climate and nature responsibilities, (2) to enact a Green New Deal to restructure and decarbonise the economy, (3) to abolish the Maximising Economic Recovery duty, and (4) to extend the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 to include rivers, woods, grassland and Green Belt”.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the many noble Lords from all sides of your Lordships’ House who have raised the issues covered in my amendment. Given the hour, I will not move it tonight.