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, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Leo Docherty)
Armed forces personnel, like everyone else, are not immune to the international inflationary pressures and cost of living pressures, and I am therefore very pleased to announce that the Defence Secretary has chosen to freeze the daily food charge for our armed forces personnel. We are also limiting the increase in accommodation charges to 1%, ensuring that the council tax rebate reaches those in military accommodation, and increasing the availability of free wraparound childcare at the start of the new academic year.
Stephen Morgan
The Government are failing our frontline forces during a cost of living crisis. According to data from the Minister’s own Department, the percentage of personnel who believe that their pay and benefits are fair has fallen for the first time in four years, with four in 10 servicemen and servicewomen unhappy with their pay and benefits. What success has the Minister had with the Chancellor in securing the pay rise our troops need and deserve?
Leo Docherty
In terms of measuring the contentment of those serving, the reality that I see day in, day out is that armed forces personnel are content with their pay and conditions. They are also content because of the remarkable job security they have in the armed forces, the subsidised accommodation, and the remarkable and unique non-contributory pension. That is all thanks to the £24 billion uplift made available by the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary.
Ruth Jones
As we commemorate 40 years since the Falklands conflict, I pay tribute to the brave soldiers who did their duty there, such as Lance Sergeant Alan Dalgleish, who lived in Newport West. But I am afraid, sadly, that the Government’s approach to the welfare and livelihoods of armed forces personnel and veterans such as Lance Sergeant Dalgleish is lacking in both compassion and practical support. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the impact that the Tory cost of living crisis is having on forces personnel living in Newport West?
Leo Docherty
I do not recognise that characterisation, but of course I join the hon. Lady in solemn and compassionate commendation of the veterans of the Falklands liberation. The Defence Secretary will speak more about that. On her question, I ask her to recognise the work we have done specifically in Wales. I hope that she, like me, is very pleased to see the independent Wales Veterans Commissioner in place, and that she will work with him to improve the lives of veterans in Wales.
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (James Heappey)
NATO remains the cornerstone of the UK’s defence and security. All allies stand steadfast to defend and deter threats to the Euro-Atlantic, underlined by our unwavering collective commitment to article 5 of the Washington treaty.
Giles Watling
With the EU leading the charge to support Ukraine and combat Putin’s horrific invasion, does my hon. Friend agree that the next Secretary-General of NATO should be, if not British, from a nation with real skin in the game such as Poland?
James Heappey
You will not be surprised, Mr Speaker, to know that I think there are a number of excellent candidates to be the next NATO Secretary General, and I absolutely agree that those who have been to the fore during the response to Ukraine and who have skin in the game, as my hon. Friend says, should be leading contenders.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Let me ask the Minister this, and I want a straight answer: if we are going to be an effective member of NATO, when are we going to stop this crazy policy of diminishing the size of the armed forces? Seven years ago, I asked a former Defence Secretary, “What if Mr Putin’s people just arrived in the English channel?”, as we went below 100,000 service personnel. The plan today now is to go down to 72,000. Is that credible as a major armed force in NATO?
James Heappey
In the context of a question about NATO, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. NATO massively outnumbers Russia as an adversary. The UK commits more than our minimum requirement to NATO. Moreover, allies around NATO are clear that contributing in the traditional domains of land, sea and air is no longer sufficient and that NATO needs capabilities in space and cyber-space, on which, through the integrated review, the UK has invested and is to the fore.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
I am going to follow up that question, I am afraid. NATO does outnumber Russia, it is true, but we have to have the weight, muscle and mass, to a certain extent, to react in the event, God forbid, of some form of confrontation with Russia. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to reverse the very bad decision to reduce the Army by 10,000.
James Heappey
The Secretary of State has been clear throughout the integrated review process that we are a threat-led Department. As things stand, and as I have said at the Dispatch Box a number of times—I know that my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary has said likewise—a lot of what is in the IR is proving to be vindicated by the realities of the conflict in Ukraine. As we move towards Madrid, and NATO is increasingly clear about what it wants as an alliance as capabilities across all five domains, the UK continues to lead thinking, rather than being behind it.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
NATO meets in two weeks to agree its masterplan for the next 10 years, yet there are growing concerns about the UK meeting even its core NATO commitments. Is it true that the Defence Secretary warned the Chancellor that Britain risks missing its 2% spending commitment? What is the Defence Secretary doing about Ajax, given that the Public Accounts Committee’s new report states that the MoD
“is failing to deliver the…capability that the Army needs to…meet its NATO commitments”?
Why has the Defence Secretary failed to set out a vision to ensure that Britain continues to be NATO’s leading European nation?
James Heappey
The Defence Secretary is a passionate advocate for our nation’s armed forces and for defence within the Government, but his correspondence with other Ministers in the Cabinet necessarily should remain private. The reality is, as I said in answer to the question earlier from the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), that the UK exceeds its NATO minimum requirement, and as NATO moves into its new strategic concept and looks at how it will operate across all five domains, it is the UK’s decisions from the IR that are informing what others will now contribute to NATO, rather than vice versa. The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) finished with a question about the Secretary of State setting out a vision for NATO. I cannot think of anybody within NATO who has set out a more compelling vision for the alliance and the UK’s role within it.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Can the Minister set out what input the UK Government have had into the 2022 strategic concept, due to be published at the Madrid summit later this month? What impact might that have on UK defence interests over the next decade?
James Heappey
The concept has not been signed off yet. At Defence Minister meetings this week, the Secretary of State will be looking at it further before it goes to the NATO summit in Madrid. As the hon. Lady would expect, Ministers from the MOD and the Secretary of State most obviously are travelling around the Euro-Atlantic all the time in order to have these discussions, and people from other NATO capitals are visiting the MOD, so that we can build a shared consensus before we reach the moment of decision, and the UK has been instrumental in shaping those thoughts.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
A couple of weeks ago, Members from all parts of the House went to Romania with the armed forces parliamentary scheme, where we saw the work being done by the RAF as part of NATO’s air policing role. Will my hon. Friend join me in thanking 140 Expeditionary Air Wing for all it is doing to keep our skies safe? Does he agree that that work is an excellent example of the role of NATO in safeguarding our freedom and security?
James Heappey
I was in Bucharest on Thursday evening and Friday morning, having the exact conversations that the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) was checking we were having. I had the honour when I was there of meeting members of the RAF who are involved in Operation Biloxi and air policing. I indeed pay tribute to 140 Expeditionary Air Wing and all other members of the RAF who have been involved in air policing in Romania, Lithuania and elsewhere.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
Before I get into my question, as this will be our last Defence questions before Armed Forces Day, may I thank those in the armed forces for all their service, particularly over the past couple of years during the pandemic? I also offer the support of those on these Benches to the Government in getting home the two UK nationals currently held by a Russian puppet court in eastern Ukraine.
On the strategic concept, there are three areas that we believe the Government must push for NATO to strengthen: the state levers of conventional defence power; societal resilience across the alliance, particularly in conjunction with the European Union’s strategic compass; and the international rules-based system that keeps us safe, including among alliance members themselves. Can the Minister outline, as he tries to garner that consensus, what he thinks a successful strategic concept looks like?
James Heappey
It is one of those wonderful moments when we are in vigorous agreement. We would share the view that the state levers of hard power and the societal levers of resilience are hugely important, that NATO must stand for something and that its members must subscribe to a rules-based international system. Those discussions are not hard to have because just about everybody else in NATO would passionately agree with that position.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
I am grateful for that answer, but as other hon. Members have said, including on the Conservative Benches, a successful strategic concept surely does not include the UK Government cutting the armed forces by 10,000 and reducing the Army to its size in the war of the Spanish succession in 1701. Will the Minister, along with his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence, revisit the arbitrary cutting in size of the Army by 10,000? Would that not show NATO allies that he was serious about conventional defence forces in the UK and send the right message ahead of Armed Forces Day later this month?
James Heappey
Opposition spokespeople are in the habit of starting the clock on pledges for defence spending increases the day after the UK makes an enormous increase in defence spending. The UK led the alliance in deciding to increase spending in the face of increased insecurity in the Euro-Atlantic. NATO’s strategic concept does not specify exactly what each nation must have; the strategic concept is what NATO as an alliance wants to do. The key to that, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said at the start, is having interoperable levers of hard power that are shared across the alliance with the countries that do them best; having real homeland resilience so that, across all domains, on the eastern front and in-depth, there is real resilience within NATO members; and having a set of values that NATO unites around, stands up for and sells around the world.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Leo Docherty)
We acknowledge wholeheartedly the fact that historically some service personnel were thrown out of the service purely because of their sexuality, which was deeply unjust. For that reason, we have commissioned an independent review. That will assess some of the figures involved, which is indeed a grey area, and we look forward to announcing that in due course.
James Gray
At a recent meeting with the organisation Fighting With Pride, I was horrified to hear that until 2001, LGBT servicemen and women were routinely court-martialled and dismissed; they lost their pensions and the right to wear their medals or their berets on Remembrance Sunday. That was an outrage, as the Minister correctly said. A far bigger outrage, however, is that that injustice has not been corrected. To this day, gay people—gay servicemen—from that time still have no pension and are treated with contempt by the armed service, which is absolutely disgraceful. I welcome the fact that he has set up an inquiry into that, although he has not yet appointed a chairman, but we need far more than an inquiry: we need those people to be pardoned and for them to get their dignity and humanity back.
Leo Docherty
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Fighting With Pride; I commend its activity and rightful advocacy in this area. I entirely agree with him and I am pleased to say that there is a highly credible and eminent individual who will chair the review. My hopeful expectation is that we will make the formal announcement next week to coincide with Armed Forces Week.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
Before Labour lifted the ban on LGBT personnel serving in our armed forces, thousands of LGBT personnel were hounded out of service, removed and abandoned after serving with pride. I welcome Ministers allowing sacked personnel to wear medals, but there are further restrictions, including written orders from commanding officers saying that the sacked personnel will not be able to wear headwear or insignia as veterans. Does the Minister agree that until all restrictions are lifted on those personnel, and pension issues resolved, the MOD will remain in breach of the military covenant?
Leo Docherty
Of course, I absolutely agree and I am pleased to say that the scope of the review will be very broad and that the Government will listen with compassion and sincerity to the recommendations of the independent reviewer. We hope that will provide a path towards delivering justice.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
Four new Dreadnought class submarines will enter service from the early 2030s, and we will replace the current nuclear warhead. We keep our nuclear posture under constant review in the light of the global security environment. About 30,000 jobs across the nuclear enterprise are dedicated to maintaining and delivering the deterrent, now and tomorrow.
John Lamont
The Government will be aware of a recent opinion poll that shows that Trident enjoys 58% support among Scots, yet the SNP and Green Ministers in the Scottish Government wish to see us remove Trident and even leave NATO altogether. Given the current international crisis, does the Defence Secretary think their position is wise?
Mr Wallace
It is certainly the case that the SNP cannot have it both ways. It wants to have an independent Scotland and join NATO, while also removing part of its nuclear defence. I notice that the First Minister alone said in 2021 that an independent Scotland would be a “keen signatory” to the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons. That would make it the only NATO country to be a signatory to that treaty, and it is a clue to how the SNP says one thing and does another.
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
The UK has committed £1.3 billion for military operations and aid to Ukraine. As part of the delivery of lethal and non-lethal aid in support of Ukraine’s military, we are liaising with Ukraine’s armed forces to meet their operational requirements. Most recently, we have announced that we will be providing highly capable multiple launch rocket systems, which will provide Ukraine with a significant boost in capability.
Nicola Richards
I had the pleasure of virtually meeting Iryna, a young member of the European Solidarity party in Ukraine, and some of the stories she told me of the frontline in Ukraine were shocking. Young members of Iryna’s party, like many brave people, have been on the frontline in this fight—some kidnapped, and some killed. Could my right hon. Friend spell out what steps his Department is taking to support all young people in the Ukrainian army during this terrible conflict?
Mr Wallace
My hon. Friend is right: it is not just about weapons; it is often about non-lethal aid, such as medicines and body armour. The UK has sent over 200,000 pieces of non-lethal aid, including body armour, range finders and medical equipment, and we will continue to do so. This is also about making sure that we look at the training being given to those young people, because if they are to have the best chance of survival on the frontline, we need to make sure that they are not only properly equipped, but properly trained.
Stephen Hammond
I had the honour to meet a number of Ukrainian officials recently, and the Secretary of State is right that they are very pleased about our commitment of military hardware. He is aware, of course, that they continue to ask for more. Could I ask him what consideration he has given to or discussions he has had with allies about providing air capability?
Mr Wallace
My hon. Friend is right that that is often the request we receive from the Ukrainians and the international community, and he will remember the discussion about MiG-29s from Poland a few months ago. Air is a requirement of the Ukrainians, and we have had a number of discussions at the donor conferences, which I first convened a few months ago. One or two nations have looked at providing helicopters to Ukraine, and I think they may do so at some stage. Of course, the difference between that type of weapons system and another is the amount of training. That restricts countries such as the United Kingdom, because our planes are obviously very different. Therefore, wherever we can support the provision of air from countries holding Soviet stock, we will do our best to do so.
Jason McCartney
On behalf of Huddersfield and Colne Valley’s Ukrainian community, can I thank the Secretary of State for Defence for the magnificent support the UK has been giving to the Ukrainian military forces fighting such a valiant fight against the oppressive Russian forces? He mentioned support with the multiple launch rocket systems and the importance of training, but how is he balancing the timescales of that with supplying the existing Soviet-era weaponry with the ammunition it needs for the fight today and this week?
Mr Wallace
My hon. Friend is right to point out the importance of the next step and, indeed, the requirement for more artillery. The key here is to make sure that the new artillery, which is obviously designed for NATO use using NATO ammunition, is applied and used in a NATO way, rather than just repeating the way Soviets would have used artillery because that way we would run out of ammunition pretty quickly. That is why we will be sending MLRS, and we are also sending self-propelled 155s from a donor—not UK AS 90s, but others—to Ukraine to assist in giving it such deep fires capability. In tandem, we are helping alongside other countries, especially in the Baltic, in training those people to put that type of deep fires into effect.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
With reports that medical services in Mariupol are likely already near collapse and the potential for a major cholera outbreak, what discussions has the Secretary of State had with colleagues across Government to explore urgent medical relief that could be deployed by the MOD?
Mr Wallace
The hon. Member makes the very important point that the consequences of Russian brutality, destruction of infrastructure and so on are the second-order effects such as cholera infections, starvation and, indeed, other problems. That is why, when we have our donor conferences, we make sure we talk about non-lethal aid, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and others talk to their ministerial counterparts about how we can help in those areas. The MOD itself cannot directly intervene in Mariupol, but where we have knowledge and can co-ordinate the treatment of people outside Ukraine—through lift, moving them to hospitals in other countries using our aircraft—we will do that, and I have already spoken to a number of our Black sea colleagues to see what we can do in places such as Mariupol.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
At business questions, I raised the issue of the destruction of a depot in Dnipro that was storing non-lethal supplies, including donations of medicine collected by Clare-Anna Mitchell and other constituents from Gower in Swansea. The network organising these supplies is Never Surrender; it is an efficient and effective deliverer but wants to work with the Government to make sure it can continue to do this good work. Will the Secretary of State meet me and Never Surrender to discuss how we can arrange this?
Mr Wallace
Yes, and will the hon. Lady pass on our thanks to Never Surrender and her constituents? I visited Ukraine last week and saw that this is not as easy as people think: it is not only about donating, but also about the hours and hours of queues at the border to then get through into the country to then deliver that aid, for which we are very grateful.
As the hon. Lady points out, there is the indiscriminate —sometimes deliberate—striking by Russia of targets like medical support or, as I saw, shopping centres, so that it can put people out of jobs and put pressure on the economy; that is the type of adversary we are dealing with. I will be happy to meet with the hon. Lady, but if she wants an earlier meeting I suggest one of my Ministers, as this week and next week there will obviously be NATO meetings.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
We fully support all the Government’s efforts to properly arm the Ukrainians with the equipment and weapons they need, but the Secretary of State has alluded a couple of times to the fact that there is also the corresponding challenge of training. Will he say a little more about his discussions with colleagues and allies about maximising opportunities for Ukrainian personnel to be able to use the equipment and armoury that most suits their needs?
Mr Wallace
First and foremost, it is incredibly important that we get the right training to those serving in the Ukrainian armed forces. One of the tragic characteristics of the Russian armed forces is that they simply shove into one end of a meat grinder their own forces, who then—mainly men—come out and are killed en masse. It is hard to have sympathy for that, but nevertheless we are not going to be like that; we must make sure the Ukrainians are trained in using the equipment we give them and we do not just hand it over and let them face the consequences. We will continue to work on that; I will brief the hon. Gentleman’s Front-Bench spokesman soon on these topics and any further steps. The United Kingdom and a number of our European colleagues are keen to do more on training; when I have more news, I will announce that to the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
If all NATO countries had provided the same scale of support to Ukraine as Britain has there is every possibility that Russian forces would now have been pushed out of mainland Ukraine. Instead, Russia is consolidating in the Donbas and there is every chance it may now be turning its sights to Odesa. If that port falls, Ukraine will be landlocked, further impacting on the cost of living crisis here and across Europe because critical grain exports cannot get out.
Is it time for the UK to lead a coalition of willing NATO allies to secure a United Nations General Assembly-approved humanitarian zone around the port and territorial waters, with neighbouring international waters policed by an international maritime force? That would ensure that the breadbasket of Europe and beyond is able to function and remain part of Ukraine.
Mr Wallace
My right hon. Friend makes the valid and important suggestion that we must do what we can to get the grain out of Ukraine. It is not just an energy crisis that people face; it will be a food crisis if the Russians are continually to both steal and blockade that grain.
However, I am afraid, with due respect to my right hon. Friend, that securing the Black sea and the UN mandate to do that are definitely easier said than done. I continue to speak to a number of Black sea partners and other members to see what else we can do to explore getting that grain out both overland and at sea. While Russia has talked the talk, it has done the complete opposite when it comes to providing assurances on any humanitarian corridor, especially on the land, as we saw at Mariupol, and now obviously at sea.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
We come now to Question 6; I am intrigued as to why Question 13 is not grouped with it.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
I think that Question 13 was not grouped with this one to give the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) a whole theatre of his own to ask his question. I will be first to support that when we come to it.
We have been clear that this is a troubled programme, and we have not paid a penny to General Dynamics under the Ajax contract since December 2020. Ajax will be a formidable capability. We want it to work and for General Dynamics to deliver it, but we will not take a vehicle into service that is not fit for purpose. We benefit from a robust contract and will make use of it.
John Spellar
But look, the Secretary of State has effectively admitted the failings of the Ajax programme, which are very public and have been comprehensively exposed by both the Defence Committee and the Public Accounts Committee. Unfortunately, since then, we have not had any indication—not even in his reply—that the fundamental problems have been resolved, and the Army is facing a dangerous gap in capacity. Will he either announce that he will scrap the failed programme or give us an early, fixed and firm timetable for such a decision? Stick or twist, Secretary of State?
Mr Wallace
The Ajax programme is a troubled programme. We agree with many of the recommendations in the Public Accounts Committee’s report. We are independently testing a number of the issues arising with that programme and we must ensure that, when we take another step, it is evidence based. As I said, we are clear to make sure that we bring it into service. In the meantime, we have withheld payment—a considerable amount of money—since December 2020. That is really important. General Dynamics wants this resolved, and we want it resolved.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
I am glad that the Secretary of State mentioned that the MOD did not pay General Dynamics throughout 2021; by December 2021, it had paid £1.1 billion less than scheduled. However, the position is not sustainable in the local economy or in the Welsh economy as it is causing real anxiety among the workers, the wider economy and the local supply chain. When will the Government give an answer on what they will do about Ajax? I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar), who mentioned the report by the PAC. Anybody who has had anything to do with Ajax will say that, after 12 years, enough is enough and a decision must be taken.
Mr Wallace
I understand the hon. Member’s frustration and that of the workforce in Wales, who had hoped and wanted to produce a vehicle that was fit for purpose and would add to the British Army’s important capability. We have to proceed based on science and evidence. Like General Dynamics, we are bound to a contract, and I do not want to say anything that would jeopardise those positions. We have done independent trials and, when those results are forthcoming, we can have a further discussion. I recently met the head of General Dynamics and made my position on the next steps very clear. As I have said from the beginning, we will not accept into service a vehicle that is not fit for purpose.
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Leo Docherty)
We continue to work tirelessly to ensure that veterans are supported right across the UK. The “Veterans’ Strategy Action Plan”, published earlier this year, set out 60 commitments and £70 million of investment, particularly on the themes of healthcare and employment. There is a big demand for veterans in the employment market because, Mr Speaker, military service gives you skills for life.
Damien Moore
I recently attended the opening of Southport veterans’ hub, which does an excellent job in providing support for ex-service personnel in my constituency. Will my hon. Friend join veterans at the hub to further understand what more support his Department can give?
Leo Docherty
I would like to acknowledge the importance of such gatherings, which I have seen regularly in my constituency. I thank my hon. Friend for his support of that hub. If I find myself near Southport in the near future, I would be delighted to visit.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
One veteran who served as a Royal Engineer for 38 years told me that he has been fighting for almost nine years to receive the compensation that he is entitled to. Currently, nearly 3,000 people are stuck in the Veterans UK appeals system facing similar experiences. We all know that there are issues with veterans’ compensation. When will the Minister stop denying that and act?
Leo Docherty
We are acting, and I am pleased to confirm that we are investing £40 million in a radical digitalisation programme, which I saw with my own eyes a few weeks ago when I was in Norcross, where the paper records are held. There are frustrations, but work is continuing apace.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (James Heappey)
To date, over 9,500 eligible individuals have already safely relocated to the UK under the Afghan relocations and assistance policy; we think we have about the same to go in terms of the number of people eligible. Flights are leaving, principally from Islamabad, every fortnight, but obviously partners in the region have a say over what they accept as a flow rate. I was in Islamabad three weeks ago to discuss that with the Pakistan Government. I am delighted to say that they have announced a further phase to allow nations like the UK to evacuate those who have popped up in Pakistan. We will be getting on with that now.
Dan Jarvis
With your forbearance, Mr Speaker, I pay tribute to all those who served in the Falkland Islands 40 years ago.
I turn to the Minister’s response. A former member of the unit I helped to establish has now been waiting nine months for his ARAP application to be processed. He is in hiding, terrified that he is going to be kidnapped and murdered by the Taliban—all because he stepped forward to serve when we asked him to. Will the Minister give an undertaking to look at the detail of this particular individual’s case? Can he say what more is being done to clear the backlog of applications?
James Heappey
The hon. Gentleman is a phenomenal campaigner for those who served alongside the UK armed forces; in fact, I think I probably sign dozens of letters a week responding to his various inquiries. I am surprised that I have not already corresponded with him on this particular case if he has raised it with me, but perhaps we can talk afterwards to ensure nothing has fallen through the cracks.
Jessica Morden
Family members of Afghan interpreters in my constituency who came to the UK under the ARAP scheme are among the 12,000 Afghans stranded in bridging hotels. That is shameful. How on earth can we trust the Government to deliver on the new pathways announced today if they have accommodated only a third of those who fled the Taliban over the last year?
James Heappey
The hon. Lady’s question is well intended. We want the same thing: we want to help. It is frustrating, however. The Government were criticised for outsourcing the Ukraine refugee scheme to members of the public, yet the reality is that if the Government have to be responsible for it in its entirety, people end up being stuck in hotels until councils are willing to take people out of those hotels. It is appalling that Afghan refugees are still stuck in hotels nine months later. I am desperate that councils around the UK step up and help us to accommodate the people who served our country with such amazing bravery and selflessness, and who are stuck in hotels because councils cannot accommodate them.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
As chairman of the British Council all-party parliamentary group, I have been raising the plight of 170 British Council contractors who remain in Afghanistan in fear of their lives, 85 of whom have been deemed by the Government to be at very high risk. Given the written ministerial statement today, what assurances can the Minister give that the latter group in particular will be prioritised? They are not the only ones in fear for their lives in Afghanistan—there are many more. If he cannot give that assurance, given the urgency of the situation, will he knock on whatever door is required in Government and press upon that individual the need for action?
James Heappey
My hon. Friend has already seconded me on a number of occasions to speak to colleagues around Government on his behalf, as part of his campaigning on behalf of those who worked for the British Council. He knows, I think, that both the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Home Office are seized of the need to do the right thing by them. The Afghan citizens resettlement scheme is clearly the opportunity. In Islamabad three weeks ago, while of course my focus was ARAP, I was able to also reassure myself—I hope he will be encouraged to hear this—that all is in place to begin bringing people out under ACRS through that route as well.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
We have doubled our presence in Estonia, reinforced the enhanced forward presence battlegroup, and deployed an aviation taskforce to Lithuania. We are contributing to enhanced air policing over Romania and Bulgaria, and enhanced vigilance activity in Cyprus, Poland and the Baltic states. We have deployed additional troops and capabilities to Poland, and led the development of joint expeditionary force activity options.
Tony Lloyd
One of the strengths the Secretary of State will have at the NATO summit is the fact that this country has done so much to support our NATO allies. His second great strength is that we hit the 2% of GDP contribution. That is important to empower those who argue with our NATO allies that they must hit the same figure. Earlier on, the Minister for the Armed Forces would not answer directly the question of whether we will maintain that 2% spending. Can the Secretary of State assure the House now that the 2% will be maintained or, preferably, increased?
Mr Wallace
The hon. Gentleman asks a straight question and I will give him a straight answer. Between now and the end of the comprehensive spending review period, we are at 2%—in fact, 2.3%—of GDP. However, inflation, GDP and growth shrinking off GDP will affect all those GDP pledges, which is why some countries in NATO have very high GDP spend, but also have a very small economy. Within the comprehensive spending review period, I am on track to be above 2%.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
On 9 May, I visited my hon. Friend’s constituency and we went to see the Dreadnought programme. He was with me when I signed the delivery of phase 3, the most important phase of rolling out the first of class HMS Dreadnought, in Barrow-in-Furness. It is set for sea trials so that it will be ready for patrol, hopefully in the early 2030s.
Simon Fell
It was a pleasure to host my right hon. Friend in Barrow for that announcement. The submarine programme based in my constituency supports more than 11,000 jobs locally, but the Astute programme, the Dreadnought programme and the boats being developed under SSN(R) will keep us and our allies safe for generations to come. With that in mind, will my right hon. Friend thank those people, from pipefitters to programme directors, for the work they are doing on that critical national programme?
Mr Wallace
My hon. Friend is right. In Barrow, they are doing some of the most complex engineering on earth, and it is breath-taking and a huge achievement. Not only are we rolling out the Dreadnought class, but we have committed funding for the next stage of the attack submarine, the next generation of Astutes. It is a vital part of our subsea defence and I am delighted that the Australians, when they chose to switch from the French submarine, came to the United States and the United Kingdom as future partners in that programme, because very few places in the world can do it. One of those places is Barrow.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Leo Docherty)
As of 6 June 2022, 96% of service family accommodation has been assessed as meeting or exceeding the Government’s decent homes standard. Housing below that standard is not allocated to service families because we are putting service families at the heart of defence, and that is reflected in the provision of their quarters.
Mr Dhesi
In my recent visits to UK military bases, many of our servicemen and women raised with me the issue of substandard accommodation, which will no doubt have an impact on recruitment and retention. Indeed, complaints about service accommodation have rocketed by 20% in the first four months of 2022, compared with 2021. The Government are presiding over record low levels of satisfaction. Why are the Government failing our brave troops, and what will be done urgently to improve service accommodation?
Leo Docherty
We take these issues seriously, because we recruit the soldier but we retain the family. That is why we are putting record sums of investment into SFA. In the last seven years, we have invested more than £936 million in SFA improvements, and in the coming year we will invest £176 million in SFA. We are putting our money where our mouth is.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
But not the same questioner, Mr Speaker.
General Dynamics has proposed changes to Ajax to address noise and vibration problems identified in the vehicles. The changes have been assessed by Millbrook independently, and we expect to receive its final report shortly. We will not proceed without a high degree of certainty, and we will not accept a vehicle that is not fit for purpose.
Mr Kevan Jones
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) said earlier, it is nearly two years since the MOD had the problems with Ajax and no fix is in sight. In December last year, the Minister for Defence Procurement said that if the contract is cancelled,
“There is a parent guarantee in place between GDUK…and the parent company”—[Official Report, 15 December 2021; Vol. 705, c. 1090.]
Is that specific to this contract or is it just a gentleman’s agreement?
Mr Wallace
Given the legal weighting of that question, I think it best if I write to the right hon. Gentleman with the detail. I would not want to say anything at the Dispatch Box that would either cause the taxpayer to suffer unnecessarily as a result of any legal remedy or jeopardise a very important programme as we are trying to fix its problems and roll it out.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (James Heappey)
The most recent estimate shows that Ministry of Defence investment supports more than 200,000 jobs in industries across the UK. We recently marked the first anniversary of the defence and security industrial strategy, which has received positive feedback from industry. Continued high and focused investment in defence, along with the changes that we are making as part of the DSIS, will contribute to further economic growth and prosperity, including jobs, across the United Kingdom.
Karl MᶜCartney
As the Member for Lincoln in Bomber County, as Lincolnshire is also known, and with RAF Waddington in my constituency, I have many constituents who work in the defence sector. Investment in defence continues to be strong: there are now more than 80 defence companies across Lincolnshire, and Lincoln College has Britain’s first air and defence college, working in partnership with the Royal Air Force and with companies in the defence industry. Would the Minister and perhaps the Secretary of State care to visit Lincoln, see that great facility for themselves and reaffirm the Government’s commitment to supporting the defence sector in Lincolnshire?
James Heappey
I pay tribute to the work of all those at RAF Waddington and those who support them. The Greater Lincolnshire local enterprise partnership is a major investment hub for the Department and the defence industry. Lincoln College’s air and defence college, which is run in partnership with the RAF and with several key defence companies, supports existing career paths into science and engineering. My hon. Friend will be gutted that I am answering his question rather than the Minister for Defence Procurement, who is on his way to the Falklands, but I am certain that the Minister will want to visit, as my hon. Friend suggests.
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
This year commemorates all those who fought in the Falklands conflict. We should not forget the sacrifice made by many to liberate those islands from an aggressive Argentinian invasion by a dictator. Many of us will not forget that conflict: it shaped our own childhood and upbringing. My own regiment served there, alongside those of other hon. Members, who will know veterans well. To send a force 8,000 miles to stand for Britain’s values and uphold international law was some achievement then; it would be some achievement now.
Fay Jones
On behalf of the many thousands of Falklands veterans I represent, I fully endorse the Secretary of State’s comments about the Falklands war.
I pay tribute to the Royal Welsh Battalion, which is proudly leading NATO’s battle group in Estonia as part of our forward presence and which took part in NATO’s Exercise Hedgehog in the Baltics last month. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Welsh soldiers will continue to play a key role as we step up our efforts to support our NATO allies in eastern Europe?
Mr Wallace
My hon. Friend makes a strong point on behalf of the Welsh soldier, the Welsh airman—RAF Valley is on Anglesey—and the Welsh Navy. The Welsh are at the forefront of our responses around the world: not only did the Queen’s Dragoon Guards, the Welsh cavalry, recently return from Mali, but the 1st Battalion the Royal Welsh is one of the main battle groups in Estonia enhancing the forward presence. Wales adds a lot to the United Kingdom and to the British Army. Without a Welshman in your platoon, you are not doing very well, in my experience.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
On the eve of the 40th anniversary, we remember the sacrifice in liberating the Falklands and we reaffirm the significance of the islands to our future security.
During the Defence Secretary’s visit to Kyiv in recent days, two Brits fighting with the Ukrainians have faced a Russian show trial and another has been reported killed. How many former British forces personnel are fighting in Ukraine?
Mr Wallace
The simple reality is that we do not know how many ex-soldiers are fighting in Ukraine. Obviously, at the beginning of the conflict, we all publicly made statements to try to deter people from doing so. The two former soldiers who have been captured were themselves living in Ukraine or half-Ukrainian. Like others, I am saddened by the loss of the other former veteran who was reported killed recently. As far as the individuals are concerned who decided of their own volition to go and fight separately from the United Kingdom or any of its serving personnel, we are unaware of the total number, although there are estimates.
John Healey
But did the Defence Secretary even ask the question when he was in Ukraine last week? Four weeks ago, a Minister said that
“we are working with the Government of Ukraine to understand how many British Nationals have joined the Ukrainian Armed Forces.”
It is time that the Defence Secretary answered that question.
Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, 14 other European countries have now rebooted their defence plans, their defence spending and their defence procurement. Why will the Defence Secretary not do the same?
Mr Wallace
Let me respond to the right hon. Gentleman’s last point first. No one has said that I will not do the same. What I have said is that we are threat-based. We have in fact increased the number from 72,000 to 72,500, and increased that number by a further 500, to a total of 73,000. We have done that in response to a need as we shake up the Army.
As for the next few years, Members may recall that our spending review started earlier than those in the rest of Whitehall. We have a commitment to continue with 2% for the duration of that spending review. We were the first country in Europe—we seem to get punished by the Opposition for this—to increase our spending significantly to supply weapons to Ukraine to ensure that we keep pace with many of the threats that we face around Europe.
I did raise the question of the veterans and former veterans who are fighting in Ukraine with my Ukrainian counterpart, and indeed we have asked that question on a number of occasions. It is of course for the Ukrainians to answer and to find those details, but I have some sympathy with the Ukrainians: they are fighting a war, and not one or two or three but tens of thousands of their citizens are on that front. I think that is important.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (James Heappey)
I can certainly give that assurance. We will give the Ukrainians as much as we can. We will support them with logistics, training and equipment to give them every chance of ensuring that Putin fails.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
Mr Wallace
I think the hon. Gentleman could have written that 20 years ago, when his party was not delivering a national shipbuilding strategy or anything like one, did not have a shipbuilding pipeline as large as ours, did not invest in the shipyards in the way in which we are going to, and did not do anything other than spout this same old claptrap. The simple reality is that we will be building more ships in Britain with British supply chains, whether that is for the Navy or for other Government Departments. As ever, the hon. Gentleman is playing to the crowd.
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
James Heappey
My hon. Friend has hit upon the key point. For the last two months or so, the discussion with the Ukrainians has followed two tracks. There is the discussion about how to support them in the fight tomorrow, and there is the discussion about how to ensure that they are secure within their own borders whenever this conflict eventually ends. The UK is to the fore in both those efforts, bringing together international support and, increasingly, mobilising the UK defence industry.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
James Heappey
The Royal Navy continues to accelerate its drive towards uncrewed capabilities, including remotely operated and fully autonomous systems, and to exploit opportunities for advances in automation technology, both above and below the water. The minehunting capability programme is full of opportunity, and I know that my hon. Friend will want to speak to the Minister for Defence Procurement about the role that businesses in his constituency can play in it.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
Mr Wallace
I know that the hon. Lady will be familiar with the phrase “dodgy dossier”, because I remember that her party produced one, historically. The procurement dossier that Labour has produced is so dodgy that it actually has double counting. It includes £594 million for the Warrior sustainment programme followed by the integrated review project cancellation of £540 million, and it adds those together to make £1 billion. It also confuses the retirement of old systems, claiming it as waste. I am sure she would not like to go to war with old equipment that is out of date, and that she would rather it was retired and replaced with modern equipment. Her party has added retirement to the dossier and pretended that it was waste. Labour needs to do a lot better if it wants to be taken seriously on defence procurement and the defence of the realm.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
James Heappey
I know that the Romanian Government were grateful for the visit of the APPG. On Friday morning, I held a trilateral with the Romanian and Ukrainian deputy Defence Ministers. Snake Island was to the fore in our discussions, but what we concluded is not for public consumption.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Will the Defence Secretary pay tribute to Keith Thompson, who has been the driving force in organising this coming weekend’s events in Hull to mark the 40th anniversary of the Falklands conflict, as well as the role that the requisitioned North sea ferry, the Norland, played in transporting the 2nd Battalion the Parachute Regiment to the Falklands and the vital role that the merchant navy played in that conflict?
Mr Wallace
Yes, I pay tribute to the right hon. Lady’s constituent and thank him for that work. We often forget that it was not just the Army, the Marines and the frontline Navy; it was also the merchant ships of the merchant navy, and people who had just gone to sea on a normal day who suddenly found themselves on the way to the south Atlantic. Their bravery was amazing, and we should all be great admirers of their efforts to help save lives in the thick of battle. I want to thank her and her constituent for their work.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Leo Docherty)
I totally agree that this is an important subject. My experience of the cookhouse in Aldershot has always been very satisfactory, but we acknowledge that there is a great variation in the service, which is why we are re-letting this contract for an improved service by 2025.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I would like to associate myself with the Defence Secretary’s remarks about the Falklands war. Given his recent comment that the Army is woefully behind the rest of the public sector in enabling women to have careers, can he tell us what opportunities he is taking to drive diversity in leadership positions in the armed forces? For example, how many women are on the Army Board?
Mr Wallace
On that last question, I am happy to confirm the previous announcement that we now have General Nesmith on the Army Board, the first woman to hold that position. I think the hon. Lady would agree—I am happy to listen to her ideas—that there is a long way to go in this regard, especially in the Army but across all three services. We have set out a lot of steps, especially in reply to the report from my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) on women in the armed forces, but there is still more to do, and I assure the hon. Lady that this is one of my top priorities. It is at the top of my inbox every time there is a problem, but also when there are ideas about what more we can do.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
I salute the incredible bravery shown by Ukraine’s military. Following Russia’s use of hypersonic missiles, is the Department working at pace with partners across NATO to find an effective defence against such weaponry?
Mr Wallace
Yes, it is. We committed £6.6 billion to research and development in the defence Command Paper to make sure we are fighting not yesterday’s battles but tomorrow’s. We are taking steps to work internationally and on a sovereign basis to see how we can defend against both hypersonic and other types of missiles.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I pay tribute to the brave men and women who fought for us in the Falklands. I was here at the special Saturday sitting, and I am still proud of what we accomplished. If there were to be a similar occurrence now, would we have the capacity to act in the way we did?
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
I grew up in an Army family, and I represent many Army families in Clwyd South. I therefore welcome Wales Armed Forces Day in Wrexham on Saturday. Does the Minister agree that the newly appointed veterans commissioner for Wales, Colonel James Phillips, clearly demonstrates the UK Government’s practical commitment to supporting military families across Wales who sometimes have very complex problems relating to welfare, mental health and other issues?
Leo Docherty
I agree. I hope my hon. Friend and I will meet Colonel James Phillips in Wales very soon.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
President Biden has made clear the USA’s respect for Taiwan’s sovereignty and its willingness to provide support to that nation. What discussions have Ministers had with our international allies about joining this recognition and any potential defence-specific support?
Mr Wallace
Taiwan is obviously a clear and growing point of tension in the Pacific. I regularly speak to our allies, both in NATO and further afield, about those tensions. Here in the United Kingdom we are reminded of Hong Kong’s recent experience and what the read-across could mean for other people who are trying to live freely and within the rule of law. The UK’s position is that the problems between Taiwan and China should be resolved through peaceful and diplomatic means.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
This week marks the passing of that doughty Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament campaigner ex-Monsignor Bruce Kent. While paying their due respect, will the Government nevertheless reassert the fact that, as long as other countries have nuclear weapons, Britain must never give up its nuclear deterrent?
Mr Wallace
I remember, in my formative years politically, asking the late Mr Bruce Kent a question when I was at school. I do not think I asked the question very well, and I do not think he answered it very well, either. The reality is that Britain’s position is one of multilateral disarmament. It is not a position of unilateral nuclear disarmament.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House of the parity of esteem between veterans with physical injuries and those with psychological illnesses sustained during service? Will he or one of his team meet me to discuss what support is available to a number of my constituents and other working-age veterans across the UK who are struggling with mental ill health as they adjust to civilian life?
Leo Docherty
I am pleased that we have parity of esteem and parity of provision through the excellent NHS “Op Courage,” which is available for veterans with mental health needs. I look forward to showcasing it to my hon. Friend.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
Last week I had the pleasure of joining my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) in opening Veterans Connect in the great town of Tunstall. Four fantastic veterans set up this fantastic organisation, which is helping homeless people across our community in north Staffordshire. Will the Minister thank Alex, Lee, Trevor and others for all their fantastic work?
Leo Docherty
I join my hon. Friend in thanking them. I hope we have an opportunity to make a joint visit.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
I echo the Secretary of State’s comments on the 40th anniversary of the Falklands war. Yesterday marked the anniversary of the attack on HMS Glamorgan, the last of the 22 ships to be hit during the conflict, with the loss of 14 lives—82 lives were lost on ships altogether. Will my right hon. Friend pay tribute to all those who lost their life, and to those who came back with lifelong injuries, both physical and mental?
Leo Docherty
We do put on record our thanks and we remember those people with gratitude and a sense of deep compassion about the legacy that this conflict left.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
This year marks the 40th anniversary of the Falklands conflict. Does the Secretary of State agree that acts of wanton, unprovoked and unjustified aggression do not pay dividends?
Mr Wallace
My hon. Friend is right. If Britain stands for anything, it is that no matter whether 8,000 miles away in the south Atlantic or in Ukraine, Britain will stand up for its values and, if necessary, fight for them.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
I think that the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), on the Opposition Front Bench, was talking about my constituent. If not, there are two people who served for 38 years in the Royal Engineers and are struggling with multi-year battles with Veterans UK tribunals on a number of things. Some veterans are telling me that the Minister’s positive experience of VUK is not what they are experiencing on the ground, particularly on mental health issues. Will he meet me to discuss the case and perhaps—this is similar to what my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) said—talk about mental health with veterans?
Leo Docherty
I totally acknowledge that there have been problems with the awards of war pensions and armed forces compensation. I would be very happy to take up that case and expedite it, and write to my hon. Friend.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking all the members of the armed forces who worked so hard to make the Queen’s platinum jubilee such a success? In particular, will he thank those from RAF Valley for the spectacular fly-past over Buckingham Palace? Perhaps he would like to come to Anglesey to thank them himself.
Mr Wallace
I was there only a few weeks ago. I think the whole House would like to give our thanks to the armed forces for the work they did over that weekend and for all the hours of rehearsal they do, sometimes in the middle of the night, which none of us ever see, to make things very special. From Trooping the Colour on the Thursday all the way through to the pageant, our armed forces did us proud, as did a number of the armed forces from the Commonwealth, which were also in attendance and on parade that day. Our armed forces are absolutely part of the fabric of our society and part of the greatness of the United Kingdom. I am delighted not only that they were there on parade, but that it was a privilege for us to see the royal family so held in high regard by those men and women of the armed forces.
Mr Speaker
After returning from the Falklands, I must congratulate those who continue to serve down in the south Atlantic, 7,000 miles from home. It would be really helpful if the Secretary of State reinstated the Chinook for them.
UK Gross Domestic Product
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on today’s GDP figures.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
Like other advanced economies, the UK is affected by global economic challenges, including the unprovoked Russian invasion of Ukraine. As the Chancellor said a few weeks ago,
“A perfect storm of global supply shocks is rolling through our economy simultaneously.”
At the same time, the impact from the wind-down of the national covid testing scheme is dragging on UK GDP data. Overall, the figures for April, published by the Office for National Statistics this morning, show that output fell by 0.3% on the month, with the services sector falling by 0.2%, and production and construction declining by 0.6% and 0.4% respectively. As the ONS notes, the fall in GDP on the month is driven by the impact of the wind-down of the NHS covid testing programme. Testing volumes fell by 70% from March to April, which, alongside the impact from vaccines, detracted 0.5 percentage points from GDP growth in April. Looking through the impact of falling tests, we see that the rest of the economy actually grew by 0.1%. Importantly, GDP is still 0.9% above pre-pandemic levels, and support provided over the past two years has put the UK economy in a good position to deal with any economic headwinds, with record numbers of employees on payrolls and a strong economic recovery from the pandemic.
As the Chancellor has also said:
“The next few months will be tough. But where we can act, we will.”
The Government are taking significant action to support households this year, having announced an additional £15 billion of further support for households just over a fortnight ago, on top of the £22 billion announced at the spring statement. In the longer term, the Chancellor has set out his vision for a lower tax, higher growth, higher productivity economy based on the three pillars of capital, people and ideas. The plan for growth and the tax plan represent an ambitious strategy for boosting growth and productivity in the years ahead. The Government’s priority going forward is to put those into effect, including through significant investment in infrastructure, skills and innovation.
We will of course keep the data under close review, and that includes monitoring the economic impact of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, but our focus will continue to be on the best solution for all: a growing economy that supports high-wage, high-skilled jobs.
Mr McFadden
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. GDP down 0.3% in April. A fall of 0.1% in March. Services down 0.3%. Production down 0.6%. Construction down 0.4%. Inflation at 9%. Tax promises broken. The trade deficit at £24 billion. The pound falling against the dollar. The director general of the CBI saying business leaders are “in despair”. The OECD forecasting that, next year, the UK will have the lowest growth of any G20 economy, with the sole exception of—Russia.
That is what the Government are presiding over. Britain is going backwards under the Conservatives. Our businesses, universities and people are all great, but they do not have the partner they need in this Government. The chaos is affecting more and more areas of life: passports, driving licences, GP appointments, A&E waiting times, airports and delays in court trials. Time after time what we used to take for granted is now another feature of Boris Johnson’s backlog Britain.
Those on the Government Benches had a chance to change direction last week. They had a chance to install new leadership that might have given us some hope of a greater sense of grip on all this. But what did they do? They decided that the best person to turn the economy round, to sort out the chaos and the backlogs, and to bring the qualities of focus, attention to detail and sustained delivery to these matters was the current Prime Minister. That was the judgment they made.
The question for the Minister today is simple: after making that judgment—I do not know what he did, but that was the collective judgment—and choosing to continue with the leadership that brought us here, what will the Government do now to turn matters around, and why on earth should anyone believe that the result will be different from what went before?
John Glen
As ever, I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I do not accept his characterisation of the situation. What I said in my response to him was that today’s data point can be explained by the specific impact of the rapid fall-off in the testing programme. Mass testing ended on 1 April, and that constituted 0.5% of headline growth. We have also seen the impact of the Russian invasion and the impact on the supply chain across the economy. Many economies across the G7 are experiencing a significant impact on their economies and their level of growth.
The Chancellor has been clear in his long-term plan for growth and in his Mais lecture that the Government are committed to investing in research and development, investing in infrastructure and looking at how we can adjust the fiscal burden for business, in particular, to enable that growth to happen. Of course, in subsequent fiscal events, those options remain open to him.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Why are the UK Government the only Government of an advanced country making a big increase in the tax burden this year and next, at exactly the same time as we are seeing very necessary monetary tightening to control inflation and a huge hit to net incomes from that inflation itself? Is that big tax rise not bound to make things worse and slow the economy too much?
John Glen
We always listen carefully to my right hon. Friend. As he will know, we cut taxes earlier this year for hundreds of thousands of businesses though an increase in the employment allowance. We have also slashed fuel duty and halved business rates for eligible high street firms. We will continue to support growth through tax incentives, including the annual investment allowance and the super deduction—the biggest two-year business cuts in modern British history.
As I said in my response to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) a few moments ago, we look forward to working closely with him and Back Benchers to construct the right agenda going into the future.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
It is interesting that the Minister talks about the covid testing scheme. Is it perhaps the case that the covid testing scheme is artificially inflating GDP, rather than the opposite way around? The UK is lagging behind every single OECD country apart from Russia. Manufacturing, construction and services are all suffering. That has all been made worse by a Brexit that Scotland did not vote for.
British Chambers of Commerce research shows that input inflation is running at 17%. Businesses simply cannot afford to absorb those costs when faced with increased energy prices with no additional support, employee costs through the national insurance tax hike—a tax on jobs—and wage pressures, so will he provide extra support to businesses to protect them and their consumers through this period, or will he wait until these additional costs in the supply chain are further passed on to the already struggling consumer? How does he expect people to eat when food prices are soaring, and for manufacturers to make things in factories when they cannot afford to get the goods to produce them never mind get them out into the shops and have people buy them?
John Glen
Most people across the country will be very grateful to the Prime Minister for the judgments made on the vaccine roll-out and on the testing regime that followed. Quite obviously, given the scale of that intervention, it was going to have a significant impact on the economy and the growth figures overall. The Government have never been complacent about the impact of the inflation levels on the people of this country. That is why just two weeks ago the Chancellor introduced a significant package of interventions in a number of dimensions that focused on the most vulnerable—those who will not be able to earn more, particularly those on means-tested benefits, the disabled and universal additional support for pensioners. Respectfully, I do not accept the hon. Lady’s characterisation of how the Government have handled the situation, but those are the facts, as she well knows.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
The Minister will be acutely aware of the perfect storm of inflation and surging energy costs, which UKHospitality warned about just last week. Kate Nicholls warned that the sector is facing as big a crisis, if not bigger, than there was during the pandemic. One suggestion is for a temporary reduction in VAT on business energy bills from 20% to 5%. Is the Treasury is tempted by that idea to stave off what could otherwise be significant job losses in the sector?
John Glen
My hon. Friend always makes constructive suggestions. He will be aware of the interventions that have already been made, including the cut on VAT on energy efficiency measures, equivalent to £240 million, as well as the £6.7 billion of investment across this Parliament in energy efficiency measures. None the less, he makes a reasonable point and I am very happy to follow it up with him and discuss it further as we construct that set of interventions in the autumn.
Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
It is, I think, clear that, as anticipated, we are starting to see an economic penalty from the new barriers to our trade with the European Union. Does the Minister agree that we need to work hard to improve relations with the EU with a view to reducing some of the barriers that are causing problems for us?
John Glen
Absolutely. We must always, with all our trading partners, seek to develop the best possible relationships. That has been my objective in conversations that I have had on visits to Berlin, Luxembourg, Madrid and the US over the past six months on financial services and as regards the work that the right hon. Gentleman is undertaking as we advance the conversation with the Swiss on the mutual recognition agreement. I was there last week to build on that. It is absolutely right that we build those trading relationships in goods and services across the globe in markets that are mature and in those that are yet to develop fully.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
With the largest ever research and development budget, the Government are securing the UK’s status as a science superpower. Does my hon. Friend agree that when it comes to growth that status is vital in making sure that we attract high-skilled, high-paid jobs? Does he also agree that locating the Advanced Research and Invention Agency in the west midlands will allow the west midlands to lead the growth that the UK needs and deserves?
John Glen
My hon. Friend predictably, and reasonably, makes a plea for investment to be located in his constituency, but he also draws attention to the significant investment of £20 billion in R&D by 2024-25. He is right to stress that to get a high-productivity, faster-growing economy we need to make those sorts of strategic investments and build on what we have already done. I will look constructively at his suggestion about his constituency and region.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Figures published recently by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs show that the number of UK businesses exporting goods to the European Union fell by an astonishing 33% between 2020 and 2021. Do the Government recognise that the cost, bureaucracy and paperwork that they have imposed on businesses, particularly small ones, are the principal cause of that loss of export opportunities for British firms?
John Glen
No, I do not. I accept that that was a challenging period for economies everywhere. There was a period of adjustment, and the Government will be working in a co-ordinated fashion to remove any frictions and to ease the passage of trade, particularly for smaller businesses.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
Much of the discussion in the House today has been about the fiscal aspects of inflation, but a huge part of the rise in inflation in this country and across the western world is the monetary system, in particular quantitative easing, which has continued long beyond the financial crisis, when it was put in place. We all know the Bank of England is independent in setting interest rates, but what is the Treasury’s view on working with the Bank of England to bring down inflation, bearing in mind the significant impact that quantitative easing has had on that? Will the Minister say a bit more about that?
John Glen
As hon. Members would expect, the Treasury has a strong and frequent dialogue with different members of the Bank of England and deputy governors. However, our main inflation tools for an independent monetary policy—fiscal responsibility and supply-side activism—will remain the best weaponry for dealing with the challenges we face, and we will work in a co-ordinated fashion with an independent Bank of England to address those pressures.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Today’s figures should be a wake-up call to the Government. Instead of reciting a list of events that are affecting other countries across the world and being better dealt with by other Governments in the G7, do the Government not recognise that the time has come to change direction? They must get away from the massive tax hikes that are pulling the squeezed middle into debt and creating misery across this country—tax hikes that include the £11 billion national insurance hike, which was wiped out by the Government’s own incompetence in not insuring against the money created for quantitative easing. Will the Government recognise that they are getting it wrong and, instead of making excuses, act to change things?
John Glen
The Government will always look constructively at all the options. In light of the representations made across this House and across the country for more interventions to support those facing increases in the cost of energy at home, we made those interventions. The Chancellor has made clear that we will reform and cut taxes on investment in the autumn to spur that growth and productivity, and we are working closely with industry on the best possible way to make those interventions.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
Like most MPs, in my constituency I have businesses that the Government spent billions of pounds supporting through the pandemic that are now incredibly stressed by the current conditions. Most understand that the state cannot fix everything; they are looking at wider options and not expecting hand-outs. UK hospitality businesses are asking the Government to look at pausing green levies for businesses to relieve energy cost pressures, as other countries are doing or are considering. Will my hon. Friend say more about what the Treasury are looking at in that regard and whether that is something they are seriously considering?
John Glen
In Gloucestershire, as across the country, we remain focused on the challenges facing both small and large businesses. As my hon. Friend mentions, during the pandemic we made a number of sector-specific interventions for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, which will continue to benefit from the business rates holidays. We are keen to ensure, however, that we achieve better productivity, with more investment in capital, in ideas and in measures that will lift us to a new level of growth. That means interventions across the whole economy.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
In the past week or so I have been contacted by a number of community nurses at their wits’ end because it is costing them more to travel to see patients than they can claim back in mileage allowance, and they are not alone—taxi drivers, couriers and others, such as domiciliary care workers, are struggling because of the surge in fuel costs. The Government have already taken 5p off fuel duty, but given that they have raked in far more in increased VAT receipts since then, how much more has the Treasury recovered in VAT receipts this year?
John Glen
Perhaps unsurprisingly, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that figure at the Dispatch Box at this point, but we have introduced timely, temporary and targeted interventions. We recognise with a real sense of empathy the fact that people will be struggling. We have been very clear from the time we made this series of announcements and over the past six months that we will not be able to ameliorate the impact of every single additional cost. The key intervention we need to make is to encourage that growth and productivity in the economy in the context of fiscal responsibility and the commitments we have made to intervene so far.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has rightly spoken about the importance of growth in bringing together people, capital and ideas, but there is a fourth element, which is regulation. What Conservatives want to see is a comprehensive Government strategy for light-touch, pro-growth deregulation. Can he tell me what he is doing in his Department to set an example to other Departments of achieving better regulation that will support growth?
John Glen
Yes, I can. In a few weeks’ time I shall introduce to the House a financial services and markets Bill that will fundamentally reset the way that our financial services industry, which constitutes 10% of the economy, will be regulated into the future. That will be underpinned by strong, independent world-class regulators in the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority, but with an obligation to look at competitiveness and global growth as a secondary objective. That is absolutely imperative. We must make sure that we have an economy that takes account of what is going on elsewhere and regulates accordingly.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
In the coalition years, we heard from the Government about rebalancing the economy, and under Chancellor Osborne and the northern powerhouse, we were told that we were going to see the proceeds of growth fairly shared across the country. Will the Minister say something about the flagship levelling-up agenda, how it will be implemented when we face a no-growth economy, and whether the levelling-up agenda will really mean levelling down for everybody?
John Glen
No, it will not. It will involve targeted investments across the country in schemes that will give us a lift in productivity and address the fact that under previous Governments, despite all the rhetoric, there was not that reset in investment across other parts of the country and we did not see the level of growth that was anticipated.
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
I am grateful to the Treasury for the £77 billion package of support that will stand alongside hard-pressed families and drive the growth that we need to see. But as I drove into central London this morning I saw fuel prices cheaper than where I live in Brecon. Rural fuel costs are simply horrendous, and with next to no public transport, that is really hampering growth in rural areas. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Treasury will continue to monitor that aggressively?
John Glen
Absolutely we will. It is very concerning that we are not seeing the savings passed on and we will continue to look very carefully at what is happening.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The Minister has tried to explain away today’s disastrous figures by suggesting that it is mainly to do with the winding down of mass covid testing. That stretches credulity. Today the Office for National Statistics said:
“All main sectors contributed negatively to growth in April 2022”.
Does that not show that the problem is much more widespread than the Government are prepared to accept?
John Glen
No, I think there is a pretty clear consensus that the rapid wind-down of the testing had a significant effect—around 0.5% of GDP. If that had not happened, we would have seen very modest growth during this past month.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
A recent report shows that Stoke-on-Trent is set to grow jobs third-fastest, so does my hon. Friend agree that the record of this Government economically should be judged by our jobs miracle and in particular our efforts to level up our whole country with better skills and better paid employment right across it?
John Glen
Absolutely. It is clear we are seeing the best unemployment figures for well over a generation. It is very pleasing to see the impact that is having on constituencies such as that of my hon. Friend. It is important that we build on that and look to increase that investment to get businesses investing in new capital and more productive jobs to increase productivity in the economy as a whole.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
The Minister has already conceded that the Treasury wants to reduce friction with our European trading partners—that is the right thing to do—but can he tell the House whether Treasury policy agrees that this is the right time to rip up the Northern Ireland protocol and risk a trade war with Europe?
John Glen
Clearly in different markets there will be different challenges. We must make sure that we have a deep dialogue and look to find consensus. Where we cannot, we must take action.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Does the Minister accept that one of the problems in lots of sectors is that they simply have not got enough staff to employ, let alone staff with the right skills? For instance, in the construction industry, there are projects on hold because they cannot get enough construction workers. We have farmers ploughing onions back into the fields, because they do not have enough people to harvest them. Last year, 25% of British strawberries did not get picked. We have bars, hotels and restaurants failing to open full-time because they do not have enough staff. How do we make sure that we have the staff—the workers—to be able to grow the economy?
John Glen
The hon. Gentleman will also know that the Government invested in a seasonal workers scheme for 30,000 across agriculture, which has made a significant impact. We will continue to work with industry to see what further interventions can be made and need to be made.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Cuts to VAT on fuel duty are now beyond urgent. Some £46 of tax is paid on the average fuel tank, as fuel prices rocket to new highs. As households and businesses struggle, the Treasury is raking in additional billions in VAT on fuel, which is driving inflation across the whole economy. Finally, can we at last have a temporary 10% reduction in VAT on fuel to assist households, businesses and consumers and to help get inflation back under some kind of control, which will help everyone?
John Glen
The hon. Lady will know that just two weeks ago, the Chancellor came to this Dispatch Box and made a series of targeted interventions, in a greater way than many were calling for, to give assistance to the most vulnerable in our society—to pensioners, to those on means-tested benefits and to the disabled—with more support for pensioners on top of that. She will also know that as we approach the fiscal event, we will look at the state of the economy and the best possible interventions to assist not only that growth narrative, but the most vulnerable.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
It does not shock me that the Labour party uses any opportunity it has to come in here and bash Britain and sneer at places such as Stoke-on-Trent. It is thanks to this Conservative Government and a Conservative-led council that thousands of new jobs have been created through the successful Ceramics Valley enterprise zone. We also have the 500 new Home Office jobs and up to 1,700 new jobs thanks to the Kidsgrove town deal. Does the Minister agree that it is this Government who are putting places such as Stoke-on-Trent firmly on the map?
John Glen
I do not think Stoke-on-Trent could have a better advocate than my hon. Friend, with his passionate desire to highlight the successes going on in his constituency. I absolutely agree that it is that positivity, and focusing on interventions that make a real difference to people who live in his community, that people will remember as we move forward.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answers. In Strangford, small and medium-sized businesses are the backbone of our society. Some of them are crumbling at present due to high transport costs, which are heightened in Northern Ireland due to the Northern Ireland protocol. Can he confirm whether the Chancellor and the Treasury will follow other nations in substantially reducing fuel duty to aid transport costs as well as disposable incomes for families, so that money can go back into the local economy and everyone will gain?
John Glen
The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point about the challenges facing the rural economy, of which I know that he has great personal experience and experience in his constituency. That is why, as we made clear, there will be an additional £500 million to supplement the household support fund and bring it to a total of £1.5 billion, so that local authorities can give additional money to those most affected where existing measures have not been helpful.
Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
I did offer to convert the following urgent question to a statement but I got a message that that was no longer agreed. The Minister will say that he cannot say much at this stage, but we were happy to work with the Department and put on a statement at 7 o’clock. What bothers me is the mixed messages coming out of the Department, which said, “We want a statement,” so I granted it, then, “We don’t want a statement,” so I had to go back to a UQ. There we are; at least we are all now aware of what has gone on today.
There are a number of live court cases on the policy of relocations to Rwanda. Some of them might not formally be engaged by the sub judice resolution, because they concern ministerial decisions, but for the avoidance of doubt, I am exercising a waiver in relation to the sub judice resolution on this matter, on the grounds that it is of national importance. That means that Members are able to refer to the issue on an ongoing basis.
Asylum Seekers: Removal to Rwanda
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary whether she will make a statement on the planned removal of asylum seekers to Rwanda.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tom Pursglove)
Our world-leading migration and economic development partnership with Rwanda is a global first and will change the way we collectively tackle illegal immigration. This is a global problem that requires international solutions.
Rwanda is a fundamentally safe and secure country with a track record of supporting asylum seekers. Individuals will be relocated to Rwanda and have their asylum claims processed by the Rwandan authorities. The partnership is an important part of our reform of the broken asylum and migration system. I welcome the High Court’s decision on Friday on this, but, with legal proceedings ongoing, it would be inappropriate to comment further than to say that we comply fully with our legal and international obligations.
We aim to move forward with a policy that offers new opportunities for those relocated to Rwanda and enables us to focus our support on those most in need of our help. The British public rightly expect us to act. Indeed, inaction is not a responsible option when people are drowning and ruthless criminals are profiting from human misery. Decisive leadership is required to tackle the smuggling of people through illicit and criminal means. This evil trade must be stopped.
The principle of the plan is simple: people will no longer be able to pay evil people smugglers to go to a destination of their choice while passing through sometimes several safe countries. If someone comes from a safe country, they are picking the UK as a preferred destination.
Uncontrolled immigration reduces our capacity to help those who most need our support. It puts intolerable pressure on public services and local communities. Long-lasting change will not happen overnight; it requires a long-term plan. As I have said many times before in this House, there is no one single solution, but this Government will deliver the first comprehensive overhaul of the asylum system in decades.
Stuart C. McDonald
I sincerely thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question.
This is not world-leading policy. If anything, this leads to the total shredding of the refugee convention. This cash-for-deportations policy is akin to state-sponsored trafficking and transportation. What is more, it is a grim political stunt being rushed out to shore up the Prime Minister again. Why else was this flight organised before the relevant provisions of the horrible Nationality and Borders Act 2022 were brought into force? What is the Minister’s explanation for that?
More fundamentally, why are Ministers pressing ahead when even the most basic safeguards are not in place? I fear that the age assessment processes are totally inadequate and will see children sent to Rwanda. As I understand it, such a difficult process is being crammed into a 30-minute interview with two immigration officers, with young people left unaware of their rights to challenge the decision that they are an adult. Is that accurate? How on earth can such vulnerable people as trafficking victims, torture survivors and LGBT people be identified by a basic screening interview, which is another process that the Minister know takes a long time? Why is it permissible at all for trafficking survivors to be part of the inadmissibility procedures?
Access to legal advice is crucial, so let me ask: can the Minister confirm how many of those scheduled to be on the flight tomorrow have not yet been able to seek legal advice? There is no functioning joint committee or monitoring committee yet, so how can it possibly be right to proceed when these basic oversight bodies are not yet established? He knows that the overwhelming balance of legal opinion, including that of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, is that this policy is totally illegal. Surely, if the Government had any final shred of respect for the rule of law, they would at least wait until a final ruling in July before commencing this policy.
This is a policy that will not work on its own awful terms. Will the Minister confirm that the Rwandan asylum system has capacity only for a couple of hundred new cases each year, and has he been made aware of the evidence that, even now, more risky routes are already being tried by smugglers as a result?
In conclusion, this will not hurt horrendous people smugglers one jot, but it will badly hurt those who have fled persecution and sought protection here, and this policy brings shame on the UK internationally.
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to the SNP spokesman for his questions, and it is fair to say that we will have to agree to differ on this. We have had many debates over the last few months on this issue, and I will comment on the broad issues he has raised, while of course reflecting the fact that there are ongoing judicial proceedings.
First, I want to say that I feel the hon. Member’s use of language at the beginning of his remarks was not the sort I would expect from him. He is usually temperate in his use of language, but to compare the new partnership with human trafficking is, frankly, plain wrong and very offensive not just to this Government, but, I would argue, to the Rwandans.
The hon. Member knows full well, because I have said so repeatedly, that unaccompanied asylum-seeking children will not be transferred as part of this partnership. There will be a thorough screening process in place, and that is ongoing. Of course, cases are looked at on a case-by-case basis, taking proper account of all the relevant circumstances. On the point about access to legal advice, people are able to access legal advice in detention in the usual way.
It probably has not escaped the hon. Member’s notice, and the House’s notice, that the UNHCR places asylum seekers in Rwanda, which I think speaks volumes about its judgment. [Interruption.] Hang on! The shadow Home Secretary likes to chunter from a sedentary position, but she will have her opportunity in a moment. The truth is that the UNHCR, through its actions in placing people in Rwanda, clearly believes that it is safe for people to be placed there. We have of course been through our own thorough processes to make judgments with our country information notices, and that is the right and proper way of handling this.
Again—I have said this many times before, but it bears repeating—we will always live up to our international obligations and the laws that we are supposed to be subject to.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
Last week, the Home Affairs Committee visited Dover. On the morning we were there, a boat of 38 Albanians came in, and we met some of them. There is no war raging in Albania and there are no full-scale human rights abuses; it is a candidate country to join the EU. We need practical solutions to deal with people who are jumping the queue of genuine asylum seekers and refugees, to whom we owe a duty of care, so I hope the flights start and that message gets out loud and clear.
I have one query for the Minister. We interviewed Her Majesty’s inspector of borders and immigration last week, and there are still some concerns about the monitoring process that will be happening in Rwanda itself. When will he be giving us more details about those on the monitoring and scrutiny committee, and how will we ensure that the way people end up being treated once they are transported out to Rwanda will accord with the promises in the agreement?
Tom Pursglove
My hon. Friend speaks with great authority and experience on these issues and is absolutely right that the status quo is not tenable; we cannot continue as we are, with people making dangerous crossings of the channel organised by evil criminal gangs who take people’s money and have no regard for whether they get here safely. That is why this has to stop, and we believe the partnership with Rwanda is an important part of the solution. On the specific point about the monitoring arrangements, I hope to be able to set those out to the House soon.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The Home Office chaos over the last few days has shown why this scheme is completely unworkable, deeply unethical and extortionately expensive, and why it risks increasing criminal people trafficking and smuggling rather than solving the problem.
Let us look at what has emerged in the past few days. The Home Office has admitted it has been trying to send victims of torture to Rwanda; is the Minister happy with that shameful policy? We have learned that Rwanda does not have the capacity, caseworkers, translators or lawyers to deal with cases; it often only has one official in charge of putting cases together. The Home Office has ignored UNHCR warnings on Rwanda’s record, including the shooting dead of 12 refugees. We have learned, too, that costs are shooting up as the UK taxpayer will have to fund ever more support in Rwanda; can the Minister tell us if that has been agreed and whether we have a final figure on top of the £120 million? The chief inspector says there has been no impact on deterrence on boats and gangs, and there is evidence instead that the Rwanda and Israel refugee relocation deal led to more trafficking and smuggling, not less.
The Home Office is failing to do the practical things we need: instead of strengthening the National Crime Agency work with France to crack down on criminal gangs, the Home Office has asked the agency to draw up plans for 20% cuts. Can the Minister confirm that that is the case? Instead of speeding up asylum decisions, it is only making half as many decisions as five years ago and, because it is failing to take decisions, offloading responsibility.
There is lots of noise from the Minister: never taking responsibility, blaming everyone else. This plan is not just unworkable, unethical and expensive; it is also profoundly un-British, ignoring our British values of decency and common sense. It is time to think again.
Tom Pursglove
I have to say that I think it would be helpful if the shadow Home Secretary were to think in the first place, because we have not had a credible Opposition policy to tackle this issue. I have said many times that I would be delighted to hear a credible policy from those on the Benches opposite, and I think the British people deserve to hear such a policy, but I think we will be waiting for a long time to get that, if at all.
The right hon. Lady raised a number of points. First, she claimed the policy is both unworkable and extortionate; it is difficult to comprehend it being possible for it to be both of those things at once. [Interruption.] Well, I am convinced that this policy is going to work and will make a difference, shutting down the evil criminal gangs that take people’s money, put their lives at risk and have no regard for whether they get here, while also providing resettlement opportunities that are properly supported—support around skills, around jobs, around opportunity—in Rwanda.
Our approach to this is a world first. This is not comparable to the sorts of proposals perhaps developed elsewhere; it is a different approach. The right hon. Lady will also recognise that other countries are looking at similar arrangements.
I repeat that we will live up to our international obligations under both the refugee convention and the ECHR at all times. The fact is that the UNHCR places refugees in Rwanda, so I again make the point that it clearly believes people will be properly supported and cared for and that they will be safe. I think that judgment is significant in all this.
On cost, as we have clearly set out to the House previously, we will be supporting ongoing running costs around this policy that are equivalent to the sums we spend on processing cases in the asylum system here in the UK.
On French co-operation, we of course already do that, but there is no one single solution that will resolve this issue of itself. We want to go further; we want to deepen that co-operation with our friends and neighbours to tackle this issue as it is a global problem that needs global solutions, and through the new partnership we are of course taking that co-operation further.
Finally, I will again just pose this question and ponder it for a moment: we have asked before whether the Opposition would cancel the Rwanda plan in the unfortunate event that they were in government. We have not yet heard an answer to that; perhaps at some point today we might have one.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. May I just say to those who were late into the Chamber that they will not be called? The rules are clear; I gave three minutes, and I am sorry, but I cannot take questions from those who came in after that. It is not my fault that the Whips did not send a message out.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) on getting the urgent question, but I will not congratulate him on the language that he used, or the shadow Home Secretary on the language that she used. Mixing up the difference between smugglers and traffickers shows little knowledge of the subject.
We hear that a number of the people who were to be on the flight to Rwanda tomorrow have somehow—miraculously—got some leftie lawyer to intervene and stop it. May I suggest to the Minister that instead of booking 50 people on to each flight to Rwanda, he books 250 people so that, when half the people are stopped from travelling, we would still have a full flight? Come on—get on and send them.
Tom Pursglove
As ever, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestion, which I very much take on board. For obvious reasons, I am not in a position to comment on operational matters, but his point is well made and well argued, as his points often are.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
It has been difficult to get clear information and evidence about the implementation of the Rwanda scheme. As the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) said, the Home Affairs Committee visited Dover last week to look at the process of what happens to people who come across in small boats, and we were aware that some of those individuals were immediately earmarked for the Rwanda scheme and detained. So that we can all understand, will the Minister confirm whether it is just adult males who are being processed for the Rwanda scheme? Will he guarantee to the House that no child will be sent to Rwanda when there is a dispute over their age?
Tom Pursglove
Again, I will not comment on operational matters or matters that are also before the courts at the moment, because, as the House knows, that would be improper. I refer colleagues to previous comments that I have made in the House, including that unaccompanied asylum-seeking children will not be transferred under the partnership.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
We all wish to end abusive people trafficking and the dreadful journeys across the channel. As the Opposition’s only idea to tackle it is to let in every economic migrant who wants to come, will the Minister tell us how much it costs taxpayers in Britain to set up every economic migrant in decent circumstances when they arrive?
Tom Pursglove
It is fair to say that the costs associated with this illegal migration to our country are considerable and unsustainable. That is why we have the new plan for immigration in place to get it under control and ensure that those who follow the rules and seek to come here through safe and legal means are not disadvantaged by those attempting dangerous and unnecessary crossings as we have seen. For example, we are spending nearly £5 million a day on hotel accommodation in the asylum system. That cannot carry on, and that is why we must act as we are proposing.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The National Crime Agency has principal responsibility for prosecuting people traffickers. Is it right that there will be a 20% cut in staffing at the National Crime Agency? Is that consistent with the policy of taking back control of our borders?
Tom Pursglove
I am confident that we will have the resources that we need in place to deliver on our policies. What I find slightly frustrating about the hon. Gentleman’s question is that he had the opportunity through the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 to vote for measures that will allow us to take tougher action on the evil people smugglers, and he repeatedly refused to do so. He ought to be asking himself why he did that.
Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Many of those who arrive on our shores from Iran do so because they have converted to Christianity and, of course, in Iran, apostasy is an offence punishable by death or by life imprisonment. So they have escaped from a predominantly Catholic country to the UK, where the established Church is the Church of England. Is the Minister aware that, out of a population of 12 million in Rwanda, a million or so describe themselves as Anglican, that there are 85,000 regular churchgoers, and that those who wish to practise their Anglican faith will receive a warm welcome in Rwanda?
Tom Pursglove
It is fair to say that there is a strong Christian faith practised in Rwanda. I was certainly struck by that characteristic of the country when I visited it recently. My right hon. Friend, as a former immigration Minister, speaks with great authority on these matters.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The Rwanda deportation policy is abhorrent in its denial of refugees’ fundamental human right to seek asylum in the UK. Deportation also denies us our right in Wales to offer our support and solidarity to refugees as we work to become a nation of sanctuary. Our nation of sanctuary plan aims to ensure that asylum seekers are
“supported to rebuild their lives and make a full contribution to Welsh society.”
How does this unethical policy sit with our aim?
Tom Pursglove
I am afraid to have to say to the right hon. Lady that what I find abhorrent is people drowning in the channel. What is not acceptable is for us to abdicate the responsibility to stop that criminality and stop the risk to life. I should also be very clear about language: this is not deportation. We deport foreign criminals. Let us be very clear about the language; it is important when we debate these issues. Again, I just make the point, for the benefit of the House, that people should come here through safe and legal routes. We have generous safe and legal routes available. That is the right way to come to this country. There is not that risk to life in the same way when people come through safe and legal routes.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Does the Minister agree with Oxford’s professor of constitutional law, Richard Ekins, who wrote on Sunday that the root of the problem is the Human Rights Act 1998 incorporating the European convention on human rights into our law, which
“enables courts to interpret legislation unreasonably, contradicting the will of Parliament.”
Will he revisit that legislation? We should not have these matters decided by unelected judges in Strasbourg.
Tom Pursglove
It is fair to say that we believe there is a legal basis for this policy and that at all times we will be compliant with our obligations under both the refugee convention and the ECHR, but my right hon. Friend will, of course, be aware that the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), the Deputy Prime Minister, is taking forward a programme of reform in relation to the Human Rights Act, and will no doubt want to make his views known.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
How can the Minister say Rwanda is a safe country when 12 refugees protesting about cuts to food rations were shot dead by security forces in 2018? It is not lawyers, but courts that are finding his policy ultra vires. Should he not pause and rethink, rather than hurling abuse at anyone who points out its defects?
Tom Pursglove
I am not going to get into a long and protracted debate with the hon. Gentleman. I have said plenty about this particular point previously. He will recognise that this matter is in front of the courts today. On that basis, it would be inappropriate for me to comment.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
There is nothing ethical whatever about allowing a system that encourages people smugglers across the English channel. Can I get an assurance from my hon. Friend the Minister that those facilitating the flights to Rwanda will not be hindered by misguided protesters or others with an agenda to stop this policy, which has been determined by this Parliament?
Tom Pursglove
My hon. Friend can be reassured that Ministers believe the law must be upheld and that individuals with no right to be here should be able to be removed from our country without any barriers to that happening.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
The human beings who are on the flight tomorrow have, as the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), said, been through torture, abuse and horrific trauma. They deserve our compassion. What has the Department done to assess the needs and mental wellbeing of those being deported? Does the Minister regret that the joint partnership monitoring committee has not yet been set up and that there is no oversight of what is happening so far?
Tom Pursglove
A proper screening process is in place that takes full account of the individual circumstances of those who are being considered for relocation to Rwanda. I cannot comment on individual cases for obvious reasons, but it is right that there is that proper screening process that takes proper account of the factors at play in each case.
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
The Secretary of State and Ministers should be congratulated on bringing in legislation that finally hinders illegal people smuggling, and the Opposition should be embarrassed, frankly, by their lack of a plan and blanket opposition to the policy. If lawyers continue to try to hinder the policy, will the Minister confirm that the Home Office will attempt to bring in any legislation necessary to see that the House’s—and the British people’s—wishes are carried through?
Tom Pursglove
If I may, I will start by thanking my hon. Friend for all the work that he did as a Parliamentary Private Secretary at the Home Office, and for his help and support in delivering, in particular, the passage through the House of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. He will be reassured to know that, as the Prime Minister has said repeatedly, we will do whatever is necessary to deliver on this policy. We do not believe that failure is an option, because we must shut the evil criminal gangs down. That is what the British people want, that is what the British people expect and that is precisely what we are going to do.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
The British people expect a lot better from the Government than what is being offered. If there is no monitoring process in place as yet, when it is in place will the Minister guarantee to publish the types of people being deported to Rwanda and the conclusions of the monitoring committee, so that we can monitor the Government?
Tom Pursglove
It is fair to say that the House never misses an opportunity to scrutinise Ministers—rightly, because that is an important feature of our parliamentary democracy and something that I recognise as important and appreciate the opportunity to do. I will set out more details of the arrangements in due course.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that millions of our fellow citizens voted in favour of Brexit and in support of this Government in 2019 to ensure that a Government would be in place to tackle illegal immigration and provide safe and secure borders? Whatever the plan may be, it is fulfilling a democratic mandate, and he should be congratulated on it.
Tom Pursglove
My hon. Friend speaks passionately on behalf of his constituents who want a common-sense approach to these matters. The British people are fair and generous—we have seen that in the response to the crisis in Ukraine, with people throwing open their homes—but what they do not find acceptable is illegal immigration to our country with people taking great risks and abusing the asylum system in the process, which then disadvantages people who come here through safe and legal routes. That is not right, and we believe strongly that action needs to be taken. That is precisely what we will get on and do.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
If the Minister finds it so offensive that my colleague calls the Tory Rwanda scheme “state-sponsored trafficking”, what else would he call the act of shipping vulnerable people across the world against their will?
Tom Pursglove
I certainly would not call it “state-sponsored trafficking”.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
Many Members on this side of the House have visited Rwanda on several occasions on a social action project, and we know it to be safe and secure. Does the Minister agree that those who object to this innovative scheme purely on the basis that the destination is Rwanda do the people and the Government of that country a disservice?
Tom Pursglove
Some of the comments made in the last few weeks about the Rwandan Government and people have been appalling and completely misinformed. Some would even go so far as to say that it is deliberate scaremongering. We know the Rwandan people to be good, decent, generous people who have provided settlement and resettlement opportunities for many thousands of people in recent years. They want to continue that tradition, and they want to see global solutions to this evil criminality that we have seen, and to put our asylum system globally on a much more sustainable footing. We will work in partnership in that spirit.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
The thinking that seems to underpin this plan is that to deter the criminal, we must punish the victim twice. No wonder that over the weekend both the Moderator of the Church of Scotland and the Archbishop of Glasgow have condemned the plan as unchristian and immoral. If the policy is so well thought through, how is it being assessed, what are the scientific indicators of success and what plans are being put in place in the event that it fails to stop the people-trafficking boats?
Tom Pursglove
The Government believe that as part of the wider, comprehensive new plan for immigration that we are delivering, this plan will have the effect of stopping these dangerous crossings of the channel—by small boat, for example. People are also coming across to the United Kingdom in the back of lorries, which is also highly dangerous.
Effectively, the approach that the hon. Gentleman is advocating is just to throw our hands in the air, say it is all too difficult and do absolutely nothing. I am not willing to rest until we put those criminal gangs out of business. I believe that the approach that we are taking will make a meaningful difference in that regard.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
Stoke-on-Trent has done more than most when it comes to refugee resettlement, while other parts of the country—often those represented by Opposition Members—have done little to nothing. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a bit rich for Opposition Members to suddenly oppose these plans, which would offer real deterrence and stop illegal immigration into this country?
Tom Pursglove
I would argue that people in Stoke-on-Trent have been incredibly generous and big-hearted in the support and opportunities that they have provided in the community for people who have come to the UK, particularly those who are escaping conflict. But I think that although people in Stoke-on-Trent are generous, they are also—
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
Sound people.
Tom Pursglove
They are sound people, and they will be concerned that the Opposition parties have no credible plan to tackle illegal migration. We will continue to ask where precisely their plan is.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Can the Minister confirm what risk assessments were undertaken in advance of each individual being served with a notice? Was the risk of modern slavery considered as a key factor in the Court’s decision to overturn some notices?
Tom Pursglove
It is fair to say that reports of modern slavery are taken into consideration as part of the processes. I will not comment in any further detail on operational matters, but I refer the hon. Lady to the published information out there around the process. It is publicly available.
Jonathan Gullis
We are all too aware that the Labour party thinks that borders should be open and that anyone who wants border controls is a racist and a bigot; it made that perfectly clear with its attitude towards Brexit and towards the people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, which is why it was overwhelmingly rejected in 2019 and an entirely blue city was elected for the first time. The Minister must understand that the people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke want this Government—no matter what the leftie lawyers and the Opposition parties do or say—to carry on with this policy and deliver it, no matter whether there is one or 100 people. We must deliver for the people of this country.
Tom Pursglove
I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend by saying that we are determined to deliver this policy. I know full well that if we do not get on and deliver it, he will be very much on my back, which is not something that I particularly want to happen. We will strain every sinew to deliver this. It is what the British people have elected us to do and what they expect us to deliver, and we are going to get on and do it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) on securing this urgent question. A lot of media attention has focused on the human rights record of Rwanda and the threat that being sent to Rwanda poses to certain communities. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, may I ask the Minister what assessment has been made of the threat facing those from religious or belief minority communities? What guarantees, if any, can be given as to the protection of religion or belief for all in Rwanda?
Tom Pursglove
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the country information available out there. That is a comprehensive assessment of the situation, and it touches on these very issues. That work, I understand, is reputable and highly regarded in the judicial sphere as an accurate assessment of in-country situations. I certainly encourage him to have a look at it.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
The BBC News website has reported in the past few minutes that the Court of Appeal has decided not to block the flights to Rwanda this week. As the Minister will remember, the Nationality and Borders Bill Committee considered and supported allowing the processing of asylum claims in safe third countries—a decision repeatedly restated by the whole House when it considered the Bill. In deciding whether Rwanda is a safe country, is the Minister aware of any other countries or international organisations that make use of the resettlement to Rwanda of either asylum seekers or refugees?
Tom Pursglove
Having known me for a long time, my hon. Friend will understand that I will want to read that judgment for myself before commenting authoritatively. What I can say to him, however, is that resettlement opportunities and support are provided for those seeking refuge in Rwanda, through, for example, the emergency transit mechanism involving the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. That, I think, speaks volumes about the view that it takes about people being safe when they are in Rwanda, and I think it is something of which we should take note.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
Over the weekend, I learned that immigration and police officers who were seeking to remove from the community someone who was thought to have committed immigration offences were prevented and blocked from upholding the law by protesters. Will the Minister assure me that the individual in question will be held to account for any potential breach, as will the protesters who blocked those officers from upholding the law? Does he share my revulsion at the fact that a Labour councillor appears to have been involved in organising the protest, and the fact that Labour Members of this place have applauded those protesters over the last 24 hours?
Tom Pursglove
Those reports are somewhat surprising, are they not? What I will say, for the benefit of the House, is that I am very clear about the fact that the law should be upheld, and that individuals who have no right to be in our country should be removed. People should not be obstructing work that is in the national interest, is the right thing to do, and is in accordance with the law of the land. I will certainly be looking at this over the coming days, and I will want to be satisfied that those efforts are not being frustrated.
I thank the staff in the Home Office who facilitate removals every day of the week. It is not right that people are here illegally. There is of course due process, and it must be respected and followed at all times.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
As we take back control of our borders, may I congratulate my hon. Friend on his persistence in the face of the lefty lawyers, the unions and the so-called charities who are abusing our judicial process? Does he agree that—as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey)—much of this opposition is born of complete ignorance of Rwanda and the people of Rwanda? We could be relocating people to Norway, Switzerland or even Monaco and these people would still oppose it, because what they actually believe in are open borders.
Tom Pursglove
It has often occurred to me that there are individuals, in this House and beyond it, who believe that we ought to have unlimited immigration to our country and that there ought not to be proper border controls, but, of course, they do not want to be straightforward about those motives and intentions. We, as a Government, believe that there must be proper border controls. The last Labour Government actually respected some of these principles, but we do not hear any of them being talked about in the modern setting by the shadow Home Secretary or the shadow immigration Minister, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock).
It is right and proper that we have those proper border controls, that they are properly enforced, that people come here through safe and legal routes, and that those with no right to be here are removed without any needless delay, and that is what we are going to deliver.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Let me say, for the avoidance of doubt, that I am aware that the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) and the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) have continued to stand, indicating that they wish to ask a question. Mr Speaker made it very clear at the beginning of the urgent question, as he has done at other times, that if a Member is not in the Chamber to hear the answer to an urgent question or the beginning of a statement, that Member will not be called to ask a question.
Mr Speaker and I, and the other occupants of the Chair, have heard every excuse under the sun for not being here on time. We have all been there, finding that we were slightly later than we meant to be, but the rule is absolutely clear: if a Member is not present to hear everything the Minister says, that Member will not be called to ask a question. That was made very clear to the hon. Lady and the hon. Gentleman, who have persisted in seeking to catch my eye.
Let us make this very clear just one more time. You should not have to rely on a message from the Whips. You should not have to rely on what it says on the Annunciator. If you wish to take part in proceedings here in the Chamber, it is advisable to be here well in advance of the commencement of those proceedings. Obviously, the same rule applies to the statement that is about to begin. I am looking to see who is in the Chamber now. Everyone who is in the Chamber now will have an opportunity to take part in the statement, and anyone who is not in the Chamber now has lost that opportunity.
Government Food Strategy
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Government’s food strategy. Recent events have been a reminder of the importance of domestic food production. It gives us national resilience. Throughout the pandemic, those working at every stage of the food system, from farming and fishing to manufacturing, distribution and retail, did not let us down. The food industry has shown tremendous commitment and ingenuity in the face of recent international events.
The UK is largely self-sufficient in many products, including wheat, most meats, eggs and some sectors of the vegetable industry. Overall, for the foods that we can produce in the UK, we produce around 74% of what we consume. That has been broadly stable for the past 20 years, and in our food strategy, published today, we are committing to keep it at broadly that level in future, with the potential to increase it in areas such as seafood and horticulture. For instance, we are exploring policies to incentivise the use of surplus heat and carbon dioxide from industrial processes in a new generation of glasshouses here in the UK producing salad crops such as tomatoes and cucumbers.
With the cost of agricultural commodities linked to global gas prices, we recognise concerns about the cost of food. Through this strategy, we are setting out long-term measures to support a food system that offers access to healthy and sustainable food for all. It will complement the measures we have already taken to support those struggling to afford food and help them to eat healthily, through the Healthy Start scheme, breakfast clubs and the holiday activities and food programme.
The food industry is present in every part of our country. It is the largest manufacturing sector in the UK—bigger than automotive and aerospace combined. Food manufacturers provide employment opportunities in areas where there might otherwise be deprivation, they offer apprenticeships and opportunity, they invest in research and development and they give local areas a sense of pride and identity. None of our food manufacturers could succeed without the farmers and fishermen who supply them with high-quality produce.
Our fresh produce industry has always required access to seasonal labour, and I am pleased to announce today that we will bring forward another 10,000 visas for the seasonal workers route and expand the scheme to cover poultry. We on the Government side of the House want people at home and abroad to be lining up to buy British. Our food strategy sets out our intention to consult on ensuring that the public sector sources at least 50% of food locally or produced to higher standards.
There are new challenges to address that will require the characteristic ingenuity of our food industry. As Henry Dimbleby’s independent review highlighted, poor diet has led to a growing problem of obesity, particularly among children. Good progress has been made on reformulation in some categories. Industry-backed initiatives such as Veg Power, which conceived the successful Eat Them to Defeat Them campaign, have shown the value of positive advertising to promote vegetable consumption among children. But there is more that must be done in future, with Government and industry working in partnership on a shared endeavour to promote healthier diets. The Government accept that they have a role, and new regulations regarding the position of retail displays of foods that are high in salt, fat and sugar take effect later this year.
One of the recommendations of the Dimbleby review was the formation of a new data partnership between industry and Government, which we will be taking forward. Food manufacturers and retailers have a wealth of data and behavioural insights that can help to identify solutions. This will provide consumers with more information about the food they eat while incentivising industry to produce healthier, more ethical and sustainable food.
Our strategy acknowledges that the food system has a significant impact on the environment. We are therefore taking forward the recommendation of the Dimbleby review for a land use strategy. Our future agriculture policy will seek to financially reward sustainable farming practices, to make space for nature within the farmed landscape and to help farmers reduce their costs. From precision breeding techniques that reduce the need for pesticides to tractors fuelled with methane captured from slurry stores, and new feed additives that can significantly reduce methane emissions from ruminants, technological solutions are developing at pace. Our future farming policy will support innovative solutions to the environmental challenges we face.
Our food strategy will set us on a path to boosted food production, ensuring that everyone has access to healthy, affordable and sustainably produced food. I commend this statement to the House.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. It certainly did not take long to read.
It is now nearly a year since the publication of Henry Dimbleby’s independent review of England’s food system, a review commissioned by the Secretary of State’s Department. On the back of the review, he promised a national food strategy White Paper by January. Not only is he six months late on his own deadline, but this is just a statement of vague intentions from the Government, with no concrete proposals to tackle the major issues facing this country.
Henry Dimbleby’s review consisted of almost 300 pages, yet the Secretary of State has responded with barely 10% of that. To call this a food strategy is farcical and, frankly, an insult to all who took the time to contribute to the review. There is no need to take my word for it, as we all saw the responses over the weekend from industry leaders and those involved in the review. They are aghast at the Government’s lack of ambition, as the Secretary of State will have seen as he watched the television and read the morning newspapers over his cornflakes. This is a missed opportunity.
We should be discussing a real plan for delivery, a plan to put right the Government’s record of failure: 7.3 million people, including 2.6 million children, are living in food poverty; 2.1 million food parcels were handed out last year alone; 64% of adults are obese, as are 40% of children; £2.6 billion of trade with the EU, our biggest trading partner, has been lost; a quarter of all exports to Ireland have been lost completely; 40,000 pigs have been culled because of the labour shortage; and food is rotting in farmers’ fields because it cannot be picked.
This should have been a plan for food security and ending food bank usage by ensuring every family has access to healthy, affordable and sustainable food. It should have been a plan to back our farmers rather than undercutting them through the Government’s trade deals. It should have been a plan to drive growth through investment in new enterprises, the food and drink sector and our thriving co-operative sector. It should have been a plan to ensure that we buy, sell and make more here in Britain by supporting our fantastic producers and entrenching Britain’s reputation as a beacon for quality food, high standards and ethical animal welfare.
This should have been a plan to ensure that our schools and hospitals are stocked with more locally sourced, excellent quality food. It should have been a radical plan to tackle the obesity scandal in this country by ensuring every family has access to the healthy food that we know too many are missing, and it should have been a plan to deal with today’s supply and cost-inflation crisis.
We know, for example, that fertiliser and carbon dioxide availability has had a direct impact on the price of household staples such a bread, milk and meat products. Alarmingly, the UK’s biggest producer of fertiliser and CO2 closed one of its plants last week because of a lack of support from this Government. The Secretary of State has been warned repeatedly, but action never follows.
Where is the plan to address the real issues facing this country today? All we see in this document is more dither, more delay and absolutely no ideas to address the scale of the challenge from a Government who are, frankly, devoid of ideas. Cruelly, there is no support for British farmers who kept this country fed during one of our most difficult times. [Interruption.] I hear the growls from Conservative Members, but what I hear most are the calls from British farmers who, for all the Government’s warm words of encouragement, are left waiting for support whenever they go to the Government for help. They wait and wait, and nothing ever comes. This is not a plan but a missed opportunity when the country can least afford it. Britain deserves better than this.
George Eustice
The hon. Gentleman refers to the length of my statement. I like to keep statements in this House as brief as possible, with them being a summary. I think my statement ran for about six or seven minutes, which is generally what Mr Speaker likes to see.
Clearly, if the hon. Gentleman wanted more detail, he could have read the full report, but it is clear from the list of issues he raised that perhaps he did not read it, because I simply cannot accept any of the criticisms he made. He raises the issue of obesity, and the report deals at length with it. We have already introduced a soft drinks levy that has driven reformulation. As I said in my statement, later this year we will introduce new point of sale regulations that will also drive reformulation.
The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of labour on farms. Had he read the report, he would know that we have increased the number of seasonal agricultural workers from 30,000 to 40,000, and we have worked closely with industry to understand precisely its needs. He says that we have no plan to increase spending on British agriculture by the public sector—by schools and hospitals—but we have set out a clear ambition to increase that spending by 50%. That is set out in great detail in the report.
On household spending on food, we absolutely recognise that with the sharp rise in energy bills there are households that are finding it difficult to afford food. That is why we have put in place a range of support mechanisms, the latest of which were announced by the Chancellor two weeks ago. We are talking about significant help for the most vulnerable families to help with those energy costs. We also know that although food prices have indeed risen, by about 0.2% in March and 1.5% in April, in the past 15 years or so, including during the last financial crisis, household spending on food remained fairly stable, even among the lowest income households, at about 16%.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the important issue of fertilisers, and we are aware of that. It is important to note that the Billingham plant, run by the major producer of fertiliser here, is continuing to operate and has full order books until the end of this year, and that the price of ammonium nitrate has fallen back significantly from its peak in March and is now at a level that farmers are able to purchase at.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Before we proceed any further, let me say that I am aware that nine Members in the Chamber did not hear what I said just before the proceedings on this statement commenced. I reiterated what Mr Speaker said at the beginning of the earlier piece of business, the urgent question, when he made it very clear that Members who are not in the Chamber at the beginning of an answer to a UQ or a statement by a Minister will not be called to ask a question during the proceedings on that UQ or statement. Sometimes it appears that people hear what Mr Speaker says but just ignore it, as though it did not apply to everyone or there might be extenuating circumstances—there are none.
So at the beginning of this statement, I reiterated what Mr Speaker said and I said that anyone not in the Chamber at that moment, 4.45 pm precisely, would not be called to take part in this statement. I have a list of the people who came in after 4.45 pm. So if you were not here at the beginning, please do not stand, because it is discourteous to do so when I have already said, or Mr Speaker has already said, that you will not be called. Let us proceed, with everybody who was here at the beginning of the statement. I call the Chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Sir Robert Goodwill.
Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
I welcome the direction in which the strategy takes us, but will the Secretary of State comment on what I might suggest are a couple of omissions? First, he rightly says that, in terms of the food that we can produce, we produce about three quarters of what we consume. However, in recent years, we have seen a dramatic reduction in the amount of vegetable oil we produce, making us more reliant on sunflower oil and rapeseed oil from Ukraine and on unsustainable palm oil from the far east. What can we do to address that? Secondly, on the location of photovoltaic installations, more regard seems to be given to the proximity of an electricity substation than to the quality of the land on which they are installed. Could the Secretary of State perhaps look at that issue again?
George Eustice
First, may I take this opportunity —my first at the Dispatch Box—to welcome my right hon. Friend to his new post on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. He was a predecessor of mine as a Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and I know that he will bring considerable expertise to his new job.
On the two points that my right hon. Friend raised, planning guidance already sets out a clear presumption against building solar farms on the best and most versatile agricultural land, which is classed as grade 3b and above. I am aware that there have recently been instances where BMV land has been built on, and we are discussing that with Government colleagues.
On the second issue that my right hon. Friend raised, around our dependence on imported sunflower and rapeseed oil, the rapeseed crop has declined in recent years due to the withdrawal of the use of neonicotinoids. It has recovered in the last year, and prices are strong, but the ultimate solution probably lies in the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill, which will be introduced in the House later this week and bring forward our ability to tackle some of these agronomic challenges.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
I welcome the advance sight that I had of the statement. Agrifood is a hugely significant industry, providing a great deal of employment. It is also of huge strategic importance to us as a country. It is therefore quite troubling—I hope the Secretary of State will appreciate quite how troubled I am by this—that the National Farmers Union president, Minette Batters, said earlier today that the industry is in “absolute crisis”.
It is easy to see why. We have massive labour shortages, we have food going unpicked and we have food being ploughed back into the fields. I welcome the 40,000 visas that have been announced, including the 10,000 additional visas, but that barely scratches the surface of demand across Scotland, let alone the rest of the UK, when it comes to tackling these issues. It is imperative that we do all we can during this heightened cost of living crisis to support our producers to maximise the quantities of food we produce domestically, so that we can keep costs down.
We have problems at our borders. Thanks to the Brexit we have chosen, there is effectively a free-for-all when it comes to goods coming in, but massive barriers and trade frictions when it comes to us exporting goods. The all-party parliamentary group on fisheries has today produced a report that makes for grim reading for anyone in the industry, or with a care for it, given how Brexit has played out. In addition, we have a continued welfare crisis in our pork industry, and farm incomes remain at historic lows.
It is hard to encourage people to buy as we might wish them to, when they are grinding against the cost of living crisis and, in some cases, struggling to pay for the energy necessary to boil vegetables or even to make something as simple, basic and nourishing as a bowl of soup.
We therefore need to take steps to put our food strategy on the same basis as we would an energy strategy. We need to tackle energy prices, the cost of fertiliser and the debilitating shortage of labour. We need to support rather than undermine our producers when it comes to food and welfare standards. We need to support the industry as the custodian not just of our food chain and supply but our landscape. Finally, we absolutely need to make sure that the industry plays its part in feeding our people and battling the cost of living crisis.
George Eustice
The UK Government stand absolutely four-square behind our fantastic Scottish food industry. Scotch whisky is our biggest food and beverage export, and Scottish salmon is also a major export. We have some really strong industries in Scotland.
On the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised, we absolutely recognise that farm businesses have seen their input costs rise, particularly over the last six months. That is because the price of fertiliser and many other agricultural inputs is directly correlated with the gas price. It is also the case that agricultural commodity prices have risen. Generally speaking, since 2016, as a result of the referendum result and exchange rate changes, we have seen farm incomes and farm commodity prices rise quite strongly. The price of lamb is now more than £6 a kilo. The price of wheat has doubled in the past year, and we have seen strong prices in other sectors, such as that of beef. The picture is mixed, though. There are some sectors that have not seen that price rise, but, generally, the position has been strong. Finally, on the issue of labour, as I have said, we have a seasonal agricultural workers scheme. We work closely with the industry to understand its needs. Our assessment at the moment is that 40,000 visas are necessary for this current year.
Sir Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
I will, if I may, draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to paragraph 2.4.2, which concerns public procurement leading by example. It says that
“the public sector reports on progress towards an aspiration that 50% of its food expenditure is on food produced locally”.
As a very small British farmer, I think I can speak for all of agriculture when I say that we want not 50% British, but 100% British.
George Eustice
The commitment that we outlined today is in addition to the previous commitment of which my hon. Friend will be aware. It is the case that, some years ago, we introduced changes to the Government buying standard and the so-called balanced scorecard, which already requires all Government Departments and the Crown Commercial Service to follow that approach, and that is mandatory. What we are seeking to do in this case is to broaden that to hospitals and schools, which control their own budgets, but it is a slightly different situation.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
It is great that the Secretary of State is increasing the number of seasonal workers from 30,000 to 40,000, but, as I understand it, last year, we did not even manage to get the 30,000. A quarter of those who applied for visas and got visas did not even come here. We are now looking to Nepal and Tajikistan to pick our cucumbers, tomatoes and all the rest of it. This is a manifest failure. If we are not able to pick our own food and put it on our own plates, how will we make sure that Britain is properly fed in the future, unless we are really going to answer that question?
George Eustice
Last year, we had just short of 30,000 people—it was around 27,000—who came to this country under the seasonal workers scheme. It was a covid year when there was a lot of stress and disruption to travel. This year, we are currently approaching the 30,000 level for those who are either here or on the way here. For the high-fruit season later in the year and for the poultry season at the end of the year, we judge that another 10,000 visas is about right. I also point out that many other European countries are struggling to find labour at the moment. The hon. Gentleman will also know that, last year, the majority of people who came here were from Ukraine for reasons that we all understand given the atrocious invasion of Ukraine by Russia. Those people have now stayed behind to fight, which is why we are drawing from a wider pool of countries in this current year.
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
I may have to try to press this with the Prime Minister on Wednesday, but let me try it on the Secretary of State now. The Isle of Thanet has produced, historically, some of the finest fruit and vegetables in the country bar none. I think I am right in saying that, in Thanet Earth, we have the largest greenhouse complex in the whole of Europe. This summer, Thanet Earth will be producing most of the tomatoes that most people in this House and beyond will be eating. We want to do more. We want to grow for Britain, but we will not be able to do so if we smother our farmland in housing and have nothing left on which to grow. Please may we have a moratorium on house building on grades 1 and 2 agricultural land while we get this policy right?
George Eustice
I am quite sure that my hon. Friend will take the opportunity to raise that with the Prime Minister and also with other Departments as well. I visited Thanet Earth in his constituency. It is an extraordinary operation. There is some 220 acres of glass. It is the largest salad producer here in the UK. As I set out in my statement, we want more organisations like Thanet Earth in this country. We want more of that kind of large-scale glass co-located with industrial processes, and that is what we have set out in the strategy today.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Social distributors of surplus food such as The Bread and Butter Thing and suppliers to food banks such as Klyne & Klyne, both located in my constituency, report interruptions to the supply chain and difficulties in redistributing white-labelled foods. Can the Secretary of State say what discussions he is having with such distributors to ensure continuing, stable and secure supplies for those who supply food to those on extremely low incomes?
George Eustice
The hon. Lady raises an important point. That specific issue has not been raised with me previously, but I will take it up. The Government work quite closely with organisations such as FareShare to support food charities around the country, and if there are particular difficulties of that sort I am happy to investigate.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The strategy is welcome inasmuch as it is a recognition that food security is as important as energy security. It is critical that we reduce the length of supply lines, so guaranteeing sustainability and traceability. Being that I know something about Government procurement, due to my ministerial jobs, will the Secretary of State make it clear that the desire for us to produce more food that is then consumed by the public sector is not merely an aspiration, but an obligation—not merely a hope, but an expectation?
George Eustice
We have different levers for different parts of the public sector. With core Government Departments, we can give exactly that kind of clear direction; indeed we do, through the agreements they have with organisations such as the Crown Commercial Service, they must pursue our policy. We want to work with the wider public sector on this, including schools and hospitals, but it is fair to say that they too want to support healthy, nutritious, locally produced food.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Recent surveys have demonstrated food insecurity among the workforce within food production itself. In other words, many of the workers producing the food cannot even afford to pay for it themselves. Recent surveys have also demonstrated increased dependency on food banks among food workers. Although there is a reference in the strategy to improving productivity and pay, working with the industry, that will take time. What emergency measures is the Secretary of State looking at to boost levels of pay so that the workers in food production can afford the food they produce?
George Eustice
The Government have already increased the national living wage to £9.50 an hour. We have stipulated that those coming in under the seasonal worker visa scheme must be paid at least £10.10 per hour. The right hon. Gentleman should also note that in food processing generally, because it is quite a tight labour market, we have seen significant increases in wages for the lowest paid in this country.
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
I warmly welcome the strategy, which recognises that trees and butterflies are extremely important, but so is domestic food production. When the Secretary of State talks about rewarding sustainable farming, he need look no further than my constituency and its rolling green hills, grazed by livestock—a perfect example of the virtuous circle of UK livestock farming. Can I invite him to restate his support for the UK red meat sector, which, contrary to media portrayal, is good for our health, our environment and our economy?
George Eustice
The environmental issues around livestock production are more complex than some would have it. The truth is that permanent pasture has an important role to play in seeing the restoration of nature and the recovery of biodiversity in the farmed landscape. Livestock production done well, particularly in pasture-based systems, has an important role to play in rekindling that biodiversity in nature that we all want to see.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
With food and energy prices spiralling, many parents are worried about putting food on the table. Our children’s health and education should be a top priority, yet not only have Ministers rejected Henry Dimbleby’s recommendation to give a free school lunch to every child whose parents are on universal credit, but they have even rejected his back-up, less generous proposal to change the eligibility criteria. Will the Secretary of State listen to parents and think again about denying an extra 1.5 million children in struggling households a free school meal?
George Eustice
The principal driver of pressure on household budgets at the moment is the very sharp rise in energy costs. The measures that the Chancellor announced two weeks ago are a major step towards helping the poorest households to deal with that blow to their finances. The Department for Work and Pensions has already made some changes to eligibility for free school meals, because on 24 March it made permanent the extension of free school meal eligibility to include some of the children who had no recourse to public funds, subject to specified income thresholds.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
Opposition Members might like to note the fact that April exports to the EU were the highest on record.
I congratulate the Secretary of State on the statement, in which there is much to be welcomed. He knows of my concern and that of Back-Bench members of the 1922 committee about food security and encouraging the maximisation of the harvest over the coming months. Will he ensure that as the strategy is taken forward he does not walk away from some of the Government’s biodiversity strategies, which are so important, and makes sure that they remain at the heart of what we do? In particular, can we resist the turning of farm land into pine forests to the exclusion of biodiversity and of the rewilding that can make a difference?
George Eustice
My right hon. Friend raises an important point. He has been a long-standing champion for the hedgehog, as many Members will know, and he has previously raised with me the issue of food security. I hope that what we have set out today addresses our intentions in that regard. He is also right that sustainable environmental protection and profitable, successful food production are not in conflict with one another but are two sides of the same coin, and if we get our policy right we can achieve both.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Ind)
Twelve years into Tory Governments, this pretence of a strategy says that DEFRA will work with local authorities and food charities in priority areas to tackle food-related inequalities. Some 5,000 households in Southwark used food banks last year and more than 30 organisations in my central London borough are trying to tackle the issue, which is largely driven by Government policy. When will the priority areas be fully identified, and what additional support will eventually be provided as a result of being determined a priority area?
George Eustice
As I said, we have a range of policies in place, including the holiday activities and food programme and the work we do through FareShare. We also have the household support fund, and we are working with local authorities to identify where the needs are to ensure that that support can be directed to the right places.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
I welcome this statement that the Government are bolstering food production and food security. Producing food sustainably and looking after the environment go hand in hand, and our fantastic UK farmers are best placed to do that as they have been doing it for generations. The pandemic and the war in Ukraine have brought food security into sharp relief, and farmers are faced with the challenges of rising costs of fuel, animal feed and fertiliser, the supply of which is more uncertain with the announced closure of one of the UK’s fertiliser and CO2 plants. Can my right hon. Friend reassure farmers in Cumbria and across the UK that the Government will support them through these challenges in the shared endeavour to produce more local food?
George Eustice
My hon. Friend raises some important points. We are watching the situation closely on fertiliser supply. Our current assessment is that production at the Billingham plant, which has the lion’s share of UK production, is continuing. We understand that it has had strong orders during the course of the year and farmers are managing to source their fertiliser by that route. We are also successfully continuing to import fertiliser from countries such as Norway. However, we monitor that closely because it is important that we ensure that farmers can get access to fertiliser, particularly for next year’s winter wheat crop.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State will find many of us who will support him in seeing food prices as a massively important issue as we all have constituents who are not choosing between heating and eating because they cannot afford to do either. On the question of how we can cut the cost of food and support British farming, the elephant in the Chamber is that he has not talked at all about the impact of leaving the European Union yet the evidence from the UK in a Changing Europe think-tank is very clear about the impact of that on food prices. The children of this country cannot eat red tape, yet that is exactly what has been imported into this country and is now strangling British farmers. What conversations has he had with his colleagues in the Department for International Trade and with the Prime Minister about how to cut through that and make sure that we can export all our British delicacies and put food on the plates of our constituents?
George Eustice
I think the hon. Lady is wrong on food prices for this reason: EU-produced food can still enter the UK completely tariff-free, and at the moment we are not even requiring export health certificates or other paperwork. The impact on food prices of leaving the European Union and the single market is negligible; the real driver of food prices is oil prices and exchange rates, and that has always been the case.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
The Government are to be commended on a thoughtful piece of work, specifically on farming and domestic production. The approach on meat-eating and methane is right, too—technology is our friend in that—but I have to say that on salt and sugar I am a wee bit disappointed. The Secretary of State will know that I put together the prevention Green Paper in the Department of Health and Social Care. That built on the sugar tax, which led to the sensible reformulation of soft drinks. It did not push up costs to the consumer, because the industry reformulated its products. That document, agreed across Government, had proposals to extend that winning formula to other products high in fat, salt and sugar. We can kick the idea into the long grass, and many will be pleased that we have done that—I concede that—but we are storing up obesity, type 2 diabetes and stroke, which we are increasingly seeing in younger people, for the future. Surely as a publicly funded health system, we have a right, and I would argue a responsibility, not to kick the issue into the long grass.
George Eustice
My hon. Friend highlights an important issue and I can assure him that we are not kicking it into the long grass. The soft drinks levy was indeed a tremendous success, but only because it was relatively easy to take sugar out of soft drinks, because it is only a sweetener and reformulation can be driven quite simply. With some other products, such as chocolate, cakes and so on, sugar is a different type of ingredient that is harder to reformulate and take out. Later this year, we are taking forward new point-of-sale restrictions on foods that are high in salt, fat or sugar. I can tell my hon. Friend that that is already driving reformulation and changes in retailer supply chains.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
May I press the Secretary of State on the issue of school food? Eighteen years ago, in 2004, Hull City Council pioneered free healthy school meals as a means of fighting food poverty, improving classroom attainment and tackling the problem of childhood poverty. The evidence is there that that works. If the Government accepted into the strategy the recommendation on that, it would help them fulfil their aims for healthy eating, easing the cost of living crisis and the levelling-up agenda. Will the Secretary of State think again about accepting the recommendation on free school meals?
George Eustice
We have to be mindful of some of the unintended consequences if we load too many of these things on to the universal credit system. As Members will know, one of the principles behind universal credit is its gradual, tapered withdrawal. If we have cliff-edge entitlements of that sort, that starts to undermine the principle that sits behind universal credit. Nevertheless, we recognise the value of free school meals—that is why we have always had them and why some changes were made permanent on 24 March. We are also more widely recognising the impact on households of the increase in energy costs, and that is why the Chancellor announced that package of measures two weeks ago.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I warmly welcome the spotlight that the strategy shines on the wonderful food produced in West Worcestershire and across the whole United Kingdom. I also welcome the fact that unemployment in this country is at an historic low. In welcoming the extra 10,000 seasonal agricultural workers that have been announced today, will the Secretary of State elaborate on the advice that he received that meant that this year, with our strong labour market, he did not accept the request from farmers to go as high as 90,000 visas?
George Eustice
My hon. Friend does indeed represent an important part of our country for horticulture—in fact, I spent a summer working on an apple orchard at Bransford in her constituency. On her question about the evidence that we have, we work closely with the operators running the seasonal agricultural workers scheme. As I said, we are approaching 28,000 visas issued or people already here. The judgment is that for the top fruit season, which is predominantly what they will be recruiting for later this year, a further 10,000 will be sufficient. The truth is that the total number of people who do seasonal agricultural work in the UK is estimated to be between 60,000 and 70,000. We think it is still the case that close to half of that number are coming as settled EU citizens or are people who are here, with the other half being carried by the scheme. That will change over the years, but for the current year, we think that 40,000 is sufficient.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
As has been referenced already, last week, CF Fertilisers in my constituency announced that it would begin consultation on closing the plant, which puts 300 jobs at risk. It also exposes us far more to the international fertiliser market, which is the opposite of what I understood this strategy was meant to achieve. Ministers have had nine months’ notice that there was a problem at the plant and, from what I can see, they have done absolutely nothing to help it survive. The Secretary of State said that he was monitoring the situation but, frankly, we need far more urgent action than that. What is being done to look at potential purchasers of the site or to keep production going there? Are my constituents’ jobs not worth more than just a monitoring exercise?
George Eustice
We are monitoring the situation, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are some commercially sensitive issues around that. He talks about the potential sale of the site to alternative operators, which I know that the company is investigating. If he would like, I will offer to meet him to update him on some of those issues.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for recently meeting the little pocket of marvellousness made up of the grade 1 agricultural land and glasshouse growers in South Ribble. Banks, Tarleton and Hesketh Bank are producing some of the finest celery, turnips, tomatoes and salad leaves in the world. Glasshouse growers are often forgotten, but I note that the food strategy does not forget them and actually enhances support for them; I welcome the farming innovation fund to help to improve their productivity. I hope to speak on the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill later this week, but will he assure me today that he will continue to use the flexibility that he has in the seasonal agricultural workers visa scheme to make sure that 10,000 workers are available to pull the crops out of our grade 1 agricultural land and that he will keep an eye on the situation in case it changes? My farmers rely heavily on that seasonal labour.
George Eustice
I very much enjoyed meeting growers from my hon. Friend’s constituency with its wonderful fenland and high-grade horticultural land. We do indeed keep a close eye on the requirement for seasonal agricultural workers, but, as I said, we currently judge that 40,000 is sufficient for this year.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I met various farmers and farming representatives in my constituency on Friday. They are keen to produce food sustainably, but they told me that their biggest problem is the phasing out of the basic payment scheme before the environmental land management scheme is ready to go ahead. Moreover, they believe that they will not be able to get involved in the sustainable farming incentive because of the up-front costs involved in some of those schemes. Will the Secretary of State look at that problem? We are in danger not only of our environmental and welfare aspirations falling away, but of some of our critical food producers going out of business in this critical short-term period.
George Eustice
As the hon. Lady will know, the Government committed to keeping the budget that we spend on agriculture the same in cash terms for every year of this Parliament. That is exactly what we are doing. Although we are making a modest 15% further reduction to the BPS payment this year, we are simultaneously giving farmers access to that money through the sustainable farming incentive. It is universally open to all, there are not the up-front costs that she talked about, and we will pay farmers quarterly. It is a scheme that leading farming organisations, such as the Country Land and Business Association, have been supportive of. The old legacy EU subsidies on land ownership meant that 50% of the budget went to 10% of the wealthiest landowners in the country, which cannot make sense or be a coherent policy for the long term.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to the fact that I am married to a farmer.
Lincolnshire farmers produce fabulous food in harmony with the environment, but many farmers of late have been concerned that the Government were more interested in their becoming biodiverse or parkland farmers than in their growing food, so I am pleased to see this strategy and the Government’s focus on the importance of food security and productivity. I am also pleased to see the £270 million farming innovation fund, but could the Secretary of State tell us how farmers apply and when this money will start to become available?
George Eustice
The money is already available, and we have already had a number of rounds. Indeed, earlier this year, when we opened a round of the farming investment fund for equipment on farms, it was over-subscribed, so we trebled its budget to £48 million. This week, we have opened a new round to support farmers who want to add value. There is £30 million going into that fund, and there will be many more rounds over the current year or two.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
Food prices are rocketing and food insecurity is increasing, but this White Paper goes nowhere near addressing the root causes of these issues. The recommendation to extend free school meals to more than 1 million children on universal credit has been ignored, so how does the Secretary of State plan to address this, and ensure that our children are well fed and nourished to be able to learn?
George Eustice
As I explained earlier, the Chancellor has unveiled a package of measures to help those on the lowest incomes deal with the sharp increase in energy costs. We also have a range of programmes, including Healthy Start and the holiday activities and food programme.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
Given the recommendations of the independent review, the White Paper is not bold enough, but I am pleased that the junk food cycle is being addressed with a goal on healthy ingredients sold and reporting with the Office for Environmental Protection, Food Standards Agency and Climate Change Committee. I am pleased with the innovation package, particularly research into diet, as well as with the visa scheme review, mandatory procurement and the target of a 50% reduction in child obesity by 2030. Does my right hon. Friend agree that these policies should be enshrined in law through a good food Bill?
George Eustice
We have judged that we do not need any new legislative powers to implement all the things we have set out to do in the strategy. However, we have been very clear that the Food Standards Agency, the OEP and others will of course perform their statutory functions in holding Government to account on progress on these agendas.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Missing from this strategy is food security for our very youngest citizens—those who require infant formula. We only need to look to the United States to see how precarious the formula market can be. The forced closure of a formula factory due to contaminants resulted in costs being driven up and families being left without. In the UK, the cost of infant formula has gone up, with which Healthy Start vouchers are not keeping pace, so families are struggling to access that. How does the Secretary of State plans to address the deficiencies in infant formula policy? Will he implement the code of marketing of breastmilk substitutes, which will protect both those who use infant formula and those who breastfeed?
George Eustice
The hon. Lady raises an important point. During the pandemic, when there were concerns about global supply chains, we looked in great detail, with the Department of Health, at possible problems with the availability of infant formula milk. She is right that we import the vast majority of our infant formula milk, principally from France and Ireland, but we have done some work to encourage and support dairy processors in this country to enter the market.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
May I confirm that, under the strategy, public money for public good in environmental land management schemes will be about food production? Will the Secretary of State push for a national food security target? Lastly, on the impact of fuel prices, fishermen in Brixham are laying up their vessels because their average takings for an entire day’s work are £32. If we do not step in, fishermen across the United Kingdom will lay up vessels. We need a strategy fast, or we will not be able to anything on fish and shellfish.
George Eustice
On the latter point, I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss some of the issues that fishermen in his constituency have raised with him. Over the last six months the price of most fish has strengthened considerably, which has generally been good for fishermen’s incomes, but I am happy to look at the issue he raises. On the wider point, under the Agriculture Act 2020, Governments are already required to produce a review of food security every three years—the first was published in December last year—and they have a legal obligation, when designing future schemes, to consider food security and availability.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Our farmland in my constituency of Strangford is highly productive so we greatly welcome the strategy, but the drive for rewilding is being discussed locally. I am concerned that the United Kingdom will be reforesting land that could and should be used to grow produce and thereby enhance our food security and self-sustainability. As farming is a devolved matter for all the regional Administrations, what safeguards are in place to ensure that good arable land is planted and that reforestation and rewilding are introduced only on land that is not appropriate for productive farming?
George Eustice
Agriculture policy is indeed devolved but we have created the UK agricultural partnership. Its last meeting took place in Northern Ireland and I heard about some of the Northern Ireland Administration’s plans for their future policy. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that my opposite number there, Edwin Poots, is well aware of these issues and there is very little danger that he would allow things to be planted inappropriately where there should be crops.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the Secretary of State and everyone who took part in the proceedings. I noted that, at last, attention was paid to what Mr Speaker and I had said about presence in the Chamber and that all Members who were not here at the beginning of the statement had the decency and honour not to ask to be called. That has been gratefully noted.
Point of Order
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Last Thursday a BBC investigation revealed shocking abuse and safeguarding failures in children’s homes run by Calcot Services for Children. The report included allegations of grooming, rape, sexual assault and Calcot cutting corners on staffing ratios. None of the incidents revealed by the investigation had been reported to Ofsted despite a statutory requirement to do so. At the same time as these appalling incidents are alleged to have been taking place Calcot Services for Children recorded profits of 36%. There has been no response so far from Government Ministers to the reports of serious failings by Calcot Services for Children. Is it your understanding, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the Government have any plans to update the House on their response to the investigation, the steps being taken to ensure the safety of the children under the care of Calcot Services for Children, and why, despite such serious allegations, Ofsted has continued to rate the homes provided by Calcot as good or outstanding?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving me notice of her intention to raise this point of order. I can confirm that the Speaker’s Office has had no notice of a statement on that matter. I appreciate that it is a serious matter and I am sure that the hon. Lady will seek other means of raising it in the Chamber, and I am certain that if she were to seek the advice of the Clerks in the Table Office they would guide her on how best to do that. I am also confident that the Minister currently at the Dispatch Box, the Minister for Higher and Further Education, will have heard the point made by the hon. Lady—
The Minister for Higher and Further Education (Michelle Donelan)
indicated assent.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The Minister is nodding in assent and I am confident that she will convey the hon. Lady’s concerns, and the concerns of the House, to her colleagues who are responsible for this matter.
Bill Presented
Northern Ireland Protocol Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Elizabeth Truss, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Dominic Raab, Steve Barclay, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Priti Patel, Secretary Sajid Javid, Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng, Secretary George Eustice, Secretary Brandon Lewis, Michael Ellis, and the Attorney General, presented a Bill to make provision about the effect in domestic law of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland in the EU withdrawal agreement, about other domestic law in subject areas dealt with by the Protocol and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 12) with explanatory notes (Bill 12—EN).
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to put on record my congratulations to the Government on bringing in the Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, which of course was not a point of order for the Chair. I assure him that he will have an opportunity to speak to the issue that he raises when the Bill has its Second Reading in the House.
Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill
Monday 13th June 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 View all Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 13 June 2022 - large print - (13 Jun 2022)
19:52 - The House divided: - Ayes: 150 / Noes: 282 - Question accordingly negatived.
20:06 - The House divided: - Ayes: 152 / Noes: 284 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Minister for Higher and Further Education (Michelle Donelan)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 1— Duty to disclose overseas gifts and contracts affecting freedom of speech—
‘In section A3 of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 (inserted by section 1), at end insert—
“(2) Whenever a registered higher education provider, or any of its members, employees, departments or associated bodies, enters into a disclosable arrangement with an overseas counterparty, its governing body shall, as one part of discharging the duty to promote the importance of freedom of speech and academic freedom in subsection (1), promptly report the required information about such arrangement to the OfS and the Secretary of State.
(3) By 30 April each year, the OfS shall publish on its website a searchable report which contains all required information which has been disclosed to it pursuant to subsection (2) above in the preceding year.
(4) If the governing body of a registered higher education reasonably believes that the publication of the identity of the overseas counterparty pursuant to subsection (3) or subsection (6) might present a risk of serious harm to any natural person, it may notify the OfS and will provide such information as the OfS may require to investigate such risk(s).
(5) If, following a report under subsection (4) above and such investigation as it considers appropriate in the circumstances, the OfS finds that the publication of the identity of the overseas counterparty pursuant to subsection (3) or subsection (6) might present a risk of serious harm to any natural person, then it may redact such information from its report.
(6) By 30 April 2023, the governing body of each registered higher education provider shall report to the OfS and the Secretary of State the required information of any disclosable arrangement which it, or any of its members, employees, departments or associated bodies, entered into during the ten years prior to this section coming into force, and the OfS shall publish such information on its website in a searchable report by 30 April 2024.
(7) If the registered higher education provider fails to comply with this duty, the OfS may enforce compliance in civil proceedings for an injunction.
(8) In this Part—
(a) “associated bodies” means any company, institution, trust, organisation or similar body or group in respect of which the relevant registered higher education provider has significant control or ultimate beneficial interest;
(b) “disclosable arrangement” means any formal or informal contract, gift or other arrangement by which a financial or other advantage is offered, promised or given to a registered higher education provider or any person or body mentioned in subsection (2) above, whether conditionally or unconditionally, which is equal to or exceeds £50,000 (or would equal or exceed such value in combination with other potentially disclosable arrangements entered into with the same overseas counterparty, or connected overseas counterparties, within the previous twelve months);
(c) “overseas counterparty” means—
(i) any natural person who holds citizenship of, or is domiciled in, any country or territory outside the United Kingdom (or any subdivision of such a country or territory);
(ii) any government, organisation, institution, company, foundation, legal person, trust, or similar body or group which is registered, incorporated, headquartered or carries out significant activities in any country or territory outside the United Kingdom (or any subdivision of such a country or territory) or in respect of which ultimate beneficial ownership or significant control resides in a person falling within subsection (c)(i) above; or
(iii) any person acting in any capacity for or on behalf of any person who would fall within subsection (c)(i) or (c)(ii) above if they were acting on their own account;
(d) “required information” means—
(i) the exact value of the relevant disclosable arrangement(s);
(ii) the identity of the overseas counterparty and the name of any relevant country or territory (and, if relevant, such information about the person(s) for whom they are acting or in whom ultimate beneficial ownership or significant control resides);
(iii) the date on which the relevant disclosable arrangement(s) was entered into;
(iv) details on the general purpose of the relevant disclosable arrangement(s); and
(v) any specific stipulations or obligations imposed on the registered higher education provider or any of its members, employees, departments or associated bodies (including, but not limited to, any changes to any curricula, governance or control of them).””
This new clause seeks to introduce transparency and public reporting of foreign donations to universities, in order to promote freedom of speech and academic freedom, and increase public confidence in universities.
New clause 3—Duties regarding language and cultural programmes—
In section A3 of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 (inserted by section 1), at end insert—
‘(2) Whenever a registered higher education provider enters into partnership with an overseas organisation to deliver foreign language, culture or exchange programmes or courses, its governing body must, as one part of discharging the duty to promote the importance of freedom of speech and academic freedom in subsection (1), promptly report the required information about the partnership to the OfS and the Secretary of State.
(3) In response to the information received under subsection (2), and where there are concerns regarding the effect of the partnership on freedom of speech and academic freedom, the Secretary of State may issue a direction to the registered higher education provider.
(4) A direction under subsection (3) may be either to—
(a) terminate the partnership, or
(b) offer an equivalent range of programmes or courses delivered in partnership with an alternative organisation.
(5) In this Part, “required information” means—
(a) the financial value of the partnership;
(b) any specific stipulations or obligations imposed on the registered higher education provider or any of its members, employees, departments or associated bodies (including, but not limited to, any changes to curricula, governance or control of them).”
New clause 4—Appointment of the Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom—
‘(1) A person may not be appointed as the Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom (‘Director’) if the person has at any time within the last three years made a donation to a political party registered under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
(2) The person appointed as the Director may not whilst in office make any donation to a political party registered under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
(3) The appointment for the Director shall be made by an independent advisory panel to be established by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(4) The appointment of the Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom shall be subject to a confirmatory resolution of the relevant Select Committee of the House of Commons.
(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (3) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This new clause would ensure that the Director of Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom has not and cannot whilst in office donate to a political party and ensure they are only appointed subject to confirmation of an independent advisory panel, the Select Committee of the House of Commons and a resolution of each House of Parliament.
New clause 5—Sunset clause—
‘(1) This Act expires at the end of the period of 3 years beginning with the day on which it is passed.
(2) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations made by statutory instrument remove any of the provisions of this Act after one year from the day on which it is passed if he is not satisfied that the provision is working as intended.
(3) Before three years from the day on which this Act is passed a Minister of the Crown must present to Parliament a written report on the effectiveness of the provisions of the Act.
(4) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations made by statutory instrument renew this Act, subject to parliamentary approval in full or in part, or make transitional, transitory or saving provision in connection with the expiry of any provision of this Act.
(5) Regulations under this section shall be subject to the affirmative procedure.”
This new clause would mean the legislation would have to be renewed by Parliament after a period of three years.
New clause 6—Academic staff: interpretation—
‘(1) Section 121 of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 is amended as follows.
(2) After “Act—” insert—
“academic staff, for the purposes of any provision inserted by the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2022, includes any academic staff (however engaged or employed), honorary, visiting and emeritus academic members of a provider and any other person held out as holding any academic position at the provider;””
New clause 7—Harassment—
In section 26 of the Equality Act 2010, after subsection (4)(c) insert—
“(d) when A is a student or a member of the academic staff of a registered higher education provider and the conduct took place in the context of a discussion in a higher education setting—
(i) the importance of freedom of speech and academic freedom, as provided for under Part A1 of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 (as inserted by section 1 of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2022), and
(ii) whether A intended to harass B, or was reckless as to whether A’s conduct constituted harassment towards B.”
Amendment 21, in clause 1, page 2, line 2, at end insert—
“(3A) Any conduct that would otherwise constitute conduct having the effect of harassment in accordance with section 26(1) of the Equality Act 2010 shall, notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in that Act, constitute freedom of speech within the law for the purposes of subsection (2), provided that—
(a) the conduct constitutes, or forms part of, discussion of an academic or scientific matter in a higher education setting, and
(b) the person engaging in such conduct did not know or could reasonably not have known that it would have the effect of harassment.”
Amendment 19, in clause 1, page 2, line 6, at end insert—
“(4A) The objective in subsection (2) includes securing that no person listed in paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (2) is deprived of an ability to speak freely as a result of a non-disclosure agreement or confidentiality agreement between that person and the governing body of the registered higher education provider.
(4B) The provision in subsection (4A) does not prevent the use of a non-disclosure agreement in any case where the governing body and academic staff member agree that a non-disclosure agreement or confidentiality agreement is necessary for the protection of intellectual property.”
This amendment would ensure that non-disclosure agreements or confidentiality agreements between those listed on the Bill and a higher education providers does not inhibit the freedom of speech for those concerned, save where it is agreed to protect intellectual property.
Government amendment 1.
Amendment 17, in clause 1, page 2, line 14, at end insert—
“(c) to conduct research,
(d) to engage in intellectual inquiry and contribute to public debate,
(e) to criticise any institution,
(f) to be affiliated to any institution, and
(g) to be a member of a trade union body,”
This amendment would widen the definition of academic freedom.
Government amendments 2 and 3.
Amendment 20, in clause 1, page 2, line 32, after “views” insert “or to share experiences”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 19.
Government amendments 4 to 10.
Amendment 18, in clause 8, page 9, line 32, at end insert—
“(3A) In reaching a decision as to the extent to which a free speech complaint is justified, the OfS must be mindful of the following—
(a) the right of students to feel safe on university campuses, and
(b) other legal duties of governing bodies and students’ unions, such as but not limited to those under the Equality Act 2010 and section 26 of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015.”
This amendment would ensure other competing freedoms as found in the Equality Act and the Counter-Terrorism Act and Security Act 2015 are considered in relation to complaints lodged under the Free Speech Complaints Scheme
Government amendments 11 to 16.
Michelle Donelan
I thank all Members for their important contributions throughout the Bill’s consideration. More than two thirds of the world’s population live in countries where academic freedom is severely limited. For decades, people have travelled across the globe to study in the UK because we are one of the few nations in which free, fair and lawful speech at university is truly valued. It is no coincidence that the most academically free countries in the world are also the most socially progressive, the most democratic, the most peaceful and, of course, the most prosperous.
Free speech is as fundamental to what academics and students do on university campuses as it is to what we do in the House. However, as we saw on Second Reading, the Opposition chose to deny that there is a problem at all, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. In fact, since we last debated the Bill, the UK has become the only country in the top tier of academically free countries to be significantly downgraded by the academic freedom index. A report published by the Varieties of Democracy Institute determined that despite the UK’s status as a historic bastion of academic freedom and scientific excellence, not only is academic freedom in the UK declining but that decline appears to be accelerating.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Alliance of Pro-Life Students says that more than 70% of pro-life students face situations in seminars or lectures where they feel unable to speak openly, and one in three students surveyed had seen events cancelled due to the no-platforming of pro-life students and speakers. Will the Minister make it absolutely clear that whatever people’s views on pro-life issues, those who take that stance have a right to be heard in our universities?
Michelle Donelan
I wholeheartedly agree with my right hon. Friend. Of course, they deserve and have a right to be able to air their views and debate that subject.
In oral evidence, Dr Arif Ahmed spoke about how his fellow academics told him that they supported his campaign for free speech but were concerned that their careers would be impacted if they aired that publicly. We also heard from Professor Kathleen Stock, who has been the subject of the most grotesque and sustained campaign of threats and abuse, which compelled her to resign. Is it therefore any wonder that, in 2019, a King’s College London survey found that, chillingly, one in four students believed that physical violence was justified to shut down views that they deemed to be hateful?
The following year, a report by Policy Exchange found widespread self-censorship among university staff, but students and staff did not need to wait for those damning studies or for oral evidence to be published to know that there was a problem. The students forced to self-censor know that there is a problem. The academics bullied off campus, excluded by colleagues or forced to censor their lectures know that there is a problem. Legitimate organisations, speakers and guests who have been no-platformed or physically and verbally abused on campus know that there is a problem. It is just the Opposition who have their heads in the sand.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
Will the Minister confirm that the Secretary of State will maintain the ability to direct the director to further inquiry, should he have concerns that the OfS is not investigating an issue suitably?
Michelle Donelan
Of course, we work hand in hand with the OfS and if there were concerns, we would be able to direct.
We are introducing a new complaint scheme, operated by the OfS, for students, staff and visiting speakers who have suffered loss as a result of a breach of those duties. On top of that, we are introducing a new statutory tort as a legal backstop. The Government tabled amendments in Committee to ensure that new strengthened freedom of speech duties apply directly to constituent colleges of registered higher education providers. That will ensure that appropriate institutions must comply with the new duties in universities such as Oxford, Cambridge and Durham.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful. I am sure the Minister will be aware that institutions such as the University of Cambridge are concerned about the extra bureaucracy that may well create—particularly for commercial partnerships, which are completely unrelated to freedom of speech issues. Will she clarify what is meant by “constituent institutions” and the intent in new clause 2? Is she really putting a general monitoring duty on the OfS to require pre-emptive reporting?
Michelle Donelan
The hon. Gentleman raises a few points. In new clause 2, “constituent institutions” mean colleges. It is right that we should not have a potential loophole in the Bill. When forming new clause 2, I worked very closely with the university sector, including the University of Cambridge, so I ask him, respectfully, to talk to it again.
A number of important issues were raised in Committee. Opposition Members expressed concerns that the Bill would protect hate speech on campus. I have been clear throughout the passage of the Bill and will make the point once again: the Bill is only about lawful free speech. Let me be clear that this cheap shot has no actual validity. It is the Opposition’s attempt to discredit the Bill. It is a strong signal that they are content for an intolerant minority to silence those they disagree with, content for academics to feel the need to self-censor, content for students to miss out on the ability to debate, to critique and to challenge, and, ultimately, content to stifle debate. The Bill does not override the existing duties under the Equality Act 2010 regarding harassment and unlawful discrimination, nor the public sector equality duty and the prevent duty. Nor does it give anyone the right to be invited to speak at a university.
There were also questions from Members on both sides of the House, including my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), on whether junior researchers and PhD students will be covered as academic staff. That was laid as an amendment by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes). To clarify, the Bill uses the term “staff” to broaden the existing reference to employees, as not all those who work for a higher education provider have an employment contract or employee status. I can confirm that it will include those on short-term, casual contracts and PhD students undertaking teaching.
I now turn to the Government amendments tabled in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. New clause 2 and Government amendments 13 and 14 will impose a duty on the Office for Students to monitor the overseas funding of registered higher education providers and their constituent institutions, so as to enable it to assess the risk from such funding on freedom of speech and academic freedom. The duty will include a requirement to consider this in the context of a finding of a breach of new section A1 in clause 1. Higher education providers will be required to supply to the OfS information about overseas funding from certain individuals and organisations, with the details to be set out in regulations. The funding will cover not only the income that providers receive, but that of their constituent institutions, their members and their staff in their capacity as such. Similar provision will also apply to student unions. The OfS must include a summary of the information in its annual report, along with relevant patterns of concern.
Our amendments are proportionate, but we must ensure that our higher education system remains world leading, safeguarding an environment in which freedom of speech and academic freedom can thrive.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
The Secretary of State was escorted off the premises by security following his attendance to give a speech at one of our leading universities, after he was hassled. That was shameful behaviour, but that level of security is not available to everyone at all times. We need not just legislative change but a culture change, so that we accept that everyone with a different view is not a bad person and that there is not necessarily a right or wrong answer. What wider work are the Government are doing to instil that in younger children before they get to university?
Michelle Donelan
My hon. Friend is right. We need a cultural change, and legislation of this nature can spur such change. In our schools, we also need an environment of openness and frankness, and to grow that throughout the education system. I know that my colleagues in the Department are looking at this and will provide further guidance to support teachers shortly.
I know and understand the concerns raised by hon. Members, including my right hon. Friends the Members for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) and for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), and my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), which is why the Government are acting on new clause 3. I can confirm explicitly that the Government amendment will include educational partnerships, including Confucius institutes, and that the OfS will be able to impose a wide range of proportionate remedies as specific conditions of registration. That could include requiring a provider to make available alternative provision, or even to terminate a partnership if necessary to protect free speech. We will ask the OfS and its new director to make it clear that those are possible remedies in the guidance that will be published.
We of course continue to welcome foreign investment and donations to higher education as a key part of supporting innovation and development, but the amendments will increase the transparency of overseas income by requiring granular data to be reported to the OfS. Our intention is to proscribe countries for the purpose of the amendment by mirroring the countries listed in the academic technology approval scheme, which will exclude countries such as our NATO and EU allies, as well as countries such as Japan. We also intend to set a threshold of £75,000 in regulations. Hon. Members should be assured that in each case the ability to make provision by way of regulations will allow us the flexibility to amend as appropriate.
Alicia Kearns
I thank my right hon. Friend for the significant time that she has invested in speaking to my colleagues and me about this. Can she confirm clearly that Confucius institutes will fall within the remit of the organisation she is discussing because of the grave concerns about their strangulation of freedom of speech and thought on British campuses?
Michelle Donelan
I can confirm that Confucius institutes fall within the scope of these proposals, as I have outlined, and I urge all universities to increase the choice that they provide to students in this regard.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
Following the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), I wish to be assured on one point. Do the Government genuinely believe that the Confucius institutes pose a threat? Other Governments in the free world have banned the institutes from campuses, not only because they limit free speech, but because they have been involved in spying on Chinese students, especially those who show any kind of disregard for what China does. The institutes are very dangerous, and the issue goes wider than just the ability to shut down free speech: they are also reporting back about Chinese students, many of whom live in fear.
Michelle Donelan
Many countries have worked with their university sectors to enhance the choice on offer. For the first time, the Bill will give the OfS the power to act if free speech is in question, so it is radical in that sense.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I appreciate that the provision is mainly about free speech in UK universities, but does the Minister share my concern about the proposed £155 million gift from the billionaire chairwoman of a Vietnamese company to Linacre College, Oxford, a distinguished graduate college, on condition that the name of the college is changed to that of the chairwoman? Her company is extremely close to the Vietnamese Communist Government, where there is certainly very little freedom of speech. The Privy Council has to approve the change. Are the Government taking a view on the matter?
Michelle Donelan
I have recently been alerted to this issue and I am actively investigating it. I will update my right hon. Friend in coming days.
Government amendments 3 and 4 and 6 to 10 make provision on the payment of security costs for events. The amendments place a duty on higher education providers, colleges and student unions not to pass on security costs unless in exceptional circumstances to secure freedom of speech within the law. The Government want to put an end to the practice of no-platforming by the back door, raised by many Members in Committee, including my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings.
I said then that I was listening, and the amendments address the concerns. We have seen reports that a student society faced a £500 security bill from Bristol University student union to allow the Israeli ambassador to give a talk, while charging nothing to allow his Palestinian counterpart to do the same. The Union of Jewish Students has reported to me that some Jewish societies have even been billed for security costs for having stalls at freshers’ fairs. That is outrageous. If a university has a culture on campus in which security is required for inviting routine speakers, it has a culture in which intimidation, threats and violence are seen as acceptable. That does not constitute promoting free speech. The solution is to stamp that unacceptable culture out and stop student societies paying the price for those who break the law.
Government amendment 5 will change the coverage of college student unions, often called junior and middle common rooms. It makes it clear that the Bill does cover the activities of JCRs and MCRs, thereby clarifying the position.
Government amendment 11 will make it clear that the OfS is not required to make a decision as to the extent to which a free speech complainant is justified if that complaint is then withdrawn. Government amendments 12 and 15 set out how publication under the scheme will work in relation to the more general publication provisions recently inserted into the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 by the Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022. In particular, the Bill provides for absolute privilege against defamation claims arising from publication of OfS’s decisions under the complaints scheme, whereas the general provisions give qualified privilege to other publications. The absolute privilege matches the approach taken by Parliament to the complaints scheme run by the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education.
Government amendments 1, 2 and 16 will remove the express limitation on the definition of academic freedom that it covers only matters within an academic’s field of expertise. Once again, the Government have listened carefully to Members who raised issues in Committee, including my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings.
The Bill marks the Government delivering on our manifesto pledge, while listening and strengthening the Bill throughout.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Before I discuss the amendments in my name, I will briefly reflect on the Bill Committee. Over three weeks, we debated some 80 amendments in a constructive spirit; I commend right hon. and hon. Members across the Committee who participated and contributed to what was at times an abstract debate, but an important one, about academic freedom and freedom of speech.
Since the end of the Committee stage, some 300 days have elapsed and—nothing. Despite constant speculation about whether the Bill would fall victim to the Government’s own internal politics, it is finally on Report. The Opposition welcome that, but if I may say so, the Bill’s fragmented and bumpy ride through Parliament is emblematic of what observers widely consider a shoddy piece of legislation, at best unnecessary and at worst divisive.
I wish to address the amendments in my name—new clause 4, on the director for freedom of speech and academic freedom; amendment 17, on the scope of academic freedom; amendment 18, which aims to recognise the competing freedoms in debates around freedom of speech; new clause 5, our proposed sunset clause; and amendments 19 and 20, which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) and I tabled on the prohibition of non-disclosure agreements—and the Government amendments.
New clause 4 would ensure that the director for freedom of speech and academic freedom has not donated, and cannot donate, to a political party while in post. It would ensure that both Houses of Parliament and the relevant Select Committee have a say on the person appointed. It would also provide for the Secretary of State to set up an independent advisory panel to suggest a suitable candidate for appointment.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I very much hope that when the Minister responds to new clause 4, she will acknowledge that the Government’s track record on appointments has not been strong of late. The High Court has ruled that the then Health Secretary did not comply with the public sector equality duty when he appointed the head of a new public health quango. The chair of the Charity Commission resigned just days after being confirmed in post. The search for the chair of Ofcom was rerun after Ministers’ recommendation was unsuccessful. Does my hon. Friend agree that the checks and balances in new clause 4 are vital to this important appointment?
Matt Western
The hon. Member is right. A pattern is clearly emerging, which I will describe and examine in due course.
Having an Orwellian director for freedom of speech sounds like a contradiction in terms, but the appointee will certainly have sweeping powers. They alone will be responsible for making sure that universities and student unions are upholding their freedom of speech duties. They will act as judge, jury and executioner in free speech complaints and will potentially monitor overseas funding of universities and student unions. As job descriptions go, it is unprecedented. Incredibly, the job description is already out there, for anyone who is interested, with a £100,000 salary and a four-year term—I am not sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it could be on your horizon.
New clause 4 should not be necessary, but in the context of this Government’s record on appointees, it most definitely is. Let us start at the very top of the tree. In February last year, Lord Wharton, a Conservative peer, was appointed as chair of the Office for Students. His appointment was something of a surprise to many; he himself admitted that he had no experience in the higher education sector. It seems that the only criterion for his appointment by this Government was that he had run the Prime Minister’s leadership campaign.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
The standardisation provided by allowing a body such as a Select Committee to interview a person before appointing them to a role such as chair of Ofsted is common. The Minister knows that, because she was on the Education Committee with me when we did pre-appointment hearings, so it seems a little unusual that scrutiny is not seen as being as important in this aspect of education as in other areas.
Matt Western
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need more process, more transparency and an honest approach if we are to clean up our politics. I absolutely believe that that is what I would want any organisation to have. We must move away from what appears to be an increasingly transactional approach to these appointments.
In return for his being appointed, Lord Wharton’s company GBMW Ltd made what is now referred to as a golden thank you for being handed the job by the Prime Minister: a donation to the Conservative party of £8,000. That is small change for him, given that he gets paid £60,000 for just two days’ work per week.
Last month, we discovered that Lord Wharton had chosen to speak at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Hungary. It was a sell-out. In his speech, he endorsed Viktor Orbán’s far-right, autocratic regime—the regime that had forced George Soros’s Central European University to leave Budapest in 2019. So much for our champions of academic freedom! He also shared a platform with Zsolt Bayer, a television talk show host in Hungary who has been widely denounced for his aggressive racism; his grotesque comments do not bear repeating in this place.
Despite widespread condemnation from student groups here such as the Union for Jewish Students, and cross-party calls for the Government to take action against the chair, it is telling that Ministers have so far refused to do so. That is important, because independence, propriety and accountability in public life absolutely matter. That is the point of new clause 4.
It seems that the politicisation of the Office for Students has not stopped there. Three months ago, the Secretary of State appointed Rachel Houchen, the wife of the Tory Tees Valley Mayor Ben Houchen, as a non-executive director on the board of the Office for Students, despite her having no direct experience in the higher education sector.
In that context, the comments made in Committee by one of the Government’s own witnesses, Professor Nigel Biggar, especially alarmed the Opposition. He agreed that
“the Government…given the legislation…wants a director who has a certain partiality of that kind.”—[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 22, Q40.]
Even the Government’s own witnesses fear that the appointment will not be impartial: Dr Arif Ahmed and others made the point that the person “has to be impartial”.
In Committee, the Minister responded to a series of Opposition amendments by stating:
“There is no need to set up the bureaucracy of a non-statutory advisory body, as suggested by the amendment. The OfS is independent of the Government, so to do so would simply duplicate its role as set out in the statute.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 22 September 2021; c. 343.]
Well, clearly not. If the appointments to the OfS are meant to reassure us that the director will be impartial, they have lost all credibility. I dare say that the Minister will repeat the same line today, as she has done—blind to any suggestion of improvement, not least because this morning her Department advertised for the position even though the Bill has not even had its Third Reading.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is right that we had a useful, productive and positive exchange in Committee. I just want to correct the record for him because, knowing him well, I know that he would never mislead the House except inadvertently. Dr Ahmed—Professor Ahmed, I should say—is an enthusiastic supporter of this legislation and an enthusiastic supporter of the idea of having someone to oversee it. What he emphasised in his evidence and subsequently is that there should be impartiality in the exercise of that person’s work. This was not, as the hon. Gentleman suggests it is, about Dr Ahmed in any way questioning either the custom or practice associated with this legislation.
Matt Western
The right hon. Member was very involved in the Committee, and I thought that his contributions were robust and helped the debate along. I do not mean to misrepresent what Professor Arif Ahmed may have said, and he did say that this should be impartial. However, it was clear from what was said by Professor Biggar that that will not be possible if the Government want to do what they have set out to do. This is the point that I was trying to make, and if I did not make it clearly I apologise, but I have certainly tried to put it back on the record now.
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
Is the shadow Minister suggesting that by previous political association, someone can never be impartial in any possible future appointment?
Matt Western
I do not want to suggest that all people come from a position of partiality, but some are more partial—and overtly partial—than others. That was the whole point of what I tried to illustrate in the case of the chair of the Office for Students, who was clearly appointed according to the preference of the Government at the very highest level and the Prime Minister. I think that that surprise appointment, along with the appointment of the board member with no previous experience, is a further illustration of just how rabid this has become in our politics.
Emma Hardy
The issue of impartiality in the appointment process was debated in detail in Committee. We had a long debate about the job specification, the requirements, the importance of previous experience and the need to appoint someone with previous understanding of legislation and law, and the fact that the process needs to be impartial. When we appoint the new chair of Ofsted, we do so not on the basis of whom the Prime Minister of the day particularly likes, but on the basis of whether that person has the competencies that the job requires, and that is the point of our amendment. If such a person is to be appointed, we need the best person for the job, not the person who is most popular with the current Prime Minister.
Matt Western
My hon. Friend made some telling and constructive contributions in Committee, and I entirely agree with her. If we want the best from any system of higher education and its regulation, competencies must be at the heart of that.
Have a look through the job description for the director for freedom of speech, Madam Deputy Speaker. Four or five specified qualities are sought. It is worth a read, and indeed I am thinking of possibly putting in for the job. What is most surprising of all—this arose both in the Bill Committee and during our witness sessions, as my hon. Friend and others will doubtless recall—is that despite the overriding impression that, given the sensitivity and importance involved and given how delicate some of these cases will become, legal experience would be a necessity, there is no requirement for that legal expertise. We must make the process involved in any public appointment much more robust, but that applies particularly to the appointment to a position as sensitive and delicate as overseeing freedom of speech on our campuses.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman just came out with the throwaway line that he was thinking of applying for the job. Well, good luck to him, but do his own words not rule him out? If he is a member or supporter of any political party, he is by definition no longer impartial. I find that a ludicrous statement, by the way, as I would happily see members of the Labour party chair things because I would consider that they would be impartial, but the hon. Gentleman obviously does not.
Matt Western
Of course it was a throwaway line, but the job does pay £100,000. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has a second job, but I do not, unlike so many on the Government Benches who may have second jobs. It goes without saying, in my book, that that person should resign if he or she is a member of a political party—that a person in such a sensitive role should be seen to be unalloyed by association, because perception is so important in this context. Of course I made that remark in jest, but it does seem to be a staggering amount of money that the Government are throwing at this post.
Matt Western
I read every word. I read them with interest.
Only last week, the HEPI student academic experience survey revealed that a majority of students—64%—either agreed or agreed strongly with the statement:
“I feel comfortable expressing my viewpoint, even if my peers do not agree with me”.
Only 14% disagreed.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the legislation is totally unnecessary and divisive, with little evidence to support the Government’s position that there has been a rise in intolerance and a creeping culture of censorship? The Office for Students’ own data showed that out of 10,000 events with external speakers, only six were cancelled.
Matt Western
I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution. Yes, there are issues out there, but that is about the scale of it. That is what has been uncovered in the surveys and analysis done by the Office for Students and by others. The scale is being exaggerated by the Government in order to make this legislation. It would be nonsensical to ignore shifting attitudes, and new clause 5 would allow for well-informed public policy guided by evidence rather than by Ministers’ latest lightning rod of choice.
Our amendments 19 and 20 would ensure that non-disclosure agreements or confidentiality agreements between those listed in the Bill and higher education providers did not inhibit freedom of speech, save where it was expressly agreed to between the parties to protect intellectual property. I will defer to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley, with whom I have tabled amendment 19, to explore that further. She is a tireless campaigner on the issue and I commend her work in bringing it to the House’s attention on Report. I hope that the Minister, who has previously stated her commitment to stamp out that practice, will take on board our suggestions.
Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to push the Minister on some of the finer points of the Government amendments. The illegal invasion of Ukraine by Russia has rightly thrown a spotlight on the source of foreign investment and money in our public institutions. The misguided “golden era” ushered in by David Cameron and George Osborne in 2015, in which foreign nation states acquired substantial control over key parts of our national infrastructure, must come to an end.
The Government’s new clause 2 is much preferable to new clause 1, tabled by Conservative Back Benchers, particularly on the risk-based approach of the Government’s suggestion, but I have some concerns about new clause 2’s practical effect. The Minister suggests that it is her stated aim to reduce the data burden in the higher education sector. It is for that reason that I am interested in ascertaining how the new clause will be both proportionate and balanced. For example, the threshold at which providers have to report foreign donations is set to be determined by the Secretary of State in regulations, so it is disappointing that once again the Minister seemingly chose to brief it to The Times that the threshold would be set at £75,000—as she mentioned earlier—rather than allow the House to have a meaningful debate on what is appropriate. This is not on the face of the Bill. Interestingly, when we contrast this to the reporting threshold in the United States, which is $250,000—just over the equivalent of £200,000—the Government seem at risk of disincentivising foreign investment by implementing additional bureaucratic burdens.
I am also concerned about the scope of new clause 2, and I would be grateful if the Minister could expand a bit more on what is meant by “constituent institutions.” How much direct control does a higher education provider need to have over a constituent institution for it to fall under the remit of the new clause? For example, would Cambridge University Press be covered? My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) referred to that earlier. Relatedly, some of the requirements in the new clause are quite technical and may require fine judgment. It is likely that the value of non-monetary benefits—human capital and access to data, for example—will be difficult to ascertain. Could the Minister therefore detail what steps she is taking to ensure that universities are supported in determining the value of the partnerships they sign?
The Government’s proposal hands the responsibility for the new clause to the director for freedom of speech, making the director’s appointment all the more important. This adds further justification to our new clause 4, and I hope that Conservative MPs will consider that when they go through the Lobby later. Given that the regulator has limited prior experience of dealing with research partnerships or commercial arrangements, what additional resources will be provided to the OfS to handle this new responsibility?
Labour has tabled some important amendments in the same manner and spirit as we did in Committee. Let us remember that we debated a staggering 80-plus amendments in Committee at that time—it is a 19-page report—and now we have these few. Such a number would seem to underline just what a big dog’s breakfast the legislation is, and I am sure that those in the other place will spend many an hour realising what poor quality red meat lies at the bottom of it.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I am grateful to be called to speak so early, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to focus my comments on new clause 3, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) and signed by myself and others. The issue that I wish to touch on is the behaviour of some universities with regard to funding from countries that have the exact opposite view from ours on how freedom of speech should work. It was suggested earlier that we should be very careful about trying to insert ourselves into the funding of universities, but I think to the contrary to some degree, and I shall raise a case relating to that. I believe that when money is accepted from countries whose purpose is to undermine the nature of how we live our lives—including in regards to freedom of speech—that helps to pervert the processes of the institutions and universities.
One important question is whether there is a weakness in the Bill in one particular area, and that is to do with the Confucius Institute. I do not apologise for naming that particular organisation, because countries such as Germany, the United States and others that are quite close to us have already decided that that institute is not based around learning and academia and that it is in fact set up for an ulterior purpose, which is essentially to bully Chinese students in particular, but even other students, and to report back on the behaviour of many Chinese students studying in British universities. This has been evidenced in a number of countries. I would therefore have liked to see the UK Government, in line with this amendment and national security, take the power to stop such organisations where there is clear and compelling evidence that their purpose is not the stated purpose of delivering Chinese language and cultural instruction but enabling the Chinese Government to understand who is saying the right things and who is saying the wrong things.
To that extent, the Confucius institutes have even inserted themselves into schools. Many Confucius institutes have developed strong ties with local schools, and their provision of language assistance is seen as a very high-value contribution. It starts early now, and it extends.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman is educating me. I have similar concerns in my constituency and across Birmingham. In recent weeks and months we have seen a huge resettlement of people from Hong Kong, and I want children to feel completely and utterly safe in their school environment.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
The hon. Lady is right that a lot of Hong Kong citizens have come to the UK, and I embrace them all. I set up the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, which has co-chairs on the left and right from 25 countries and many other members from Parliaments around the world, all of whom agree that the Confucius institutes pose a genuine threat. The fear factor means that many students of Chinese origin will not take part in debates because they genuinely fear the repercussions for themselves and their families when they go home. We cannot overestimate the power of organisations that represent a Government as intolerant and dictatorial as the Chinese Government. The UK Government have been slow to act on what is now clear evidence.
My right hon. Friend the Minister said the Bill will deal with the situation, and that the Office for Students will be able to take action where necessary, but I would like the Government to reserve that power to themselves as they understand the security issues in this narrow but very particular area.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
My right hon. Friend slightly understates the position in universities. He will be aware that Chinese students now account for some £2 billion of revenue for British universities, nine of which, mostly in the Russell Group, get 20% of their revenue from Chinese students.
There is now clear evidence that, through 30 Confucius institutes and beyond, undue influence is being exercised by Chinese students at the behest of China’s communist Government. The CGTN television station, which was fortunately taken off air by Ofcom, targeted British universities and offered students the chance to win thousands of pounds by becoming pro-Beijing social media influencers. Chinese students turned out to overturn freedom of speech and other motions in student union debates at China’s behest. Dangerous stuff is happening under our nose. We need complete transparency about exactly what is happening, and we need legislation to make sure it does not continue as it is.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. He and I are both members of IPAC, and we have seen all this ourselves. Colleagues on both sides of the House are involved in IPAC, and there is compelling evidence of the Chinese Government’s growing influence on British academia through various organisations. Many do not recognise it. We have had meetings with Russell Group universities and individual colleges—I will address one in particular—in which we have explained this. Many had not really thought about it but, on reflection, realised there was a problem and that they had to start diversifying. One or two arrogantly refused point blank to admit or even accept the situation.
Jesus College, Cambridge has been incredibly deliberate and arrogant, which is why the Government need to go further. The Jesus College Global Issues Dialogue Centre received a grant of £200,000 from the Chinese state in 2018 through its National Development and Reform Commission. The Jesus College China Centre also has close financial and organisational links with the Cambridge China Development Trust, which is funded by the Chinese state. The CCDT donated £80,000 to the Jesus College China Centre over three years, and they share the same director. CCDT funding has been used to fund the Jesus College China Centre’s doctorships, scholarships, administrative support and seminars.
Jesus College received £155,000 of funding from Huawei in 2018. We have banned Huawei from our telecoms system because it is a security risk, yet it has set up a huge centre in and around Cambridge. For what purpose? To get in through the back door.
The GIDC’s white paper on global technology governance claimed an equivalence between the Chinese Government’s mass online censorship regime and the UK Government’s attempts to eradicate child abuse online—that is the key. The same paper falsely claimed that Huawei had freely shared all its intellectual property on 5G technology, leading the college to be accused of “reputation laundering.”
To those who say that money does not have an impact, I say, “Oh yes it does.” When money is repeatedly on offer, it tends to bend institutions towards the idea of having that extra money. I understand their concerns and their need for financial support, but the Government need to take this seriously.
The Chinese Government are committing genocide and using slave labour to produce goods in Xinjiang, and technology derived from UK universities is being used to spy on those slave labour camps. China is also using slave labour in Tibet, and it is imposing itself and locking up peaceful democracy campaigners in Hong Kong.
We rightly talk of free speech and the importance of our young people developing an instinct for argument, debate and balance, but these are lost to China and Chinese students, who are fearful when they come here. I accept that the Government think they have this covered, but I wish they would look again.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton enormously on tabling new clause 3. If the Bill is not tightened up to that degree, many of us on the left and the right of politics will ensure in the other place that these abuses cannot happen. The lives of Chinese students and Chinese people more widely remain our responsibility. If freedom of speech is the subject of our debate, we should cry for how damaged and destroyed it is elsewhere.
Jess Phillips
It is an honour to follow the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). I fear that Cambridge University will not come out well from my speech either.
The debate is about freedom of speech on campus. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) pointed to six cancellations—in my view, that is six too many—but I am going to talk about the silencing in non-disclosure agreements, which thousands of people are suffering from.
We know that the data on violence and abuse, and certainly on sexual violence, is a tiny fraction of the reality, but even that data shows that millions of pounds are being spent on this issue. The amendment tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend and near neighbour the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), would stop young men and women—including university staff—being prevented from speaking about their experiences on campus. That is what this is all about, isn’t it? It is about people being able to talk about their lives, experiences, beliefs and freedoms on campus. Currently, we are all sitting by while that section of the community, who may have been raped on campus, bullied, harassed or racially abused, can be silenced by that very institution and cannot speak about it at all. I am going to talk about those people.
Horrendous examples of silencing have been reported in the press. Brave women have spoken out even though they know the risks. According to one student, her university imposed a “blanket gagging order” on her after she alleged she was violently raped by another undergraduate. The victim claimed she was warned she would be expelled if she went to the press to report this violence or to talk about the college procedures. That gives you a clue as to where some of these people are from, because I said the word “college”; most other universities do not say that. The non-disclosure agreement was imposed. Apparently, the college had tried
“desperately to convince her not to complain”
and she had
“lost count of the members of staff who tried to silence, scare, threaten and undermine”
her.
According to an investigation by the magazine Elle, a student alleged she was sexually assaulted and then endured terrible treatment from the university relating to her claim of violence. Post-graduation, she complained to the university about how it had handled her situation. She was eventually offered £1,000 compensation, without any admission of wrongdoing, and with a non-disclosure agreement to prevent her from talking about it. The student, exhausted by her experiences, signed the NDA.
Jess Phillips
It does not seem very feminist, but I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
Jess Phillips
I almost wish for the right hon. Gentleman’s sake that I had taken the other intervention. Has he seen the figures on police rape recording and reporting? In the first instance that I was talking about, the individual absolutely went to the police. Of the 66,000 women—I am speaking only about women now; there will have been more—who came forward and said that they had been raped last year, a charge will have been faced in about 600 of those cases; and then look at the number of convictions. Are we expecting our institutions, our workplaces, our university institutions not to have a role to play in supporting people when that has happened? As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman know, the balance of probability has a different relation to civil law than criminal law, so the idea that if a woman did not go the police she should not be allowed to complain to her institution is not one that I recognise and it is not one that this House recognised when we set up an independent complaints system. However, what often gets said to women when they come forward to their employer, to their institution, is, “Why didn’t you tell the police?”
Alicia Kearns
I rise to urge the hon. Lady to name the institutions, because this Bill is about freedom of choice and of speech. I know that if I were a 17 or 18-year-old girl choosing university again, I would actively choose not to attend colleges or universities where I knew they might force an NDA on me if I was raped.
Jess Phillips
I will absolutely come on to naming some of those institutions. As I said, this was found by Elle magazine, which is collecting this data, unlike the Government at the moment. The article said the student claimed this arrangement felt
“worse than the assault—Dealing with this abuse of power was far more traumatic. It was emotionally exhausting and humiliating.”
Earlier this year, the Express took a day off from talking about Princess Diana and its investigation revealed that more than 3,500 cases of assault were reported in 78 institutions in the UK in the last five years. The figure consists of confirmed cases of sexual violence and disclosures made by both staff and students pending investigation. The 135 freedom of information requests sent to every university in the UK also revealed that many do not record figures of sexual assaults, so the overall number is likely to be much higher. So it is, “Just don’t record it and then it doesn’t happen.”
In 2020, a BBC investigation found that over 300 NDAs were used by universities in student complaints between 2016 and 2020, and that almost a third of all universities in England had used such deals in these circumstances. The probe discovered that universities had paid out £1.3 million on these deals, although the true scale is thought to be much larger. The campaign Can’t Buy My Silence was started by the brilliant and formidable Zelda Perkins, once an assistant to Harvey Weinstein and someone who had an NDA imposed on her related to his crimes, and Professor Julie Macfarlane. Their campaign has survivors’ testimony reporting that NDAs had gagged them from speaking of their experiences with family or loved ones, or even their therapists. I pay tribute to them and the work they are doing alongside the Minister, whom I know speaks to them. However, like me, they agree that legislation is necessary to tackle this.
So far, 66 universities have signed the Government’s pledge. I made this speech on Second Reading and since then the Government added “looking at non-disclosure agreements” into the violence against women and girls strategy, which was published late at the end of last year. I stand here in complete respect for the Minister. She has sought to do what she can to improve the situation. She has worked with the campaigns that I have talked about to get universities signing pledges. She is working with the Office for Students to look at regulation and at what needs to happen if these things are breached. Every Member of Parliament will have had to try to get a regulator to do something about their bad cases, and we are here with universities signing “pledges”. I do not know how we are going to know whether they are breaking their pledge if people have been gagged.
So far, 66 universities have signed the Government’s pledge. That is great, but why haven’t the others? I encourage every university to do this. There are over 130 universities in the UK. What about those students? What about their right to speak out? As the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) pointed out, she would want to hear about this. I am not going to list all the universities that have not signed it, but here are some: the University of Cambridge, King’s College London, the London School of Economics, the University of Wolverhampton and the University of Sunderland. That is just to name a few. Perhaps it is taking time and perhaps they are getting around to it. I very much encourage them to do it.
Just to show the House what I am talking about, I have an example here of one of these NDAs. This is the kind of thing that students are asked to do. It is not necessarily called a non-disclosure agreement, and that is a way out of this; the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) and I often challenge organisations when they say they do not have NDAs, because we have them in our inboxes and they call them something else. They will call them a “confidentiality agreement”. In lots of cases in universities we have seen the growth of “no contact arrangements”.
I will read this agreement out—this is from the university. It says, “We recognise the sensitive nature of the allegation involved. In consideration of our duty of care to both parties, we have therefore concluded that in the interest of both parties a non-contact arrangement is required.” This young woman who had been raped was told, exactly as the person accused of raping her was told, that she had to stay out of certain places; she could not go to certain things at certain times. She was told that she, “Is not to enter the building”, that her, “Fob access will be disabled” and that she is, “Not to enter the building unless for tutorials and classes notified in advance.” She is told, “Fob access will be disabled unless we have had advance notification”—this is a rape victim being told that she has to report to a guard so that she can go to her classes. She is also told, “You are asked not to make any information about these allegations, the police investigation or the safeguarding arrangements that we have made available on any form of public media”—so she should not talk about this document. Finally, she is told, “Evidence of repeated breaches of this arrangement and/or a serious breach of conditions—entering an embargoed building or publishing material in the press—will result in your expulsion.” That is from one of the finest universities in the world.
This is about people’s silence, but not just their silence; it is about their movement, their freedom and every element of their freedom of expression being stopped. Yet there is nothing in the Bill about freedom of speech, freedom of expression or freedom to study. There is nothing that the Government are proposing to do or to put in legislation. I simply do not understand why they would not have taken this opportunity to do something.
I met the Minister last week and, as I said, I do not doubt her total and utter commitment. Incidentally, she said earlier that “legislation of this nature can spur culture change.” Yet she told me last week that legislation is not always the answer—[Interruption.] I will take the intervention, by all means. No? Okay. She also explained to me that the Office for Students is looking at regulation to, for example, take away the status of a university if it is guilty of a breach. I responded—and I say again—that the idea that a rape victim who has signed a non-disclosure agreement will take down Cambridge University is the stuff of cinematic hopeful glory. I will believe that when I see it, which everybody in this building knows will be never. Why would we want to push universities and victims into that position? Why would we not legislate to stop the use of non-disclosure agreements?
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I do not want to spoil the flow of my hon. Friend’s incredibly eloquent speech, but non-disclosure agreements not only apply to students but are used extensively with staff. When we have discussed this issue before, the argument has been that there is sufficient employment law to deal with these matters. There clearly is not, because it does not reflect the balance of forces between employer and employee and the delays that take place. Surely we must legislate to scrap NDAs altogether, and the first step could be the inclusion of my hon. Friend’s amendment in the Bill.
Jess Phillips
I absolutely agree, and the amendment clearly covers staff being able to talk about their experiences. The Minister cited a member of staff who felt compelled to leave their employment because of what the Minister rightly pointed out was bullying. Had that member of staff signed a non-disclosure agreement, the Minister would never have been able to talk about them, and nor would that particular employee of that particular university. We would not even know what had happened. Had a non-disclosure agreement been signed in that case, which was, I believe, at the University of Sussex, the Minister would not have had her helpful example.
I took part in a debate on the television the other day about freedom of speech. A Government Member of Parliament, who I like and respect, turned to me and said, “The thing is, Jess, that no one can be forced to sign a non-disclosure agreement”—I just said my own name. Is that allowed? I don’t have to refer to myself as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley?
Jess Phillips
Yes, that’s right.
That Government Member said, “You can’t be forced to sign”, but that is to totally misunderstand the power imbalance. Someone might have worked hard and be the first in their family to go to university. They might have studied and done everything they could, because they wanted to go and make something of themselves. They might get into an institution that they are proud to say they are from. The fact that they could be raped on that campus by another student and complain, but then be threatened that they will be expelled if they speak out points to an enormous power imbalance. It is something that this House should legislate on for the sake of freedom of speech.
I welcome the Minister saying that she will take the proposals away, listen and perhaps do something in the House of Lords later in the process, but under this Bill, without our amendments, if a woman or a man, whether staff or student, is raped on campus, that person’s freedom of speech will be completely and utterly denied on campus and outside, and we would do nothing about it. Freedom of speech surely has to mean freedom of speech for all.
Sir John Hayes
Benjamin Disraeli said:
“Upon the education of the people…the fate of this country depends.”
That greatest of Conservative Prime Ministers went on to say:
“A university should be a place of life, of liberty and of learning.”
However, if the flame of liberty is to burn brightly, and if the university sector is to be a beacon of learning, we must face up to the fact that, in many of our universities, freedom of speech is in jeopardy, censorship is happening as we speak tonight, and academics and students feel intimidated by that censorship.
We know that from the evidence that the Bill Committee heard from academics on the frontline of that struggle. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), quoted Professor Arif Ahmed, who was clear that there is a series of means by which universities restrict and limit freedom of speech. He said:
“what I mean is universities placing formal obstacles in the way of people saying things that are perfectly legal.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 13, Q22.]
He went on to say, quoting the Universities and Colleges Union survey of 2017, that
“35% of academics self-censor”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 16, Q27.]
because they are nervous about saying what they truly believe; the number of students doing so is probably even greater. The truth is that there is a tyrannical minority in universities, among the academic staff and in the student body, who do not believe that universities are places of light, liberty and learning; instead, they think that universities should limit free speech.
I find it hard to understand why Opposition Members such as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), whom I respect greatly, and the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, with whom I have—I was going to say “collaborated”, but that makes me sound rather like a fifth columnist—co-operated in this place on many subjects, oppose a Bill designed to reinforce precisely the freedoms that are essential to an open society. I thought about that and cogitated on how it could be that such decent and honourable people—I include the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) as well—could do this.
In doing so, I should draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in respect of higher education, as I did perpetually and—some people felt—relentlessly during the previous stages of our consideration of the Bill. By the way, I stimulated a number of others to do the same, and I have no doubt that they will want to chip in on a similar basis this evening.
The conclusion I drew, having thought about it, was that those decent people on the Labour Benches who certainly believe in free speech and the exchange of honestly held opinion find that hard to reconcile with a zeitgeist that is preoccupied with a fear of causing offence. We are perpetually told now that because we must not make people feel uncomfortable, we must not offend them. We in this House know, do we not, that the ability to alarm is closely associated with the ability to inspire, that the ability to disturb is intrinsically linked with the ability to enthral, and that even the capacity to shock is necessary in the development and exposure of new ideas and fresh thinking?
Sir John Hayes
Having said such nice things about the hon. Lady, it would be extremely impolite of me not to give way.
Emma Hardy
I say to the right hon. Member that, as Bill Committees go, it was a very enjoyable one. I thank him for being one of the few Conservative Members who listens to the contributions. On the point he is making, it is not about disagreeing with this idea of shocking people or of having different opinions; the fundamental problem, as I have said repeatedly, is how this piece of legislation interacts with existing legislation already in place. How does this interact with equality legislation? How does this interact with other existing pieces of legislation? My concern is further developed when I see the person who is making the decision on how these different pieces of legislation interact with each other. It is, as has been mentioned—and this is the reason for new clause 4—somebody appointed by the Prime Minister of the day, which then leads to all those issues around impartiality of process. We have a situation here where we have a piece of legislation that almost buts up against existing equality legislation, but it is not quite clear how their processes will rub together, yet there is no specification that the person making the decisions has to have legal experience or knowledge; they are instead a political appointment. That is where we have the difficulty—it is not with freedom of speech, but with the legislation itself.
Sir John Hayes
At the risk of putting our professional association in jeopardy, I say to the hon. Lady that I agree with her. I agree that the Government need to look at the equality legislation. I note the Attorney General’s recent comments that, as well as unpicking the Human Rights Act 1998, which we certainly should do without delay, we need to revisit the Equality Act 2010 and the rest of the long tail of Blairism. The hon. Lady is right that some of that unfortunate legislation on the statute book is inhibiting much of the very good work that the Government are trying to do. In particular, she is right—this was raised in Committee by me and others—that the Government need to be very clear that this legislation can be squared with other statute and, so the means by which it might be challenged.
Emma Hardy
I think it might also be worth the Government having a look at the recent legislation that they have already passed on the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and the issues around protest and free speech. We could end up with a situation where free speech is the preserve of students who attend university, but those outside university will have their free speech limited unless they are very, very quiet and do not protest too loudly. We could end up with more conflict, with one part of the Government saying one thing in terms of restricting protest, and another part of the Government saying something else about supporting free speech. It is fair to say that having this Bill along with existing and proposed legislation will create a muddle.
Sir John Hayes
We are dealing with a complex subject. Free speech by its very nature means people saying all kinds of things in all kinds of ways about all kinds of subjects. The hon. Lady is right that there will be tensions to be settled, which is precisely why the Government have put in place mechanisms to do that. They are going to appoint, as was said earlier, an office with responsibility for ensuring that this Bill’s intentions and provisions are applied consistently. The Government acknowledge the difficulties that she has highlighted, which is precisely why they are putting in place a person and team to do exactly that.
Sir John Hayes
I can see that my right hon. Friend is about to make an erudite intervention.
Dr Lewis
You can always hope, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Does my right hon. Friend not feel as I do that the interventions that he has just taken show that perhaps the diminutions on free speech have already spread into other areas of legislation rather further than he and I would like them to have done?
Sir John Hayes
I agree entirely, which is precisely why this Bill is so welcome, but it needs to be part of a bigger programme of work by the Government to do what I described earlier, which is to unpick some of the legacy of the dark days of Blairism and the impact that that has had on all kinds of aspects of our wellbeing. My hon. Friend is right. This Bill is significant, but modest, so let it be the beginning of a crusade to establish freedom as the default position across all our legislative considerations in exactly the way—with erudition and diligence, matched by experience—that my right hon. Friend illustrates.
Free speech is complex and, in the words of the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, may be seen as an abstraction, but if it is an abstraction, it is one that is essential for the wellbeing of our free society, for it is at the very heart of what an open society is all about. The ability to say things which, as I said earlier, alarm, disturb, or even shock, and hear things with which we disagree is the very nature of what good universities are all about. I fear that that is jeopardised by some of the thinking that permeates universities, particularly university leaders and managers. For example, Professor Ahmed also spoke of
“issues to do with race, with transgender, and with Israel and Palestine on which they were simply unwilling to say what they thought”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 13, Q22.]
people fear the consequences of doing so. It is not just those issues, although those are notable among the list of things that people now regard as beyond the scope of free and open debate.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he not agree that much of the controversy surrounding this Bill comes from a conflation of physical safety with emotional and intellectual safety? Although students should have the right to be physically safe on campus, there is no right to feel safe and, as he rightly says, universities are the place where we should feel emotionally and intellectually challenged and, perhaps, unsafe at times.
Sir John Hayes
Burke said, as you well know, Mr Deputy Speaker:
“He that struggles with us strengthens our nerves, and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.”
Part of developing intellectually and personally, particularly for young people at university—we should not assume that only young people go to university—is exactly that. It is being stimulated, sometimes being excited, sometimes being challenged and, yes, sometimes being offended. I am often offended in this Chamber by all kinds of things, and not always things that I hear from those on the Opposition Benches.
Emma Hardy
Even if the right hon. Gentleman is offended, he is never offensive, so I always enjoy debating with him. On the issue of the need to challenge and to shock, there is always a line to be drawn somewhere. In Committee we talked about the offensiveness of holocaust denial. Okay, there is not a physical threat from holocaust denial, but I think that we would all agree that it is very offensive and it is therefore very hurtful. A line will always have to be drawn when it comes to free speech, but we have the difficulty, which I keep going back to, of who makes the decision on where that line is drawn—what experience do they have, what criteria is set, what is their knowledge, and what is their understanding of the subject. Having the right person at the top is important. I am sure that the right hon. Member will accept that, yes, someone might want to offend, to shock or to stimulate discussion, but there is always a point at which we say, “No, that is not intellectual stimulation. That is just offensive and rude and not part of an intellectual debate at university.”
Sir John Hayes
Yes, but the problem is that that line moves with the times, with fad and fashion, with what I described earlier as the zeitgeist. Perhaps the most chilling example of that is the case of Kathleen Stock. The hon. Lady will remember that Kathleen Stock gave evidence to the Bill Committee of which she was part. Within a few weeks, Kathleen Stock was driven out of her job as a distinguished professor at the University of Sussex by the mob, a group of students who pursued her and intimidated her and her family.
Kathleen Stock received scant support from many of her academic colleagues, although latterly the university authorities claimed they were supportive, and she was so affected and so damaged by all that that she ended up leaving the job she loved. I thought how chilling and ironic that she should have been one of the people who came to us, as Members of this House, to a Bill Committee debating this Bill, and yet just weeks later found herself a victim of the very problem she highlighted and emphasised in her evidence.
I will move fairly rapidly on to the amendments that stand in my name, Mr Deputy Speaker, because otherwise you will claim that I am making a Second Reading speech—and with some just cause.
Sir John Hayes
But before I do so, I will happily give way to my right hon. Friend.
Dr Lewis
My right hon. Friend is so kind. He has just given a terrible example at the extreme end of the spectrum of intimidation and restriction on free speech, but does he share my concern about the paranoid issuing of so-called trigger warnings or alerts, which are meant to protect students from hearing anything that they might find in the least discomfiting or disturbing? How does that prepare them for going out into the real world, where they are, whether they like it or not, going to hear things that are not to their liking? They will be under-prepared for that terrible ordeal.
Sir John Hayes
Almost every part of the canon of our great literature now seems to come with a health warning. From “Moby-Dick” to “Jane Eyre”, we are told that books are desperately dangerous for young people to read. That this is happening in schools and, amazingly, in universities is almost beyond belief. Snow has turned to ice: they are no longer snowflakes, they are in deep freeze, those people who dare not even read Austen, the Brontës or George Eliot—of those three, I strongly recommend George Eliot, by the way, but let us move on before I get into any more literary considerations.
Sir John Hayes
I thought my right hon. Friend was going to challenge my literary knowledge, but let us move to the amendments.
The Government have moved a considerable way since we debated the matter in Committee, and I congratulate and thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for Universities for her earlier words and especially for what she has done. She listened carefully in Committee. Often, when Ministers in Committee say, “I’ll take that away and think about it.”, we know they are going through the motions, but not this Minister, any more than I did when I was a Minister.
I think it is important that Bills metamorphosise through scrutiny and that Governments listen to argument—including arguments from those on the Opposition Benches, by the way. When I was a Minister, I would often go back to my civil servants and say, “Well, what the shadow Minister said seemed to make a lot of sense to me. Why aren’t we doing that?”. That is a very effective way for Ministers to challenge their own officials when they hear cogent and sensible arguments put from all parts of the House. That is precisely what this Minister did, and the Government amendments, on which I will not comment in any detail, reflect her consideration of the strong arguments that we used to strengthen this Bill, which she has now done in a number of respects.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
I rise to speak to new clause 1, which stands in my name and in the names of my colleagues, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) and my right hon. Friends the Members for Harlow (Robert Halfon) and for Ashford (Damian Green). I thank Professor John Heathershaw and his colleagues at the University of Exeter for their input.
This Bill is a very serious one, and the issue I raise of transparency in our universities is a very serious one. It has been much publicised of late in the newspapers in relation to some very distinguished and famous universities that have been alluded to already in this House, and rightly so. It is often misunderstood or underappreciated in the higher education sector how important the issue of undue influence and non-transparency is to the reputation of that sector, which is one of the crown jewels of our country both economically and culturally.
Universities exercise a wider influence not only over the young people whom they educate, but more widely in our public life, yet no standard approach has existed to date for handling foreign donations. No single standard has been created to allow donations to be made transparent, to be made public and to be properly tracked, and, therefore, for students and other donors and the public at large to understand whether there are pressures of a financial nature, and if so what pressures there may be, on the institutions with which they may have to deal.
Instead of this panoply of different approaches and different thresholds, and this lack of transparency and culture of non-disclosure, it is important that the Bill addresses those matters and brings some order to the situation. That is what my new clause and the other new clauses, which I am delighted to see have been tabled in a similar spirit, are designed to address. In my case, the measure is aimed not at any specific country or individuals, but generally so that there should be a wide understanding of the lack of transparency and a wider solution to it. I take my hat off, metaphorically, to the Minister, her Secretary of State and her officials, because the Government have substantially accepted my new clause, and indeed—dare I say?—arguably even improved it in relation, for example, to politically exposed persons. I thank her and other Ministers for the very constructive attitude that she and they have taken in relation to this important issue.
I will make a couple of small points in passing because this is still a live matter and officials will wish to think about the implementing regulations. The first is about the enlarged role for the Office for Students and the need for it to be given a role that it can dispatch rapidly and effectively as well as impartially. More widely, I note the essential importance of the higher education sector and of our universities being zealous in themselves, as institutions, in preserving freedom of speech and the culture of a deeper freedom of speech that, as so many Members have said, they have sought to defend in their treatment of students and colleagues. That remains vital.
I am delighted to support the Government amendment and withdraw my new clause 1 as a result.
Alicia Kearns
I rise to speak to new clause 3, but I wish first to welcome the significant work done by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), which has had an implication for that which I sought to achieve, and to touch briefly on new clause 19, tabled by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), with which I have enormous sympathy. When you are an alumnus of a university, you have a great ability, you would hope, to influence it, so I place on record that if Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge is using NDAs, it can expect this not to be the last it will hear of it. I will work with the hon. Lady to call it out if it is doing it, but I am sure that there is absolutely no way that the place that gave me an incredible three years would be doing that.
New clause 3 was tabled to solve a series of problems that we face in our education system. We exist in a state of hybrid warfare where we do not necessarily know that we are at war. Indeed, more often than not our enemies do not tell us that we are at war—the most effective manner to attack us. In this war they use every possible lever of influence to attack us. It is naive, sadly, but our universities are failing to accept that they are being weaponised and used against us in a state of hybrid warfare. The Chinese Communist party is at war with us, because between now and 2050 it expects there to be a war between two world orders—theirs and ours, ours being the one that believes in the rule of democracy and standing up for freedom of speech, which this Bill so focuses on. We might not realise that we are at war, but we are, and for decades now we have failed to recognise that. It is not enough to say, “Bad Chinese Communist party—stop doing what you are doing in trying to achieve your goals and the continuance of your power.” We have to take the fight to it in terms of standing up for what we believe in, standing up for our world order, and, most importantly, building resilience within our system.
That is what my new clause focuses on doing—tackling the unintentional ignorance, or potentially wilful deceit, of those who do not recognise the seriousness with which our education system is under attack. Everyone plays a role in protecting freedom of speech. That is why I am so grateful to the very many colleagues who over the past few days have spoken in support of the new clause and given support on the issue across the House. I also thank the Department for Education, and particularly the Minister, who has been in constant dialogue with me and has adopted the ambitions of the new clause completely. I know that in coming months we will work together to make sure that we build the resilience that is needed in the education system.
My new clause particularly seeks to focus on Confucius institutes, which play an enormous role in the teaching of Mandarin and all that comes with learning that language—cultural understanding, historical understanding, debates about the present day, and debates about the entire concept of the country and how it feels, breathes, lives and sees itself. We have 30 Confucius institutes in this country. Nowhere else in the world has anywhere near 30. One might ask why Scotland has the highest number of Confucius institutes in the entire world. There is a reason why the Chinese Communist party has chosen to infiltrate Scottish education and to try to force its own narrative within those areas. More concerningly, almost all UK Government spending on Mandarin language teaching in schools, which is £27 million from 2015 to 2024, goes through Confucius institutes.
Our students and our kids—our under-18s—are being taught Mandarin by Confucius institutes, which are an arm of the Chinese state. Confucius institutes are supervised by the Chinese Communist party through the Ministry of Education. They are not allowed to hire teachers unless they have been vetted by the Chinese Communist party. I have recently discovered that Edinburgh University’s Confucius institute has representatives of the Chinese Government’s embassy on its board. This is absolutely outright political intervention. Teachers are not allowed to cover issues such as Taiwan or Tibet, which are apparently sensitive. This is deeply concerning. Lancaster University and Edge Hill University rely on CIs to provide teaching for undergraduates. We cannot allow a hostile power to capture our education provision. That is why we need transparency.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire because his new clause has allowed us to bring in the requirement to report when universities take in foreign funding. These safeguards bring us into line with the US, Germany and the Netherlands, all of which discourage their universities from using Confucius institutes or introduce mandatory financial disclosures, because British students deserve a choice. They should not be forced to learn a language through the prism and narrative of a genocidal regime. That is all we are trying to do. We are not anti-China; we are trying to create resilience within our system. I am pleased that the Government are taking action and that under their amendments universities and student unions will be required to register funding arrangements. The Office for Students will have the power to force universities to provide alternative Mandarin education or to terminate Confucius institutes’ contracts.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her new clause. I understand that the Government have moved on the matter, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister. However, does my hon. Friend agree that there is one other element to this, which is that if the Government are in possession of clear evidence that there is a threat to the security of the state through interventions by things such as the Confucius institutes, they should retain the power for the Secretary of State to deal with that directly without necessarily going to the Office for Students?
Alicia Kearns
I thank my right hon. Friend, who has been enormously supportive of the new clause. I agree. I would have preferred to see these powers sit with the Secretary of State, but the Government are not willing to give on that. However, they have made it clear—I challenged the Minister in her opening remarks and she confirmed this—that the Secretary of State for Education will have the ability to direct the Office for Students if required.
I would argue that it is impossible for Confucius institutes to operate in this country without undermining our national security. They are an instrument of the Chinese Government and their propaganda wing with one sole goal. It is therefore critical that the Secretary of State directs the OfS where needed, and I urge him to regularly review its progress. I believe that the message going out from this House today is clear—that we have the power to terminate hostile states’ programmes and we must protect academic freedom.
On next steps, this is about not just building resilience but offering alternatives. As China’s role on the world stage grows, we have an amazing emerging pool of talent of Chinese speakers and China experts. We must provide alternative opportunities for the learning of Mandarin. I can think of no better way to do that than through our friends in Taiwan, whose track record in providing language courses is exemplary. They already work with our Foreign Office and intelligence services in providing these language lessons. We must also fund Mandarin education.
I thank the Minister for working with me to adopt these measures and for safeguarding academic freedom. My new clause provides a duty on financial disclosures, and it offers an alternative in the ability to terminate Confucius institutes and the power of the Secretary of State to direct, but I will not press it to a vote. We should be proud of British universities and proud to stand up for liberty and academic freedom. Without academic freedom, there is no open dialogue; without dialogue, there can only be division. It is important we use this Bill as the first step in sending a clear message to the entire education sector and the Chinese Communist party that we will not give them a back door to undermine our country and our national security through our universities.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
Unlike all the other speakers in this debate, I was not on the Bill Committee, which is a shame, because it sounds like it was very lively, and I have not tabled my own amendment. I rise instead to speak in support of Government amendments 1 to 4, 6 to 10 and 16. I am absolutely delighted that this Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill was carried over from the last Parliament.
We have heard today that over the past few years, there has been a growing and concerning trend to stifle free speech on UK university campuses. Since this Bill was published last year, we have seen: the attempt to shut down and harass the Israeli ambassador at Cambridge University; the vicious and, as we have heard, ultimately successful campaign to remove Professor Kathleen Stock from her post at Sussex; and, just last month, the efforts of an angry mob to silence my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education at Warwick University. It is no wonder that he has prioritised the return of the Bill.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Lady for the stance she has taken in this House and in every role of her life. She will probably be aware of a petition signed by 15,000-plus organised by the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children. It supports the Bill because it gives its members the freedom that they do not have. She will be aware of calls for pro-life students to be given a voice. Pro-life students are often the recipients of that discrimination. Does she agree that freedom of speech must be upheld for all students, and especially those who take a pro-life position and stance?
Miriam Cates
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The belief that human life starts at conception is a scientifically valid belief, and one that I hold myself. Students and staff should absolutely be protected in reflecting that view. He leads me on to my next point, which is that for every high-profile case we have discussed in the House today, many more never make the headlines. Underneath these incidents lies a culture where students and academics alike are becoming afraid to discuss and share their views. Last October, the University and College Union published a report showing that 35% of UK academics had undertaken self-censorship for fear of negative repercussions, such as the loss of privileges, demotion or even physical harm. The report’s authors commented:
“Self-censorship at this level appears to make a mockery of any pretence by universities of being paragons of free speech and…the pursuit of knowledge and academic freedom.”
The evidence is clear: free speech and academic freedoms in our universities are under threat, so I welcome the Government amendments that will strengthen the Bill further. Amendments 1, 2 and 16 extend protections to academics by removing the express limitation that academic freedom covers only matters within an academic’s field of expertise. They are important: first, because in many disciplines it would be hard to define exactly where the boundaries of a particular field lie; and secondly, because it is right to recognise that research and ideas do not exist in silos. There are obvious crossovers, for example, between science and ethics, politics and economics, philosophy and history. We need our greatest minds to be free to write, to speak and to conduct research in an unrestricted way for the benefit of our whole society.
Sir John Hayes
As ever, my hon. Friend is making a compelling case. University authorities are often either complicit in this, or in denial. The Bill will send a signal to them that it is simply not good enough to brush the attacks on freedom under the carpet. I hope that she will press the Government to go still further, as I have done, in ensuring that the Bill has all the provisions needed to ensure that freedom is maintained.
Miriam Cates
My right hon. Friend is right: this Bill is an important marker for universities, which will be forced to recognise that these are not specific isolated issues, but that there is a culture change that needs to be addressed across our whole country. We are also seeing it in other countries in the world, particularly America.
I support the amendments to remove the restriction on field of expertise, and I also support Government amendments 3, 4 and 6 to 10, which will ensure that higher education providers cannot require visiting speakers or hosting bodies to bear some or all of the costs of security. This will prevent no-platforming by the back door. As my right hon. Friend the Minister has already said, if universities have a physical safety and security issue on campus, they should urgently address the root of that.
On safety, amendment 18, in the name of the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), would compel the Office for Students, when considering a free speech complaint, to be mindful of the right of students to feel safe on university campuses. I have no doubt that the amendment is well meant, and I listened carefully to his arguments, but I fear that it would further embed the culture and attitudes that have led to the chilling effect on free speech and that have made this Bill necessary.
In the amendment, as on campus, we see the conflation of physical safety with intellectual and emotional comfort. Students should of course be physically safe, and higher education institutions have a duty to follow health and safety law, like all other organisations, but I suspect that is not what the amendment is getting at. Universities should absolutely not be cultivating an atmosphere on campus where students believe they are or should be free from emotional and intellectual discomfort. Just as our bodies must go through training, challenge and discomfort to become physically fit, so our minds must experience challenge, discomfort and sometimes even offence to become stronger, more resilient and more wise.
In the recent book, “The Coddling of the American Mind”, the authors describe “anti-fragility”, the idea that young people’s brains must be exposed to challenges and stresses, or they will fail to mature into strong and capable adults able to engage productively with people and ideas that challenge their beliefs. Nowhere is it more important to understand the concept of anti-fragility than in our universities, where institutions are cultivating minds that will become the thought leaders of tomorrow. Since our universities act as an incubator for wider public culture, we will fail to uphold freedom of debate in this country if we fail to uphold it on campus.
Freedom of speech is the bedrock of democracy. As a recent New York Times editorial put it:
“Ideas that go unchallenged by opposing views risk becoming weak and brittle rather than being strengthened by tough scrutiny.”
We saw the impact of that cancel culture in political and social debate during covid, where damaging, un-evidenced, ineffective and wasteful policies went unchallenged. If we value the kind of rigorous debate that upholds democracy and ensures the best policies are produced, we must not allow this concept creep of the term “safety” on campus.
Despite levelling up, Brexit and enormous economic challenges, this is possibly one of the most important Bills making its way through Parliament, because our ability to unite and level up in this country is threatened by the culture on campus. The starkest division in British society—not only in voting behaviour, but in social values—is between graduates and non-graduates. The trend towards a homogenous worldview in our higher education institutions is exacerbating this division. Instead, we need our universities to be places where it is the norm for competing ideas to co-exist and to be openly interrogated and challenged by evidence.
Jess Phillips
I want to challenge the idea that university students will all be walking like lemmings into the light unless we do something about it. At my university, the right hon. Jack Straw, who was then a Labour MP, was banned from the student union—I forget why. He was the only person it banned, and I walked through that door past the plaque banning him, and I am a Labour MP now. I think the students are probably going to cope with some of this.
Miriam Cates
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. She gave a passionate speech, and I fully support the many things she is doing to uphold women’s rights, but this is needlessly being made a left/right issue. Many of the incidents we have talked about today are about those on the right being cancelled, but it is much wider than that.
Miriam Cates
I am very sorry to hear it. The hon. Lady absolutely should not be. What I am trying to say is that this is a much wider issue than the particular incidents that have made the headlines, and some deeper culture changes need to take place. That will take time, and we need to do a lot in schools as well.
I very much support the Bill. Hopefully it can narrow the divide that we see in society. I very much support the Government amendments, which will do a lot to protect freedom of speech.
Michelle Donelan
With the leave of the House, I will speak on the non-Government amendments. New clause 1 seeks to improve transparency, especially in relation to foreign donations, and new clause 3 would place a duty on higher education providers as part of the promote duty to report information about foreign language, culture and exchange programmes and courses to the Office for Students and the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State would then be empowered to direct them to terminate the partnership or offer an equivalent if there were concerns about freedom of speech.
My hon. Friends are absolutely right to promote the importance of transparency of overseas financial arrangements, and we agree, which is why Government new clause 2 addresses those concerns. New clause 2 also requires the reporting of funding from certain overseas educational partnerships, including Confucius institutes, which addresses new clause 1 and the first part of new clause 3.
New clause 3 would have unintended consequences and place an unnecessary burden on the sector. Under new clause 2, there would be a financial threshold and countries such as NATO allies would be exempt. New clause 3 has no exemptions, which would mean that every single kind of partnership would be covered from the Turing scheme and third-year language students studying abroad with partner universities to important international research exchange programmes. The burden on providers to deal with that information would be disproportionate and would stifle the ability of our world-class universities to work with global partners on important research programmes.
The Government take the concern regarding foreign interference extremely seriously, however, which is why we developed a cross-Government programme of work to counter those threats, and we are continuing to work with providers to help them to understand the threats and respond. Government new clause 2 will help us to do that, and the Office for Students could utilise a range of enforcement powers to issue fines, close programmes such as Confucius institutes, or mandate universities to offer alternatives to students if that was necessary to secure free speech. As I said, however, new clause 3 would have unintended consequences.
Amendments 19 and 20 would provide that a non-disclosure or confidentiality agreement with the governing body of a provider did not mean that members, staff or students and visiting speakers could not speak freely. I stress that I fully support the spirit of this amendment; it is almost unimaginable to think of anything worse than suffering sexual assault and then being pressurised into being silent. I have been very vocal about the fact that our universities should never use NDAs to silence victims of sexual harassment, which is why I launched a pledge in January to end the use of NDAs. Some 66 universities are now signed up, 62 of which are in England, and three Oxford colleges.
We have a long way to go, which is why I am constantly talking to universities and working with Can’t Buy My Silence to call out those who have as yet failed to sign the pledge, but I know that a number will sign imminently. When it comes to the use of NDAs and sexual assault, the higher education sector has an opportunity to lead the way and show others what can be done.
We have also asked the Office for Students to impose a binding condition of registration on universities to ensure that they properly tackle sexual misconduct, which we intend to deal with that sort of behaviour. This would have teeth and it would mean that universities could be fined up to half a million pounds; they could even lose their degree-awarding powers. The ramifications would be big, and it would mean that the lawyers who developed those NDAs would be breaching the registration condition by doing so. We are the first Government who are prepared to tackle this issue, and I shall continue discussing with colleagues on both sides of the House all the ways in which we can tackle sexual harassment in universities, because that issue is very important to me and we will be doing more.
Amendment 17, which would widen the definition of academic freedom, is not necessary, because all the proposed new paragraphs are already covered by Government amendment 1, which will remove the requirement for academic freedom to be within an academic’s field of expertise. New clause 6 would add a new definition of academic staff, which I outlined in my opening speech.
New clause 7 and amendment 21 would change the definition of harassment in the Equality Act 2010 and under the Bill. I fully agree that there are occasions when universities have misapplied the Equality Act and have relied on it to wrongly shut down lawful free speech. There is both a subjective and an objective element as to whether harassment has taken place, and that should not be based on the views of just the complainant. Indeed, we saw a case last week where the University of Essex had to amend its policies following welcome pressure from the Free Speech Union. I assure hon. Members that once the Bill has passed, the new director of the Office for Students will ensure that providers are complying with the Equality Act as it is written, rather than overreaching.
Sir John Hayes
I am grateful that my right hon. Friend is addressing the amendment that stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt). Part of the problem is that universities are drawing up policies for dealing with complaints about free speech and its protection that are themselves faulty; they are often based on advice from individuals and organisations that have a skewed view about the relationship between free speech and the Equality Act. Will she look at those policies and their sources, and the advice that universities are receiving?
Michelle Donelan
My right hon. Friend is correct. As I said, some universities have misinterpreted the Equality Act, which is why comprehensive guidance will be produced by the new director that will be the main source that they should refer to, rather than external agencies.
John McDonnell
On the point about advice, we are dealing with what has obviously become a contentious issue that often relies on subjective judgments. The advice that universities will take will come from the director for freedom of speech and academic freedom. Does it not behove the House to ensure that that person has the absolute confidence of those universities? New clause 4 simply says that that person will not be associated with a political party and will be appointed by an independent panel, and that a Select Committee will have a role in confirming that appointment. That will hopefully take the director who provides such sensitive advice out of the political melee and give universities more confidence in them.
Michelle Donelan
If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will get to that point later; he may intervene again if he is not satisfied with the response.
Amendment 18 would require the Office for Students, when considering a complaint, to be mindful of the right of students to feel safe on campus, and of other legal duties such as those under the Equality Act 2010 and the Prevent duty. But the duty in the Bill to take “reasonably practicable” steps to secure freedom of speech and academic freedom will allow for relevant considerations to be taken into account. In particular, it will allow for other legal duties, such as those under the Equality Act and the Prevent duty, to be considered.
“Reasonably practicable” is a commonly understood term used across the statute book. It means that the relevant body can take into account all the other legal duties on a case by case basis. If another legal duty requires or gives rise to certain action, it would not be reasonably practicable to override that. As for the Office for Students, it will be required to take into account all the relevant facts. It would not be appropriate to try to set out all the considerations that it should take into account, so the Government do not support the amendment.
New clause 4 concerns the appointment of the director for freedom of speech and academic freedom to the board of the Office for Students. It relates to the appointee giving a donation to a political party, and it would require the appointment to be made by an independent advisory panel. We have in this country a robust public appointments process that, rightly, does not bar people who are members of political parties from serving in such roles.
The Commissioner for Public Appointments sets out that every year numerous public appointments are made of individuals who declare political activity, and in many years more appointees have declared an affiliation to the Labour party than to the Conservative party. This rule is such that, if applied generally, it would have prevented individuals such as Alan Milburn, Baroness Falkner and John Cope from serving.
On who will appoint the director, this will be carried out in the same way that the other members of the Office for Students board are appointed under the Higher Education and Research Act 2017—by the Secretary of State—and this will of course be done in accordance with the public appointments process. It would not be consistent to treat the director under this Bill differently. The Government therefore do not support this amendment.
John McDonnell
As this now goes to the other place, could I just ask the Minister to think again on that particular issue? This is an incredibly contentious area, and it requires someone who is above any form of suspicion of party political linkages. More importantly, it requires someone who has the confidence of an independent panel, but also, I believe, of one of our Select Committees. I urge her to think again, at least about the appointments process and the engagement of a confirmatory vote by a Select Committee on this critically important post, which I think is so important that the legislation will stand or fall on this appointment.
Michelle Donelan
I am a little taken aback by the comments of the right hon. Member, who refers to the relationship between political parties as suspicious—quite something given that we are all related to political parties. The Government will not be thinking again on that one.
New clause 5 would introduce a sunset clause, meaning that unless a report is made to Parliament and regulations are made, the legislation would expire three years after the date of enactment, and it would give Ministers the power to discontinue provisions in the Bill after one year. The fact that the Opposition have tabled this amendment demonstrates very clearly that, whatever they say, Labour Members do not support free speech. They have consistently opposed the need for this Bill despite the very clear evidence, and they now are seeking to dismantle it before it has even started. The Government wholeheartedly oppose this amendment, and we will never falter in our determination to safeguard free speech.
With the assurances I have given, I hope Members will not press their amendments to a vote, and I commend this Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 2 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 4
Appointment of the Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom
“(1) A person may not be appointed as the Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom (‘Director’) if the person has at any time within the last three years made a donation to a political party registered under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
(2) The person appointed as the Director may not whilst in office make any donation to a political party registered under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
(3) The appointment for the Director shall be made by an independent advisory panel to be established by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(4) The appointment of the Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom shall be subject to a confirmatory resolution of the relevant Select Committee of the House of Commons.
(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (3) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”—(Matt Western.)
This new clause would ensure that the Director of Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom has not and cannot whilst in office donate to a political party and ensure they are only appointed subject to confirmation of an independent advisory panel, the Select Committee of the House of Commons and a resolution of each House of Parliament.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Michelle Donelan
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I would like to take the opportunity to acknowledge all who have contributed to the Bill’s passage. The nature of the problem and the intensity of those opposed to academic freedom has made even acknowledging the issue an incredibly brave act in many cases. I thank the many right hon. and hon. Members who have raised the issue and contributed to the discussion over the years. In particular, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) and my hon. Friends the Members for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) have played an important part in scrutinising and strengthening the Bill. I thank my right hon. Friends the Members for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), for Harlow (Robert Halfon) and for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) and others for raising the important subject of international donations transparency. I also thank the research institutes and think-tanks who have shone a spotlight on the scale of the problem, such as Policy Exchange, Legatum and the policy institute at King’s College London. Together with the support of the Russell Group, Universities UK and other sector organisations, we on the Government side have been able not only to understand the scale of the problem but to shape the solution.
I was personally moved by much of the oral evidence given in the Public Bill Committee, so I struggle to understand how the Opposition sat there, heard that and yet still failed to back this robust action. Individual academics, such as Professor Kathleen Stock, Professor Nigel Biggar and Dr Arif Ahmed, have also played a fundamental role, raising awareness of the problem and advocating for change, sometimes at significant cost to themselves.
Members from across the House made valuable contributions during the debate and during the passage of the Bill. Some, in fact, highlighted areas of good practice in our universities. Despite pressure to limit free speech, in April Reading University vice-chancellor Robert Van de Noort published a strong, principled defence of academic freedom and freedom of speech that echoed many of the issues the Bill intends to address. The University of Cambridge rightly rejected proposed guidelines that all opinions must conform to the requirement of being “respectful”. Frankly, that would have been absurd.
However, that type of good practice is not always representative of the sector. As just one example, the high rates of self-censorship that numerous surveys and studies have documented show that the problem is widespread. The very nature of self-censorship means that the actual rates are likely to be much higher than reported. Students arriving at university today join an environment where one in four of their peers believe physical violence is justified to shut down views they deem to be hateful. We see that some are too ready to levy the charge of “hateful” at any view they disagree with. Staff are teaching at universities at a time when 200 of their colleagues recently reported receiving death threats and abuse with no support from their universities.
The UK has become the only country in the top tier of academically free countries to be significantly downgraded by the Academic Freedom Index. We are now ranked 63rd in the world. This is at a time when a university professor expressed lawful opinions and ended up needing police protection to visit a university campus. That is the culture that has been embedded in too many of our universities. It is not about lawful, peaceful protest, which of course should be celebrated; it is about a culture in which a small number of students and academics believe they have the right to act with impunity to harass, intimidate and threaten those whose views they disagree with until they are silenced and driven out. Again and again we have seen that occurring, while university authorities stand by and do nothing. No individual should have to fear for their personal safety, or rely on the good will of their colleagues to go about their job safely.
We will not let that continue, so we are taking action and delivering on our manifesto commitment, unlike the Opposition who continue to bury their heads in the sand. Madam Deputy Speaker, indulge me for a moment. Let me remind Opposition Members of some of the comments they have made during the passage of the Bill. One said there was:
“no evidence…of a free speech crisis”. —[Official Report, 12 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 114.]
Others said it was
“tackling a problem that does not really exist.”—[Official Report, 12 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 106.]
and that the legislation is “not necessary” and “manufacturing a problem”. Even the shadow higher education Minister called this a “virtually non-existent problem”. But I fail to believe that the Opposition do not recognise the wealth of evidence that they, too, have heard and seen. It is time that they were honest: they are simply anti-free speech.
This Government will always stand up for free speech, which is why our Bill confirms that it is not acceptable for students, staff or visiting speakers to fear repercussions for exercising their right to lawful freedom of speech and academic freedom. The Bill will also ensure that individuals have routes to redress if their rights are not secured due to breaches of the duties placed on higher education providers and student unions. Under the existing legislative framework, those clear routes of redress do not exist. They are essential to ensure that freedom of speech and academic freedom are protected to the fullest extent. The Bill is about changing the wider culture on university campuses so that everyone has an equal right to be heard and peacefully challenged. That should be done with tolerance of different opinions and in a constructive way. It does not grant any protection to unlawful speech.
Whether some Members realise it or not, change is needed. As we have seen historically on issues such as gender equality, race discrimination and human rights, such cultural change occurs more readily when backed up by appropriate legislation. At present, we have a duty without proper means of enforcement. The Bill is therefore a vital piece of legislation that will lead to the cultural change necessary to tackle the issue at the core. I therefore challenge the Opposition to show the world of higher education that we value freedom of expression the same as we value it here in this place, and to be on the right side of history—the side that stands for free expression, free speech and academic freedom. I commend the Bill to the House.
Matt Western
I extend my thanks to all those involved in the passage of the Bill in Committee and on Second Reading, as well as this evening. I join the Minister in thanking Government Members, as much as those on the Labour Benches. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle), my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) and others. They made constructive comments and contributions to the process in Committee, and I place on record my thanks to them.
As we come to the end of the Commons stages of the Bill, just under a mammoth 400 days since it was first introduced, it is clear that it has been something of a distraction from what really matters to the sector and students. We have just heard, in the urgent question on the Government’s failure to address the dreadful GDP figures, that the UK economy is in a dire position. We are in the midst of the worst cost of living crisis since the 1970s. Three out of every four students are currently worried about managing financially. One in four have less than £50 a month to live on after rent and bills, and 5% of students are using food banks to get by. On the doorstep in Wakefield, when I was talking about some of these issues, someone said to me, “What on earth has that got to do with the price of fish?” She is right. What has this got to do with the price of fish? Put simply, students are not exceptions to the rules of this crisis. The challenges faced by students are a reflection of what is going on in wider society, for sure. The Minister has responded by uplifting student maintenance by just 2.3% this year—2.3%—against a backdrop of an inflation rate pushing 10%, while at the same time ignoring any of the reforms to student maintenance proposed by the Augar review.
Meanwhile, the Government have imposed this piece of unnecessary legislation on the House, expending 30 hours of parliamentary time on this Bill, a Bill primarily searching for a problem—and I will come on to the point of what we would do. Seemingly, despite finding little time to tackle the cost of living crisis, the Government can find time to protect antisemites and people who, in the Ministers’ own words, are aiming to cause deep hurt and offence. Never mind that the Joint Committee on Human Rights’ report into freedom of speech at university in 2018 found there was
“no major crisis of free speech on campus”,
or that research conducted by the Office for Students found that out of over 62,000 requests by students for external speaker events in 2017-2018, only 0.01% were rejected by student unions or university authorities. The Minister seems determined to pursue divisive legislation to stoke culture wars for her own political agenda. Last week, when she addressed the Higher Education Policy Institute conference, she could not substantiate her claims in support of the Bill.
The Government like to present themselves as defenders of freedom of speech, but their actions tell us differently, including their plans to arrest noisy protesters and limit others, to restrict the right to vote through voter ID and their outright attacks on the BBC and plans to privatise Channel 4. The Government are interested in freedom of speech only if that speech is framed in their own image. The Minister says that Labour’s position is absurd. Free speech on our campus but no right to free speech on our streets is utterly absurd. I need not remind the House that Labour has always championed free speech. Indeed, it was a Labour Government who introduced the law guaranteeing freedom of expression.
The issue here is all about evidence, and the point I have just made about the Minister. That is why Labour has deep reservations about the unintended consequences of the Bill. Its top-down, one-size-fits-all approach demonstrates the weakness at the heart of the Government and their misplaced lack of trust in the academic community. When that happens,
“Governments lose faith in academics to protect freedom of speech and step in with legislation. It is what happened in 1986 and it is what is happening again”.
Not my words, but those of one of the Minister’s esteemed predecessors.
Conservative Members cry, “Well, what is Labour’s plan?” That is easy. We believe in adopting best practice off the shelf whenever we can. Our universities and the academics and teaching staff who work within them are world leading. It is no surprise, therefore, that there is a vast array of really good practice out there if the Minister only chose to look—the Manchester guidelines, the Chicago principles or Robert French’s independent review of freedom of speech in Australian higher education, to name but three. Countries around the world have similar issues, but the point is how they go about addressing them. If the Minister were really interested in promoting and protecting freedom of speech and academic freedom, she would encourage this approach across the sector. Such approaches would go a long way to fostering the healthy culture of debate on campus we all want to see. Sometimes institutions and student unions will get it wrong. That is the nature of debates on the parameters of free speech, but it is a small price worth paying for a collective, more consensual approach to protecting freedom of speech on campus.
The Bill will expose universities and student unions to potentially lengthy civil proceedings brought by anti-vaxxers, holocaust deniers or hate preachers. Debates about freedom of speech are complex enough without Ministers creating a legal route open to abuse by vexatious claimants—suppression of debate through what is termed and recognised as lawfare. Despite the Minister repeatedly claiming that this new statutory tort would be an important backstop, there is no reference to that in the Bill. She has failed to put in place any mechanisms to prevent providers, including the 165 further education colleges that fall under the scope of the Bill or student unions, from falling victim to costly litigation. Today the Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned that Government spending on adult education and apprenticeships in England will be 25% lower in 2025 than in 2010. I need not remind the House of how costly lawsuits are. Every 1p spent by institutions defending such claims in the court will be 1p less spent on the student experience, on hardship funds, on new library facilities and on research and development. Those potential legal costs are not even included in the £50 million the Minister’s Department estimates the Bill will cost the sector over the next 10 years.
The public are desperate for the Government to focus on the immediate and very real priorities—the cost of living crisis, energy bills doubling in a year, 40% of households in energy poverty, demand on food banks rocketing and the worst performing economy in the G20 bar one. That country, Russia, is burdened by massive international sanctions. The Government want to spend precious time on pursuing this blatantly ideological legislation that will do nothing for the great British public. It is self-serving, and another demonstration of just how out of touch the Government are. Change should come from the ground up rather than the clunking fist of an embittered Government.
In terms of legislation, the Bill is about as big a Big Dog’s breakfast as it is possible to get. As it progresses to the other place, I very much look forward to many peers taking note of some of our suggestions for improvement. Other than Lord Wharton of Yarm, I believe there will be widespread opposition to the Bill from all parties and indeed the Cross-Bench peers. Given that we have had almost 100 amendments in total to this Bill, and it is only 19 pages long, they will have a lot of areas to choose from. Before it returns, I very much hope that the Government will have started to treat universities as a public good rather than a political battlefield.
Sir John Hayes
I will speak very briefly, making only three points in two minutes.
First, it is disappointing that the Labour party is opposing the Bill. By its nature, it is a party whose Members are elected to a Parliament that has as its foundation the exchange of honestly held opinions. Even at this late stage, I feel that Labour Members might be persuaded to change their mind. I implore them to do so, because it is entirely specious—as the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), who is a thoughtful person, knows—to compare the cost of living with the price of freedom. The price of freedom is the capacity to disarm, to disturb, sometimes to make people feel uncomfortable and certainly to challenge the status quo. That is the nature of academic discourse, yet it is at risk.
Secondly, the evidence is clear. In Committee, Trevor Phillips said that
“in the last three to five years we have seen example after example of where university authorities have essentially abdicated their responsibility to protect their own academics and students.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 23, Q42.]
Professor Biggar said:
“My view is that the Bill would protect lawful free speech.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 24, Q44.]
He went on to say why that was necessary. Professor Ahmed said:
“With regard to self-censorship, my own experience has been that it has changed drastically over the last 10 years…I know that there are people who bite their tongues in the sense that they will not object to certain things that are pointless and stupid, simply because they are afraid of the consequences.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 15, Q26.]
The consequences for academics and students can be dire: they are isolated, they are persecuted and in some cases, as we have heard, they are even driven out of their job.
The Government have got this right, and the Opposition have got it badly wrong. As Members of this House know, I am not a person who thinks that a single party or a single side of the House has a monopoly on wisdom, but on this particular occasion all the wisdom lies with the Government Front Bench. I implore the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington and other Opposition Members to change their mind, look to their conscience and defend freedom of speech, as I know the Minister is doing and the Bill does.
Jim Shannon
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes). Unfortunately, I could not make a speech on Report because I was attending a meeting with the Foreign Secretary about the Northern Ireland protocol, but I want to contribute on Third Reading. I declare an interest as chair of the all-party group on international freedom of religion or belief.
The Bill is critical. I commend the Minister for how she has delivered it and for her speech on Report, which I was able to hear. The Government have delivered the very legislation that I, personally, wish to see. I believe that my constituents and those who write to me—my mailbag is very substantial—also wish to see it. The Government have done a good job today; I am absolutely in favour of the Bill.
I could give examples of Christian conferences not having their dates renewed at universities, or of young Christian unions being pigeonholed by activists into expressing an opinion based on their sincerely held belief, only for it to be cited as hate speech. That is ridiculous, and that is why the Government have introduced legislation, which I very much welcome, to address the matter. The Bill will make a difference and protect Christians and other religious groups. I never thought that we would be in a place where we needed to take these steps, but the fact is that we have to, and the Government have done so.
A minority of people in influential places have been gift-wrapped the ability to halt freedom of speech in our universities, which, instead of being a place of open thought and debate, are now closed to anything that is not of a certain agenda and persuasion. I thank the Minister and our Government for the steps that they have taken to bring the Bill to completion. The Government have ensured that there will be no loopholes that could be used by those who wish to exercise their freedom of speech but who cannot afford others the same very basic right, which the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings referred to on Report and just now.
I am given to understand that reforming the Human Rights Act may have led to the more restrictive definition of academic freedom in the original wording of the Bill, which included a caveat that academic freedom exists only within an academic’s field of expertise. This was expressed to me in a briefing by Universities UK. UUK has subsequently welcomed amendments 1, 2 and 16, which remove the express limitation that academic freedom covers only matters within an academic’s field of expertise, and I agree: a teacher of mathematics should still be able to express his belief about biology in a considerate and kind manner, should the need arise. UUK understands that the Government intend to provide guidance for universities in respect of the new duties in the Bill. That is particularly significant given that duties can often appear to overlap or sit in tension with one another. An example is the Prevent duty, which has legal protection. The Government have enshrined in the Bill protection for the people whom I represent, and, indeed, for people throughout this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
I support the Bill in the hope that we will have freedom of speech, freedom of religion or belief and the freedom to choose no belief, if that is what people want, and that that will be enshrined in our universities rather than this seemingly insidious desire by a select few to shut down debate and oppose anyone who cannot agree with their “enlightenment”. My goodness me, what a poor world it would be if everyone were like that! Jews deserve the right to practise their religion in so far as it does not harm others, as do Muslims, Sikhs and Buddhists. They deserve the right to express their beliefs—as they still do—in a way that does not harm anyone. This is about respect, and I am browned off with seeing so much disrespect for people.
We must also legislate, increasingly, to ensure that those who wish to speak of Christ and His teachings have the right to do so in the halls of their university student unions, and not just in their churches or chapels.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Business without Debate
Business of the House (private members’ Bills)
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I beg to move,
That Private Members’ Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 15 July, 9 September, 16 September, 28 October, 18 November, 25 November, 9 December 2022, 20 January, 3 February, 24 February, 3 March, 17 March and 24 March 2023.
It is good of the Leader of the House to arrange a debate lasting nearly, but not quite, one and a half hours on private Members’ Bills. It may be helpful to Members who are staying for the debate to have copies of the current Standing Orders. I draw their attention particularly to Standing Order 14 (8) and (9), on page 19.
Private Members’ Bills are the only way in which Members who are not in the Government can get legislation through the House and also through the other House, and enable it to become an Act of Parliament. Last year I did that myself, removing some unwanted EU regulations, and I have done it on a number of other occasions. The problem tonight, Madam Deputy Speaker, lies in the dates that have been announced. You will tell me that the Government have to produce 13 sittings in which private Members’ Bills have priority, and that is correct: Standing Order 14(8) says so, and the Government have listed 13 Fridays on today’s Order Paper. I find it regrettable that we do not have a business of the House commission to decide this, but at the moment it is the Government’s privilege.
By the way, before the Whips panic, let me say that I am not seeking to divide the House, so if Members wish to leave—although I am sure they will want to stay and listen to this—they can do so. However, I will ask the Leader of the House to clarify the position. He may have some very good reasons for what the Government have done, but if not, I should like him to think again.
During covid, there have been occasions when the dates for private Members’ Bills have been moved, quite rightly, because of problems with sittings of the House, and I am going to ask the Leader of the House to look at some of these dates again. We also had the absurdity of a Session that went on for two years when only 13 days for private Member’s Bills were listed; the Government eventually had to give us some more. Perhaps I should ask this question straight away. If the current Session goes on for much longer than expected, will we be given extra days for private Members’ Bills?
The crux of the matter, the important part, relates to Standing Order No. 14(9). It is not until after the seventh sitting Friday—in other words, on the eighth sitting Friday—that anyone can bring a Bill that has had its Second Reading back to this House for Report and Third Reading. Once they have succeeded in doing that, it has to go off to the House of Lords. It has always been the Government’s position that they bring forward the private Member’s Bill days early enough so that that process can happen. I am very concerned that, because this is back-loaded, many people who get their Second Reading through will struggle to get the whole process through, because the Bill has to go to the Lords.
This Wednesday, the Members whose names have come up in the ballot will be able to list their private Members’ Bills, and they will do so for the first seven sitting days that are listed. I will apply for maybe one or two—or 20 or 30—private Members’ Bills the following day, as other Members will. However, we are going to be very restricted, even if we can get support from both sides of the House, and the Government and the Opposition, and we might not have enough time to get our Bills through.
Let me point out what the effect of the Standing Order No. 14(9) will be. Looking at the list of dates, we see that no one will be able to bring a Bill back to this House for Report and Third Reading any time this year—in fact, the date is 20 January next year. This has never happened before. For the benefit of Members who might not have been following what is happening on the Order Paper, private Members’ Bill days are listed for 15 July, then two in September, one in October, two in November, one in December and that one in late January. Then there are two in February and three in March. Well, what if we finish in April? That does not give us enough time.
The Leader of the House might have a very good reason for doing this, and I would be happy with that. I hope it is not because some of the names that came out of the ballot were those of Opposition Members who might have nasty Bills that the Government do not like but that the House does like. Could the Leader of the House explain, in his response—if he is able to respond—why he has scheduled six of these Fridays for next year? We have always had them earlier so that we had time to get the Bills through this House.
After Second Reading, we have to get the Bills into Committee—and by the way, we can have only one private Member’s Bill in Committee at any one time, so there will be a delay there—but then we will not be able to bring them back until 20 January. If we bring them back on 20 January, they will not automatically get through. We might get one Bill through, but if my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) and I do not like that, there will be a bit of a problem on 20 January.
We are actually making the private Member’s Bill process difficult. I know that the Government love private Members’ Bills, because so many went through last year, so could the Leader of the House put me at ease and assure me that this is not some Machiavellian thing that has been thought up in the Whips Office or anywhere in the Leader of the House’s office? Perhaps he could look at bringing forward some of those dates so that we could have more time for private Members’ Bills.
This is an important aspect of what we do in this House. Some private Members’ Bills go through. Mine did last year, which was important but minor. However, some are massive Bills—I mean, gosh, there might be one on assisted dying or something like that this time. I am just guessing, but there are huge issues that this House wants to debate, and it seems to me that this small motion before us tonight is hindering that process.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mark Spencer)
I am disappointed by the lack of optimism from my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone). Thirteen colleagues got private Members’ Bills through both Houses last year, despite covid affecting their progress, so it was a great success. It is constructive to work with the Whips Office, which can assist and advise Members on both sides of the House.
My hon. Friend says the Government might be motivated by trying to stop Opposition Members’ Bills that we do not like, but I suggest there is far more danger that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) will block the progress of those Bills.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough says we will not get through all the private Members’ Bills. He might be able to enlighten the House on the date of the next Queen’s Speech, but I am not in possession of that information. I encourage him to be optimistic and to work with the Government, Back-Bench colleagues and the Whips Office. I am sure right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will have huge amounts of success.
Question put and agreed to.
Falklands War: 40th Anniversary
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
On 1 April 1982, the Argentine junta launched a full-scale invasion of a then little-known archipelago 8,000 miles from Britain in the south Atlantic ocean. The following day, their forces were in control of the entire islands and so began the Falklands war.
The Argentine dictatorship believed that Britain would be unwilling to liberate the islands, and the US navy believed any effort to do so would be a “military impossibility.” Despite the received wisdom, the UK assembled a taskforce at breakneck speed—the first since the second world war to use all elements of our armed forces. What followed were 74 days of extreme hardship, intense violence and unspeakable bravery. It is right we remember that collective sacrifice, 40 years on.
Thirty thousand sailors, royal marines, soldiers, airmen and merchant mariners took the long voyage south. Tragically, 255 of them did not make the return journey home. Many thousands more still live with the mental and physical effects of that bloody struggle. No matter what we think of the decisions that sent our people into conflict down the ages, whether to Gallipoli, Goose Green or Gereshk, we have a duty to support the men and women who step forward to serve in our armed forces and a duty to bear witness to their sacrifice.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
We are all indebted to the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. I have been contacted by two constituents in particular, one lives in Carrowdore and the other in Comber, who served in the Falklands—there are others, too—and who live with the trauma 40 years later. Last night’s television programme gave an example of that.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important to note this anniversary not simply for the families of the 258 British personnel who were killed and the 777 who were wounded but as a reminder to the residents of the Falkland Islands that they were and are worth our support? We will continue to support them for as long as they wish to be considered British and entitled to our defence support. We stand as strongly with the Falklands today as we did 40 years ago.
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I completely agree with the important point he has made, as I am sure all Members of this House will. Further to his point, and in deference to him as a good friend and colleague, I wish to take this opportunity to say that the contribution from our friends in Northern Ireland cannot be understated. I recently read about Sue Warner, a Belfast nurse who received a peace prize in Buenos Aires 40 years after serving on the SS Uganda, where she treated both British and Argentine personnel who had horrific injuries. That is a reminder of just how collective the Falklands effort truly was and of course of the contribution made by those from Northern Ireland.
There have been considerable recent efforts to ensure that the Falkland Islands conflict is properly commemorated, and I commend everyone who has contributed to that important process. I had the honour of attending a commemoration at Sheffield cathedral to mark the loss of HMS Sheffield and all those who perished aboard it. I was particularly pleased to see that Mr Speaker braved the south Atlantic ice and snow to take the opportunity to remember all of those who fought and died at the battle of Goose Green.
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. He mentions the events being held at the moment to commemorate the Falklands war. Will he join me in paying tribute to all those who have been taking part in the Falklands 40 bike ride, which came through my constituency last week, particularly my constituents Gus and Angela Hayles?
The ride is 255 miles long and is going from Cardiff to Aldershot. Gus was a Royal Engineer Paratrooper, and Angela served in the Royal Army Nursing Corps. Gus has been a committed campaigner, not just for Falklands veterans, but for veterans’ mental health. Knowing the hon. Gentleman’s experience, I wondered whether he would join me in congratulating them on their achievement.
Dan Jarvis
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. Of course I take the opportunity to congratulate all of those who have been involved in what sounds like an epic bike ride. Further to the contribution she has just made, I wish to say something else. I will go on to talk about the character and fighting spirit of all of those who deployed down to the Falklands. That was a very significant element in enabling our being able to secure a victory in very challenging circumstances, but another element underpinned that victory: training. Much of that training will have been conducted in her wonderful constituency, which, as she knows, I hold in the highest regard. I have mostly, though not exclusively, happy memories of my time on the Brecon Beacons and on Sennybridge, in good and bad weather. I am grateful to her for her contribution and for the work she does representing our armed forces community.
I was just reflecting on the various attempts and contributions that have been made by different organisations to ensure that we properly commemorate this important milestone, not least by the Royal British Legion. It has, in customary fashion, gone to great lengths to organise a service to mark the end of the conflict, and that will be taking place at the national memorial arboretum tomorrow. On Wednesday, Parliament will come together in a remembrance service. I know there have been hundreds of services, tributes and pilgrimages conducted over the past few weeks, both here and on the Falkland Islands.
Many of us will have our own memories. I think particularly of Brian Hanrahan’s legendary quote:
“I counted them all out and I counted them all back”.
That will stay with me forever. However, we reach this milestone when the Falklands is at some risk of becoming a forgotten war, as research from Help for Heroes has recently revealed. Such an outcome would represent a collective failure to ensure the sacrifices made on both sides stand for all time. I truly hope that efforts over the past months will rebuild public awareness.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Once again, I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate to the House. I spent a fair bit of time in the Falklands and I am very familiar with the environment, having served down there. Those who have been to the Falklands know that it is a very austere, difficult, tricky environment, particularly in the winter. It is appalling under foot. Madam Deputy Speaker, we can both recall the images on the screens back in 1982, when I was 12 years old.
I want to make two points. First, does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should pay tribute to the 255 members of Her Majesty’s forces who were killed, the three islanders who lost their lives and the Argentine fallen, who were just doing what they were ordered to? Secondly, does he agree that the demands we made of our armed forces in 1982 are as applicable today as they were then and that, as we have seen over the years in Afghanistan, Iraq and all the other theatres we have asked our people to serve in, we need to maintain our forces at the very highest readiness, with the best kit and the best training, so that if the Falklands or anything like it happens again, we are ready?
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Gentleman has made some incredibly important points, and done so very eloquently. Of course I agree with everything that he has just said.
There are many chapters of the Falklands story that need to be told. There is the bravery of the Royal Marines on the ground, and that of the pilots and aircrew in the skies above them. There is also the determination of the sailors, without whom no operation, let alone victory, would have been possible.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
The success of our Royal Navy and Royal Marines would not have been possible if not for the work of the civilians supporting the fleet, including the dockyard workers at Devonport, in the constituency I represent. They do not always get their story told in the commemorations, so will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute not only to the Devonport dockyard workers but to all the civilians in dockyards throughout the United Kingdom who supported the fleet in preparation and on the way back?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The great ocean city of Plymouth has an important story to tell in the context of the Falkland Islands conflict, and he makes an important point about the huge contribution made by civilians. Those who step forward to serve in the armed forces do so knowing that they are backed by the outstanding efforts of the hundreds of thousands of good men and women who serve as civilians. My hon. Friend is a doughty champion for them and makes an important point, and I am grateful to him for doing so.
We should also reflect on the terrible suffering endured by the Welsh Guards on the Royal Fleet Auxilliary Sir Galahad, and on the hard-won victory of the Scots Guards on Mount Tumbledown. I am always enthralled by what the Gurkhas, recruited from south Asia, made of their deployment to the south Atlantic. The Special Air Service and the Special Boat Service played a crucial role, but much of their heroism remains untold. As the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) rightly said a moment ago, we should also remember and commemorate the hardship experienced by Argentine forces, who lost 649 personnel.
I hope the House will understand why I now wish to speak primarily about the legacy left by the forefathers in my own regiment—a legacy that my generation and those that followed attempted to live up to. The Paras who went down south occupy a legendary place in the annals of airborne history—none more so than the platoon sergeant of 4 platoon, B company, 3 Para, Sergeant Ian McKay.
Sergeant McKay was born in Wortley, Barnsley, and his story is still recounted and learned by every single fledging paratrooper to this day. Marica McKay, Ian’s widow, remembers that it began when her late husband sat down for dinner one evening in their home and the phone rang:
“I put his dinner in a Tupperware container and he went straight away. He just said, ‘I’ve got to go.’”
With that, Ian and his comrades prepared to set sail. Intensive training was conducted on the voyage: signals, weapons, fitness, medical and fieldcraft over and over again until the battalion arrived six weeks later at Port San Carlos.
After assuming defensive positions, 3 Para were ordered to move to Teal Inlet— the first leg of a 60-mile gruelling march under brutal conditions. They would then advance to set up a headquarters for the assault on Mount Longdon—part of a three-phase plan to capture Port Stanley and end the war.
The battle for Mount Longdon was ferocious, chaotic and bloody. The accounts of close-quarter combat are among the most violent ever recorded. The ground had been occupied for weeks by Argentine forces. They were dug-in and well-defended by machine guns, mortars and artillery. All approaches had been mined. Despite the threat, it was an era when body armour was not issued. The only protection provided was parachute helmets—great when a soldier smacked their head after a heavy landing, practically useless in a gun fight or mortar strike. If they did get hit, wounded soldiers might have to wait 10 hours for evacuation. One Army surgeon from the campaign later compared the casualty evacuation procedure of the Falklands to the first world war and even to the Boer war.
It was not just the enemy with which 3 Para had to contend. The June South Atlantic weather is an unforgiving, unrelenting beast, as Mr Speaker will no doubt recently have observed. The second-hand winter clothing that was issued belonged in the bargain bin of an Army surplus stores, not on the backs of some of our most elite troops. Icy rain and biting wind swept across the barren landscape, quickly forcing temperatures well below zero. Some of the most robust collapsed with exposure and exhaustion. As times go, they were tremendously hard. None the less, overcoming such adversity is what is demanded of those who wear the coveted maroon beret.
It is impossible to put into words the courage, selflessness and valour displayed by Sergeant McKay in the dark, cold early hours of the morning of 12 June 1982 on Mount Longdon. His citation is as close as we will get, so I would like to take the opportunity to share part of it with the House:
“The enemy fire was still both heavy and accurate, and the position of the platoons was becoming increasingly hazardous. Taking Sergeant McKay, a corporal and a few others, and covered by supporting machine gun fire, the platoon commander moved forward to reconnoitre the enemy positions, but was hit by a bullet in the leg, and command devolved upon Sergeant McKay.
It was clear that instant action was needed if the advance was not to falter and increasing casualties to ensue. Sergeant McKay decided to convert this reconnaissance into an attack in order to eliminate the enemy positions. He was in no doubt of the strength and deployment of the enemy as he undertook this attack. He issued orders, and, taking three men with him, broke cover and charged the enemy position.
The assault was met by a hail of fire. The corporal was seriously wounded, a private killed and another wounded. Despite these losses, Sergeant McKay, with complete disregard for his own safety, continued to charge the enemy position alone. On reaching it, he despatched the enemy with grenades, thereby relieving the position of the beleaguered 4 and 5 platoons, who were now able to redeploy with relative safety. Sergeant McKay, however, was killed at the moment of victory, his body falling on the bunker.
Without doubt, Sergeant McKay’s action retrieved a most dangerous situation and was instrumental in ensuring the success of the attack. His was a coolly calculated act, the dangers of which must have been all too apparent to him beforehand. Undeterred, he performed with outstanding selflessness, perseverance and courage. With a complete disregard for his own safety, he displayed courage and leadership of the highest order, and was an inspiration to all those around him.”
Sergeant McKay was an inspiration not just to all those around him, but to every paratrooper who came after him, myself included. The war was over two days later. He was subsequently awarded a Victoria Cross, one of only two recipients in the campaign. The other award, also posthumous, went to Lieutenant Colonel “H” Jones, commanding officer of 2 Para, for his valour at Goose Green days earlier. There were, of course, countless acts of extraordinary bravery that were not formally recognised, not least the actions of Corporal Stewart McLaughlin, also killed in action on Mount Longdon. My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), who is not able to be with us this evening, has long championed ending that oversight.
Yesterday marked 40 years since Sergeant McKay relinquished his chance to go home so that others could. On the memorial erected at the spot at which he fell are inscribed the immortal words from the Gospel of John:
“Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”
Never were those words more fitting. While at sea, Sergeant McKay wrote a letter to a friend to say:
“I have no intention of taking any risks and getting killed. If I do, then it will be to protect my men, to save lives.”
To write such a thing is one matter; to act when the moment arrives is quite another, but that is exactly what Sergeant McKay did.
Today, 40 years on, we recognise Sergeant McKay’s sacrifice and the sacrifice of everyone who fell during the Falklands conflict. We pay tribute to all those who went down south, and we stand with the many who still bear the scars of the conflict. It is a debt we can never repay, but one that we must always remember.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) on securing this debate and his excellent exposition of the conflict.
The Falklands war touched every part of the UK, including people in my Meon Valley constituency. I was a student during the Falklands conflict and followed it closely, not least because several of my parents’ friends, whom I had known for most of my childhood, were deeply involved. Sir Robin Fearn was head of the South American desk at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; General Sir Richard Trant was land deputy commander, and Captain Lyn Middleton was captain of the HMS Hermes.
Meon Valley, with its closeness to Portsmouth, has many connections to the Royal Navy. Two of my constituents, Captain David Hart Dyke and Ian Young, served on HMS Coventry; many will remember hearing of its attack and sinking. Another friend, John Troy, was in his first year in the Royal Navy, and was also on HMS Coventry. It was hit by two bombs and rapidly flooded, capsizing within half an hour with the loss of 19 lives. What they saw must have affected them for the rest of their lives but, typically, they rarely talk about it. Some 22 ships were hit, with 82 lives lost and many more physically affected.
I have since met many others, such as Chris Purcell and his wife Louise, who do so much for other Falklands veterans and raise huge amounts for the Poppy Appeal. They also raise awareness of the mental health of many of those returning. So many young men returned with physical scars, but also mental ones.
I was privileged to know Lieutenant Commander Brian Dutton, who died a few years ago. |He was a Royal Navy diver, who defused many mines and bombs, including one 1,000 pound bomb on HMS Argonaut. Another friend, who has sadly died of ovarian cancer, was Vikki. She was married to John Hamilton, who got the Military Cross and died in a firefight on West Falklands, allowing his troop to escape. Recently, his extraordinary part in the war as part of the special services has been released.
There are many more heroes whom I have not met, but my trip to the Falklands as part of the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme helped me to understand what it must have been like on the ground, and those names that we were to hear many times in 1982, such as Goose Green, Bluff Cove, Mount Tumbledown and Stanley, became real.
I pay tribute to the sacrifices of our service personnel and their families. Even 40 years after the events, I understand the pain and grief that the relatives of those who lost their lives must feel, but I have also seen the deep gratitude of the people who live there, who have been honouring our forces and those who worked with them.
We must not allow unprovoked aggression to pay, and the Falklands conflict should be a lesson to anyone who tries. We will not forget.
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Leo Docherty)
It is a singular honour for me to have the privilege to respond to the debate. The House is moved by and very grateful for the contribution made by the hon. and gallant Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) and I am glad that we also had contributions from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), my hon. Friends the Members for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones) and for Bracknell (James Sunderland), the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) and my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond), who reflected on themes such as the important role of the Royal Navy and the remarkably austere conditions in the Falkland Islands. I was also pleased to hear about the Falklands bike ride to Aldershot by Gus and Angela—something that I will look out for this week.
Let me pick up some of the themes considered by the hon. and gallant Member for Barnsley Central. First, there is the theme of commemoration. We are all making a collective effort to ensure that this is not a forgotten war. I am pleased that over the past 74 days there have been some very significant commemorative events. Back in April, I was honoured to commemorate the start of hostilities in St Paul’s cathedral with members of the South Atlantic Medal Association. You yourself, Mr Speaker, held a magnificent beating the retreat last week. All those various activities will culminate in the national moment of commemoration at the arboretum tomorrow. I will be privileged to attend that very significant event, and Members from both sides of the House will also attend. Of course, all Members will attend events in their own constituencies. It will be my particular privilege to meet a large group of Parachute Regiment veterans at the home of the British Army in Aldershot for a very special moment this coming Saturday.
The fact that 255 men were killed in action, seven ships were sunk, three Falkland Islanders were killed and 30,000 men and women served and received the South Atlantic medal gives us some sense of the scale of all this. We must put on record very clearly our sincere thanks to all those forces in all three domains, whether land, sea or air. In commemoration of the important role played by the Falkland Islands civilians, we are very pleased that city status has been granted to Stanley by Her Majesty the Queen in this jubilee year. That is a fitting addition to the programme of commemoration and celebration.
I think we were all moved by the reflections of the hon. and gallant Member for Barnsley Central, particularly about Sergeant McKay VC. That has a broader relevance— what I would describe as the remarkable airborne ideal. The example shown by and the reputation and commitment of Ian McKay VC had an impact on this generation like no other. Like the hon. and gallant Member, I am sure, it was reading accounts of Mount Longdon, Goose Green and Tumbledown that first drew me to an interest in the Brigade of Guards and subsequently airborne forces. The airborne ideal had a very fine expression during the Falklands conflict, but it is broader than just the Parachute Regiment. It applied to the remarkable men of 3 Commando Brigade, 40, 45 and 42 Commando, the 5th Infantry Brigade, the Welsh Guards and the Scots Guards. It applied to the 1st and 7th Gurkhas, who performed so valiantly on Mount William. It applied to all attached arms of Royal Engineers, gunners, air defence, artillery, Royal Navy, Fleet Air Arm and Royal Air Force. It was a remarkable feat of combined arms, because no one arm would have been successful without the contribution of the other. In a simple metaphor, we might see the land forces—the Army—as the fist that was launched by the Royal Navy to liberate the Falkland Islands while being protected by the remarkable heroics in the air of the Fleet Air Arm and the Royal Air Force.
We were pleased as a House that the hon. and gallant Member for Barnsley Central was able to read in complete length the citation of Sergeant Ian McKay. I thought that was a very important moment. I should mention, in parallel, a source of inspiration for me, one which many people who have come into the military in the past 20 years have. On my first day at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, I saw my first company sergeant major, Mark Cape, who was there in his Blues jumper, wearing his South Atlantic medal. It was the sight of that medal and hearing later about his experiences as an 18-year-old guardsman, fighting his way victoriously up the scree and crags of Tumbledown, that at that point provided such a deep source of inspiration. After my very short and entirely undistinguished military career, it has nevertheless continued to be a source of deep inspiration. I am therefore grateful for the hon. and gallant Gentleman’s similar reflections on the role of Ian McKay in his military career, and I am sure that all those who have served would have similar experiences and similar points of reference because of the formational nature of the Falklands war.
Drawing to a conclusion, I want to touch on two other enduring lessons of the Falklands conflict that are particularly in our minds during this 40th anniversary. The first is the legacy of human cost. I mentioned the South Atlantic medal, and we have some 30,000 awarded. As Churchill said:
“A medal glitters, but it also casts a shadow.”—[Official Report, 22 March 1944; Vol. 398, c. 872.]
That is the case for the 255 British service personnel and the three Falkland Islands civilians killed, but also for the 649 Argentinians who were killed, because behind every casualty statistic, there is a family. For that family, their experience and their burden started in 1982, and it did not end. Earlier last month, I was privileged to meet the families of those killed in the Falklands conflict in St Paul’s, and I am looking forward to seeing some of those airborne families again in Aldershot this Saturday. That is a very significant, enduring impact. We must always remember the human legacy and the human cost of war. That theme will be reflected in events over the next week.
The last lesson I want to draw is a simple one, which is very relevant today, about the power of resolve in military affairs, and the power of what we can achieve when we conduct combined arms warfare properly. The Falklands conflict demonstrates all that is good and best about the power of British military determination and what it can do when it is combined with a very clear and resolute foreign policy in the interest of freedom and as a guardian of freedom. In 1982, our Prime Minister at the time said:
“peace, freedom and justice are only to be found where people are prepared to defend them.”
We have heard about the men and women who were prepared to defend them in 1982. That is still the case, because they set an example to us all, for which we are eternally grateful.
Mr Speaker
It was a long time before a Speaker visited the Falklands—in fact, I was the first to do so. I thank the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) for making the point about the conditions: I had never seen snow or frost like it. When I got there and saw the moving situation of where Colonel H. Jones fell defending democracy, it was unbelievable. I will never be moved in that way again, and to lay the wreath was so important for me. On my previous visit, I went to Mount Longdon and saw where Sergeant McKay fell as well. There is nothing more moving than seeing, in the worst weather conditions ever, what we had to do to fight for the rights of the people and the Falkland islanders. John David Stroud, my constituent—well, he was not at the time; I am not old enough—died on HMS Glamorgan, so we all have a connection, we all know somebody, and we all want to unite. There is no better time for the House than when we are brought together at times such as this—a very important 40th anniversary. I remind hon. Members that the service for the Falklands will be in St Margaret’s after Prime Minister’s questions. I want as many hon. Members as possible to turn up and take part.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Trudy Harrison)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2022.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.
This draft statutory instrument corrects an error in the recent Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) (Amendment) Regulations 2022, which govern goods vehicle operator licensing regimes in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The purpose of the original instrument was to make necessary changes to the legislation governing those regimes. The UK was obliged to implement the changes in the instrument following commitments included in the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement, the TCA.
The purpose of this draft instrument is to correct the original instrument, which went beyond the policy intentions. The intent was that the original regulations would apply only to the operation of goods vehicles. By mistake, however, one provision also applied to the operation of passenger vehicles. In doing so, it disrupted the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981, making the regulation of passenger vehicles somewhat more complex. That is of course an error that we must fix. The traffic commissioners have been able to continue their important work for the past three months, but the error has added complication and is not sustainable in the long term.
The vital aim of both our goods and passenger operator licensing regimes is to ensure that goods and people are transported fairly and safely. Given the distances covered on UK roads by vehicles, and the potential risks to road safety posed by their use, maintaining high standards for UK operators is a key part of maintaining and improving the standing and reputation of the industry, which plays such a vital role in the UK economy.
Our intention was to correct the error with a statutory instrument using the negative procedure; and, in draft, we laid a correcting instrument on 25 February with that in mind. Following consideration of the correcting instrument by the sifting Committees, however, it was determined that the affirmative procedure would be more appropriate. The original instrument has been debated and has now come into force. The correcting draft instrument before us is slightly different from the one laid in February, because it will be made after, instead of before, the main statutory instrument.
This draft instrument will correct the error in regulation 7 of the original instrument. Due to how it was drafted, regulation 7 of that instrument erroneously applied certain provisions to road passenger transport operations. The error had the effect of applying the provisions to all transport managers of certain road goods vehicle operations and road passenger transport operations. That was not the intention of the policy; the changes made in the original instrument were intended to apply only to goods vehicle operator licences, as required by the TCA. Road passenger transport is governed under a separate title of the TCA. Therefore, changes to goods transport are not applicable to passenger transport. As a result of the relaying of this correcting instrument via the affirmative procedure, the error has been in force for about three months.
Working alongside the regulators in the industry—the traffic commissioners—we identified available options using case law, rather than legislation, to minimise the impact of the legislative gap. We are, however, eager to ensure that the gap is closed as soon as possible.
Let me turn to the practical implications. The effect of the error has been to make the regulation of transport managers of road passenger transport operators slightly more complex. The error relates only to transport managers within the public service vehicles jurisdiction—those already on licences and subject to regulatory intervention, or those who seek to be nominated as transport managers. Over 2019-20, only 19 transport managers may have been affected by such action.
A combination of existing legal provisions, case law and published guidance that reflects judicial decisions from previous appeal cases has assisted the continued effective regulation in the area, and this has managed to avoid any real-world effects, such as those relating to road safety. The traffic commissioners have taken particular care to communicate the decisions carefully during the gap period, and their continued hard work is much appreciated.
The original regulations were introduced to ensure that the UK upheld our obligations under the TCA. Since being introduced, they have ensured that UK-EU trade flows can continue. Once this correcting instrument is made, the regime as it applies to the transport managers working in the goods transport industry will continue to be included in the scope of the original instrument, as intended, and those working in road passenger transport will no longer be in scope. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Stringer. I must say I have a sense of déjà vu; after speaking on the original SI some months ago, I can only hope that further errors do not come to light and this does not become a trilogy.
We do not oppose the SI. The logistics sector has already faced unprecedented chaos in recent months, and it should not be thrown into yet more turmoil due to the Government’s mistake. However, I would like the Minister to address a number of serious points. The Committee would have been completely unnecessary if the Department for Transport got it right to begin with. It does not bode well that the Department in charge of transport links that passengers rely on cannot even get a piece of secondary legislation right first time around.
During the debate on the original SI, the Minister led the Committee to believe that the issue would be rectified before the legislation came into force. She stated that the second SI could be made imminently using negative procedure, but we now know that that was wrong, too. The first SI came into force on 17 March—almost three months ago—but only now is the correcting SI making progress. How has the Department once again got this so wrong? On what basis did it mistakenly believe that the issue could be rectified using the negative procedure? Why has it taken three months since the first SI came into force to put it right?
By inadvertently misleading the Committee in this way, the first SI was passed on what turned out to be a false basis. It is vital that Members are fully informed when deciding on legislation; that is a fundamental bedrock of our parliamentary system and its democratic duty to scrutinise the Executive. Concrete steps must therefore be taken to ensure that we never again see a repeat of this blatant incompetence, which undermines that function.
During the debate on the first SI, the Minister expressed regrets at the error. Her ministerial colleague in the other place, Baroness Vere of Norbiton, stated that
“the causes are being addressed urgently as part of our wider review of SI processes.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 March 2022; Vol. 819, c. GC490.]
Given that three months have now passed, will the Minister update the Committee on what progress her Department has made? Will she urgently look at the mistakes that culminated in the inadvertent misleading of the previous Committee?
Moving on to matters of substance, chaos at ports is having a major impact on British business. We are now merely weeks away from the summer holidays, when passenger numbers are expected to spike, but still we are lacking a plan from the Government to deal with that issue. The industry is calling out for support, but its call has fallen on deaf ears. It was inevitable that the implementation of more checks on food products would be delayed yet again, but this instrument just kicks the can further down the road for the fourth time. When will the Government produce an effective long-term strategy to fix the crisis at Dover? When will they give the industry the guidance it needs on future checks? The industry needs certainty and stability, but at the moment all it is getting is delays, empty words and a Department that cannot even get the basics right.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. It was nice to hear the Minister’s speech and learn something about procedure in this place. We have batted between negative and positive procedures and so on, so I feel I have learned something today.
I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough, who spoke from the Front Bench. I speak to people in my trade union, Unite—for the record, I should point out that Unite appears in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as having supported me in the past—and that union, which represents people in the road haulage sector, is crying out for fundamental change, whether in respect of members being forced to work longer and unsafe hours or the lack of support in terms of, for example, truck stops. I hope that part of the responsibility of the designated responsible person—the transport manager mentioned in the proposed regulations—will be to look after their employees in what is an arduous and difficult profession, with long hours spent on the road, away from home. People are driven—no pun intended—to work longer hours and do further miles, which has a real safety implication.
Has the Minister noticed the growing trend for decorative lighting on heavy goods vehicles, including blue decorative lighting, some of which flashes? I mention that because I am pretty sure that such lighting contravenes the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986. If we see blue lights in the rear-view mirror at night, we assume it is an emergency vehicle and try to get out of the way. Will the responsible people—the transport managers designated in the regulations—have responsibility for maintaining the road traffic standards on the construction and use of heavy goods vehicles so that drivers will no longer be confused at night by decorative lights that masquerade as emergency vehicles? The Minister might not respond directly to those points, because I am not sure that they fall wholly within the regulations, but I would be grateful if she could give them some consideration.
Trudy Harrison
I thank hon. Members for their contributions. As I set out in my opening speech, the regulations will correct an error in the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) (Amendment) Regulations 2022.
Let me respond to the points that have been made. The Department for Transport has drafted 100 SIs in 2022 so far, and there were 223 SIs in 2021, so we are a very busy Department. That is, of course, no excuse, so we have set up the SI delivery reform programme to assess how we need to make further improvements and support the many staff who have been working hard to draft complicated SIs in what I think everybody would agree have been fairly adverse times over the past few years. I would be happy to share with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough the findings of that programme when it concludes.
I do not downplay the importance of resolving the error, but the effective operation of the operator licensing regime has meant the traffic commissioners have been able to mitigate any real-world impact as a result of the error over the gap period. I put on the record my personal thanks to them for that. In practice, the issue relates only to those transport managers within the public service vehicles jurisdiction—either those who are already on licences and are subject to regulatory intervention, or those who seek to be nominated as transport managers. By correcting the error, which is absolutely the right thing to do—we have been honest and forthright in doing so today—we can ensure that the regime will apply only to transport managers who work in the goods transport industry, as was originally intended.
The hon. Member for City of Chester invited me to discuss flashing lights on heavy goods vehicles. He made an important point, but I am not the Minister responsible for roads, so will endeavour to write to him with information on that specific point. On how we are improving facilities for heavy goods vehicle drivers generally, the Chancellor recently committed a further £32.5 million, in addition to more than 30 measures, to improve the conditions and attract more people to the freight and logistics sector.
I thank all Members for their participation in the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Code of Practice for Examining Officers and Review Officers) Order 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security and Borders (Damian Hinds)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Code of Practice for Examining Officers and Review Officers) Order 2022.
This statutory instrument will give effect to the draft code of practice that covers the exercise of counter-terrorism port examination powers under schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000. The powers were amended by the Nationality and Borders Act 2022.
Counter-terrorism officers who use schedule 7 port examination powers must do so in accordance with the relevant code of practice. While the code largely reflects the primary legislation, it also includes further procedural guidance for those exercising the powers and additional safeguards for those subject to them.
In passing the Nationality and Borders Act, the House approved amendments to the powers under schedule 7 that have necessitated changes to the code of practice. The code now reflects the amended provisions under schedule 7, which allow officers to examine individuals away from port areas in the following circumstances: first, the individual must either be detained or in custody under relevant provisions of the Immigration Acts; secondly, the individual must have arrived in the UK by sea and been apprehended within 24 hours of their arrival; and, thirdly, a period of five days beginning on the day after their apprehension must not have expired.
That will allow officers to examine those who, following their irregular arrival in the UK, have been moved from a port location or are encountered inland. In short, those who have arrived irregularly by sea will now be subject to the same powers as if they had arrived through conventional means, adding a further protective layer to our existing precautions. The draft code before us includes changes to cover the exercise of that amended power, as well as several other minor changes to clarify language around existing safeguards.
The code was subject to public consultation earlier this year. In response to feedback, we clarified officers’ responsibility to inform those being examined that the purpose of the examination is not to gather evidence or information on any potential immigration offences.
The UK and its citizens continue to face the threat of terrorism from those who are intent on harming and dividing us. The provisions within this statutory instrument will support the police in their tireless efforts to keep us safe from such threats. I commend the draft order to the Committee.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Ms Elliott.
I thank the Minister for his opening remarks. I was listening carefully. He and his colleagues will be aware that the Opposition expressed a series of grave concerns about the Nationality and Borders Act, which allowed for these provisions, but we very much recognise the practical nature of the changes in the draft order as we work collectively to keep our nation safe. We are satisfied that changes to the code of practice for examining and review officers under schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act are proportionate and appropriate to keep the country safe from the threat of terrorism.
The Minister outlined that this draft legislation will extend existing powers for use away from UK ports in specific circumstances. We recognise that small boats continue to arrive at varied locations, including remote beaches outside established travel hubs, and that measures have to be able to respond to that challenge. As the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Jonathan Hall QC, said in his consultation response:
“In principle, people arriving irregularly in the UK, should be liable to counterterrorism examination, as much as those arriving at sea ports and airports.”
I welcome that the Government have been clear that the powers cannot be used as a mass screening mechanism and that the provisions in the new order remain entirely separate from immigration enforcement, given our staunch opposition to the immigration and asylum changes brought about by the Nationality and Borders Act. We feel that the consultation and the Government’s response to it have improved this delegated legislation, and we particularly welcome the response I mentioned provided by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Jonathan Hall QC.
If I may, I will ask the Minister to respond to two particular points. The consultation responses highlighted the fact that clarification would be beneficial about which facilities would be included under paragraph 28 of the draft revised code, which states that the
“presence of the person in an immigration detention centre, police station or equivalent location”
in certain specified circumstances may support an officer’s belief that a schedule 7 examination can be conducted. I note that the Government recognised the calls for clarity about the use of equivalent locations but argued that for the code to exhaustively categorise or list the various types of location would risk excluding some relevant locations or facilities simply because they were not explicitly included. Saying that is particularly relevant where some facilities are operationalised or closed at short notice—for example, because of covid-19.
Needless to say, given some of the facilities that were operationalised at short notice by the Home Office during the covid pandemic, and operationalised without public health guidance being adhered to, I would have liked to see a list of suitable equivalent locations available for scrutiny and would still urge the Government to consider that further.
We endorse the recommendation that examination locations are also able to be inspected under article 4 of the optional protocol to the convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, to ensure that we are in keeping with article 6 of the European convention on human rights, and we hope that the Minister will confirm that that is the case. We also support Jonathan Hall’s recommendation that consideration should be given to training counter-terrorism police officers to deal with individuals who have arrived in the UK irregularly and therefore have special welfare considerations. We note that the Government have committed to considering that and so will the Minister update the Committee on any such discussions with the College of Policing and counter-terrorism policing in establishing training and guidance relevant to best practice in the exercise of schedule 7 powers?
We believe those recommendations to be sensible and appropriate, but I again stress that we recognise the stark reality of needing to be ever vigilant about those terrorist organisations and so-called lone actors who are ruthlessly opportunistic in seeking to exploit weaknesses in our defences. Consequently, it is right that we ensure that our national security legislation is dynamic in responding to contemporary and emerging challenges, if we are to minimise that risk.
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)
Following on from the hon. Member for Halifax, I just need some clarification on the points she covered. First, if people are to be arrested and then questioned, do these provisions comply with article 6 of the ECHR, which is the right to a fair trial? The second point is very simple and has been mentioned. Can a border official still question someone about their means and their reason for arrival without them inadvertently incriminating themselves while already under arrest, considering that they are under stress at that moment in time?
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
To echo my Front-Bench colleagues, I think that anything that tries to improve our security should be welcomed, but a few things in this measure do need some clarification. Like the hon. Member for Halifax, I welcome the issue that Jonathan Hall raised about training. And I will give some examples in the code of where I think clarification and record keeping would be important. There is also the fact that there are certain discretions in the measure that give individual officers quite a lot of leeway for interpretation. I accept that no two situations are the same, but in terms of the general piece, once these provisions are enacted, will the Department review their operational effectiveness? Will, for example, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation be allowed to look again at the operational way forward? I think that that would make sure and give us some reassurance that they are actually in effect.
I just want to look at two examples. On the selection criteria for those individuals selected, the code is clear that
“the selection of a person for examination is not conditional upon the examining officer having grounds to suspect that person of being engaged in terrorism, the decision to select a person for examination must not be arbitrary.”
I think we would all agree with that. The code goes on to say that it cannot be
“appropriate for race, ethnic background, religion and/or other “protected characteristics”…to be used as criteria for selection except to the extent that they are used in association with considerations that relate to the threat from terrorism.”
That makes sense. It then lists those considerations, which include
“known and suspected sources of terrorism; persons, organisations or groups whose current or past involvement in acts…; any information on the origins and/or location of terrorist groups; possible current, emerging and future terrorist activity; patterns of travel through specific ports or in the wider vicinity that may be linked to terrorist activity; or appear unusual for the intended destination”.
Those all seem sensible and then, obviously, there is the consideration of intelligence from our security services about named individuals.
However, the last considerations are
“observation of a person’s behaviour”
and/or
“referrals made to examining officers by other security, transport or enforcement bodies”
That seems quite a broad definition.
I accept that when security officials are looking at people coming through points of entry, people acting suspiciously may be a reason for detaining them but, when it comes to training, what are criteria for that? What is the process for record keeping? Somebody may be acting suspiciously, but they may not turn out to be a threat at all. If that is then linked to ethnicity—I accept that that is not an appropriate criterion—that could lead to individuals claiming that they were picked because of their ethnic or religious background. If people are selected in such a way, will records be kept so that we know how many are found to be linked to terrorism and how many are perfectly innocent? That last consideration could be a get-out.
Another operational matter is about the right to legal representation. The code states:
“A person who is being examined at a port, but not detained”—
there is a section later on about the specific legal rights to a solicitor that people if they are detained—
“is not entitled to consult a solicitor. Should the person request to do so, the examining officer may grant this at his or her discretion.”
Again, that leaves a lot of power with the individual to make a decision should legal representation be requested at that point. The code continues:
“When a consultation is allowed, it should be allowed to be conducted in private”—
that is common sense. I also accept this bit:
“The person must be informed that any consultation will not be at public expense.”
However, when it comes to training, what are the grounds for refusal when somebody legitimately wants to consult a solicitor? It may be impractical or unnecessary. As I say, when someone is detained, the conditions for consulting a solicitor are clearly laid out. I would like some clarification around that. Is it about training? Will the examining officer keep records of when people have had requests refused? It may be better to do that in most cases to protect not just the individual but the officer. That is not a criticism of the reasons why this draft order is important.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax said, there are things in the draft order that give discretion, and discretion can sometimes lead to instances of unintended consequences, so I would like some clarification so that we can be sure that these regulations are enacted in the way that was intended, and in a fair and just way.
Damian Hinds
I thank all members of the Committee for this important scrutiny sitting and our debate. Several important points were made by the hon. Member for Halifax who speaks for the Opposition, the hon. Member for Falkirk of the SNP and the right hon. Member for North Durham, and I will address them now.
We have to look realistically at the situation we are dealing with: the vast majority of people who arrive on small boats have no documentation with them to indicate who they are or where they are from. Enabling officers to examine those who are being processed for immigration purposes away from the ports, as well as at the ports, means that we can fulfil our duty to safeguard national security, while allowing those individuals to be moved from a port environment to more appropriate facilities.
We do not publish statistics on the results of schedule 7 examinations, because to do so would risk disclosing whether a stop was targeted, and that is an operational matter for the police. I reassure the right hon. Gentleman, however, that there is extensive record keeping and analysis, as he might imagine.
Damian Hinds
I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that such operations have extensive ministerial oversight, and rightly so.
On a number of previous occasions, a well-rehearsed debate on the powers under schedule 7 has been considered in depth, as colleagues know. For now, I reiterate only that those powers have been absolutely integral to the work of the police in detecting and disrupting terrorists for more than two decades. The police do that—I reassure everyone—in a way that is compliant with article 6. Oral answers, as colleagues know, are of course excluded from criminal proceedings.
The hon. Member for Halifax asked specifically about locations and what should be in scope. The key practical operational point here is that people will be in custody or immigration detention, so scope should not arise in general as an issue.
Various colleagues asked about training, and we continue to work closely with the police to ensure that the independent reviewer’s recommendation on training is included. I am grateful to the hon. Lady and others for mentioning the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Jonathan Hall QC, because it gives me another opportunity to put on the record my thanks to him for his extremely diligent work.
The code of practice has long been clear that selection of a person based solely on ethnicity or religion is unlawful. It also directs officers to exercise the powers fairly and responsibly, with respect for the people to whom they are applied. All examinees are provided with details of how to make a complaint should they wish to do so, and those detained for more than an hour are entitled to private consultation with a solicitor.
It is important to note that, to date, no independent reviewer of terrorism legislation has suggested that the existing schedule 7 powers are being applied inappropriately. We will continue to work with the reviewer to ensure that the powers are applied proportionately and in the most effective and targeted way, and to minimise disruption to those subject to their use where possible.
I hope that my comments have underscored the importance of the powers and of the code of practice that provides guidance and safeguards on their exercise. I thank all members of the Committee—right hon. and hon. Friends and colleagues from the Opposition parties—for their presence today for this important scrutiny debate. I also thank you, Ms Elliott, and everyone else who has enabled the debate. Keeping the UK safe is the Government’s foremost responsibility, and the provisions within this draft statutory instrument will support that vital endeavour. I commend it to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Housing, Communities and Local Government
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Caroline Lucas
I wonder if there is a page missing in my copy of the Bill, because I was looking for the net zero test, which I am sure the Secretary of State would agree ought to be applied to all planning decisions, policies and procedures, yet it is conspicuous by its absence. Does he agree that if we are serious about using this Bill to really level up, then we need to have that net zero test? Can he commit to that now?
Michael Gove
I will say three things as briefly as I can. First, the national planning policy framework that will be published in July will say significantly more about how we can drive improved environmental outcomes. Secondly, there is in the Bill a new streamlined approach to ensuring that all development is in accordance with the highest environmental standards. Thirdly, as the hon. Lady knows, under the 25-year environment plan and with the creation of the Office for Environmental Protection, the non-regression principle is embedded in everything that we do. The leadership that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has shown, not least at COP26, in driving not just this country but the world towards net zero should reassure her on that front.
[Official Report, 8 June 2022, Vol. 715, c. 822.]
Letter of correction from the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and Minister for Intergovernmental Relations, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove).
An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas).
The correct response should have been:
Michael Gove
I will say three things as briefly as I can. First, a document setting out how we intend to change national planning policy that will be published in July will say significantly more about how we can drive improved environmental outcomes. Secondly, there is in the Bill a new streamlined approach to ensuring that all development is in accordance with the highest environmental standards. Thirdly, as the hon. Lady knows, under the 25-year environment plan and with the creation of the Office for Environmental Protection, the non-regression principle is embedded in everything that we do. The leadership that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has shown, not least at COP26, in driving not just this country but the world towards net zero should reassure her on that front.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Transgender Conversion Therapy
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Graham Brady (in the Chair)
Before I call Elliot Colburn to move the motion, it will help if I say that as this is a heavily subscribed debate, I might have to impose a five-minute time limit. The more Members keep their contributions brief, the more likely I can avoid doing that.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 613556, relating to transgender conversion therapy.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I will heed your words and try to keep my remarks as brief as possible.
The petition, entitled “Ensure Trans people are fully protected under any conversion therapy ban”, states:
“Ensure any ban fully includes trans people and all forms of conversion therapy. It’s shameful that the UK intends to deliberately exclude trans people from a ban in contrast to the approach taken by many countries, despite trans people being at a greater risk of experiencing the harmful & degrading practices. The government’s own figures show that trans people are nearly twice as likely to be at risk of experiencing the harmful & degrading practices of conversion therapy. A ban needs to ensure all forms of conversion therapy are banned.”
The petition remains open, and as of this morning when I checked as I wrote this speech, there were more than 45,000 signatures, including over 220 from my own Carshalton and Wallington constituency. I thank the petition creator and the organisations and charities that helped to brief me in advance of today’s debate, and indeed colleagues around this packed Chamber, which has got even busier since I last looked up from my notes. It is great to see the Public Gallery so full as well.
There is no doubt that trans issues have caused polarisation in the United Kingdom, with threats, intimidation and even violence from both sides of the debate. No doubt today will amount to much of the same, particularly with the horrible things being said on social media.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I apologise for not being able to miss a meeting that I have at five o’clock. My hon. Friend has talked about the vile way some people are treated, which probably includes the way Kathleen Stock and Helen Joyce have been treated. They have given very fair descriptions of trans issues and yet have experienced a great deal of bullying and online harm from people who ought to say, “Can’t we try to work together to do sensible things?”
Elliot Colburn
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, which highlights the fact that we do need to have respectful debates on both sides of the argument.
It might help, for the purposes of today’s debate, to narrow down exactly what the petition asks for and what this debate is all about. To be crystal clear, it is not about reforming the Gender Recognition Act 2004, nor is it about access to single-sex spaces, trans women in sport, trans women in prisons, or any of the other issues that have caused such a stir in this place, in the media, in academia, and beyond. This debate and this petition are specifically about the harmful practices of so-called conversion therapy and whether we, as a House and as a country, think it is acceptable for anyone, regardless of who they are, to be subjected to such things with no recourse to justice. I will argue that nobody should be denied access to justice if they are being subjected to the abhorrent practices encapsulated by so-called conversion therapy.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that there are enough laws already in place to cover the abhorrent practices that he talks about? We will be creating a problem with freedom of speech and people being able to talk to their children about the way they feel about themselves.
Elliot Colburn
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, but I am afraid I do not agree. There is nothing in the proposals and the consultation that the Government set out to suggest that there would be an impact on freedom of speech. Although a lot of the practices—a point that I was going to come on to in a minute—are already outlawed, there are many forms of conversion practices that are not, which is why a ban is necessary.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
In relation to the previous point, does my hon. Friend agree with me the fact that so many respondents to the Government’s survey said that they had either been offered, or been subject to, conversion therapy shows that conversion therapy does exist for trans people?
Elliot Colburn
I totally agree. The national LGBT survey in 2018 showed that trans people were twice as likely as LGB people to be offered, and to undergo, conversion therapy. Those practices can take many forms, but the evidence that has been presented shows that they all have the same aim—and all are harmful. That aim is to supress or change someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity. It is true that many of the harrowing stories we have heard about things such as corrective rape and physical assault, which many survivors have come forward to share, are already illegal.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I apologise for missing my hon. Friend’s opening remarks, but rape is already illegal—an offence. Can he identify an offence that will be included in the Bill that is not already an offence? What is the offence that is going to be created?
Elliot Colburn
I will gladly identify that offence. As I just said, rape is already illegal. However, it is the pseudo-psychological and spiritual so-called talking and behavioural therapies—exorcisms, deliverance prayers and other such things—that are not currently illegal and are included in the proposed ban. Indeed, the ban makes those things aggravating factors when prosecuting. That is currently not in law, but it is necessary.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that there is ample evidence to show that transgender people submitted to any form of that conversion therapy potentially suffer greater psychological impacts, including harmful outcomes and lifetime suicide attempt risks?
Elliot Colburn
I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. I have had the privilege of listening to many survivors who have come forward to share their stories—I am sure many people in this place have—and those stories demonstrate just that fact.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
The practices my hon. Friend has just described are basically exorcisms and witchcraft, frankly. Does he agree with me that we are dignifying such abhorrent practices by calling them therapies?
Elliot Colburn
I absolutely agree. That is why language is so important—that is going to be the theme of my speech. The tight wording of the ban is very important. Conversion practices is a much better description than conversion therapies. I only used conversion therapy for today’s debate because it is the go-to term.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that part of the concern about a ban—wrongly, I think—is that it would catch people who are engaged in legitimate therapy aimed at relieving emotional and psychological distress?
Elliot Colburn
That concern has been brought forward, but as I hope to say later, there is a way that we can alleviate those concerns and still pass an inclusive ban.
I thank the survivors who came forward to share their stories. It is true that conversion practices are happening in the UK right now. It is not something that happened decades ago but has now stopped; those kind of practices still happen in the UK today. Nor is it only happening here; the threat or action of sending people overseas to undergo such practices is still happening.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for listening directly to those who have been affected by this issue. It is often the voices of trans people that are missing from this debate. I was contacted by a constituent who said,
“as a trans woman, surely I deserve to feel safe, have some dignity and live my life in peace without being demonised?”
Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that the way that the exclusion has happened serves to further demonise an already demonised group?
Elliot Colburn
I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. I want to talk about some of the concerns that have been brought forward about a trans-inclusive ban, particularly those focused around unintended consequences —the potential of criminalising legitimate conversations between trans people and, for example, their parents, doctors or religious leaders. Those concerns are legitimate, and it comes down to us as legislators to ensure that we pass good legislation that does not catch those out.
I and many other hon. Members have seen the legal evidence provided to the Government Equalities Office that shows that it is perfectly possible to pass a ban without such unintended consequences. What is important is having a tightly worded Bill with clear language, as well as an extensive list in the legislation about what is and is not intended to be caught by a ban on conversion therapy. Let us be very clear: campaigners who have been fighting for this say that a ban is not intended to capture legitimate conversations, questions or even disagreements between individuals and their parents, doctors or religious leaders, for example. Legitimate explorative therapies, the teaching of scripture or even the ability to say that they do not agree with a person’s identity is not intended to be covered within the scope of a ban, and that should be explicitly stated within it.
The argument is also made that to exclude trans people is the right thing to do because sexual orientation and gender identity are different and so should not be covered by the same legislation. However, although they are different parts of a person’s individual identity, separating them would create big problems for the Government in law, as many trans people are also LGB, and vice versa. Plus, I believe that it would allow conversion therapy for LGB people to continue through the back door, because it could be claimed that it was being done because of their gender identity. We have seen that happening already. I have heard of cases of survivors who have come forward—for example, camp gay men and butch lesbians who have undergone conversion therapy because of their gender identity, not because of their sexual orientation. I believe that that is the reason why all leading medical, psychological and therapy organisations back an inclusive ban. Twenty-five organisations have signed up to the memorandum of understanding on conversion therapy in the UK, and more than 370 religious leaders from around the world are also calling for a ban on conversion therapy.
However, I do not think that I can put the need for a trans-inclusive ban much better than by referring to this perverse situation, which I would just like colleagues to consider. It is based on a real-life example of a set of twins—one gay and one trans. Both are forced to undergo hours of talking therapies to get them to change their identity. They are taken for exorcisms, with people shouting over them. They are monitored to ensure that they are not meeting anyone who might be considered “wrong”. They are unable to seek out accredited counselling and support and they have to endure treatment that is degrading and shaming.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, because I genuinely have come to this debate to learn about the issues. I thought the most important word that he just uttered was “forced”. I think everyone could agree that no one should be forced into any sort of therapy. The question is whether we would be banning people from seeking this therapy if, for whatever unaccountable reason, they wished to do so. That is where a line needs to be clarified.
Elliot Colburn
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention. Indeed there is a consent clause in the Bill. That is an entirely separate debate. I know that many colleagues on both sides of the House do not agree with that—I am one of them.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I think we are missing the point. Actually, the therapy in itself is the issue. It is likened to torture by many leading organisations. On the issue of sexual violence and LGBT survivors, 24% of the people that Galop spoke to had experienced sexual violence, but that figure leapt to 32% for the non-binary and to 35% for trans men. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that we should not be creating spaces that are safe for people to perpetrate sexual violence against individuals?
Elliot Colburn
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention and I absolutely agree with her. Again, it comes back to the general theme of the debate—for me, at least—which is that this is about harmful practices and whether we think anyone, regardless of who they are, should undergo harmful practices. My answer is no.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this really important debate; he is making an excellent speech. The United Nations report in 2020 called for a global ban on conversion therapy. The UN said:
“Such practices constitute an egregious violation of rights to bodily autonomy, health, and free expression of one’s sexual orientation and gender identity.”
Does he agree with me that there is real clarity in that statement and that it is very useful for this debate?
Elliot Colburn
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention and I absolutely agree with her. I am conscious of time, Sir Graham, so I will start to wrap up my remarks so that we can get on to other people’s contributions.
Going back to the example of a set of twins where one twin is gay and one is trans, as the proposals stand, the law would only protect one of those two individuals. The other twin would be left open to continually being subjected to the kind of practices that we have been discussing, with no legal protections. By deliberately excluding trans people from the ban, I believe that the message that we would send is that it is acceptable to inflict such behaviour on someone because of who they are, which just cannot be right.
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
There seems to be a bit of confusion about exactly what this so-called “therapy” entails. It is perhaps worth saying that these coercive and “abhorrent practices” do not work. By the way, “abhorrent practices” are the words of the Conservative Government, although they have done a reverse ferret on this, of course. Perhaps for those who have come to this debate to listen with an open mind, the hon. Gentleman might explain what those “abhorrent practices” involve and why they are not voluntary.
Elliot Colburn
Absolutely. This comes back to the issue of consent. Can someone actually consent to having harm done to themselves, even if they have all the facts? For me the answer is no. Again, that comes back to the core point, which is that these are “abhorrent practices”—harmful practices and that cause people to have to undergo years of psychological therapy to try to get over what has been done to them, which is why they need to be banned in law.
Sir Graham, I am coming to the end of my remarks. What this issue boils down to is that achieving a trans-inclusive conversion therapy ban without any unintended consequences is, frankly, what we should be doing anyway—in other words, we should be producing good, tightly worded legislation. That has already been achieved in multiple countries and territories with no unintended consequences whatsoever, so we already have international working examples to draw upon when it comes to the drafting of this legislation.
All sectors of UK society, from health to religion, have supported calls for a trans-inclusive ban. That, after all, is what this debate is all about. It is not about the noise around trans issues, which I mentioned at the start of my remarks; it is about protecting people from harm, no matter who they are. We have a duty as parliamentarians to protect the people who we serve from harm, so I urge colleagues to join me in exercising that duty.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Graham Brady (in the Chair)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, let me say that I will start with an informal five-minute time limit. If Members can keep to that, I will not have to impose a formal time limit.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Sir Graham, for calling me to speak so early in the debate.
It was a privilege to listen to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) as he described what needs to be a debate in which we dial down the hate and dial up the understanding. I am here to speak on behalf of trans and non-binary friends and allies in Plymouth, 482 of whom have signed this petition. I am proud to be Plymouth’s first ever out Member of Parliament and I take that responsibility seriously to provide a voice for LGBTQ+ people, to call out hate and extremism, and to say proudly, “Love is love, whoever you are”.
I have spoken in this place before about my view on trans people. We may be in a debate, but trans people themselves are not up for debate—they exist. The only question is whether or not the Government will recognise their existence and the rights that should go with that existence. My view on this subject is clear: trans men are men; trans women are women; and being non-binary is valid. In that space, however, we need to educate and inform people, and not just hit each other over the head with sticks. It is important that we conduct the debate in that way.
It is very welcome that at long last we have proposals to ban conversion therapy for lesbian, gay and bisexual people. This is a huge victory. It is the result of an awful lot of work and I am grateful to the campaigners from Stonewall, MindOut, the LGBT Foundation and many other organisations for their tireless work in making the positive case for how stopping this harm to people will make a positive difference to society.
This legislation has taken too long to be brought forward, but it is better late than never. Conversion therapy is abuse, and it is because it is cruel and abhorrent that young lesbian, gay and bisexual people face the humiliation and violence that comes with it. It is right that such therapy is banned. However, if we are banning it because we think those practices are vile, we need to ban it for everybody and not make an artificial distinction between people.
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and he is making a very cogent case, as did the previous speaker, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn). However, is it not the point that in a free, democratic and liberal society this process of so-called “conversion therapy” smacks of the Soviet Union, and surely it is not something that we should condone in a society such as ours?
Luke Pollard
I think the cultural reference might work better on someone from a different generation, but I understand what my right hon. Friend is trying to say. In the spirit of generosity that I am trying to advocate for, it is important that we make the case that everyone, regardless of who they are and who they fall in love with, should enjoy protections. That is a British value that we teach in our schools.
Luke Pollard
I will make some progress, if I may, because I do not want to run out of time. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington said that if trans and non-binary people are excluded from the ban, that would be a loophole that would allow these practices in through the back door. It would not be a back door; it would be a trapdoor, through which young LGB people would be pushed. That is why we need to be absolutely clear on this. Intersectionality exists; a person can be both trans and a lesbian, or both trans and bisexual. That intersectionality creates a grey zone in the law, and more people will fall into it if trans and non-binary people are excluded from the ban. That is not right.
Luke Pollard
I will make some more progress, if I may. When I was a spotted, closeted teenager, there were not an awful lot of LGBT role models in society—no professional footballers or Olympic athletes. There are now. We have visibility in our society. I am pleased with all my heart that young people can now see LGBT people both in the public eye and on screen.
As some Members will know, I am an unapologetic fan of Netflix’s “Heartstopper”. I remember being both Nick and Charlie at school. Yasmin Finney, who plays Elle, is epic in her acting; however, for me, it is her class and visibility as a trans actor, and her transfer to the “Doctor Who” universe, that has inspired not only me but young trans people across the world. That visibility and legitimacy has saved lives.
It is that world, as Alice Oseman wrote in “Heartstopper” —where our diversity is celebrated, not excluded; where people are drawn together in a broad hug, not with a big stick—that we should aim for with this legislation. That is why I want every Member in this place to know that this message should go out to young LGBT people: regardless of who you are and who you love, you have the right to be loved, safe and valued, not just by society but in law. That is at the heart of today’s debate. Let us say to young LGB, trans and non-binary people that they are enough, we have listened to them, and we will value them.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
Thank you for calling me to speak so early, Sir Graham. I rise to speak with a heavy heart, because I do not think we should be here. This issue is not something we should have to debate. I am furious, but my fury is nothing compared to the deep-set harm that this announcement has already caused to the transgender community, which has been harmed by us saying that trans people do not deserve the same rights and protections as their LGB brothers and sisters. Shamefully, the entire ban was almost cancelled; were it not for the actions of Conservative Back Benchers to ensure the ban was protected, it would have been.
The entire manner of the debate should shame us all. We need more compassion on all sides—there should not be any sides in this issue. So much of this debate has been misrepresentative and bears no relation to the reality of what such a ban would do. The ban is about preventing those who use so-called therapy as a smokescreen for their homophobic and transphobic exorcisms, and who claim that LGBTQ+ people do not deserve to love, be loved or live their life as they truly are.
Today, rather than explaining why we need an inclusive ban, I want to focus on the claim that any ban on conversion therapy would allow for only one form of therapy: the so-called affirmative model. It is usually accompanied by the claim that the ban on trans conversion therapy is designed specifically to push so-called gender ideology. I would like to know how the groups making such claims have seen the legislation, because I know that no Members present have. The Minister probably has not either, because it has not been drafted.
Conversion therapy often takes the form of one-directional talking therapies conducted by quacks in unregulated settings. There can be only one outcome for someone from such therapy: rejecting their trans self. Regulated psychotherapists and those from similar professions have always insisted that exploratory therapy should have no set outcome, but that outcome is what conversion therapy produces. What our children—indeed, trans people of any age—deserve and need is fully explorative and challenging conversations with accredited and regulated individuals who adhere to ethical tests, are regulated and would not push any pre-determined outcome. A regulated therapist would never say that someone must act on their attractions or feelings, or that they must eliminate them, and surely no one here can disagree with that.
Some claim that gay and lesbian people are being forced to convert to being transgender. There are always isolated cases—we can never say never—but let us not suggest that this is some widespread conspiracy. Even if someone did ascribe to such a belief, the legislation could help them, because it would ensure that the critical conversations took place with professionals, not the well-meaning.
Let us take on the claim, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn), that a ban on CT would criminalise health practitioners. If it would, why do the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the British Psychological Society, the Albany Trust, the British Medical Association, Mind, Relate, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Association of Christian Counsellors and many more stand behind a ban? The psychiatric and psychological professions reject conversion therapy because it is the opposite of open-ended exploration; it is a therapy with only one stopping point. It is not about keeping choices, but eliminating them entirely, and that is why mental health practitioners back the legislation. It will not criminalise them, or teachers, or parents who want to have conversations with their children. I know that, because I have worked since my election to secure a ban on conversion therapy. I came to this place saying that I would help deliver one.
The discussions have been methodical, serious and cautious. Licensed bodies want to get this right, and to have serious safeguards in place. Given that search for safeguards, I want to make it abundantly clear that psychological professionals have been clear and unequivocal that trans conversion therapy is a definable concept. They might have different views about many others things, but they are agreed on that.
The Cass review, which many cite as a reason to exclude transgender people from a ban, is unequivocal. It calls for expanded support for trans healthcare and better service provision. Hilary Cass has said that her work does not impede the bringing forward of a conversion therapy Bill that includes trans people, and that any Bill does not need to wait until the end of her work, so why is her work being appropriated in arguments against a ban? Her work is well under way.
I wish to clear up some misunderstandings about the Bill, and I am sorry that I will slightly run over. Despite how hard others are pushing to misrepresent it, the ban is not about transgender people in sport or prisons, any medical interventions or procedures, or gender-neutral toilets. The Government do not propose that the ban defines gender identity in legislation; they note that we already have the Gender Recognition Act 2004, and hate crime legislation that acknowledges transgender people. Nor are LGBT community groups asking for gender identity to be defined or introduced in law, so why are so-called lobbying organisations saying that we are trying to do that?
I want to make it very clear that an inclusive ban on conversion therapy is not some woke frontier for those who want to suppress freedom of speech. It is not some new frontier for politicians to weaponise in a culture war that they think is vote winning. My standing up for my rights—I hope that colleagues would agree that I have fought for the rights of women since I came to this place—is not incompatible with fighting for the rights of others. Women are people with cervixes. We are women. I do not chest-feed; I breastfeed my baby. Of course biology matters, but these positions are not at war with one another.
If we can come together, we can find mutual understanding. This is not a back-door effort to have a battle about rights, or to criminalise dissent from gender ideology. It is about punishing practices that leave real and enduring psychological scars, and about holding to account those who cause the misery. The only people who should fear the ban are those quacks and charlatans who profit from bigotry and torture, and who believe that their views are so superior to others’.
Let us protect our children and leave the professionals to do their jobs. Let us include transgender people in the ban, in order to protect them from those who are so divorced from decency and compassion—so hellbent on their world view and brand of torture—that they would cause people to end up depressed, with severe mental suffering or committing suicide. I will not stand for a ban that devalues my transgender friends, and I will amend the legislation if, when it comes forward, it does not include trans people. I will not stand for the division of the LGBT community—division that would give bigots a green light to continue torturing our trans friends. I call on the Government to do what is right and bring forward the work on transgender rights and inclusion in the Bill that they have promised. I ask them to stand by trans people, and give protections to those who urgently need them.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
It is pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Graham; thank you for calling me so early. I commend the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) on an excellent speech. I also warmly commend the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) on a passionate and genuine speech, and I am very pleased to follow her.
I was struck by the fact that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington had to start by defining what this debate is not about. That is probably testament to just how poor the wider general discussion has become. This is not about infringing on anybody else’s rights. It is not about infringing on the rights of women in general, or their right to safe spaces; it is not infringing on the right to free speech; and, crucially, it is not about limiting the right to seek advice and help, or the right to have an honest conversation. It is about conversion therapy and the harm that it does, about the need for action against it, and about the need, from my perspective and my party’s perspective, to include trans people within that protection.
The hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) says that existing laws already cover this. No, they do not. That is why we are here, and why the petition exists—because of the harm being done right now to hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens—the most vulnerable people in society, who need action and our support. If the existing legislative framework covered this, we would not need to be here.
There is huge consensus on the need for action. The Scottish Human Rights Commission has said:
“It is well documented that the injury caused by practices of ‘conversion therapy’ are grounded on the premise that LGBT+ people are sick, diseased, and abnormal and must therefore be treated.4Some practices can potentially amount to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment towards specific LGBT+ people, while the very existence of ‘conversion therapy’ practices in our society promotes a culture in which LGBT+ people are seen as needing to be fixed, thereby undermining the dignity of all LGBT+ people.”
There is also consensus among religious organisations that the matter needs to be tackled. Ahmed Shaheed, the UN special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, is in favour of a ban, along with the general assembly of the Church of Scotland, the Church of England, the Methodists, the Quakers, the Hindu Council UK and many others. Any reputable psychotherapy organisation is in favour of a ban, because they know what the harm perpetrated by these quacks—I was struck by the mention of witchcraft by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price)—does to their own reputation.
According to the UK Government’s own figures, the scale of the problem is considerable. The UK Government’s 2018 survey of 108,000 LGBT+ people showed that 2% have undergone therapy and 5% have been offered it. For the trans community, the figures are even higher: 9% of trans men have been offered this therapy, which is odious. The question for us legislators surely boils down to: where do we draw the line? How do we draw up legislation? In Scotland, we are doing that. In Scotland, this is a devolved competence, and the Scottish Government are committed to bringing forward a trans inclusionary ban. I trust MSPs to draw the line in the right place, in a way that looks after everybody’s rights, because these rights are not mutually exclusive.
I make a plea to the English, Welsh and Northern Irish parliamentarians present to work with us. Nobody has a monopoly of wisdom on this subject. We should listen to people’s experiences and to what they say about the harm done, which is very real and genuine. Hundreds of thousands of our citizens right now are suffering as a result of this practice, and many hundreds of thousands more are living with the consequences of having undergone it. There is a clear need for legislation on it.
Nick Fletcher
It is great to hear such a good debate on this issue. Many people have written to me saying that if a young person who thinks they are trans came to them, they would be scared of saying, “Well, why don’t you just watch and wait? Let’s give it six months,” or “Let’s see how you feel in a year, or two years.” People will be scared to say that, because they do not want to be called transphobic, or to be prosecuted under legislation that may come later. That is where I am coming from—from the point of view of parents, teachers, men of the cloth and others who want to be able to say, “Just watch and wait,” or to ask why.
Alyn Smith
I will take the intervention at face value as a genuine expression of concern. This is not an easy subject—I would be the first to acknowledge that—but that is why we need to make sure that the legislation is right. That is why we need to ensure that the line is drawn at the right place. I said in my opening remarks—I have them here—that this is not about infringing the right of anyone to seek advice and have an honest conversation, but there is a world of difference between that and the quackery and harm perpetrated by people who set themselves up in business doing this stuff.
Jacob Young
I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) to the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), who talked about forcing someone to change their gender identity or their sexual orientation. Is this not all about the intention behind the conversation? There is no problem with a parent having a conversation with their child, but if someone enters a conversation wanting to force someone to do something that is contrary to what they are, that is crossing the line.
Alyn Smith
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. I am a solicitor, if we go back far enough. The law is well used to dealing with shades of grey. In many other situations—aggravated hate crime; discrimination; words that mean one thing in one context and a different thing in another—it is perfectly possible to come up with a proper legislative framework to protect people and the honest conversations that he is rightly concerned to see protected. I share that concern and would work with him on it.
Alicia Kearns
The hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but on the point about waiting to see, there is currently a wait of at least two years to have those conversations with a professional, so there is no rushing into this. I may be wrong, but someone cannot have surgery if they are under 18, and they cannot get access to puberty blockers for at least a couple of years. I may be misunderstanding the timeline; if so, he will advise me.
Alyn Smith
The hon. Lady makes a powerful and apposite point. On saying, “Just wait,” well, people are waiting, including all the legislators in this Chamber—we have waited far too long to act, and too many people are suffering. The concerns that are raised need to be dealt with and respectfully discussed, but to my mind there is a clear need to act. Too many people are suffering. We have a duty as legislators to keep our citizens safe from harm. Let us act together. Let us work together to keep safe the people whom we need to protect.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) on leading this debate. I also congratulate Sammantha Harris, whom I met last week, on starting the petition.
As Sammantha told me, the exclusion of trans people from a conversion therapy ban would imply that they did not count. Well, trans people matter to me, speaking as a member of the LGBTQ community. They matter to me as members of my family, and as members of the community I represent, as do the 208 people in Darlington who signed the petition.
This debate is somewhat premature, given that draft legislation is yet to be published, but I can well understand the shock, disappointment and dismay of the trans community and their allies at learning that the abuse they face may not be included in legislation, while the abuse faced by their gay, lesbian and bisexual brothers and sisters will be. Since being elected in 2019, I have had the privilege of working with great people on the issue of conversion therapy. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), who we have heard from; she is an absolute champion. I also record my thanks to Jayne Ozanne from the Ozanne Foundation for her incredible and tireless work on this issue. Jayne, please know that your efforts are appreciated. Keep doing what you are doing.
Our country has come a long way on LGBT issues—further than I ever would have imagined. Banning conversion therapy—or, to call it what it really is, abuse, control and coercion—is the next logical and rational step on that journey. To seek to do that for only part of the LGBTQ community is divisive and irrational. Sadly, there are some who do not believe that such practices exist, and some who believe that the law already provides enough protection. These abuses do exist, and the law does not currently provide a framework to protect the most vulnerable members of the LGBT community. The upcoming legislation is a great opportunity to right that wrong. I firmly believe that a ban on conversion therapy that includes all members of the LGBTQ community is essential. This abuse has no place in a civilised society, and I am personally committed to seeing all forms of abuse of LGBTQ people banned.
Conversion therapy encompasses a wide range of practices, which all share the belief that someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity can and should be changed. It relies on the erroneous belief that LGBTQ people are sick and in need of a cure. These practices are cruel and harmful, and there is no evidence of them working. Having recently met members of the local LGBTQ community in Darlington, I know that they share my concerns about the potential exclusion of trans people from a future ban on these practices.
Today’s debate is not about women in sport, safe single-sex spaces, or the appropriate age for treatment for a person experiencing gender dysphoria.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
I am so glad that my hon. Friend and other Members have made that point. Even as a member of the LGBTQ community myself, I recognise that there are some real challenges in those areas, but that is not what this is about. This is about something very simple—that someone cannot force someone to change their gender identity or sexual orientation, and that trans people need to be protected in the same way as other members of the community.
Peter Gibson
I am grateful for that intervention, and I could not agree more. This is a difficult topic, and it is important that we are having this debate now; it is important that all politicians are able to have an open, frank and honest discussion about this.
This debate is about sending a signal to the most marginalised in our society, who already experience prejudice and discrimination: “Your lives matter, and you should be protected from abuse, coercion and control just as much as the next person.” To not include trans people in a ban on conversion therapy—to allow loopholes in the legislation that allowed these abusive practices to continue to ruin people’s lives—would be a great wrong. Trans people already face more discrimination than gays, bisexuals and lesbians, and seeking to divide the L, G and B from the T will only marginalise trans people further.
This issue is very close to my heart, as a gay man with friends and family who are lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans. I can see just how much this issue affects real people’s lives, in my own family and in my constituency. I know that the Minister is a good man and a strong member and ally of the LGBT community. I know that he will be listening very closely to this debate and I hope that he will do all he can to ensure that a conversion abuse ban covers trans people too.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I thank the 145,000 people who signed the petition, ensuring that today’s debate would go ahead.
As politicians, we should always ask ourselves which side of history we are on. When the gay liberation movement started, it had almost no support in the House of Commons. When queer communities came under attack from homophobes and the police, it was left to us to defend ourselves. Now, once again, this Government seem to want the House to be on the wrong side of history. Well, I stand on the side of history that has learned lessons from the past—from when queer communities came under attack from homophobes and the police, and when AIDS arrived and its victims faced stigmatisation. I have seen those failures of Government in protecting the LGBTQI+ communities at first hand, and I am steadfast in my belief that conversion therapy must be banned for all, including transgender people.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
Carolyn is a trans woman in her 70s. Recounting trans conversion therapy that she underwent in her youth, she said:
“When I remembered it…I would physically shake. It made me hate myself. 40 years later…I’d still have flashbacks.”
Does my hon. Friend agree that these practices are abusive and must be banned, and that the Government’s refusal to ban them is part of a cruel, cowardly and cynical tactic to distract us from their failings, stoke division, and target one of society’s most marginalised and disadvantaged groups?
Kate Osborne
I agree with my hon. Friend; we need this ban to come in without delay, without loopholes and without exclusions.
Jeremy Corbyn
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, particularly with the historical references. Those of us who were here during the grim days of section 28 remember just how horrible it was, and how brutally the media then treated LGBT communities. The proposal to not include trans people in the conversion therapy ban is unbelievably wrong, divisive and short-sighted. We need to be very clear, and when this legislation comes along, I hope there will be a majority in this House that says, “We need a total ban on conversion therapy,” as the Scottish Human Rights Commission and others have proposed, as the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) said earlier. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Kate Osborne
I do agree. My right hon. Friend referred to section 28. Interestingly, the first march I went on as an activist many years ago—more than I care to remember —was in opposition to section 28.
Jacob Young
It is touching to hear the hon. Lady make those historical references. Does she agree that the rights of LGB people were only won by LGBT people, and that it if were not for the T people, she and I would not have the rights that we enjoy today?
Kate Osborne
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. There should be no division, as the hon. Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) said.
We know from numerous studies and polls that transphobes are in the minority, but unfortunately, that minority is hardening and seems to have this Government’s ear. As casual prejudice fills the airwaves and column inches, the Government’s failure to deliver a ban on conversion therapy for trans people sends a terrible message. Conversion therapy causes serious mental health problems for those who undergo it, and it has driven people to suicide. Trans people are twice as likely to have been offered conversion therapy as those who are cis, gay or bi, but the Government seem to exclude them even though they are the very people whom the ban would help the most. In Britain today, around half of trans people attempt suicide before the age of 26. Many face harassment, bullying and discrimination daily.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) mentioned, trans people and their very existence are not up for debate. Under the Prime Minister, this Government’s strategy is to harness prejudice and stoke a culture war, pitting communities against each other. It is not surprising that the Tories are undermining trans rights. If the Conservative party had a motto, it would probably be, “Never let basic humanity get in the way of a potential vote winner.” If the proposed legislation does not include trans people, it will not go far enough. It is essential to close all loopholes to prevent the possibility of this abuse continuing.
The Government know and have clearly acknowledged that conversion therapy is abuse, yet they seem willing to allow an entire community to continue to be subjected to it. History has judged how wrong some of our politicians have been in the past, and it will judge those who fail to protect our trans community now.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Graham Brady (in the Chair)
Order. I am grateful to Members for the brevity of their contributions. There are not quite as many Members standing as had indicated earlier that they wished to speak, so we can relax the time limit to seven minutes. I call Jackie Doyle-Price.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
Thank you, Sir Graham. It is a pleasure to contribute to the debate. As legislators, our starting point must be to eradicate harms, but in doing so we must not create new ones. It is in that spirit that I will address the proposals in—well, we do not have a Bill yet, so we are flying a bit blind.
My concern is the use of the term “therapy” in this space, which has been discussed. We are talking about coercive and harmful practices based on an ideological opposition to being trans, gay, lesbian or bisexual, and those are the practices that we need to eradicate. The term “therapy” implies something that is benign and designed to alleviate distress, which is clearly not something we want to outlaw in this space—for sexuality as well as gender. My plea to the Government is to re-examine that language.
In respect of transgender identity, when an individual wishes to undergo medical transition or surgical intervention, a therapeutic pathway is essential to establish informed consent. We must not allow any law to be passed that would get in the way of those conversations and clinical interventions, which are designed to alleviate distress.
Alicia Kearns
In the spirit of the point that I made in my speech that there are no two sides, I agree with my hon. Friend entirely. I suspect that she will find much unanimity in the Chamber that a ban should be about conversion practices. I am sure that the Minister, who campaigned for a ban for many years before he became a Minister, will be well aware of that and will be doing everything he can to ensure that the right Bill comes forward. I agree with my hon. Friend entirely, and I am sure others in the Chamber do as well.
Jackie Doyle-Price
I am grateful for that intervention. Indeed, although I have been outspoken on these issues, I have had this conversation with Jayne Ozanne, who shares this view. In terms of getting to a good law, I make this plea to everyone: we have heard lots of rhetoric today, but if we focus on creating a law that eradicates harm but gives support where it is needed, I think we can generate consensus. Notwithstanding the heat and noise on social media, there is much consensus in the Chamber.
I come to this matter having been the mental health Minister, with responsibility for gender medicine, when the General Synod of the Church of England passed the motion in favour of a conversion therapy ban. It is worth remembering that at that stage it was only about sexuality, and not about gender, which was added subsequently. At the time, however, I made it my business to look into exactly what the evidence was on the practices that we were trying outlaw.
Notwithstanding some of the experiences we have heard about, I could find no evidence of anything happening in a clinical setting after 1970. It became very clear that we were talking about practices that were often based in religious institutions, and very much based on an ideological belief against same-sex attraction and transgender. That is why we need to hammer down on outlawing exactly those things. That is the harm that we are trying to eradicate.
We have ended up with this vanilla term, “therapy”, for fear of alienating those people for whom these are issues of religious belief. Frankly, the risk of outlawing legitimate interventions should not get in the way of that. We need to be clear about what we are banning and that any therapeutic intervention designed to alleviate distress will not be eradicated by the legislation. I look forward to hearing words of comfort from my hon. Friend the Minister, with whom I have had many discussions about these things.
It is also worth noting that the term “trans” can mean any number of things, from declaring oneself non-binary to wanting to go the whole journey of medical and surgical transition. This is where the therapeutic care pathways are so important, because for some people gender dysphoria is a permanent condition that needs to be alleviated with treatment, but for others it can be a symptom of something else. This is not a straightforward condition that has the same pathology in all the people who experience it. We know that it is prevalent among people with autism and that it is very commonly experienced by girls going through puberty.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
May I ask the hon. Lady and any other Members in the Chamber thinking of making that connection between trans and autism to be more thoughtful about how they express it? A number of people watching and listening to the debate will find it particularly unhelpful. I think that we can probably be a bit more nuanced in our language.
Jackie Doyle-Price
It is important that we understand what we are talking about with gender dysphoria. It can also be a symptom of trauma. It is very important that we have the therapeutic care pathways—[Interruption.] Members may shake their heads, but I am talking about this from experience, having looked deeply into this area of medicine when I was responsible for it. We need to ensure that we are not putting people on to irreversible care pathways that will do them harm. For example, at the Tavistock, where the care pathway is based on therapy, as many as 40% desist. That is why it is important that people are given the space to explore what they believe to be their gender, because it can often be about something else.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
Does the hon. Member acknowledge the fact that puberty blockers —I think that is what she is referring to when she speaks about “irreversible” treatment, because they are the only medical treatment that under-18s can have—are not irreversible? The point is to pause puberty, which can be done for many reasons, such as premature puberty. The whole point of the blockers is that they are not irreversible.
Jackie Doyle-Price
Puberty blockers are not irreversible—the hon. Member is right. The fact of blocking puberty may mean that the individual does not subsequently go through it, but she is right in the sense that puberty blockers were invented for a different purpose than the treatment of gender dysphoria. They absolutely should be dispensed where appropriate, but they should not be used as a way of treating gender dysphoria without someone’s having gone through the therapeutic care pathway.
The real issue here is the provision of hormone treatment, which is now routinely dispensed to people from the age of 16. Again, the impacts of those things are irreversible. We see a generation of trans men who have desisted and will now have a loss of sexual function, permanent facial hair and male pattern baldness. A more sophisticated way of allowing them to explore their gender would mean that they do not go through such things.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Is the hon. Member not making a mistake by confusing what we are here to discuss banning? We are here to discuss banning pseudo-practices. We are not aiming to ban NHS therapies and practices that are conducted by professional medical experts; we are looking at banning conversion therapy, which is pseudo-scientific, often takes place in private settings and is not controlled.
Jackie Doyle-Price
I think the hon. Member is actually agreeing with my general thesis, which is that we should not use the term “therapy” in the Bill. Legitimate care pathways are exactly the things we should be ensuring that people can access, so that they get the right decision for them. As we know, if people cannot access those pathways through the national health service, there is a wild west out there on the internet, and people will start getting very harmful interventions that are not properly supervised.
Dr Mullan
Is not the key to all this the intention of whatever is going on? Conversion therapy sets out with a predetermined objective of stopping someone being something or forcing them to be something else. All the other therapies that my hon. Friend talks about are an exploratory process that may or may not, through the choice of the individual, lead to their taking puberty blockers or other things. The therapists themselves will not be entering into it with the intention to force them to do that, or to stop them being something else.
Jackie Doyle-Price
Again, I think my hon. Friend is agreeing with me. It is the term “therapy” that I am objecting to in the legislation because we are dignifying these practices with that description. Therapies are exactly the things that I have been describing. There is no doubt that we need better care pathways for people to explore their gender. My hon. Friend the Minister will probably have something to say about that as well.
That is really as much as I want to say. We must make sure that we call this practice out for what it is, we must make sure that the Bill only eradicates those harmful practices, and we must make sure that good, benign and positive therapeutic interventions will not be outlawed by the legislation.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
At last the Government have proposed, and will bring forward, a conversion therapy Bill. I welcome that—it is progress. After all, I tabled a private Member’s Bill to ban conversion therapy in the last Parliament. However, the detail of the Government’s proposal is more than disappointing. The ban will protect people from therapies aimed at changing their sexual orientation, but therapies aimed at changing people’s gender identity will not be banned. If the Government recognise the harm that these cruel and medieval practices cause one group of people, why do they exclude the group that is the most harmed?
Trans people are twice as likely as the rest of the LGBT+ community to be subjected to conversion practices. A recent survey found that gender conversion practices, far from working, create lifelong, deeply traumatic consequences for survivors. Nearly half of respondents said that every aspect of their life, from their mental health to peer and family relationships, had considerably worsened. We all know that, all too often, the catastrophic mental ill health that is suffered leads to loss of life.
Gender conversion therapy is purposefully harmful and repressive. It targets already vulnerable people, and does so overwhelmingly at a very young age. Three quarters of those who have undergone conversion therapy were under the age of 24. Some began as early as the age of 12. These so-called therapies or practices include verbal abuse, isolation, physical abuse and, perhaps most disturbingly, “corrective” rape. For the exclusion of any doubt, we are not talking about professional medical treatment and therapy.
Hywel Williams
Does the hon. Lady agree with me that therapeutic and counselling interventions in these situations have to be non-directive, and that that per se excludes anything that has a predetermined purpose, as we are discussing?
Wera Hobhouse
I totally agree. What is damaging about all these practices is that they have an outcome before they even start. That is why they are so damaging.
Layla Moran
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that if we end up not banning all forms of conversion therapy, all it will do is encourage families to go further underground to seek practices, particularly through their churches? I know of a family whose church reached out to them. They were then referred to a quack in America who performed abhorrent practices on a young teenager who immediately said to their parents, “This is making me feel like who I am is less than I am.” Is my hon. Friend concerned that if the Government do not act, parents will not know where to turn?
Wera Hobhouse
I totally agree. We have to say this again and again: this is not about professional medical treatment and therapy. The conversion therapies that need to be banned are pseudoscientific practices, often conducted in private settings and, most crucially, they do not have an open outcome, but are aimed at changing what a person is.
Legal advice recently published by the Good Law Project makes it clear that the Government risk getting embroiled in legal challenges by breaching article 14 of the European convention on human rights. The advice states that
“the difference in treatment between sexual orientation and gender identity would need to be justified and proportionate.”
So far, the only justification that the Government have provided is to say that the issue is complex.
Why are we even having this debate? Opposition to a trans-inclusive ban is entirely built on stoking fear and division, based on deliberate misinformation. By the Government’s own admission, NHS gender identity services will not stop people having exploratory conversations with their doctors. Legal services will not be affected by a ban. There is no evidence of any negative impact in the countries that have already introduced a ban. Let us be clear: we are talking about preventing the abuse of LGBT+ and gender non-conforming people—our fellow human beings. We need to prevent abuse.
Furthermore, neither would religious freedom be affected by a change in the law. Religious freedom is the freedom to worship without discrimination. As a Christian, I have the right to practise my religion without discrimination. I do not have the right to cause harm. The Church of England has acknowledged that, stating that conversion practices have
“no place in the modern world”.
Nearly all countries that have banned gay conversion therapy have also banned gender conversion therapy. Canada, France and New Zealand, to name a few, have yet to encounter problems with freedom of speech or religious belief. It is baffling—I disagree that it is about getting votes—that the Conservative Government are not committed to banning trans-inclusive conversion therapy, even though their own voters are largely in favour of such a ban. Northern Ireland has moved a motion to ban conversion therapy in all forms. Scotland hopes to ban it by the end of 2023. The Government must follow suit.
The Equalities Minister called this country a global leader on LGBT rights, but it seems the Government have forgotten what the letter T stands for. How can we possibly call ourselves global leaders if we knowingly and purposefully fail to protect trans people from abhorrent practices? I plead with the Government to listen to what is overwhelmingly a consensus in this room—and outside—and make sure we ban conversion therapy in all its forms.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I speak very much in support of a trans-inclusive ban on conversion therapy.
I want to start by giving some context on what is happening in Northern Ireland, where the Assembly recently passed a motion on a ban on conversion therapy. It was carried overwhelmingly, with the opposition of only two parties: the Democratic Unionist party and a smaller political party. It never occurred to anyone supporting it that there would be a carve-out against the inclusion of trans people. If that is possible in a society that is perceived to be conservative and has had a reactionary approach to a whole range of equality issues over a number of years, it gives encouragement that it is possible throughout the UK and further afield. That needs to be pursued. The reality is that it was only a motion passed by the Assembly. In practice, although some initial work has been undertaken by Northern Ireland Departments, a large degree of credence will be given to what happens with any legislation in England and Wales. It is therefore important that action happens here quickly and that it is got right—and by “right”, I mean it must be fully trans-inclusive.
Same-sex sexual orientation and transgender identity should be considered—and are—perfectly normal situations. They are a part of the human variation. They are something to be celebrated and embraced, and we should treat everyone with equality and dignity for exactly who they are without question. The practices of so-called conversion therapy say far more about those who seek to engage them than they do about the subject. They are not about the welfare of those they seek to impose the practices on; they are about the hang-ups, bigotry and prejudice of those who seek to engage in them. Because they cannot accept people for who they are, they force people to conform to their narrow-minded approach to what the world should be, in denial of the broader reality.
I want to emphasise how vulnerable trans people are in our society. They are not aggressors, seeking to impose upon other people or to make life difficult. There is a much wider debate about gender recognition in that regard, which is distinct from today’s debate; however, it is worth stressing that in addition to people with trans identity being much more likely to subject to so-called conversion therapy practices, they have probably grown up marginalised in society. They are likely to have been subject to bullying, harassment and marginalisation and to have had difficulty with friendships.
A constituent got in touch with me recently to express concern about how isolated their child feels because they have a trans identity, and how difficult it is to find people to engage with. They were trying to build some sort of support network for that person. We should acknowledge that that is the daily reality experienced by people and do all we can to help them—not continue a situation in which people can be abused and punished through what is, in effect, a form of torture.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
I want to speak in support of a trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices to represent the views of the 287 people in the City of Durham who signed the petition.
The Ban Conversion Therapy coalition defines conversion practices as those directed towards a person on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity and for the purpose of changing or suppressing the sexual orientation or gender identity of the person. Proposals to ban gender conversion practices would not affect legitimate clinical practices that are outcome-neutral, nor would they outlaw exploratory therapies or discussions, or limit religious beliefs or private prayer.
The main reason I oppose conversion practices in all forms is because they are harmful and do not work. Not only has a UN report found that conversion practices can amount to torture, but the UK Government have stated that
“There is no justification for these coercive and abhorrent practices and the evidence is clear that it does not work: it does not change a person from being LGBT and can cause long lasting damage to those who go through it.”
I could not agree more.
There is clear consensus on this issue across the medical community, with all the leading medical, psychological and therapy organisations, including the Royal College of General Practitioners and the Royal College of Psychiatrists, backing a trans-inclusive ban.
Last but not least, conversion practices are centred on the belief that certain gender identities or sexualities are the worst possible outcome for that person. There is acceptance that it is wrong to try to convert someone from their sexuality, because we believe that no one sexuality is more normal or moral than any other, so why should it not be the same when it comes to gender identity?
Before I finish, I will touch on the flawed concept of consent. This morning, I was in contact with Action for Trans Health Durham, which asked me to stress in this debate that there are countless avenues for someone to coerce a trans person into undertaking conversion therapy. It could be through the withdrawal of financial support, the withdrawal of access to loved ones, or the withdrawal of accommodation. The fact that trans people are also more likely to suffer from poor mental health and homelessness makes them more vulnerable to exploitation. Even if we set aside the fact that these practices should be banned outright due to the harm they cause, the fact that we can never be certain that anyone is undergoing such practices willingly means we must reject any consent loophole.
I support a trans-inclusive ban on conversion therapy for trans and non-binary people because allowing such practices to exist not only puts people at risk of harm but legitimises the idea that being trans is wrong, which is something I completely reject. I hope that one day basic rights for trans people will no longer be the subject of debate. Trans people should not be used as a political football. This Government could show that they are on the side of the LGBT community by banning these practices, but they refuse to do so. Instead, they would rather light up buildings with rainbows than make any meaningful change. Let me absolutely clear: there is no LGB without the T, and I will always stand in community with the LGBT community and their right to be who they are, enjoying the right to love whoever they love and the right to exist.
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
I filmed a conversion therapy once for a BBC documentary —I was a journalist before I became an MP—and that was when I first encountered a conversion therapist. He advertised himself as offering the last chance of a normal life, which of course lured young and vulnerable people who were terrified of their identity. I watched as this untrained pastor told a vulnerable and distressed young man that he had parted company with God and that was why he was anguished about his sexuality. Clearly distraught, the young man told me that he would commit suicide if the pastor failed to “cure” him.
I discovered that the pastor’s background was deeply disturbing, which is why I want some hon. Gentlemen and hon. Ladies present to be keenly aware of who we are talking about when we consider who is offering this so-called therapy. They are not experts who can help anyone. This pastor’s own son had committed suicide some years earlier because he, too, had a “dearth of masculinity”—or so his father had persuaded him. The pastor showed me the suicide note that his son had written him. The lad had connected up the exhaust pipe of his car to the family garage. His handwriting on the suicide note had trailed off as he lost consciousness and then lost his life, as the fumes filled his lungs. His dying wish was that his father would understand that the love he felt was real. He asked his father to meet his boyfriend and deliver him a note that he had written and left for him. The pastor told me that he had torn up that note and recommitted his life to the conversion therapy that had led his own son to suicide. This was the man who was offering conversion therapy to the vulnerable, with no controls under the law—conversion therapy, which the UK Conservative Government, breaking a manifesto commitment, appear now to be choosing not to outlaw.
We cannot allow this Government decision. If we believe the intelligence briefings from Conservative Back Benchers, the decision has already been made. It is our duty to do all we can to protect young people from the unrepentant cruelty of the pastor and his ilk, wallowing in prejudice and ignorance, for they are the reality of so-called conversion therapy. They take the most vulnerable in society, aiming to convince them that their nature can be altered. It is the cruellest of all deceptions.
Once upon a time, the Conservative Government agreed:
“There is no justification for these coercive and abhorrent practices”.
That was from a Conservative Government document, and I agree. The UK Government’s own research has found that trans people are twice as likely to experience conversion abuse as gay non-trans people. Galop, the anti-abuse charity, found that 11% of trans people have been subjected to conversion therapies by their own families. Just imagine the cruelty: the very people who should be looking after you and affirming who you are taking you off to the place of greatest danger.
Stephen Doughty
I totally agree with my honourable friend. He will know that Galop also found that trans and non-binary people face a higher level of sexual violence than other members of the LGBT+ community, and it was designed to convert them from their gender identity. That is the reality of what we are dealing with, and why it has to be a fully inclusive ban.
John Nicolson
Indeed, because some of these sordid people, as my honourable friend will know, rape those who are sent to their so-called care, in order to “cure” them of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
In the past year, Canada, France and New Zealand have all made the decision to ban trans conversion therapy. Scotland will shortly do so as well, I am proud to say. Some Members, as we heard earlier, say they have come with an open mind to learn. I believe in evidence-based policy making, so let us see what the experts say about this issue and who they are. The United Nations independent expert on sexual orientation and gender identity, the national health service, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of General Practitioners and the British Psychological Society, along with dozens of health, counselling and psychotherapy organisations across these islands, are all calling on the UK Government to end these practices for both gay and trans people. I would say that they are the experts—wouldn’t you?
Just in case anybody is trying to hide behind some kind of religious veil, only a few weeks ago the ancient Kirk, the Church of Scotland—my own Church; the Church in which generations of my family were ministers—lent its voice to the growing chorus of organisations that support banning trans conversion abuse. It is not a religious issue; it is cruel, it is damaging, and it does not work. It is surely our duty, as parliamentarians, to stand always on the side of the vulnerable. Let us do so on this.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I want to acknowledge the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn), because he framed this debate in the right way—[Interruption.]
I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this important debate on behalf of the many people in Newport West who have written to me with their stories, experiences, fears and hopes. This is an important subject for so many in this House and in the country, and I speak in an attempt to bring people together, to do away with the toxicity and inflamed passions and to speak about people—our children, our grandchildren and our neighbours.
I am conscious that this is not a day for long speeches or pontificating; if it was a day for long speeches, we should be listening to those outside this House who have had to experience the horrors of conversion therapy. I want to be clear: I completely and utterly refute any argument that conversion therapy works or is fair, decent or right. It is a disgraceful attempt to destroy the very essence of who a human being is and how they see themselves. I note the letter from the Women and Equalities Committee to the Minister, in which the Committee said:
“We have heard that the term ‘therapy’ is unhelpful, overly broad, misleading and confuses ethical, professional treatment with harmful practices.”
I absolutely echo those sentiments. If it is not right for some people—colleagues here today know that—then it cannot be right for anyone. It is as simple as that.
Before I was elected to this place in 2019, I spent my career working in our national health service across England and Wales. As would be expected, I know a little bit about health and wellbeing, which is why I wanted to speak in this debate. This is about safety and security for all. If we are, as we hear so often, committed to the health and wellbeing of our people, we simply must ensure that conversion therapy is outlawed for trans people and, indeed, all people.
In recent weeks and months, I have spoken to and engaged with representatives across our community in Newport West. Those discussions were held with a range of folks, from faith leaders to mental health charities and organisations. I met the Dean of Newport Cathedral, the Very Reverend Ian Black, and Adam Smith of LGBT+ Newport—they both agree completely. People want decency not division, respect not rage.
I hope the Minister will be able to provide some real clarity. I refer to a letter from the Petitions Committee that said:
“It was welcome to see the Government recommit to its plans for a legislative ban on conversion therapy practices intended to change a person’s sexual orientation in last week’s Queen’s Speech. However, concerns have been expressed that—contrary to the Government’s commitments when it launched its consultation on banning conversion therapy last year—transgender conversion therapy will not now be included in the scope of the Conversion Therapy Bill, but will instead be the subject of ‘separate work’.”
Can the Minister be clear about what “separate work” means? Can he tell us when we will finally see conversion therapy banned for all people?
A number of constituents wrote to me ahead of the debate to ask me to speak, and although they asked not to be mentioned, I know they are watching our discussion. To all of them, I say thank you. Thank you for speaking up and for standing firm despite the many obstacles in your way, and for sharing your stories and experiences with me as your Member of Parliament and you voice in this place.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) on the sensitivity of his opening remarks. He set the scene incredibly well. He talked about access to justice. Justice as a concept means something different to each of us. I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price): to do this work properly, we must extinguish the term “therapy” in any legislation, because it sanitises a practice that is absolutely not therapy. That is something I think we should approach with real sincerity.
Perversely, in some respects I am glad that the Government made the decision to withdraw the trans community from the Conversion Therapy (Prohibition) Bill—not necessarily because of their position on that, but because that led to the petition, which led to this discussion. Discussion has been absent for so long, and the absence of sensitive discussion has been deeply damaging. To really understand how we move forward, we must listen to some of the messages and understand them with sensitivity, rather than getting on our high horse and take a polarised position. We must harness our experience and insights, wherever they come from, to ensure that we make the right decision. Our job as legislators is to interrogate the legislation and ensure that it is fit for purpose and will deliver on its intent.
My perspective comes down to information. When I grew up in the ’70s and ’80s, and started my nursing career in the ’80s, Scotland was not the beacon of equality that it has become. It was a tough gig, to say the least. One of my first placements was on a surgical ward. A bus driver was brought in with abdominal pains and was rushed to surgery for a laparotomy. Surgeons opened him up and discovered that he had extensive cancer, before stitching him back up and sending him back to the ward. That was the end of the discussion with him. He was not told; his family had decided that he should not be told the truth, and everybody was quiet about it. Back then, it was not abnormal for the patient not to have that information.
That has fundamentally changed. We now have the concept of informed consent. When I worked in adolescent psychiatry, we did not affirm that the dysmorphia of dysmorphic anorexics was real; we gave them therapy to help them resolve the challenges that they faced.
Nadia Whittome
The hon. Member will correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds as though he is suggesting that being trans, which is to do with somebody’s identity, is as harmful as anorexia—the most deadly psychiatric condition.
Neale Hanvey
Absolutely not. I am not making that parallel at all; I am talking about information and consent.
During my clinical practice and academic research, I conducted primary research into the supportive care of adolescents as they went through their cancer journey. That grounded theory framed supportive care as care that maximises personhood by considering all aspects of that individual, maximising who they were as they went through that journey and ensuring that they were supported to be the best version of themselves despite the trauma of intensive treatment.
Informed consent is something that children and young people are incredibly capable of dealing with. I have had conversations with young people about how and where they would like to die, and whom they would like to be there with them. I have had conversations with young people who have come in at the start of their cancer journey about sperm and ovarian tissue cryopreservation. [Interruption.] I do not know why that is funny; it is quite a serious issue. Those conversations have been handled in an incredibly capable way by young people, who are absolutely able to deal with difficult and complex information. They could be guided through that process in an absolutely natural and capable way. Certainly, in my experience, young people’s ability to deal with such information should humble everyone in this place.
Many of the late effects of cancer are a rich gold mine that we should look at when considering the impact of puberty blockers, because there are parallels. When somebody makes the decision to detransition, what impact will it have on later life? When somebody has high-dose chemotherapy, all their rapidly replicating cells can be deeply damaged, so they can completely lose their fertility. That is why sperm and ovarian tissue cryopreservation are really important and one of the important questions that we need to ask ourselves on this important matter.
The next part of consent is when it is not possible.
Sir Graham Brady (in the Chair)
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, who has already gone slightly over our informal time limit. I have just been advised that there is a problem with the sound on the broadcast. Any Members who have spoken while there has been a problem can be reassured that their words will be recorded in Hansard but may not be available on the broadcast. I have been advised to suspend the sitting for five minutes to allow the engineers to reconnect the sound.
David Mundell (in the Chair)
I am told that the technical issues have been resolved, so we can resume. Mr Hanvey, please start where you left off.
Neale Hanvey
It is now a pleasure to serve to under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I was making a point about the provision of information to assist in decision making in complex situations. Encouraging somebody down a path that could lead to irreversible medical decisions without the provision of such information and the opportunity to consider all possibilities is an unforgivable dereliction of professional duty. In her interim report, Dr Cass states that:
“Primary and secondary care staff have told us that they feel under pressure to adopt an unquestioning affirmative approach and that this is at odds with the standard process of clinical assessment and diagnosis that they have been trained to undertake in all other clinical encounters.”
I agree with that fundamental principle.
I should make it very clear that I am drawing a distinction between someone who has arrived at a clear, considered position of a trans identity and someone who is embarking on the exploration of that. Those are two entirely different things. We have a duty of care to understand that the therapeutic need within that process must be supportive. I agree with every point that has been made that that process should not be coercive on either side. It must be balanced and therapeutic, and it must always be patient-led. Patients must lead the direction of conversation. They should not be influenced in either direction to arrive at a particular position.
Many Members have made the point today that we are talking not about therapeutic interventions from professionals, but about quackery. This debate has satisfied some of my deep concerns about what the legislation would mean. As I remarked at the beginning of my speech, I am glad that the Government have made this decision and that the petition has been raised, because we are having this conversation. My experience of asking questions about this legislation, based on my considerable clinical experience, is being accused of being a transphobe and even a homophobe—that would be a surprise to my husband. We have been together for 28 years, so it would be news to him.
I have gone on a little bit longer than intended, so I will wrap up. I cannot imagine what it must be like for someone to be told that their identity is wrong when they know deep in their heart and soul that that is who they are. Conversion therapy is an absolutely abhorrent practice and should be ruled out, but we must make it clear what therapy is and what quackery is. These are the fundamental questions I have asked myself about what the legislation means. What we must not do is come down on either side, where there is coercion against trans identity or unquestioning affirmation. It is vital that young people who are questioning their identity have the kind of support and guidance that was denied me as a young gay man growing up in the 70s and 80s.
David Mundell (in the Chair)
I call Dame Nia Griffith, and I add my congratulations on her inclusion on Her Majesty’s birthday honours list.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Thank you very much indeed, Mr Mundell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) and my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) on their excellent opening speeches. I will try not to repeat too much of what they said.
I have been saddened that it has taken the Government so long to address the issue of banning conversion therapy, which was promised back in 2019, and I am absolutely horrified that the Government are retreating from including trans people in the ban. This is a shocking broken promise. I would like to give apologies for my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), who cannot be here owing to another speaking engagement. I remind hon. Members that back in 2014 he introduced a private Member’s Bill to ban gay conversion therapy, which included protecting trans people, so this legislation is long overdue.
Let us be clear: conversion therapy is abhorrent. It sets out to direct an individual to one intended outcome. As has been made clear by many Members, a ban on conversion therapy does not affect legitimate clinical consultations with medical professionals. The effects of conversion therapy are devastating, from negative self-image to suicidal thoughts, with potentially tragic consequences that are every bit as devastating for trans people as they are for LGB people.
By retreating from making this a trans-inclusive ban, the Government are not only sending a message to trans people that they are not prepared to protect them and leaving trans people exposed to the appalling damage that conversion therapy causes; they are also sending a very transphobic message to wider society. That is a serious matter, indeed. At a time when trans people face appalling abuse, bullying and discrimination, and when we should all be taking a strong stance against transphobia in all its forms, the Government should be setting a strong example and making it clear that trans people are valued every bit as much as other members of society.
The UK has, in the past, been a leader and champion of human rights on the international stage, but now we are in danger of sullying that reputation and falling badly behind. Other countries, as has been mentioned, such as New Zealand, Canada and France, have recently introduced trans-inclusive legislation and, of course, it is perfectly possible to draft appropriate wording. It is high time the UK Government acted immediately to introduce a fully trans-inclusive conversion therapy ban.
David Mundell (in the Chair)
I am afraid that some of the issues with the sound have re-emerged, but I propose that we continue the debate. Hansard is taping and transcribing every word that is being said, so whatever contributions that have or will be made will be fully recorded.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I too congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) on opening the debate. I want to approach this debate by speaking as somebody from the Christian faith. Over the past five years, I have tended to avoid talking too much about faith in the Chamber, partly because I do not want to be pigeonholed as some sort of mad Ned Flanders. One of the first times I spoke in the House, I quoted from Micah 6:8, in which we Christians are commanded
“To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly”.
The pledge that I made five years ago was that, when considering issues in this place, I would try and approach everything I do by applying those principles. I confess that I hummed and hawed about whether to take part in this debate, because what people have seen as the trans debate has become incredibly toxic. Some of the most marginalised and vulnerable people on the face of the planet have sadly been used as a political football, and we have seen elements of that today.
I want to bring a focus on faith in how I approach this subject. As many Members have already outlined, the vast majority of conversion therapy takes place in religious settlements. For that, I am deeply sorry and incredibly embarrassed. I think it is absolutely appalling and would condemn it in every form. The form of Christianity that I believe in subscribes to a view of compassion; it does not subscribe to the idea of using a very vulnerable group of people as some sort of wedge issue or political football, as is so often the case. I think that the Government, in choosing to remove trans people from the ban on conversion therapy, are doing exactly that. This is being used as a wedge issue, and most of us in this Chamber know that.
When anybody tries to approach this debate, it suddenly gets boiled down to who can use toilets and what kind of genitalia they have. That does a massive disservice to the issue, and it gets away from the fact that trans people are subject to some of the worst mental health issues—some are contemplating suicide. The idea that this issue can be boiled down to some pathetic radio phone-in, asking who can have a penis, is deeply distasteful.
Going back to the Christian theme, when the Bible talks about the good Samaritan, the good Samaritan did not stop and ask someone what their pronouns were; whether they were male, female or non-binary. The good Samaritan stood there and tried to help people. So I would ask Christians to approach this debate with compassion, because far too often, in my view, the Church has become absolutely obsessed with people’s sexual orientation and gender, and it has done so at the expense of social justice and equality.
We are commanded in the Bible to talk about faith, hope and love, but it says that the greatest of those is love. As a Christian, I do not believe that we can talk about practising love to other people while pursuing a ban on conversion therapy that excludes trans people. I very much support the ban on conversion therapy, but it must go further and include trans people. We must try to have a much more grown-up debate that focuses on compassion, and not the nonsense that we see far too often.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell, and to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), who made a powerful speech. I congratulate and thank the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for securing the debate, and also the creators of the petition, along with the 145,000 people who signed it, for ensuring that it was debated here today.
LGBTQ people do not need to be fixed or cured. There is nothing wrong with who we are; what is wrong is how society treats us. Mind, the mental health charity, has said that
“all forms of conversion practices can result in poor mental health”.
People have reported suicidal thoughts, self-harm, and feelings of guilt, shame and self-hatred. The United Nations has said that conversion practices can amount to torture. The Government’s 2018 national LGBT survey found that 5% of LGBTQ people had been offered, or threatened with, conversion therapy, and one in 50 had been put through it. Trans people are twice as likely to have been offered conversion practices than those who are cisgender and gay or bi.
The Government have now been promising for four years that conversion practices for LGBTQ people will be banned. Now that a ban has finally made its way to the Queen’s Speech, in which conversion therapy was described as “abhorrent”, the proposals it puts forward are discriminatory and unacceptable. If the Government truly believe that conversion therapy is abhorrent, why do they intend to ban practices aimed at changing a person’s sexual orientation but not those aimed at changing their gender identity? Mind has described that differentiation as “deeply disappointing”.
I am extremely concerned that trans people’s exclusion is yet another cynical attempt by this Government to create a culture war between these different groups—that they are scapegoating trans people, who already face a tirade of violence and discrimination, with the aim of stirring up so-called anti-woke sentiment. We have seen it all before. The Government do the same to migrants, refugees and people of colour. We saw Thatcher’s Government whip up the same moral panic against gay people in the 1980s. I believe that, just as society looks back with disgust at how gay people were treated in decades gone by, we will hang our heads in shame at trans people’s treatment in decades to come.
It is also deeply worrying that, even for sexual orientation, the ban covers only under-18s. That means that adults can consent to non-physical forms of conversion practices. People cannot consent to their own abuse—and that is what conversion therapy is. It should be banned without caveats. I urge the Minister to listen to LGBTQ organisations, mental health experts, MPs here and our constituents, and ban conversion practices for everyone, in all circumstances.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for the way he introduced today’s debate. The way he pinned down the specifics of what we are meant to be discussing was really helpful. I also thank the 145,000-plus people who signed the petition, including all those from East Renfrewshire who signed and the many who have been in touch to let me know of their deep concern at the gap in the Government’s proposals. I also thank the many organisations that have kindly been in touch with briefings on this issue.
I think the tone of today’s debate has been interesting. I always wonder what these debates will actually be like. I have to say, it has been really interesting to hear the groundswell of feeling from MPs across this Chamber saying that we are not okay with the gap and we think that conversion therapy should be banned in all circumstances. That is really important, because we need to be clear that nobody’s identity should be up for debate. Nobody’s identity should be a political football; nobody’s rights should be diminished or compromised. It is always important that we bear these things in mind when we consider the language we use in this discussion, because what we say here has a significant impact on those outside the Chamber.
So what are we talking about here? Conversion practices—I take the point that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) made about the use of the word “therapy”; I think that is right, and I believe the Scottish Parliament uses the term “conversion practices”—are practices or conducts that are targeted at an individual with the intention of changing or supressing that person’s sexual orientation and/or gender identity. My hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) described very vividly the terrible reality of what that can mean. The UK Government themselves have stated:
“There is no justification for these coercive and abhorrent practices”.
That being the case, I wonder why we are here, particularly when, again, the UK Government’s own research found that trans people are twice as likely to be subjected to or offered conversion practices as non-trans lesbian, gay or bi people.
I think it was the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) who outlined the fact that banning conversion practices does not criminalise outcome-neutral explorative conversations or therapy. It is only practices that have a targeted focus on directing someone towards a more “acceptable”—as the convertor would have it—outcome that would be criminalised. That is because the bottom line here, which we need to be clear about, is that conversion practices are abusive and deeply harmful, for which there is no excuse, and nobody should be left at risk of these practices.
How did we get to this point? We had a commitment from the UK Government that they would ban conversion therapy, but in April they performed a series of quite extraordinary U-turns. First, they said that they planned to drop the ban on conversion therapy. Then, predictably and correctly, they U-turned on that after a significant outcry, including from a number of Members on the Conservative Benches. However, that U-turn was only partial. I find it inexplicable that we would suggest that it is okay to ban conversion therapy yet somehow miss out this very vulnerable group.
I thought that the speeches today by the hon. Members for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) and for Darlington (Peter Gibson) were particularly important in that regard, and we need to remember that a significant number of voices are having nothing to do with the UK Government’s position, because it is completely unjustifiable. Indeed, this is a disgraceful way for the UK Government to conduct themselves, with no thought, as far as I can see, for the people directly affected. That is really disappointing, because of the damage it will cause to people’s lives.
It has been reported that the UK Government think that this is the correct course of action because there could be unintended consequences. We really need to be clear here—I think that there will be very predictable consequences if this gap remains, and the consequences will be that people’s lives will continue to be harmed and people will continue to be put into the most difficult situations, which will cause their lives to be significantly damaged.
John Nicolson
Does my hon. Friend recognise that one of the consequences is the fact that the international conference Safe To Be Me, which the UK Government trumpeted so keenly, has been cancelled? I know that she and I are both deeply concerned about the UK’s reputation, and this cancellation highlights just how far the UK has slipped on this issue, such that people no longer want to come to our shores.
Kirsten Oswald
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that important point. If we look at the UK’s standing, in terms of the league table of places with a positive environment for people to be safe in their identity as members of the LGBT community, we see that it is slipping, and slipping fast.
Members have made points today that we should reflect upon. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington talked about the fact that the UK Government’s own survey pointed out the harms that are being caused, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire has just done. The hon. Member for Edinburgh West said that there is ample evidence of the harms that are caused to trans people by conversion therapy. The hon. Member for Darlington basically pointed out—I am paraphrasing here— that it is simply not okay to treat trans people as if they are ill and need to be cured.
However, it is not just we here today who are saying these things. We have heard that Mind, Relate, the Association of Christian Counsellors, the Scottish Human Rights Commission and many other organisations have also spoken out. The British Medical Association has spoken out, and it does not mince its words. It says of conversion therapy:
“It must be banned in its entirety.”
The BMA says that it is extremely concerned that the ban on conversion therapy has not been extended to transgender and non-binary people. It points to the UK Government’s own analysis of the impacts on the mental health of trans people, who, it notes, are
“already most vulnerable to being subjected to so-called conversion therapy, with one in seven trans people reporting that they had been offered or had ‘conversion therapy’”.
It is not just the BMA saying this kind of thing. The Royal College of Nursing’s annual congress voted overwhelmingly to support a total ban on conversion therapy; the British Psychological Society has made its views clear, too; and the Church of Scotland passed a motion at its general assembly calling for a ban on conversion therapy. I have increasingly heard from constituents with a strong religious faith who are also deeply concerned about the potential harm caused by not implementing a full ban.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) said that he “hummed and hawed” when considering whether to speak in this debate. I have to say that I am very glad that he did. I already knew that he is a thoughtful and compassionate man, but he demonstrated that again today in what I thought was a very important contribution. That is because there is a groundswell among those with a strong religious faith. We have heard about the large numbers of religious leaders who have spoken out on this subject already. There is no justification for a gap in the ban, and religion is not a justification either.
That recognition, from all angles, of the immense harm, is borne out by the people who are directly affected. Their voices are perhaps a bit missing today, but they are who we should be listening to. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) speak, because I thought she pointed that out very well. The experience of trans people who have already been harmed by conversion therapy is what we must consider when we think of the fact that that is somehow being left out of the proposed provisions.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith), I am very glad that the SNP Government in Scotland are clear about their commitment to ensure that everyone, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, is safe from conversion practices. It is notable that they have taken steps to include in their process voices of people who are directly affected. They have an expert advisory group on ending conversion practice, which will look at support for victims and survivors—something that we must not let slip as we move forward because, while I and many others in this room are pushing for a ban on conversion therapy that includes trans people, there are many people whose lives have already been irreparably damaged.
Scotland is only one of a number of countries taking that approach; we have heard about Northern Ireland, and I understand that Wales is looking at this too. In the last year, Canada, New Zealand and France have all gone down this road, and nothing terrible has happened—of course it wouldn’t. However, the way that the UK Government are approaching this issue is making life particularly difficult for trans people; this conversation in itself is making life harder for people who are already vulnerable.
Hywel Williams
In this case, Wales is actually “Wales and England”, but many of us would welcome the opportunity for Wales to legislate on this matter. That might be a point that the Minister will respond to when he gets up.
Kirsten Oswald
I am sure that the Minister is taking note and has heard the voices in Wales, as I have, who are talking about this.
The reason that this matters is that leaving trans people out of a ban on conversion therapy waters down the impact of the ban for everyone else. It allows conversion therapy to come in by the back door—or the trap door, as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) said—and, of course, many trans people are LGB. It just makes everyone’s identities that little bit less secure, and everyone loses as a result. Fundamentally, there is nothing wrong with being trans; that is what this all must come back to. Nobody needs to be cured, or converted away from being themselves; legislation here must reflect that fact.
I make no apology for having criticised the UK Government for U-turning repeatedly on this issue, but there is an opportunity for them to U-turn again and do the correct thing—I would certainly welcome that—to ensure that this is an all-encompassing ban on conversion therapy. I know that the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) is a very thoughtful Minister on this matter. The only question I have for him is: what steps is he taking and what conversations is he having with his colleagues to ensure that this ban is a ban for all?
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to participate in this debate with you in the Chair, Mr Mundell. I am grateful to the petitioners, and I thank the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for opening this debate in what has been universally acknowledged as a sensitive and careful manner.
I think we are all aware that this discussion is taking place during the Pride Month—the 50th year since the first Pride march took place in London. This should be a month of celebration for LGBT+ people and their allies, after their history of struggle that was ably described by my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne). It should be a time to celebrate the wonderful diversity of our country and for all of us in this House to recommit to doing what we can to ensure that every person in the UK is treated with dignity and respect, including LGBT people, and that they will always have the ability to love and live as they need to. The calls from my hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) and for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) were extremely strong in that regard.
The Government had ambitious plans to mark the 50 years of Pride through, as was mentioned, their flagship Safe To Be Me: A Global Equality Conference. However, the resignation of Iain Anderson, and the withdrawal of more than 100 LGBT+ organisations and charities from Safe To Be Me in April, was a consequence of the Government’s decision to reverse their plans to ban trans conversion therapy, which is of course the subject of today’s debate.
The policy process has been chaotic. On 30 March, the Minister told the House that the Government were taking forward plans to ban conversion therapy in all its forms “on an urgent basis”. Just one day later, the news broke that the Prime Minister intended to ditch plans to ban all forms of conversion therapy, and one day after that the Government had to U-turn on that intention, only then to exclude trans conversion therapy from their plans. It appeared that no one covering equalities issues on the Government Benches, from the Foreign Secretary and Women and Equalities Minister down, was informed of No. 10’s intentions, as they changed from hour to hour.
At no point before April had the Government suggested that they were treating trans conversion therapy practices differently from those targeting sexual orientation. Their consultation was in fact explicit that an attempt to change a person from being attracted to the same sex to being attracted to the opposite sex, or from not being transgender to being transgender, would be treated in the same way as the reverse scenario.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) made clear, a ban on conversion therapy in all its forms is long overdue, so I have to ask, as so many have during this debate, why have the Government changed their mind on this subject when so many expert organisations hold a different point of view? The BMA has called conversion therapy
“an unethical and damaging practice that preys on victims of homophobia, transphobia, discrimination, and bullying.”
The Royal College of Psychiatrists says,
“Conversion therapy causes severe physical and psychological suffering”.
Many others have been mentioned in this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) mentioned the comments of Mind, the mental health charity. The NHS Confederation and the British Psychological Society were mentioned. I could go on and on. The issue is at not just a national level, but a local one, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) rightly said when she mentioned the organisation that she has been in contact with.
Many of the organisations that I have just listed have acknowledged, as has the Labour party, the need for clarity when introducing legislation. Labour is clear that a trans-inclusive ban must not cover psychological support and treatment, non-directive counselling, or the pastoral relationship between teachers and pupils or religious leaders and worshippers. The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) made that particularly clear.
Alex Sobel
My hon. Friend is giving a customarily excellent speech. When I went to see one of my oldest and best friends Imran last year, his child was coming out as trans—as Hope. I want to share Imran’s and Hope’s words. Hope told me,
“I’m Hope and I’m 16. I’ve decided to live my life as female. My home has been very supportive and my parents have done everything they can for me. At school it has been supportive, especially my friends and teachers who have been respectful. Some students have been unkind. The attitude that most people have shown me should be the norm. Trans People are treated differently and we need to educate people.”
Imran said to me,
“It doesn’t matter what your child does or says but it’s your job to unconditionally love and support them.”
I hope we can carry their positivity, do our best for trans people and bring forward the ban.
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point and sharing that experience. Let me say clearly in response to the comments of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher): of course, a ban must not cover discussions within families, which are based in the need for love and support, as has rightly been mentioned.
It is imperative that a trans-inclusive ban must not have an impact on the provision of services for children and young people. Indeed, the interim Cass review has highlighted the extent to which there is a disturbing lack of support and healthcare for children and young people with gender dysphoria, especially when it is accompanied by an additional diagnosis that requires care. Much more support and counselling is needed, not less. I agree the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington that any ban must be carefully, tightly and clearly worded, and appropriately implemented and assessed. The Government’s own consultation on their initial proposals made that very clear. As my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli said, this is not beyond the wit of man or woman in this place; it is surely what we do every day as legislators, and what we would do in respect of this ban too.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does she agree that we have to be inclusive when we are talking about issues of coercion and control, and of safeguarding, and that there is therefore no rationale behind the exclusion of one particular group in our society over another?
Anneliese Dodds
I thank my hon. Friend for that important comment. Indeed, there is no rationale for exclusion. Ministers have had almost four years to work up a ban on all forms of conversion therapy that does not inadvertently restrict access to legitimate, non-coercive forms of treatment. As so many Members have said, the Government could have looked to the examples of other countries that have managed to produce bans without any evidence of such unintended consequences. The majority of countries that have introduced some form of national restrictions against conversion therapy have done so including trans people, and more propose to follow suit.
I have some direct questions for the Minister. Will he please explain whether he and his Government have gathered: any evidence on the impact of such a ban on the provision of legitimate talking therapies; any evidence or statements from medical bodies suggesting any concerns about chilling effects after conversion therapy bans; and any evidence to suggest that a trans-inclusive ban would put such treatments at risk? I have been unable to find any such evidence. I believe that is because it does not exist.
I anticipate the Minister will argue that the complexity of issues I have mentioned will require his Government to consider the issue of transgender conversion therapy further. If, according to his Government, further information on how a trans-inclusive ban will work must be sought, I hope that he will use his remarks to set out in explicit detail a timetable for such a period of consideration and how that process is to be undertaken. When do the Government intend to make a final decision on the issue? Are we going to back here in another year, asking exactly the same questions? If so, I genuinely fear for the impact in the interim on trans people, who surely only want to live their lives in dignity and free from abuse, just like everybody else.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mike Freer)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the petitioner for securing the debate and the 145,000 people who signed the petition. On a personal note, I would like to recognise the 50th anniversary of Pride, and to thank those who went before me to secure the rights that I have today. We can get caught up in the heat of the debate around the issues we have to address, but it is sometimes important to look back and remember that we have made progress. Let us not lose sight of the progress we have made, while agreeing that we still have further work to do. I have to say that I welcome this debate, because I have spent considerable time and energy on the legislation, not least trying to myth-bust much of the nonsense going around regarding what is and is not conversion practice.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) not only for securing the debate, but for what I thought was a powerful and thoughtful speech. It was a speech that he could have made from the Minister’s position—perhaps one day he will.
I have to say that the debate saddens me; I am genuinely sad that we are having this debate yet again. It saddens me that we have yet to achieve a consensus on many of the more thorny or heated topics that people disagree on or choose to misunderstand. It is a real regret that, having spent so much time trying to explain what is and is not a conversion practice, we continue to have this debate. From that point of view, since taking up the position of looking after LGBT issues in the equalities brief, I have genuinely tried to seek consensus, to pursue the debate with a degree of honesty and respect, and to remove the toxicity from the debate.
Many of us do not have direct experience of trans issues, although some of us do. I get deeply frustrated when colleagues make comments—from what I believe to be a position of ignorance—about the trans community, which also hurt colleagues in this House. The trans community is not some invisible, amorphous blob that people cannot recognise. Trans people are our friends and our colleagues. Members of this House have trans siblings and trans children. We have our first trans Member of Parliament. It deeply saddens me that hurtful comments are still being made, even if they are not designed to hurt.
I have taken time to speak to many of the survivors who have been through conversion practices, some of them decades ago. From speaking to them, it is clear that they still live with that trauma today. I have also spoken to people who have survived conversion therapy more recently. When people say that conversion therapy no longer exists, that is absolute, utter nonsense. They just need to go out and talk to people who have survived it, whose partners have committed suicide, or who have seen children taken abroad to conversion camps or to be married off.
It deeply saddens me that people continue to deny the existence of conversion practices. Yes, many of the more abhorrent physical acts are illegal. However, the pernicious, insidious, coercive so-called therapies are what we are trying to address, and they are still present today.
Colleagues have talked about rape being used as a tool to correct people’s behaviour. Part of the Bill that is being drafted will ensure that, while rape is obviously already an illegal act, using rape in the way Members have described would be an aggravating factor. That is the difference. People ask what the Bill will change in law that is not already illegal—that is one example. The use of corrective rape will be an aggravating factor. That is not currently the case.
I recognise people’s strength of feeling for ensuring that the Bill includes trans people. I want to make it abundantly clear that the Bill will protect everyone from coercive attempts to change their sexual orientation. We do not agree with attempts to change someone’s gender, but we wish to ensure that any action that we bring forward on transgender conversion practices does not have wider implications, such as affecting access to legitimate therapies.
At the start of my speech, I referenced the sadness I felt that we have not been able to reach a consensus. I am disappointed that we have not brought forward a fully inclusive Bill, as is fairly obvious from my previous statements, but in terms of where we go from here, I want to use the piece of work that is currently being scoped out, hopefully at pace, so that we can have an informed process as the Bill proceeds in its passage through Parliament. We must try to address the issue of how to ensure with cast-iron clarity, if one can have cast-iron clarity, that clinicians are protected in questioning someone’s gender discomfort—I will be corrected if I get this wrong, but dysphoria is the clinical end of the process. When someone is suffering from gender distress, a clinician needs to have absolute clarity that they are protected, and that their ability to explore why their client is feeling that way is not a conversion practice.
Jackie Doyle-Price
I think a lot of people will be very reassured by the tone of the Minister’s comments, because there is genuine fear that legitimate practices would be outlawed. However, one of the issues we have is that campaigners are looking at other laws elsewhere, which has perhaps led them to conclude that things will be included in the Bill that might not be. Could the Minister say what the timescale for a draft Bill will be? No one can predict what will be in the legislation, because we have not seen it yet.
Mike Freer
I thank my hon. Friend for asking for clarification. It is certainly my intention that the draft Bill, which is expected to be narrow in scope, clearly setting out what is and is not a conversion practice so that we have that clarity, will be brought forward in—I hope—September or October of this year.
Luke Pollard
I have a lot of time for the Minister, and I think his heart is in the right place, but he has just mentioned a narrow scope. Is it the Government’s intention that the scope of the Bill will be so narrow that an amendment to include trans and non-binary conversion therapies and practices within a ban would be excluded, so that the will of the House could not be tested and MPs would not have the chance to vote for such an amendment?
Mike Freer
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I know he spends a lot of time on this issue, and we are probably of a similar mindset about where we want to get to.
I am straying into parliamentary draftsmanship, but I think it is possible to draft a Bill that ensures that attempts to reopen the Equality Act 2010 or the Gender Recognition Act would be out of scope. That is one of the dangers: if we write a Bill that is open to being repeatedly amended, there is a risk of the debate widening beyond conversion therapy, which is why I am trying to ensure that the Bill is narrow. However, the way I see it—I cannot give that cast-iron guarantee, because I am not the parliamentary draftsperson—is that a Bill about conversion practices would be amendable. Of course, that is a debate for another time, but our purpose is that the Bill remains narrow, so that it is limited to conversion practices and does not get hijacked and caught up in debates about other issues. I hope that we can keep it very, very narrow.
The extra work of scoping out, which I hope will be done at pace, is about ensuring that legitimate clinicians and therapists are protected in being able to explore all the reasons why somebody might be suffering from gender distress. It is also to make it abundantly clear that parents can have robust conversations with their children. There is nothing wrong with a parent disagreeing with their child’s trans status or sexual orientation—that is not a conversion practice.
Wera Hobhouse
We are having a good debate, but can the Minister confirm that conversion practices are those that are aimed at a certain outcome? What he is describing—an open conversation to explore a person’s gender identity—is of course not something that a ban should include, but all practices with a closed outcome should be banned, and that ban should include trans people.
Mike Freer
A conversion practice is clearly defined as where a person has the predetermined objective of taking someone away from being trans and pushing them towards not being trans. Being straight and being gay would be symmetrical. Key to the additional work that I am seeking to get undertaken at pace is the clarity that we need to ensure that clinicians, parents and teachers are protected, to ensure that the chilling effects, which some clinicians and therapists have expressed concern about, are equally mitigated.
The Cass report mentions how affirmative therapy could be abused. We will always find a rogue practitioner with any practice, but it is legitimate to consider how affirmative therapy should be performed. Again, it is about achieving clarity so that people are not caught and made to feel that they have practised conversion therapy by simply being a good therapist or clinician. That is why the work that we have scoped and done at pace will, I hope, allow us to achieve a consensus and put to bed many of the fears and concerns that people have legitimately expressed. Although I am clearly disappointed that we are having this debate again and that we are where we are, I feel that it is not unreasonable to take some extra time to try to build a consensus, so that when a Bill comes forward, we can make it as inclusive as possible. I cannot guarantee that we will get there, but that is my aim and objective, and I do not think it is wrong to spend some extra time trying to ensure that we can build as much consensus as possible.
Let me turn to a couple of points that have been raised. We have talked about trans healthcare. I have spoken to Dr Cass a couple of times, and she has clearly put a lot of thought into how we need to reform the healthcare system for trans people—not just for under-18s, but in general. The idea that people wake up on a Monday, decide that they want to change their gender, and have been banged through surgery by Friday is clearly nonsense. Anybody who has spent any time looking at the whole trans journey knows that it is cumbersome, it is not patient-centred, and it does not work. It forces too many people to opt out and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) said, to buy things on the internet—the wild west—where we do not know what they are doing and what they are being exposed to. That is an important piece of work, alongside the work we are doing on conversion practices.
I want to reiterate that the call for the ban on conversion practices to wait until Dr Cass has reported in full, and the Government have responded, is missing the point. Dr Cass has said that our work is complementary—we are not sequential—and that her work is not a reason not to bring forward the legislation. She has made that abundantly clear. In fact, she has gone as far as publishing a Q&A on her website, which clearly says:
“The Cass Review was commissioned as an independent review of NHS gender identity services for children and young people. Its terms of reference do not include consideration of the proposed legislation to ban conversion therapy.
No LGBTQ+ group should be subjected to conversion therapy. However, through its work with clinical professionals, the Review recognises that the drafting of any legislation will be of paramount importance in building the confidence of clinicians working in this area.”
That is what Dr Cass said, and she is absolutely spot-on.
I want to put a couple of other things on the record. Hon. Members raised the victim support service, which is already operating and is run by Galop. The service is fully inclusive and available to anybody who believes they have been subject to conversion practices or believes they have been at risk of those practices, regardless of their sexuality, gender or non-binary identity. Galop is the leading LGBT+ anti-violence charity and has significant expertise in that area of work.
To conclude, I remain wholly committed to delivering our commitment to ban conversion practices and to protect victims and survivors. I know many colleagues in this Chamber, from across the House, are equally committed to realising that goal. We have to work together to ensure that the legislation is right and that we are seen to be supportive of people’s right to be who they are. It is not our job to interfere in how people see themselves; it is a matter of autonomy and dignity. I thank all colleagues for their contributions and I look forward to working together to make the Bill a success.
Elliot Colburn
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell, at the end of this debate. I join my hon. Friend the Minister in thanking all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions today. I put on record my thanks to the petitioner, Sammantha, and the Petitions Committee staff, who have done such an excellent job with public engagement in the run-up to today’s debate.
I thank the Minister for his carefully considered response. We are lucky to have him, and I am not just saying that because of the kind words he had to say about me. It is true that we are shooting a little bit in the dark with today’s debate because the Bill has not been published. Indeed, I was heckled earlier by an hon. Member who is no longer in their place to say, “Well, that’s the title of the Bill.” Well, no one knows that yet, so I hope they come back and correct the record.
I welcome the fact that the Minister used the phrase “conversion practices” rather than “conversion therapy”. Indeed, the Bill that has just been passed in New Zealand is the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Act 2022, and I believe we should replicate that phrase. While there are complexities, I have never been one to believe that complexity means that we should not do what is right. At the end of the day, as we have heard and as set out by all the evidence, conversion therapy is harmful and degrading, and does not work. No one should go through it, and we have the opportunity to make sure no one does.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 613556, relating to transgender conversion therapy.
Written Statements
UK Digital Strategy
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Chris Philp)
I am pleased to lay before the House the UK’s Digital Strategy, a wide-reaching and inclusive statement of the Government’s vision for the future of the UK’s digital economy. The digital strategy harnesses our strengths in knowledge and R&D-intensive industries to further our position as a global science and technology superpower, and support the UK’s future prosperity and security.
This is a cross-Government strategy which aims to bring cohesion to the various important digital policies being driven by different parts of Government. Bringing these initiatives together in one place enables us to take the Government’s vision of the digital economy and turn it into reality by exploring new technological frontiers and delivering tech innovation on a scale the country has not previously seen.
This Government champion the UK as a global hub for digital talent and growth. Data suggests that, last year, a new UK unicorn was created every 11 and a half days, with £27.4 billion of private capital flowing into UK tech in 2021. That is more than any other European country. We are committed to continuing to support our fantastic venture capital investment initiatives such as the enterprise investment scheme and the seed investment scheme to ensure that UK companies continue to grow and raise capital to scale up.
The UK is presented with an important opportunity to draw on our position as a world leader in emerging fields such as AI, advanced semiconductor design and quantum computing to become a force for digital good on the global stage. The digital strategy makes clear our intention to work toward a global consensus with like-minded partners and allies to shape a system of digital standards and trade that enables UK businesses to innovate and thrive. We have the opportunity to build on our status as a science and technology superpower, to take advantage of our regulatory freedom, and to champion the dynamic businesses and start-ups that have helped make Britain a focal point for digital skills and innovation.
As well as championing the UK as a global digital hub, the Government also recognise the power of digital technology to transform our own economy, boost jobs and help to level up regions across the UK. Britain’s digital might has given us the flexibility to adapt to unprecedented challenges, such as the covid-19 pandemic, and will be vital in our fight against climate change. Indeed, the UK’s economic future, our security, our standard of living and our place in the world are all reliant on our continued success in digital technology. We can take steps now to futureproof our economy, to invest in developing world-class expertise, to build our evidence base, to boost innovation, to grow employment opportunities across the UK and to strengthen transnational ties.
The future of our economy, of UK jobs, of every region of the country, is digital. Over 80% of all jobs advertised require digital skills, and the rate of tech gross value added has grown on average by 7% per year since 2016. It is vital that we equip businesses and citizens with the skills and tools they need to navigate this rapid change. That means not only rolling out world-class digital infrastructure across the UK, but also ensuring that the benefits of the digital economy are felt by all members of society.
A copy of the UK Digital Strategy will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS90]
Student Loan Interest Rates Reduction
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Higher and Further Education (Michelle Donelan)
I am announcing today a temporary reduction in student loan interest rates to come into effect on 1 September 2022. This unprecedented action brings student loan interest rates in line with the forecast prevailing market rates for comparable unsecured personal loans.
In accordance with the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998, when the Government consider that the student loan interest rate is higher than the prevailing market rate for comparable unsecured loans, we will take steps to bring student loan interest rates in line with the prevailing market rate.
The Government regularly monitor the interest rates set on student loans against the interest rates prevailing on the market for comparable loans.
Student loans are set with reference to the RPI for the month of March prior to the start of the academic year, as published by the Office for National Statistics. Following a significant increase in RPI in March 2022, I am announcing today—13 June 2022—a cap on the post-2012 undergraduate income-contingent repayment and postgraduate income-contingent repayment student loan interest rates in line with the forecast prevailing market rate for the 2022-23 academic year. Subject to the will of Parliament, the cap will come into effect from 1 September 2022 and last for a period of 12 months.
The post-2012 undergraduate income-contingent repayment student loan interest rate and the postgraduate income-contingent repayment student loan interest rate will be 7.3% between 1 September 2022 and 31 August 2023.
This intervention by Ministers means that in September 2022 post-2012 undergraduate student loan borrowers and postgraduate student loan borrowers face a maximum interest rate of 7.3% rather than 12%. This is the largest reduction of its kind on record.
No borrower will be paying more per month as a result of this change. Monthly student loan repayments are calculated as a fixed percentage of earnings above the relevant repayment threshold and do not change based on interest rates or the amount borrowed.
Subject to continued monitoring of the prevailing market rate, from 1 September 2023, the post-2012 undergraduate income-contingent repayment student loan interest rates will revert to variable rates of standard rate to standard rate plus 3% and postgraduate income-contingent repayment student loan interest rates will revert to the standard rate plus 3%.
Should the confirmed prevailing market rate turn out lower than forecast, a further cap will be implemented to reduce the plan 2 and the postgraduate loan interest rates accordingly.
Further caps may be put in place should the prevailing market rate continue to be below student loan interest rates.
[HCWS94]
Qualified Teacher Status in England: Overseas Teachers
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for School Standards (Mr Robin Walker)
In early 2023, the Department for Education will change the way teachers who qualified overseas can have their teaching qualifications recognised. The new Apply for Qualified Teacher Status in England service will mean that those with high-quality teaching qualifications can come to work in England, wherever they are from. This will include teachers from Ukraine.
Current legislation means that teachers from some countries can get qualified teacher status (QTS) through a simple process, but for others it is more difficult, even if they are equally well qualified. We are committed to ensuring that the best teachers from around the world can come to teach in England and that there is consistency and fairness for all suitable applicants, regardless of where they are from. Apply for Qualified Teacher Status in England will award teachers QTS based on an assessment of their qualifications and experience against set criteria.
Further details of our proposed criteria and the new service can be found at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/awarding-qualified-teacher-status-to-overseas-teachers/a-fairer-approach-to-awarding-qts-to-overseas-teachers.
We are continuing our engagement with the sector so that it has time to understand and prepare for these changes ahead of their introduction in 2023. We will lay the necessary regulations in the autumn.
[HCWS95]
Social Work England: Closure of Emergency Register
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Will Quince)
In response to the covid-19 pandemic, to support local authority children’s services and adult social care providers, the Government enabled Social Work England to establish a temporary emergency register. Social Work England maintains the emergency register using powers conferred to it under the Coronavirus Act 2020. The circumstances to justify the continuation of the emergency register are reducing as the impact of the pandemic reduces. I am today announcing our intention that the emergency register will close on 30 September 2022. This will provide those social workers who are practising on the basis of emergency registration sufficient notice to allow them to take up full registration if they so wish. Prior to the closure of the emergency register, the Secretary of State for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), will notify Social Work England that the emergency conditions no longer apply, and the register will close.
[HCWS96]
Government Food Strategy
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
Today I have published the Government’s first ever food strategy, outlining our plan to transform our food system to ensure it is fit for the future.
The Government food strategy follows the independent review of the food system led by Henry Dimbleby last year, which set out an analysis of the challenges facing the food system. The food strategy takes on several of the independent review’s recommendations, and I would like to thank Henry Dimbleby and his team for their work examining our food system and the vital role it plays in all our lives.
Food security sits at the heart of this Government’s vision for the food system—boosting food production, job creation and the wider economy with a focus on skills and innovation, to level up across the country.
We want to create a sustainable food system, from farm to fork and catch to plate, seizing on the opportunities before us and ensuring that everyone has access to nutritious and healthier food.
To do this, our objectives for this strategy are:
A prosperous agri-food and seafood sector that ensures a secure food supply in an unpredictable world and contributes to the levelling up agenda through good quality jobs around the country.
A sustainable, nature positive, affordable food system that provides choice and access to high quality products that support healthier and home-grown diets for all.
Trade that provides export opportunities and consumer choice through imports, without compromising our regulatory standards for food, whether produced domestically or imported. This strategy builds on work that is already underway across Government.
Significantly, it confirms that we will:
support farmers to broadly maintain levels of domestic production through productivity gain and our new farming schemes,
support our farmers through our new farming schemes and innovation programmes and boosting production in key sectors, including horticulture and seafood,
release the additional provision of 10,000 visas under the seasonal worker visa route, including 2,000 for the poultry sector,
work with industry to support the upcoming Migration Advisory Committee review of the Shortage Occupation List, and commission an independent review to ensure the quantity and quality of the food sector workforce,
work with the food and drink industry to review existing skills programmes, identify improvements, and tackle barriers that currently prevent uptake, helping to drive up completion of skills training, pay and productivity in all areas of the UK to support levelling up,
publish a land use framework in 2023 to ensure we meet our net zero and biodiversity targets, and help our farmers adapt to a changing climate,
launch a Food Data Transparency Partnership, bringing together Government, industry and civil society to drive a real transformation in health, animal welfare and environmental outcomes through our food,
consult on Government Buying Standards for Food and Catering Services (GBSF), including whether to widen the scope of GBSF mandatory organisations to cover the whole public sector and introducing an aspirational target that at least 50% of food spend must be on food produced locally or certified to higher environmental production standards, while maintaining value for money for taxpayers,
harness the benefits of new Free Trade Agreement (FTAs) made possible following Brexit, while maintaining our world-leading domestic standards, by using a range of levers within our bespoke trade agreements.
The levers influencing the food system are dispersed. We will work collaboratively across UK Government Departments, as well as closely with the devolved Administrations, industry and civil society to achieve our ambitions. We will report on our progress against the food strategy goals alongside the next UK food security report.
[HCWS92]
Health and Social Care Update
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Sajid Javid)
I would like to inform the House that the final version of “Data saves lives: reshaping health and social care with data” has been published today. It builds on the groundbreaking use of data during the pandemic and sets out ambitious plans to harness the potential of data in health and care, while maintaining the highest standards of privacy and ethics.
When facing this country’s greatest public health emergency for generations, one of the most effective tools at our disposal has been the power of data. Now, as we look to live with covid, we must apply those same tools as we tackle the most pressing challenges facing the country including elective recovery and integration of health and social care.
Earlier this year, I made a speech setting out my four priorities for reform in health; prevention, personalisation, performance and people. We cannot deliver the change we need to see, and our 10 year plans for cancer, dementia and mental health, unless we embrace the opportunities from data-driven technologies. Last week, Sir Gordon Messenger and Dame Linda Pollard published their review into leadership of health and social care, and I accepted their recommendations in full. Today’s data strategy is the next step in our plans to modernise the NHS.
This strategy shows how we will use data to bring benefits to all parts of health and social care; from patients and care users, to staff on the front line, to the pioneers driving the most cutting-edge research.
It is backed by a series of concrete commitments, including investing in secure data environments to power research into new treatments, using technology to allow staff to spend more quality time with patients, and giving people better access to their own data through shared care records and the NHS app. The strategy will support NHS providers to tackle the covid backlog, providing them with the means to monitor and optimise capacity through improved data sharing and the development of advanced analytics. This is all on top of the huge investment that we have already made; for instance investing £200 million in our data for research and development programme.
It is vital that, as we deliver these benefits, we work in a way that maintains the high level of public trust in how the NHS uses health and care data. That means maintaining the highest standards of privacy and ethics, investing in secure data environments and cyber security, involving the public in decisions about how data is used in the future, listening and responding to their views and concerns.
We published a draft of this strategy in June 2021, and I would like to thank the hundreds of people and organisations who provided feedback which was invaluable in shaping this final version of our strategy for the future.
I would also like to thank Dr Ben Goldacre for his work on the Goldacre Report, which was published in April, and made a compelling case for how data can drive innovation and improve healthcare. I fully support his recommendations and this strategy shows how we will take them forward.
I will deposit a copy of the draft strategy in both Libraries.
[HCWS98]
Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme: Launch Pathways 2 and 3
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
My noble Friend the Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and Home Office, Lord Harrington of Watford, has today made the following written ministerial statement:
I am pleased to announce to the House today the opening of the two remaining referral pathways to the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme.
Last August, as the situation in Afghanistan deteriorated rapidly, this Government worked at great speed to evacuate more than 15,000 people from Afghanistan within a fortnight. This was the biggest mission of its kind in generations and the second largest evacuation carried out by any country and we are rightly proud of what we achieved.
The evacuation included British nationals and their families, Afghans who had loyally served the UK, and other vulnerable people. Since the events of last August, we have continued to support those at risk with over 4,000 more people being brought to safety.
In January 2022, the then Minister for Afghan Resettlement announced the launch of a new Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme (ACRS), which will resettle up to 20,000 eligible people over the coming years. This is in addition to those who have been relocated under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (ARAP).
There is no application process for the scheme, instead eligible individuals will be referred for resettlement via three referral ‘pathways’.
The first of these referral pathways offers a place on the ACRS for some of the individuals and families who were brought to safety in the UK under Op PITTING. We will honour our commitments to eligible people who were called forward or specifically authorised for evacuation, but who were unable to board flights.
Today, I am pleased to announce the opening of the two remaining referral pathways onto the ACRS.
Firstly, under pathway 2, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) will refer for resettlement to the UK, refugees who have fled Afghanistan. UNHCR has the global mandate to provide international protection and humanitarian assistance to refugees. We are pleased to announce that we are now ready to begin receiving referrals. We anticipate receiving referrals from UNHCR for up to 2,000 refugees during the first year of this pathway, although this number will be kept under review. We will continue to receive UNHCR referrals to the scheme in coming years.
Under pathway 3, we committed to considering eligible at-risk British Council and GardaWorld contractors and Chevening alumni. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) will refer up to 1,500 people from Afghanistan and the region to the Home Office for resettlement, including any eligible family members. The FCDO will launch an online system on Monday 20 June, where eligible individuals will be able to express interest in UK resettlement.
Expressions of interest will be considered in the order they are received, although some groups will be prioritised because the role they performed or the project they worked on mean they are particularly at risk, or because there are exceptionally compelling circumstances. Expressions of interest will be accepted until Monday 15 August 2022, when the online system will close. Guidance on the expression of interest process is available on www.gov.uk, from Monday 13 June.
Any offer of resettlement under the ACRS will be contingent on security screening, including checks against security and other databases, and provision of biometric information. In the interests of public safety, it is right that individuals who are found to have committed war crimes, crimes against humanity, terrorism or other serious crimes will not be eligible for resettlement.
While we recognise the plight of many vulnerable individuals who remain in Afghanistan and the region, the capacity of the UK to resettle people under this scheme is not unlimited and difficult decisions have had to be made on who will be prioritised for resettlement. Nevertheless, we will continue to be committed to supporting the people of Afghanistan and after the first year of the third referral pathway, we will continue to work with international partners and NGOs to welcome wider groups of Afghans at risk.
Resettlement is just one element of the UK Government’s response to the situation in Afghanistan, in addition to our diplomatic efforts and international aid in the region, working alongside like-minded states and as part of the international community.
Through the ACRS, the United Kingdom continues to offer safe and legal routes to those in need of protection. The scheme provides another demonstration of our New Plan for Immigration in action.
We are proud to provide those affected by events in Afghanistan with a route to safety and look forward to warmly welcoming individuals and families into our communities across the UK.
[HCWS91]
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe: Appointment to UK Delegation
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
Lord Wharton of Yarm has been appointed as a substitute member of the United Kingdom Delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in place of Baroness Foster of Oxton.
[HCWS97]
Disability Update
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chloe Smith)
The aim of this Government, as set out in our manifesto commitment, is to transform the everyday lives of disabled people across the country.
We are also working towards equality on the global stage, through both the example we set here in the UK and our international co-operation. On 13 June, as the UK Minister for Disabled People, I will travel to the 15th session of the conference of states parties to the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. Participating in bilateral meetings and wider debates, I will meet my global counterparts with the aim of strengthening the international political commitment for the rights of disabled people.
Our ambition is clear: to deliver long-term change through practical actions and wide-ranging policies across Government which enable disabled people to live full and independent lives.
We are delivering on this ambition. We have seen 1.3 million more disabled people in work than in 2017—delivering a Government commitment five years early. And since 2013, the general trend in disability employment has been positive, with strong growth in the number and rate of disabled people in employment and a narrowing of the disability employment gap. Over the next three years, the Government will invest £1.3 billion in employment support for disabled people and people with health conditions. We have supported the introduction of the British Sign Language Act 2022 and the Down Syndrome Act 2022 in the last Parliament, and we will be publishing our health and disability White Paper later this year which will set out more important work.
In July 2021 we published the national disability strategy, which set out our ambition to improve the lives of millions of disabled people. It was a turning point in Government commitment to co-ordinate disability policy, setting out in a high-level framework document over 100 cross-Government initiatives driving change in all parts of society.
However, in January 2022, the High Court declared the strategy unlawful because the UK Disability Survey, which informed it, was held to be a voluntary consultation that failed to comply with the legal requirements on public consultations. We strongly disagree with this finding and are disappointed that the declaration prevents us from taking forward some of our important work. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), has therefore sought permission to appeal this decision from the Court of Appeal.
While awaiting a decision on permission to appeal from the Court of Appeal, we are required to take steps to comply with the Court’s declaration. The Secretary of State wants to minimise the risk of acting inconsistently with the Court’s declaration, without compromising on the ambitious agenda we are delivering for disabled people. As such, we are pausing a limited number of policies which are referred to in the strategy or are directly connected with it.
We remain committed to improving opportunities and outcomes for disabled people as we await the outcome of the appeal.
Our intent remains to create more opportunities for disabled people to participate and thrive; to protect and promote the rights of disabled people; and to tackle the barriers that prevent disabled people from fully benefiting from, and contributing to every aspect of our society. Ensuring the voice of disabled people is properly heard remains a priority for Government. We wish to continue to engage closely with disabled people and disabled people’s organisations.
We are committed to disability policy that supports all areas of life and taking action to create a society that works for everyone.
[HCWS93]
Grand Committee
Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm (Amendment) Regulations 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greenhalgh
That the Grand Committee do consider the Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm (Amendment) Regulations 2022.
Relevant document: 2nd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Home Office and Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
My Lords, this statutory instrument was laid before the House on Wednesday 11 May 2022 under Section 150(9) of the Energy Act 2013 and Section 250(6)(f) of the Housing Act 2004, for approval by resolution of each House of Parliament.
In the social housing White Paper, we committed to ensuring that all homes are safe to live in. We are determined to ensure that the reforms set out in the White Paper will drive up standards, making sure people up and down the country have a safe and decent home to live in. The Government are committed to ensuring residents are protected from the risks of fire and carbon monoxide in their homes. After Grenfell, the social housing Green Paper asked whether there should be parity between the private and social rented sectors on safety standards, and an overwhelming majority were in favour.
At the moment, social tenants have less protection than private tenants. That is why, subject to parliamentary approval, we are amending the regulations to bring requirements for social homes in line with private rented homes. Currently, the Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm (England) Regulations 2015 make it mandatory for private landlords to install smoke alarms on every storey of every home they let, and carbon monoxide alarms in every room with a solid-fuel burning appliance, such as a log-burning stove or coal fire. There are no such requirements for social landlords.
The Home Office estimates you are around eight times more likely to die in a fire if you do not have a working smoke alarm in your home, and there are on average 20 recorded deaths from accidental carbon monoxide poisoning each year in England and Wales. Smoke alarms and carbon monoxide alarms save lives and provide reassurance for residents that their homes are safe.
These changes will mean that, for the first time, all social rented homes in England will be required by law to have smoke alarms installed. They will also mean that millions more households are protected from the risks of carbon monoxide, which is undetectable and can cause serious illness or death. The Government’s ongoing reforms regarding social housing quality aim to make sure everyone’s home is a place of safety, and these changes will give thousands of families and households reassurance that they are receiving the best possible protection.
In November 2020, alongside the White Paper, we launched our consultation on requiring smoke alarms in social housing and introducing new expectations for all landlords for carbon monoxide alarms. The proposals in the consultation to make the legislative changes I am bringing to noble Lords today were supported by a clear majority of respondents to the consultation.
Through this statutory instrument, we will amend the Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm (England) Regulations 2015 to replicate the private rented sector provisions to require social landlords to ensure at least one smoke alarm is installed on each storey of their homes where there is a room used as living accommodation. We will amend the regulations to make it mandatory for all landlords, regardless of tenure, to install a carbon monoxide alarm in any room of their properties used as living accommodation where a fixed combustion appliance of any fuel type is present. This does not include gas cookers, which are responsible for fewer incidents of carbon monoxide poisoning than gas boilers.
We will also require all landlords to repair or replace, as soon as they reasonably and practically can, any alarm which is found to be faulty during the period of a tenancy. We will update government guidance documents to make clear requirements on the placement of smoke and carbon monoxide alarms, and the types of alarms landlords will need to install to meet relevant standards.
The instrument will also make changes to the enforcement process by restructuring the process for making and considering representations from landlords when a local housing authority serves a remedial notice. A lengthy delay between regulations being made and taking effect could put lives at risk, and that is why we have decided that 1 October 2022 is an appropriate date for regulations to come into force: landlords have had, and continue to have, time to prepare, and bringing regulations into force in October means tenants can benefit from the security of the changes as soon as possible.
To conclude, these regulations will save lives and make sure everyone’s home can be a place of safety, and these changes will give thousands of households reassurance that they are receiving the best possible protection from the risks of fire and carbon monoxide in their home. We are determined to ensure that the reforms set out in the social housing White Paper, like these changes, will drive up standards, making sure people up and down the country have a safe and decent home to live in. I hope noble Lords will join me in supporting the draft regulations and I commend them to the Committee.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Government for bringing these regulations forward—they are absolutely crucial. As the Minister said, most—57%—of the exposure to carbon monoxide occurs in the home. We know that one in eight homes in London has levels of carbon monoxide that exceed the WHO limits, and we know that one in five has at least one faulty gas appliance. With financial stringencies, this will probably get worse because people will not have their appliances serviced. Some 54% of homes in England do not have a carbon monoxide alarm. With that background, and welcoming these regulations, I have a few questions for the Minister—I hope that he will be able to answer them satisfactorily.
First, why are gas cookers excluded? The issue here is the coroner’s report that followed 18 deaths that were linked to the Beko cooker scandal, where carbon monoxide was pouring into homes due to a fault with the cookers. The 2017 report Understanding Carbon Monoxide Risk in Households Vulnerable to Fuel Poverty found that, while 59% of homes had a gas cooker, only 25% had that cooker serviced annually. In homes in poverty in particular, the gas from the cooker is often incompletely burned. Some ethnic minority groups in our population cook by putting tin foil over the surface of the burners, which promotes incomplete burning.
One of the problems is that children’s heads are at the level of the cooker itself, so children standing near a mother who is cooking are probably inhaling higher levels of carbon monoxide than the mother. It may not be enough for them to fall on the floor unconscious, but they may be exposed to chronic low levels of carbon monoxide poisoning. As the Minister rightly said, sub-lethal doses cause pathologies including brain damage, sensory impairment, heart disease, Parkinsonism and low birth-weight babies, which becomes particularly important when the woman is pregnant. They also cause cognitive developmental delays in infants born to mothers exposed during pregnancy, as well as respiratory difficulties. That was my question on gas cookers.
Secondly, why are homeowners generally not protected by the regulations until a new appliance is installed? How will people become alert to the fact that an alarm is faulty? Whose responsibility will it be to chase this up, and what is the prosecution process for a landlord who is negligent in this?
Thirdly, why is the alarm type not mandated? This seems to be a lost opportunity, because rogue landlords will inevitably go for the cheapest alarm available. In Scotland, the type of alarm was determined and it was one that had sealed batteries in it. From experience over the years, we know that, in households where batteries can be removed from alarms, people remove them to use them in their television remote, or wherever. The alarm then fails because the batteries have been taken out and people are not aware of the problem.
Lastly, will the alarms be mandatory for bedrooms? There have been several cases where children have died because carbon monoxide has leaked through the brickwork into the bedroom where they were sleeping—their parents then found them dead from carbon monoxide poisoning. The problem is that, when you are asleep, carbon monoxide just makes you more sleepy, so you certainly would not be woken up by it. Of all the rooms in a house, it is bedrooms where people spend the most time all in one go; they do not go out and move around to get the air circulating. In modern housing, particularly in the winter, people sleep with the bedroom windows closed, so there is even less air circulation. So I hope that the Minister will be able to assure me that bedrooms count as living accommodation and, therefore, that alarms must be also in the bedrooms.
Having said that, I hope the Government will have a good public education campaign to roll out the importance of acting when the alarm goes off, of understanding what the alarm does and what people should do if a tenant feels that their landlord is in breach of the regulations. Understanding the health implications of carbon monoxide poisoning is also important, because, unfortunately, across the healthcare sector generally, until fairly recently—and I think even now—some people are somewhat ignorant of the effects of carbon monoxide poisoning and how the non-specific symptoms can present, suggesting sub-lethal exposure in an ongoing way.
So, with those questions and caveats, I welcome these regulations and would not intend to take any action to stop this proceeding–but I do hope that I will have satisfactory answers that will be on the record to all my questions.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I will start by reminding everyone that I have a registered interest as a member of Kirklees council, which manages social housing that will be affected by these regulations. Much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has said is also in my notes—but there are one or two differences.
Broadly, this is an important step forward in making rental homes in both the private and social housing sector safer for tenants. It is a great surprise to me that social housing was omitted from the 2015 regulations, so I am pleased that these regulations are going to put that right. The Office for National Statistics, when I had a look this morning, records that over 100 lives are lost each year from carbon monoxide poisoning. It did not differentiate between domestic and non-domestic deaths; nevertheless, 100 lives are lost from a silent killer, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has explained. So, requiring the installation and, importantly, the maintenance of alarms will undoubtedly help to save lives.
It is also good to see that the regulations include a requirement for landlords in both rental sectors—private and social housing—to ensure maintenance and respond in a reasonably practicable time. I hate that phrase, because it means something and nothing. I wonder whether the Minister would be able to give us a broad definition of what “reasonably practicable” would look like. No doubt landlords who have a positive relationship with their tenant will respond promptly, but not all landlords are in that category.
Those are all positives, but I have some questions. The first one is about the type of smoke alarm. I am surprised that there is not more being said about the type of alarm that is going to fulfil the regulations. Nine-volt battery alarms, which are the cheapest and therefore most likely to be the ones that some landlords will use to fulfil their obligations, need a battery change every six months—I think it is the National Fire Protection Association that recommends that. There are lots of reasons why that will not happen.
Some homes will think that they are secure but are not. I find it surprising that that has not been more fully explored. The sealed lithium battery models last 10 years; that is a good length of time. I wonder whether there is anything the Minister can do to give us some comfort that the Government will be recommending or pushing for those to be used.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, like other noble Lords who have already spoken, we very much welcome these regulations to make smoke and carbon monoxide alarms mandatory in social housing from 1 October this year. As we near the fifth anniversary of the Grenfell Tower tragedy, we believe that any measures that help resolve the building safety crisis are very welcome.
But we also think that this instrument should form only a small part of a much wider package of measures that we hope to see coming forward from the Government. I will come to the exact provisions of these regulations in a moment—although noble Lords who have already spoken have covered a lot of the points that we had concerns about. But I would like to first ask the Minister: following the publication of the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill, is he able to provide further information about the timetable of this Bill and when the Government are likely to be aiming for Royal Assent, so that those regulations come into force and we can discuss wider provisions to make social housing safer?
Turning to the specific regulations before us today, one of the things that will result will be a new responsibility to install alarms on each floor of a premise, which is really important. The Government are right to include this. It specifically helps larger properties. There is a lot more development of warehouse-type apartments, within which there is an increasing use of mezzanine floors—so I am not sure what constitutes a floor within this regulation. Would it include mezzanines, for example? Would they require an alarm? It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm what the guidance on that would be. I would be interested to hear his response to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, about whether it will be compulsory to have alarms in bedrooms, because that is also a very important part of ensuring safety, particularly at night.
I would like to take a quick look at penalties for non-compliance. The regulations allow for a charge of up to £5,000 per breach. I would like to ask the Minister about the fact that, under the Housing Act 2004, civil penalties for landlords go up to £30,000 for breaches. So how did the Government choose an upper limit of £5,000, despite the fact that an absence of these alarms, as we have heard, could lead to somebody dying. In fact, the Minister mentioned in his introduction that these alarms do save lives, so it would be interesting to understand the Government’s thinking and how that top level of fine came about. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, also asked about the prosecution of rogue landlords, and it would be interesting to know a bit more about that side of things—prosecution, fines, how they will operate and how the Government got to their decisions on that.
I would also like to look very briefly at the process of repairs and replacements of the alarms. This has been raised by other noble Baronesses. In particular, the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, referred to the fact that the regulations state that the landlord must act as soon as is “reasonably practicable” when notified that an alarm is not in working order. She said it would be incredibly helpful to know what the definition of “reasonably practicable” is. We know that, in other legislation requiring swift action by landlords, this has not always happened. So what will be that definition and how will it be enforced? Will the Government be offering guidance alongside this to landlords on exactly what the timeframes are? Will there be any circumstances that can excuse meeting those deadlines? What is going to be the structure of managing repairs and doing replacements in good time?
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, also asked some very important questions about batteries and about ensuring alarms are properly installed. This is really good, important legislation, but it has to be practical, and it has to work and operate in the way that it is being laid out. If the issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, raised are not covered, we could find that good intentions are not always being met.
To conclude: these regulations are very much welcomed. I am looking forward to working with the Minister on the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill, which is, hopefully, going to be with us shortly, in order that we can consider other measures to make social housing safer for all occupants. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the questions today and to working with him in the future on further safety measures.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this important debate on the draft regulations. I join the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, in saying that every single measure that can ensure that a tragedy such as Grenfell—the largest structural fire since Piper Alpha and the largest loss of life in a residential fire since the Second World War—never happens again must be welcomed. I thank noble Lords for their support.
I will turn to some of the points raised by noble Baronesses in this debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, wanted to know whether alarms are mandatory for bedrooms. Yes, there must be a smoke alarm on each storey. Also, I am happy to clarify that the definition of “living accommodation” includes bedrooms.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
Sorry—perhaps I may intervene briefly. I should have declared my interest as chair of CORT, the Carbon Monoxide Research Trust, and of the All-Party Parliamentary Carbon Monoxide Group. I was asking about carbon monoxide alarms; the Minister has addressed smoke alarms. We were seeking clarification on whether carbon monoxide alarms are also mandatory in bedrooms.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
For carbon monoxide, if there is a fixed combustion appliance in the room, which would not include a bedroom if there was no—
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
Very few bedrooms have gas boilers in them. Can the Minister write to us and follow up on that?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
I will clarify when it is smoke alarms and when it is carbon monoxide alarms; as I understand it, effectively, there has to be a gas boiler present, which would rule out many bedrooms. However, I will write to the noble Baroness on that point.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, following the lead of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, wanted to know what “reasonably practicable” looks like. My answer is that, essentially, we will recommend that landlords carry out repairs as soon as they are able to. This will depend on such factors as access to the property, which will be set out in guidance.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, on her question about mandation of carbon monoxide alarms in rooms with gas cookers, data shows that gas cookers are responsible for fewer incidents of carbon monoxide poisoning than gas boilers. This may be because domestic gas cookers do not tend to be used continuously for long periods, unlike boilers. For this reason, the Government believe it would not be proportionate to require alarms in rooms with gas cookers as well as rooms with gas boilers.
On the point about public information, we are developing communication to target tenants to make sure that they understand the regulations and the importance of protection from carbon monoxide poisoning. There is some movement on the call for a public information campaign.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, wanted to know how we reached the implementation period for these new requirements. This relates to the fact that the majority of respondents to the consultation agreed that we should not delay the introduction of new requirements once the regulations are made. A significant delay between the regulations being made and taking effect would put lives at risk. It is a question of getting the right balance between the two. That is why we alighted on 1 October 2022 as the most achievable date.
Both the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Pinnock, wanted to know why we were not specifying the type of alarm. The draft regulations do not stipulate the type of alarm—such as hardwired or battery powered—to be installed. In the case of smoke alarms, we advise landlords to choose ones that are compliant with British Standards, and I am sure that there must be British Standards that have to be complied with for carbon monoxide alarms. We encourage landlords to make an informed decision and choose the best alarms for their properties and tenants, with due regard for their residents’ circumstances.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
Unfortunately, that last bit is not accurate. If the landlord provides a nine-volt battery smoke alarm, that will last only six months. That is at the heart of what I am asking. Some landlords will not make lots of attempts to get in to make sure that the smoke alarms are there and will not see that they are properly fitted, so all this will unravel. If we are having regulations, and I am glad we are, surely there has to be something about a long-lasting solution.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
The noble Baroness is of course right that that would make sense—I should declare my interest as a private landlord, although these regulations affect social housing. It would make sense to put into guidance something that would enable the quality threshold to be met so that we would not have that eventuality of smoke alarms with a very short battery shelf life becoming the de facto norm when you could come up with solutions such as alarms that are either hardwired or have a long battery life. That point has now been made by several noble Baronesses and I will take it away for my officials who will be drafting these regulations to take on board.
With that, I have done my best to answer noble Lords’ questions—and if I have not, I will follow up in writing, as I have already undertaken to do.
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 (Consequential Provision) Regulations 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the Grand Committee do consider the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 (Consequential Provision) Regulations 2022.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 11 May. Following the terrorist attack at Fishmongers’ Hall—I take this opportunity to remember again the victims of that atrocity—in November 2019, the Home Secretary commissioned the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall QC, to review the Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements—MAPPA—used to supervise terrorists and terrorism-risk offenders on licence in the community. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which I shall hereafter refer to as the 2022 Act, established three new powers for counterterrorism policing: a personal search power, a premises search power and an urgent power of arrest. These powers were taken in response to recommendations made by Mr Jonathan Hall QC following his review of MAPPA.
These regulations relate to the new power of personal search, the creation of which was also recommended by the Fishmongers’ Hall Inquests—Prevention of Future Deaths report. The personal search power has been inserted into the Terrorism Act 2000 as new Section 43C of that Act by the 2022 Act. The new search power commences later this month on 28 June. As set out by the Government during the passage of the 2022 Act, the new search power will apply across the UK, enabling the police to stop and search terrorist and terrorism-connected offenders released on licence who are required to submit to the search by their licence conditions. The officer conducting the stop and search must be satisfied that it is necessary to exercise the power for purposes connected with protecting members of the public from a risk of terrorism.
The Government are clear that sensitive powers of stop and search should be subject to the code of practice setting out the basic principles for their use. Section 47AA of the Terrorism Act 2000 imposes a requirement on the Secretary of State to prepare a code of practice containing guidance about the exercise of search powers that are conferred by that Act. These regulations amend Section 47AA so that it extends to cover the new search power inserted into the Terrorism Act 2000 by the 2022 Act. Subject to Parliament’s approval, this consequential amendment will create a requirement for the Secretary of State to prepare a revised code of practice that includes guidance on the exercise of the power conferred by new Section 43C.
In anticipation of Section 47AA being amended, I can confirm that we are already in the process of engaging relevant stakeholders and updating the code of practice to reflect new Section 43C stop and search power. We plan to lay an order this summer alongside the draft revised code of practice for Parliament’s consideration and approval. As such, Parliament will have the opportunity to review and debate the revised code and its contents in due course. The regulations being considered today simply relate to the technical and consequential matter of whether to amend Section 47AA of the Terrorism Act 2000 to enable the Government to update the relevant code of practice in the manner that I have outlined. I think it is something the Committee will very much support. I beg to move.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations and I associate myself with her remarks in relation to those affected by the Fishmongers’ Hall incident. One of the most important roles of the state is to protect its citizens from terrorism and we support every provision that can be shown to work in practice in helping to prevent and detect terrorism.
This is yet another stop and search power exercisable by the police. Generally, we are against any expansion of police stop and search powers, on the basis that existing powers are sufficient, because an increased use of stop and search does not generally lead to a reduction in crime and because of the negative impact of stop and search on visible minorities. For example, where the police are required to show suspicion, black people are seven times more likely to be stopped and searched; and where no suspicion is required, black people are 18 times more likely to be stopped and searched than white people. In addition, Home Office research shows that, above moderate levels, increasing stop and search has little or no impact in reducing crime.
However, this power—enabling the police to stop and search an offender released on licence for purposes connected with protecting the public from a risk of terrorism—appears, on the face of things, to be reasonable and proportionate. We have seen from tragic instances in the recent past, such as the terrorist attack at Fishmongers’ Hall in November 2019, that assessing the threat posed by those convicted of terrorism offences is very difficult to determine, and even those who are assessed as no longer a threat to the public and suitable for release under licence can, in reality, pose a threat to the public.
It will mainly be for the Parole Board to determine whether someone should be subject to the new powers as a condition of their licence, but the Explanatory Memorandum, at paragraph 7.2 says, “In most cases” the Parole Board will decide whether somebody should be subject to the new power. Can the Minister explain in what other circumstances someone could be made subject to these stop and search provisions, if that is not made a condition of their licence by the Parole Board?
As the noble Baroness explained, the regulations are not about the power itself—created by the Police, Crime Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 inserting new Section 43C in the Terrorism Act 2000—but are to ensure the requirement on the Secretary of State in Section 47AA of the 2000 Act to prepare a code of practice containing guidance about the exercise of stop and search powers conferred by that Act. That also applies to the new stop and search provision. It seems a bit cart before horse to make the requirement through these regulations and only then to prepare amendments to the code of practice, which will then be laid before Parliament for approval later this year, as the noble Baroness just explained.
All in all, while we support these regulations, in so far as they place a requirement on the Secretary of State to include the new power in the code of practice required by Section 47AA of the Terrorism Act 2000, it seems to be much ado about nothing until we see the revised codes of practice.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and I thank the Minister for her clear and precise introduction to these new regulations. I associate myself with her remarks about remembering the victims of the Fishmongers’ Hall attack.
We also welcome these recommendations and are grateful to the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall QC, for the review he conducted following the attack. We support these powers, which were added to the PCSC Act. As the noble Baroness knows, we will work with the Government on issues of national security, because there is no difference between any of us in wanting to ensure that our country is safe. So we support this SI which, as the Minister pointed out, is technical and simply ensures that the Secretary of State is required to prepare a code of practice to govern the new stop and search power.
As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, stop and search is an important tool, but is a serious use of the state’s power and so it is vital that it is used proportionately and effectively. We welcome that this power is targeted at terrorist offenders who are out on licence; it will be part of their licence conditions. In other words, we are allowing a released terrorist offender, out on licence, to have their person searched, which Mr Hall said was needed. We support that change.
Can the Minister tell us when the code of practice will be published? I think she did, but can she reiterate, for the benefit of the Committee, exactly when the code will be published and laid before Parliament? Is it the case that the power we are debating cannot be used until that code of practice is laid before Parliament and agreed?
Will the code outline the sorts of circumstances under which the power might be used? In other words, what is the precise purpose of such a search conducted under these powers? As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, raised, what difference is there between the vast majority of offenders who will have their licence agreed to by the Parole Board and some others? It is not clear what is meant by “others” and who will decide who they are.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thank both noble Lords for their basically supportive and succinct points. On the necessity for the new power, it was recommended by Jonathan Hall QC, as I said, and the Fishmongers’ Hall inquest report on the prevention of future deaths also recommended that a new power of personal search be created.
On when the new power will apply if licence conditions are not set by the Parole Board and on who will determine whether to impose them, as with any other licence condition, the decision to impose the licencing condition will be made by the appropriate releasing authority—either the Parole Board or the prison governor—on behalf of the Secretary of State.
The risk management plan will include licence conditions to manage specific identified risks, which will then inform the recommendation of necessary and proportionate licence conditions for the Parole Board or the releasing prison. But, in both circumstances, the process for recommending licence conditions is the same. The community offender manager will undertake a full risk assessment, taking into account all the relevant information, including from the police, prison and other agencies. This detailed assessment will form the basis of a risk-management plan that will be agreed by the relevant agencies under MAPPA.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, is nothing if not absolutely consistent on the disproportionality of the power. We are committed to tackling terrorism in all its forms and the power to conduct a search will apply to any terrorist offender who is subject to the relevant licence condition, regardless of their ethnicity. The legislation is quite clear that such a search cannot be conducted unless a police officer is satisfied that it is necessary for purposes connected with protecting members of the public from a risk of terrorism.
The Home Office published an overarching impact assessment and an equality statement for the Home Office measures in the 2022 Act, setting out that the proposals within the Act are not unlawfully discriminatory within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010, either directly or indirectly.
On when the code of practice will be laid, the Government will lay the revised code of practice before Parliament for its consideration at the earliest opportunity; as I said in my opening speech, it is currently envisaged that this will take place next month. The revised code of practice will make clear the distinct circumstances in which the new stop and search power will be available for use compared to existing stop and search powers.
As regards the breadth compared to other comparable pieces of legislation, the personal search will provide the means for the police to conduct assurance checks. It is envisaged that in the majority of cases this will be to check whether a relevant terrorist offender is in possession of something which could be used to threaten or harm a person: for example, a weapon or a fake suicide belt.
We recognise that there may be limited other scenarios in which a personal search may be necessary for purposes connected with protecting members of the public from a risk of terrorism when the offender may be carrying something which is, on the face of it, far more innocuous. An example of this might be the necessity to conduct a personal search to check whether the offender is in possession of a mobile phone in violation of their licence conditions. This provides a better means of monitoring risk because a contraband phone such as this would be unlikely to meet any definition of something that “could be used to threaten or harm” but, depending on the offender’s background, it might be used to contact terrorist networks, enable access to materials useful to preparing an act of terrorism, provide a route for them to radicalise others, or be used to remotely detonate an explosive device.
I hope I have answered the Committee’s questions. I emphasise again that the regulations being considered today will not amend the content of the relevant code of practice, and our draft revised code will be laid before Parliament and obviously will be subject to its approval in due course. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Terrorism Act 2000 (Code of Practice for Examining Officers and Review Officers) Order 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the Grand Committee do consider the Terrorism Act 2000 (Code of Practice for Examining Officers and Review Officers) Order 2022.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, this instrument would give effect to the draft code of practice which covers the exercise of counterterrorism port examination powers under Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000. These powers were amended by the Nationality and Borders Act and outline what the code of practice is and its significance to the operation of these powers.
Counterterrorism officers who currently use Schedule 7 port examination powers must do so in accordance with the relevant code of practice. While the code largely reflects the primary legislation, it also includes further procedural guidance for those exercising the powers and additional safeguards for those subject to them.
In passing the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, this House approved amendments to the powers under Schedule 7 which allow officers to examine individuals away from port areas in the following circumstances. First, an individual must either be detained or in custody under relevant provisions of the Immigration Acts. Secondly, the individual must have arrived in the UK by sea and have been apprehended within 24 hours of their arrival. Thirdly, a period of five days, beginning on the day after apprehension, must not have expired.
This will allow officers to examine those who, following their irregular arrival in the UK, have been moved from a port location or have been encountered inland. In short, those who have arrived irregularly by sea will now be subject to the same powers as if they had arrived through conventional means, adding a further protective layer to our existing precautions.
The draft code before us includes changes to cover the exercise of this amended power as well as several other minor changes to clarify language around existing safeguards. The code was subject to public consultation earlier this year and, in response to feedback received, we have clarified officers’ responsibility to inform those being examined that the purpose of the examination is not to gather evidence or information on any potential immigration offences. I hope that the Committee will consider the draft code favourably.
The UK and its citizens continue to face the threat of terrorism from those who are intent on harming and dividing us. These provisions within this statutory instrument will support the police in their tireless efforts to keep us safe from these threats. I beg to move.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I again thank the Minister for explaining this order. Schedule 7, in particular, and Schedule 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000 are controversial in providing powers to the police and other agencies to stop, question, search and if necessary detain anyone who is travelling across the UK border, without reasonable suspicion, to require them to answer questions and be subjected to a search, in order to establish whether or not they appear to be a person who is, or has been, involved in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. The exercise of the power remains controversial, with many being detained and missing flights as a result, for example, with the guidance saying:
“Although the selection of a person for examination is not conditional upon the examining officer having grounds to suspect that person of being engaged in terrorism, the decision to select a person for examination must not be arbitrary.”
Despite the guidance giving examples, it remains unclear where the line is between “reasonable suspicion” and “not arbitrary”.
However, we debated these powers extensively at the time. While we remain of the view that there needs to be reasonable suspicion, we accept that these regulations are not about either the original power or the new power provided for by the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, but about revising the codes of practice in relation to Schedules 7 and 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000. A change in the use of the powers under Schedules 7 and 8 has been brought about by Nationality and Borders Act 2022 to enable those crossing the English Channel in small boats, who may initially evade detection, to be questioned and detained under Schedules 7 and 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000 away from the border, as the noble Baroness has explained.
As she has also explained, there are safeguards in place. The powers can be exercised only by specially trained and accredited officers; the subject must have been apprehended within 24 hours of arrival on land in the UK, and no longer than five days must have passed since the day of their detention; and they are detained under a provision of the Immigration Acts. The Explanatory Memorandum, at paragraph 7.5, talks about persons detained under paragraph 17(1) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1972. I could not find an Immigration Act 1972. Do the Government mean paragraph 17(1) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971, which refers to a person found on premises where a warrant has been issued to search for people thought to be liable to examination or removal from the UK? Perhaps the Minister can clarify. There is also a safeguard to tell the person detained that the questions put under Schedule 7 about terrorism—as the Minister has explained—are not for the purpose of obtaining evidence or information on immigration offences.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, we, too, support this statutory instrument. As the Minister said, it gives effect to the draft code of practice. We understand that these changes are being made in response to a recommendation by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall. We believe it is important that the proper safeguards are in place, support the order and thank Jonathan Hall for his work.
When speaking to the introduction of these powers during the passage of the Nationality and Borders Bill, the Minister, Lord Sharp, said that
“this is by no means an attempt to treat all migrants arriving in this manner as terrorists, or to stop and examine large numbers of people away from ports and borders. Schedule 7 is not designed and cannot be used as a universal screening mechanism”.—[Official Report, 10/2/22; col. 1939.]
What safeguards will be put in place to ensure that there is no slide into using these powers more extensively and frequently?
Furthermore, can the Minister clarify whether information given by someone in answer to a Schedule 7 examination, which is strictly counterterrorism powers, will be used for other purposes, for example by an immigration officer? I think the Minister answered that point, but I repeat the question. I also make the point that our staff got in touch with the department to ask this question and others, using the contact details given in the Explanatory Note, and did not receive a response. Usually there is a named civil servant at the bottom of an Explanatory Memorandum, but, in this case, there was a general email to contact. Our staff sent the email at 2.15 pm on Thursday and there was no response.
Although this order relates only to examinations under existing counterterrorism powers, new immigration offences under the Nationality and Borders Act have given rise to an issue about what questions it is appropriate for a person to be asked as part of these examinations. The nature of the questions was looked at as part of the Government’s consultation.
As far as those new offences are concerned, I repeat the general point we made during the passage of the Nationality and Borders Bill that we on this side of the Committee are opposed to the Government creating a broad offence of arrival that makes it illegal for people to travel to the UK to seek asylum, regardless of whether they are fleeing a war zone or there is a risk to their life. During the passage of the Nationality and Borders Bill we asked the Government instead to create an offence which captured the actual criminal behaviour that they want to target, such as arriving in breach of a deportation order, rather than an overly broad offence. We believe it is crucial that the Schedule 7 counterterrorism powers are used properly and proportionately to target terrorism concerns and not as a universal screening mechanism for people to be captured by broad, unrelated measures.
In conclusion, we must not let our fear of terror prevent us responding compassionately to those who need our help. Indeed, many of those arriving on our shores in an irregular manner are fleeing the same terror and violence that these measures are trying to protect our own citizens from. Terrorist organisations that would do us harm are ruthless and opportunistic; they look to utilise situations such as the refugee crisis for their own gain if given the chance. Therefore, we believe it is right that we ensure that our national security legislation is up to date and takes this into account, so that we can minimise the risk posed by irregular crossings of the channel.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I again thank both noble Lords for their very constructive points and in general. I will not repeat some of our debates on the Nationality and Borders Act—it keeps coming up and I think we will be talking about it for some years to come. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, is absolutely right that it is the Immigration Act 1971, not 1972.
Preventing extension of scope is a very good point. Criteria for exercising the powers away from port have been drawn tightly to ensure that they catch those who have evaded conventional border controls by their irregular arrival; they do not extend more widely. The change reflects the practical consideration arising from the number of people embarking on illegal channel crossings, and it will ensure that those who enter the UK by such means are subject to the same scrutiny and powers as if they had entered the UK by conventional means. I think that avoids the conflation of some of the worries that noble Lords have.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked about confidential material; absolutely, yes, nothing has changed there. On the safeguards that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, asked about, we are an open democracy, subject to scrutiny on a regular basis. On extension of scope, we will certainly keep an eye on ensuring that the legislation does what it is supposed to do and nothing further.
On the conflation of terrorism and immigration, it is worth reiterating my noble friend Lord Sharpe’s point that this is not a back-door method to treat all those who arrive in the UK irregularly as if they were terrorists—I think that reinforces the point I just made to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick.
Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) (Amendment) Order 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the Grand Committee do consider the Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) (Amendment) Order 2022.
Relevant document: 2nd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations will provide an exemption from paying vehicle excise duty to a specific group of specialist events hauliers in Great Britain. Specialist events hauliers are a small but important subsector of hauliers that transport equipment for touring cultural events. This includes concert tours, art exhibitions and sporting events. They typically undertake a significant number of internal movements, or tour stops, in the UK and the EU. Prior to the end of the EU transition period, UK hauliers operating in the EU were able to undertake unrestricted cross-trade movements—that is, the movement of goods between two other countries—and up to three cabotage movements: the movement of goods within a single country.
Under the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement, UK hauliers are now restricted to one cabotage and one cross-trade or two cross-trade movements within the EU. As such, specialist event hauliers’ business models have been significantly affected. That is why the Government are taking action to support this part of the haulage sector in adapting to the changes via a dual registration measure. Specialist events hauliers which are able to establish an international base in the EU or beyond while maintaining their UK base will be able temporarily to transfer their EU-registered vehicles to their GB operator licence while they operate in GB without the need for paying UK vehicle excise duty.
Dual registration will allow operators that wish to operate in the EU to function as an EU operator, benefiting from single market access rights, and to operate in the UK as GB operators, benefiting from their status as a domestic GB operator, all of this without the need to swap their specialist vehicles in the middle of a tour. Overseas haulage companies that set up a base in GB can also benefit from this approach. The main function of this SI is to provide an exemption from VED for hauliers which wish to utilise the dual registration arrangements. Without this VED exemption, this approach would not be viable.
This change will provide an efficient process when operators switch the vehicles from their EU operator’s licence to their GB operator’s licence. To utilise the dual registration a number of criteria will need to be met, which are set out fully in the draft statutory instrument. The haulier must be operating under a hire or reward model; the haulier must also establish and maintain an operating base in Great Britain as well as another base abroad, as I mentioned; the vehicle being used must be specifically designed or substantially modified in order to carry the goods needed for cultural tours; the specific goods that the haulier may carry are property, equipment or animals being transported to specific venues or events; and the goods being carried from place to place during a tour should remain unaltered. In line with existing rules on the temporary import of vehicles, the vehicle may be registered in Great Britain for up to a maximum of six months in any given 12-month period.
Unfortunately, there are unavoidable limitations on what is possible here. This is a complex issue for which there are no simple solutions that will meet the needs of all parts of a fairly diverse sector. The proposed dual registration measure will go some way to meet the challenges that the sector is facing, but we acknowledge that some specialist event hauliers will be unable to utilise these proposals for a number of reasons. For example, smaller specialist haulage firms or own-account operators may not have the resources needed to set up overseas. Also, an own-account operator’s business model would need to change to hire or reward, and in certain circumstances that is not going to be viable.
However, this instrument is of vital importance to a large number of companies operating as specialist events hauliers, and therefore I beg to move.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining so clearly how this will work. The Government launched this SI with much fanfare early last month—fanfare and the obligatory swipe at the unacceptable nature of EU bureaucracy that necessitated the SI. That is called Brexit, and those of us who opposed Brexit pointed out that if you do not belong to the club, you cannot benefit from the rules and, unfortunately, that lesson is becoming all too clear. Hence, we have this measure, which is one of a long line of complex, awkward fixes that we have discussed here in this Committee, over the months and years, to try to defray the damage that we are suffering from as a result of no longer being a member of the EU.
Of course, this order is very welcome as far as it goes, but it has taken a long time to get to this point. Since we left the EU, our specialist hauliers have been limited to, I think, three EU stops per tour, and many of them have already established bases in the EU to overcome this, with a resulting loss to the UK economy. It is not as if the firms in this sector did not warn us that this would happen. I was a member of the EU Internal Market Sub-Committee, and back in 2018, we took evidence from an organiser of major exhibitions who predicted exactly these problems.
One of the phrases the Government like to use frequently is “world-beating”. Often, it is a sad exaggeration, but in relation to the cultural sector it is very accurate. I would prefer to say “world-leading”, but the point is that our soft power through the cultural sector has been immense and is sadly diminished as a result of the constraints on touring in Europe. I have a number of questions for the Minister. It is 18 months since we left the EU. Can she perhaps explain why it has taken this long to get to this important measure? Ideally, it should have come in smoothly and immediately after we left the EU.
Paragraph 7.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum refers to a maximum period of transfer for a vehicle to a British operator licence as being
“six months in a twelve month period.”
I understand the concept of “temporary”, but why is six months the definition of “temporary”? Why not eight months or any other number of months within 12 months? Is there a legal basis, or is this something that was just added on?
Paragraph 7.4 says:
“This Instrument does not permit transportation of any item of goods for the intention of being sold on (such as merchandise).”
That is actually a very prescriptive limitation. I was part of a music group many years ago touring in Europe, and we took CDs with us. There would not be CDs now, but we also took t-shirts and souvenir programmes to be sold. It would appear that we would not be allowed to do that now. Such items are, very often, marginal. They are just part of giving that little extra edge to the operator. They are an important part of spreading our soft power, getting the name of the group known abroad.
So why is it that they are excluded? It seems it could incur considerable or disproportionate expense to carry them separately—a whole separate vehicle or separate haulage charges in some other way. It does not, to my mind, seem necessary. Was any consideration given to allowing goods of that type to a certain limited amount—maybe limited in total value or limited as a proportion of the total?
The net result of this SI is that some foreign-registered vehicles will be operating in the UK on British operator licences. This in itself presents enforcement challenges, which I am sure the Minister will have gone through, but could she give us some idea of the numbers expected to be affected by this? Is it hundreds, tens or thousands? What estimate has been given? There is a lack of impact assessment once again. The words used are that there is no significant impact on business. I had hoped that there will be a significant impact on business and therefore I am surprised that an assessment was not made.
Of course, I welcome this hope it does the trick, although the Minister has reminded us that it might not work for everyone. Sadly, we have heard of a number of artists who have stopped touring already and, unfortunately, they will not all return as a result of this. We have lost stature as a result of this situation.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I was expecting a very dry debate on this relatively straightforward SI, but one of the joys of this place is that you are allowed to discover fellow Members meeting by meeting. The idea of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, leading a life previously as a groupie—though I hope not quite at that level—adds a little excitement to this debate, which it perhaps needs.
I welcome the introduction of this instrument to support British touring overseas. The House is aware that, since the UK left the European Union, companies which tour Europe have faced new obstacles in continuing their work and we all hope that this order will help them overcome this. The Government are right to bring forward these new provisions to allow certain hauliers to operate both in the UK and EU without having to pay vehicle excise duty—in effect, benefitting from the single market access rights.
I will not detain the Committee for long but there are three issues on which I would appreciate clarification. First, can the Minister explain why the measures are coming into force in August rather than earlier, especially given that the industry is particularly busy during the summer season? Secondly, the department has estimated that up to 50 specialist events hauliers, which in total have 1,000 vehicles, may decide to use this measure. How was this figure calculated and what proportion of specialist events hauliers does it represent? Finally, what steps will the Minister take to make the industry aware of these changes and to monitor their effectiveness? I hope the Minister can provide clarification on these points.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, that was relatively brief and moderately pain-free, but I will certainly answer as many questions as I can—and will write, as I can spot at least two I am feeling a little bit dubious about.
I think it is worth scooping up comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, about what the timelines for this look like, how we ended up where we are now, why it was not done earlier, et cetera. Eighteen months ago, when we finally left the EU, there were all sorts of other things going on. There were not that many tours going on at the time, but we were aware that there was this potential issue with specialist events hauliers. As noble Lords may be aware, we explicitly requested bespoke arrangements for this sector when we were discussing the TCA, but the EU rejected those proposals so we have had to develop from there. It is the case that we went back and 100% checked with the EU whether it was absolutely sure that it could not think of some way for it to proceed. DfT officials raised that matter at the specialised committee on road transport in November 2021, noting that this sector had been disproportionately affected by the TCA and that this would have knock-on effects on artists affecting future cultural exchange for both sides.
We did not get far on that—I am not going to lie—and therefore realised that we would have to speak to the sector, as we would normally do in these circumstances, to understand exactly how we could help it. We did the consultation in February 2022. I cannot remember exactly how many people responded; I think it was something like 28. It was not a huge number, reflecting the relative size of the sector, which is not massive. After the consultation closed, we had to analyse the responses and shape the final policy position because, as I noted in my opening remarks, this does not help everybody and we wanted to make sure that we could help as quickly as possible. That is a very long-winded way of saying—the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, looked at his watch there—that the earliest we can get this into force is in August 2022.
However, I have positive news because we have done an interim measure. It is an exceptional administrative process which basically allows what we are proposing in the statutory instrument to happen now. That means that we have managed to safeguard the process over this summer. If differs from dual registration in that no legislative changes are required and it is instead implemented through an administrative arrangement with the Office of the Traffic Commissioner, but we recognise that that is quite temporary and we do not want to continue that arrangement without a firm legal footing. That is where we are with that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, asked why six months, and I am afraid I do not have the answer. I think there is a broader issue about vehicles coming into the UK in general, in that they can come in for six months before something has to happen. I will write to the noble Baroness because I do not think that is a good enough answer.
The noble Baroness raised an important point about merchandise, which I thought was very interesting. However, the goal of what we are trying to do today is to focus on certain specialised vehicles. The reason we have this problem is that you load your cultural objects or your things relating to your event into your truck, which itself is specialised for transporting specialised equipment. That is why we are very clear that that equipment must not be amended, altered or sold, otherwise it becomes something entirely different. When it comes to merchandise, you do not need a specialist truck to transport CDs, brochures or whatever; they can be transported by any good courier company. I shall see whether I can find anything more about that. The whole point of this order is to focus on these trucks, which are simply not available to meet the needs of the artist or whoever across the EU, and you would not want to change them.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. My point is that if you are transporting an orchestra, you have specially adapted pantechnicons full of specialised equipment and instruments—you shove a few boxes of programmes and merchandise in the bottom as you go. Because they would have to send them separately, orchestras will print their programmes in Europe rather than printing them in the UK and taking them, and they will print their t-shirts in Europe rather than in the UK. We are losing business that way. I am making what I think is a simple point: something that is clearly ancillary to the main purpose of the truck should be allowed.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I think the noble Baroness summed it up very well in that last comment: if it is “clearly ancillary” to the main purpose of the truck, other arrangements could well be found. I will write if I can find out anything slightly more positive to ease her mind. Otherwise, I am fairly sure that orchestras will be shoving boxes of brochures under violins anyway, but let us not worry about that right now.
On the impact assessment question from the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, this SI does not amend or impose requirements on business practice, excluding a tax measure; this is really a tax measure rather than a change in regulation per se. A tax information and impact note has therefore been published by HMRC, as this proposal includes tax policy changes.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, also asked how many people would make use of this. The information we have comes from the industry; we think that there are up to 50 specialist events haulage firms that operate, but we of course do not know quite how many will then go on to make use of this. We do know that three possibly larger specialist haulier firms have already set up within the EU and that more have plans to do so once this regulation is in place. I am afraid that I have no more information than that because we simply do not collect data on that sector specifically.
We will publish the guidance associated with these regulations by 15 July on GOV.UK. My officials are in contact with the sector and also working alongside the DCMS, which is also very interested in this area. Between the DfT and DCMS, we will be engaging with the industry to make sure that key stakeholders are aware of the implementation date and their options. I will write to the noble Baroness on the number of foreign-registered overseas trucks that we expect in relation to the specialist events sector. I am afraid I can probably tell her now that we will not know that number. In terms of enforcement challenges, I see no difference from other foreign trucks we have in the UK and the enforcement challenges that the DVSA has for those. I beg to move.
Contracts for Difference (Allocation) and Electricity Market Reform (General) (Amendment) Regulations 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the Grand Committee do consider the Contracts for Difference (Allocation) and Electricity Market Reform (General) (Amendment) Regulations 2022.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 11 May 2022. The contracts for difference scheme is the Government’s flagship renewable energy support scheme. It is designed to offer long-term price stabilisation to low-carbon generators, bringing investment forward at a lower cost of capital and therefore at a lower cost to consumers. The scheme has been very successful in driving substantial deployment of renewables at scale in Great Britain and has made it cheaper to deliver low-carbon generation.
CfD applicants with a capacity of 300 megawatts or more are currently required to present a supply chain statement to the Electricity Market Reform Delivery Body as part of their application. A statement is provided if a developer can demonstrate to the Secretary of State’s satisfaction that the project is likely to make a material contribution to the development of relevant supply chains. The aim of the policy is to increase productivity, competitiveness and capacity in supply chains, promoting innovation and skills in the low-carbon electricity generating sector.
The current policy approach to CfD delivery and supply chain plans needs to be strengthened. This will also support the move to annual CfD allocation rounds, which the Government announced in February. This will ensure that the scheme continues to operate effectively, encourage low-carbon generation and provide confidence to investors and supply chain companies. It will support the delivery of those renewable technologies identified in the Net Zero Strategy and the British Energy Security Strategy that are key to decarbonising the power sector, such as offshore wind, onshore wind and solar.
I will take a moment to talk through what these regulations will do. They will make several amendments to the Contracts for Difference (Allocation) Regulations 2014 and the Electricity Market Reform (General) Regulations 2014. The amendments include changes to contracts for difference delivery and supply chain policy in preparation for the fifth allocation round. These amendments will help to bolster supply chain development in preparation for the next CfD allocation round, planned to open in March 2023, delivering on the ambitions set out in the Net Zero Strategy and the British Energy Security Strategy.
These regulations amend the current non-delivery disincentive exclusion period that applies if a developer fails to sign a CfD contract or the contract is terminated, so that an application cannot be made for the subsequent two applicable allocation rounds. This strengthens the current policy of excluding a site from only one subsequent allocation round. This change will ensure that the NDD exclusion period is aligned with the decision to hold allocation rounds on an annual basis from 2023, ensuring that the NDD remains an adequate incentive to deliver projects.
These regulations also bring alignment with a change introduced to the valuation formula in the CfD allocation framework for allocation round 4. For allocation round 4, the Government introduced changes to the valuation formula to reduce the complexity of the auction and to ensure that the earliest possible date of CfD payments is considered when calculating the impact on the budget. These regulations introduce this technical change, amending the corresponding contracts for difference allocation regulations to reflect the amended formula.
The regulations amend the validity period of a supply chain plan statement so that it is valid for nine, rather than 12, months. This ensures that, in practice, developers continue to submit individual supply chain plans for each CfD allocation round in light of the move to annual auctions. They also amend the requirement to provide a supply chain plan statement so that it applies to all floating offshore wind projects. This allows the Government to support the development of supply chains for the floating offshore wind industry as it approaches significant commercialisation and deployment. We seek to make these amendments now to give certainty to businesses that might be planning to take part in the next CfD scheme, which will open in March 2023.
We are proposing these legislative amendments following a public consultation, which ran from 4 February to 15 March and gave stakeholders the opportunity to scrutinise and test the policy proposals. The consultation generated 41 responses from a range of developers of renewable generating stations, trade associations and bodies, suppliers and public investment bodies. At the same time, officials engaged wider audiences through an online event.
Overall, the policy proposals received wide support. The consultation led to one policy change to the supply chain policy proposals in response to the feedback received. A minor adjustment was made to the proposal to introduce floating offshore wind projects into the supply chain plan process whereby a bespoke, less burdensome process will be required to account for the smaller size of their projects.
In conclusion, the Government have set out a clear vision for how we will transform the production and use of energy, in a decisive shift away from expensive fossil fuels. These regulations, together with annual CfD allocation rounds, will help support an increase in the pace of deployment of the new renewable electricity generation needed to achieve our ambitions while continuing to consider the likely cost to consumers, energy security, et cetera. Subject to the will of Parliament, we intend that these arrangements will come into force on the day after the regulations are made. I beg to move.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, I will ask some questions, because I do not fully understand all this and these SI debates are often a good opportunity to expand one’s knowledge.
First, I would be grateful if the Minister can explain how a shorter life validity of the supply chain plan acts as an incentive, and what it incentivises. What happens after the plan lapses? None of that is obvious to me from the not very helpful Explanatory Memorandum. Are these supply plans published? Can we all see them or are they private documents between the Government and the supplier? Overall, do they help us to estimate what percent of the value added in supply chains is generated within the UK? If so, I would be grateful to know what it is.
Can the Minister also confirm that although the newest offshore fields won the bidding process with low prices, they have not yet activated their contracts so they are able to sell their electricity at the very high prices now prevailing, making what most people might call a windfall profit? That is the sort of thing Governments love to tax but they seem to have got off scot free. I would be grateful to know whether that is the case and to what proportion of wind generation that applies.
I would also like to know what proportion of wind generation comes from the early contracts, which, if I have correctly understood it—that may well not be the case—got a variable price plus a bonus and therefore are getting not merely the current high price but the current high price plus something extra: jolly good for them, but not so good for the consumer. Again, that is something that Governments might like to tax but they do not seem to have done so in this case. I would like to know what proportion of the renewables supply that is. By deduction, that should tell us what proportion of the renewables supply is under CfDs and therefore is not going up with the gas price. It would be very helpful if the Minister could answer that.
If those questions identify an intrinsic problem in the present system, why does this measure not deal with it—unless it does and I have not been able to find it in the not very helpful Explanatory Memorandum? I will be grateful for the Minister’s replies.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I start—partly related to what the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, said—by thanking the Minister profoundly. The last time we had a debate around CfDs, I asked a number of questions about the Low Carbon Contracts Company, which is wholly owned by the Government, and how much money it was making because of the energy price in relation to the strike price on CfDs. The Minister provided a comprehensive reply. Unfortunately, I do not have the numbers from it with me, but I thought it was extremely useful and I thank him for that. There is significant money coming back into the Low Carbon Contracts Company and, therefore, the public sector. Of course, the area that does not is the old ROCs regime, where I presume good profits are being made by those renewable companies that still operate under that system—although those presumably are starting to die out fairly quickly.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction. I similarly had only three questions arising from this SI—two of which the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, asked and the final one has also just been asked. This is a very technical SI, which we support, and I will just pick up on a couple of points.
The instrument will amend the validity period of the supply chain plan statement—one point that the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, raised—so that it is valid for nine months, not 12 months, from the date of notice given by the Secretary of State. However, it goes on to say:
“The Secretary of State will … be able to determine a longer period if in their opinion there is a compelling reason for the period to be longer”.
Can the Minister share what he would consider to be “compelling reasons” for why it would be extended past nine months, if we are moving it back from 12 months? The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, touched on the second point about the qualifying of the impact under the new commitments; I will leave the Minister to answer that question.
On the supply chain, Regulation 2(3) amends the requirement to provide a supply chain plan statement so that it applies to all floating offshore wind projects. This was the point just made: the current 300-megawatt threshold generating capacity will continue to apply to all other eligible projects that are not floating offshore wind projects. Have the Government given any consideration to removing this threshold for other projects to encourage SCPs?
Finally, I understand that the consultation on the new supply chain plan questionnaire—the condensed version—closes tomorrow. Do any of the changes that would come under that affect this SI and does closing the consultation after the Grand Committee agrees this SI have any consequences?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank all the three noble Lords for their contributions. They were raising wider concerns about how the process works; I do not think anybody objected to the SI itself, so I thank Members for their support. The points that were raised demonstrate the need for these regulations—they are technical changes—and the support for introducing them.
As I said at the start of the debate, these changes are essential to ensure that the next CfD allocation round, which will be the first annual one, can best support something we all want to see: an increase in the pace of renewable development and the deployment needed to help us achieve our net-zero ambitions and get the price of electricity down in the longer term. At the same time, they help to achieve our legal net-zero commitments.
My noble friend Lord Lilley was right to point out the need to consider the likely cost to consumers, the impacts on energy security, et cetera. These regulations must be made now, ahead of the next CfD allocation round, which is planned for March next year, as I said, so that the developers have certainty as to the legislative framework for the next round.
Dealing with some of the questions raised, my noble friend Lord Lilley asked me to explain how a shorter validity acts as an incentive and what happens after the supply chain lapses. He also asked whether supply chain plans are published. The answer is that they are. They set out how they will improve the capacity of the supply chain. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, touched on the reason and I need to be slightly careful here. We are endeavouring to ensure that—how should I put this?—as much of the supply chain as possible is located in the United Kingdom, without breaching our legal obligations, which nobody would want to see us do. We are subject to legal action from the European Commission in the WTO, at the moment.
My noble friend Lord Lilley also asked what the Government are doing to stop CfD generators delaying their start dates so they can benefit from high energy prices. First, the vast majority of operational CfD projects are, happily, paying back into the system, due to the current high energy prices. I set out those figures in a letter to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. Subject to his agreement, I would be happy to send a copy to my noble friend.
In essence, in April this year, the Low Carbon Contracts Company, which is responsible for administering this system, returned £108.3 million to GB suppliers in respect of payments made by generators since last autumn. However, my noble friend is correct, and the Government are aware of a small number of projects that have delayed their contract start dates to try to benefit from current high wholesale prices. Legally, CfDs are private law contracts between the Low Carbon Contracts Company, the CfD counterparty and generators. The Government are not legally a counterparty to those contracts. However, we have raised the matter with the industry and made it clear that, in our view, this practice is not within the spirit of the scheme, which is intended to deliver benefits to both consumers and developers. While operating on commercial terms, these developers will not receive CfD payments. We are examining possible changes to the scheme to prevent future CfD projects acting in this way. While this practice is regrettable, it is important to remember that CfDs have played a significant role in massively bringing down the cost of offshore wind in recent years.
My noble friend also asked about capacity. The CfD scheme currently supports 16 gigawatts of new capacity, of which 13 gigawatts is offshore wind. Only two projects, totalling 1.4 gigawatts, have delayed their contract start dates in order to sell their electricity on the open market.
Turning to the slightly problematic area which concerns the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, reflecting the concern of the EU that we are breaching WTO rules, my legalistic response to this is that in the supply chain plans we do not require developers to use UK content. The supply chain plans are there to encourage them to invest in creating competitive, capable and efficient supply chains which are, of course, necessary for us to deliver net zero, taking into account our national obligations.
Lord Teverson (LD)
May I say to the noble Lord that that is highly commendable?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his comments. The noble Lord also asked why there is discrimination against floating offshore wind in terms of the 300-megawatt capacity. The answer is that this technology is at a key juncture in terms of its deployment, and we think that certain emerging technologies—such as floating offshore wind—have the potential to play an important role in the future in helping us to meet net zero. Bringing them into the supply chain process now will allow BEIS to support the development of the associated supply chain at an early stage by encouraging the industry to invest in competitive supply chains and—as has happened with offshore wind—to accelerate the cost reduction, by which we are now all benefitting.
There were also a number of technical questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord McNicol. This SI is not affected by the detailed questionnaire that was issued. On his other questions, it may be better if I reply to him in writing, if he will allow me to do so. With that, I commend this draft instrument to the House.
Construction Contracts (England) Exclusion Order 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the Grand Committee do consider the Construction Contracts (England) Exclusion Order 2022.
Lord Callanan
My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Construction Contracts (England) Exclusion Order 2022, which was laid before the House on 11 May 2022, be approved.
These regulations exclude two specific types of construction contract from the provisions of Part 2 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, often referred to as the construction Act. Both contract types form part of a new procurement delivery model developed by Ofwat, known as direct procurement for customers or DPC, for the finance, design, building, operation and maintenance of high-value water and sewerage infrastructure. Before I set out the details of this exclusion order, it might perhaps be helpful to touch on the legal context for construction contracts.
Specific construction payment and dispute resolution legislation has now been in place for more than 25 years. Part 2 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 creates a framework for fair and prompt payment through the construction supply chain and a resolution procedure for disputes. The aim is to improve cash flow and provide the right to the quick resolution of disputes through adjudication.
Lord Callanan (Con)
Yes—very good. There is a pipeline of potential projects that could adopt this model, and the Government believe that its use will deliver benefits to consumers. Through increasing competition in the delivery of strategic infrastructure, it will ensure that the cost of this infrastructure is market tested and therefore fair for water and sewerage customers. I apologise for the complicated nature of the explanation and I commend this instrument to the House.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am sure that we are all very grateful to my noble friend for presenting this document. I am sure that he will be aware of the vexed issue of sustainable drainage systems—SUDS—in relation to the provision of water and sewerage services. So I ask very specifically whether the implementation of SUDS will be affected and enhanced by the exclusion in this regulation.
Paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum says:
“The instrument is limited to a specific procurement model for high value infrastructure assets in the regulated water and sewerage sector ... There are two projects under active development and a further 18 strategic water resource schemes are being progressed ... across the next 2-3 price review periods”—
so we are looking at a period of 15 years. As we are told that the significance and the business impact of this is estimated at £54,000, how will this enhance the ability to introduce SUDS and other larger water infrastructure projects if it is such small beer? That is the only issue that I will raise; otherwise, obviously I approve this instrument.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I too am grateful to the Minister for his explanation—I tried to understand most of it. I too am interested in paragraph 7.3, to which the noble Baroness referred, because it comes back to the question of the best way of achieving fair competition when there is going to be a massive new project to provide better services in the water sector. One has to look perhaps at the example of the Thames Tideway tunnel—that probably comes under the category of being large. Whether it will deliver what Thames Water thinks that it will at a price that customers can afford remains to be seen. I do not quite see why these two large projects should be dealt with separately. Could the Minister name them and give us some idea of what they are about and what the risks might be? I will not go into them now, because they could be anything.
The regulator is apparently in charge of all of this and will vet contracts that it seems to me will be to design, construct and operate—why can these not be done by competitive tendering, with the usual construction industry fallbacks if things go wrong? It would be interesting if the Minister could give us more information about not only the two big ones but the 18 strategic water resources ones. How will anyone be able to tell or believe—we hope that we will be able to believe—that the regulator has delivered for the customer as well as for shareholders?
Lord Fox (LD)
As the Minister knows, I am no lawyer—perhaps I should have taken a law degree before attempting this statutory instrument. I note that it is not just the European Union that can amass red tape; we seem to be doing it very well on our own, so I am not sure it can refer us to the WTO for competition.
This is a very complex model. I was caught by the idea that we appear to have been progressing without it for a while. In a sense, is this closing a loophole that has been spotted, or does this reflect a trend in how the market is going about delivering these projects? What drove the decision to table this statutory instrument now? In other words, what has caused this to happen now when it clearly could have happened some time before or in future?
In passing, the Minister mentioned benefits to consumers. I think he outlined that there would be some sort of competitive tendering process, and therefore the price of a particular project would go down in cost. I am interested in the very sharp end of the consumer experience—the connection and that kind of thing. I assume that this applies to that as well as to the larger projects. If it does not, how will a new consumer attempting to join the system experience it? As I understand it, at the moment they are given a “take it or leave it” price by the water supplier. Does that continue to be the case? Will there be an opportunity for consumers to drive down the cost to them of an individual connection or is this focusing only on much larger projects?
The other point is how this flows through the supply chain. The Minister mentioned that the tier 1 contractors are potentially liable to be most affected. However, this marks a change right down through the chain to tiers 2, 3 and others. I would be interested to know how low down their tier structure the department intends to bring suppliers up to speed on how they address their role in this change in the supply chain. Other than that, I think I welcome this and certainly look forward to the Minister’s answers.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, I again thank the Minister for his introduction to another very technical SI. Until his introduction, the only real question I had was around the consultation. He touched on it at the end of his introduction, but I could not find any of the details of the responses to it online. That is probably me, but could he say a little more about the feedback received as part of the consultation?
Following on from the themes of the general public and who will benefit from this SI, the Minister said there were some concerns and worries from the first-tier subcontractors. I think we all agree that the removal of “pay when paid” was good. I worry a little, if we are bringing back special circumstances which in reality are “pay when paid”—although under slightly different processes in terms of certificates and completions—whether we are opening it up. Is the Minister worried about this at all or is the SI tight enough to prevent “pay when paid” returning to the construction sector?
The final point has been touched on by the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Fox, and is about fair competition and the general public. Does the Minister believe there will be any increase in price or unitary charge for the general public in this SI? With that, I will leave my questions.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions to the debate. Let me start by emphasising, as I did initially, that this exclusion order is very narrow in scope. It is well defined to ensure that it is used only for the intended and very specific contracts that I referred to. These are the two specific construction contracts that are used to deliver the direct procurement for customers model for high-value infrastructure assets in the regulated water and sewerage sector.
Let me also emphasise that the creation of an exclusion under this Act is very much an exception and not the rule. DPC is a competitive delivery model focused on accelerating the delivery of strategic infrastructure in this particular sector. The current absence of an exclusion for these specific contracts threatens the viability of DPC and the very great benefits it could bring to consumers. That position has been confirmed through consultations with appropriate stakeholders. That is the reason the Government have chosen to use the powers conferred on them to make exclusions from the provisions of the construction Act in this particular, limited, isolated case.
I shall now deal with the questions I was asked. First, to my noble friend Lady McIntosh: SUDS are not currently associated with the schemes being developed but may be, in the future, if they are of sufficient size to be required.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, asked for details of the projects. The first project is United Utilities Water’s Haweswater aqueduct resilience programme, which I am sure the noble Lord is very familiar with. It is to replace the existing Haweswater aqueduct, which is at risk of failing, which currently transfers water from the Lake District to north-west England, especially Manchester. The second English project is sponsored by Southern Water, and it is to deliver water to the south-east of England. United Utilities Water’s Haweswater aqueduct resilience programme, a very large project, will replace parts of the Haweswater aqueduct, which brings water to Cumbria and Lancashire. Southern Water’s Hampshire water transfer and water recycling project is required to ensure supplies to the Hampshire region. It is able to meet, apparently, one-in-500-year droughts. That is the second scheme I referred to.
In response to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, as I emphasised again, the exclusion order is narrow in scope, and it is well defined to ensure that it is used for these particular, intended contracts only—the two specific construction contracts that are used to deliver the DPC procurement model for high-value infrastructure assets. Those entering into the procurement mechanism will, of course, have full knowledge of the terms including that payments during the construction phase will be made at specified intervals and that payments made through the unitary charge will commence only once the asset is capable of operating. Importantly, alternative dispute resolution mechanisms will also be included within the CAP contracts. All remaining construction contracts through the supply chain of the DPC projects—and, let me emphasise, in particular those appertaining to SMEs—would, of course, remain subject to all the relevant provisions within the construction Act.
In response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, this instrument is limited—
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister, but before he moves on, could he explain why the regulator, or the Government, thinks these very large contracts should be treated separately and differently, rather than having several smaller ones, as it may be, where the risk of things going wrong might be lower?
Lord Callanan (Con)
As I said, these are specific to a unique procurement model which is being trialled and which we think will be appropriate in the water and sewerage sector. We therefore think it appropriate to exempt these particular, very large contracts to enable the model which effectively, as far as the companies are concerned, delivers the construction, management, maintenance, et cetera of very large construction projects. It is a unique procurement mechanism which we think has the potential to benefit customers in the future, so in this very limited case it was deemed appropriate by the Secretary of State to exempt them from the regulations.
Lord Fox (LD)
I shall further demonstrate my confusion on this statutory instrument. I think I heard the Minister say that payment to the tier-one supplier could be delayed until the point at which the service has been delivered, but that payments to those lower down the supply chain would not be delayed. If that is the case, there is a significant cash flow issue for the tier-one suppliers who are not necessarily robust in cash, as we have seen in other projects. Has the department carried out an impact assessment in cash terms on the tier-one suppliers who would potentially be taking a knock here?
Lord Callanan (Con)
In essence, the noble Lord is right. The regulation exemption will apply to the main, overall contract, but the separate contracts that will exist lower down the supply chain with SMEs will still be subject to the provisions of the construction Act. I suppose the answer to the noble Lord’s question is ultimately it is for the main supplier to price in the risk. Of course, if it wants to be paid, it needs to deliver on the contract and on the service that it is being contracted to provide. As in all these things, it is about providing the right incentives and fair value for the taxpayer or, in this case, the water bill payer, and for the main contractor to deliver the project as efficiently as possible. Ultimately contracts between the lower-tier levels and smaller SMEs are still subject to the provisions and they will need to be paid in any case.
In response to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, this instrument is limited to a specific procurement model that Ofwat wants to use in the regulated water and sewerage sector. He referred to the consultation. That was held through individual and group meetings with the relevant construction industry and with water sector stakeholders and was undertaken over a two-month period.
I was asked a question on pay when paid.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
I understand when the consultation took place. The bit I could not find when I was reading the statutory instrument was the response to the consultation and whether that has been published on the website or shared at all, because I could not find any information on the consultation. I knew exactly when it was and what happened.
Lord Callanan (Con)
It was not published, but I would be happy to send the noble Lord a letter with the details of the consultation in question.
I was asked a question on pay when paid. Again, it is quite technical. DPC first-tier subcontracts are not excluded from Section 113 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 under this statutory instrument. This means that pay-when-paid clauses are not permitted. Instead, payments will be made according to an agreed schedule for the delivery of the project.
The basis of DPC is to provide better value for money for customers, ultimately, and bills are expected to be lower than they would have been if the schemes were delivered by regulated water companies via the traditional business-as-usual model by which companies’ prices are set. The first-tier contractors are expected to be part of the highest-level CAP and they are responsible for funding the delivery of the schemes under those contracts.
I hope that I have been able to satisfy the Committee on the questions that were asked—obviously not.
Lord Fox (LD)
I apologise for labouring this point. First, an observation on the Minister’s answer to my last question is that, if I were a tier 1 contractor factoring in the risk to my cash flow, it would increase rather than decrease my price, because I would be taking some sort of insurance or loan to finance the flow of cash through my business. So I do not quite get the idea that competitiveness would work in the way the Minister is depicting.
I am struggling with why, and why now. Are there historic issues with delivery that have caused the department and the Government to want to push this model through this statutory instrument? We cannot simply point to the construction Act being there; the construction Act is there, but projects have been going on. What specifically has caused this to happen now? I still do not get that.
Lord Callanan (Con)
While Ofwat’s regulatory regime has been successful at challenging the performance and efficiency of what are ultimately monopoly companies, in some areas, such as the delivery of major infrastructure projects, we believe that competition can deliver greater benefits for consumers. That is why, with advice from the regulator and the appropriate consultations, we think that these procurement models will deliver better value with a greater competition benefit for consumers—which is why we are introducing them. I hope I have satisfied the noble Lord’s question and I therefore commend these draft—
Lord Callanan (Con)
Ultimately, of course, previous contracts have delivered and been successful, but we think that a different model, involving more competition, could deliver better value for consumers, which is why we have produced these regulations. I therefore commend them to the Committee.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord again. Following his last comment—
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I think the Minister has now taken his seat.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
The noble Lord mentioned Southern Water as an example of the need for competition, and I am sure he is right about the need for competition—but who is competing? Is Southern Water competing against somebody else or are two contractors that are reporting to Southern Water, as the principal, competing? How does it work?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I will write to the noble Lord if my answer is not correct, but my understanding is that Southern Water is the procurer and will be regulated by Ofwat within the overall monopoly structure of the water industry. This is why strict regulation and price controls are imposed on water companies. The idea is that a company will be able to involve competition in selecting contractors for the delivery of particular projects. So the company will be the procurer, albeit under the overall model regulated by Ofwat.
House of Lords
Introduction: The Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham
Bain & Company: Public Sector Contracts
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True)
My Lords, individual departments and other public sector bodies are responsible for their own decisions in these matters but, at the Prime Minister’s request and against the background of Judge Zondo’s report, officials at the Cabinet Office are actively reviewing this matter. The review process is nearing completion and the final report and recommendations are expected to go to Ministers within weeks.
Lord Hain (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that response but is it not utterly shameful that Ministers are still permitting Bain & Company to bid for multi-million pound government contracts, like those it has won in recent years, when the company has recently been found by a South African judicial inquiry to be guilty of unlawful complicity in corruption under former President Zuma? Surely Ministers must accept an amendment to the Procurement Bill, excluding any company with a record of such illegal behaviour from being awarded British taxpayers’ money, or am I going to get another weaselly response like the one in a letter from Jacob Rees-Mogg?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord for his pursuit of this matter and accept that it is important. The company concerned is not a strategic supplier to the Government and is not currently undertaking any substantial work for them. As I have said, the final report and recommendations in relation to this will come and these matters can obviously be discussed on the Procurement Bill, which covers the grounds for exclusion of bidders from public procurement.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, without wishing to bring Committee stage of the Procurement Bill in front of all your Lordships, the Minister knows that Clause 11 of that Bill clearly identifies “maximising public benefit” as one of the things that a contracting authority must have due regard to. Can the Minister perhaps explain how, when a business such as Bain & Company has clearly minimised public benefit to the whole of the South African nation for the benefit of just a few individuals, we can take seriously a Government who put this in writing and yet have continued to maintain a relationship with Bain & Company?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I just gave the House the current position as far as the company is concerned. As long-standing friends of South Africa, the Government will continue to engage South African authorities, business and civil society on a shared agenda of security, economic and social issues, including in the light of the final conclusions of the Zondo report. As I have said, that report is coming within weeks; we will also obviously carefully consider any implications for action in the United Kingdom.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister has not answered the question. Why would the Government want to have any relationship with an organisation that has been committing fraud and corruption in other countries?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, there is a further Zondo commission report to be issued, I believe, later this month and there are grounds for due process. We have engaged with the company, as was set out in a letter from my right honourable friend Mr Rees-Mogg. I can repeat only that the review, about which I have told the House, will issue shortly and, based on a finding of facts, will obviously have recommendations for the Government.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hain’s question shows up deficiencies in the Procurement Bill as published. Schedule 6 to that Bill outlines the criteria under which a supplier must be added to the debarment list and cannot be awarded public sector contracts—my noble friend gave an example. Can I draw the Minister’s attention to Schedule 7, which provides for discretion in order to add a supplier to that list? There is really wide scope for discretionary disbarment, even on the grounds of national security, and a lack of clarity as to why it is discretionary and what criteria will be deployed in making that judgment. I listened to the Minister’s response to my noble friend and do not think it really addressed the question as fully as we would like. Given the importance of this issue and the fact that we have the Procurement Bill coming up, can the Minister commit now to publishing additional guidance, which would at least inform its Committee debates, on what considerations will be taken into account where such disbarment is to be discretionary?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, there are two aspects there. I have answered on the progress so far of the Cabinet Office review of the case following the Zondo commission. As far as the Procurement Bill is concerned, we will of course be discussing these things in Committee and later. In the Bill, we are expanding the scope of misconduct that can lead to exclusion; we are also increasing the time period within which misconduct can lead to exclusion, bringing subsidiary companies into scope of inclusion and making the rules clearer so that contracting authorities can undertake exclusions with more confidence. I look forward to engaging with the noble Baroness opposite and her colleagues in the course of the Bill, and I will seek to address the questions that she has raised as we go forward.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, unless I have badly understood, which is quite possible, Bain & Co came close to purchasing Liverpool Victoria Financial Services—the bid was finally rejected last December. What powers would the regulators have had, with their oversight of Bain & Co’s behaviour in other countries, to intervene in that potential purchase?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am not familiar with the specific case that the noble Baroness raises. I will seek information and write to her in response.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, the last question leads on to a point that I would like to ask the Minister about. The St Petersburg International Economic Forum is taking place in mid-June, and a large number of these management consultants are going to be attending it, from one office or another—maybe it will be from their Moscow office. Does it need consideration that these organisations are not being helpful in the grand scheme of things, when the Government have a clear policy on such matters?
Lord True (Con)
I note what the noble Viscount says, but the Cabinet Office review into this specific company will conclude within weeks. We will have discussions on this in the Procurement Bill, and your Lordships will be able to explore these matters at greater length then. Obviously, I am concerned by any suggestion of corruption and misconduct, and we are widening in the Bill the scope of misconduct which can lead to exclusion.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister sought in part to assure us, saying that Bain & Company—I think I quote him properly—are not doing any substantial business with the Government. What does “substantial” mean in those circumstances, and were any of these insubstantial contracts agreed after the judicial inquiry in South Africa reported?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am advised that there is not a current contract with central government. If I am incorrect, I will correct that. I am aware of one live contract that Bain has with an NHS trust, which has a contract value of approximately £2 million.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I am sorry to pursue this again after the noble Lord’s replies to me and to others, but I remind him that this company, under former President Zuma’s direct instructions, effectively denuded the South African Revenue Service of its capacity to raise taxes, especially from President Zuma’s friends and cronies. This was a complicity in corruption which is inexcusable. It is not good enough to say that a review awaits the final report of the Zondo commission. The Zondo commission’s report earlier this year specifically indicted Bain—I doubt it will have anything more to say about it—and referred the company for prosecution. Surely the Government should not have anything to do with it, otherwise all our words about money laundering and anti-corruption abroad and so on, and our legislation here to try to combat it, will mean nothing, when we are paying taxpayers’ money to companies like this one, as we did only a couple of years ago.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, we are not paying taxpayers’ money to this specific company. I have said to the noble Lord that I greatly respect the way in which he has been pursuing this; it has been dogged. I am not here to defend actions that took place under the Zuma Government. We are obviously concerned; and we respect the great nation of South Africa. As I said earlier, we will work with it and draw conclusions in our relations both with South Africa and in the UK on this matter.
Food Security
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effects on food security of allowing corporations to purchase arable land to offset their carbon emissions; and what plans they have to limit the amount of arable land that can be used for this purpose.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, who has been unavoidably detained in his diocese and sends his apologies.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, I declare my farming interests as set out in the register. This Government are committed to safeguarding food security, as highlighted by the food strategy published today. I am very conscious of the issue raised, and we already have several protections in place, such as requirements for public consultations on any large new woodland as part of environmental impact assessments. I am also working closely with Her Majesty’s Treasury and BEIS to develop robust standards for green finance investments, and will set out the next steps in the forthcoming months.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, does the Minister agree that industrial-scale tree planting by large investment companies which purchase arable land may create what are called ecological dead zones and generate more carbon emissions if insufficient attention is given to biodiversity, according to the John Muir Trust? If so, how will Her Majesty’s Government ensure that such companies are subject to proper biodiversity requirements so that they may prove to be responsible stewards of the land?
Lord Benyon (Con)
Yes, I agree with the right reverend Prelate that the wrong kind of trees planted in the wrong place under the wrong management style will be a loss for both the environment and the social element we want in our countryside. That is why there are very clear rules under the woodland carbon code which corporates would have to abide by, and why the Forestry Commission, if applying through grant aid schemes, will require standards to be maintained. For example, planting will not be permitted on deep peat; it will be concentrated on poor land.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, it is a nonsense to allow private companies to acquire vast hectares of arable land, often removing generations of farming families, in order to offset their carbon emissions and carry on with business as usual. British farmers are essential to the country’s ability to produce food. Does the Minister agree that importing food which is not produced to the same high animal welfare standards as we enjoy in the UK, to replace that which we might have grown ourselves, is a backwards step?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I suggest that we look at this as the glass half full: there are plenty of examples where private sector finance can be a massive boost towards the environment by working with farmers and seeing tree planting on poor-quality land, for example. Some 57% of agricultural produce is produced on 33% of agricultural land. This shows that, if we favour the productive land to produce food—every single farm has corners of it that can be planted with trees or for other ecological benefits—this will benefit the farmer and is in accordance with the food production targets and ambitions of this Government. It can work; we want to root out the bad behaviour which the noble Baroness rightly points out.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. The Minister has rightly referenced the importance of a good balance between vital food production, carbon capture and other environmental things. It is a very difficult issue, and I wonder whether he can confirm that the devolved Administrations and the UK Government are discussing these things at the new Inter Ministerial Group for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I absolutely assure the noble Earl that we are working closely with our devolved colleagues on this, because the environment clearly does not respect boundaries. We want to make sure that our policies are very closely aligned with them. The issue is perhaps more pertinent in Scotland and Wales, where we have seen some of the concerns which have led to this title of a “wild west” in how private sector finance is applied. We want the highest standards applied. There are good examples right across the United Kingdom and we want to make sure that the tweaks and the measures that we impose favour those who are showing virtue rather than those who are not.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as I live quite close to Newmarket, where an exceptionally large solar farm is proposed on high-quality farmland. I wonder whether my noble friend will say, in light of the food strategy today and the desire for greater food security, what steps the Government are taking to ensure that the desirable use of solar farms and renewables is not prejudicial to our environment or indeed our food security?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am well aware of this case in Suffolk and the concerns of local people about loss of good agricultural land. The food strategy published today sets out the ambition to maintain our high levels of food security and production. Those sorts of developments need to be seen in the context of that ambition, and very strict rules relate to both planning and the use of the best agricultural land. That may well apply in the case that my noble friend refers to.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
With about 7 billion trees, I think, we are one of the least forested countries in Europe, and there is a case for more trees—the right trees in the right place. I cannot understand why there is not a complete ban on using food-producing land for solar farms, when all the flat roofs of the warehouses and factories in this country could be used for that. There would be more space available; it is a given that it does not take good agricultural food-producing land.
Lord Benyon (Con)
There are many grants that people can source, even at a household level, to acquire and install solar panels on roofs, and the noble Lord is entirely right to point that out. He is also right that we need more trees. We have very ambitious targets of planting 30,000 hectares of additional trees every year by the end of this Parliament. That can be achieved without impacting our food security, and there are many areas of renewable energy production that can be done in accordance with food production as well.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I am sure the Minister is aware of figures from 2019 showing that corporations already own 18% of England, together with oligarchs and City bankers owning 17% and the aristocracy and the gentry owning 30%, all of that adding up to less than 1% of the population owning more than half of the land. Does the Minister agree that for food security to allow new small farmers and food growers to enter and start small businesses, we need to democratise land ownership?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The most beneficial way to encourage people into farming at all levels is through a system of let land and tenure. It is very often those corporations and those individuals that the noble Baroness mentions that provide the only entry for people who do not have access to capital to purchase a farm. We want as broad activity as possible in agricultural production, and that means encouraging new and younger people to enter farming through the tenancy system.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, in response to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, on a similar issue last Wednesday, the Minister said:
“we are taking action to make sure that private sector investment in our natural environment is done properly, with the proper social underpinning.”—[Official Report, 8/6/22; col. 1151.]
Can he explain how this “social underpinning” is going to work? Will local people have the right to veto a large-scale private sector land grab, an example of which we have already been hearing about?
Lord Benyon (Con)
Under the Forestry Commission’s rules, there is a local consultation process that proposed tree planters are required to go through. Also, the woodland carbon code is very clear, as is the UK peatland code. We also want to make sure that corporations that are investing in this kind of mitigation are publicly accessible through the UK Land Carbon Registry, so anybody can see what is being done in their neighbourhood. We want to make sure that, with these so-called environmental, social and governance measures, the middle word is used and is fundamental—w want to make sure that these schemes are socially acceptable, as well as environmentally acceptable.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
The most pressing food security issue facing the United Kingdom at the moment is the inability of Ukraine to export its grain to the West. I ask my noble friend: what assessment have the Government made as to the challenge that this will present us and the West? Also, how do the Government intend to mitigate this problem?
Lord Benyon (Con)
It is having an enormous effect on the global cost of agricultural production. The Government are working internationally with organisations such as the World Bank, which has invested $180 billion in trying to make sure that the countries that are going to be deprived of grain as a result of the Ukraine war are supported. In this country, we are largely self-sufficient in grain, and what we do import comes from countries such as Canada. But my noble friend is entirely right to point this out to make sure that we are working with the international community: first of all, to get the grain out of Ukraine; and, secondly, to support the countries that are going to be affected, in a devastating way, by the shortages that arise from this crisis.
Fuel Poverty
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the numbers of households in fuel poverty; and what steps they are taking to address this.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and I refer to my interest in the register as president of National Energy Action.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, in our latest official projection, there would be an estimated 3.03 million households in England in fuel poverty in 2022, according to the low-income, low-energy efficiency definition. The Sustainable Warmth strategy, published in February 2021, details our approach to tackling fuel poverty in England. Energy efficiency remains the best way to tackle fuel poverty in the long term, reducing the amount of energy required to heat a home and contributing to lower energy bills and of course, carbon emissions.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that Answer. The figure used by the NEA is 6.5 million households in fuel poverty. Of course, that figure would have been substantially higher had it not been for the generous measures given by the Government in late May of this year. Does my noble friend recognise that there is now another type of fuel poverty, and that is the fact that it is costing £100 to fill the tank of an average family car? In those circumstances, does he accept it is causing real hardship in rural areas, and particularly for carers travelling between their clients? Will the Government, as a matter of urgency, reduce the VAT of 20% on fuel and the 57% fuel duty and make sure that is passed on to the forecourts?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I totally understand the points that my noble friend is making, and the Chancellor has, of course, already reduced fuel duty. Domestic fuels, such as gas and electricity, are already subject to the reduced rate of 5% VAT. Going further, I would not guarantee that prices would fall, given that most of the price rises are driven by a number of factors that can be seen worldwide. The other problem is that cutting VAT would also be a tax cut for everyone, including wealthier people in society.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, among the most vulnerable groups are park home owners—some 85,000 of them—whose energy supply is often controlled by landlords. These are often, I regret to say, rogue landlords. How will the Minister guarantee that those park home residents will be able to take advantage of the Government’s rebate schemes and the various other things to alleviate energy prices over the next few months?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord makes a very good point, and that is one of the aspects we are looking at—indirect suppliers through the consultations that we are holding on the various support schemes. I also point out that park home owners are already benefiting from a number of our energy-efficiency improvements, and there have some excellent examples of retrofitting park homes that have been carried out under schemes such as the local authority delivery energy efficiency scheme.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister think it rather peculiar that old people like myself get 200 quid a year for fuel, which is really not needed? Should there be a way of means testing the amount of money that is given to people like me?
Lord Callanan (Con)
It is very generous of the noble Lord to offer to give it up, but of course the point he makes is valid. It is a combination of the expense and bureaucracy of means-testing schemes as against the universality principle, but the vast majority of support schemes, of course, are means tested and focused on those in receipt of benefits and on the lowest incomes, and that also applies to all our energy efficiency schemes.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I declare energy interests as in the register. Does my noble friend accept that by far the largest driver behind these hideous energy and fuel prices, with more apparently to come, which are really damaging and frightening millions of households, would be tackled if there could be far more oil and gas pumped into short-term world markets to bring down the price of oil, petrol, gas and electricity very quickly indeed? Some of us would really like to see evidence of more co-ordinated vigour and diplomacy in international markets in driving down these prices. Something can be done. Could we see more effort in that direction, please?
Lord Callanan (Con)
My noble friend makes a very good point. There is a lot of diplomatic action going on with organisations such as OPEC, precisely in the terms that he alludes to. We are also, of course, attempting to produce as much oil and gas as we can from our existing British North Sea fields as well.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the National Housing Federation. Some 150,000 housing association residents currently have their heating and hot water delivered via communal or district heat networks. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will make the £400 energy grant available to residents on heat networks, who have seen some of the largest fuel price increases in the country?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Baroness makes a very good point. Heat networks are another of the difficult areas we need to address as part of the consultation we are doing. I also point out that we are, of course, taking powers to regulate heat networks, which are currently unregulated, in the forthcoming energy Bill, because it is an area that we need to expand in this country and there is no protection for those residents currently on heat networks, either in housing associations or in the private sector.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, the Minister knows that, in fact, as he stated, very little of our gas, for example, comes from the world market, yet it is the world market price for gas that is driving up the cost of fuel and energy, in terms of electricity, for our citizens. Is there not a case for reviewing how the basket of electricity is costed, so that it actually reflects the cost of generation more effectively in this country, rather than it being driven by the highest marginal cost of gas?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord is partially right. Of course, 40% of our gas supplies come from our own domestic production. We get quite a bit from the world market through Norway and quite a bit from LNG as well, so we are, of course, subject to world market fluctuations. But there is a lot of validity in the points that he has made.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, the government figures are out of date. The chairman of NEA is right: 6.2 million households is nearer the figure than the 3.2 million that the Minister referred to. The pressures of doubling fuel prices on top of this trend will continue to worry householders across the country. In 2015, the Government estimated it would take until 2030—another eight years from now—to end fuel poverty, but on current figures it will take more than 60 years. What new measures are the Government proposing to ensure they get back on track to meet their original deadline of zero fuel poverty by 2030?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The figures that the noble Lord quotes are, of course, using different metrics. There is a big debate about which is the appropriate metric to use, but we can all accept, whatever metric we use, that this a very difficult time and people are suffering. The best route to end fuel poverty is through energy-efficiency measures, and that is why we are spending £6.6 billion this year in precisely targeting energy-efficiency measures—home improvements, retrofits—towards those in society on the lowest incomes, but of course we will need to do more.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, the Government’s windfall tax was clearly very good, because it helped householders pay their bills, but at the same time that money went into profits for the oil and gas companies. The Minister talks about sustainable homes, retrofit and so on, but actually the Government are not putting enough into this, and I wonder whether government policy is influenced by the fact that the Conservative Party gets donations from the oil and gas sector.
Lord Callanan (Con)
The windfall tax is taking profits off the oil and gas industry, as the noble Baroness refers to, but as I just mentioned in a previous answer—
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Baroness says that this is not enough, but of course, we also need many of those companies to continue to invest both in North Sea production and in renewable production. If we are going to move to the totally renewable power system that I am sure the noble Baroness wants to see, as I do, we need tens of billions of pounds of investment, often from the same companies; you cannot spend the same pot of money twice. We are spending £6.6 billon this year on home efficiency measures, and there is a huge amount of work going on behind the scenes on retrofitting and home insulation measures, and through ECO, the local authority delivery scheme and the home upgrade grant. So, a lot of work is going on in this space.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, the cost of producing oil and gas has not changed substantially, but the selling price has. The refiners’ profits from petrol are up by 366%, and from diesel by 648%. May I urge the Minister to commission an inquiry into profiteering, and to introduce price controls to protect people from it?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord needs to look at our past experience of price controls to see how ineffective they are. I am sure the Chancellor will want to bear in mind any examples of profiteering the noble Lord refers to. All tax matters are of course kept under close review.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, is there any universally accepted definition of fuel poverty and if so, what is it?
Lord Callanan (Con)
My noble friend makes a good point, and actually, no, there is not. There is a definition that I refer to, and definitions are used concerning the percentage of someone’s disposable income that is spent on fuel. There was a big debate about the different metrics to use, but whatever metric we do use, nobody can disagree with the fact that it is a difficult time for everyone at the moment, and the Government need to do all they can to help.
Sewel Convention
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Wilcox of Newport
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the number of occasions that legislative consent has been rejected by the devolved legislatures since December 2019; whether they still intend to abide by the Sewel Convention; and if so, what steps they are taking to ensure that consent is secured to legislation in future.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
The UK Government have legislated without consent on 11 occasions since December 2019, most of which relate to our exit from the European Union. These were not decisions that we took lightly, but we considered them necessary to implement the referendum result in exceptional circumstances. We are fully committed to the Sewel convention and will of course continue to seek legislative consent, take on board views and work with the devolved Administrations on future Bills.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
I am glad that the Minister noted that the Government fully support the Sewel convention, because Minister for the Economy, Vaughan Gething, confirmed in writing last week to the UK Government that the Welsh Government are unable to endorse the approach the UK Government are taking on the shared prosperity fund. They will not deploy their own resources to implement UK Government programmes in Wales, as they have been doing with EU funding for 22 years; they consider them to be flawed and undermining of the devolution settlement. Does the Minister therefore agree with me that last week’s latest development is a further significant undermining of the Sewel convention?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
Unsurprisingly, I do not agree with that. We will of course continue to seek legislative consent, take on board views and work with the devolved Administrations, but the legislative consent process did not change and never was intended to change the sovereignty of this Parliament.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, earlier today, talking with some of his senior colleagues, I commended the Minister for his great ability to straight-bat my consistent questions about improper spending by the Scottish Government. However, will the Minister and the Government now consider drawing up contingency plans to make sure that when that expenditure goes beyond the pale, they are able to take some action?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I always consider the interventions of the noble Lord to be consistent, and to require a straight bat. We do understand when it is a reserved matter and when it is a devolved matter, and we will obviously look very carefully at how the Scottish Government spend their money.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, as part of promises made during the debate about leaving the European Union, an assurance was given to Wales that it would not suffer one penny less in terms of the money that had come from Brussels when it fell to the British Government to supply that money, but I am constantly bemused by the fact that this simply has not happened and is not happening. Although the Minister’s reply to my noble friend’s Question was perhaps what it ought to be, she quoted a Minister in the Senedd who said something quite contradictory. There is a difference of view that I think this House would benefit by understanding in greater depth.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, it is important that we get the Sewel convention to work, and that is why it is one of two items on the agenda for the upcoming inter-ministerial steering committee. We have had a working group on the Sewel convention. I cited the figures in response to another question; considerable sums are going through the UK shared prosperity fund, and it is important that we use those funds for the benefit of all four nations.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, the European Union has a system of gauging GDP within rural areas, called Objective 1. Do we have anything equivalent and if so, what is it?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I always appreciate the breadth of questions you can get on a Question that concerns the Sewel convention. I am not aware that we use something similar to that EU measurement, but I note that the EU has its own approach to the funding formula.
Lord Hain (Lab)
With respect to the Minister, there is a massive gap between his warm words on this matter and the views of Welsh Ministers in the Senedd about his Government’s stance, which is continuously undermining the Welsh Government—and I guess other Governments—over the devolution settlement by not properly consulting them and not making the term “consent” real, because they do not wish to consent to a lot of government legislation. I do not think that the inter-governmental machinery is working properly, either. It should be chaired by the Prime Minister, who should listen to Welsh Ministers and the First Minister properly instead of treating them with derision.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
I do not recognise that the Sewel convention is as broken down as that, in the sense that 47 legislative consent Motions for 23 Acts in the first Session and 28 legislative consent Motions in the second Session were secured and passed by the devolved legislatures. This is new machinery that obviously takes time to bed in, but I know that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has met on countless occasions—there have been 440 ministerial meetings—and the Prime Minister has met four times with the First Minister of Scotland and the Welsh leader, so those meetings are taking place. I ask noble Lords to give this machinery a chance.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
Could this constant dilemma of the edges of devolved powers in ever-changing circumstances be in any way handled better by strengthening the common framework processes, which have been successful so far in taking the difficulty out of some of these difficult areas?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
I thank my noble friend for raising common frameworks, which I know this House has spent quite a bit of time working on and refining. I am sure that they provide a guideline on how we should engage with the devolved Administrations and will help to strengthen the union as a consequence.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My noble friend will be aware that treaty making is a reserved power to the United Kingdom Government, but the scope of the treaties into which we are now entering, particularly trade treaties, often impinges directly upon devolved powers and the devolved Administrations. When reporting under CRaG, Ministers have told the International Agreements Committee when they have consulted the devolved Administrations but they have not consistently told us what the DAs have told Ministers would be their objectives and what they are looking for. Will my noble friend help Ministers to ensure that their explanatory memorandum under CRaG covers this?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
I am sure that we need to get the explanatory memoranda right. In addition, the Government recognise that we need to engage early so that legislatures and Administrations have as much time as possible to consider these matters before they are signed, in the case of treaties, or become Acts, if they are Bills. Of course, I take my noble friend’s point on board.
Lord Cormack (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that there is a very real difference between informing and consulting? Is he confident that we are properly consulting and not just informing?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
It is for each Minister to respond on whether they are informing or consulting. Certainly, in areas where I have had ministerial responsibility, we have learned an awful lot from the devolved Administrations, particularly in matters related to building safety and other areas. It is a two-way conversation where we can often learn as much from the devolved Administrations as they can from us. It is about sharing expertise.
School (Reform of Pupil Selection) Bill [HL]
Monday 13th June 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate School (Reform of Pupil Selection) Bill [HL] 2022-23 View all School (Reform of Pupil Selection) Bill [HL] 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, I declare that I am a patron of Comprehensive Future.
Protection of Whistleblowing Bill [HL]
Monday 13th June 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Protection for Whistleblowing Bill [HL] 2022-23 View all Protection for Whistleblowing Bill [HL] 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text
Schools Bill [HL]
Monday 13th June 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Schools Bill [HL] 2022-23 View all Schools Bill [HL] 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 1-III Third marshalled list for Committee - (13 Jun 2022)
Baroness Barran
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes clause 2(6), bringing the treatment of secure 16 to 19 Academies under that clause in line with that of other Academies. This means that if an Academy standard applies to secure 16 to 19 Academies, this can trump any corresponding contractual provisions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, I turn first to the government amendments in my name. The majority of these represent technical amendments to deliver the policy as intended, extend consultation requirements to existing measures and otherwise clarify the intent of the Bill.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I apologise, but I want to intervene on the Minister before she gets too much into her stride. I want to put on record the disappointment from these Benches that these amendments, which we do not consider to be simply technical or minor, are grouped together. It is a shame, because we would have liked to debate them separately. Can the Minister bear that in mind as we come to Report?
Baroness Barran (Con)
Of course, we will take that into consideration. I was not aware of the noble Baroness’s concerns. To echo that, there are two measures which are more substantial, which relate to secure schools and a prohibition order as part of our enhanced suite of powers to tackle unregistered schools.
I turn first to Amendments 30, 42 and 76, relating to secure schools and their particular context. Secure schools place education at the centre of the response to supporting children in custody, to reduce reoffending and improve children’s life chances. They will be established as both secure children’s homes and secure 16 to 19 academies using the academies framework as a basis for opening.
Secure schools’ funding agreements require unique provisions that reflect their context. Clause 2(6) was drafted to ensure that future new academy standards would not invalidate those unique provisions. We have now confirmed that primary legislation is not required to achieve that because new standards can be selectively applied within the standards themselves. Amendment 30 therefore removes Clause 2(6) as unnecessary to the functioning of the Bill.
Turning to government Amendment 42, Clause 8 requires the Secretary of State to provide seven years’ notice if they wish to terminate funding for an academy to ensure continuity for all year groups. Because children will generally spend fewer than two years in a secure school, Amendment 42 will modify Clause 8 to reduce the termination notice period from seven to two years for secure schools.
Amendment 76 introduces provision for secure schools covering payment termination notices as well as local impact considerations and consultation requirements. On payment termination notices, it amends the Academies Act 2010 to make it consistent with Amendment 42. Section 2 of the 2010 Act places a requirement on the Secretary of State to give seven years’ notice before ceasing payments to an academy. For the reasons I set out when discussing Amendment 42, this amendment will modify the Act to reduce this notice period to two years. Existing consultation requirements for academies include the requirement that the Secretary of State consider the impact of new academies on existing schools in the area. Given that the secure school will not be recruiting from the local area in the same way as local schools, we seek to disapply this requirement to secure schools.
The Academies Act also requires providers to consult relevant persons, such as local residents, on whether an academy arrangement should be entered into. Our view is that there will be a wide and complex range of views on the location of a secure school that the Government will wish to engage with. A “yes or no” consultation on a secure school is less likely to promote this engagement and, instead, the consultation will focus on how the secure school will work with local partners.
I acknowledge that Amendments 76A and 76B have been tabled to Amendment 76 in my name, and I shall respond to the comments from the noble Lord, Lord German, in my closing remarks.
Amendment 40 relates to academy trust standards. Clause 7 allows the Secretary of State to replace an entire trust board with a board of interim trustees. The amendment makes specific provision for the Secretary of State to consult the relevant religious body where the trust includes academies designated as having a religious character. It takes account of the fact that religious bodies have a particular interest in the governance of academies with a religious character, as reflected in those academies’ articles of association. Where the Secretary of State intends to appoint an interim trustee board, the religious authority will rightly wish to be assured that arrangements are in place to safeguard academies’ religious character. The amendment will ensure that religious bodies are able to make representations before any decision is made to appoint an interim trustee board.
I now turn to the five amendments relating to termination provisions for academy agreements and master agreements. Amendments 43 to 46 and 48 in my name relate to the termination procedure to be followed where a 16 to 19 academy is judged by Ofsted as not providing an adequate quality of education or training, or if the Secretary of State is of the view that boarding accommodation at an academy does not meet the required standards. The effect of these amendments is to apply the termination procedure which applies when an academy is judged inadequate by Ofsted, and it ensures consistency of approach. It also replicates the termination procedure currently provided for in funding agreements in these circumstances.
Amendment 47 expands Clause 11 so that it applies to academy agreements as well as master agreements in the case of a change of control of the trust or an insolvency event occurring. This means that the termination power will apply to a single-academy trust as well as a multi-academy trust. This is a corrective amendment to ensure that the legislation accurately replicates provisions in existing funding agreements.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I rise to introduce Amendments 76A and 76B, tabled by my noble friend Lord German, who is currently on a working visit to the Gambia and so is unable to be here. These amend government Amendment 76, which the Minister has already referred to.
We on these Benches support the proposal to create secure schools and academies. Youth custody, by its very nature, means that those within them are the most vulnerable and challenging young people. I once taught in a secure school and was struck by the care and hard work of all the teachers, committed to improving the life chances of some very damaged and occasionally violent young people. It was quite a scary commitment. That is why Charlie Taylor, in his review, proposed secure schools as a major way of dealing with the problems of the youth custody system.
However, we are concerned that local authorities have been ruled out of the objective of finding the best provision possible for these most challenging and vulnerable young people. There is a legal route open to local authorities to make a bid for running a secure academy, but such a bid would run counter to the Government’s policy. Yes, you can legally apply to run a secure school, but it is not government policy to accept your bid.
In his 2016 review, Charlie Taylor made two very clear points which are of relevance to this piece of legislation. The first was:
“Children who are incarcerated must receive the highest quality education from outstanding professionals to repair the damage caused by a lack of engagement and patchy attendance.”
The second was:
“Rather than seeking to import education into youth prisons, schools must be created for detained children which bring together other essential services, and in which are then overlaid the necessary security arrangements.”
The Taylor report pointed out the absolute importance of integration, not only of education but of a wide variety of services within the work of these schools. Health, social care, and services providing reintegration following custody are required within the school and not external to it. These are services that local authorities currently provide. Following the logic of local authority statutory provisions, particularly those on the duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of their children and the need for a new form of integration, there is much that local authorities can offer.
The then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, said in January:
“I accept that the Government’s policy remains that academy trusts are not local authority-influenced companies and that our position on secure schools is to mirror academies’ procedures. However, I can confirm that, when considering the market of providers of future secure schools, my department will assess in detail the potential role of local authorities in running this new form of provision … local authorities have a long-established role in children’s social care and the provision of secure accommodation for children and young people. In particular, the secure children’s homes legal framework may present a more straightforward route than the 16-19 academies framework for the expansion of local authority involvement in the provision of secure accommodation. However, I reiterate that there is no legal bar here.”—[Official Report, 10/1/22; cols. 825-26.]
It is against this strange backdrop of legal rights and government policy going in different directions that I look at government Amendment 76. It states that
“where the educational institution … is to be a 16-19 Academy”
and not that all secure schools are to be academies. Can the Minister confirm that the legal position on local authority involvement in secure schools has not altered since the Government’s statement to this House in January?
Engagement with local authorities in the work of secure schools or academies has always been seen as essential and welcome, so it is very concerning that proposed new subsection (2A) in Amendment 76 rules out consultation with local government or anyone else and makes consultation with local government only a possibility—and this for a part of our democratic structure which has been stated to have great value by the Justice Minister, speaking in the Chamber in January.
Restricting consultation with a local partner who has the statutory role for the provision of some services in relation to secure schools seems quite a bizarre approach. The words in the government amendment are quite clear: it will be a consultation on how the proposer of the secure academy should co-operate with local partners, and those are the local partners who the proposer of the secure academy thinks it appropriate to consult. There is therefore no duty for them to consult the local government of the area.
I would value an explanation of the ban outlined in proposed new subsection (2A)(a). I recognise that the siting of a secure academy is potentially controversial, so it appears that the rationale for the first part of the government amendment is to avoid normal planning requirements. If that is the case, I remind the Government of their failed policy to cut out local residents’ engagement when housing, building height extensions and other developments were proposed. Some government Ministers even suggested that this policy led to the Liberal Democrats winning the Chesham and Amersham by-election—oh joy.
These amendments seek to provide clarity. Although I recognise the difficulties of planning and siting a secure school as a principle—at the one in which I taught, local residents were extremely unhappy that they had these great thugs being taught near them—the Government should not ride roughshod over the rights given to local people through their local authorities. These amendments seek to recognise the importance of local government, in both the services it can provide and the representation of local interests that is part of its democratic mandate. I hope the Minister can clarify the Government’s intentions in respect of these matters, and as underlined in our amendments, as they affect secure schools or academies.
This is way above my pay grade, but I have been in the Minister’s position before. I humbly suggest, given the formidable opposition on her own Benches to the Bill, which threatens to undermine that of the opposition—we are doing our best, for goodness’ sake, but when it comes from the Conservative Benches it is quite difficult to match it—that she goes back to the department to put a stop on this Bill. We currently have three more days in Committee. I suggest they could be put to much better use than tearing the Bill apart.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
My Lords, the amendments my noble friend has tabled really show how interconnected all the Bill’s clauses are. You cannot envisage one without the other; they are interdependent. It is very difficult to move an amendment to any one clause that does not affect other clauses.
I said last week that I would try to find out from our legal advisers the extent to which the Bill may threaten the charitable status of all schools. I had a letter this morning from our advisers, Stone King, one of the leading education law firms. I will read it to the Minister so that she and the officials can reflect on it:
“The Bill sees, accordingly, a material shift from a contract-based system to one which is statutorily controlled.”
At the moment, the relationships between schools and the Secretary of State are as a contract: it is an agreement, and both sides can change it. It is subject to contract law. The Bill would change that to statutory control.
The letter continues:
“It also introduces much more stringent termination powers which include not only existing termination rights, but also the ability for the Secretary of State to flood the board of an academy trust.”
The Secretary of State has never had that power in the past, ever since 1870. This is a fundamental change—a major shift of authority from local authorities to Whitehall. Local authorities were responsible for closures in the past, but then they had checks and balances: before a closure could be decided on, they would have to check with the local community, local councillors and parents. There are now no such balances.
The letter continues:
“It was considered that such flooding rights were incompatible with the independence of an academy trust as a charitable company and that a contractual breach should lead to a contractual remedy—not to seek to control … the academy trust itself.”
This matter has been dealt with by the Charity Commission in the past, so I ask the Minister to reflect on, or find out from her officials, what the exact position is. The position was that, before 2010, the Charity Commission was very concerned about the independence of schools, so it made them all statutory charities. That gave them certain very clear rights. The letter states:
“The Charity Commission had doubts, in the late 2000s, about the charitable status of academies given the controls which could be exercised then by the Department for Education and Skills … This led to the provisions of the Academies Act 2010 which made academy trusts charitable”—
all the schools in our country today are statutory charities. The letter continues:
“It would be very hard to see how the Commission would be at all comfortable with these additional restrictions, and it would be interesting to understand whether there has been any dialogue between the DfE and the Charity Commission”.
If the Minister says that there has not been, I intend to write to the chairman of the Charity Commission tomorrow.
The Lord Bishop of Bristol
My Lords, I speak in place of my colleague, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, who unfortunately cannot be present today. I declare his interest as chair of the National Society.
I rise briefly to welcome Amendment 40 in this group, which offers real clarity on the issue. We welcome the recognition it shows that the religious body must be involved in giving an interim trustee notice to the proprietor of an academy school with a religious character. We are grateful for the Minister’s continued work on this and hope this might provide a little encouragement at this point.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, I have a lot of sympathy with the intervention from the Front Bench by my noble friend Lady Chapman around the unfortunate nature of the grouping of these amendments. I understand that there are reasons why technically the Government might want to bring forward amendments, and I accept that some poor drafting is being corrected by some of these amendments, but it is tricky. For example, there is no explanatory statement on Amendment 96, so without delving back into legislation it is difficult to prepare a view in advance or to understand anything to do with what the Government were proposing. That is really unfortunate.
Government Amendment 148 introduces a new criminal offence that is imprisonable, and with powers of entry for inspectors, by a technical amendment in Committee. These are quite big things. Given the explanation the Minister has given, I think I probably agree with the amendment, but at this stage it is difficult to form a considered view. When this Committee gets to considering independent educational institutions, which that amendment relates to, I hope we can be reminded by the Minister that we have already had some discussion of this new criminal offence around repeated operation of unregistered educational institutions.
There is a policy question around whether two years is the right notice period for secure 16-to-19 academies, as opposed to seven years, but I think the Minister has probably given a good enough answer.
I mostly rose following what the noble Lord, Lord Baker, had to say, which in a way felt a little outside the scope of these amendments, but I can see that there is a government amendment here on terminating an academy agreement and another about essentially including single-academy trusts in termination, so I think it is in the spirit of this group for the noble Lord, Lord Baker, to have mentioned this important issue about the independence of trustees. I am sure that most of your Lordships are trustees of some charity or other, or multiple charities, and so do not need reminding that pretty much the only thing you are asked to do as a trustee, first and foremost, is to put the charitable aims first, above anything else. There are then various other good governance and financial probity things you do, but the charitable aims are everything.
As academy trustees, we now find that we have a funding agreement with government, we are subject to direction from government, and we are now subject to being able to be removed by government, all within a statutory framework; the sense that there may be any kind of independence for trustees in that context, and that they are more than agents of the state, will be very difficult to sustain.
Should it not be appropriate for the Minister to reply instantly to what the noble Lord, Lord Baker, has said, it will be important for us to see some legal advice from government that the charitable status of academy trusts will not be threatened by the further encroachment of the Secretary of State in the operation of these organisations.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, following on from the comments of my friend the noble Lord, Lord Baker, the difficulty seems to be that we are discussing these matters in a vacuum. It will be very interesting to hear the Minister’s response to the point that the noble Lord raised. As I said on the first day in Committee, the Minister said at Second Reading that she was launching a review to
“establish the appropriate model and options for how best to regulate the English schools system”.—[Official Report, 23/5/22; col. 740.]
The question I put to her is this: how on earth can we deal with the substantive issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Baker, if we simply do not know how these schools will be regulated in the future? If ever there were a case for pausing a Bill, this is it.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, I will make a couple of observations. First, I strongly agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, and the noble Lord, Lord Knight, about the grouping of the amendments today; it is so random as to be almost impossible to fathom or follow. I give the benefit of the doubt to whoever arranges these groups, but if the aim is to throw sand in our faces and make the job far harder then there will be trouble when we get to the voting stage.
I turn to a couple of specific amendments. On Amendment 30, my noble friend the Minister admits that this power exists already. The Academies Act has been in place for some 10 or 12 years; why are officials just working this out only now? How many other parts of the Bill have that issue? I think the answer is that a great many do.
Amendment 43 wants powers to terminate agreements with trusts, but, again, there is already the power to remove a school from a poorly performing trust on an Ofsted judgment of special measures. There have been plans and talk about extending that to what is called RRI—that is, two successive RI judgments. Why is that not being done? This does not need legislation as far as I am aware.
To sum up the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, we are discussing this in a most extraordinary vacuum. There has been no consultation on the Bill and we have had no sight of regulatory review, yet we are plunged into these incredibly technical, idiosyncratic clauses. All of us share the concern to improve children’s educational outcomes. That is why I maintain my position to seek to remove most of these clauses, so that the Government can step back and rethink.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I want to raise a point probably connected to the comments of my noble friend Lord Baker, which may help my noble friend the Minister. I raised on the first day in Committee the consideration of the legal vehicle that we are dealing with here, which is potentially affected when you move from the bilateral to the unilateral, and any implications for not just charitable status but the role of charity trustees, as well as that of company directors, as in most cases these are charitable companies. I know that my noble friend intends to write to me, but it may be that the comments that follow from that have a connected purpose to what my noble friend Lord Baker has said in relation to any effects on the charitable purpose as well as the vehicle. We are dealing with a legal entity, and the implications for that need to be fully considered in the change from a bilateral contract to the unilateral situation that my noble friend proposes.
Lord Nash (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a chair of an academy trust and as a trustee of the Education Policy Institute.
I shall give a little background on trustees and their role and recruitment. When I became an academies Minister in 2013, it was clear that the very good initiative started by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis—who I see is not in his place—to find academy sponsors, such as myself and my noble friends Lord Agnew and Lord Baker, had been put very much on the back burner by officials in the rush to academise; it took a very long time to warm these people up and it was a long process. I said I did not care how long it took to warm these people up; we must have this process. I did not care if we got chucked out of government and the Labour Party came back in and used all the people that we had found—good luck; it is a very noble purpose.
As it happened, we did not find too many nutters like myself and my noble friend Lord Agnew who were prepared to go from a standing start to being full academy sponsors in one move, but we found hundreds, if not now thousands, of people who were prepared to go on the boards of multi-academy trusts as non-executive directors, pro bono, to serve a very good public purpose. I wonder how many we would have found if they knew they could be chucked out by the DfE at its whim.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, it is really something for me to say that I agree with most of the noble Lords opposite on this. It is a very odd Bill and a very odd process that we are going through today.
One question that comes to mind when we look at all these amendments is this: could the Minister give us a rough idea where the Minister’s power to make a decision without consultation has been increased or decreased? If there is anywhere that that power has been decreased, I would be very glad to hear about it. But if it is only the case that “We will make something without going through a consultation process”, surely that shows up one of the major flaws in the Bill.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I echo the comments that have been made in support of my earlier intervention. It seems extraordinary that we are grouping these amendments together. I have not been in this House for too long but my understanding is that this is quite unusual.
One example is government Amendment 148, introducing the new offence. One of the jobs I have had was shadow Justice Minister, and I know that something like this would have been subject to a lengthy debate in and of itself were it part of a Bill that the justice team was proposing. I refer noble Lords to paragraph 1(3)(a) of new Schedule A1, as introduced by Amendment 148, about new childcare and behaviour orders. I think these are a very good idea; if you are found to have been running an illegal school, there should be restrictions on what you are able to do in future. We are not arguing with the principle of that, but paragraph 1(3) of the new schedule says:
“An education and childcare behaviour order is an order which, for the purpose mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) … requires the defendant to do anything specified in the order”.
I cannot find anywhere—perhaps the Minister could direct me, because it is not impossible that I have missed it—an example of what is specified in the order. That is a very broad definition that gives courts enormous freedom. I would like to understand better what Ministers have in mind for courts to be able to do. That is just one example of where this really does not fit with some of the other issues that we have just been debating regarding secure academies and charitable purposes.
I would like a commitment from the Minister that, should there be further government amendments that are not minor or technical—there is no way that you could describe this amendment as either—she will ensure that they are tabled in a timely manner and in a way that facilitates consideration in your Lordships’ House. I feel that we are not sufficiently able to do our job as well as we would like today, given the way that this has been done.
I echo the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, about secure schools, from my noble friend Lord Knight about the independence of trustees, and from the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, on charitable purposes.
To be positive towards the Minister, I very much welcome the tone of the comments that she made at the end of our deliberations last Wednesday, when she said she would reflect and listen very hard to what the House was telling her. I wonder if there is anything she can say today, before we embark on subsequent groups of amendments, that we would find useful about how far she has got with those deliberations.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I thank your Lordships for your contributions. I confess to being puzzled about the concerns on groupings, because those were agreed through the usual channels. Colleagues will obviously have heard the concerns expressed today, but we did go through the normal process and were not aware of some of the points raised.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, with the greatest respect, I say that the Government put those amendments into one group. Only movers of amendments can remove amendments from them so, as far as ordinary Members of the House of Lords are concerned, we were presented with a fait accompli about which we could do nothing.
Baroness Barran (Con)
As the noble Lord heard me say, this was agreed through the usual channels where we could have discussed that, had serious concerns been raised. The point has been heard loud and clear but I wanted to give the context. A number of points have been raised which I will aim to address, but I start by thanking the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol for her support on Amendment 40.
I turn to Amendments 76A and 76B tabled by the noble Lord, Lord German, and presented today by the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, in relation to Amendment 76 in my name on secure schools. Regarding Amendment 76A, the Government remain open to considering any objection to the opening of a secure school. We expect that if the question were framed in this way, however, most local concerns about opening a secure school would focus on its custodial nature. These concerns may very well be valid. However, the secure school provider is not realistically able to address issues with the fundamental character of the school. Instead of consulting on whether a secure school should open, we propose that the provider must consult on how it should work with local partners. That, we hope, should ensure that the consultation is focused on issues that the provider is empowered to address.
Connected to this, Amendment 76B, which proposes to include local government in the consultation requirement, would not result in any material change. This is because the secure school provider must consult on how it will work with local partners, and the definition of local partners that we have used already includes any person
“whose functions are functions of a public nature”,
as set out in Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. The noble Baroness asked if there were any changes in relation to planning. There is clearly no intention to evade planning regulations. She also asked whether the position of the local authority had changed. Of course, more broadly, the position of local authorities will change, given that we intend to give them powers to set up multi-academy trusts, which they have not historically been able to do.
The noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, raised concerns about the potential scope of the proposed education and childcare behaviour orders, while welcoming the principle behind them. I reassure her that while these orders have been designed to be broad in scope, their use will be focused. The court can exercise discretion to impose an order only if it considers it appropriate to do so, and it would be appropriate only for the purposes of protecting children from the risk of harm arising from a defendant re-committing an offence of conducting an unregistered independent educational institution.
We intend for these orders to prohibit activities taking place only in specified settings at specified times of the week, rather than them being a sweeping power. In sentencing, the courts must do so proportionately, so it is not our intention that these orders should prohibit someone working in a setting that is already subject to another regulatory regime. Other regulatory bodies, such as the Teaching Regulation Agency, may wish to take action against those found guilty of conducting an unregistered school but these orders are not designed to interfere with that work. Their aim is to prevent the behaviour which has led to some being prosecuted for conducting an unregistered school, not to interfere with someone’s activity beyond that.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am grateful; that is helpful. Does the Minister intend to publish any guidance or examples? At the moment there is nothing, as drafted, to say whether these orders will be about someone’s professional ability to engage in running an illegal school or if it will impinge in other areas of their life and their contact with children. There is nothing to give us any guidance about this at the moment.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I undertake that we will provide guidance—in inverted commas—whether that is formal guidance or setting out examples in a letter as the noble Baroness suggests. I will need to check with colleagues as to the most appropriate way to do that. I am happy to undertake that we will provide a full explanation, as she rightly requests.
My noble friend Lord Baker, the noble Lord, Lord Knight, and others, questioned whether the measures in the Bill would affect an academy trust’s charitable status. I am pleased to confirm that the Government have engaged with the Charity Commission about the intervention powers, including the termination provisions in the Bill. There are currently no concerns about the interaction of these powers with the independence of charities. My noble friend Lady Berridge raised a very pertinent point again. I reassure her that her letter is in preparation as I stand here.
Through the schools White Paper, the Government set out their vision to deliver real action and level up education, supporting children, empowering teachers and school leaders and enabling parents. This Bill and these amendments help deliver that vision by underpinning it with legislation focused on improving the systems and standards of schools. I commend the amendments in my name and ask the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, not to move the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord German.
Lord Addington
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, when we come back to this, we come back to our old friend the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and its second report of the 2022-23 Session. The report is all about the Bill and the things that are wrong with it. Primarily, this amendment is inspired by the last paragraph, which states that
“The Henry VIII power in clause 3(1) is too wide and should be removed from the face of the Bill”.
That is as damming an indictment to any piece of legislation as I have seen in three and a half decades here; it says that the Government have this horribly wrong. Nobody thinks that this is the right way to go about things.
The title of the clause—“Academies: power to apply or disapply education legislation”—is an incredibly wide starting point. Could the Minister give us a little more clarity and justification about why the Government think something like this is needed? We have not got much else on this first part of the Bill. We cannot really disagree with the Government because we are disagreeing with assumptions about things that might happen. That is where we start from. If the Minister—I wish her the best of British on this one—can convince us that we have got this wrong and there is nothing to worry about with it, then half of us can go home.
I hope—because hope empowers more than expectation—that we will get some reply here. I am calling to leave out Clause 3(1), but you could take a knife to any part of this and it would improve the Bill. The whole thing probably should go and, indeed, if someone were to ask me and it were the appropriate time, I would be voting for that to happen. However, I give the Minister one chance here to finally say why we need Clause 3—or any bits of it. I could jump up and down, make longer speeches and read out the report to noble Lords, but I think that this is enough. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Bristol
My Lords, I rise to speak in place of my noble colleague the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, who cannot be here today, to his Amendment 33 and to declare his interest as chair of the National Society, and also to speak against Amendment 34A.
Amendment 33 to Clause 3
“ensures that the religious designation of church schools could not be removed by secondary legislation.”
The Church of England provides 4,700 schools, so we take seriously our vision that we are deeply Christian and serving the common good. This vision is for the whole community but is built on the firm foundation of the character of our church schools, which is central to that vision. I again pay tribute to the Minister for the way that her department has valued this character and worked with us to ensure that it is safeguarded in this legislation. We believe that this amendment strengthens that intention and provides a further safeguard.
A necessarily broad approach is undertaken in this Bill in applying legislation for maintained schools to academies through amending regulations. While we can appreciate the need to do this, it is unusual to see primary legislation which enables power to be applied or disapplied by secondary legislation. This short amendment would ensure that the “religious designation” of
“schools could not be removed by secondary legislation.”
I appreciate that Clause 3(3) provides for the protection of the status of an academy “with a religious character” by prohibiting regulations for
“arrangements for collective worship and the provision of religious education”.
However, these are just some of the outworkings of the religious character of a school, and we believe that this additional safeguard is necessary to safeguard the very designation of its character. It would be inappropriate to allow secondary legislation to have such impact on the designation of character of so many schools. This is a significant issue for our schools, and I will be listening with interest to any assurances on this topic that the Minister can provide.
I want also to speak against Amendment 34A. While I support this amendment in principle, as drafted it does not include stakeholders in the list of relevant bodies for consultation. Church schools are not included, but they represent a third of the sector and therefore should be included in the consultation.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
We see that this group concerns the Secretary of State’s power to make regulations for any education legislation to apply to academies. Thus, some may see this as redressing the balance between academies and the maintained sector.
I am speaking to our amendments, beginning with Amendment 34A, which prevents the Secretary of State using these
“powers to apply or disapply education legislation”
until they have been consulted on with
“headteachers, governors, academies, and pupils”.
I will pick up the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol’s point, which could be a useful addition, so I thank her for raising it with us. Of course, consultation is the key to good governance and, if there is a sense of imposition from a distant central source, then legislation will never be as good as it could be or implemented in the way it should be.
Furthermore, our Amendment 35 removes the Secretary of State’s power to apply legislation
“relating to further education colleges to academies”
by removing “further education” from “the definition of ‘educational institution’”. As it stands, these clauses signal a further power grab, empowering a future Secretary of State unilaterally to remove religious designation from a faith school, as noted in the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham’s Amendment 33.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I am slightly confused about the order of this but I thought it was really important that we heard the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, introduce the amendments. I want very briefly to speak for the Green group and to agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on the desire to throw all these provisions out. I also very much want to commend the noble Baronesses, Lady Chapman and Lady Wilcox, for attempting to clarify and improve the Bill. In particular, Amendment 34A is terribly important.
In our debate last week, I highlighted the amazing lack of the words “parents”, “pupils” and “communities” in the Bill. I really commend the noble Baronesses for putting consultation with pupils in here—a principle that needs to run right through the Bill. We do not want the Secretary of State to have the power to make these decisions but if that were by some miracle to stay in the Bill, it is really important that we have consultation measures. The fact that pupils are included in this consultation is a really good principle to build into the Bill.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
My Lords, I think Amendment 35 allows us to discuss Clause 3 standing part of the Bill, and I would like to say something about that. This is an important Bill.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, Clause 3 stand part was debated on our first day of Committee.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
I do not believe that Clause 3 was passed on the first day—
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, Clause 3 was not passed. It is possible for the noble Lord to de-group and discuss Clause 3 stand part, but it is not part of the group of amendments we are discussing currently.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I wonder whether I might assist the noble Lord and the Committee. I just want to make it clear, purely procedurally, that Clause 3 stand part will be put as a Question once this group of amendments has been discussed. It has not yet been put as a Question; however, it was discussed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, just said, as part of an earlier group on the first day in Committee.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
I thought that in fact, with great respect, in the earlier debate we debated Clauses 1 and 4, which are no longer there. Amendment 35 states specifically that:
“The above-named Lords give notice of their intention to oppose the Question that Clause 3 stand part of the Bill.”
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, it may be the Marshalled List that is causing confusion. We have Amendment 35 on the Marshalled List, which we are discussing in this group, and then we reach Clause 3 stand part, which is separate to that. As I said, we debated it in a group on the previous day but as the Deputy Chairman said, we have not put the Question on that yet. I believe we will come to that after this group.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, it might be helpful to point out that my amendment was inspired by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee report, which talks about Clause 3 and its relevance.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I shall now speak to the group of amendments relating to Clause 3, ahead of the question being put on whether Clause 3 stands part of the Bill.
First, I shall speak to Amendment 31. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I begin by reassuring the Committee again that I have fully heard the concerns that have been expressed about the Henry VIII power conferred on the Secretary of State by Clause 3, including those, importantly, from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. We are carefully reflecting on what noble Lords have said today on the matter, as well as on the report from the committee. Any use of the power in Clause 3 would be exercised by the affirmative procedure and, as we will cover in relation to Amendment 34, the Government will consult on any new regulations.
Academy trusts are already subject to many of the same requirements as maintained schools, set out in numerous pieces of primary legislation. We want to consolidate these requirements on trusts as much as possible into the academy standards regulations. This will be a gradual process, and we want to work with trusts on the implementation of the standards at a pace which is right for them. As we move towards a school system in which all schools are academies within strong trusts, we want to ensure that the legal framework is fit for purpose, including by removing requirements should they prove excessively onerous or unnecessary. Clause 3 enables the Secretary of State to make these adjustments, subject to the affirmative procedure, and to be responsive to the changing needs of the system.
Viscount Eccles (Con)
I do not know whether it is the Committee’s problem, but it is my problem, as I do not understand how this enormous tidying-up process, if it should be called that, has any connection with improving the education of our children. We need some fundamental explanation as to what is perhaps marginally wrong, if I have heard right, and of why this has any real prospect of making any real improvement.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My noble friend is right—the thing we should principally be concerned about is improving the education of our children. I will be more than happy to meet my noble friend or any other noble Lord who wants to go through some more of the work that we are doing in relation to that, as was set out initially in the schools White Paper. As I said in the introduction to one of the groups on day one of Committee, this Bill needs to be seen in the context of the wider work that the department is doing and that Ministers are leading in relation to a commitment to improving outcomes for our children, which my noble friend absolutely rightly says should be pre-eminent.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
The Minister said at the start of her summing up—and it was about the 20th time she had said it—that she had heard the concerns of Members, would reflect on them and would come back. To be honest, unless she gives us some indication as to when she is going to come back and what she is going to say, we are going to have this at every turn. The noble Viscount who has just spoken is right. My noble friend asked about this with the first amendment—and, since the statement at the end of the first day in Committee, I am sure that she has reflected on the views of the House. What conclusions did she come to? Is she able to tell us now? If not, when will she be able to tell us? Then we could perhaps use the time available to us much more constructively.
Baroness Barran (Con)
Tempting as it is to take power into my hands and give the noble Baroness the answer straightaway, she knows very well that this is something we need to agree more broadly within the department. As soon as that is done, of course I look forward—that is an understatement—to updating the House.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
Before the Minister sits down, I just ask a simple question: when?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I must explain to the Committee that I am not able to give a firm date on that today, but as soon as I am able to, I will update the House.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
In the debate last week, I was delighted to commend the wisdom and clarity of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. If it is impossible for the Minister to say anything more about how this process is going to proceed, she may find herself with requests for any number of meetings with the noble Viscount, but also with any number of people from these Benches, because how we are proceeding does not really seem to be comprehensible or explicable. If we are actually interested in improving things for children and young people through the education system, there is something different we should be doing.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I apologise to the noble Baroness. I do not think there is much I can add beyond what I have already said, which is to underline that as soon as I can clarify further, I will.
Turning to Amendment 33, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol for moving this amendment on behalf of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham. As she knows, the Government are a strong supporter of schools provided by the Church of England and by other religious bodies. We believe strongly that they bring great richness and diversity to our school system. That is why we have included measures in the Bill to ensure that statutory protections are in place for academy schools with a religious character, to ensure that their unique powers and freedoms are appropriately safeguarded. The power to designate a school with a religious character is already enshrined in existing legislation. I give a clear commitment that the Government will not use the powers in Clause 3 to affect the designation of academy schools with a religious character.
I appreciate that the right revered Prelate’s concern extends beyond the intentions and commitments of this Government. However, we are committed to ensuring that schools with a religious character remain an important element of our school system in the future. I offer my reassurance that we will give further consideration to ensuring that the powers in Clause 3 could not be used to undermine this.
On Amendment 34A, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, I am willing to make a commitment on the Floor of the House to your Lordships that the Government will always undertake a full consultation with representatives from the sector prior to any regulations being laid which exercise the power in Clause 3. Those regulations will also be subject to the affirmative procedure.
On Amendment 35, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Chapman and Lady Wilcox, by removing further education institutions from the scope of this power, we would lose the ability to make these adjustments in relation to 16 to 19 academies, with the possibility that we could introduce complexity to the regulatory framework rather than streamlining it. On that basis, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment and other noble Lords not to press theirs.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, really, this is something of a hangover from day one—something I think the noble Baroness, understandably, would best like forgotten. I am still not clear why, when Clause 3 has been so heavily condemned, we are not saying, “Let’s get rid of it and try something else.” The undertaking the Minister has just given about consultation is welcome, but we should not need it, because we should know what we are getting into: it should have been discussed in Parliament, in detail, going through the full process. Also, an undertaking to consult comes back to the old point: I am sure this Minister will stand by it—she is an honourable person, as she has shown in her conduct over this—but we do not know who is coming next; we do not know who is giving the orders next.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I remind the Committee that this Question was debated in the first group of amendments on day 1 in Committee. The Question is that Clause 3 stand part of the Bill.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
I was reminded earlier by the Minister that there was a debate on Clause 3—I remember it very vividly—on the previous day. In fact, that was when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, who is the Convenor of the Cross Benches, said it was outrageous and should be deleted from the Bill, but I do not remember an actual Motion being mentioned on Clause 3. I do not see Clause 3 mentioned in any of the amendments from 1 to 35. Clauses 1 and 2 were, and Clauses 1 and 4 were dealt with on Wednesday.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord—I very much agree with the thrust of what he has said—I actually did have a Clause 3 stand part notice, to which the noble Lord signed his name, so I think we did debate it. Our problem is that we want to debate it again, and when we come to the fifth group, we shall want to debate it again and again and again.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
Does the noble Lord wish to continue to discuss Clause 3 stand part?
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
I would like to. Clauses 1 and 3 are crucial parts of the Bill, and Clause 3 extends the power of the Secretary of State quite considerably. If I could draw attention to Clause 3, this allows the Secretary of State to apply or disapply education legislation almost at will, because the whole relationship between the Secretary of State and the school has now been changed. It has moved from a contract relationship, which we now have, where both sides can argue—and eventually, if necessary, go to law—to one of statutory imposition by the Secretary of State. That is why Clause 3 is very central; it is as important as Clause 1. That is why the noble and learned Lord on the Cross Benches spoke against it.
Obviously, I will not divide the House in Committee, but if the Government still come back with these sorts of clauses on Report—which I think they hope to take in July—my noble friends Lord Agnew and Lord Nash and I will table all these amendments again and will seek the opinion of the House on them, because this is essentially a constitutional Bill. That is what this comes down to. The power of the Secretary of State is being enhanced in a way that has not happened since 1870, and that has not been done with consultation or any sort of examination.
I am amazed, with the success that my noble friends Lord Agnew and Lord Nash had in dealing with failing schools, that I was at the receiving end—I had to defend my UTCs and all the rest of it, so I saw how well they worked. Actually, they were quite reasonable people to deal with. Some things we agreed on, some we did not, but at least I had a legal status. In fact, the Government changed their view only when I threatened them with a judicial review, because my trust could afford to pay for that. Then they changed their view, and I think as a matter of revenge the department has said, “Well, we’ll now take such powers that we’ll be able to use them willy-nilly, and make them completely our powers and not resistant to judicial review or anything.” This was only because my charity could afford go to judicial review, whereas an individual school that is threatened with closure under this Bill would not have the ability to do that, nor would a governing body take the Secretary of State to judicial review. This is really a sort of revenge act by the department for losing out against me in order to give it quite incredible statutory powers. I really do not think the House should accept this, but, of course, I will not divide the House today.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
Since the noble Lord has raised the issue of Clause 3 standing part of the Bill, I wonder whether I might add a few remarks in the form of a question to the Minister. Unusually, the debates on this Bill in your Lordships’ House appear to be attracting the attention of the media, which very rarely happens, because people have suddenly noticed that these are extremely wide-ranging powers that have the potential to transform the whole educational landscape in England. One of the commentaries I read said that the person most frequently mentioned in the debates on this Bill so far has been Henry VIII. He has been much more frequently mentioned than the Secretary of State or any of us who are former Ministers, and so he appears to have been the principal author of this Bill. I think the remarks that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, made last week are what the media are latching on to.
In trying to understand the Bill, I have a question for the Minister. My understanding of Clause 3(1) is that it would give the Government the power to override any existing admissions arrangements for an academy by ministerial direction. This is quite significant, because, as those of us who have laboured in this territory know, there are 101 varieties of non-selective admissions, and in respect of academies there are different forms of banding and inner and outer catchment areas—all these things—which are hugely important to the relationship between the school and its community which are usually brokered. I know that some people think that academies operate in a vacuum, but they do not; these arrangements have generally been very intensely negotiated, including with local authorities, to see that there is fairness between schools and so on.
My reading of this clause is that it will give the Government the power to override all the funding agreements in respect of admissions, in a way that may be very ill-thought through, just because a particular Minister or Secretary of State takes against one form of banding and wants a different form of non-selective admissions. This would completely subvert arrangements which, for very good reason, have been entered into between sponsors, multi-academy trusts and previous Ministers and would effectively override the whole contractual basis on which sponsors have taken responsibility for the management of schools. That is my reading of Clause 3(1). I know that there are ongoing discussions, which I have not been party to, but could the Minister confirm that this would give the Government the power to override any existing admissions arrangements set out in a funding agreement? If that is the case, I think Henry VIII has made a dramatic reappearance in the affairs of the Committee this afternoon.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank your Lordships. I will keep my remarks extremely brief, because we covered many of the points raised this afternoon when we debated this clause on the first day of Committee. If I may, I will write to the noble Lord on his question regarding admissions arrangements and set that out in detail. I ask my noble friend if he will consider withdrawing his remarks about the department taking revenge. It does not take revenge on anybody or anything. It works to serve Ministers to the best of their ability.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
“33A In section 88(1)(a) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, after “in relation to” insert “an Academy or”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This is to make academies subject to the guidance from local authorities on admissions.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, Schedule 1 applies the maintained school legislation to academies, as set out in the controversial Clause 3 that we have just been discussing. My amendment seeks to make academies subject to guidance from local authorities on admissions, so that they are the same as maintained schools. Here I probably part company with some of my new allies on the Benches opposite in my vision for academies, but so be it.
The starting point for me in thinking about this is my vision for local authorities in respect of the provision of education and schooling. I see the fundamental role of local authorities as safeguarding children’s interests in the area in which they have jurisdiction, rather than the interests of the schools that they might run. If we are going to move to every school becoming part of a strong multi-academy trust, as is the direction of travel and the Government’s intent, then they will not be operating schools. It is important to avoid that conflict of interest.
When my noble friend Lord Adonis first began the academies programme, as I recall, the arguments I was making in his defence in the other place concerned the notion that, in some cases, there are local authorities which are operating—and have been operating for generations—schools that are failing. There was a fundamental problem for them in calling out their own failure, which is part of why I am very nervous about the direction of travel, with the Secretary of State running all the schools in the country. The Secretary of State might ultimately become nervous about calling out the failures of all the schools they are responsible for.
If the local authority is to become the guardian of the interests of the children in its area, it is right that it should become accountable for fair local admissions for parents. In an environment where every school is an academy, every academy school should be subject to guidance from the local authority on admissions. My noble friend Lord Adonis just talked about the 101 varieties of admission arrangements. Nerdy people like me might understand them, but this is a real problem for parents, particularly parents of year 6 children.
Year 6 begins with parents starting to get their head around what school their child will go into year 7 at. They then have to grapple with banded admissions over here, some kind of attainment test over there, schools that are not that popular where you can get in if you just put them on the list, and schools that are popular and that attempt some kind of fair admissions. Then there are schools that have some faith-based admissions, and there is then the question of whether you have to go to church, the synagogue, the temple or whatever on a regular basis to be allowed into those schools; in some cases you might and in some you might not. It is deeply confusing for parents. I like the idea that they would hold their local council representatives responsible for making that process somewhat easier. I see that my noble friend wants to say something.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
I am itching to say something, because what I am hearing my noble friend describe is that the best system we can envisage for the management of our schools is for them to be locally managed with a common admission policy across a group of schools in an area. That is the system that has been slowly dismantled, it has to be said, by the development of academies.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
That is where I part company with my noble friend, in that I am relatively comfortable with others managing the schools, but with that management being accountable to local authorities and part of that accountability being managing the admissions process for all the schools in their area.
Another problem I see in a minority of cases of those schools that are their own admissions authority is that they are trying to find ways to choose pupils: rather than parents choosing schools, it is schools choosing parents. That is strongly related to accountability. Accountability for public funding and for delivery of school services is really important and I do not want to dilute that in any way, but the danger is that we end up with schools trying to ensure that a standardised pupil comes in who their whole curriculum and way of operating fits, so that they have the best chance of success.
In that respect, I commend to your Lordships a book by Todd Rose, an academic at Harvard, called The End of Average, which begins with a great story of the US Air Force when it first introduced fast jets. They kept crashing and the air force did not understand why. It worked out that the reason was that they were all designed for a standard dimension of pilot, so the controls were in slightly awkward places and the split-second timing required for fast jets meant that a lot of them crashed. That is why we now have adjustable seats in our cars, so that we can adjust to the different dimensions of people. The danger I see is that, thanks to our system of accountability, we have that problem of standardisation, with schools trying to admit pupils of standard dimensions, so to speak.
I point your Lordships to a problem I have seen in the London Borough of Lambeth, where a multi-academy trust, the board of which I chair, has a secondary school academy called City Heights. We were approached earlier in this school year about reducing the pupil allocated number for City Heights. It was not a unilateral conversation: the local authority approached all the secondary schools in the area, because the predicted demand for school places was coming down and it needed to reduce the provision of school places across the borough. All the secondary schools agreed verbally, informally, that they would reduce their PAN proportionately to accommodate that reduction. What happened when, finally, the proposals were formalised and agreed? Two of those schools, which happen to be two of the more popular schools—two academy schools—increased their PAN so that they could get more money in and continue their story of success, but at the expense of all the other schools which had played ball and tried to do the right thing with the local authority. That kind of practice needs to be sorted out, and this is an opportunity to do so.
We see some problems about fair in-year access, where pupils need to get admitted into schools in-year. We see some social selection by schools that are their own admissions authorities: things such as very subtle boundary changes, where it is hard to spot what they have done, but they happen to have cut out a social housing estate or done something else that just makes it a little easier to select the standard pupil that they are designed for. There might be elaborate religious criteria, as I mentioned. There might be talk in their prospectus of these great school trips that everyone will be expected to contribute a load of money to. That is part of the social selection that can be the practice of admissions authorities that bothers me.
This amendment would lead to fairer admissions, provide more local compatibility with the 101 varieties of admissions arrangements going on within a local authority area, particularly primary feeders, and restore confidence among parents in our admission system where that small minority of schools which abuse it and try to choose parents are undermining that confidence and we need to put it right.
This group has a number of other amendments in it; I will not attempt to speak to them all. I am supportive of my noble friend Lord Hunt’s amendment on grammar schools. I will not anticipate his comments but, when thinking about what he might say, I was reminded of a wonderful passage in an interesting, really great book written by Tim Brighouse and Mick Waters, About Our Schools—it is a huge tome of a thing but I commend it to your Lordships—about some of the early private hospitals. They had criteria around what patients they would select, in essence, to make their job easier: if you could admit only patients who were not that sick, you would be a really successful hospital. Similarly, if you admit only pupils who are already pretty bright, your job is really straightforward, but it leaves the rest of the schools with a real problem that you then have pick up with the majority.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the Clause 28 stand part notice is in my name. Because it is about grammar schools, I think it is right to have it in this group, in talking about admissions policies.
I very much empathised with my noble friend Lord Knight when he spoke about the traumas of year 6 for not only the children who have to take SATs but the parents who have to choose—or attempt to choose—a secondary school for their children. It was also interesting to hear about the parallel between private hospitals choosing their patients and schools choosing their pupils. Often, the difference between health and education is that, in the main, our best hospitals are based in urban areas, with some of the poorest people, serving them. In a sense, I am not sure that education has ever quite been able to pull off the support that the health service has often given to the poorest and most deprived people, imperfect though that may be.
Clause 28 is concerned with grammar schools and academies but it has prompted me to ask the Minister a wider question: what is the Government’s general policy in relation to grammar schools? We know that, in 2016, the then Prime Minister, Theresa May, said that she wanted to allow for an expansion in grammar schools. It was in the 2017 manifesto but nothing appeared in the Queen’s Speech; more recently, the Government have said that they do not want to see an expansion in the grammar school system. However, rumours and briefings often come out saying that, actually, the Government would like to see a change in policy.
We have already seen a number of so-called satellite grammar schools open or get under way. Basically, this is a back-door way of expanding the grammar school system. Satellite schools bear the same name as the host grammar school. They are often located several miles away. Eventually, of course, it will lead to two separate schools being established. We know that the county council in Kent seems determined to expand its selective schools despite all the evidence showing that the Kent system is a poor one in terms of overall outcomes for the whole of the student population. Grammar schools in Kent do nothing more than attain the results that you would expect if you selected for high attainment—hence my noble friend Lord Knight’s comment about schools choosing their pupils.
As Comprehensive Future has stated:
“What is there to stop any grammar school from creating a whole chain of satellites stretching from Northumberland to Land’s End?”
This is not an academic argument because there have been suggestions that the Bill could be amended by Conservative MPs when it goes to the Commons. The Evening Standard has reported that the Government refused to rule out lifting the current ban on new grammar schools, while the Telegraph has reported that the Government are open to expanding academic selection. Indeed, Chris Philp MP was quoted as referring to his plans to amend the Schools Bill to support new grammars. Can the Minister clarify the Government’s exact position?
I am afraid that I am old enough to have experienced the wretched old grammar/secondary modern system, and the 11-plus, which condemned so many children to be classified as failures at the age of 11 and to be sent to schools with fewer resources and less ambition. That is why the move to a comprehensive system was so popular. It is interesting that the movement started in some of the shire counties. I lived in Oxford, and Oxfordshire and Leicestershire were determined to get rid of grammar schools in the 1950s and 1960s because they did not want all their children to be branded as failures at the age of 11. In 1953 and 1957, Leicestershire started to experiment with comprehensive education, expanding it throughout the whole county in 1969. Oxfordshire started in 1955 and 1957, subsequently expanding throughout the whole county as well.
Why did parents support this? It is very simple. Those arguing for grammar schools present only the image of children passing the 11-plus and going to grammar schools, and their subsequent achievements. They do not refer to the large number of children—around 70% in Kent—who are told aged 11 that they are failures and then attend underresourced secondary moderns. There is plenty of research to show that in those areas with a grammar school system, achievement is lower. Look no further than Kent and Buckinghamshire. Grammar school systems continually and consistently undermine educational achievement. According to the DfE, in 2019, the GCSE pass rate was 11 points below the national average in Kent and five points below average in Buckinghamshire.
Claims that grammar schools give a foot up the ladder for poorer children have, again, been debunked comprehensively. Research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows that in the remaining grammar schools, the percentage of pupils from poor backgrounds is lower than ever: 2.7% are entitled to free meals, against 16% nationally. Once the pupil intake of grammar schools is taken into account, based on factors such as chronic poverty, ethnicity, home language, special educational needs and age in year group, Durham University analysis shows that grammar schools are no more or less effective than other schools.
Finally, the poorest children in Kent and Medway have a less than 10% chance of getting into grammar schools, while for children in the very richest neighbourhoods, it is over 50%—schools choosing their own pupils. I want the Minister to say that there is no intention of changing the policy with any amendments that any Conservative MP might seek to move in the Commons, although whether the Bill reaches the Commons is a question that we are all interested in. Assuming that it does eventually reach the Commons, I hope that the Government will say today that they will have no truck with that.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, my name is attached to Amendments 78 and, with my noble friend Lord Storey, Amendment 162.
Amendment 78 deals with the issue that we were discussing earlier about the provision of school places by academies. It says that the Secretary of State must, within six months of the Act being passed, make regulations which provide local authorities in England with the power to direct academies within their area to admit students or expand school places. An example of why that could be important would be a new housing development of some significance which alters the balance of pupil numbers in a particular geographical area. Broadly speaking, our amendment is very similar to that of the noble Lord, Lord Knight. He uses “guidance”; we use “direction”. It is also similar to Amendment 160, which will be spoken to shortly.
The problem is simply that councils have a statutory duty to ensure there is a local school place for every child who needs one, but they currently do not have the power to direct academy trusts to expand school places or to admit pupils. This amendment would introduce a new backstop power for local authorities to direct trusts to admit children as a safety net.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I too have an amendment in this group, but first, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Knight, I very much share his vision of taking local authorities to the point where they are advocates for parents. If we look back to the old days, that role was missing; they were advocates for schools, not parents. I remember local authorities that would pull a bad teacher out of a school and deliberately put him in another one because they were there to look after the teachers, not the parents. The logic of the direction we are going in is to have local authorities as the parents’ advocate and therefore, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said, to have some power in this—to have the ability to really shift rocks where they are in the way of parents.
My Amendment 58A is, like this grouping, an odd collection of bits and pieces. We have largely dealt with proposed new subsection 1 in earlier debates, but I have a real problem with the way academies handle admissions data at the moment. What used to be a coherent local authority booklet on how you could get into one school or another has now been reduced to a collection of “For information, apply to school” notices. There is no coherence. It gets really difficult and time consuming for a parent to get to understand what schools they might have access to, and that is really destructive to the power of parental choice and the point of having lots of different schools and admissions systems in the first place.
You absolutely ought to empower parents to make the best choice for their child. That ought to be the centre of the admissions system; it is not. I have failed to shift the DfE on this on many occasions. It is ridiculous. All schools have to do is, on a reasonable timescale, provide the local authority with their admissions data in a standard format—it has to exist in that format anyway, because there is a common system of handling admissions—and then allow the local authority to publish it.
The Bill is an opportunity to bring some sense back into the admissions data system and to remember why it is there, the point of parents choosing schools and the good that we used to argue came from doing that, rather than allowing this continued pointless, profitless inertia in the DfE to get in the way of parents’ interests. I appeal to my noble friend to pick up on this issue again but to do so from the point of view of doing best by children and parents.
Academies also need to get better at providing standardised information to parents, so that it gets easy for parents to compare one school with another. Destinations of children, examination results and the level of literacy and numeracy in the school are elements which it ought to be possible for a parent to look at in detail, beyond the Government’s performance tables. It ought to be easy. You do not need to make it easy for the sharp-elbowed middle classes; they do it anyway. They have the time and do the work. We want to make it easy for every parent, and that requires not asking parents to do the work, because a lot of parents do not have the time to get to the point where they really understand what is going on. We have to provide things in a standard way, so it is really important that we get the data and that there is an up-to-date Ofsted report—and ideally one for the multi-academy trust, where there is one, too—because that sort of data is easily comparable and digestible by any parent who is really putting their mind to it, which should be the point of those reports.
In a system where we have a lot of academies rather than local authority schools, I think we need to come back to a system that really centres its thinking on parents, how they make the choices and how they negotiate their relationships with schools, and to reinvent the local authority as a strong friend of parents in that context.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the fact that we are discussing admissions policy. It is not the principal object of the comments that I want to make but it is certainly at the heart of the unfairness of the system that operates in many parts of the country. I was shocked at the number of different admissions systems referred to by my noble friend Lord Adonis. As soon as you depart—as, I am afraid, we did quite a while ago now—from a common admissions system for the whole of a local authority area, you depart from a situation whereby there could be no question of schools poaching pupils by varying the system. The only way to get fairness across the system, with schools working together co-operatively and the whole community being served, is through a common admissions system, not sundry random ones.
We have all heard comments—not just anecdotal ones—about the questions sometimes asked when selecting pupils for schools. I have even heard questions asked about whether there is a suitable room at home in which a pupil can conduct their homework—an outrageous kind of selection policy—or whether, at 11, it can be guaranteed that the pupil will stay on until the sixth form, and other selective admissions questions.
Anyway, that is not my main purpose. What I really want to say in connection with this group of amendments is, essentially, “hear, hear” to what my noble friend Lord Hunt said. I find it very depressing that, after so many years, we are still debating the merits of grammar schools. I much prefer to couch the debate not in relation to those merits but to the merits of saying to an 11 year-old—indeed to the majority of 11 year-olds in a particular area—“You have failed.” We hear lots about the alleged advantages of going to a grammar school, but I have not read many books—I would like to have references to them if they exist—on the wonders of failing the 11-plus and the advantages that come from it.
For most people, if not everyone, of my generation and probably a good few who are younger, there was no option; we all took the 11-plus. Over half a century ago in my case, in an average road in an average part of Britain such as I lived in, we all played football and cricket together and then, some of us had passed and some had failed. To this day, I do not know why; it was random. They were the same people who played football, who I went to the pub with when I was a bit older, and who I played with in a rock group—that was a long time ago—about the same time as the Beatles, although they were more successful.
Some of us had passed and some had failed. If anyone thinks, well, they should just get over it, I can tell the Committee that, 50 years on, many people who failed the 11-plus never really got over it. It was a life-changing circumstance, a life-changing occurrence at the age of 11, which I find indefensible. It has got better in many ways as educationalists of all parties have got rid of grammar schools in many areas but, in areas where it persists, it has, if anything, got worse.
At least when I took the 11-plus there was no intensive coaching of 10 and 11-year-olds to try to get us through, but the nightmare reported by parents in Kent is that this is now the prerequisite; that is what you have to do. I do not want to get too anecdotal about this but I even know of parents who, due to a promotion, wanted to move their family to Kent but were initially dissuaded from doing so—they did it eventually—because they did not want to put their seven, eight or nine year-olds, as they were at the time, through the trauma of having to take the 11-plus. Again, in a family near me with four children, the three eldest passed and the fourth failed; we can just imagine what it does to a family when that kind of thing happens.
The Lord Bishop of Bristol
My Lords, I shall speak against Amendment 35A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Knight. The amendment—for obvious reasons, given what he has said today—does not account for voluntary, aided and foundation schools. This is not a recent provision; they have always acted as their own admission authorities as maintained schools. As set out in the School Admissions Code, academies with a religious designation must also consult the diocese and the board of education and have regard to the advice of the diocese.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, I support the thrust of the arguments from the noble Lords who have led this debate. I shall make one or two points that perhaps have not yet come out strongly. The freedom to set their own admissions arrangements was given to academies when they first started. To be honest, I think that was a huge mistake. In local areas, it caused terrible animosity between the academies and the other maintained schools. That is part of the rift and the bad feeling that exist in many communities. I do not know many schools that, in setting their own admissions criteria, have sought to prioritise the poorest and most challenging children, those who have been excluded from more schools than anyone else, those without supportive parents and those without a room to work in at home—that is not how choosing your own admissions criteria actually works.
This is not the schools’ fault but, in terms of judging schools by how well they do academically, our whole system incentivises schools to have admissions criteria that get those children who are most likely to do well academically. If we were to change the accountability mechanisms so that we had as our most important accountability measure how much you can do for the poorest 5% of children in your city, we would have a different system, but that is not the way it runs.
However, I also blame schools. I was a teacher for 18 years. At the heart of it, I have always believed that the job of a professional teacher is to teach the children who end up in front of you on any given day—not to pick and choose; not to reject and throw away; not to say, “It’s easier to teach you than you”, but to do your best with the skills you have with the children in front of you. I taught in a school that was very challenging, and as a teacher the greatest rewards come from the progress you make with the children who are furthest behind when you start—but that is not the way the system works. There have been too many examples of academies that have used their ability to have their own admissions arrangements to select the children, or the parents, that will put them highest in the accountability stakes.
If you are a school that is undersubscribed, this argument does not matter to you. If you cannot get enough kids through the door for your published admissions number, then none of this matters. It matters only if you are a school that is oversubscribed, because only when it gets to oversubscription do the criteria for admissions come into effect. So think that through: if you are a school that is undersubscribed and not attracting children, so not getting the money, you have to take whoever no one else wants. Therefore, you do not improve, you do not get as many children, you do not get the money and again, you do not improve. That is the cycle that happens: undersubscribed schools do not attract children and therefore find it very difficult to improve.
Looking back, when the academies started under the Labour Government they were addressing the needs of those schools in the most challenging areas. In truth, what happened was that if you gave them a new building, a new head and a committed sponsor, they still did not have a cross-section of students coming through their doors. The idea at that stage, in giving them some power over admissions arrangements, was to try to get a better social mix. I can sort of see that, but it has gone way out of kilter with how it should be. In 2010, the minute the vision was that every school should become an academy, that just did not make sense.
I say to my noble friend Lord Hunt that where schools differ from hospitals is that who you treat in one hospital does not usually have an impact on the neighbouring hospital or another in the outer ring of the city. But schools are interrelated: who you choose to admit has an effect on every other school in your locality as it is an interrelated business, so it is very important that we do not have schools competing with each other in any geographical area for the bright kids. It has to work across such an area, for two reasons.
First, successful schools will always manage to attract children who, quite frankly, are easier to get the high results with—I would not say they are easier to teach. That has an effect on other schools and creates that bad feeling, so it is interrelated. The way you choose to admit pupils has an effect on other schools in your locality. I do not mind what they do, whether they band or have feeder schools, or measure it in yards from the school. What I do mind is that all schools in a local authority area ought to do the same. If you want a social mix, you can band right across the local authority area. I am not sure I like that but I do not have a problem with it because the behaviour of one school will not badly affect the performance of another.
In Birmingham, however, the minute you let over 400 schools set their own admissions arrangements there was chaos. It meant that they do not match each other. Some people of a faith with a child of a certain ability live in a place where they cannot get them into their local school because they do not live close enough, or into a faith school because they are not of the right faith. Neither does their child have the right ability to get selected in the banding arrangements, so where do they go? They go to the school that still has places left. That is not choice, but it happens in areas where there are a lot of schools that are allowed to have separate admission arrangements.
In supporting very much the amendments put forward, my plea is that it has to make sense across a geographical area. That means you cannot allow schools within the same area to have different admissions arrangements from other schools within it. I think the local authority should manage that, and that there is nothing wrong in all the schools getting together with a local authority, the parents and the primary schools to decide what those criteria should be within a national framework set down by government. But at some point they have to come to an agreement, because education is about a social as well as an academic experience. Your social experience is, in part, the children who are around you in your school—and that matters.
To be honest, that is why parents go to so much effort to exercise choice over where they want their child to go. It is not just for the academic experience but for the social experience—again, it is different with a hospital. That social experience will be right for all children, or as good as we can make it for them, only if we have some camaraderie within a geographical area so that people sit down with the same admissions arrangements. Having done that, teachers should do what they do: get on with teaching the children in front of them, not spending time on trying to get a different bunch of children in their classrooms because they think it gives them a better chance of success.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I have a quick comment. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for his history lesson. During the period he mentioned, Rutland had the unfortunate experience of being part of Leicestershire. Had grammar schools still existed then, I can only look back and wonder what my own education—with no money for tutoring—would have been if the local school in the market town had been left as a secondary modern.
I have a specific question on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, about the backstop power, which I was surprised to see included in, I think, the White Paper. What is the timing of that? At the moment, we know that some boroughs are under extraordinary pressure. When we nationally decide, for instance, to admit tens of thousands of families from Hong Kong—which is a great policy—we create extraordinary influxes of children into particular areas. I was just reading a Manchester Evening News article about the pressures Trafford Council is under at the moment, having had an extraordinary influx of Hong Kong Chinese families into the area. This has unusual ripples in Trafford, where there are grammar schools within the borough.
What would the timing of this be? At the moment, we have local authorities which cannot have any effect on admissions, particularly in those secondary schools that are academies. There is a proposal for a backstop power. This was also before we admitted tens of thousands of Ukrainian families into this country. If in the consultation it is decided not to have the backstop power—I recognise the view from those in the academies sector on local authorities’ admission policies—is there not a case for some emergency power in a situation when tens of thousands of families come into an area? You need different admissions arrangements because you have to think about the cohesion of the area locally. If you have an influx of families, families who have lived in an area for many years find that they cannot get their children into the schools they want. There are also the unpredictable ripples of selection in an area. Can my noble friend the Minister outline the timing of this, because there are boroughs under pressure today?
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, can the Minister clarify how special educational needs fits into this picture? I know the Government are currently looking at this area, but it is one that has led to the growth of legal firms to fight a way through the system. It is a failing system. I remind the Committee of my interests in special educational needs, and dyslexia in particular. With dyslexics, for instance, we are discovering that something like 80% of those on that spectrum are not identified within the school system. There is capacity here for a group that exists but we know is not even being spotted. Should we not have some capacity for dealing with the people with these sorts of problems, because we know they are going to come across? This also applies to all the spectrum of non-obvious conditions and hidden difficulties.
If the Minister cannot reply now, when we are looking at this, could she write to us about what the Government’s thinking on this sector is at the moment? It is yet another element when it comes to choosing a school or a school’s willingness to take on a pupil. We know there are people fighting this. As I said, if ever there was a definition of failure, it is that you need lawyers to get your rights. That has to be the classic case. Can the Minister give us an idea of the Government’s thinking about admissions? If you cannot get into a school because it has set criteria, regardless of any formal test or examination, it will change how things work. It will be very interesting to hear what the Minister says about government thinking on this, because it is another factor that will affect this whole process.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, I will briefly enter this debate on Amendment 35A and the question of whether Clause 28 should stand part. There is a so-called route to school improvement that my noble friend Lady Morris mentioned: you change your intake. It is relatively quick and it is not painless at all for the school, but because of the way our systems work it can be done. But it is immoral and socially unjust. It is not the right way to do things.
The fact that, in a debate, we can even talk about “children whom no one else wants”—which I put in inverted commas, as my noble friend Lady Morris did—is frankly quite appalling, and that is why I am enthusiastic about this Clause 28 stand part debate. My noble friends Lords Hunt and Lord Grocott made excellent speeches, which I hope they will redeploy if we ever get a Second Reading of the Private Member’s Bill I introduced this morning, because they made all the relevant points. I will not repeat them, except to say that the comprehensive principle is essentially about levelling up, because if you have schools choosing parents and children, you have selection for some and rejection for others. Frankly, no education system ought to reject significant numbers of children; they should just not do it.
Lord Triesman (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 169. I express my gratitude to both Ministers on the Government Front Bench for a very helpful conversation. In the course of what they will say, they may well be able to allay some of the anxieties that I have expressed about the position of adopted children in the past. I greatly appreciated that, and want my appreciation recorded.
Amendment 169 is not about the big issues on admission which we have been discussing, although I completely associate myself—if I can pick just one of my noble colleagues—with my noble friend Lady Morris about geographic and local coherence in the arrangements we make. This amendment may appear to be a small and detailed matter by comparison, but I can assure the Committee that it is of the first importance to the small number of people who are impacted by it. Amendment 169 addresses the difference in educational access and assistance experienced by children adopted from care internationally, contrasted with those who are adopted from care in the United Kingdom, and the impact of these differences on their education and life prospects.
I declare an interest as the proud father of a quite exceptional adopted daughter who became part of our family on the third day of her life and is a great blessing. When I first spoke about this matter in the House, she was 10; she is now 13 and, until the discussion I had today, it appeared to me that nothing had moved forward in those three years of her life. However, I think that we will hear something rather more different today.
Adopted children face many challenges which are well documented. Many have special needs, some far greater than others, and, in many cases, because some spend years in care before finding a loving family home, they experience many of these difficulties to a very great extent. The care they experience is of very mixed quality, especially abroad, and they carry that experience alongside the fundamental experience of loss of attachment throughout their lives. There are multiple studies in the leading peer-reviewed journal, Adoption & Fostering, which most Members of the House will feel establishes the facts beyond dispute. The impact on these children has also been largely experienced by children from particular countries: China, India, Thailand, Ethiopia, Guatemala and some from Russia. As your Lordships will easily detect, the impact of discrimination has therefore been far greater on children of colour.
The scheme of intercountry adoption is regulated by the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in respect of Intercountry Adoption 1993. It was ratified by this country, among the then 24 EU members, and it says that all children adopted from care overseas should have the same rights as those in the receiving countries. There was nothing at all unwilling about our participation, and I note that David Cameron was in the forefront of making all kinds of adoption, here and abroad, easier. I hope that in the course of this discussion, we will hear about changes being made to the School Admissions Code, so that it will require local authorities and other admissions bodies to give the same top priority for pupil places to children adopted from state care in this country.
In case it is not well understood, although I suspect that it will be, I add that most of the children who are adopted from overseas, once they are adopted, come here and become United Kingdom citizens. The question on their parents’ minds will be, “Why on earth would they have worse prospects than comparable United Kingdom citizens?”. It is acknowledged that this would be discrimination between kids adopted here and overseas, and it would violate the 2010 Equality Act which states in terms that there must be no discrimination in school admissions based on country of origin.
The data is strong. While I will not delay the Committee for long, it is always worth trying to use an occasion like this to underpin why the changes are necessary. Some 94% of peer-reviewed papers show adoption to be correlated with lower academic attainment and related behaviour problems. This is clear among very young children and gets clearer with age—it is most acute among teenagers. Of the issues faced by children, trauma around attachment and anxiety about the loss of attachment are absolutely distinct and significant in all the research. Some 80% of adopted children express profound confusion and anxiety at school; two-thirds report that they are bullied. Neither they nor their parents feel, in an overwhelming proportion of cases, that they have had an equal chance. To underline the point as thoroughly as I can: adopted children are 20 times more likely to be excluded than their classmates. In the first three years of primary school, they are 16 times more likely to be excluded. None of these data are spurious; they all meet high levels of statistical significance and confidence.
I was very grateful to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said a while ago about the role of parents, because I feel that I am talking about the same thing. It is inevitable in these circumstances—and I believe quite rightly—that parents have the central role. It is not a mainstream role for national or local government for obvious reasons, but I know first-hand that parents pay the closest attention to the attributes in the pool of school options in front of them. Parents are the ones who interact with the schools and local authority. I promise you that, as a parent, you come to know which schools are most attuned to social and emotional trauma issues, can sponsor and encourage executive functioning for your child, know about providing sensory diets to regulate behaviour and grasp the implications of neurological divergence. You form self-help groups of parents grappling with these issues where you learn a lot and enjoy a lot of support. You get to know—because you have to—where there is specific training and knowledge of attachment trauma and where the head teacher and specialist staff really know what they are doing, as distinct from knowing what they should be doing. It is the way in which you choose the mission-critical path for your child and it does not rely then on good luck in admissions. It is parent engagement and decision-making at its clearest.
Many schools are excellent at many other things, but they are not all necessarily excellent at everything and may not be excellent at this vital thing which I am describing, which could determine whether your child joins that absurdly high number of kids who get excluded or bullied, underachieve or are profoundly miserable. It matters not one whit to you whether your child was adopted from here or abroad.
I look forward to what the Minister will be able to say but, having commented on the Ministers in this House, I say that much of the running on this was made by Nick Gibb when he was Schools Minister. He told local authorities in December 2017 that they should include children adopted overseas for priority admission to schools identified by their parents to give the kids the best chance. Unfortunately, a significant number of local authorities would not take that advice from the Minister for Schools, which I think was very sad. But we are now in a position where we have a ministerial team that will, and I sincerely welcome that. I also welcome that there will be further thought on the pupil premium plus, which is also very significant for this group of students, and hope there will be further comment on that.
It turns out that we did not need, as I thought for some years we did, primary legislation to achieve the things that I think can be described by Ministers today. I welcome that for a very straightforward reason that is not all that much to do with personal experience, although of course that does bear on me. I welcome it because kids get one chance, and kids who have difficulties need all the help they can to take that chance. It is up to us to give it to them.
Lord Nash (Con)
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, in this amendment. I have great respect for people who adopt. I personally support a wonderful organisation called Hope and Homes for Children, which has closed many orphanages in eastern European countries and allowed the children to be effectively adopted—it is not quite the terminology that most of these countries use. I took the Children and Families Act through your Lordships’ House, which was very substantially about improving adoption arrangements. I remember the noble Lord raising this point with me when I was a Minister. It seemed a no-brainer then and it seems to be so now, and I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister will support him in making this amendment.
I would also like to speak briefly on the point about academies fixing their admissions arrangements to their advantage, which has been mentioned. As a rule, this is unfair. There are some schools—schools of different types, actually—which have rather complicated admissions arrangements and one sometimes wonders whether they are deliberately complicated. But, as I say, I think it is unfair on the vast majority of academies and multi-academy trusts.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is pleasure to follow the recent speakers, particularly my noble friend Lord Triesman. That was an exceptional speech and his personal experience really gave us food for thought. I echo what the noble Lord opposite said about people who take that life-changing decision for themselves and their families to adopt. I too am looking forward to what the Minister has to say in response.
I would also like to support my noble friend Lord Hunt and others in their desire for the Government to commit to the existing position on no new grammar schools. We understand that the Prime Minister is in generous mood with his Back-Benchers at the moment, and it would be a real shame for a change to the current rules to be made in that context. We are concerned about that, given some of the comments referenced by others, and want to make sure that it does not happen.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 35A, 78, 160 and 162 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Knight, Lord Shipley and Lord Storey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, seek to clarify the strategic role of the local authority in education, particularly on admissions. I welcome the opportunity to restate that this Government believe that local authorities should remain at the heart of the education system, as the noble Lord, Lord Knight, said, championing all children, particularly the most vulnerable.
Through existing legislation, local authorities are already responsible for ensuring that every child in their area has a school place; for co-ordinating applications for the main round of school places; for identifying children and young people in their area who have special educational needs or disabilities; and for working with other agencies to ensure that support is available. As we move to a fully trust-led system, local authorities will retain these roles, continuing to ensure there are enough school places and to play a central role in fair admissions, particularly for the most vulnerable. We plan to increase the levers that local authorities have to help them deliver these duties, while maintaining trust autonomy.
Like my noble friend Lord Nash, I must disagree with some of the sentiments expressed by some of the Committee on trust autonomy with regard to admissions. The best MATs and academies have a strong record of admitting pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds and achieving excellent outcomes. My noble friend the Minister will happily write to the Committee to set out more detail on this issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked about how special educational needs will fit into the picture. In the SEND and alternative provision Green Paper, we proposed new powers to convene partners as part of a statutory framework for pupil movement, including for excluded children. To respond to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, we will also include consultation on a power for local authorities to direct trusts to admit individual children in limited circumstances. Consultation is ongoing on these proposals. In the schools White Paper, we proposed further strengthening local authority levers to deliver their duties with a new power to object to the schools adjudicator when a trust’s planned admission numbers threaten school place sufficiency and requiring local authorities to co-ordinate in-year applications. We will consult on these measures; it is important that we listen to the outcomes of that consultation. My noble friend Lady Berridge asked about the timing of that. Given the scale and complexity of the admissions system, it is important to get these decisions right, so we are working currently with the stakeholders to refine our proposals. We will consult in due course and seek a further legislative opportunity where needed.
I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Knight, and others that close working between trusts and local authorities on these duties is essential. Through the proposed powers in Clause 1, we will create a new collaborative standard, which will require trusts to collaborate with local authorities and encourage better co-operation. Amendments 160 and 162, however, propose making the local authority the admission authority for all schools. This would prevent school leaders making decisions that are most appropriate to their community, including, as we heard from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol, for voluntary aided schools, which have had long-standing control over their own admissions.
The proposal in Amendment 78 to allow a local authority to direct a physical expansion of any school would be very difficult to achieve, because in many cases neither the local authority nor the Secretary of State has control over a school’s land. Our White Paper proposal instead allows trusts to continue to determine how many places they will offer but gives local authorities an additional power to ensure that they can still meet their sufficiency duty.
Amendment 58A from my noble friend Lord Lucas rightly emphasises the importance of parents having access to the information that they need to support their children’s schooling and of schools having good links with their parent body. However, we do not believe that this amendment is necessary because existing regulations, which academies are required to follow via their funding agreements, already require academy schools to provide a range of information to parents on aspects such as exam performance, Ofsted outcomes and admission arrangements. Furthermore, the department’s governance handbook is clear that schools and academy trusts should have in place mechanisms to engage with parents and the broader community, and that should be able to demonstrate how those views have influenced their decision-making. These provisions will transfer to the academy standards in future.
Amendment 160, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, is rightly concerned with the best interests of looked-after children, some of the most vulnerable in our society. That is why the School Admissions Code already requires all schools to give the highest priority in their admissions criteria to looked-after and previously looked-after children. To respond to Amendment 169 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, I am pleased to confirm that the admissions code was updated last year to require admissions authorities to provide children adopted from state care outside England equal highest priority for admission with those who are looked after and previously looked after by a local authority in England. That change is now in force. I join him in paying tribute to my right honourable friend Nick Gibb, the previous Schools Minister, but also noble Lords in this Chamber—the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and the noble Lords, Lord Russell, Lord Watson and Lord Storey, as well as my noble friends Lord Agnew and Lord Nash, who, along with the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, have shown a commitment to advocating for this group of children. The Committee has my commitment that those children will continue to be prioritised in admissions criteria. As the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, noted, the Government are looking at including them in the school census from the 2022-23 academic year to gather the data that we need when we look at extending the pupil premium plus to that group of children too.
Finally, I turn to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, which seeks to remove Clause 28 from the Bill. As we have heard, grammar schools have a long history within the education system and, where they exist, they are popular and oversubscribed. However, they are concerned about surrendering their independence to a MAT if it does not share their views on selection by ability. Clause 28 will put the status of academy grammar schools on to a legislative footing by designating them as grammar schools in the same way as local authority-maintained grammar schools are designated as grammar schools. The Bill will not enable the opening of new grammar schools. These changes, at their heart, are about regularising, within legislation, the status of grammar schools.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We completely accept that the Bill as it stands does not legislate for new grammar schools, but is it the Government’s position that, should such an amendment be forthcoming in the other place, they would oppose it?
Baroness Penn (Con)
The Bill does not provide for that, and it is not government policy to open further grammar schools. It is about regularising their status within the legislation, and the provision makes sure that only a parental ballot can trigger an end to selection, whether that grammar school is a local authority-maintained grammar school or an academy grammar school. It will remove one of the main perceived barriers to them joining a MAT, while retaining the right of parents to choose whether they should continue to select by ability. I therefore hope that the noble Lord, Lord Knight, will feel able to withdraw his amendment and that other noble Lords will not move theirs when they are reached.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, might I just drop in before the noble Lord, Lord Knight? My noble friend is not right in saying that academies currently provide all the data required on admissions. I have written to the Minister and demonstrated many examples of where this information is not provided. Yes, you can go to the school and ask for it, and it may be somewhere on the school website, in an irregular place, but it is absolutely not given to local authorities in a way that makes it easy for the local authority to publish a booklet that gives parents complete information on the admissions structure in their demesnes. This hurts parents a lot. As editor of the Good Schools Guide, I know how much this disadvantages parents who do not have the time and experience to crack the code of 20 different schools and find out how to get the information and how it all knits together. It really gets in the way. If my noble friend would be willing to grant me a conversation with officials on that, I should be most grateful.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I will happily arrange that conversation. There are two points I would make to my noble friend. The first is that the information is publicly available, albeit maybe not in the format that he thinks is most usable. The second comes back to the new collaborative standard requiring trusts to work collaboratively with local authorities, which will encourage better co-operation. I hope that will be a positive move in his eyes.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful that we have been able to have an hour and 20 minutes to discuss admissions. Given that the Government’s policy is that all schools should become academies, it is an uncertain area and it is really important that we have taken a bit of time to debate it.
I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Triesman already has a victory under his belt. I think my noble friend Lord Hunt is pretty close to a victory: we noted the words that the Bill as it currently stands will not enable the opening of new grammar schools and that it is not government policy for new grammar schools to be created without a parental ballot. Let us just hope that this government policy remains sound as the Bill proceeds through both Houses. There were some really powerful speeches, as ever, from my noble friend Lady Morris in particular, my noble friends Lord Triesman and Lady Blower—those are just the ones around me—and others.
I say to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol that it was not my intention at all to interfere with the admission arrangements for voluntary aided schools. I am scarred from my time as Schools Minister from a moment when we heard the shadow Secretary of State, a young David Cameron, say that we might want to loosen up admission arrangements for faith schools. So the then Secretary of State, Alan Johnson, and myself announced that maybe that was a good idea and we then had priests preaching against us on Sunday and MPs in the Division Lobbies beating us up, saying, “We are going to lose the next election if you go ahead with this” and we performed a very delicate U-turn. I really did not want to go anywhere near interfering with the admission arrangements of voluntary aided schools.
I say to my noble friend Lord Grocott, in connection to his comment about the 11-plus, that my dad was one of four sons in Kettering who all took the 11-plus. He passed; his youngest brother, Hugh, passed; the middle two brothers failed. The two who passed joined the professions, one as an accountant, the other as a banker; the two middle ones took much lower-skilled work and both emigrated, one to Canada and one to Australia. Those two remained close; the two who passed the 11-plus remained close; but in my view, the 11-plus created a schism in our family, and that is part of my very deep opposition to selection and grammar schools.
My noble friend Lady Morris talked about the chaos of admissions, and that undoubtedly advantages middle-class parents. They can navigate the criteria; they can navigate what order to put schools in—what is your second or third choice, but you will only get looked at if it is your first choice, and you have to be quite sophisticated to work out the order you put things down. Then there are appeals. When I was an MP, I occasionally had constituents who came to see me wanting help with an admissions appeal in the summer, and they were never the more disadvantaged constituents in my area; they were only ever the more articulate ones. We really need to get this right if we want a school system that deals with entrenched disadvantage.
Having listened carefully to what the Minister had to say from the Dispatch Box, I will be pleased if, subject to the conversation we are having about Clauses 1 to 18, we get to a point where she introduces a collaboration standard. I would welcome that. I encourage the Government to go further and show us what their vision is for local authorities across the piece. She came close to that in some of her comments, but I would like to see, in the context of schooling, the Government’s vision for the role of local authorities, MATs, individual schools, and the Secretary of State. Publish that so that we can all see it before Report and can then make our judgment about whether they have it right. That would really help us, and then we might have some agreement about the future of admissions for all our schools. I am happy to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
I remind noble Lords that if Amendment 35B is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 36 for reason of pre-emption.
Amendment 35B
Lord Knight of Weymouth
“35 In section 127 (guidance), in subsection (2)(b), at the end insert “, including Academies”.”Member's explanatory statement
The effect is to require academies to employ qualified teachers and to be subject to the Secretary of State guidance on teacher pay and conditions that applies to maintained schools.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
I find myself leading on a whole series of groups: it is slightly challenging, jumping around. This one is about teachers, qualified teacher status and teachers’ pay. It amends Schedule 1, which is about the use of other education legislation, as set out in Clause 3. This would require academies to employ qualified teachers and be subject to Secretary of State guidance on teachers’ pay and conditions as they apply to maintained schools currently. Again, this goes very much to the question: if every school is going to be an academy, what is our vision for teachers, for teaching and for teachers’ pay and conditions?
We know from the evidence—it is really well documented—that good schools are good because they have high teacher quality, and teaching and learning are well led. In a way, it is like Governments—great Ministers well led by the Prime Minister; that is what a good Government might look like one day. If we agree with that evidence around teacher quality, and if we believe in the Government’s reforms of initial teacher training, the early careers framework and national professional qualifications, then we must think that the Government’s emphasis on all that is important and will raise quality. I have some arguments about the reforms of initial teacher training, but the Government are consistent in saying that the reason they want to reform initial teacher training, the reason they want to introduce the early careers framework and have done so, and the reason they have the series of professional qualifications is to raise teacher quality. They must believe in the qualification of teachers to have all that.
In the context of all schools becoming academies, I think parents would be really surprised if they found that this then meant that all schools were no longer subject to having to employ qualified teachers. It would be quite a surprise if that was in the newspapers or wherever it is they get their news. Parents expect their children to be taught by qualified teachers, and mostly that is the case. The vast majority of academies want to employ qualified teachers and do so, so I do not really understand why we would not translate, as we move maintained schools into becoming academies, the requirement that they should employ qualified teachers as well. Of course it is also true that maintained schools can employ unqualified teachers as instructors, so they still have that get-out if they really need it. Indeed, a very long time ago, I worked as an instructor at a sixth-form college in Basingstoke. For me, it is tricky, and I would be interested in any argument that came from others as to why we would not want qualified teachers in our schools.
Then I would argue, as I have sought to do with this amendment by replacing the get-out—on employing qualified teachers—with saying that academies should abide by national pay and conditions, that we should have a coherent labour market for all our teachers, the largest single profession in the world. A coherent labour market for them, working in publicly funded schools, would mean a consistent arrangement for pay and conditions so that they can plan their own careers and are not trapped in a single MAT employer that would have its own career structure and pay structure for them. They would be able to move about and develop their career and professional expertise on the basis of something that is predictable around the country.
For me, this is a no-brainer. I devote a huge amount of my time, pro-bono, to the academies movement, but this is something we need to get right. We should have a very clear policy of having qualified teachers, based on national pay and conditions. I beg to move.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
I imagine it will come as no surprise that I support my noble friend Lord Knight. It seems to me that high teacher quality is obviously a critical issue in making sure that we have a well-functioning and successful education system. One of the problems by which we have been beset is that there is no coherence at the moment to the way pay and conditions work across the country—that is, across England.
At Second Reading I probably mentioned that if you are a female teacher, one of the difficulties you have in seeking to move is that you will have no idea what the arrangements are for maternity leave and maternity pay from one employer to another. While I entirely accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Nash—who is not in his place at the moment—that multi-academy trusts do seek to have a career structure within themselves, there are many reasons why individual teachers might choose to move, not just within the MAT but to a completely different part of the country. Of course, that might still be part of the same MAT, but that they might choose to move out of the MAT. Being able to have a predictable set of conditions and a predictable pay arrangement is critical.
One thing that has been noticeable over the years is that pay has become much less predictable because MATs have different arrangements. It is not so possible for teachers to be on permanent contracts and to know, for example, that they are in a position to get a mortgage. I imagine most noble Lords would believe that home ownership is something to which a teacher should reasonably be able to aspire, but in many cases it absolutely is not. A national, coherent set of pay and conditions therefore seems perfectly reasonable. I would add that that should be done on the basis of sectoral collective bargaining, but that is not in the amendment. I just like saying “sectoral collective bargaining” because it is the right way for us to run the system. I note, for example, that in Iceland there is no minimum wage because all wages in all sectors are based on sectoral collective bargaining—and that is not uncommon in other countries, too.
Finally, on the question of QTS, before I came into this House one of the things that I did was to work with colleagues in the European region of Education International, the global union federation for all education unions. The European region does not just cover the EU countries; it takes in a significant geographical area beyond that. When the arrangements came in that meant people could teach in England without QTS, it was a single thing that my colleagues in many other countries—including Scotland—were absolutely astounded should be happening in this country.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I have to say that I once had an aunt who was one of the most successful teachers I have ever come across. She was not properly qualified but was one of those people who came in after the war and could teach boys of 14 to sing in a very poor part of Newport in Monmouthshire. I do not start from any real belief that teacher training is a perfect answer, but I agree with the first part of what the noble Lord, Lord Knight, said. It seems sensible to have a system whereby, in general terms, of course teachers must have professional qualifications. I happen to think that we have to improve those qualifications and I have some sympathy with the reference of noble Baroness, Lady Blower, to the areas in which that ought to happen. That is really important.
If I have said that, however, I have to say too that I am much less happy about the second proposal. I have to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, that I do not know of any other circumstance in which it is thought that you must have predictability about the money you earn. It seems to me perfectly possible to have standards when you go in for jobs, and I do not understand why this is a necessary part of that. Indeed, I noticed that she started with the teacher pay issue, and I want to turn it around; I think the noble Lord, Lord Knight had the right order. The order should be standards and quality and the ability to teach. It is not unreasonable then for there to be different systems in different places to meet different requirements.
That should be the decision of those areas, not a centralised decision dominated by the teachers. I always remember having a discussion with her many years ago, when she had a big poster that said “Putting teachers first”. That was the poster and that was the argument, and I want to believe that we put children first. So I start by wanting teachers of the highest standard, but I do not believe that it is necessary to have some kind of national pay structure that does not vary from once place to another. I much prefer the mix I am presenting. I must ask the noble Lord, Lord Knight: if he really cannot ask this Government to have a vision here, I do not know where else they have a vision, so why should they have it here?
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I was not going to speak in this debate, but I am minded to say just a few words in agreement with the last phrases that have just been used. This is part of the problem.
We obviously need a highly-qualified, well-trained teaching profession, as we expect in the health service and elsewhere. When we have a basic standard which is adhered to and a career structure that people understand, we can of course then vary that in order to attract teachers to particular areas, such as opportunity areas that the Government have designated at the moment—education action zones, in my time—where golden hellos and golden handcuffs are available to ensure that we get the right teachers in the right place to overcome gross historic inequalities in the quality of education in those areas. I would have thought that we could reach complete unanimity about that.
I do not have an aunt who used to teach me, but I did have my mum, who left school at 14. She was pretty good at correcting my English, which says something about the schooling of today and quite a lot about what she learned up until she was 14. I would not recommend people leaving school at 14; I think I had better make that abundantly clear.
I have a PGCE myself for teaching in further education, and a great deal can be done in the post-16 area to ensure that people are appropriately qualified. I just wanted to make this point: ex-Ministers or present Ministers may eulogise about students acquiring a key body of knowledge—and with that a historic view of how teaching might take place—but it is impossible to ask pupils to acquire it if those teaching them have not acquired it themselves. That is why trashing teacher training through university is a big mistake, because someone has to have that historic foundation and knowledge of pedagogy in order to know how best to develop for the future the best way of teaching in entirely different circumstances to the ones that people might experience in the school they first enter.
I have one small caveat and disagreement with my noble friend Lady Blower. I was involved in battling for years to get a national minimum wage, because collective bargaining in some areas was about differentials and the clash between the craft unions and the general unions—I do not want to go back to those days.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, this is an important question, but, again, I would be looking for the output, not the input—in other words, when asking whether teachers should be qualified, it is the quality of the qualification that matters. At the moment, it is a nine-month course without any validation at the end. We have the Teach First initiative, which was pioneered very successfully by Labour, which is six weeks of training. Looking at parts of the economy where we are desperately short of good teachers—take a subject such as computer science, for example—I would say that you could bring those sorts of people into teaching for a couple of years, because they might want to put something back in an initiative similar to Teach First but then go on to a different career.
So, if we are worrying about the quality of teachers, we must be careful that this is not just about some formal qualification. It is about how good they are and, particularly in response to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, it is about how good they are at enthusing children in the classroom. I think we have moved into a new and very difficult game post-Covid. Children were learning across screens remotely on and off for two years, and the skills needed to enthuse and engage children in that way have changed, rather than just standing in a classroom. So, I am sceptical, but this is an important point, and I am glad that we have the chance to debate it, because this is exactly what a Schools Bill should be doing.
Lord Nash (Con)
I support my noble friend. I say to the noble Lords, Lord Knight and Lord Blunkett, that if a teacher has been teaching in the private sector for 20 years and is well qualified in their subject—through university and through practising it for 20 years—are we really going to make them take a course for nine months, at the end of which there are no exams, so that they are qualified to teach? I think we need to be a little more flexible about this.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
Just to add to that, I think there are—or there used to be—ways for teachers moving from the independent sector to the state sector which were far less than nine months.
I take the point about a subject like IT. I absolutely agree with the amendment: teaching is a profession, and all the evidence internationally shows that the better qualified the teacher, the better the achievement for students. That is what this is all about. But if the problem is that, in a fast-moving world, there are a set of skills such as IT that people need to come into education to deliver, there needs to be another way of meeting that need and getting those people in rather than saying to the whole of the school system that teachers do not have to have a qualification. This is not being used to get people with specialist IT skills into schools to help children. It is being used by headteachers and schools where they cannot get staff with qualifications in front of children in classrooms, so they go for those without qualifications.
Although I share with the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, the wish to get the latest skills into the classroom without making people do a year-long PGCE, we just need a bit more creative thinking in order to make that happen. It cannot be that we go back to a profession that not only is not a graduate-level profession but is not a qualified profession at all. The message that gives is something that none of us who are committed to the education of children ought to support.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to follow my noble friend. She is absolutely right: this is about profession.
My Lords, we asked to de-group this amendment from that of my noble friend Lord Knight, because it is such an important issue and deserves its own debate. Our Amendment 36 would remove the exemption teachers in academies have from needing to have QTS but gives a grace period until September 2024 to give schools and teachers sufficient time to adjust. We felt that this is a sensible way forward. The amendment redresses the opt-out given by former Prime Minister David Cameron and Secretary of State Michael Gove when they removed that need for academies to have QTS in 2012.
Since that time, there has been a decade where children and young people have been taught in academies by unqualified staff. We would assert that in recognition of the preparation teachers have to undergo, the term “teacher” should be reserved solely for use by those with QTS and that a person in training—or indeed, a specialist or person qualified in IT—should have a different designation. This amendment would ensure that, in future, all pupils in every school were taught by a qualified teacher.
When I was looking at the background to the debate today, I looked at what the Sutton Trust had said. It is a research institution that fights for social mobility so that every young person—no matter who their parents are, what school they go to or where they live—has the chance to succeed in life. In its seminal report, What Makes Great Teaching?, it said that the quality of the teacher is the most important factor in academic and non-academic attainment. We have heard from other noble Lords previously in Committee about the importance of leadership and a justification of the enormously inflated salaries enjoyed by heads within academy trusts, but the Sutton Trust research firmly places the attainment factor in the hands of the teacher in the classroom. Those of us in your Lordships’ House who have had the privilege—indeed, it is a privilege—to work in this profession would no doubt agree.
The research defined effective teaching as that which leads to improved student achievement and focused on six common components that should be considered when assessing teaching quality. First is pedagogical content knowledge. As well as a strong understanding of the material being taught, teachers must also understand the ways students think about the content, be able to evaluate the thinking behind students’ own methods and identify their common misconceptions. These are all areas covered in training teachers towards QTS. It is not just about having the knowledge and content of the subject itself; you have to have knowledge and understanding of how children learn in order to convey that knowledge. The research further identified the quality of instruction, classroom climate, classroom management—which I was very good at, as your Lordships might guess—teacher beliefs and professional behaviours, all of which impact on the quality of education.
I also looked at research by the University of Oxford’s Nuffield College from 2019, which found that pupils are more likely to be taught by unqualified teachers in academies than in maintained schools. It concluded that this widens class-based inequality because schools with more pupils from lower socioeconomic backgrounds tend to hire more teachers without QTS, and that in secondary schools
“this relationship in academies is almost double that in LA-maintained schools, revealing a role for academies in widening class-based inequality in access to qualified teachers”—
which seems like levelling down, rather than levelling up.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 35B and 36, which amend Schedule 1. Schedule 1 extends certain provisions in maintained school legislation which currently apply to academies through funding agreements to academies directly.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, for Amendment 35B. He is seeking to require academies to employ qualified teachers and to be subject to the Secretary of State’s guidance on teacher pay and conditions that applies to maintained schools. However, the provisions in Schedule 1 that the amendment changes relate specifically to special schools and the removal of the power for the Secretary of State to prescribe that special academies employ qualified teachers. The amendment would not have the effect that the noble Lord is seeking to achieve.
However, it is clear that the intended purpose of this amendment and Amendment 36, which is about removing the exemption that academies have for teachers to have qualified teacher status, would provide for a restriction to a core tenet of the academy system, namely that, with the exception of special academies, all academy trusts have the freedom to employ those they believe are suitably qualified to teach in their academies and that all academy trusts can make decisions about pay and conditions of service in their academies.
The academy standards regulations will reflect existing requirements in the funding agreements, including those relating to enrolment in the Teachers’ Pension Scheme or the Local Government Pension Scheme. I have heard the fears expressed about a future Government using these regulations to undermine the freedoms that enable academy trusts to collaborate, innovate and organise themselves to deliver the best outcomes for their pupils, and I am carefully reflecting on those concerns.
On teacher pay and conditions, although all academy trusts have the freedom to set their own pay structure and conditions of service for teachers, we believe the vast majority follow some, if not all, of the guidance in the school teachers’ pay and conditions document. We believe it is right that academies continue to benefit from this freedom because it allows heads and trust leaders to have the flexibility to respond to their local context to support recruitment and retention of teachers. I am reminded of the phrase used by the noble Lord. I do not want to misquote him, but he spoke very powerfully on the first day of Committee about how important and attractive it was to trust our leaders, and that is exactly where these freedoms fall.
Academy trusts are also allowed the freedom to make their own decisions about who they believe is suitably qualified to teach pupils in their academies. However, most schools, including academies, understand the importance of well-trained teachers and choose to employ teachers who have undertaken initial teacher training and gained qualified teacher status. I agree very much with the sentiment expressed by my noble friend Lord Agnew in relation to the quality of the qualification as opposed to just the qualification in its own right. I am slightly baffled at your Lordships’ focus on this, as 96.9% of teachers in academy schools held QTS in November 2021, compared to 97.7% in maintained schools, so there is less than a percentage point difference between the two. The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, seemed to suggest that there are examples where it might be much higher. If that is the case, perhaps she would be very kind and share them with us, so that we can look into that.
The intention behind the amendment is to place additional requirements on academy trusts that would undermine the discretion and flexibility at the front line that fundamental academy freedoms give to heads and MAT leaders. That is not the intention of this Bill. On that basis, I would be grateful if the noble Lord would withdraw Amendment 35B and if the noble Baronesses would not move Amendment 36.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful again for this half-hour debate and for the Minister’s reply. It is important that we have a vision for the whole system, now that we are moving to a single system, and perhaps this is something we will continue to reflect on.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Deben, for his comments. The core of the argument for having a single national pay and conditions arrangement for teaching relates to the difficulty of recruiting people into the profession. It is a critical profession for the future of our country and any society, and we must make sure that we recruit the finest people to be teachers—as one of their careers. These days, we are going to live longer and work longer. I am not saying that you necessarily have to do 40 or 50 years as a teacher, but would it not be great if, for one career, people wanted to be a teacher? It is easier to recruit people if they know that they have a predictable pay progression with a predictable, quality pension at the end of it, as part of their public service—as part of the motivation and the vocation around becoming a teacher.
I hear and respect very much what the noble Lords, Lord Agnew and Lord Nash, say about the output and the nature of the different routes into the profession. There is of course the assessment-only route. People who have been working for 20 years in the private sector or who are coming in from industry could perhaps have some brief training in some of the pedagogic or behaviour management elements that my noble friend on the Front Bench talked about and can then be assessed against the standards that are set around what we require from qualified teachers. They do not have to go through training; they can just be assessed against those standards. One of the things I pioneered when I was working at TES, with the TES Institute, was a route through the assessment-only process.
I am happy to withdraw this amendment. I hope this brief debate has given us cause and a pause to reflect on what kind of system we want for the teaching profession in the context of every school being an academy.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with the amendment to Clause 6, page 6, line 11, in the name of Lord Knight of Weymouth, is designed to require Ofsted to inspect multi academy trusts and restrict the use of the Secretary of State intervention powers to when an inspection has revealed the need for such powers to be used.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, I rise yet again. This substantial group is about intervention and termination powers. Most of the group is made up of stand part debates on a series of clauses. My amendments are about a level of accountability for the Secretary of State around the use of powers. The clauses we will be thinking about in this group relate to the power for the Secretary of State to give compliance directions, give a notice to improve to an academy provider, impose directors on the trust and then, if none of that works, terminate both the single academy agreements and the master agreements, perhaps after seven years’ notice by mutual consent or if the academies are perceived to be failing, if the trust becomes insolvent, after failure to address concerns or after warning notices. That is what the set of clauses that we are about to debate is all about. They are substantial and, in my judgment, overweening, and that is why I have also signed up to the stand part debates in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Agnew, Lord Nash and Lord Baker.
My problem at its heart is the sense that the Secretary of State becomes judge, jury and executioner. The Secretary of State is taking powers, essentially, I think in reality, through a network of regional directors, as they are now called, and officials appointed on a regional basis. They will be monitoring the performance of academies across anything and everything they do and will then be suggesting to academies that do not do what they want that they have this huge range of powers and will make them do as they are told. I am mindful of the discussion we had earlier, what the noble Lord, Lord Baker, said and the advice from Stone King about how that might impinge on the independence of the trustees of multi-academy trusts. I was grateful to hear the Minister’s reassurance that the Government have been given legal advice that it will not, but I still have concerns.
My amendments would add in Ofsted, the Office for Standards in Education, and once it has made a judgment about a multi-academy trust—yes, my amendment says that Ofsted should now inspect multi-academy trusts as a whole, not just the individual academies—that can act as a trigger; it is acting as the judge or jury and the Secretary of State can then act as the executioner. An independent party will have been able to have a look at it, and one would assume that Ofsted, in coming up with its framework for how to inspect multi-academy trusts, would be informed by the academy standards that eventually, in one form or another, we think will be in place.
I would anticipate that the MAT inspection would look at the educational quality and safeguarding and governance arrangements and ensure they were sound, and at the trust’s compliance with various regulations, including financial. When that judgment is passed, action can be taken. All my amendment seeks to do, whether perfectly or imperfectly, is to introduce that.
In thinking about the stand part debates, of course there are questions about some of these clauses. Clause 6, which provides the power to give notice to improve, as I interpret it, reflects the academy agreement academy by academy, rather than the master agreement with the whole academy trust. Clause 6(4) includes the phrase “make representations”. I should be interested to know to whom—one assumes the Secretary of State. In a world where every one of 25,000 schools is an academy, one assumes that they will not all be failing at once. Let us say that the figure is 1%, if we are generous, which is 250 schools at once making representations. In reality, they will be made not to the Secretary of State but to the regional directors. I should be interested to know how the Minister sees the representations process working, because it is as close to some sense of appeal as we have in the clause. Subsection 5 says that the Secretary of State “may make regulations”. Will those regulations be one by one, school by school? Perhaps that gives a little bit of power to Parliament, but I should be interested in some clarification of that.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, I remind the Committee that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. I now invite her to speak.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I start by apologising to noble Lords who have their names against amendments and clause stand part notices in this group. The rules for remote contributions mean that I am always called after the mover of the first amendment in the group; I would have wanted to hear other expert contributions before speaking.
Amendments 39A and 39B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Knight, make it absolutely plain that the Secretary of State’s powers should be used only when an Ofsted inspection has made it clear that there are issues. Amendment 39C in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, asks for further qualification to inform a Secretary of State’s intervention decision on the replacement of directors or trustees, which include those who pose
“a risk to the duty of the institution”.
I hope that this would also include those who do not respond to safeguarding concerns. The detail of this comes to the nub of the issue that we have faced in our day and a half of Committee so far: exactly how the Bill will work in practice.
Turning to the 14 clause stand part notices in this group for Clauses 5 to 18, I hope that, after our debates so far in Committee, the Minister is in no doubt about the concern right across the House, including from all the former Education Ministers present, about the first part of the Bill on academies. The noble Lords, Lord Baker, Lord Nash and Lord Agnew, have made it absolutely plain in our debates today and last week that this Bill, especially this part of it, is not fit for purpose and that it would be sensible to delay until more detail can be provided to Parliament, the education sector and parents.
Normally, when a major change in the structure of our entire education system occurs, there has been broad consultation with the public, schools and the bodies that deliver educational services to education directly. That just has not happened here. It is evident that your Lordships’ House remains concerned that this part has not been thought through in the detail needed. All schools that are funded through the public purse becoming academies, bringing virtually all schools under the direction of the Secretary of State, is one such major change.
That brings us to the other conflicting issue to which noble Lords have referred in almost every debate on each grouping: the Henry VIII powers that the Secretary of State will take on in the Bill; again, without wider consultation or understanding of the implications. I want to focus on the latter point for a second. Page 55 of the White Paper, Opportunity for All: Strong Schools with Great Teachers for Your Child, sets out the standards, regulation and intervention from the department’s perspective. Given the debates we have had, the White Paper is remarkably coy about the powers of the Secretary of State. In fact, according to the schedule on page 55 of the White Paper, the Secretary of State’s only role is to sign new funding agreements and amend them “for material changes”. Intervening in schools is listed as happening by the regions group, on sufficiency, admissions, safeguarding, attendance and ensuring quality; whereas the Bill appears to give decisions over these powers directly to the Secretary of State. So, what is on the face of the Bill sets out neither a strategic framework nor the detail of how it will work in practice; it also contradicts the White Paper.
This reflects the difficult debate that we are having at the moment. My noble friend Lady Garden of Frognal said during our debate on the first group of amendments that there should be delays in the progress of the Bill until some of these matters are clarified and put out for consultation. Other noble Lords have said the same; they are right. As more and more issues and concerns emerge, grouping by grouping, it is not right to proceed until they are discussed and then consulted on with the wider public.
As the noble Lords, Lord Agnew and Lord Nash, made clear in our debate last Wednesday, the Academies Minister has already had to take a large number of decisions in relation to schools that are not maintained. Some of us argue that this results in a closed and untransparent system that is particularly opaque for parents, their children and their communities when key and serious decisions need to be made about their local school. It now appears that these powers, given to the Secretary of State but with a recommendation presumably to be made by the relevant Academies Minister, will apply to all 20,000 publicly funded schools once the Bill has gone through. How on earth will this work in practice? Also, how will it be publicly accountable to the parents and communities that these academies will serve? Can a junior Minister manage this workload or will the practicalities of it mean that it will be made by invisible and unaccountable civil servants?
In the Clause 3 stand part debate earlier, the Minister said that the Government will always consult the sector, but I did not hear anything about consulting parents and communities on changes to their local schools. I hope that the Minister can provide some answers or a timetable for your Lordships’ House as to when our many questions can be answered in detail and then debated properly; otherwise, we must delay the next stage of the Bill until we know and understand more about what the Government are trying to achieve through it.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
My Lords, I agree with everything that the noble Baroness said; I congratulate her on saying it.
May I express the hope, which I think is in the interests of many people, that we might finish these clause stand part debates before the dinner hour? Every morning, as I leave my apartment to come to the House of Lords, my wife waves me away with the comment, “Don’t speak too much.” So I do not expect to elaborate again all the points that the noble Lord, Lord Knight, made. In fact, I do not intend to move my stand part notices for Clauses 8 to 14 at all because they use exactly corresponding words in the funding agreements. Clauses 16 to 18 are exactly the same; I do not intend to move my amendments on them in order to accelerate the movement of the House.
I will say a just few words on Clause 5, which gives the Secretary of State the power to give directions rather than advice. The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, and I did not have that power. I would not seek it. No Minister has had it since 1870. I do not believe that it is right for Ministers to interfere with the actual management of schools at the local level.
Clause 6 gives the Secretary of State the right to get involved in schools’ financial matters and the running of schools. Again, I do not believe that that is the right function for the Secretary of State.
Clause 7 is a significant clause because it is the one that allows the Secretary of State to appoint a new board, governor and governing body. Ministers have never had this power. In fact, the noble Lords, Lord Agnew and Lord Nash, operated the whole problem of failing schools very effectively by using funding agreements. I recommend that their practice should continue, and that this measure should not be attempted in the Bill.
That is all I have to say. I hope that we will be able to proceed quite quickly.
Lord Nash (Con)
My Lords, I appreciate that my noble friend the Minister is in a difficult position; I am sure that she is reflecting greatly on the points that noble Lords across the House have made. However, as we are here, I will make a few further points. Some of them might be a bit technical; I apologise if that is the case.
On Clauses 5 and 7, I should say at the outset that, as my noble friend Lord Baker said, when I and my noble friend Lord Agnew were Academies Minister—for a combined period of seven years—neither of us felt at any stage that we did not have enough shots in our locker or enough in our armoury to deal with difficult trusts. We feel that Clauses 1 to 18 are unnecessary, which is why we have joined our noble friend Lord Baker in trying to strike them out.
The Lord Bishop of Chichester
My Lords, I speak on behalf of my colleague, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, and declare his interest as chair of the National Society.
I speak very briefly against Amendment 39C. It is well intentioned but poorly drafted. Its wording is too broad and too open to interpretation. For example, what would constitute “supportive”? How would “other considerations” be interpreted? As it stands, this amendment is unable to have meaningful impact.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, my degree of fellow feeling for the Minister is growing, as it was when the noble Lord, Lord Knight, was talking, because of the amount of nodding and smiling in agreement behind her from her distinguished predecessors in the post—both of whom are true believers in academies—saying that this series of powers is unnecessary. The noble Lord, Lord Nash, has given us a classic example of “Don’t make us pass this because you can do it already. You’re effectively wasting ink.” The fact that it comes from the Secretary of State and not from another structure merely enhances the problems that there already are on this.
I would be interested to see what the down side of going back would be if we were to go through this. Can the Minister point out what the problem is with having this all in the office of the Secretary of State? Is it going to the Secretary of State themselves and this is some form of punishment for whoever holds the position, for having that amount of power? It is going to concentrate everything and it is already done. What great failings are we addressing? This is not the first Bill where we have thought that something must be done so we do it and then discover that it can already be done somewhere else. The Home Office normally holds the record for this, but if the Department for Education is going into some sort of competitive tendering process on this, I hope that the Minister can tell us how. Possibly it is some sort of Whitehall competition. If there is a problem, can the Minister identify it for us?
I appreciate what the right reverend Prelate has said about Amendment 39C. I was going to ask the Minister whether she could give us some description of what this would mean in practice if it was implemented. I appreciate that there may be problems with it. There are a series of arguments and messages running around the place about certain smaller religious groups that are getting very worried about this. What would be the result here and what is the Government’s thinking about how smaller religious schools will fit in?
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, will not move Amendment 39C. Is that right?
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, it is something running through this debate; there has been discussion on it. I hope we can find this out. I assumed that the Minister would have been briefed.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The Government are in a bit of trouble here. I have not previously sat through a debate where there has been no support at all for what the Government are trying to do. I do not see how the Bill can leave this House intact. It is becoming quite urgent for the Minister to share with us the Government’s intentions around it. I appreciate that may not be possible today, but on Wednesday we should have some indication of how the Government intend to respond. This is getting repetitive and very frustrating. Deep concerns have come up through this discussion that demonstrate again the failure of the Government to engage with academies, particularly on their approach.
My noble friend Lord Knight makes very sensible suggestions about the appointment of trustees, which highlights the issues around remuneration. We get the impression that the Government have not thought this through sufficiently. He rightly highlights the dangers of a gang of usual suspects taking roles—although he did not rule out being one himself. This makes us all realise, the Bill being as it is, that none of us has the first idea where the Government will take us. This is not a sustainable position for the Government to put the Minister in day after day as we go through Committee.
The Bill is muddled and rushed and has not benefited from the regulatory review. We do not understand the haste. There is no clarity about how all this will work in practice. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, summed it up really well. She said there was no strategic framework and no detail, and that it does not reflect the White Paper. I am afraid that is where we find ourselves. Several noble Lords have proposed a delay. It would appear a justifiable proposal at this stage, given everything we have heard. It would be in the Government’s interest—perhaps not today but on Wednesday, before we go much further—if we could have some indication about what they are going to do about the fact that they clearly will not have sufficient support to get the Bill through as drafted.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I start by acknowledging the noble Baroness’s last comments. I will endeavour to come back on the next day of Committee with more clarity on the points she raises.
I thank my noble friends Lord Agnew, Lord Baker and Lord Nash, who have so much experience in this area, for discussing their concerns in respect of Clauses 5 to 18 with me ahead of today’s Committee. As we know, the vast majority of academy trusts are well managed and meeting their obligations, but it is right that the Secretary of State should be able to step in where trusts fail to safeguard children’s education and public money.
These intervention powers form part of a toolbox of measures enabling the Secretary of State to intervene in trusts in a proportionate way. The powers enable the department to tackle failure at the multi-academy trust level. In response to my noble friends and the noble Lords, Lord Knight and Lord Addington, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Chapman, I shall attempt to explain why these powers are necessary, offer some assurance as to how they will be used proportionately, and summarise our plans for building confidence in the department’s decision-making processes.
The powers are necessary for two main reasons. First, they will provide a strong platform on which to build a fully trust-led system. Under the current framework the Secretary of State’s intervention powers are set out in individual funding agreements, as we have heard. These powers can vary, depending on when the agreement was signed. In the case of a multi-academy trust, there may be several funding agreements with different termination provisions. We believe it is the right time to create a more coherent trust framework under which the Secretary of State’s powers can be applied consistently and transparently.
Secondly, the powers will allow the Secretary of State to intervene, where necessary, in a more proportionate way. The current tools are limited and blunt, relying heavily on the power to terminate the funding agreement. For example, Clause 5 will give the Secretary of State a targeted power to act where a trust is failing to fulfil a specific legal duty. This could include, for example, not complying with the new attendance legislation under this Bill or a misuse of funding.
My noble friends have suggested that the Secretary of State could enforce such requirements under common law by taking legal action against the trust for breach of contract. I fear that such an approach to enforcement would be costly and burdensome for both the department and trusts. Instead, the Bill provides for a straightforward remedy, while allowing for resolution through legal action as a last resort.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
May I seek some clarification on that point? Will the payment of trustees and the interim executive board be the same for maintained schools? There is a parallel situation there, where a governing body of a maintained school is not strong and an interim executive board is put in place. Are the Government proposing that they be paid as well in the intervening period?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I will come back to the noble Baroness on that point. I do not have the answers to hand but I will write to her.
We believe that there will be circumstances where it is right to remunerate trustees who have the particular skills and experience required to tackle the most serious failings in governance and management. These powers offer an alternative to terminating the funding agreement, which could be costly and disruptive to children’s education.
We would expect any additional directors and members of interim trust boards to be drawn from our strongest trusts, in line with our aspiration for a trust-led system. If noble Lords have colleagues who are trustees, or are trustees themselves and wish to discuss this further, I am happy to undertake to meet and explore this point.
My noble friends expressed concerns that these powers could be used in a heavy-handed way, such as terminating a trust’s master funding agreement on the basis of a single breach. As I have explained, the intention behind these measures is to create a more nuanced framework for intervention which avoids resorting to the threat of termination, while ensuring that weaknesses can be addressed. Any Secretary of State is bound by common-law requirements of proportionality. This means that they would terminate a funding agreement only on the basis of a material breach. Moreover, except in very limited circumstances—for example, where a trust is insolvent—the Secretary of State may terminate a funding agreement only after exhausting other options.
In general, the Bill provides for termination only where a trust has not addressed concerns raised through an earlier intervention, whether a compliance direction, a notice to improve or a termination warning notice. I agree that there should be proper scrutiny of how the Secretary of State, through regional directors, exercises any powers of intervention in academies and trusts. The Government’s recent schools White Paper announced a plan for a review of regulation. I assure the Committee and my noble friend behind me that, as part of that review, we will—
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Given that the regulatory review seems to be so significant in the Government’s considerations and has come up many times, and that we are discussing pausing the Bill—I know the Minister has not yet engaged directly with that—I wonder whether we could have some idea of the timescale on the regulatory review. Should we wish to suggest a pause, we could make sure that it was for sufficient time, but not too much time, to allow us to benefit from the findings of that review.
Baroness Barran (Con)
We plan for the review to be launched in the coming weeks. I cannot give the noble Baroness an exact date, but I think I am allowed to say “shortly”. I have probably said more than I am allowed to.
I will go back, because this is important. The noble Baroness is right to raise the regulatory review; we see it as very important. As part of that, we will look at how we provide for the scrutiny of how these powers are exercised. Critically, we will do that in a way that wins the confidence of the sector.
I have reflected on my noble friends’ concerns, but I believe that, taken together, these clauses create a sound framework for robust but proportionate intervention as we move to a fully trust-led system.
Amendments 39A and 39B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, envisage a new role for Ofsted in inspecting multi-academy trusts, and make the decision to issue a compliance direction and a notice to improve contingent on the outcome of such an inspection. Currently, the department relies on a range of evidence from a variety of sources to build up a joined-up picture of each multi-academy trust, to inform decisions about intervention. This includes evidence on finance and governance, as well as Ofsted’s school inspection judgments on educational performance.
Through the regulatory review, the department will consider the evolving role of inspection in a fully trust-led system. This will include consideration of how inspection of multi-academy trusts would be co-ordinated with our wider regulatory arrangements, as well as how it would interact with school-level inspection. I hope the noble Lord will agree that it is important that the review runs its course before we make any decisions in this area. He also asked a number of quite specific questions. If I may, I will write in response.
I commend Clauses 5 to 18 standing part of the Bill. I also ask the noble Lord, Lord Knight, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Knight, is right about getting Ofsted into multi-academy trusts. It would make a great difference to how parents are able to interact with the eventual system. Parents need the level of information and reassurance that will come from an Ofsted report, and I hope it would be done in a way that, as others have suggested, is very much focused on the educational aspects, which is where Ofsted’s expertise lies.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
I am grateful for those last comments, and that I do not have to speak for six minutes before I get my food while others discuss the national food strategy.
I am pleased to hear that, all being well, on Wednesday the Minister will be able to come and give us a little more information about the Government’s intentions, which is really important. It is also helpful that she was able to give us a vague timescale of “in the coming weeks” on the regulatory review. If on Wednesday she was able to give a little more detail on that timescale, I think the whole sector would be really grateful in terms of understanding the sequence of how things are likely to play out on all this.
The Minister talked about the blunt powers in agreements that she is looking to replace with a more nuanced and consistent response through the series of sequences, yet many of us are worried that the nature of the Bill, as written at the moment, will still be heavy-handed. If only all current Secretaries of State paid attention to their common-law responsibility to proportionality, I think we would all be a lot happier in this place.
The issues around paying and governance are issues to reflect on. All those many years ago, when I was Schools Minister responsible for academies, among other things, I commissioned some work around governance but it never really got anywhere. There may well be reasons why we want the ability to bring in people with a much more professional approach who therefore might be paid, but we need a really full debate around that. The people who give of their time voluntarily to be school governors, multi-academy trust trustees, ambassadors for local schools, et cetera, do so willingly, and we have to be really cautious about interfering with that by offering to pay even a few.
We look forward to hearing more on Wednesday. I do not think the Committee is persuaded about these clauses as they stand. I am sure the comments from my Front Bench about what will happen if we do not get a good response are being listened to by Ministers, but I am happy to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for carefully explaining the Government’s justification for doing this. She is in a difficult and unenviable position, but I do not think anybody could have handled it better.
What the Government need is time to think about this and to reflect on what is needed. I am fairly clear what they are getting at, and it is a very narrow thing they want to do. I do not think that can be covered by tinkering with the existing 18 clauses, quite frankly. It will mean a redraft and new clauses, so I very much recommend what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said on the screen: we should gain time. That is to say that Report on the Bill should take place in the autumn, not in July. The Government really have to reflect carefully and define their targets more precisely than they have, so that solutions can be given. My three friends and I would be able to help and co-operate with that as much as possible. I very much hope that on Wednesday my noble friend will be able to say that Report will be done in the autumn.
Baroness Barran
“(3A) Where the Secretary of State proposes to give an interim trustee notice to the proprietor of one or more Academy schools with a religious character, the Secretary of State must first consult the relevant religious body for each Academy school with a religious character in the proprietor’s care.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State, before giving an interim trustee notice to the proprietor of an Academy school with a religious character, to consult the relevant religious body for the school.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
Before the House is resumed, I draw attention to the clock, which has been stuck for a long time at 10 past three, as indeed, I understand, have all the clocks in the House. Since this is an education Bill and to do with the world of academia, I remind your Lordships of a poem written by Rupert Brooke just before the First World War. It was a nostalgic poem, because he was not very happy living in Germany at the time. He ends the poem:
“Stands the Church clock at ten to three?
And is there honey still for tea?”
Government Food Strategy
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Environment Secretary in another place. The Statement is as follows:
“With permission, I would like to make a Statement on the Government’s food strategy. Recent events have been a reminder of the importance of domestic food production. It gives us national resilience. Throughout the pandemic, those working at every stage of the food system, from farming and fishing to manufacturing, distribution and retail, did not let us down. The food industry has shown tremendous commitment and ingenuity in the face of recent international events.
The UK is largely self-sufficient in many products, including wheat, most meats, eggs and some sectors of the vegetable industry. Overall, for the foods that we can produce in the UK, we produce around 74% of what we consume. That has been broadly stable for the past 20 years, and in our food strategy, published today, we are committing to keep it at broadly the same level in future, with the potential to increase it in areas such as seafood and horticulture. For instance, we are exploring policies to incentivise the use of surplus heat and carbon dioxide from industrial processes in a new generation of glasshouses here in the UK producing salad crops such as tomatoes and cucumbers.
With the cost of agricultural commodities linked to global gas prices, we recognise concerns around the cost of food. Through this strategy, we are setting out long-term measures to support a food system that offers access to healthy and sustainable food for all. It will complement the measures that we have already taken to support those struggling to afford food and help them to live healthily, through the Healthy Start scheme, breakfast clubs and the holiday activities and food programme.
The food industry is also present in every part of our country. It is the largest manufacturing sector in the UK—bigger than automotive and aerospace combined. Food manufacturers provide employment opportunities in areas where there might otherwise be deprivation, they offer apprenticeships and opportunity, they invest in research and development and they give local areas a sense of pride and identity. None of our food manufacturers could succeed without the farmers and fishermen who supply them with high-quality produce.
Our fresh produce industry has always required access to seasonal labour, and I am pleased to announce today that we will bring forward another 10,000 visas for the seasonal workers route and expand the scheme to cover poultry. On this side of the House, we are clear that we want people at home and abroad to be lining up to buy British. Our food strategy sets out our intention to consult on ensuring that the public sector sources at least 50% of food locally or produced to higher standards.
There are new challenges to address that will require the characteristic ingenuity of our food industry. As Henry Dimbleby’s independent review highlighted, poor diet has led to a growing problem of obesity, particularly among children. Good progress has been made on reformulation in some categories. Industry-backed initiatives such as Veg Power, which conceived the successful Eat Them to Defeat Them campaign, have shown the value of positive advertising to promote vegetable consumption among children. But there is more that must be done in future, with government and industry working in partnership on a shared endeavour to promote healthier diets. The Government accept that they have a role, and new regulations regarding the position of retail displays of foods that are high in salt, fat and sugar will take effect later this year.
One of the key recommendations of the Dimbleby review was the formation of a new data partnership between industry and government, which we will be taking forward. Food manufacturers and retailers have a wealth of data and behavioural insights that can help to identify solutions. This will provide consumers with more information about the food they eat while incentivising industry to produce healthier, more ethical and sustainable food.
Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, our strategy acknowledges that the food system has a significant impact on the environment. We are therefore taking forward the recommendation of the Dimbleby review for a land use strategy. Our future agriculture policy will seek to financially reward sustainable farming practices, make space for nature within the farmed landscape and help farmers reduce their costs. From precision breeding techniques that reduce the need for pesticides, to tractors fuelled by methane captured from slurry stores, and new feed additives that can significantly reduce methane emissions from ruminants, technological solutions are developing at pace. Our future farming policy will support innovative solutions to the environmental challenges we face.
To conclude, our food strategy will set us on a path to boost food production and ensure that everyone has access to healthy and affordable food, produced in a sustainable way. I commend this Statement to the House.”
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement this evening. We have waited a very long time for this food strategy to be published—and what a disappointment it has turned out to be. It has provoked a united response, but for all the wrong reasons. It has been roundly criticised by Henry Dimbleby himself, by farmers, by food campaigners and by environmentalists, for being vague and unambitious. Henry Dimbleby has said that it is not a strategy and has warned that more children will go hungry. Minette Batters has said that the proposal to help farmers increase food production has been “stripped to the bone”. The Soil Association has criticised
“a narrow-minded ideology which believes government should not intervene to reshape diets”,
and Greenpeace has said that the proposals
“only perpetuate a broken food system”.
Sadly, these proposals are a disservice to the excellent, well-researched report produced by Henry Dimbleby, which took a holistic approach to the farm-to-fork journey and its impact on our health. It highlighted the terrible damage that poor farming practices could do to our planet. It called out the complicity of food manufacturers whose drive for profits is pushing highly processed junk food on to the nation in the full knowledge of the ill-health consequences, and it warned of an obesity crisis that would overwhelm our health service if urgent action were not taken. The UK is now the third fattest country in the G7, with almost three in 10 adults obese, while children are going hungry because our school food system is failing so many of them in need.
The Dimbleby report was radical and challenging. As it says:
“Change is never easy. But we cannot build a sustainable, healthy and fair food system by doing business as usual.”
It seems, however, that this is exactly the approach the Government are taking. The Dimbleby review consisted of almost 300 pages, yet this response covers barely 10% of it. It has not even responded to the 14 very well-argued recommendations in the report. All the difficult questions have been ducked. Instead, we have a statement of vague intentions and a rehash of existing policies, not a blueprint to tackle the major food issues facing this country.
The Minister’s Written Statement talked about the need to work across all government departments to deliver the strategy but, frankly, such cross-departmental working should have been put in place before the White Paper was drafted. Where are the policies that would address the 7.3 million people living in poverty, including 2.6 million children? Where are the policies to make food banks a thing of the past, instead of our facing a 95% increase in food parcels being handed out since 2015? Where are the policies to tackle the rise in adult obesity that is putting our health service under such strain? Why have the Dimbleby plans to improve child nutrition been ignored? Why have the proposals to extend entitlement to free school meals been rejected, despite widespread support from teachers, health workers and campaigners?
We know that food prices are rocketing and the food system is under strain, but this White Paper gets nowhere near addressing the root causes. Costs are dramatically rising for farmers and food producers, putting further pressure on food price inflation, and the closure of the UK’s biggest fertiliser plant last week will add to food costs. Meanwhile, crops are rotting in the field and over 40,000 pigs have already been culled because of labour shortages.
So, where are the plans to support British businesses and ensure that British food is affordable? Where are the plans to support our farmers and stop them being undercut by imports with lower animal welfare and environmental standards? Why was the commitment to tackle low-quality imports taken out of the paper at the last minute? What message is that sending to farmers? Instead, we should have a plan to ensure that we buy, sell and grow more of our great British food, entrenching Britain’s reputation as a beacon for quality food, high standards and the ethical treatment of animals.
The Dimbleby report was a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reset our food strategy for the future. It tackled the difficult issues, knowing that not everything would be agreed. So, why did the Government not feel able to give the recommendations in that report the detailed response they deserved? Does the Minister recognise that as a result, we have a White Paper that pleases no one, lacks ambition and represents a missed opportunity? I very much look forward to his response on these issues.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, there is much to say about this “Let them eat venison” food strategy—although there is not a lot of meat in it. It is full of vague intentions and grand promises such as a school food revolution. It seems to me that when this Government want to hide the fact that they have chickened out of doing something really revolutionary, they call it a revolution. Sadly, they have failed to do justice to Henry Dimbleby’s thoughtful, realistic and ambitious national food plan. No wonder he is disappointed that only half his recommendations have found favour with the Government.
Our national food system is broken. If your Lordships do not believe me, ask the NHS workers who are forced to use the food bank set up by the hospital where they work. Ask the person who has three jobs, trying to put food on the table but able to afford only cheap food or ready meals because there is no time left to cook. Ask the doctors who treat the 40% of overweight children and the 64% of overweight adults. Ask the nurses who treated the large number of people with obesity who died of Covid-19 at the height of the pandemic.
Henry Dimbleby recommended a food system to make people well, not one that would make them sick, while at the same time protecting the environment. Yet what do we have in response? Twenty-seven pages that ignore evidence-based measures such as introducing a sugar and salt tax, an idea that the soft drinks industry levy has shown to be an effective way of incentivising manufacturers to reformulate and reduce sugar in order to avoid the tax. Tonnes of sugar have been cut from the diets of children and teenagers, while people drink just as many soft drinks and the industry has not suffered at all. However, despite that success, the amount of sugar the average person eats is continuing to rise because of the increase in consumption of junk foods laced with sugar, salt and other appetite stimulants. So why will the Government not follow the sugar tax idea with other foods? Can the Minister say who has been lobbying the Government to ditch this recommendation? Is it the same people who succeeded in persuading the Government to delay the implementation of the ban on TV and online advertising and volume promotions of HFSS foods before the ink was dry on the Health and Care Act?
The price of food is rising but there is no evidence that a salt and sugar tax would increase it. I spoke yesterday to someone in the food industry who was convinced that it would encourage reductions in salt, and particularly in sugar, without price rises. If the Government want to reduce taxes, perhaps they should start with the inflated amounts of VAT that are flowing into their coffers from our fuel and energy purchases; that would help families directly.
During the passage of the Health and Care Act, there was a great deal of talk about what the new integrated care systems could do to address the health inequalities crisis. We know that obesity is more common among poorer people, yet this so-called strategy will do nothing to help them afford healthy food. We are told that a healthy diet would cost five times what the poorest families can afford, but the sugar and salt tax could pay for some of the measures that Dimbleby proposed to balance things out. Extending the Healthy Start programme and eligibility for free school meals and the holiday activity and food scheme would help to get fruit and vegetables into the diets of poor families, yet there are no proposals about that. Why not?
The Government talk about willpower, information and education for consumers, yet we have had health education in school for years, as well as food labelling. It has not worked. When the soft drinks levy was introduced, Liz Truss objected, saying that people should be free to choose. However, the problem is that people are not free to choose healthy food because they cannot afford it; they can only afford cheap calories. In some housing estates, almost the whole row of shops consists of junk food outlets. Where is the choice there? It is a matter not of will power but of affordability and availability.
The Government have a responsibility here. I was amazed to read in the White Paper that the cost of food is not a matter for government. Does the Minister really believe that? Of course it is, when people are getting sick, putting pressure on the NHS and costing the taxpayer a lot of money. I do not expect this Government to care about poor people losing years of life because of poor diet, but I would have thought they would understand the economic case for ensuring a healthy and productive population. Achieving the Government’s own ambition of five extra years of healthy life by 2030 is nowhere near on track, especially in the lower demographic groups.
Neither is there anything concrete in the White Paper to help farmers produce good food more efficiently, while protecting the environment. Farmers are already up in arms about what they are being asked to do without extra support, and worried about competition from large farms in Australia and New Zealand. Subsidies have been cut by 20% and the Government are still not clear about the details of the environmental land management payments.
Your Lordships’ Science and Technology Select Committee, in its report on nature-based solutions to net zero, said that farmers need a free and independent expert advice service to help them improve their productivity while improving biodiversity, but all we have is an alphabet soup of schemes and funds—and nowhere in the food strategy could I see the word “soil”. Another of Dimbleby’s recommendations that is notable for its absence is that we should aim to eat at least 30% less meat, given that 85% of our agricultural land is used to feed animals. Apart from the ridiculous “Let them eat venison” proposal, I see nothing practical to achieve that.
We are offered more research on things that we already know and more reviews about things that do not need reviewing—nothing but delay and equivocation. What a missed opportunity.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am grateful to the two Front-Bench spokesmen for their responses, but I wonder whether they have read the same report as I have. On food poverty, the first point that I would make is that I hope the noble Baroness does not really believe what she just said about poor people, because I find it extraordinary to assume that people like myself do not care about people on low incomes. That was a very direct statement and one that, in time, I hope she might recant.
A great many families are suffering at the moment for a variety of reasons but principally because of other constraints on household incomes, particularly in terms of energy. It is for that reason that the Chancellor recently announced £15 billion of support for households and continued other measures right across the concerns that households have about their incomes. Food is a significant part of household expenditure, though it is actually lower in this country than in many others and has stayed stable, at around 16%. It is creeping up, which is a matter of genuine concern for people on all sides of this House. We want to do what we can to help those families tackle these problems.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, mentioned free school meals and eligibility. The threshold must be set somewhere. We believe that the level we have selected, which enables more children to benefit while remaining affordable and deliverable for schools, is the right one. For a typical family on universal credit, the current £7,400 earned income threshold, depending on exact circumstances, equates to an annual household income of between £18,000 and £24,000 when benefits are taken into account. To be effective, welfare benefits should encourage people to take up work while supporting them to do so. We need to avoid creating a cliff-edge disincentive whereby people cannot afford to take up work, which is what a significant increase in the scope and funding of free school meals is likely to do. However, from 24 March this year we have made permanent the extension of free school meals eligibility to include some children from groups who have no recourse to public funds.
The noble Baroness asked about crops rotting in the fields. We work very closely with the industry on the demand for seasonal workers. For that reason, we have increased the number of seasonal workers visas, by 10,000, to 40,000. She will be aware that a large proportion of our seasonal workers came from Ukraine, and that is why we have spread out the countries where we are offering these visas to fill that gap. Let us be frank: many of those people are remaining to fight or have other reasons as they deal with that tragedy in their country.
The noble Baroness talked about trade. I would just add that we are keeping to our pledge that we will maintain animal welfare and environmental standards on the imports that we receive under trade deals.
The unsexy thing to talk about in this place is data, but data actually matters and the food industry has access to a large amount of data. By working with the food industry and through the food data transparency partnership, we are giving consumers the information they need to make more sustainable and ethical, and healthier, choices. We are talking to the industry about expanding animal welfare labelling to help consumers, but it is important that people have that data on what they are eating, where it comes from and what it contains.
On dealing with unhealthy foods, which were rightly pointed out in the Henry Dimbleby report, the Government are taking forward a variety of policies. For example, we have seen the amount of sugar in cereals and yoghurts reduced by 13% since we brought in changes there, while the addition of calorie counts on menus is making choice better for people. Later this year, we are also bringing in a ban on poor quality foods being available at checkouts.
The noble Baroness for the Liberal Democrats made a point about subsidies being cut; no subsidies have been cut. The support system for agriculture is ring-fenced at £2.5 billion to the end of this Parliament. That is a commitment that was given and will continue to be given. We are developing a range of supports encouraging farmers to be innovative and to tackle the ardent ambition that more quality food should be produced from home.
Finally, on the noble Baroness’s point about soils, I could bore this House for weeks about what we are doing on soils. She only has to look at our soils standard in the sustainable farming incentive to see how important soils are in trying to reconnect some in agriculture, who have lost that connection with the soil, to produce healthy food and make ecosystems and the environment function as two sides of the same coin with food production.
Lord Deben (Con)
I wonder whether I could first apologise to the Minister because I do not think this is his report. I do not think he wrote it or, indeed, that he does not misunderstand that it is not actually a food strategy. That is contrary to the standards which we would expect of any business. As chairman of the Climate Change Committee, I think it does not actually address any of the issues which we have put down as necessary for Defra to address on food. As a member of the food sector council, which is a government board, I have to say it does not address many of Henry Dimbleby’s very good proposals. It is a collection of vague promises and partial answers, but it does not address the fundamental issues. It therefore is not a strategy, which is what we needed. We have waited over a year for a strategy, and we have not got one.
As chairman of the Climate Change Committee, I really want to know: what is the answer to the fact that we cannot expect farmers to do what we want if we have trade agreements which mean that they are competed with by people who do not have to meet those standards? What about what we have to do, for example, on the restoration of peatlands? We are going so slowly that we will get nowhere near the necessary figures by 2035. What about the question we have raised about reducing the amount of meat that we eat while eating better meat? What about answering those questions? They are not here.
I do not think this is Defra’s fault, but it is a government fault. These things have been removed one by one, because the Government will not face up to the fact that these are difficult questions that need to be addressed. This so-called strategy does not address them.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am sorry that my noble friend does not feel that this hits the button. I hope that, as we take it forward, he will see that we are serious about ensuring that we reflect on what Henry Dimbleby produced in his two excellent reports—for the first time linking the food we eat and the health of our nation with how it is produced, and how we avoid the huge and extremely regrettable percentage of the food we produce that we waste.
As my noble friend knows, the Government are committed, because it is the law, to reaching net zero by 2050. We published our Net Zero Strategy last year, which sets the UK on a clear path to achieving that. The food strategy supports the delivery of a net-zero strategy, for example by making clear our commitment to publishing a land-use framework. This will play a critical role in setting out how we can best use land to meet net-zero and biodiversity targets, as well as helping our farmers adapt to climate change.
I hear what my noble friend says about peatlands. I was in the Peak District National park last week looking at extraordinary levels of peat restoration, which will gladden his heart and perhaps make him feel that, working together with land managers, we are going to get to the target his committee sets.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I was going to raise a question about the land use strategy, which I welcome—a small crumb of thanks, if I may put it into this pudding of a strategy. However, I cannot ask that question because I am so appalled by how awful the strategy is. When I was chief executive of Diabetes UK, we worked endlessly with the supermarket sector on any information that it gathers in profusion. It became abundantly clear to me that that was a tiny part of tackling the epidemic of poor health in this country, which is killing the health service. Diabetes is now the biggest cause of premature death, from heart attacks to strokes. It causes blindness. People’s legs fall off. A shedload of things are draining the resources of the National Health Service as a result of obesity, which is simply solved if people can access the right food at the right price. I do not believe that this strategy will do that.
I will ask my question on the land use strategy, nevertheless. I am very grateful that we are going to have one. I am worried that we should not just focus on climate change, biodiversity, the environment and agriculture because there are other things that land is important for, such as the built environment, infrastructure, energy generation, flood risk management, health and mental health. How will these other objectives be taken into account in preparing the land use strategy—for which I am very grateful, with my small crumb of thanks?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her support, but I understand that that support is conditional on it being a good land use strategy that reflects the wider uses of land in a property-owning democracy, which is what we are. You cannot order farmers and land managers to use their land a certain way. You can regulate them in certain ways and you can control them through the planning system but, most of all, you can incentivise them.
It is not only the Government who are doing that. I was talking to a dairy farmer the other day who told me that he was way ahead of the Government in getting to net zero, not because the Government were telling him to do it, but because to continue to sell his milk to a particular buyer he had to get to net zero. That made him make land use decisions that were in the public good. There is a lot happening, but it does need pulling together in a clear, coherent strategy and I hope, working with people on all sides of this House, we will get a land use strategy that will be fit for the decades to come as we tackle the huge challenges we face.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, this strategy has chapters on levelling up and trends in diet and obesity. However—here I declare my role as chair of the Commission on Alcohol Harm—it says absolutely nothing about alcohol. Yet alcohol is highly obesogenic; one glass of wine is equivalent to two Jaffa cakes. When we look at levelling up, we know that there is a much higher rate of alcohol-related mortality in the north-east of England. It is more than 20% higher than in the south-east of England. Alcohol is associated with 45% of all violent crime and 39% of domestic violence. Every day there are about 80 alcohol-related deaths and every year there are about 6,000 alcohol-specific deaths. Given the high source of calories in alcohol products across the board, why has alcohol been completely omitted from a strategy that talks about obesity and levelling up, when it is a cause of levelling down and ongoing obesity?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The noble Baroness eloquently identifies a very serious societal problem, but to say that the Government are not addressing it because it is not specifically mentioned is not the case. The Department of Health and Social Care, working with other departments, has a very clear view about how we can help reduce the problem she identifies. She is right to say that it affects more challenged communities much worse than others. We are working across government and working with local government, education and in a variety of other different ways to tackle it. We will always be open to her expertise and knowledge in trying to make sure that those are felt right across government.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, does the Minister really think that this is a strategy about healthy meals or healthy profits for a few multinational companies? The first paragraph of the executive summary says:
“The food and drink industry”
is the biggest “manufacturing industry” and creates
“£120 billion of value for the economy every year”.
Does the Minister think that food is something you manufacture or something you grow and produce in the natural environment? You have to get to paragraph 7 on the second page before health or sustainability are mentioned. It is described as a government food strategy. Would it not be better described as a corporate strategy to produce profits? Why does it not focus on healthy local fruits and vegetables? The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said that alcohol is not mentioned, but it does get mentioned once. The very first product mentioned is Scotch whisky. It then goes on to mention
“Worcestershire sauce, the Melton Mowbray Pork Pie … Cornish Clotted Cream”—
all lovely treats, I am sure. But where is the food to healthily feed people? Why, when we are talking about fruit and vegetables, do we focus on tomatoes and lettuces? Where are the root vegetables, the apples, pears, nuts and pulses, and the things we can do to help give people healthy stable food grown here in the UK?
Lord Benyon (Con)
On her last point, I refer the noble Baroness to the points we make about expanding horticulture and our investment in new technologies to produce sustainable fruit, vegetables and leafy greens from a variety of different new sources, not only vertical farming. The noble Baroness shakes her head, but it is in there.
On the other point about the food industry, every job is liberating and household-supporting, which is fundamental to a family. That is the point we are making. This is not some corporatist point; it is about the individuals working in these businesses. Every single parliamentary constituency in the country, with the exception of Westminster, has a food processing or manufacturing company. They are agents for levelling up. They give people apprenticeships, skills and an income. They pay taxes, which build hospitals and schools—we need to be reminded of that occasionally.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, getting food to market is also a factor.
“Reducing barriers and bureaucracy following Brexit”
is crucial and contained in the report. That will be most welcome to many. However, a food strategy must include a well thought-through freight and logistics programme. I understand that there is a White Paper to be distributed on Wednesday. We all look forward to that and we will be scrutinising it with great care in the months to come.
I am co-chair of the parliamentary group on the future of UK freight and logistics, which has the sole objective of receiving submissions from all regions of the United Kingdom, including Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the individual regions of England. As an example, the east of England could, with good reason, be said to be the breadbasket of fruit and vegetables in this country, but it expresses concerns about logistics, with roads in particular requiring a well thought-through upgrade programme. What can the Minister offer so that freight can operate on a much-needed, efficient distribution network within our United Kingdom?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The noble Viscount raises a really important point: our food industry and food distribution network is one of the 13 items listed in our critical national infrastructure. It was shocking, in 2010, when we came into government to find that there was no national infrastructure database and no drawing together of all the important points, including the ones made by the noble Viscount. I am sure that it is not right yet; we have to connect up where we need things to be in this country with the best and most sustainable means of getting there. This will continue to mean that we will have to move things on roads. Hopefully, we will move things in a much more environmentally friendly way in years to come, but there are alternatives as well. We should be building for the future to fit in with our net-zero ambitions.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I declare my interests as set out in the register. It is to be welcomed that the Government recognise the importance of food, but the strategy should be more dynamic. There are widespread problems throughout the food system which Henry Dimbleby has done well to identify and express in his report, but they have not been dealt with adequately by the Government. There is great anxiety from the widespread uncertainty engendered by government policy across many areas.
I will concentrate on one area for integration across government—quality food—and say that farmers are very good at responding to opportunities, once co-ordinated into quality marketing schemes. How is the Minister’s department working with farmers, growers, processors and the food chain to ensure that domestic initiatives—such as quality branding, product of designated origin schemes and other marketing schemes—are better integrated with the Department for International Trade to develop export opportunities in food and trade deals, where deals are not to be focused merely on opening up the UK to imports? Will Defra set up a new taskforce to build on this integration, reducing emissions and adapting to climate change? These are both key challenges for sustainability.
Lord Benyon (Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely right. We need to ensure that we are not only feeding ourselves, and maintaining the dependability of what we grow ourselves, but looking at markets abroad. There are a number of shining examples of our export potential, including exports of quality food from these shores. I hope that, in the years to come, we can see exports—not just to the European Union but to the rest of the world—benefitting from a new trading environment where farmers can benefit as a result. I am not sure that it requires a new taskforce to be set up, because I consider that taskforce to be the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs working with the Department for International Trade. However, I am open to any ideas that will oil the wheels of export potential for our farmers and growers.
Baroness Stroud (Con)
My Lords, the strategy rightly points out that the Government have a role in addressing health inequalities. The concern I want to raise with my noble friend the Minister is regional health disparities. We know that the levelling-up agenda is committed to addressing these regional health disparities, but we also know that a 65 year-old in, say, Kensington and Chelsea lives for a further 24 years, while someone in Manchester may live only for another 18 years. In Halton, 78% of the population are experiencing obesity, but in south-west London, the figure is only 42%. These are real health disparities that we were hoping the Government’s food strategy would have a part in addressing. We are led to believe that a number of recommendations have been removed from the report. Can my noble friend the Minister outline why he is still convinced that this strategy will address such health disparities?
Lord Benyon (Con)
To my noble friend I say that the Government have stated in their policy that they wish to see life expectancy rise across the population. However, she is absolutely right to point out that there are some areas where the life expectancy, and indeed other health outcomes, are vastly different. It is not just in the report that we are looking at the health of the nation; it is in the whole Government’s levelling-up agenda. I sit on a committee with Ministers from other departments who are absorbed by these issues and want to see a change so that the life expectancy, as well as the life opportunities, of people in deprived areas are addressed. If we are not getting that message across, we must do better, because it is an absolutely key ambition for this Government. We want to see the inequalities that have existed for too many decades change in fast time on our watch.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will follow up on a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, who referred to the Government’s attachment to the word “revolution”. The strategy offers £5 million to deliver a “school cooking revolution”. I believe that there are about 24,000 schools in England; with a rough bit of maths, that is about £200 per school. Is that how the Government plan to deliver a revolution in school cooking?
Lord Benyon (Con)
Leading on from the last question, it might be more important that those lessons in supporting young people in making the right diet choices are targeted at the places where there is evidence of the worst food choices being made. That is not a preachy way of doing it. We want to deal with the problem where it exists, recognising that there are very serious health issues around the diet choices that people make. Without pointing fingers or doing this in a way that has not worked in the past, and looking to a different way of approaching it, tackling the problem in schools is really important.
Schools Bill [HL]
Monday 13th June 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Schools Bill [HL] 2022-23 View all Schools Bill [HL] 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 1-III Third marshalled list for Committee - (13 Jun 2022)
Lord Shipley
“Geographical spread of multi-academy trusts(1) The Secretary of State must not—(a) enter into an Academy agreement with a proprietor to fund a new Academy school, or(b) authorise the transfer of an existing Academy school to another proprietor,unless the condition in subsection (2) is met.(2) The condition is that the Secretary of State is satisfied that the geographical spread of the Academy schools that would be in the care of that proprietor is appropriate, having regard to, amongst other things—(a) the number of schools that would be in the care of that proprietor;(b) the number of pupils registered at each school that would be in the care of that proprietor;(c) whether the schools in the care of that proprietor predominantly would comprise primary schools; and(d) whether the schools in the care of that proprietor predominantly would comprise secondary schools.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is aimed at ensuring that schools within a multi-academy trust must be within a similar geographical area rather than spread across the country.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 41 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Storey, I will speak also to Amendments 77, 79A and 95. Amendment 41 is aimed at ensuring that schools within a multi-academy trust must be within a similar geographical area rather than spread across the country.
It is important for the close working of schools across neighbourhoods. I recall the noble Lord, Lord Nash, saying on the first day of Committee that one of the advantages of multi-academy trusts as opposed to maintained schools was that they enabled the speedy movement of teaching staff from one academy to another. But, of course, if the academies are located right across the country, it makes it very difficult indeed for that kind of movement of staff actually to happen. The issue is one of accountability and transparency. It is much easier for parents and local communities if multi-academy trusts are located reasonably close to each other, as occurs now, for example, with co-operative trusts.
The amendment talks in terms of the Secretary of State having to be certain
“that the geographical spread of the Academy schools that would be in the care of that proprietor is appropriate”.
It is things such as the number of schools in the care of that proprietor and whether the number of pupils registered at each school is such that the total number is felt to be appropriate. Then, of course, there is whether a majority of the schools would be primary schools or secondary schools. Clearly, there has been a tendency for academies to be concentrated in the secondary sector. My question to the Minister is: what is the overall structure planned in terms of the geographical spread of multi-academy trusts and what limitations might be placed on that?
Amendment 77 requires the Secretary of State to report on the powers of autonomy available to academies and to assess whether such autonomy should be available to maintained schools. The issue is one of a level playing field. Why can academies have much greater powers than maintained schools may be able to have; for example, on issues such as the ability to set term dates, admissions criteria, the ability to depart from the national curriculum and staffing arrangements? The question that we are posing to the Minister is why similar powers of autonomy do not lie with the maintained schools sector. Of course, the date by which the Government would like all maintained schools to have transferred to academy status is still eight years from now, so I think the point is relevant.
Amendment 79A relates to the problem that college groups that sponsor multi-academy trusts have. They face technical barriers that impede them from operating an optimal service. This amendment is intended to enable colleges, academies and multi-academy trusts to work together in a more coherent, efficient and effective manner. I suspect that the Minister may well be aware of the problem but the barriers that exist can include DfE rules that make it harder for an academy and a college to jointly appoint senior staff or rules requiring the academy to put every contract out to tender, even those involving joint services with their partner college. As an example, it can make it harder for colleges and academies jointly to secure IT services. Technical solutions should be possible to solve these problems and enable colleges to offer much more joined-up local processes.
That takes me to Amendment 95, which relates to the need to increase transparency regarding multi-academy trust funding arrangements and expenditure. An example was quoted to me last week of a worry that rural schools have about their budgets being cut when they are part of multi-academy trust and money that was available in the local area being reduced without explanation because the multi-academy trust operates as a single financial unit. The amendment says:
“The proprietor of a Multi Academy Trust must annually publish information setting out the quantum of funding they have reallocated from schools’ budgets within their Trust and for what purpose.”
In other words, there is an annual agreed budget. It is about what changes were made, who lost money and, perhaps, who gained money—and, of course, if the multi-academy trust is operating right across the country as a whole, those geographical differences become very important.
The amendment aims to increase the transparency of multi-academy trust funding arrangements and expenditure. At present, a multi-academy trust can reallocate an uncapped proportion of funding from schools’ budgets within the multi-academy trust, with no requirement at all for transparency. That appears to undermine the national formula objective to achieve greater transparency. It is one thing to support multi-academy trusts having a degree of flexibility over budgets, but the lack of public transparency over their expenditure should be addressed. I beg to move.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendments 50 and 55. Amendment 50 seeks to protect the interests and encourage the involvement of all parties in a school community. It clearly makes sense that the Bill should provide for a procedure for the circumstances in which an individual academy seeks to withdraw from a MAT. The local governing body of such an academy may have very good reason, as outlined in the amendment, why such a step might be considered. Further, consistent with other amendments to this Bill, the amendment specifies that consultation on a proposed change must take place with the parties, including “parents and staff”. Two further elements to this are that the reason for seeking to withdraw, including the benefits that might accrue to children’s education should such withdrawal occur, and a timetable and financial framework for the activity, must be in evidence during the consultation. This is a coherent proposal that provides for the establishment of a clear procedure that is not burdensome or over-elaborate, in order to address a set of circumstances that may well occur.
On Amendment 55, clearly, there are many parents who choose schools with a religious character, whatever that may be. However, equally, there are parents and carers who would seek to avoid institutions of a religious character, believing that for them education should be in institutions with a secular ethos. Nothing in this amendment is designed to undermine, or otherwise interfere with, existing arrangements. However, given the intention that all schools should be part of a MAT by 2030, there should be a requirement that schools that have hitherto enjoyed a secular ethos should be required to consult widely before considering an application to a MAT with a religious character. Such consultation should be carried out in a timely fashion and deal with how joining a religious-character MAT would affect the existing school’s ethos.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, this group of amendments was powerfully and effectively introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blower. I just note that I have attached my name to Amendments 41, 50, 55 and 95. I shall briefly make some comments on a couple of them.
On Amendment 41, the geographical spread is absolutely crucial. It ties in with a point that I made on our first day in Committee—the idea of a school being a part of a community, a civic institution. It might be that we have a chain of coffee shops scattered around the nation, and people may like to go into a coffee shop that they are familiar with and are used to going into on their local round, so when they go somewhere else, they go to that coffee shop. But a school is not like that; it is not, or should not be, a commercial operation; it is not something that you skip around to, around the country—it is at the heart of a community. That geographical spread issue really needs addressing.
On Amendment 50, the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, set out what is clearly an unarguable argument. The world is not set in stone: communities change and groups of students change. A new industry may open up in a particular community, and that community may become very interested in a whole different area of study and focus—but then it is still signed up with an academy that has an entirely different focus, ethos and approach. The idea that all this could be set in aspic, permanently, really does not make any sense.
I shall pick up on a point that the Minister made on one of the earlier groups, when talking about how the Secretary of State needed the powers to intervene against a failing MAT. A MAT might work really well for some of its members but utterly fail to meet the needs of others; the idea that they are all going to work perfectly in perpetuity does not add up.
On Amendment 55, since this the first time I have spoken in a relevant debate I feel I should probably make a declaration of interest, if you like, of Green Party policy: we do not believe that any religious institution should be running state-funded schools. That statement of principle is where I am coming from. The noble Baroness, Lady Blower, made the very important point that people, communities and families have to be consulted before they find themselves forced into something that may very much not be what they want for themselves and their children.
The Lord Bishop of Chichester
My Lords, I shall speak on behalf of my colleague, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, and declare his interest as chair of the National Society. I shall speak against Amendments 50 and 55. Amendment 50’s proposal to give power to local governing bodies to withdraw from a MAT may inadvertently trigger fragmentation of MATs that are growing, an erosion of strong MATs that are reliant on academies within the MAT for sustainability and, as a result, wider instability in the system. The proposal does not reflect the company structure of the MAT or the remit of a local governing body as a committee of the board. Where there are concerns about the quality of provision, or the ability of a school to flourish and grow, these things should be discussed at a strategic level with the relevant regional director and, where appropriate, religious authority, so that together we can shape and develop an educational landscape that works effectively across communities of schools.
The language used in Amendment 55 is unhelpful. It should be noted that church academy trusts are based on church model articles which have a religious object, but that does not make them religious trusts. Church model articles provide a commitment to supporting the individual ethos of the school, whether it is a designated school or not. The requirement for additional consultation would add an unnecessary level of bureaucracy.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak principally to the amendment in my name, Amendment 79B, about regional boards. This is part of my ongoing quest—our ongoing quest, as a Committee —to stimulate thinking on what an all-academy school system might look like in practice, and flush out a few thoughts to inform the Minister’s reflections as she seeks to improve the Bill as it goes through its journey in Parliament. In particular, what I am interested in in this amendment is the accountability of MATs.
One of the main criticisms I have of academies generally and, to some extent, multi-academy trusts, is that they are insufficiently accountable. We have heard that in the context of this debate now. I am also interested in the accountability of the Secretary of State, particularly if they take on a lot of powers through the Bill. The most appropriate body, or set of bodies, to hold the academy system to account are local authorities, because they are locally elected and have that legitimacy of election—he said, speaking in the House of Lords. Currently, the system has advisory boards for what, up until just after I tabled this amendment, were called regional schools commissioners; they are now regional directors. My sense is that the system does not actually regard the current RSC advisory board that highly. They are elected by the CEOs of MATs in the region and they elect some of their number to serve and advise the regional schools commissioner in her or his job.
I think we can do better than the current construction, so I am not giving up on a structure that already exists. If you can make something that already exists work, that can often be quite a helpful way forward. It is important to focus accountability at a regional level, rather than at a local authority level. We have local authorities of various sizes, from Rutland to Birmingham—in terms of the number of schools; I am sure there are local authorities with larger geographical sizes than Birmingham. But that we might want a set of local authorities within a region covering multi-academy trusts, given their catchments and the geography that they are drawing on, seems to make sense to me.
I am suggesting that the local authorities within a region form the majority of such advisory boards that now would have a statutory basis; and that they would be required to publish an annual report, so that they would be reporting on the way that the powers had been used by the Secretary of State in that region, and by the regional director. It was notable that the Minister, in response to the previous group, confirmed that in practice some of these functions will be performed by regional directors. This is an attempt to make those civil servants accountable for some of the decisions they are making in the name of the Secretary of State. In essence, it is the accountability of transparency that I am after—that, by asking those boards to publish and make publicly available an annual report, we can all see how the powers are being used and how the needs of the children in that area are working, and how local authorities would function as the voice of parents and pupils in their areas.
As I think the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, was just talking about, in the end this is rooted in the importance of schools as part of a community. I do not think anyone in this House, from the Government Benches through to this side, disagrees with that. It is important that the community is reflected in the work of an academy, that the community as a whole is there to attract and retain teachers, that the school understands how to engage parents on the basis of the parents in that community, that it is able to develop engaging learning by making it relevant to that community, and that it is able to adjust the curriculum according to what is going to create the relevance to its community. That is my suggestion, and it is merely a probing amendment to see if anyone thinks it is a good idea.
There are just a couple of amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, that I would comment on. Amendment 41 talks about a “similar geographical area”. I chair a multi-academy trust that is national and works across a bunch of regions, which by and large works pretty well, and some of the other national trusts work pretty well. The overall direction of travel of policy from the Government and elsewhere is that a more regional, localised approach is probably on balance better, but we are where we are with those large national trusts. We need to understand what is a viable footprint within a region to have a good relationship with a local authority, with its duties to SEND, and with its duties to children generally. If those national trusts have a mere smattering of a presence in a region, it might be as well for them to between them work out how to be more focused on a geographical basis. But if they already have a substantive footprint, and a substantive relationship with the local authorities, I do not think that it should be disrupted. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, might want to think about that.
Amendment 95 is about reporting on funding. Some multi-academy trusts do something called GAG pooling, which is nothing about keeping people quiet; rather, it is pooling the general academies grant to then distribute money across the map where it is deemed to be needed. As an example, I was in a meeting today to discuss an academy in Walsall that is the last one in the E-ACT group that is struggling. We put a considerable amount more funding into school improvement in that case than it would get through its general academies grant. It is that redistribution of wealth—to use an old-fashioned phrase that we like on this side of the Chamber—that is at the heart of the flexibility that the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, is questioning. I think he is basically saying that it is fine but that we should have some transparency about this. I am not afraid of transparency, and if the Government choose to move to get more transparency about things, so much the better. We have to publish in our annual report quite a detailed amount of financial information, and that is all publicly available. I hear criticism that more information should be easily available on an academy-by-academy basis. I do not think any of us should be afraid of transparency if that is what people would like.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I have two points. My tendency is to support Amendment 41 but, after hearing what my noble friend just said about the direction of travel, maybe that is sufficient. I find the idea of widely dispersed academies problematic. In the White Paper that came before the Bill, in paragraph 131 on the size of trusts, the Government say:
“we will limit the proportion of schools in a local area that can be run by an individual trust.”
This is a genuine question: how does that fit together with the debate we have just had?
My second point relates to Amendment 55. I heard what my noble friend Lady Blower said, raising the issues of parents being faced with a decision about which they have not been consulted. We sort of had an answer from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester, speaking on behalf of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, but the Church needs to take a more understanding approach to this issue. We have a case in point: a group of parents were faced with the reality of their school being moved from an academy into a multi-academy trust with a Christian ethos. In principle I am against Church schools, but that is not the point here. The point here is whether those parents should have some input before that decision is reached. I find it impossible to believe that someone would argue in principle against consulting parents about this major change in the way that their school is run.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, this is a wide group of amendments. I shall speak first to Amendment 49, which says that, within a year, the Secretary of State must consult on whether the Bill is adequate enough a mechanism to enable schools to either de-academise or leave their trust. Once a school joins a MAT, it is trapped. We need to empower schools to leave failing MATs or those it has irreconcilable differences with. Where else in society would it be impossible to get out of an unsatisfactory agreement? No other organisation would be tied in this way to a compulsory contract with no get-out clause.
In our Amendment 94, we ask that the Secretary of State must report yearly on the financial health of academies, including any measures necessary to address disparities, especially over financial reserves, and that academies must state their intentions for the use of reserves over £250,000. Too many academies are sitting on reserves of millions of pounds. Notwithstanding the points made by my noble friend Lord Knight about reallocation and GAG—I had not heard that acronym before, but I will not forget it now—we need to encourage academies to be transparent about this. If they are saving for a huge capital project and can justify it, it is an acceptable way forward, but these institutions cannot be cash cows. Money needs to be invested for pupil benefit.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, I will now respond to this group of amendments, which relates principally to the academy legal framework. Amendment 41, proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Storey and Lord Shipley, pertains to the geographical spread of multi-academy trusts. I share the noble Lords’ view that this is an important matter.
The Government’s published guidance on building strong academy trusts states:
“When considering whether to grow, an academy trust will need to consider the geographical fit of schools”.
Many trusts operate successfully only in their local area, but others spread their expertise beyond local boundaries, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Knight, establishing clusters across England. This amendment risks restricting this sort of innovation, which can enable effective school support and improvements in performance, with clear accountability and strong governance. If I understood rightly, the noble Lord, Lord Knight, suggested that it was an either/or choice between regional clusters and national MATs. I do not think it is either/or; it can absolutely be both/and.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, asked why we would not have only one MAT in an area—for example, having a single multi-academy trust in one local authority area. We believe that there should be parental choice. MATs will have different styles. There is obviously a particular risk profile if all schools in an area are in the same MAT. We think it makes for a healthier ecosystem if there are several MATs in an area. I have certainly seen examples in local authority areas where a number of MATs are collaborating extremely constructively to address some of the entrenched issues that they find in those areas.
Amendment 49 from the noble Baronesses, Lady Chapman and Lady Wilcox, and Amendment 50 from the noble Baronesses, Lady Blower and Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, relate to an individual academy leaving its multi-academy trust. As we stated in the schools White Paper, we will consult on the exceptional circumstances in which a good school could request that the regulator agrees to the school moving to a stronger trust, but we do not want to pre-empt the outcome of that consultation by legislating now, not least as we expect the process to be administrative rather than legislative. I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester for his reflections on the risks of destabilising the system through schools moving from one trust to another. I gently reflect back to the noble Baronesses who spoke on this that it is important that this measure works for the individual school, which both of them pointed out, but it also needs to work for the multi-academy trust, which I did not hear either of them refer to directly.
I turn to Amendment 55. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, for her amendment relating to academies without a religious character joining a MAT with a majority of or all academies with a religious character. The process by which an academy joins another trust is a matter for agreement between the two trusts and is subject to the approval of the Secretary of State in the person of the regional director. When considering any application for a stand-alone academy to join a trust, the regional director will consider what stakeholder engagement has taken place and take account of views expressed. It is neither necessary nor appropriate to provide specific consultation requirements in legislation. I again thank the right reverend Prelate for his clarification about church model articles.
I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Storey and Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, for Amendment 77. As the noble Lords pointed out, academy autonomy is a core principle of the academies programme. For the past decade, such powers and freedoms have been available uniquely to academies, providing them with greater freedom and flexibility in how they operate and promoting innovation and diversity in the system. As set out in the schools White Paper, our intention is that by 2030, all children will benefit from being taught in a strong multi-academy trust or with plans to form one. Therefore, all schools will be able to benefit from academy status and its associated autonomy in the near term.
Amendment 79A concerns the relationship between further education colleges and multi-academy trusts. Further education providers and academies are different types of organisation founded on different legal frameworks. Although that prevents them joining as a single legal entity, FE providers are still able to play a valuable role supporting academies, and this includes forming a multi-academy trust and sitting on academy trust boards. We are committed to considering what more we can do to minimise any existing barriers when further education providers work alongside academies, and we have established a working group with a group of FE providers to explore this in more detail.
Amendment 94, in the name of the noble Baronesses, Lady Chapman and Lady Wilcox, and Amendment 95, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, relate to financial reporting in academy trusts. The Government hold academies to account for their financial health through the academy trust, which is the accountable body that signs the funding agreement with the Secretary of State. The department publishes a full report and consolidated accounts for the academy sector annually. It is right that academy trusts hold appropriate levels of reserves to enable investment in initiatives that will improve pupils’ educational experience, as well as supporting them to meet challenges.
This year, the Department for Education will collect information from trusts holding reserves equal to 20% or more of their overall income to assure us that there are robust plans in place to use them, as the noble Baronesses suggest. There is a split in reserves between what we might call core reserves, investment reserves and those that academies will need if they take on failing schools with low pupil numbers to manage the lag in their funding as those pupil numbers increase, and we need to understand that picture fully.
I really do not recognise the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, of rural schools feeling that they lose funding. I recognise much more the example that the noble Lord, Lord Knight, gave the Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, may have a specific example that he would like to share. Often, we see exactly the reverse—that small schools are made sustainable through the MAT.
Lord Shipley (LD)
I can clarify that for the Minister. I simply picked up a view that rural schools may feel that they could lose money and that, as a consequence, such a school may feel that it has become less viable. It was a worry about what might happen as opposed to the case if everybody had to become part of a multi-academy trust; that was the concern. If the Minister could allay those fears, that would be helpful.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that. I will endeavour to find some examples that he can share with those who have expressed such concerns of where smaller rural schools have benefited from being part of a trust with the unattractively named GAG pooling, which the noble Baroness opposite will be dreaming about tonight.
Multi-academy trusts must publish their annual audited accounts online, including details of their objectives, achievements and future plans. They must set out what they have done to promote value for money in support of those objectives as part of their accounts. We currently publish funding allocations for each individual academy. School-level income and expenditure information for schools that form part of a MAT is also available online. If noble Lords are not familiar with that information, it is extremely comprehensive and useful. Parents and others are able to see not only what their child’s individual school receives and spends but how this compares to the income and expenditure of other similar schools, whether they are academies or maintained schools. I will put the link to that website in my letter to noble Lords after this debate.
Turning to Amendment 157, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, I am pleased to say that we have launched a new regions group in the Department for Education. It brings together the ESFA and the former regional schools commissioners to address some of the issues that the noble Baroness pointed to. We are confident that this new group will deliver the singular role of scrutiny that is set out in the noble Baroness’s amendment.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Knight, for his Amendment 79B, which proposes a regional schools commissioner advisory board. He will be aware that, as he alluded to, regional directors—formerly regional schools commissioners—are currently supported by their own advisory boards. We believe that it is beneficial that those board members are made up of a mixture of head teachers, trust leaders, trustees and business leaders who bring specific expertise and experience to decisions that directly affect academies, in particular approving academy conversions and matching schools to strong trusts. It is important to note that advisory board meetings are transparent: agendas are already published in advance and records of meetings are published. The noble Lord, Lord Knight, referred to an annual report, but an annual report is already published by region.
Lord Shipley (LD)
I thank the Minister very much indeed. We have had a very helpful debate. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Barran
“(3) Subsection (2) applies to an Academy agreement in respect of a secure 16 to 19 Academy (see section 1B of the Academies Act 2010) as if the reference to the seventh Academy financial year were a reference to the second Academy financial year.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides for a two-year notice period for terminating an Academy agreement in respect of a secure 16 to 19 Academy (in contrast to the seven-year notice period which applies to other types of Academy).
Baroness Barran
“(A1) The Secretary of State may by notice terminate an Academy agreement with the proprietor of an Academy if any of subsections (1) to (1B) applies.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, and the other amendments to clauses 9 and 14 in Baroness Barran’s name, allow the Secretary of State to terminate an Academy agreement without first issuing a termination warning notice in certain cases where the Academy is failing.
“(1) This subsection applies if the Chief Inspector has given a notice in relation to the Academy under section 13(3)(a) of the Education Act 2005 (special measures required to be taken or significant improvement required).”Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to the amendment in Baroness Barran’s name at page 8, line 29.
“(1A) This subsection applies if—(a) the Academy is a 16 to 19 Academy, and(b) a report made under section 124(3) or 125(3) of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 (inspections of education and training and of further education institutions) states that the Chief Inspector does not consider the education or training inspected at the Academy to be of a quality adequate to meet the reasonable needs of those receiving it. (1B) This subsection applies if a pupil is provided with board and lodging at the Academy and—(a) the Chief Inspector has made a notification in relation to the Academy under section 87(4)(c) of the Children Act 1989 (duty to notify Secretary of State of welfare failure in boarding schools), or(b) the Secretary of State considers that a national minimum standard published under section 87C of that Act (boarding schools: national minimum standards) is not being met in relation to the Academy.”Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to the amendment in Baroness Barran’s name at page 8, line 29.
Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to the amendment in Baroness Barran’s name at page 8, line 29.
Baroness Barran
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment allows the Secretary of State to terminate an Academy agreement as well as a master agreement if there is a change of control or insolvency event (so that an Academy agreement in respect of a single-Academy trust could be terminated on those grounds).
Baroness Barran
Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to the amendment in Baroness Barran’s name at page 8, line 29.
“(1A) In the application of this section to the proprietor of a Church of England school, subsection (1) has effect as if the power to make regulations were a requirement to do so.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that regulations are made for Church of England schools in minority trusts.
The Lord Bishop of Chichester
My Lords, I speak on behalf my colleague, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, on his Amendment 51 and declare his interest as chair of the National Society. We tabled this amendment because, for Church of England schools, there will be occasions when schools are not in trusts where former voluntary aided schools are in the majority. For us, there needs to be the same consistency of approach in Clause 20, which is of particular importance for Roman Catholic schools, for example, as there is in Clause 19. Clause 19 sets out the requirement that the Secretary of State “must make regulations” concerning multi-academy trusts. However, as things stand, Clause 20 is only a “power” and does not guarantee regulations for trusts that do not meet the baseline voluntary aided numbers outlined in Clause 19.
We must ensure that there are appropriate regulations for all Church of England schools in trusts, so it is crucial that the Secretary of State must, rather than just may, make regulations in the context of the Church of England to provide legislative protection and assurance for any MATs where there are less than 50% voluntary aided schools within the trust. I would further welcome any assurance the Minister can provide that our understanding is correct that Clause 19 describes a baseline over which a trust must have majority articles but does not represent a threshold, and therefore does not prevent MATs that do not have a least 50% voluntary aided schools within the trust operating under majority articles.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester for moving this amendment. As he said, the amendment would require the Secretary of State to make regulations under Clause 20, rather than providing the Secretary of State with a power to make regulations.
The Government entirely appreciate that the governance protections in Clause 20 are incredibly important to the Church of England and all other religious denominations. They will provide reassurance to local authority-maintained schools with a religious character that their religious character, which is maintained and developed through their governance arrangements, will continue to be protected once they become academies.
To explain why the current wording in Clause 20 is appropriate, it is useful to compare the clause with Clause 19, as there are some differences. Clause 19 relates to a very specific point regarding members and directors in certain academy trusts. The exact provision that is to be set out in the regulations is stated in the clause. It is therefore appropriate for this clause to provide that the Secretary of State must make these regulations.
In contrast, the regulation-making power in Clause 20 is much wider and the extent to which it is used will be finalised only after consultation. Clause 20 applies to all academy trusts which contain academies with a religious character. It also covers a much wider range of governance matters than the specific point in Clause 19. For example, regulations made under Clause 20 may include who can be appointed into different governance roles and the connection they must have to the relevant religious body. It may also include alterations to the articles of association, the composition of committees and the delegation of responsibilities.
Clause 20 needs to be a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations as the exact scope and content of the regulations will be informed by future consultation. However, to be clear, the Government do not intend to avoid making regulations under Clause 20. Instead, I assure the right reverend Prelate of our absolute commitment that, after consultation, the Government will make regulations under Clause 20 which apply to all academy trusts with an academy school of any religious character.
The regulations made under Clauses 19 and 20 will make clear the circumstances in which certain governance arrangements must be in place. For example, this could be when a trust must ensure that the majority of directors are appointed by the relevant religious body. However, this does not mean that similar arrangements cannot be used in other circumstances. For example, an academy trust in which fewer than half the academies are former voluntary aided Church of England schools can still adopt articles of association in which the majority of directors are appointed by the relevant religious body.
In addition, as stated in the clause, the Secretary of State will consult before the regulations are first made. This consultation will include appropriate stakeholders, including religious bodies. The right reverend Prelate can be reassured that this means we will continue to work constructively with dioceses and other religious bodies to agree the most appropriate governance arrangements for academy trusts comprising different types of academies with a religious character.
I hope this has provided some confidence to the right reverend Prelate that, after appropriate consultation, regulations under Clause 20 will be made. I hope he is therefore able to withdraw the amendment on behalf of his noble friend.
Baroness Meacher
“(2A) For any pupils who have withdrawn from collective worship in accordance with subsection (1) or subsection (2), the Academy school must provide an assembly of equal educational worth, which must be principally directed towards furthering the spiritual, moral, social and cultural education of the pupils.”Member’s explanatory statement
This requires academies with a religious character to provide pupils with a meaningful alternative to collective worship if they or their parents request that they are withdrawn, so as to ensure that all pupils enjoy the benefits of the full length of the school day, irrespective of religious belief.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendments 57 and 58. I thank Humanists UK for its excellent briefing and the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, and any other Peers who support these amendments.
The context for these amendments is worth noting. Some 62% of people in this country do not identify as Christian, according to the most recent British Social Attitudes survey in, I think, 2022. More than 50% say they are of no religion. In this context, is it really appropriate that all schools in England require pupils to take part in a daily act of Christian worship? Surely not. Also, under the Human Rights Act 1998 and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, younger children have the right to freedom of religion or belief. We do not seem to provide that in this country at the moment.
Many parents send their children to a faith school because the school has a good academic reputation or a good reputation for discipline, for example. They may not be people of religion at all. Others find that they have no option but to send their child to a religious school; it is the only nearby school suitable for their child. The law needs to take account of these situations. In reality, many children in faith schools for whom Christian worship has no meaning do not opt out of the collective worship events because they do not wish to attract attention to themselves or to be ostracised by others.
In my view, the lack of any organised alternative activity for these children increases the child’s reluctance to draw attention to themselves and opt out. At present, children who have withdrawn from collective worship often just have to sit outside the door—almost like a naughty child—or are left in an empty classroom with nothing to do.
These three amendments would ensure that the needs of all children are met. They are supposed to be not anti-religion but in favour of the needs of all children. Amendment 53 would require faith academies to provide a meaningful alternative assembly for pupils who have withdrawn from collective worship. It is already law in Wales, which apparently is way ahead of England, through the recent Curriculum and Assessment (Wales) Act 2021. This amendment would bring England up to speed with Wales.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group. I shall speak to Amendments 53 and 57, to which I have attached my name. As a patron of Humanists UK, I want briefly to emphasise the points made in the clear, comprehensive and persuasive introduction by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. Basically, as the arrangements stand for what the Bill calls worship and religious education, there is no recognition of the fact that many parents will have an ethical and moral code that is not based on faith. As the noble Baroness said, current figures suggest that it is actually over half of our population. Why should these parents not have their values recognised and their children enabled to learn them?
I hasten to add that these amendments in no way disparage religious education. It is simply that there are other sets of beliefs, and indeed other religions than Christianity, that have a long and influential tradition, have helped to form our national identity and should not be sidelined in an education worthy of the name.
I will add only that we now live in a diverse society, which I believe the Government welcome. One corollary of that is that we need to develop and strengthen the bonds that unite us in our differences. We will not do this by neglecting the elements of our various faiths and beliefs in the education of our children. To live with each other, we need to understand each other within a framework of human rights; we need to learn to respect where our fellow citizens are coming from. I suggest that this is a better way to avoid extremism—from any side—than excluding the traditions that people value. Among those are values that establish a moral code that is not faith-based. These values are no friend to extremism and are a source of rational and compassionate analysis of the issues that confront us, whether they are environmental, democratic or furthering peace and well-being.
I hope the Minister will recognise the educational deprivation that will continue without these amendments, and accept them.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, I am supportive of the last two speeches. One of the things that I suppose I regret about the decline of collective worship is the decline of moments of collective reflection, although I am not of faith. Indeed, I am a humanist, and two years ago I was lucky enough to get married on a deserted heart-shaped island in the Orkneys at a humanist wedding. At that time, and I imagine this is still the case, I was advised by the celebrant that there are more people getting married in humanist ceremonies in Scotland than all the other faiths put together. That is a demonstration of the sense that society is changing, whether we like it or not.
I shall speak to Amendments 54 and 56 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Burt of Solihull and Lady Bakewell, and myself. Amendment 54 would require faith academies to provide an inclusive alternative to faith-based religious education for those who request it. Amendment 54 seeks to mitigate some of the issues caused by compulsory faith-based RE. It would do so by introducing a requirement for faith academies to offer those pupils who withdraw from faith-based RE a new subject called religion and world views education. This new subject would be objective, critical and pluralistic. This alternative would cover both religious perspectives and non-religious perspectives such as humanism.
We have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, the stats from the British Social Attitudes survey regarding the number of those now identifying as non-religious, non-Christian and so on. It is particularly high, at 72%, among those in the age bracket 25 to 44 —that is, those most likely to have school-age children—yet over one-third of our state-funded schools have a religious ethos, and I respect them. The vast majority of those, 99%, are Christian, and I respect that too. Indeed, in 2020 the Church of England’s own Statistics for Mission revealed that the number of places in Church of England schools now outstrips the Church’s entire worshipping community.
The DfE’s associated memorandum declares that it is not compulsory for a child to attend a school with a religious designation, but of course this ignores the fact that, as we have heard, thousands of parents are effectively having to send their children to faith schools every year because there is no suitable alternative locally. That was definitely the case in my former constituency of South Dorset in the rural areas where many or indeed most of the village schools were Church of England schools. They did a perfectly fine job, but while you could get assistance with transport if you wanted to send your child to a different faith based-school, you certainly could not get such assistance if you wanted to send them to a comprehensive non-faith-based school if that was what in accordance with your views.
It is that kind of discrimination against people who are not of faith which I am keen to try to do something about, when we have the right opportunity to do so in an inclusive way. Amendment 54 provides a remedy. It would mean that children who do not share the religion of the school they attend will have access to an “objective, critical and pluralistic” version of the subject that does not seek to indoctrinate them into one religious perspective.
Amendment 56 would make it explicit that RE outside of faith academies must be inclusive of non-religious worldviews such as humanism, in line with what is already required by case law, and rename the subject accordingly to “religion and worldviews”. RE is a statutory subject in all schools. However, recent figures from the National Association of Teachers of Religious Education found that 50% of academies without a religious character, which make up approximately two-thirds of academies, do not meet their legal requirements to provide the subject as set out in their funding agreements. Although there are a range of reasons for this, it seems plausible to suggest that many schools—as well as pupils and their parents—see the subject as outdated and irrelevant to their lives. This is an opportunity to give the subject a shot in the arm.
I think that is why, when there was a review of the subject by the Commission on Religious Education in 2018, chaired by the Very Reverend Dr John Hall, the Dean of Westminster and former chief education officer for the Church of England, that report recommended the policy of both the RE Council and the National Association of Teachers of Religious Education: that we should do exactly this. It has been properly considered and thought through, and seems a perfectly reasonable adjustment to make, as do the amendments proposed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Whitaker.
Finally, I stress that the new “religion and worldviews education” would still reflect the fact that the religious tradition in Great Britain is, in the main, Christian. This is not at all an attempt to whitewash out teaching about religious traditions. Those are really important if we want to have an inclusive society that respects each other’s traditions and faiths. However, as I say, this amendment provides a shot in the arm for what I think is a vital subject.
The Lord Bishop of Chichester
My Lords, I speak on behalf of my colleague the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and declare his interest as chair of the National Society. I speak against Amendments 53, 54 and 56 to 58.
I strongly urge noble Lords not to support the proposal set out in Amendment 53. It is framed as a mandatory requirement. However, it is unclear what would satisfy the definition of “a meaningful alternative” for pupils. Furthermore, it does not consider the resourcing implications in terms of staff and accommodation, depending on the number of pupils opting out.
Amendments 54 and 56 provide no definition of what constitutes such an “objective, critical and pluralistic” education. This would require a much fuller consensus to be achieved about the purpose and content of the RE curriculum, which is not the purpose of the Bill—although I note the helpful observations of the noble Lord, Lord Knight, on the work done by Dr John Hall. There may be some helpful work elsewhere that could be continued from that.
The wording around acts of worship and “religious observance” in Amendment 57 is open to interpretation, which is subjective. It would be very difficult to define or apply it consistently. A prohibition as proposed under this amendment would appear excessive and it is unclear how it would be monitored.
Amendment 58’s removal of provisions may conflict with church school trust deeds and governance documents that require certain staff in a church school to have particular attributes as a genuine occupational requirement; for example, fitness and competence to teach religious education because of their religious opinions, attendance at religious worship, and/or willingness to teach in accordance with religious tenets.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
I thank the right reverend Prelate for giving way. I just want to make two points. First, does the right reverend Prelate really feel he should be persuading Ministers not to adopt these amendments when religious communities as well as non-religious communities support them? Secondly, he said that teachers must not be discriminated against if they have a requirement in their job, but the amendment allows for that very clearly. If there is an occupational requirement to have religious knowledge, that teacher will be expected to have religious knowledge, so I am unsure why the right reverend Prelate is arguing those points.
The Lord Bishop of Chichester
The points I am arguing reflect the experience and response, particularly that garnered by the National Society. It is on the basis of that that the rejection of these amendments is built. It presents for us a national picture from the Church of England.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is very useful to have the right reverend Prelate raise a religious voice against these amendments and raise some concerns. Maybe I could raise a non-religious voice with some concerns I share against these amendments.
I am particularly worried about Amendments 53 and 57 and the idea of alternative assemblies
“directed towards furthering the spiritual, moral, social and cultural education of the pupils”.
I fear this would become a secular version of religion, with all its preaching of things I do not particularly like. It was interesting that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, mentioned what is happening in Wales, where I am from. I met some teachers from Wales over the weekend and one talked about how, apparently, the alternative to religion is that we teach environmentalism—the new religion—and made that joke. What would the content of these things be?
While I am not religious and consider myself a humanist, I feel queasy because we have a problem in this country of religious illiteracy. I think we want a secular society that understands religion and shows some regard for religion and its tradition. Religion seeps into the public sphere and a lack of religious literacy can be problematic. We have seen in the last week the issue around the film “The Lady of Heaven”, which several major cinema chains have backed off from showing in a really disgraceful instance of artistic censorship. I noted that the reason given for that was that it was offensive to local Muslims, but the film was made by a Muslim filmmaker. At the very least, that could indicate that people panic in the face of religion without necessarily understanding it.
This religious illiteracy is perhaps why I have a preference—if I had to choose between them—for Amendments 54 and 56, which make some attractive points. “Religious and worldviews education” sounds more palatable. If anything, I would say, “Why not for everyone?” The amendment mentions non-religious philosophical convictions to be taught. I think all pupils, including those of religious faiths, would benefit from reading John Locke’s A Letter Concerning Toleration and understanding the philosophical roots and importance of religious freedom for a secular society, ironically, and from reading On Liberty by John Stuart Mill. This might counter, for example, the shocking events we saw in Batley, where a religious education teacher is still in hiding for his life over the allegation of blaspheming—despite the fact there is no blasphemy law. People seem to feel very queasy about calling this out or saying anything about it in this House, or in politics more generally.
I was glad to see in Amendments 54 and 56 an acknowledgement that Christianity is the predominant religion in Great Britain, because I think people have got a bit queasy about saying that for some reason. It is important to understand that the Christian tradition does not just inform faith or even a moral framework for the country, but has provided centuries of cultural imagery in art and literature. I remember, as an English teacher, standing in front of a group of A-level students and asking, “What might that apple symbolise?” I was met with blank faces because they could not understand what I meant: the apple did not symbolise anything to them. I do not think that it was entirely my poor teaching that did that; when I explained it, it took quite a lot to get there because they were unfamiliar with the symbol. I would like a greater understanding of the traditions, history and philosophy of religion, if anything.
Finally, I worry about some of the comments made that assumed that people of faith or introducing pupils to faith—within faith schools, for example—equals indoctrination. That is the wrong way to see it. I was brought up in a Catholic school but it backfired on them terribly, which made me think that people are not indoctrinated in that way.
It is also wrong to associate religion with extremism per se, or to imagine that the problems of political extremism that we might see in society are to do with religion—goodness knows that there is plenty of secular extremism about. We should also be concerned about a mood of intolerance to Christianity, or even a squeamishness, with people feeling embarrassed by Christianity in this country; I do not think that that is particularly helpful. Although I have some sympathy with two sets of the amendments rather than the others, we should be careful not to demonise religion, religious people or faith in our aspiration to widen education and give more options for non-religious families.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
I reassure the noble Baroness that Amendments 53 and 57 apply to children who have already opted out of religious worship, as is perfectly legal and has been the custom for some time. Is she reassured by the fact that it is highly likely that John Locke and John Stuart Mill would be taught as part of a moral and ethical basis in any decent education, I would have thought?
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I am familiar with what is happening in education at the moment, and John Locke and JS Mill are nowhere near it. The point I was suggesting is that, if they were, they should be taught to everyone. Opting out is fine; on other amendments, we are going to go on to talk about parents opting out of different things—that is fine. I was worried about secular assemblies; that filled me with horror. Maybe children could go and listen to some classical music or something that would be more productive. That was my concern on that matter.
Lord Lucas (Con)
I have a great deal of sympathy for what the noble Baroness has just said. The phrase that comes to my mind is, “Better the devil you know”—if I am allowed to refer to the Church of England in that way. We know that religion is an immensely powerful and deep force for people. The Church of England is very civilised and easy to get on with; it is part of our community and history. That is the right way, and the right environment, for that part of children’s education.
If you are sending your child to a school run by the Church of England or the Catholic Church, for goodness’ sake, you know what you are getting. Although I have come out the far side of religion some long time ago, I very happily sent a couple of my children to schools with a strong Church of England ethos, and it did not do them any harm any more than it did me harm to go to church twice a day for 15 years of my life. Religion is not a poisonous thing; it is an enriching thing. When I get to go to a decent wedding, I bellow the hymns with enthusiasm and deep memory. I am sure that a lot that I have experienced enriches my life. We should not look at this as something harmful; it is something that we are, by and large, all used to and live with, and is a positive force in our country and lives. We should celebrate it and not try to shy away from it.
The Lord Bishop of Chichester
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for her comments. There are two things. I am very aware of the important statement that the Queen made in her Diamond Jubilee about the vocation of the Church of England, which is not to promote itself but to promote faith, the practice of faith and respect for people of faith. The noble Baroness’s comments on religious literacy are very timely, particularly if we are taking seriously the education of our young people as they face not only a global issue in which religious literacy is of increasing importance but also, of course, as we prepare them for a pluralistic society here in England, in Britain, where, once again, religious literacy is increasingly important because of the range of places from which people come and the faiths that they bring with them. I greatly value the comments—thank you.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I will just make a very brief contribution. I have found this a very helpful, thoughtful debate which will merit reading in Hansard tomorrow to get some of the finer points.
I want to say a word or two about Amendment 54 and Amendment 56, which my noble friend Lady Burt has signed. It is based on my understanding of what the amendments are saying. As I read them, these amendments are not aimed at diluting the approaches of faith schools or undermining their rights to maintain the faith ethos taught in them. They simply mean that students who opt out of faith-based RE and all students at non-religious schools have a more inclusive subject available to them. That is my understanding, so I would be grateful for the Minister’s confirmation.
Can I add two questions to the Minister? As I understand it, these amendments would not actually change the legal position but place existing case law into statute. In 2015, in the case of Fox v Secretary of State for Education, the High Court ruled against the DfE and in favour of three humanist parents and their children who challenged the Government’s relegation of non-religious world views in the new subject content for GCSE religious studies. The court stated that religious and non-religious world views, such as humanism, must be afforded equal respect in the RE curriculum. I have concluded that the amendments would simply ensure that equal respect becomes a statutory requirement. Does the Minister see it in the same way?
Secondly, can I build on a point made earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, in relation to recent legislation in Wales? That has not been particularly debated this evening. Maybe we should look at it in greater detail because I think it is important to consider, and I hope the Minister will be considering it in the context of this Bill. In looking more carefully at that, does the Minister think that there may be a case for legislation in England being similar to that which applies in Wales? Does she think it might be helpful to try to build on it? I am looking forward to a response from the Minister about that because I often get worried about the United Kingdom having key differences on matters of approach in law on matters such as this which seem to me would benefit from a single legal understanding.
That is two legal questions. I acknowledge that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, pointed out that, in Amendments 54 and 56, the statement is clearly made that the religious traditions in Great Britain are, in the main, Christian. I am glad that, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Burt, who was the first signatory to the second of these amendments, that point has been fully understood.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for asking those questions about the good things that we are doing in Wales, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for raising them initially. RE becomes RVE in Wales this September—religion, values and ethics. There is a great deal to learn from what the devolved nations are doing.
The place of religion and belief in the education system is incredibly complex—the debate this evening has demonstrated that—coming from a time when our society was much less diverse and much more religious than it is now. The amendments are targeted at ensuring that children of no faith do not miss out if they opt out of collective worship. They should not have to sit at the back of the classroom while everyone else is in assembly; they need a meaningful alternative provided for them during this time. These are admirable aims, to ensure that cultural education is balanced and non-exclusionary; in a modern and increasingly secular society, where children are exposed to all kinds of things, particularly in the online sphere, it should be a right that we promote. We should provide an excellent opportunity to discuss a variety of topics and issues. It is important to break down stigmas, and non-religious children in faith schools should not be made to feel left out if they opt out. The Government should think carefully about how to encourage this here. The amendments and the work in Wales are a way forward to do this.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for this thoughtful debate, as we reach the end of our second day in Committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, rolls her eyes at me. She may have anticipated that, while I shall not quibble with the wording of her amendments, I shall disappoint her in my response. I also wanted to tell the noble Lord, Lord Knight, that he is making me increasingly jealous of the time that he spends on the Orkney Islands, and the celebrations and reflections that he gets to do there.
I turn first to Amendment 53, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher and Lady Whitaker. The Government view collective worship as central to life in a school with a religious character. The right to withdrawal from collective worship is also important, as it provides choice for families as to whether or not their children participate. The amendment seeks, where children are withdrawn from collective worship, to provide an alternative assembly aimed at furthering the spiritual, moral, social and cultural—SMSC for short—education of pupils in schools with a religious character. The Government do not believe that the amendment is necessary, as all state-funded schools are already required to ensure the SMSC development of their pupils. Collective worship is one way to promote SMSC education, but there are areas of the curriculum in which schools can meet this requirement, such as religious education, history and citizenship.
On Amendment 54, when children are admitted to a school with a religious designation, their parents are aware of this and expect it to be part of the school’s ethos and culture. The Government support the right of such schools to provide religious education that aligns with their religious character. We therefore believe that there is no need for the amendment. I am unaware of significant demand from parents who withdraw their children from religious education to have this replaced by education representative of a wider range of religious and non-religious beliefs. There are many examples of academies with a religious designation taking care to ensure that their provision, to some degree, reflects a diversity of religions. We also expect schools to promote fundamental British values, which includes encouraging mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs, including non-religious beliefs. While acknowledging that the intention of this amendment is to widen choice in the teaching of RE, we believe that it is unnecessary because RE will likely already include the concept of non-religious world views.
Amendment 56 relates to academy schools without a religious character. Again, the Government believe this amendment is unnecessary because RE may already include the concepts of religious and non-religious belief. On religious belief, academies without a religious designation must already teach RE, reflecting the fact that the religious traditions in Great Britain are, in the main, Christian, and must take account of the teachings of the other principal religions in Great Britain. On nonreligious belief, this can be covered within RE. There is no obligation for schools to give equal time to the teaching of each religion or the teaching of nonreligious worldviews.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, asked me two specific questions. On the point about not giving equal time to nonreligious worldviews, we are talking about the same judgment, but I shall write to him on the specific point, and on the point relating to Wales—although, if I understood him, it might rather reflect the devolved nature of education in Wales rather than a different legal approach. I shall reflect on Hansard and make sure I write.
On Amendment 57, collective worship is important in encouraging pupils to reflect on the concept of belief and its role in the traditions and values of this country. The right of withdrawal from collective worship provides families who do not want their children to participate to withdraw from it in whole or in part. As I have set out, there are already plentiful opportunities for schools to further children’s spiritual, moral, social and cultural education regardless of religion or belief. This includes holding nonreligious assemblies, so the Government do not believe that this amendment is necessary.
Amendment 58 would repeal specific sections from the Schools Standards and Framework Act 1998. This would have the effect of removing statutory freedoms and protections regarding the recruitment, promotion and remuneration of teachers by reference to their religious practice, belief or knowledge at academies with a religious character. The Government support the freedoms and protections associated with academies with a religious character, including their freedoms to continue to appoint, promote and remunerate their teachers and deal with their employment with reference to the relevant religion or religious denomination. The Government do not intend to change this position for any school with a religious character, including academies. We continue to provide equivalent protections for academies to those available to maintained schools.
As I say, I thought this was an interesting and reflective debate, but I am afraid that the Government do not agree with the amendments tabled by noble Lords. I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
I thank noble Lords who have spoken in support of these amendments and I thank the Minister for her response, although it seemed to me that the departmental response, if I can call it that, did not deal with the inconsistencies and inadequacies in the law, and so on. Never mind, we can come back to that.
I will just say that “Better the devil you know” is fine if you are a Christian, but it is not what the majority of people or the majority of children in this country would want, because the devil they know is something other than Christian worship. It seems to me that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, agreed with Amendment 57, even though she bent over backwards to say she did not, because of course we are all very happy with religious education and information; what we are talking about here is worship.
Anyway, with those few provisos, I am very grateful to everybody who is here at this late hour, especially our two Ministers, who have been here for a very long time. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.