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 Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
The Government work to steer young people away from crime through tough enforcement and dedicated programmes. We have supported the police with investment of over £170 million in the areas worst affected by violence, and on stop-and-search powers. A further £170 million will support violence reduction units, which are fundamental in tackling the root causes of violence.
Anna Firth
Knife crime and antisocial behaviour is, sadly, all too prevalent in Southend, as the weekend’s events showed. Our excellent local police want state-of-the-art, portable electronic knife polls, which are cheaper and more effective than knife arch systems. Does the Secretary of State agree that having those in place by the holiday period must be a priority for Southend police?
Priti Patel
May I congratulate my hon. Friend on the assiduous way in which she has made representations to me and the Home Office directly on this issue? She has a great relationship with Essex police, which is a very robust police force on this issue. She highlighted a practical solution in terms of how knife crime can be and is being addressed through knife polls, and I have seen in her constituency some of the exceptional work taking place on that.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
The National Crime Agency is responsible for tackling the organised crime gangs who drive up so much of the knife crime, violence and drug abuse that we see on our streets. Why, then, has the Home Secretary asked it to draw up plans for 20% cuts?
Priti Patel
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. There are no plans to cut National Crime Agency funding. Its budget has increased every year since 2019-20 and, as part of the 2021 spending review, we secured a settlement over the period of more than £810 million. For the benefit of the Labour party, there are no plans to cut NCA funding.
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
This week, we mark Refugee Week. The UK has a long, proud history of welcoming refugees and the Government have introduced two new, safe routes for Ukrainian nationals—the Ukraine family scheme and the Homes for Ukraine scheme—as part of our commitment to the people of Ukraine during the awful conflict with Russia. Arrivals under those schemes will be able to live and work in the UK for up to three years and, of course, they will have full and unrestricted access to benefits, healthcare, employment and other support. We have also introduced the Ukraine extension scheme, permitting Ukrainians already in the UK to extend their stays.
Robert Largan
I am proud that a large number of my constituents have welcomed Ukrainian families into their homes as part of the Homes for Ukraine scheme, and I am pleased to have been able to help a number of those families now living in the High Peak to navigate the visa application process. However, some of those children have had their applications for local schools rejected. May I urge the Home Secretary to have urgent conversations with the Department for Education on solving this issue so that children who are here having fled a war zone can continue their education?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend raises an important point. If I may, on behalf of all of us in Government, I will thank and commend all members of the British public who have been supporting our schemes. It is important that we do everything we can across Government to support the education of children in our schools. In April, the Secretary of State for Education got in touch with every single local authority chief executive officer as well as directors of children’s services to outline clearly the requirements on schools and the funding coming from Government. I will of course pick up any points that my hon. Friend has from his constituency and raise them directly.
Mr Holden
Does my right hon. Friend agree that our compassionate approach to refugees from Ukraine, Syria and Afghanistan can be maintained with public confidence only if we are also robust in dealing with illegal channel crossings, and the human traffickers who peddle in human misery?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct: this is about deterring those dangerous crossings, deterring people smugglers, and carrying on with the long-standing and assiduous work that is taking place through our intelligence and security services and the National Crime Agency, and also upstream. This is about public confidence in the system. We are a generous country, but to maintain that means that we take action, so that we can be fair to those who come to our country, and firm on those who, quite frankly, are exploiting our country.
John Lamont
More than 70 Ukrainians have now found a place to call home in the safety of the Scottish Borders through the UK Government’s Homes for Ukraine scheme. What support is being offered to local authorities in Scotland to assist their new residents?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend raises an important point about local authority support. This is a whole Government effort, as well as a UK-wide effort to support families and the Homes for Ukraine scheme. With that, the Government have been clear, as has the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, about funding through that Department of more than £10,500 per person arriving under the scheme. We must ensure that we are supporting local authorities, and that the scheme is fair and equitable. In addition, we are ensuring that local authorities undertake all the necessary checks and safeguarding provisions that are required.
Dehenna Davison
Last Wednesday I was honoured to welcome my constituents Mark Rumble and Lucy Needham to Parliament, alongside Alina, the Ukrainian refugee who they are hosting. Mark and Lucy praised the ease and speed of the visa application process, but raised some concerns that they were given very little information about how to support Alina in settling in with things such as registering with a GP, completing her biometric checks, and getting a national insurance number. Will the Home Secretary consider Mark’s suggestion of producing a clear and comprehensive welcome pack for every Ukrainian refugee, so that they and their host families can ensure that the refugee settles in as quickly as possible?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend raises an important question, as well as some practical points that are constantly being addressed through the scheme. Welcome packs have been provided, and the Departments for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, for Education, and of Health and Social Care have, through local authorities, received support and guidance from central Government. I thank my hon. Friend’s constituent for what he is doing, and for his suggestions. Much of that information is on gov.uk, but if there is more we can do—it sounds as if there is—we will join this up, and I will pick up that representation directly.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Last week the Home Affairs Committee met Ukrainian MPs who told us that they had had to travel 11 hours to get their visa from the visa application centre in Poland, then 11 hours back, and then again to have the visa stamped. They wanted me to ask the Home Secretary about young people and children travelling with grandparents and elder siblings, who are not eligible for visas under the Homes for Ukraine scheme. Will the Home Office look at that again, because all the necessary paperwork is there to ensure that those children are travelling with their parents’ consent?
Priti Patel
The right hon. Lady and many other colleagues have raised this point over recent weeks and months. We are looking at this issue, and a lot of work is taking place across the Home Office with the Minister for Refugees and DLUHC, regarding the safeguarding aspects. We are going to make changes and, without pre-empting any of those now, a lot of work is taking place, primarily because the focus has to be on the safety and wellbeing of those children. We must ensure that they get here in the right way and are supported. We will report back on that issue, because a lot of work is taking place on it right now.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The small village of Golspie in Sutherland will shortly be hosting seven families from Ukraine. There is no lack of people in the Highlands volunteering to put up those good people, who are getting as far as the UK but seem to be getting blocked in hotels and not getting to the families in the Highlands. Will the Home Secretary talk to the Scottish Government with a view to sorting out that logjam?
Priti Patel
Absolutely. If the hon. Gentleman would like to share any details with me regarding where the barriers are, we will definitely pick that up. The whole point about Homes for Ukraine, and the work across the whole Government, is that where there are bottlenecks we must unblock them and ensure a safe passage. We must ensure that people are welcomed in the right way, so that they can be settled and their needs met as soon as they come to our country.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
Further to the point from my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), my constituent contacted me on 9 May regarding a child trying to enter Ukraine with a legal guardian. Her visa has been blocked because she has been classified as an unaccompanied minor, because she is travelling with a legal guardian and not a parent. My office has raised this with the Home Office and I have written directly to the Secretary of State. Please can she look into this case urgently?
Priti Patel
Yes, I will pick up this case directly following questions today. As I have said, there are some measures coming together now on this, because we have to do it in the right way, but I will come back to the hon. Lady.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
On Friday, when I visited my local food bank, I met a young woman who had fled Ukraine with her two-year-old son. While she is waiting for her universal credit payments to come through, she has been left without anything, and she was queueing to get food and nappies. How can this be right when they have fled the horror of war? What will the Home Secretary do with the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that every Ukrainian refugee who arrives here gets the support they need immediately?
Priti Patel
The hon. Lady has raised not only a very serious case, but some of the challenges that people are facing. She has asked me directly what I will do with the DWP. In fact, there is a cross-Government taskforce on this, bringing all Departments together—it is not just DWP. The hon. Lady has already heard me speak about DLUHC and the money that has gone directly to local authorities to support individuals. If I can pick up with her post-questions directly on this case, we will follow that up, but I also think she has illustrated how the system needs to come together at a local level.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
It was a great privilege to join the Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), last week in meeting Ukrainian MPs who had arrived in London after meetings in Dublin. Given nobody had checked their passports between visa-free Ireland and here, they rightly asked, “How on earth can the UK’s visa scheme possibly be justified on the grounds of security when Ukrainians can properly travel to Ireland visa-free and then onwards to here?” I emphasise that their main concern was this lack of a policy to ensure that children accompanied by relatives other than parents can come to the UK. I recognise that the Home Secretary has said that this is being looked at, but I also understand the policy has been promised for some time—can we get it urgently?
Priti Patel
In response to the hon. Gentleman’s latter point, the policy is being worked on urgently and it is across Departments right now, which is why it is taking some time to come together, but we will report back on that. On the issue of travelling from Ireland, as we have debated in this House many times, it is right that we hold up the integrity of the checks in our systems, and this Government have done that consistently for all overseas nationals coming to the United Kingdom. That has been applied consistently, even during the Afghanistan crisis, and that is this Government’s policy.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rachel Maclean)
The beating crime plan set out the Government’s enduring commitment to driving down antisocial behaviour. Home Office statutory guidance supports local areas to make effective use of the powers available to them. That includes advice on the community trigger—an important safety net for victims —and we have also provided funding for local initiatives to tackle antisocial behaviour through the safer streets fund.
Robbie Moore
As the Home Secretary will be aware from her recent visit to Keighley, where she met our hard-working neighbourhood policing team, antisocial behaviour is unfortunately an undeniable problem and is having a detrimental impact on many businesses, residents and those going about their day-to-day lives. I was therefore delighted to see the Government launch round 4 of the safer streets fund with a specific focus on antisocial behaviour. Can my hon. Friend confirm that this will help drive a positive change in Keighley and beyond?
Rachel Maclean
I very much thank my hon. Friend for his question. I know that my colleague the Home Secretary very much enjoyed her visit, and we all wish to thank the neighbourhood policing team for all that they do. We are aware of the impact that antisocial behaviour has, and that is why this Government have introduced round 4 of the safer streets fund, as my hon. Friend said. That is a practical set of initiatives to tackle that behaviour, and it includes improved street lighting, increased CCTV and training to change attitudes and behaviours, all of which tackle antisocial behaviour. I expect to see some real change in his area.
Shaun Bailey
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her response. Unfortunately, antisocial behaviour continues to blight my residents in Wednesbury, Oldbury and Tipton, nowhere more so than in the Laburnum Road area of Tipton which has seen a spike in reports. Will my hon. Friend touch a little more on the cross-working that she is doing, particularly with stakeholders in the Black Country, such as West Midlands police and Sandwell Council, to ensure we really do have a community-led approach to tackling antisocial behaviour?
Rachel Maclean
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that this is a multi-agency and community approach. Yes, of course, the police are responsible for tackling and dealing with antisocial behaviour, which is why we are providing £695 million funding to West Midlands police, an increase of £40 million. The force has also been able to recruit over 1,000 additional officers. It is also the case that we have provided the police with additional powers. It is vital that the police work with their local police and crime commissioner and other agencies with responsibility for tackling this behaviour.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
In Bristol, we have a successful e-scooter rental pilot, but we also see people using e-scooters illegally and using rental e-scooters on the pavement. That can be very scary for people trying to walk along the pavement while that is happening. I know the Government are looking to legalise and regulate private ownership, but how will the Home Office team work with the Department for Transport team to ensure the police have the powers to stop them being misused in a way that scares people who are just trying to go about their daily business?
Rachel Maclean
The hon. Lady speaks of an issue that both she and I have some experience of—when I was in the Department for Transport, she was my shadow. The Department is introducing new legislation to deal with some of these issues. Until that is on the statute book, however, it is the responsibility of the police to deal with the issue, and they have clear guidance: riding an e-scooter on the pavement is illegal in all circumstances. We welcome new forms of transport, but of course they must be introduced safely and ridden responsibly.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
The hon. Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore) is right to ask the Government what they are doing to tackle antisocial behaviour. In his constituency total recorded crime went up by 59% from 2011-12 to 2020-21, which highlights the Conservative Government’s track record, a damning one at that. No wonder crime is up. Action on antisocial behaviour is down since his Government took out 7,000 neighbourhood police officers—a cut of 30%—so the 1,000 the Minister just mentioned does not quite cut it. Will the Minister tell the House why the Government do not believe in neighbourhood policing, as they have clearly given up on it with the cuts they have made?
Rachel Maclean
The hon. Lady is completely wrong in the contention she puts forward to the House. This Government introduced the beating crime plan, which puts tackling antisocial behaviour at its heart. This is the Government who are increasing funding to the police, bringing more officers on to the streets to tackle this and other issues. I remind her that her area in West Yorkshire has 589 additional officers and we have increased funding by £31 million. It is for local police and crime commissioners, including the Labour Mayor of West Yorkshire, to use that funding and the powers they have been given to tackle this issue.
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
The Minister for Security and Borders (Damian Hinds)
Our national security is the first responsibility and priority of the Government, and we are ensuring that our world-class security and intelligence services and counterterrorism police are supported in their work with the tools and the legislative framework they need to keep us safe. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to them for all they do.
Chris Clarkson
When it comes to the Rwanda policy, the Labour party is all over the shop. The left hand does not know what the far left hand is doing. The other day the Leader of the Opposition’s spokesman said that they could not rule out maintaining this policy, while the shadow immigration Minister told the BBC that they would definitely scrap it. While the Labour party works out if it has a policy at all, can I ask my right hon. Friend for an assurance that we will be working to break the vile business model of people traffickers by making sure that the Rwanda flights get off the ground soon?
Damian Hinds
My hon. Friend is quite right that we hear plenty of opposing from the Opposition, but not much proposing: they complain, but they do not have a plan. Our partnership with Rwanda is strong and supports a proportionate, humane approach. We are determined to deter the wicked people smugglers and the great damage that they bring to human life.
Paul Holmes
The MI5 director general recently said:
“It must be right that Parliament looks at modernising the powers the State has to protect us all from the full range of today’s threats.”
Can my right hon. Friend confirm that we are heeding the director general’s advice, and that our National Security Bill will protect us from a range of emerging threats, including cyber-attacks and interference in elections?
Damian Hinds
I can. May I take the opportunity to thank my hon. Friend for all his work in support of our national security while he was Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Home Secretary in the Department?
The National Security Bill will keep pace with the changing threat and will make the UK an ever harder target for states that seek to conduct hostile acts against us. It will be an offence for foreign powers to improperly interfere with the UK’s democracy. The Bill will address the serious threat from state-backed attacks on assets, including sites, data and infrastructure critical to the UK’s safety or interests.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Has the Home Secretary considered the dangers to freedom of the press that the National Security Bill presents? Many of my constituents are concerned that measures that could prevent journalists from publishing stories of public interest are undemocratic.
Damian Hinds
No, I do not see a danger to journalistic freedoms. Indeed, the Government are taking stringent steps to ensure, for example, that in the Online Safety Bill journalistic rights and freedoms are absolutely to the fore, because of the vital and irreplaceable role that a free and sometimes boisterous media plays in underpinning and challenging us in our democracy.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
Canada, one of our Five Eyes partners, recently announced sanctions against Alexander Lebedev as one of 14 people who
“have directly enabled Vladimir Putin’s senseless war in Ukraine and bear responsibility for the pain and suffering of the people of Ukraine.”
I have asked this question of the Government six times now, but I have not had anything resembling an answer: did the Prime Minister meet Alexander Lebedev without officials and without close protection during the Salisbury poisonings in April 2018—yes or no?
Damian Hinds
I do not know the detailed contents of either individual’s diary. What I can tell the hon. Lady and the House is that this Government have acted on sanctions against Putin-linked elites—the people who have propped up and supported that regime—without fear or favour. That extends to more than 1,000 individuals, entities and subsidiaries, and we will do more as required.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
Our immigration system works in the interests of our whole United Kingdom by covering a broad range of occupations across many sectors for firms looking to attract the talent that they need, while ensuring that the domestic labour market is supported—yet recruitment issues are not unique to the UK, and immigration must not be seen as an alternative to improved pay, conditions and training for key workers.
Wendy Chamberlain
There is a severe shortage of care workers around the UK. In St Andrews in my constituency, a social care business had to shut down recently because of staffing issues. My inbox is increasingly full of messages from people who are waiting for care-at-home packages. One way of helping would be to allow asylum seekers to work while their claims are being processed: it would allow them to support themselves and would mitigate the worst of the shortages. Will the Secretary of State and the Minister consider that?
Kevin Foster
That is an interesting one. Those whose asylum claim has been outstanding for more than a year can take jobs on the shortage occupations list, which has included care workers since February. One of the slight issues, of course, is that until very recently, 31 out of the 32 local authority areas in Scotland, including the hon. Lady’s, refused to be part of the dispersal accommodation system. Now that we have made the change to full dispersal, some of those people will actually be living in those areas.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
If I give the Minister the details, will he kindly take a personal interest in the unusual plight of two young Russian charity volunteers who are now stranded in my constituency through no fault of their own? They are not supporters of President Putin. They have the opportunity to work as care workers, but in their present plight they cannot do so. They cannot be the only people caught up in such a situation. I would be very grateful if the Government looked sympathetically on their plight.
Kevin Foster
My right hon. Friend will appreciate that I cannot give comments and pledges from the Dispatch Box, but I am very happy to meet him, and he highlights a valid point. Russia is not Putin. Putin likes to say that he embodies everything Russian, but he does not. There are plenty of Russians who have suffered under his regime and are vehemently opposed to his illegal and disgraceful actions in Ukraine.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
The reality out in the country is that we have labour shortages across multiple sectors, 1.3 million job vacancies, the most persistent post-pandemic drop in employment in the G7, operations not being carried out in our hospitals, restaurants and the hospitality industry being unable to recruit staff, and a shortage of drivers to drive produce around the country. Why will the Minister not act pragmatically and immediately, introduce more work visas where are there shortages, lift the ban on asylum seekers working and have an independent review of the impact of ending freedom of movement?
Kevin Foster
The hon. Member might benefit from taking some time to look at the labour markets across most of the developed world, including the European Union. He will see that shortages in many areas, such as hospitality, are not unique to the United Kingdom. I find interesting his calls for the resurrection of free movement, given what we understand his party’s emerging policy to be.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
UK Visas and Immigration is prioritising applications in response to the humanitarian crisis caused by the invasion of Ukraine, so applications for other visas are taking longer to process, particularly when combined with surging demand globally for visitor visas. We understand the impact of delays to customers, so resources are being returned visa routes impacted by these prioritisation decisions, with a focus on visit, work and study routes. We will also prioritise any compelling or compassionate cases.
Greg Clark
I recognise the extraordinary efforts that the Department has made to process tens of thousands of visas for Ukrainians, and I pay tribute to the staff who have based themselves in Portcullis House to provide updates to Members. My office is dealing with many applications from people from other countries, such as Afghanistan and India, and they are not getting the updates and information that applicants from Ukraine are getting. Will the Minister consider applying some of the positive lessons to make sure that other applicants at least know that they are not being forgotten, and so that they get updates on their cases?
Kevin Foster
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question, and I know the team in Portcullis House will appreciate his praise. We are looking at the learnings from the hub-style approach in Portcullis House, which I think has been useful. Feedback from across the House has been very positive about its ability to chase up casework for Members. As we modernise our immigration system, we are also looking at how to give people an experience like that on our modernised routes—for example, the skilled worker route and applications from European economic area nationals via AUK2—which provide a range of updates automatically without applicants having to ask for them, and we are considering how we can apply that when hon. Members or customers get in touch. We want to make the process much more automated, so that there is less need for people to request updates.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
Across March, April and May, Her Majesty’s Passport Office completed the processing of approximately 3 million passport applications, with 98.5% of those from the UK being completed within the published processing time of up to 10 weeks.
Richard Thomson
It is quite remarkable, is it not, that six days on from an Opposition day debate where the Minister was asked that very question three times and failed to give a figure for the size of the passport backlog, he is still unable to give us an answer? I put it to him that perhaps the thing that would most cheer those who are languishing in that backlog—the one official piece of documentation that he could ensure is issued quickly—is his own ministerial P45.
Kevin Foster
As we saw last week, those who have nothing to offer by way of policy like to go personal. To help the hon. Member, the question was about the proportion of passport applications received. He got an answer to it, but his supplementary makes it clear that he has no ideas of his own to offer.
Deidre Brock
The Public and Commercial Services Union, which represents the staff at Her Majesty’s Passport Office, has commented that the backlog is due to a number of issues including
“lack of staff, poor management and failures”
on the part of contractors. Rather than blaming staff or suggesting more privatisation, will the UK Government meet union representatives in order to learn what action is needed to ensure that the Passport Office is properly funded and staffed?
Kevin Foster
We are certainly grateful for the hard work that staff are putting in, and, as I said last week, it is a pity that we are seeing their efforts being rubbished for political ends. We have been recruiting more staff at the Passport Office and investing in the modernisation of processes, and we engage regularly with senior HMPO officials, as well as ensuring that union officials can have their say. We should bear in mind the current record output from the Passport Office, which is dealing with a surge of applications. I must say that it is striking to note the sudden interest expressed by Opposition Members who said very little about this last year.
Patricia Gibson
Civil servants working in the Passport Office are under huge pressure, and staff morale is reported to be understandably at an all-time low, owing to a lack of Government preparation for the up to 9 million passport applications or renewals expected following lockdown. Meanwhile, my constituents face intolerable delays and the prospect of missing much-needed holidays and family events. We have been promised repeatedly in this Chamber that things will improve, but the 10-week target continues to be too often missed. How much longer must we wait for passport offices to be fully staffed and resourced, so that my constituents are not subjected to yet another aspect of Backlog Britain?
Kevin Foster
Dearie me! In fact, we have been increasing the number of staff at the Passport Office rather than reducing it as the hon. Lady has implied. We have dealt with 3 million applications in three months, and soon we will have dealt with more in six months than we did in the whole of last year. It was fairly obvious that 5 million passports had not been renewed during the pandemic, and we started to plan for this last year. In April 2021, we changed and clarified the service standard and began preparations to deal with the surge. We hear these attacks from Opposition Members, but what we never hear from them is an idea.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
A month ago, a dozen passport cases a day were pinging into my office. That number has now fallen to just two or three a week, and my caseworker Zach and I are very grateful for the improvement that the Home Office has brought about. However, once those passports are handed over by the Home Office to the private delivery companies, can the Home Office do more to ensure that each one reaches the intended household rather than a random neighbour, a random bush or indeed a random river, which is where these passports seem to end up?
Kevin Foster
It is concerning to hear of those examples, because there are clear standards and procedures for how passports are delivered: they cannot, for example, just be left in a communal area. We have engaged DHL, which is normally our international agent for domestic deliveries, and have also used Royal Mail to return documents. However, I should be interested to hear some specific examples from my hon. Friend, and I am grateful for his comment that he and his caseworker have noticed improvements in recent weeks.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
I know that the Minister has worked hard to reduce the backlog, and I am grateful to him for that, but, as I am sure he knows, there are still some issues. Can he tell us what proportion of Passport Office staff are back in the office, and, while he is at it, can he help me with the case of Wendy, who is still waiting for a passport? Her father died suddenly abroad, and in order to attend his funeral she needs to have her passport today. After the Minister has finished his duties in the House, would he mind helping me to chase up Wendy’s case so that she can try to get to her father’s funeral?
Kevin Foster
As we have said a couple of times before at the Dispatch Box, people involved in the passport operation have been back in the office for some time. However, we are happy to expedite cases like that of my hon. Friend’s constituent, when there are reasons for travel that are both compelling and compassionate. I am very sorry to hear of the bereavement that Wendy has suffered, and will be happy to look into how we can get the passport expedited for her.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
Home Office staff can be proud of the work that they do to keep our country safe, but also proud of the large amount of operational work that we have just been discussing. The Home Office has launched a five-year plan to deliver an engaged, motivated and productive workforce, which will include new efficiencies, new technology, and ways of helping staff to improve their performance.
Mr Sheerman
That sounds very impressive until we come to my part of West Yorkshire, where I talk to the police, to probation officers, to prison staff and to firefighters. Their morale is at rock bottom. Whatever the Home Secretary is doing in the Department, will she for goodness’ sake get out into the country and meet real people, who are depressed and demoralised by this Government’s cutbacks?
Priti Patel
Can I politely say to the hon. Gentleman that getting out and about the country is not an issue for me? I meet police officers, fire workers, representatives from local councils and local authorities and all the partners we work with, and that cuts across the criminal justice system as well. I also do a great deal of work with victims and others to keep our country safe and deliver vital public services, and it is important that we respect them, support them, empower them and pay tribute to them. I would be very happy to come to the hon. Gentleman’s patch and meet some of the people he has referred to.
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tom Pursglove)
As the House will be aware, despite the detailed deliberations and judgments received in various domestic courts that heard the case, the European Court of Human Rights’ out-of-hours judge granted last-minute interim measures. The Government are seeking greater transparency from the ECHR on the reasons for its judgment. A full judicial review is expected to be heard in July. I want to be clear that this partnership is fully compliant with our international obligations.
Suzanne Webb
Unbelievably, £5 million a day is being spent on housing asylum seekers in hotels. That is money that my constituents would rather see invested in the west midlands—for example, supporting the 1,500 additional police officers that the Department has helped to recruit across the region. Can my hon. Friend confirm that he will press ahead with our Rwanda partnership, to end our dependency on this expensive accommodation and crack down on the people smuggling gangs once and for all?
Tom Pursglove
My hon. Friend absolutely hits the nail on the head in explaining why our new plan for immigration is so important, and we are determined to deliver on it. It is a comprehensive package of reform, including the Rwanda proposals, and we are going to get on and deliver on it. The Prime Minister has said that we will work through these issues, and that is precisely what we are now doing.
Mr Speaker
We now come to the Scottish National party spokesperson, Stuart C. McDonald.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
On World Refugee Day, we pay tribute to all the fantastic refugees who have made utterly amazing contributions to our society and who were, thank goodness, able to have their claims heard here and rebuild their lives here instead of being dumped and offloaded thousands of miles away. The full hearing on whether the Home Secretary’s policy in Rwanda is lawful will take place in July, as the Minister said. Surely, if the Home Secretary has an iota of respect for the UNHCR and the importance of the refugee convention, she will confirm that she will wait for the outcome of that hearing instead of gambling on another reckless, degrading and expensive attempt at these removals.
Tom Pursglove
The hon. Gentleman will recognise that we do not comment on ongoing legal proceedings. We have had this debate many times, but what I would say is that every day that this new partnership is not in operation is a day that people continue to risk their lives in the channel. That is not acceptable or sustainable, which is why we are taking the steps we are.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rachel Maclean)
This Government are committed to tackling violence against women and girls, including domestic abuse, and that is why we introduced the landmark Domestic Abuse Act 2021. In March this year we published our tackling domestic abuse plan, backed by more than £230 million of funding, including £75 million for tackling perpetrators and multi-year funding for interventions and support. The plan also includes expanding the roll-out of Domestic Abuse Matters training for police officers and, importantly, projects to protect children.
Aaron Bell
I welcome the tackling domestic abuse plan, which focuses on the perpetrators of a disgusting and destructive crime. Can I also stress the need for prevention and particularly for educating the next generation of children in schools about the importance of healthy relationships so that we do not continue to see this in the future? Can the Minister confirm that that is included in the plan as well?
Rachel Maclean
My hon. Friend is right that prevention is the first pillar of our plan. We have set out how we are tackling perpetrators with specific programmes that are proven to prevent this disgusting crime from happening in the first place. It has to start very early, which is why relationships, sex and health education is now a statutory part of the curriculum so that children are taught the importance of respectful relationships.
Jerome Mayhew
Reports of domestic abuse now account for 24% of all calls to Norfolk police. Is the criminal justice system the right route for all these calls? If not, will the Minister set out how more appropriate steps can be taken to free up police time?
Rachel Maclean
My hon. Friend raises an important point. As I said in my previous answer, tackling perpetrators is a vital part of our work, but our response goes wider than just the criminal justice system. That is why we are funding perpetrator interventions that reach out to tackle some of these unhealthy behaviours at source. We are investing more than £75 million over three years to achieve that end.
Mr Speaker
We now come to the shadow Minister, Jess Phillips.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
In July 2021, the Government announced that a domestic homicide sentencing review will look at unfairness in the sentencing of intimate partner domestic homicides. According to Counting Dead Women, at least 105 women have since been killed. The family and friends of these women face immeasurable pain from their loss, so where is the domestic homicide sentencing review, which is now six months late? For the sake of the women who will definitely be murdered next week, may I ask why there is such a delay?
Rachel Maclean
The hon. Lady will know from our many debates in the House on this issue that we set out our holistic response to domestic abuse in the domestic abuse plan. If she looks at that, she will see all the work we are doing on the domestic homicide review. This matter crosses a number of Departments, and I am happy to write to her on the specific issue, but we are bearing down on people who murder their partners. That is why we introduced the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, why we are reforming the entire system and why we are putting multimillion pounds-worth of funding into tackling perpetrators, as I said to my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) and for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew).
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
We do not make policy by mob rule in this country. The Public Order Bill will enable us to overcome the guerrilla tactics that bring misery to the hard-working public, disrupt businesses, interfere with the emergency services, cost taxpayers billions and put lives at risk.
The Public Order Bill will also stop protesters targeting major transport projects and infrastructure, and it will introduce new criminal offences of locking on and going equipped to lock on. It will also extend the police’s stop and search powers to allow them to search and seize articles related to protest-related offences, and it will introduce serious disruption prevention disorders and a new preventive court order that targets protesters who are determined to inflict repeated disruption on the public. Breaching these orders will be a criminal offence.
This Government are committed to being on the side of ordinary working people. It is a shame that the Labour party continues not to support such measures.
Rachel Hopkins
My Luton South constituents are deeply frustrated at the Home Office’s huge backlogs. My office is currently waiting for responses from the Home Office on 35 passport cases, 21 asylum cases, and 45 visa cases, with visa applications going back to the start of the year. With a proposal to cut the number of civil servants by 20% on the horizon, how will the Secretary of State fix the mess that her Government have created?
Priti Patel
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) has just spoken about passports and the number of staff who have been recruited, contrary to the hon. Lady’s comments. She will recognise that, when it comes to visas, the Government prioritised the Ukrainian visa scheme above other visas and, of course, it has now been switched over to ensure that all applications are processed in good time.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
New analysis today shows that in half of communities no burglaries have been solved in three years. Meanwhile, the proportion of all crimes reaching court has plummeted to 5.8%. Why is this Home Secretary letting so many more criminals off?
Priti Patel
Let me respond directly to the right hon. Lady. First, the reports today on burglary statistics are deeply troubling. Working with the National Police Chiefs’ Council, we are effectively getting more detailed information, force by force, but I would like to remind her that burglary is down by 24%, neighbourhood crime is down by 33% and vehicle offences are down by 28%. With that, it is worth highlighting—in fact, I would like to thank—some of the outstanding Conservative police and crime commissioners such as those for Bedfordshire and for Nottinghamshire, for example, who have effectively pledged and had specific operations to target burglary within their regions.
Yvette Cooper
I am glad that burglaries fell in lockdown but they are now going back up, and overall crime is 18% higher and prosecutions are 18% lower on this Home Secretary’s watch. This is the first time in 25 years that any Home Secretary has presided over both such a big rise in crime and a big drop in the charge rate. So how does it feel to be responsible for the weakest Government performance on crime in a quarter of a century?
Priti Patel
For the education and information of the right hon. Lady, may I restate to the House that burglary is down by 24%, neighbourhood crime is down by 33% and vehicle offences are down by 28%? [Interruption.] I appreciate that she does not want to hear the facts and that she struggles with listening to facts and grappling with factual information and data. This is why the Government’s beating crime plan will go even further, so that, force by force, the Government can absolutely ensure that every single police force is held to account, which the Labour party should welcome, along with many of the resources that this Government have put into beating crime.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
We have already recruited another 650 staff and are in the process of recruiting another 550. Obviously, where people have been waiting over 10 weeks and have travel booked, we will look to expedite their application for free.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
In the past few years, we have been working closely with the police across the whole of the UK to drive down the number of minors held in custody and the duration of that. As the hon. Lady will know, the appropriate adult scheme is in place to make sure that minors who are detained are accompanied by adults who, as I say, are appropriate. If she has specific cases she wants to raise with me, I would be more than happy to look at them, but thus far the trend has been improving.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend is right on the national Grip funding roll-out, which originated from a visit I made to Southend two years ago, where I was so impressed by the data-driven hotspot work that we managed to get the money out of the Treasury to spread it further. I certainly look forward to seeing the results of Operation Union. If it is equally successful, I do not see why we would not roll that out too.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Kevin Foster
I am happy to take the details of that individual case from the hon. Member. We are aware of an issue with the MPs’ hotline this morning; the hub and email are unaffected. Home Office Digital, Data and Technology is currently working on a solution and we expect the issue to be resolved shortly.
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tom Pursglove)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are introducing whole-system reform in the new plan for immigration, and we have the partnership with Rwanda and are readily signing new returns agreements. Of course, we are seeing greater international co-operation, including with the French—for example, 50% of crossings are not originating in the first place. That is important progress. We are continuing to work round the clock on the issue and my hon. Friend can be assured that we will continue to do so.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
This week, musicians from the Ukrainian Freedom Orchestra are applying for visas to the UK to perform here next month, but there are real concerns about delays in their getting the visas and about the £18,000 that it will cost the musicians—funds they just do not have in time of war. Every other European Government have waived complex visa requirements for the musicians to perform in their country. I have asked the Prime Minister about this and written to the Home Secretary about it twice. Will the Home Secretary agree today to look at expediting the visa process and waiving the fees, so that Ukrainian musicians can come to the UK to perform?
Kevin Foster
I am happy to meet the hon. Member to discuss this matter. As other colleagues will know, I have already dealt with a number of groups in relation to Ukraine, and there are exceptional circumstances in which the process may need to be expedited.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
Kevin Foster
A lot of work is being done to catch up on passports. I think it is safe to say that to go back to a system that was fundamentally paper-based would bring quite a range of security issues, not least at the border—that is why it was discontinued. I assure my hon. Friend that a wide range of work is being done and, as I have said, we are still doing roughly 98.5% of passports within the advertised 10-week service time.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
I was pleased to see that the Home Office finally published details of the remaining pathways for the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme, but just hours later the Ministry of Defence revealed that around 10,000 people—many of whom are at risk because they stepped forward to serve when we asked them to do so—were still left behind but eligible for the Afghan relocations and assistance policy scheme. What additional capacity is going to be put into the Department, both to clear the backlog of outstanding applications and to process thousands of new ones?
Kevin Foster
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. To be clear, the MOD processes ARAP applications and deals with eligibility. Given our expertise in that area, we are certainly happy to offer what support and assistance we can from UK Visas and Immigration to help to get applications through, because like the hon. Gentleman we do not want to see stuck in Afghanistan people who bravely stood alongside our forces.
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
Tom Pursglove
It is fair to say that the plan we are advancing is the only credible plan to address the issue. It is comprehensive and will end the dangerous channel crossings, preserve life, get illegal migration back under control and, of course, bring sustainability to the related finances.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
My constituent faces losing her job with the NHS and is unable to visit a seriously ill close relative abroad because the Home Office has failed to deal with her visa, which was requested last year. I have raised this four times with the Home Office urgent inquiry line and have received no response for two months. Will the Minister look at this particular case, which I wrote to the Home Secretary about last week, and, more generally, at the service, or lack of service, that the urgent inquiry line is providing to MPs?
Kevin Foster
I am very happy to look into the individual case.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
Kit Malthouse
As usual, Mr Speaker, it is no surprise to hear my hon. Friend standing up for his constituents and fighting for their interests. He is right to look for greater police presence in his constituency, and when we finish recruiting 20,000 police officers, we will need somewhere for them to put all their stuff. Having that somewhere in his constituency would make sense.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
A total of 5,279 children were strip searched by the Metropolitan police between 2019 and 2021, 75% of whom were from a black, Asian and minority ethnic background. This data covers only children who were strip searched after an arrest, which means that the number of children strip searched among those not arrested will be even higher, such as in the case of Child Q who was never actually arrested. The Home Office will require police forces to provide this data on strip searches only on a voluntary basis. Can the Home Secretary say why she will not commit to making it mandatory for police forces to produce this data?
Kit Malthouse
Although the case of Child Q was deeply regrettable and the Metropolitan police have offered their apologies in that case, I am sure that the hon. Lady will accept that, sadly, there are circumstances where these kind of searches of all manner of people are warranted. She raises a good point about transparency, and I know that all police chiefs across the country have it at the forefront of their minds that their legitimacy is built on public confidence about what they do and I will certainly explore the idea that she suggests.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
Neighbourhood crime and antisocial behaviour is better tackled with the police visibility and responsiveness that a town centre police station can provide. Will my right hon. Friend give his support and encouragement to efforts by north Wales police to reopen a police station in the centre of Prestatyn, possibly at the redeveloped old library site?
Kit Malthouse
I am more than happy to support my hon. Friend in seeking the best for his constituents, as I did on Friday in Tiverton where the front counter of the police station is due to open in November. I hope and believe that his constituents will benefit from the significant uplift in capacity and funding that we are giving to police forces, which will allow them to do exactly as he asks.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
When the Joint Committee on Human Rights visited Strasbourg last week, we were told that the United Kingdom sends fewer cases to the European Court of Human Rights per capita than any other signatory state. We were also told that UK Government Ministers have repeatedly given the Council of Europe assurances that Britain will not withdraw from the convention. Will the Home Secretary withdraw the rather intemperate remarks that she made as reported at the weekend because she was displeased by the Court’s decision to temporarily halt the flights to Rwanda last week?
Priti Patel
In light of the hon. and learned Lady’s comments, it is important to put it on record that Britain upholds international standards and all aspects of the law. Our policies are proving that is the case when it comes to illegal migration, as demonstrated by the domestic courts. As I said have repeatedly, I will not comment on ongoing legal cases.
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)
On 3 May, a convoy of vehicles left Blyth Valley heading for the Polish border with a fire appliance, a support vehicle and a 4x4. The staff of West Hartford fire station volunteered to drive almost 2,000 miles to help the people of Ukraine, leaving their families and loved ones behind. Does my right hon. Friend agree that local fire and rescue teams can play an important role in bringing communities together? With that in mind, will she please visit Blyth Valley so that we can show her these amazing teams and everything we have done?
Priti Patel
I would be delighted to come and support my hon. Friend in Blyth Valley, but there is a serious point here: over recent months, the fire and rescue service across the entire country has come together in such a compassionate way to provide essential kit and equipment to help the people of Ukraine, and I am pleased that his constituency has done that.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The unprecedented cuts to North Yorkshire fire & rescue service will result in longer response times in York, Scarborough and Harrogate. Will the Secretary of State meet me, the police and crime commissioner and the Fire Brigades Union to talk about those cuts and how we can ensure that fair funding goes to our fire services?
Priti Patel
I would be very happy to meet the hon. Lady. Having previously discussed this in North Yorkshire, on a visit that took place last year, I have seen the incredible integrated working across police and fire in North Yorkshire and the exceptional service they provide to her constituency and across the county, particularly in the remote and rural areas. However, as I say, I would be happy to have a conversation with her.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
Now then, when we had a Labour police and crime commissioner and a Labour MP in Ashfield, the only thing they ever did of any note was to close our local police station. Since we have had a sensible Conservative MP in Ashfield, we have two new Operation Reacher teams, safer streets funding for the New Cross area and more bobbies on the beat, but will the Home Secretary please back our latest bid to the safer streets fund for the forgotten town of Eastwood?
Priti Patel
I am very conscious of the great support in my hon. Friend’s constituency—in fact, I have visited it a couple of times now and seen not only the police officers on the front line, but the way the community is coming together on safer streets. I have absolutely heard his request for this particular bid.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
The school holidays in Wales and England start on 22 July. There are nearly 30 million visits abroad by air in quarter 3, which includes those school holidays. To help families get away, will the Passport Office backlog be cleared by 22 July?
Kevin Foster
We have already made clear the actions we are taking. Since April last year we have been advising people to allow up to 10 weeks for an application, although 91% of people get their passport back within six weeks of applying. The hon. Member will also be aware that in some instances, such as school trips, collective passports can be used, subject to those being accepted by the country they are travelling to.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
Earlier in the year, Parliament repealed the antiquated Vagrancy Act 1824. It was an important step in our journey to ending homelessness for good. Imagine my surprise when I reviewed the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill to see that that repeal was repealed and that the Secretary of State will be given unlimited and unspecified powers to recriminalise homelessness. I know my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary cares about this, and she has been superb in supporting me and other Ministers in this mission. May I ask her to deal with this and ensure that we can get on with the job of ending homelessness?
Priti Patel
Absolutely. I pay tribute to and thank my right hon. Friend for all his support and work in this particular area. I will reach out and speak to him and we will join up on this.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Residents in Osterley contacted me last week. They have been suffering for months from antisocial behaviour, drug dealing and assaults, which came to a head last week. Councillors and local police have been working together to try to tackle the issue, but their efforts are hamstrung because there just are not enough police officers to do regular patrols in hotspots. Does the Home Secretary regret the 10 years of police cuts that leave my constituents and many others feeling unprotected?
Kit Malthouse
I am quite surprised to hear that given that I believe the hon. Lady is a London MP and the Metropolitan Police currently have more police officers on their roster than they have ever had in their history.
Jill Mortimer (Hartlepool) (Con)
My team and I have been fighting for many hours to get a visa for a little Ukrainian girl, Alisa. She has been classified as an unaccompanied minor, although her aunt Viktoria provided evidence that she is her legal guardian many weeks ago. The situation is now grave as the family’s 90-day Polish visa is about to expire and they will have to return to the war zone. That is unacceptable. I know that an unaccompanied minors policy was finally agreed last week, but I fear that a failure to process these applications swiftly enough will soon lead to a humanitarian emergency for this family and others like them. Can my right hon. Friend please tell me what can be done to resolve this case and finally bring this family to safety in Hartlepool?
Priti Patel
I know that the Minister has been following up this case, so I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising it. I have already said in response to earlier questions that the policy on this is changing, but she has asked a specific question and I will address it.
Ukraine: UK and NATO Military Commitment
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con) (Urgent Question)
To ask the Minister to make a statement on the UK’s and NATO’s military commitment to Ukraine.
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Leo Docherty)
Russia’s assault on Ukraine is an unprovoked, premeditated attack against a sovereign democratic state that threatens global security. As set out to the House previously, the United Kingdom and NATO stand with Ukraine. We are providing political and practical support to support its self-defence, and will further strengthen NATO’s deterrence and defence posture. Individual NATO allies, led by the UK, are also supporting Ukraine with lethal aid to ensure that Ukraine wins.
The United Kingdom was the first country to provide lethal aid, and we have increased our military and aid support, bringing the total budget to £1.3 billion. To date, we have sent over 6,900 anti-tank missiles; five air defence systems, including Starstreak anti-air missiles; 120 armoured fighting vehicles, including a small number of Stormers; 1,360 anti-structure munitions; 4.5 tonnes of plastic explosives; and 400,000 rounds of small-arms munitions. In addition, we have supplied over 200,000 items of non-lethal aid, including more than 82,000 helmets; more than 8,000 body armour kits; range finders; and medical equipment. As announced on 6 June 2022, we are providing cutting edge multiple-launch rocket systems, which can strike targets up to 80 kilometres away with pinpoint accuracy, offering a significant boost in capability to the Ukrainian armed forces. On 17 June, the Prime Minister offered to launch a major training operation for Ukrainian forces, with the potential to train up to 10,000 soldiers every three months—120 days.
We are currently supplying significant air power to NATO, including increased air patrols, with both Typhoons and F-35s for NATO air policing. We have also deployed four additional Typhoons to Cyprus to patrol NATO’s eastern border. That means that we now have a full squadron of Royal Air Force fighter jets in southern Europe, ready to support NATO tasking. The United Kingdom has contributed more troops than any other ally to NATO’s enhanced forward presence. UK troops will also be deploying a company-sized sub-unit to Bulgaria to work bilaterally alongside our Bulgarian counterparts for up to six months, enhancing interoperability. The PM will meet NATO leaders again for next week’s Madrid summit, where NATO will agree the new strategic concept to set the direction of the alliance for the next decade and will agree long-term improvements to our deterrence and defence posture in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The United Kingdom’s commitment to the alliance and European security is unconditional and enduring. Our commitment to article 5 of the Washington treaty is iron clad. We stand ready to defend our allies.
Mr Ellwood
First, may I thank you, Mr Speaker, for the flag-raising ceremony that you hosted today to mark Armed Forces Week?
The Prime Minister was right to visit Ukraine last week. The UK has been an exemplar in our support to that country compared with many of our NATO allies. But Russia is not losing and Ukraine is not winning. The Prime Minister said, “Prepare for a long war”, and the new head of the British Army seeks to reconfigure our land forces to potentially face Russia on the battlefield. This all starkly illustrates that long-term European security is threatened not just by the utility of force but a wider conflict between the west and growing authoritarianism.
However, future generations may ask of NATO, “Why did you not put that fire out in Ukraine when you could have?”—by securing the port of Odesa, for example, rather than instead allowing Putin to claim a win and take his fight elsewhere. The penny is dropping in this regard. If we now recognise that our world is becoming more dangerous, Britain should lead a coalition of the willing that offers Ukraine the scale of support that it requires. Recognising this new picture requires us to review our own defence posture. We can certainly be proud of what Britain has done in upgrading its battle presence in the Baltics, leading the way in training Ukrainians and providing lethal weapons systems, but I say to the Minister that the tempo of these duties is unsustainable. We are overloading our troops with those widening commitments and we are not replenishing our defence stocks fast enough. All three services are now too small to manage the ever-greater burden that we are going to place on them. The cuts set out in the 2021 integrated review to personnel and military equipment must now be reversed.
Does the Minister agree that once again, Britain finds itself leading other European allies in spelling out the scale of the threat that the continent now faces, and stepping forward when other nations hesitate to confront that threat? We cannot do that on a peacetime defence budget of 2.2%; it is time to upgrade our defence posture and spending to 3% if we are serious about preventing the spread of conflict in Europe.
Leo Docherty
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to some of my right hon. Friend’s points. He said that Russia is not losing in Ukraine, with which I would take issue. I think that Russia is losing and that it was losing from the point of invasion. Its catastrophic losses in the west of the country and the way that it has had to refocus in the east describe that strategic loss, so I disagree with him on that.
Our domestic response will always be threat-based. My right hon. Friend made some remarks about whether NATO forces should have been deployed to Ukraine in anticipation of the Russian invasion. Our judgment is—and collectively, everyone would judge—that we got the balance right between providing reassurance and effect, while avoiding the direct conflict that would have resulted immediately from putting NATO forces directly into Ukraine.
As I said, we are a threat-based organisation. In making the argument for defence expenditure, we need to understand that there are three basic points of context that I ask my right hon. Friend to take note of. First, we do everything as part of the NATO alliance. We are one of a 30-member defensive alliance—soon to be 32—and because of that, we are a great deal stronger than we are separately. One of the significant lessons for the Russian military machine is how exposed it is by being alone. We are stronger as an alliance; as an alliance, we massively outnumber any kind of effect the Russians can bring to bear.
Secondly, it is important to recognise that we acknowledged the significant threat posed by Russia as part of our defence Command Paper, which came out of the integrated review and was released in March 2021; many right hon. and hon. Members will have read it. Page 5, paragraph 1.4 leads with the fact that
“Russia continues to pose the greatest nuclear, conventional military and sub-threshold threat to European security.”
In terms of our doctrine and our response, that is not new to UK national defence. That is a really important contextual thing to understand.
Thirdly, that is why we are making good use of the £24-billion uplift that we have had under this Government, which is driving forward the agility, deployability and lethality that we need in the new global context. Manifold lessons will be drawn from the outrageous Russian invasion of Ukraine, including the vulnerability of armour and of large bodies of troops; the potency of technology and remote fires; and the urgent importance of having a fully modernised military with match-fit technology. That is what the integrated review and the defence Command Paper do.
We have more money than we have ever had—£24 billion more than we would have had otherwise. We will always keep things under review, but we should be confident that doctrinally and militarily, in terms of kit and equipment, we are on the right lines.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
Today marks day 117 since Russia began its brutal and illegal invasion of Ukraine. It is now a grim, grinding war of attrition. NATO’s Secretary-General warned last week that the alliance
“must prepare for the fact that it could take years.”
Everything that can be done must be done to help to maintain the Ukrainian military’s morale, weaponry and personnel. The Government will continue to have Labour’s full support in the military assistance they provide to Ukraine.
In April, when responding to the Defence Secretary’s statement in this House, I urged the Government to move to supply
“the new NATO weapons that Ukraine will need for Putin’s next offensive”.—[Official Report, 25 April 2022; Vol. 712, c. 463.]
In these last two months, what NATO-standard stock has been supplied from the UK to Ukraine, and how many new contracts for missiles or ammunition production have the MOD now managed to sign and start?
On Friday, as the Minister said, the Prime Minister offered to train 10,000 new Ukrainian soldiers every three months. This is exactly what is needed. Did President Zelensky accept Britain’s offer? Will these Ukrainian recruits be trained in Britain? Which other NATO nations will be involved in such training?
As we mark the start of Armed Forces Week, the Labour leader and I had the privilege of visiting NATO’s maritime command and our UK Permanent Joint Headquarters in Northwood this morning. We wanted to thank our personnel for the service they give to our national and NATO commitments. However, there are serious growing concerns about the UK meeting its NATO commitments, with the failure to reboot defence plans in response to Ukraine, delays to a fully modern warfighting division until 2030, continued uncertainty over Ajax and, of course, further deep cuts to Army numbers.
The new head of the Army said in an internal message to troops last week that
“there is now a burning imperative to forge an Army capable of fighting alongside our allies and defeating Russia in battle”,
so why are Ministers pushing ahead with plans to cut another 10,000 soldiers? When will they halt these cuts, and when will they start to rebuild the strength of the British Army to meet the threats that our country and our NATO allies face?
Leo Docherty
I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s questions and, as ever, we are grateful for the support of the Opposition for our Ukraine defence policy.
To go straight to the questions, new contracts are under discussion. The Minister for Defence Procurement and the Prime Minister had a meeting this morning, which was the latest in a series of discussions about escalating the supply of NATO-standard equipment, which is very important.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke about training, and that was a very significant result of the Prime Minister’s visit last week. I think the Defence Secretary also had some discussions. Not being privy to those discussions, it is not appropriate for me to speculate about their content at the Dispatch Box. However, I can say that the reference point for the UK’s contribution will be the remarkably successful Operation Orbital, which has trained some 25,000 Ukrainian soldiers since 2014. We have a long and deep heritage of working very closely and successfully with our Ukrainian allies, and I think that will be a very good basis on which to conduct future training support. As to which NATO allies may be involved, I cannot confirm that, but I would say that NATO, by disposition, tends to work in alliance, so I suspect other nations to be involved.
I am glad for the update about the right hon. Gentleman’s visit to PJHQ, but I would ask him to be a bit more optimistic about our absolute resolve to meet our commitments. This is about a disposition in which we are absolutely resolute to be agile and to strain every sinew to deliver at pace the technological and military revolution necessary to make ourselves more lethal, agile and deployable around the world than ever before. For too long, the measurement of our military capability has been about men and vehicles in garrisons, rather than our ability to project power, and that is something that we are absolutely confident we are getting right.
To prove the point, the fact the Chief of the General Staff is mentioning Russia demonstrates that, since March last year, this has been part of our job done. That is nothing new, and under the leadership that we are showing and with the determination for us to change and embrace modern technology as part of our ability to deliver lethal effect, we are getting to a point where we are more match fit than ever before to counter Russian aggression.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
As the expenditure on all the equipment that we have rightly been supplying is operational, will the Minister confirm that it is coming from the Treasury reserve and not from the normal annual defence budget? I gently remind him and the House that, in the first half of the 1980s, we were spending not 2.3% or even 3% of GDP on defence; we were spending between 4.7% and 5.1% of GDP on defence.
Leo Docherty
I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s question. The answer is yes. I note, with particular regard to the long-standing nature of his interest in the issue, his comments about overall defence spending.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
Given the evolution of the war in Ukraine, what lessons has the Ministry of Defence learned about the enduring need for infantry to take, hold and/or defend territory? Will those lessons be input to a refresh of MOD thinking and operational strategy that drove the much-derided 10,000 cut in Army numbers in the integrated review? Those infantry will require to be supported by heavy armour and armoured fighting vehicles, but, given that the UK’s decade-old solution to the latter—Ajax—is an unfathomably challenged £5.5 billion project that is surely now on the brink of being cancelled, how has the war in Ukraine focused the Department’s attention in that regard?
I recently returned from Türkiye, where the Turkish Defence Minister advised NATO parliamentarians on the role that his country is playing in seeking to facilitate safe passage of merchant vessels into and out of Ukraine with grain. What dynamic is the UK playing in that space? Does the Minister agree with the Turkish Minister’s assessment that it is the Ukrainians who—understandably —need persuading of the merits of demining those shipping lanes and ensuring that they do not then fall prey to Russian naval forces? Finally, if agreement is reached on demining, what role will the world-leading mine countermeasure professionals in the Royal Navy, many of whom are based in Scotland, play in demining those approaches to Ukraine?
Leo Docherty
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s questions. The lessons are manifold. One in particular is the vulnerability of armour without significant covering fire and deep fires, and what happens when a combined arms manoeuvre falls apart, particularly due to a complete failure of the moral component. He is attempting to spin that into a lesson purely about numbers of infantry. I draw his attention to the necessity of infantry having protection, mobility and its own fire to protect itself. Anyone of my generation of people in the military will remember deploying unprotected vehicles without a significant ability to manoeuvre and bring on deep fires, especially in a remote way. Those capabilities—the ability for our infantry to be much better protected, more mobile and more lethal—are exactly what we are delivering with the integrated review and the defence Command Paper, and that is a job of work worth doing.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Ajax. The House will be interested to know that we are looking at it with urgent focus, and I am sure that the Minister for Defence Procurement will update the House in due course.
The hon. Gentleman made an interesting point about Turkey and the critical, strategic import of the Black sea with regard to grain exports out of Ukraine, with some 50% being stuck there. I will not speculate about the role of the magnificent Royal Navy or anyone else in the British military, but undoubtedly that will be on the agenda at the NATO summit in Madrid next week.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
The UK’s military support for Ukraine has been world-leading, but it is legitimate for us to ask whether we are restocking adequately and quickly enough here in the UK. Will my hon. Friend update us on whether the promised military supplies coming from other European countries have materialised in Ukraine? It is essential that our rhetoric in NATO is matched with actions if we are to remain credible, as both what we say and what we do will be closely monitored in Moscow.
Leo Docherty
I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s question. We are happily operating a new-for-old policy with regard to our own supplies. Further, on the rest of the alliance, there is a sense of great urgency. We are seeking to ensure that the multiple launch rocket system is delivered in good order as soon as possible, and the contribution of the US to that will also be critical. I think that the collective sense of urgency will increase as we come to the NATO summit in Madrid next week.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
I agree wholeheartedly with the Chair of the Defence Committee and the shadow Defence Secretary. Unless we are prepared to make a real investment in our Army and the weapons that are required, we cannot supply them to Ukraine. We are not supplying the long-term equipment required in order to attack the Russians coming in; what we are doing is holding back on supporting the Army, which is not good enough. When will we start to look at first of all supporting Poland with NATO to supply the big aircraft that are needed, and how can we move forward on that?
Leo Docherty
I would disagree entirely with that. The tactical weapon that we have supplied in the form of the NLAW has had a remarkable strategic output. The hon. Gentleman speculates about MiGs and so on, but I do not think that strictly relevant. What is important is the multiple launch rocket system, and it is also important that we respond to Ukraine demand and pay attention to the demand signal. We must follow what the Ukrainians themselves want.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
I was proud to hear President Zelensky describe our support as strong and resolute, and Great Britain as being Ukraine’s best friend. That is great stuff.
Does the Minister agree that three risks are associated with what is currently happening in Ukraine? The first is mission creep, which, as always, we must beware of; the second could be some kind of error, in which an American or Russian plane is shot down by mistake, possibly leading to some form of escalation; and the third would be a false-flag operation by the Russians, somehow using that as an excuse to try to drag NATO into the war. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must at all costs avoid NATO’s direct involvement in the war? Support is great; war fighting is not.
Leo Docherty
I do, and that is a cogent analysis of the attendant risks to this: mission creep, some sort of error, and a false-flag operation. That is why throughout this we have based our response in a bilateral manner. We are clearly paying attention to what other NATO allies are doing, but it is a bilateral provision, which is right and proper. At all times, it has been entirely bespoke in response to what the Ukrainians themselves want, and we are particularly well placed to do that because of our long-term involvement and successful training of Ukrainian forces since 2014. That has led to a good basis and foundation of warm personal relationships across our two respective militaries, which has really borne fruit.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
Given that, as has already been mentioned, the new head of the Army said that the UK must
“forge an Army capable of fighting alongside our allies and defeating Russia in battle”,
I found the Minister’s response to the Urgent Question a little complacent. Is he absolutely sure that that can be done, while continuing with the planned cuts of 10,000 to the Army? Many of us are not sure about that.
Leo Docherty
I am confident. A significant increase in money is delivering new capabilities to make our people more lethal, more agile, and more mobile. That body of work has been under way over the past couple of years, and was expressed in the Defence Command Paper published in March 2021. This is nothing new; we have been at this for a couple of years, and rightly so.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
I congratulate the Government on the significant matériel now being provided to Ukraine, but what is their current assessment about the possibility of Russia using tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine? Will the Minister confirm that plans are in place with our allies to deal with that in the horrific event of their use?
Leo Docherty
Of course we consider all scenarios in the Department. We still regard that as a very unlikely possibility, but the Ministry of Defence, like everyone else in defence, is always ready.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
We have all seen the appalling atrocities uncovered in Bucha and Irpin, and there is no doubt that they were perpetrated by Russian forces. Sixty people have also been killed in a school in Luhansk, following Russian shelling. Is it time for the Russian military units, including mercenary groups such as the Wagner Group, with its sinister death squads, to be proscribed as terrorist organisations?
Leo Docherty
The hon. Member makes a good point, and I agree with the sentiment. We sincerely hope—this is already happening—that these criminals, and they appear to be criminals in many cases, especially in regard to the appalling atrocities being committed and the apparent murder of civilians in Bucha and elsewhere, will be brought before the International Criminal Court. It makes the point that Putin’s invasion of Ukraine—that is how we must phrase it—has debased the entire Russian nation and its military. Those involved in it at every level must be held to account.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
What does my hon. Friend make of Putin’s increasingly aggressive tone towards Lithuania in relation to the Kaliningrad enclave? Does he agree that one way to approach it would be to accelerate and expedite the accession of Sweden and Finland to NATO? Will he do everything in his power to shore up our NATO ally to make sure that Putin’s aggression is met with an appropriate response that will make sure he does nothing against that country, or the consequences will be very severe indeed?
Leo Docherty
I am grateful for that question, which shows that Putin is losing: his bluster is illustrative of his massive loss of confidence. He thought he was going to get less NATO because of this outrageous invasion, and he is getting more NATO. We very much look forward to Sweden and Finland, and their highly capable militaries, joining the alliance.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
This argument of more for less that we are hearing from the Government is what we have heard from them in virtually every area of public expenditure, whether it be the health service, social care or local government services, or the cutting of 21,000 police officers that we were told would not result in a rise in crime, but did. Is the Minister aware that the 10,000 planned cut in troops will result in the smallest Army we have had since 1714? Should the Government not review that in the light of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine?
Leo Docherty
It is not more for less; it is doing more with more, because we have a £24 billion uplift. Defence expenditure is going up, and I hope the hon. Member appreciates that.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
The quantity of weaponry required by Ukraine vastly exceeds the amount pledged by NATO allies, and the amount pledged significantly exceeds the amount that has actually been delivered. To take the example that the Minister raised on MLRS, 300 of those systems are estimated to be required and 50 have been pledged, and the United Kingdom has delivered just three. What is our plan and that of our allies—particularly European ones, who simply do not have the stocks of these weapons—to boost production as quickly as possible?
Leo Docherty
My right hon. Friend should rest assured that every sinew is being strained. I think some of the time has been taken up in the necessary provisions—for example, the operatives need to be trained on target acquisition—so that the proper use of these kind of munitions can be made. This is a top priority, and I hope that the imperative and the fact that we have the NATO conference in Madrid next week will be another lever to expedite this.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
The Minister will be aware that people in my constituency hold great admiration for Thales, for the provision of next generation light anti-tank weapons and Starstreak and for the ability for Ukrainians to have the power to defend themselves. Further to that question, it is worthy of further examination. We are providing many platforms to Ukraine where reproduction simply is not possible and where a switch cannot be flicked immediately. Some of these systems have been decommissioned and are not in active production, so how does the Minister expect the House to have confidence in the assertion that what we give we will get back?
Leo Docherty
What we are doing is ensuring that commercial production is radically accelerated. The hon. Gentleman will know how complex and multifaceted that is. I am not pretending it is easy, but the full effort of the Department and our allies is resolutely focused on this issue.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for his statement and I praise the additional support we are offering Ukraine. As he said, NATO is the bedrock of our collective security and we have two new nations seeking to become members. I welcome the decisions of the Governments of Sweden and Finland to join, which are completely understandable now we have seen what Putin is capable of. Will my hon. Friend the Minister update the House on what support we will be giving Finland and Sweden as they seek to join the alliance?
Leo Docherty
That is a very good question. Those discussions are under way. My right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary visited both countries very recently to initiate those discussions. We have a heritage of quite active training and joint working in Scandinavia, particularly with regard to Norway. I will not speculate or pre-empt any announcement, but I think we will have a very significant schedule of work coming down the line.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
As we rightly focus on what is happening in Ukraine, Moldova rightly fears Russian advances along the southern coast of Ukraine, with a possible view to Russia annexing Transnistria in the same way as it annexed Crimea. Given that, what discussions is the Minister having with both Moldovan counterparts and NATO allies to ensure we are ready for that eventuality? How, given that we are likely to be in this for a very, very long time, is he building that coalition so it is stable going forward and we do not do what I suspect Putin wants us to do in the west—to blink, get bored and wander off? We cannot allow that to happen.
Leo Docherty
We will not allow that to happen. We are increasing our enhanced forward presence, which is very significant. We will be committing a company group into Bulgaria, in addition to our long-standing commitment to Estonia. Other allies will be positioning enhanced forward battalions in other eastern European countries, so collectively, as an alliance, we will be putting our money where our mouth is. That is really important.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Is it not the truth that the Government have been caught out? Systematically, over 10 years, they have been running down our defence capacity. Ten years ago, I said there was a real danger in reducing our overall strength to fewer than 100,000 men and women. The fact of the matter is that we have to send a message to President Putin that we will invest in our defence and increase the number of people in our defence forces, and that we will, in future, take the defence of this country seriously.
Leo Docherty
We are doing that. We are investing in our defence. The overall defence budget has increased radically. It is £24 billion more than it was in 2019. The bottom line is lethality and improving our capability to deliver effect, not just simple numbers in a barracks. I urge the hon. Gentleman to read the defence Command Paper. He will find it instructive.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
The British public are committed and willing to support the brave men and women of Ukraine who are fighting for their freedom. We must all remember how important it is that Ukraine wins. They are not just fighting for their freedom; they are fighting for a free world. This conflict may go on for months, or even years and years. It is important that the public are kept thoroughly informed, as their support is key to keeping Ukraine free. Will the Minister commit to ensure that that happens?
Leo Docherty
The hon. Lady makes a very good point. This is turning into a war of attrition. It will last as long as President Putin has the mistaken conviction that, by killing people in the Donbas region and occupying Ukrainian sovereign territory, he is somehow delivering a strategic victory for Russia. He is not. Ultimately, the Russian people, undermined by their leadership, will be the lever to ensure a different direction is taken.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Since 2010, consecutive Conservative Governments have cut our Army by over a third, from over 102,000 to some 80,000, with further cuts planned. I absolutely despair at the Minister’s set-piece answers about changing threats. In the very week when the head of the Army, Sir Patrick Sanders, said that we need to be
“ready to fight and win wars on land”
and the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), the Chair of the Defence Committee, who speaks with deep knowledge of the subject, says that the armed forces are overstretched, will the Minister now commit to rethink, forget the set-piece answers, and actually consider what numbers we need in our armed forces going forward?
Leo Docherty
We have considered what we need. We have more money than ever before, with an additional £24 billion, which is delivering a more lethal, better protected, more mobile and readier military. It is in the defence Command Paper; we have been at this for a couple of years. The Chief of the General Staff’s remarks are in accordance with that—he agrees with the plan, of course, because he is the head of the Army. It is not about simplistic measurements of numbers of people, but about effect. At long last, we are embracing technology to give our people the most lethal capability, which is what they need.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
As we have heard, both Sweden and Finland have made an application to join NATO, but Turkey has said that it may consider delaying those applications for up to a year if its demands are not met. Does the Minister agree that such a response from Turkey in this context is totally unacceptable?
Leo Docherty
We acknowledge Turkey’s concerns. Work on the matter is led by the Foreign Secretary and others, and I am sure that it will be on the agenda next week in Madrid. My expectation is that those concerns will be resolved in the interests of the alliance as a whole.
Mr Speaker
I call the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis). May I thank him for doing the reading this morning?
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
It was my pleasure, Mr Speaker.
Members across the House will have seen the recent assessment by the incoming Chief of the General Staff:
“There is now a burning imperative to forge an army capable of fighting alongside our allies and defeating Russia in battle.”
With those words in mind, and further to the letter that the Secretary of State sent to the Chancellor back in March, is the Minister—who I know thinks about these things very carefully—absolutely certain that there is not a requirement to go back to the Treasury and secure additional resource to ensure that our armed forces are properly prepared and have the capabilities they need to respond to the threats that undoubtedly exist?
Leo Docherty
We always keep these matters under review, but what we have at the moment is a good plan to deliver a great deal of new and very effective capability for the spend that we have. I will not speculate beyond that.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Russia has reportedly become China’s biggest oil supplier, following sanctions in the face of the conflict in Ukraine. Can the Minister set out what level of risk is posed by strengthening ties and co-dependency between China and Russia in the immediate and longer term?
Leo Docherty
That is an interesting question. Clearly the dividend for China in the immediate term is a great deal of much cheaper energy, and I am sure that it will reap the benefit. In the longer term, however, the lesson for China is the willingness of western European nations, together with the US, to stand up for the integrity of sovereign nations. That is something that will not be lost on the Chinese.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Our efforts thus far for the United Kingdom to be a full and comprehensive supporter of Ukraine have been numerous; I appreciate the decisions that have been made. The longer Ukraine fights, however, the more soldiers and equipment it will lose against Russia, which is much larger and better resourced. Has the time now come for us to step forward and do much more with our NATO allies, particularly with Starstreak missiles?
Leo Docherty
That is a very pertinent question. We are doing much more. The recipe for success is much more energy towards capacity building for the Ukrainians, which is why we are now in active discussions about delivering training to the Ukrainian army. It is a war of attrition, but we must not make the mistake of thinking that it is not bleeding Russian capabilities very badly indeed. The Russian military will try to keep it up for a very long time, but we must not think that this is not hurting them very badly indeed.
Industrial Action on the Railway
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the rail strikes. We are now less than eight hours away from the biggest railway strike since 1989—a strike orchestrated by some of the best paid union barons, representing some of the better paid workers in this country, which will cause misery and chaos to millions of commuters.
This weekend, we have seen union leaders use all the tricks in the book to confuse, to obfuscate and to mislead the public. Not only do they wish to drag the railway back to the 1970s, but they are employing the tactics of bygone unions: deflecting accountability for their strikes on to others; attempting to shift the blame for their action, which will cause disruption and damage to millions of people; and claiming that others are somehow preventing an agreement to their negotiation.
I do not think the public will be hoodwinked. [Interruption.] Opposition Members laugh, but we are talking about the families who will be unable to visit their relations, the music fans who are hoping to go to Glastonbury, the students who will be unable to get to their GCSEs and A-level exams, the businesses who are just beginning to recover from covid and people who will miss out on their medical treatment because of these strikes. That is what the Opposition are supporting. They know that this week’s rail strikes, created and organised by the unions, are the full responsibility of the unions.
Of course, we are all doing our utmost to get the unions and the rail industry to agree a way forward and call off the strikes. In such discussions, it is always the employer and the unions who need to get together and negotiate. In this case, that is the train operating companies, Network Rail and their union representatives. We are not the employer, and we will not undermine the process. [Interruption.] I hear the calls of the Labour leadership for us to get involved somehow, perhaps by inviting the unions for beer and sandwiches to discuss the situation. We all know that the Leader of the Opposition thinks that a beer and a curry is a work meeting, but we will be leaving this to the employers, who are the right people to negotiate with the unions. Indeed, the unions are in daily talks with the employers—or at least they were, until they walked out an hour ago to hold a press conference, saying that the strikes would be on.
Despite these strikes, we are doing everything we can to minimise disruption throughout the entire network. We are working with the civil contingencies secretariat, the Government’s emergency planning team, to keep critical supply chains open wherever possible. Operators will keep as many passenger trains as possible running, although of course with so much disruption to the timetable, that will be very difficult on strike days. It is estimated that around 20% of planned services will operate, focused on key workers, main population centres and critical freight routes. But there will be mass disruption, and we advise passengers to avoid travelling unless absolutely necessary—which, of course, for many it will be. The National Rail Enquiries website will be kept updated with the latest travel information to ensure that passengers can make informed decisions about their travel. Passengers are strongly advised to check before they travel and encouraged to look for alternative means of transportation if their journey is affected, including on the days between the strikes.
We are looking at a variety of different options for the railways to maintain services amid disruption in the medium and longer term. We can no longer tolerate a position where rail workers can exercise their right to strike without any regard for how the rights of others are affected. Nurses, teachers and other working people who rely on the railway must be able to travel. Minimum service legislation is just one part of that. Minimum service levels are a Government manifesto commitment, and they will require train operators to run a base number of services even in the event of future strike action. It is a system that works well in other countries, including Belgium and France, and so we will be bringing in legislation to protect the travelling public if agreement cannot be reached when major disruption is expected, as with the strikes this week.
The rhetoric that we have heard from union leaders and Opposition Members over the weekend seems to be focused on widening the division rather than bridging the gap. The whole point of the railway reforms—based on the Williams review, which engaged with the unions very extensively—is to unite and modernise the industry, and just as we cannot reform the railways with obsolete technology, we cannot do so by clinging to obsolete working practices. For example, leisure travel at weekends is currently a huge potential growth area. After covid, people are coming back and are travelling at the weekends more than before. However, under an agreement which dates back to 1919, Sunday working is voluntary on most of the railway, so the industry cannot do what everyone else does—what other businesses and organisations do—and service its customers. Instead, it has to appeal to people to come and work, and that service has sometimes been unavailable, for instance when large football matches are taking place: during the Euro finals, 170 trains were cancelled.
The industry therefore needs to change. Unions claim that this strike is about a pay freeze, but that is factually incorrect. We are not imposing a pay freeze. The whole point of these reforms is to build a sustainable, growing railway, where every rail worker receives a decent annual pay rise. Let me be clear, however: if modernisation and reform are to work, we must have unions that are prepared to modernise, otherwise there can be no deal. This strike is not about pay, but about outdated unions opposing progress—progress that will secure the railway’s future. These strikes are not only a bid to stop reform; they are critical to the network’s future. If the reforms are not carried out, the strikes will threaten the very jobs of the people who are striking, because they will not allow the railway to operate properly and attract customers back.
The railway is in a fight . It is in a fight for its life, not just competing with other forms of public and private transport but competing with Teams, Zoom and other forms of remote working. Today, many commuters who three years ago had no alternative but to travel by train have other options, including the option of not travelling at all. Rail has lost a fifth of its passengers and a fifth of its revenue.
Since the start of the pandemic, the Government have committed £16 billion of emergency taxpayer support —we all know the numbers; that means £600 for every single household in the country—so that not a single rail worker lost his or her job. We have invested £16 billion to keep trains running and ensure that no one at Network Rail or DFT-contracted train operating companies was furloughed. Now, as we recover and people start to travel again, the industry needs to grow its revenues. It needs to attract passengers back, and make the reforms that are necessary for it to compete. The very last thing that it should be doing now is alienating passengers and freight customers with a long and damaging strike. So my message to the workforce is straightforward: “Your union bosses have got you striking under false pretences, and rather than protecting your jobs, they are actually endangering them and the railways’ future.”
We have a platform for change. We want the unions to work with the industry and the Government to bring a much brighter future to our railways, and that means building an agile and flexible workforce, not one that strikes every time someone suggests an improvement to our railway. Strikes should be the last resort, not the first. They will stop customers choosing rail, they will put jobs at risk, they will cause misery across the country, they will hit businesses that are trying to recover from covid, and they will hurt railway workers themselves. So please, let us stop dividing the railway industry, and let us start working for a brighter future.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
No one in the country wants these strikes to go ahead, but as I have repeatedly said, even at this eleventh hour they can still be avoided. That requires Ministers to step up and show leadership. It requires them to get employers and unions round the table and address the very serious issues, involving pay and cuts in safety and maintenance staff, that are behind this dispute. The entire country is about to grind to a halt, but instead of intervening to try and stop it, the Secretary of State is washing his hands of any responsibility. On the eve of the biggest rail dispute in a generation taking place on his watch, he has still not lifted a finger to resolve it. Not one meeting. No talks, no discussions; only media interviews and a petition to the Labour party. This is a grave dereliction of duty. Should the strikes go ahead tomorrow, they will represent a catastrophic failure of leadership. Ministers owe it to all those impacted by this serious disruption to get around the table for last-ditch talks to sort it out and avert it. If the Secretary of State will not listen to me —[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Can the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) and the right hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) either go outside or be quiet for a little while?
Louise Haigh
If the Secretary of State will not listen to me, he should at least listen to his own colleague and former parliamentary aide, the right hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), who said yesterday:
“I can tell you the only way out of a dispute is via negotiation. I’d call on all parties including the Government to get around the table because this is going to have a huge negative impact on people’s lives.”
The Secretary of State’s own MPs and the public know that the only way to sort this out is for him to do his job.
But that is not all, because this week it was revealed that the Secretary of State had not only boycotted the talks but tied the hands of those at the table. He and his Department failed to give the train operating companies—a party to the talks—any mandate to negotiate whatsoever. One source close to the negotiations said:
“Without a mandate from Government we can’t even address the pay question.”
Today, the Rail Delivery Group confirmed that it had not even begun those discussions. That is the reality. These talks are a sham, because Ministers have set them up to fail. It is for the Government to settle this dispute. They are integral to these negotiations, which cannot be resolved unless the Secretary of State is at the table, but it is becoming clearer by the day that Ministers would rather provoke this dispute than lift a finger to resolve it.
This is the same Transport Secretary who just a few short weeks ago was feigning outrage over the disgraceful behaviour of P&O and who is now adopting its playbook. Replacing skilled, safety-critical staff with agency workers cannot and must not be an option. So what exactly has changed between the Secretary of State calling on the public to boycott P&O and now, when he is suggesting that that behaviour should be legalised?
Tomorrow we will see unprecedented disruption. We have been clear: we do not want the strikes to happen. Where we are in government, we are doing our job. In Labour-run Wales, a strike by train staff has been avoided. Employers, unions and the Government have come together to manage change. That is what any responsible Government would be doing right now, because whether it is today, tomorrow or next week, the only way this dispute will be resolved is with a resolution on pay and job security. The Secretary of State owes it to the hundreds of thousands of workers who depend on our railways and the tens of thousands of workers employed on them to find that deal.
Those rail workers are not the enemy. They are people who showed real bravery during the pandemic to keep our country going. They showed solidarity to make sure other workers kept going into work. Some lost colleagues and friends as a result. They are the very same people to whom the Prime Minister promised a high-wage economy a year ago before presiding over the biggest fall in living standards since records began. There is still time for the Secretary of State to do the right thing, the brave thing, and show responsibility. Patients, schoolchildren, low-paid workers—the entire country needs a resolution and they will not forgive this Government if they do not step in and resolve this. Even now, at this late hour, I urge the Secretary of State: get around the table and do your job.
Grant Shapps
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) used a lot of words to avoid saying the four words, “I condemn the strikes.” She can practise saying it if she likes. I condemn the strikes—will she?
I remind the House that the hon. Lady is a former union official. She will therefore know better than most that negotiations are always held between the employers and the unions. She calls on the Government to get the parties around the table, but they were around the table. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) is right that they are not now, because the union has just walked out to call a press conference to say the strikes are on.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley is wrong when she says these strikes are about pay, safety and job cuts. Let us take them in turn. Pay—the unions wrongly told their workers that there would be no pay rise. There will be a pay rise because the pay freeze is coming to an end, so that is untrue.
Safety—it is unsafe to have people walking down the track to check the condition of the lines when it can be done by trains that can take 70,000 pictures a minute and by drones that can look at the lines from overhead. Safety is about updating outdated working practices. If the hon. Lady cared about safety, she would care about modernisation.
Job cuts—the hon. Lady will know there has already been a call for voluntary job cuts. In fact, 5,000-plus people came forward, and 2,700 have been accepted. This is about ensuring we have a railway that is fit for the post-covid world. It is therefore crazy that the RMT jumped the gun and, before the talks had a chance to get anywhere, launched into strikes.
The hon. Lady’s call for the Government to be more involved is a desperate attempt to deflect from the fact the Labour party and its constituency Labour parties have received £250,000 from the RMT. And that is nothing—Labour has received £100 million from the unions over the last 10 years, and Labour Members are here today, as ever, failing to condemn strikes that will hurt ordinary people, that will hurt kids trying to do their GCSEs and A-levels, that will hurt people trying to get to hospital appointments that were delayed during covid, and that will even see veterans miss armed forces celebrations this week.
There is no excuse for the hon. Lady and her Front-Bench team sitting on the fence. I can almost feel her pain as she resists saying the four words, “I condemn the strikes.”
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I call the Chairman of the Transport Committee, Huw Merriman.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I find it extremely bizarre for the Secretary of State to be blamed for not being in the room when these talks, which were ongoing when the RMT called the strikes, were all about intricate, technical reforms of which we would not expect politicians to be in charge, and indeed when the RMT has said it will not negotiate with a Conservative Government. He does not need to waste his time responding to that.
I was down at the port of Southampton with the Select Committee last week, and 30% of everything that comes in on those ships goes to the rest of the country by rail freight. These strikes will affect everyone, not just rail passengers. What are we doing to preserve our rail freight routes?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the cause of the strikes and about it being bizarre that the union walked out this afternoon while the talks were still ongoing, and while still trying to claim there should be more talks.
My hon. Friend is right that the disruption will create a major problem for rail freight, which has been doing pretty well as more freight shifts to rail post covid—about 9% of the overall total. We are now working as closely as possible with colleagues at Network Rail to design the strike day and post-strike day timetables, to make sure that as much freight as possible can travel, but I will not mislead him or the House, as it will be very difficult to achieve. Anyone who cares about our supply chains in this country should be against these unnecessary and unwarranted strikes.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
What a pile of nonsense. The glee with which the Secretary of State spoke on Thursday and again today rather tells the story. He spoke of the support for the rail industry and the fact that no one has lost their job. If only we had seen that same support for the aviation industry, which was promised, we would not be seeing the scenes we are up and down this country at airports across this land. In response to P&O’s unacceptable behaviour in replacing staff with agency staff, he called for the company to be boycotted and for it to reverse its decision. Now he is planning to legislate to allow agency workers to replace striking staff. Why does he not care for the rights of rail workers, given that he appeared to care so deeply for the rights of ferry workers?
ScotRail, with the encouragement of the Scottish Government, has negotiated a settlement with drivers to end their pay dispute, get services back up and running and support workers. Despite that, services will still be disrupted as a consequence of the industrial action that the UK Government have stoked with Network Rail workers. Does the Secretary of State agree that devolving Network Rail powers to Scotland is the only way to protect Scotland? Despite his claim that the unions are solely responsible for these strikes, we now know that the UK Government have prevented meaningful negotiations. With inflation heading over 10% and a Tory cost of living crisis, how can he explain or defend preventing negotiations on wage increases, unless stoking an industrial dispute to force through anti-union laws is actually the Government’s aim?
Finally, does the Secretary of State share my concern for the welfare of the Scottish Conservatives, none of whom are with us today? On the ScotRail-ASLEF issue, the Scottish Conservatives’ Twitter account said
“The SNP must sort this mess out and address the travel misery facing commuters.”
Graham Simpson MSP, the Scottish Conservative transport spokesperson, no less, called for the Scottish Government to get involved and get round the table. That is the difference in approach we get from the Scottish Conservatives depending on which Government they are addressing. So does the Secretary of State think that the Scottish Tory approach is shameful; shameless; the standard utterly hypocritical politics of the Scottish Tories; or all of the above?
Grant Shapps
I will address the point about P&O, because the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) also raised it. I am surprised that they cannot see the glaring and obvious differences in the disgraceful treatment of P&O workers. For a start, it fired its workers and brought in foreign workers at below the minimum wage—I would have thought that was a fairly obvious difference. Secondly, no one’s wage is being cut here. Thirdly, let me remind the hon. Lady that in the industry we are talking about train drivers have a median salary of £59,000 and rail workers have a median salary of £44,000, which compares rather favourably with that of nurses, who have a median salary of £31,000, and care workers, whose median salary is perhaps £21,000. No one is talking about cutting salaries; everybody here is trying to get the modernisation that could secure the future of our railways, and it is a great pity to see respected Opposition Front Benchers trying to mislead the public by somehow suggesting that this is something to do with the P&O situation when it is entirely separate and different.
The other point worth quashing is the idea that somehow we have not provided a negotiating mandate or that we have told Network Rail not to negotiate. That is simply not true. Network Rail has a negotiating mandate and is able to negotiate. It is negotiating on a package of measures that includes more than 20 areas of reform, which are deeply technical and require not only the input but the work of the employers to negotiate. In return for these reforms lies the route to better salaries—higher pay. But I want to ensure, once and for all, that we quash the idea that our railway workers are poorly paid in this country; they are not.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
What has been the monthly rate of taxpayer subsidy to the railways so far this year? What additional flexibilities could managers use to try to get a bigger proportion of services running even on a strike day?
Grant Shapps
My right hon. Friend is right to discuss the subsidy, which has been £16 billion as a whole through covid—or £16 billion committed, which means that we do not have the exact number yet for the amount of that which is still going towards the operations this year. One thing I can say to him is that without that support the railways simply would not have been able to operate. It is the equivalent of £160,000 per individual rail worker. To turn around and call these strikes is a heck of a way to thank taxpayers. We have lost around a fifth of the income from rail. I hear Mick Lynch, the leader of the RMT, claim that the Government are cutting the money that is going to the railways, but that is a fundamental misunderstanding on his part. The money that is missing is the £2 billion of passenger fares that are not being paid because people are not travelling.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
In my area, we witnessed the Paddington and Southall crashes. One of my constituents was a driver who lost his life. We were told then about the modernisation of safety inspections and it was the workers who pointed out what risks they caused. We hear today that there will be a 50% cut in the safety inspections of the infrastructure. Does the Secretary of State really think the British public have more confidence in his assessment of safety on the rails than in that of the workers who actually implement the safety inspections? I believe the British public expect the Secretary of State not to come in here ranting to provoke a strike but to behave with the dignity and responsibility of the high office that he holds.
Grant Shapps
As the House will recall from last week, the right hon. Gentleman receives donations from the very union that is going on strike—
Grant Shapps
He is saying no, but I believe that is the case.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I cannot have a dialogue. I recognise that there is a difference of opinion. It might have to be settled at another point. We will stick to this point and if the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) wants to raise the matter later, I will listen to him.
Grant Shapps
Similar to the right hon. Gentleman—this is where we have a lot in common—I had the very sad Hatfield rail accident in my constituency, and Potters Bar is next to where I live. Those were two major rail accidents in respect of which the maintenance of the railway was absolutely key.
I have heard Mick Lynch of the RMT mention this figure of a 50% reduction in safety staff. What is wrong about that is, as I explained in my statement, if we can have automation, with trains taking 70,000 images per minute, and use drones and other technologies, it will put our railway at risk not to use those things, because the modern standards that are required for maintenance will not be available.
The right hon. Gentleman asked how I know about these matters; as Transport Secretary, I have the unfortunate task of having to read all the Rail Accident Investigation Branch investigations, and I sometimes have to respond to coroners as well. Recently, I read with great sadness about a man who was killed while walking along the track to maintain it. We need to get rid of these outdated, outmoded ways of carrying out maintenance and really look after the safety of the railways.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I think the House will appreciate that the way to deal with increasing rail safety and reducing risk to rail workers is not really across the Floor of the House but between the employers and the union safety representatives. Further progress should then come.
The rail unions have a six-month authority to cause industrial disruption; they should not be using it straightaway. In my view, my local passengers—most of whom earn less than rail workers and some of whom do not earn anything at all because they are students trying to take exams this week—would prefer it if both sides of the House could call on the unions to postpone these disputes until they will not affect so many people so harshly. I think, as one of the most union-friendly Conservatives, that my voice is not necessarily going to be heard by the union leaders, but if Labour would join in we could say in a cross-party way, “Postpone the strikes this week, get on with the talks and negotiations, and if people want to take time off to go to a TUC or Labour rally, they should come back to the talks, not just go to the media.”
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is of course absolutely right about this. The absolute truth is that we need to have modernisation—we need to improve our railways. If we work together to do it, we can have a far improved railway and bring back passengers, and we can make easier things such as ticketing—currently, only one in eight tickets are purchased in a ticket office, yet we have the same set-up, with people sat behind the glass, as we have had since the 1990s. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we can modernise and improve the railways, but what is required is for the Labour party, which is much closer to the unions, to endorse that.
Perhaps if I can, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will clear up my exchange with the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). I understand that it is his constituency Labour party that has received the £30,000 in RMT funding.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
When there is an impasse in negotiation, it is the responsibility of all the partners to do whatever they can to resolve the dispute. I have been talking today to railway workers, and they are desperate to see an end to this dispute, but they do need a change in the dynamics. Will the Secretary of State stop his grandstanding, enter the room that the unions are willing to occupy, and engage in dialogue and see where that takes him?
Grant Shapps
The hon. Lady, whose own constituency Labour party received £3,000 from the RMT, may have missed the leader of her union address a press conference about an hour ago, where he made it clear that he had walked out of the talks to which she is encouraging the employers to return. We are ready to speak. We want to see this settled. Pay offers have been put down, but modernisation is required in return. It takes two to tango.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
UKHospitality, the hospitality trade association, believes that the strikes tomorrow, Thursday and Saturday will have a massive effect on the hospitality industry. We are talking about not just the major employers, but the small, family-run restaurants and cafés. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, rather than taking these strikes, the RMT should be going back to the talks and trying to stop these strikes, so that we can protect the jobs within the important hospitality industry?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is right. These strikes will cost the railways a lot. They will particularly cost people who are unable to travel—particularly the lowest paid, because they often have jobs to which people still have to physically turn up. There is probably not a sector that will suffer more than the hospitality sector. Just as this country is recovering from covid, it is completely unforgiveable of the unions to call their members out on strike when they are doing so artificially and without good cause, while negotiations are still continuing, and on the false prospectus of there not being pay rises when there were always going to be pay rises.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Secretary of State has mentioned on a number of occasions the various different people who will be seriously impacted by the strike: the exam students; those with medical appointments; and many, many others. Given that he insists that there was nothing that he could possibly have done to avert this strike, can he tell us instead what conversations he has had with the NHS, with education leaders and with others to understand what his Department can do to help health and education staff get to work for the rest of this week to support their critical industry?
Grant Shapps
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question and, indeed, for her vote as well. When this House voted last week with a 278 majority condemning the strikes, I believe that she and her party were in the Lobby putting their position clearly on the record, unlike the Official Opposition.
On those discussions with the NHS, with teachers and the rest, I am engaged with the Civil Contingencies Secretariat, which is the part of Government that co-ordinates with me and fellow Secretaries of State across Government to try, as far as possible, to ease some of the strains and stresses that will come. For example, in the case of exams where people may turn up late, we have been working with the exam authorities. However, there is no magic solution. There are 2,500 stations in this country and more than 20,000 miles of track. The fact is that, if they are closed down as the unions are doing, many people will suffer.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
My constituents from Leighton Buzzard and Dunstable pay enormous sums of money to commute into London. Has the Secretary of State done any modelling on the impact of some of the pay rises that are being asked for and the ability of people to be able to afford to travel on the railways?
Grant Shapps
As Transport Secretary, I find that a lot of the time people talk or indeed complain to me about the cost of a ticket on our rail, which can be very high. It is worth knowing that one third of the ticket price is made up of the salary of those who run the trains. As I have said all along, I want to see our railway workers paid well for doing their work, and in fact they are paid very well for doing their work, but we must run our railways as efficiently as possible to keep the ticket price down for the passengers. That is the most important part of the reforms needed and what is unfortunately at the heart of this strike: not pay, but the reform. To answer my hon. Friend’s question about his constituents, I am arranging for people who have annual season tickets, rather than having to rely on a delay repay system, to be able to apply to get their money back for the days they are unable to travel this week.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State knows that the Government have cut £4 billion from our transport system, including £2 billion from national rail. As a result, the companies involved have decided to impose a real-terms pay cut, lengthen the working day for new starters, attack rail workers’ pensions and cut thousands of jobs. That is likely to lead to much poorer conditions for staff and potentially less safe services for passengers. We are on the eve of the biggest rail strike in a generation. When will he step up to his responsibility and do what he can to resolve the dispute?
Grant Shapps
I am afraid that reading the RMT brief is what leads Labour Members to believe a bunch of untruths. Let me start with the first one: a £4 billion cut, the hon. Lady says. I think I have already explained that, but that is the passengers not coming on the railway. That is why there is a cut in revenue to the railways. What a terrible way this is to address that—going on strike, closing down the railway and putting more passengers off. It makes no sense. She talks about pension reform, but there has been considerable progress made, and it is the Pensions Regulator that needs there to be reform, otherwise the system would fall over. There has been considerable progress made in some of these areas, but again it is worth pointing out to the House that the rail pension age for earlier retirees is 62, and the pension can be about £40,000 a year. Those are rightly generous terms, but they must come in return for reforms to the rail system, otherwise it will fall over. It is not the Government cutting money; it is passengers not travelling.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
Meir station was announced at the weekend, and it is fantastic that we are moving to the next stage of the restoring your railway fund. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, just when we are trying to attract more people back on to the railways and investing in things such as Meir station and the restoring your railway programme, it is not the right time to be striking, and that these totally reckless actions by the unions must be condemned?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Here is the thing: I know the Opposition would love to paint us as being anti-railway, as if we want to close it down or we do not care about it, but the opposite is true. There has not been a Government for decades—perhaps ever—who have invested so much in the railway. If we think about the £96 billion for the integrated rail review in the north and the midlands, the £35 billion of ongoing improvements, maintenance and upgrades, and the fantastic announcement on Meir station as part of the restoring your railway bid, reversing the Beeching cuts, there has never been a more pro-rail Government. We just need a union that is prepared to work to enable it to continue to thrive.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
To declare an interest, my father-in-law is a train driver and a member of the RMT. I am saddened that from the Government Benches we are not hearing the same loving rhetoric towards our railway staff that we did during the pandemic. The Secretary of State called our railway workers heroes. What has changed, and why will he not get around the negotiating table and see what he can do?
Grant Shapps
I wish the hon. Lady’s relation well in his job, and I hope he can get back to it very soon. I have just explained that this Government are putting £96 billion into northern powerhouse rail, £35 billion into upgrades and more money into the restoring your railway fund. There has never been a more pro-rail Government, as far as I can see, in history. However, it is also the case that, during the pandemic, we pumped in £16 billion, equivalent to £600 per household in this country or £160,000 per railway worker, to keep them in their jobs. We love the railways, and I like the people who work on them as well—I just want them to work, that is all.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
I am sure the Secretary of State will join me in thanking the wider members of the railway economy who will have to come together to sustain a skeleton services over the coming weeks. Will he draw a conclusion, though, from the 2016 Southern and Thameslink strike, where a lack of familiarity with the Passenger Assist service for disabled passengers meant that many could not complete their journeys and in the worst-case scenario were left abandoned on deserted station platforms after the last service of the day? When he discusses contingency planning with the many train operators, will he bear that very salient point in mind, because it was forgotten last time and had to be relearned yet again?
Grant Shapps
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who is a distinguished former Rail Minister and knows a great deal about the service. He is absolutely right about Passenger Assist. We are expanding that service by, for example, speeding up response times and introducing things like apps and standards to make sure that people can use our trains. We will shortly complete the work that we have promised on putting in tactile pavements around station platforms to remove another potential risk of using our railways. I am fully on board with everything that he said—we just need our railways running, though.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
My mum is one of the RMT members who will be taking industrial action this week, along with many of my constituents, the majority of whom are cleaning workers, catering and gateline staff, and other ancillary roles who are not even on a real living wage and at the sharp end of this Government’s cost of living crisis. My mum and the other key workers in transport are not striking because they want to; it is a last resort because they feel they have been left no choice. A real-terms cut to their pay or the threat of losing their job altogether is far more than the wages they will lose in striking to defend themselves. Will the Transport Secretary therefore tell the House what steps he has taken to enable train operating companies to make an offer on a deal so that this crisis can be fairly resolved and the strikes averted?
Grant Shapps
They have actually already made an offer—the hon. Lady may not be aware—that the RMT has talked about this afternoon and clearly rejected as well. She talks about the cost of living crisis but fails to mention that it is a global inflationary problem caused not only by coronavirus but now a war in Ukraine on which this country has helped to lead the response. She talks about the salaries of people on the railway. As I have said several times, I want the salaries to be higher. There will be a pay increase this year for her mum and for everyone else. It is important to recognise that a responsible Government have to make the judgment between railway workers, nurses, teachers, care workers and many others. In that regard, she should know that in the past 10 years there has been a 39% increase in railway workers’ salaries compared with just 16% for nurses. We do need to make sure that the fair settlement is fair for everybody.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
Accepting that there is never a good time to strike, does the Secretary of State agree that to do so when the cost of fuel is at impossibly high levels, people are struggling to hold down their jobs and rebuild their businesses in a post-covid environment and children are in the middle of their exams shows a callousness from union bosses that should be condemned, and not supported by Labour Members?
Grant Shapps
Exactly. I think the whole House has noticed that their inability to simply say that they condemn the strikes is the most striking part of this debate. This will hurt ordinary people. It will hurt the cleaners who rely on trains to get to their jobs but will not be able to get there, and in some cases will therefore not get paid. This is a strike led by the union bosses who have misled their members into thinking that there would not be a pay rise without striking when that was never the case.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. As I travelled today from Belfast to London, I was very aware of the hundreds of accents and the thousands of visitors. With all the strikes affecting so many tourists who rely on the trains to get about, what steps are being taken to provide information for visitors who do not know how a strike will affect them, and how can we do more to see an end to these strikes?
Grant Shapps
That is very much one of the things that we are working on through the civil contingencies secretariat. I am working with my right hon. Friend Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to ensure that tourists can still receive information through their hotels, bed and breakfasts or wherever they happen to be staying, because they would not necessarily know to look at things such as National Rail Enquiries, as I hope others would. We are trying to push the message out as widely as possible, but it will be far from perfect. Again, just as this country was starting to recover—just as we came out of coronavirus first, because we got the jabs done first—this is the last thing, among others, that the tourism sector needs.
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
It is sad that the Labour Front-Bench team will not condemn the strikes that are happening tomorrow, but in Wales, Labour is going further and denying their existence. In my constituency, which I assure the House is in Wales, there are no strikes tomorrow, Thursday and Saturday—Labour is calling them “travel disruption”. I ask the Secretary of State not to forget about Wales and to make sure that we get the trains running again. When is a strike not a strike?
Grant Shapps
I notice that the tone of the Opposition Front-Bench spokespeople has changed considerably since last week, when they each stood up and claimed that in whichever part of our great United Kingdom they run the Government, there were somehow not going to be strikes. The RMT strikes affect the entire country—Scotland, Wales and England. The only place that is being spared is Northern Ireland. The track and the responsibility of the unions—the RMT—to work with Network Rail means that the disruption, I am afraid, will be wholesale.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
May I press the Secretary of State, as a number of hon. Members have—[Interruption.] No, I have not received any money, if that is the conversation that he is having with the Minister of State, Department for Transport, the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton). I want to press him on agency workers. He has been asked if he will legislate to allow agency workers to effectively bust industrial action in future. What guarantees will he give that those agency workers will have the necessary training in safety and all the rest of it? Is he suggesting that Network Rail should break the law this week by hiring agency workers, and who will pay the fines if it does?
Grant Shapps
No, Network Rail obviously cannot do that this week, but yes, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy will bring forward legislation quickly to allow for what the hon. Gentleman calls agency workers. For this purpose, that is actually more about transferable skills. It will mean that somebody who is sitting at a screen in a control room and is fully qualified to run the screen next door, but at the moment is not allowed to do so because of some antiquated union rules that prevent it, will be allowed to do so. That means that the whole country will not be held to ransom by union barons who prefer to pursue their narrow agenda, supported by the Labour party, when ordinary hard-working people want to get to work. We will be introducing that legislation, and we will be doing it very quickly.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
Tomorrow will see yet another day of tube strikes in London, which will be the 53rd day since Sadiq Khan became Mayor of London, even though he was elected on the basis of promising zero strikes. That strike will cause untold misery and disruption for my constituents at a time when businesses in London are just beginning to recover from coronavirus. Does my right hon. Friend agree that London deserves better than Sadiq Khan and his union paymasters, and that London Labour Members should condemn the strikes, rather than tacitly supporting them?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She and the whole House will have noticed that while the Opposition were singing the praises of other parts of the Union, including what they call Labour Wales—I do not think it is Labour at all, but Labour runs the Administration—for not striking, they failed to mention that their own Mayor of London has had 53 days of strikes. The truth is that we need to move ahead with automated trains on parts of the London underground; the metro in Paris has them and it is time we got on with it here.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Earlier, the Secretary of State waved around a document relating to 28 areas of reform that he thinks need to be implemented to modernise our railway. Has he stipulated that they must be agreed before rail operators can negotiate pay?
Grant Shapps
I will recount, but I think it was 20 areas, and no, I have not done that, but it is the kind of modernisation we would expect. For example, I was just looking at the list, and one working practice means that paysheets have to be done on paper, whereas it would clearly make sense to do them electronically. It would save a lot of time and a lot of money, and I cannot really see why anyone would be against it, but it is a working practice that is not allowed. I mentioned being able to move between different very similar roles but only where somebody is fully qualified, and those kinds of flexibilities in rostering do not exist.
It is pretty much like trying to run an orchestra for Network Rail, but it does not know who is going to turn up or which instruments they will bring, and it has no ability to tell them where to sit—and then it is supposed to make the railway run. We have to modernise our railways.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
Obviously, we have this Tuesday and this Thursday, and many of my constituents will have to put up with this chaos. They will also have to put up with it on Saturday, and also on 2 July, when ASLEF will also be organising the drivers striking in Ipswich. But this is something they have got used to—constant disruption at the weekends in Ipswich. Recently, we had six weekends in a row where we had replacement bus services. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that weekend services should not be an afterthought, but are increasingly becoming more important?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I caught Mick Lynch, the leader of the RMT, on TV at his press conference after he walked out of the talks, saying that there is no need for any reductions or changes because, on the basis of last week’s figures, 90% of the passengers had come back. That is completely wrong. Those numbers are not accurate; a fifth of the passengers are still missing. However, there are the occasional lines and the occasional times when 90%-plus have come back, and they tend to be at the weekends. It tends to be on the Saturday and Sunday services, and is all the more reason why we need a seven-day railway, like any other business. We need to be able to run it on a Sunday, because compared with 1919, when these rules were put in place, the world has changed.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
My constituents will not be able to use Merseyrail trains tomorrow, but not because there is a strike at Merseyrail. There is no strike because Labour-run Liverpool city region has met the rail unions and avoided strikes at Merseyrail. However, there still will not be any trains in Merseyside because this Conservative Transport Secretary is responsible for Network Rail, where there is a strike, and he has refused to meet the unions for months. Labour has found a way to resolve potential disputes in Wales and in Merseyside, so what is it about this Transport Secretary that prevents him from finding solutions and stopping these strikes?
Grant Shapps
The hon. Member may want to reflect the same question to the Mayor of London, I suppose, for the same reasons. I am delighted that Merseyrail has been able to do its thing. I do hope that he will now join me—will he join me?—in condemning the strikes, because I think that would have real weight from the Labour and unions party, but the Opposition will not do it, will they? They will not condemn these strikes, and millions of people up and down this country have taken note.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree with me that Labour Members who refuse to condemn these strikes have no regard for the potential effect on the exam results of children taking GCSEs and A-levels up and down the country? Both the AQA and Edexcel—both well-known exam boards—have confirmed that they will not allow the strikes or their impact to be used as grounds for appeal for students who arrive late or perhaps are unable to arrive at all. Given the experience that schoolchildren in this country have had over the last two years, which has been the worst in our lifetimes, does the Secretary of State agree that it is utterly reprehensible for all sides of this House not to be condemning these rail strikes absolutely?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend puts it brilliantly, and she is absolutely right. It is actually callous. That is what it is. I have a daughter who is taking an exam on Thursday. Thursday is a strike day, and she will now go in by car. I can see that the stress is already building on her, because she is now worried about getting there. Yet the Opposition have nothing to say on the subject. They refuse to condemn the strikes. My hon. Friend is right: it is a callous approach.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
The Secretary of State came into the Chamber with confected rage about workers, comparing them with ’70s workers. I do not know how old he was when the Thatcher anti-unions laws came in, but they are what the unions are working under. They are holding up their obligations under the law as it is. He is ultimately responsible for the rail network across the UK, so why does he not get around the table and deal with that?
Grant Shapps
First, I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is anything but confected rage when I see what is happening not just to my daughter and others taking exams but to hard-pressed people across the country who cannot get to their jobs as well as veterans who want to go and celebrate. Secondly, will he join me in condemning the strikes?
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
Tomorrow, as Kellogg’s is in my constituency, I was due to host its breakfast club awards in Parliament to honour the 5,000 schools and their teachers who diligently run Kellogg’s breakfast clubs, which aim to tackle food insecurity. Thanks to the strike, the awards have been cancelled. Does my right hon. Friend agree that by striking for more, the RMT takes away from the many?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is absolutely right and she gives another example of how not condemning the strikes is being part of the problem. People must be prepared to stand up for what they believe in. If they want school trips, companies doing corporate social responsibility and people to be able to visit Parliament—all those different activities—they have to be on the side of people using the railway, and they have to condemn the strikes.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
It is disgusting how the Secretary of State and the Government have smeared and continue to smear ordinary, hard-working, decent people such as railway cleaners, safety operatives and ticket staff who just want to keep their jobs and get a decent, fair pay rise. Does it not go to show which side the Government are on when they seek to slash workers’ pay while the train companies continue to make hundreds and hundreds of millions of pounds in profits?
Grant Shapps
I was just checking whether the hon. Member is repeating the RMT’s handout, because what he says is factually untrue in the same way as a series of things that the RMT and Mick Lynch said on television and at the press conference this afternoon. One of the untruths is that anybody is trying to cut anyone’s pay. That, I am afraid, is being propagated by Opposition Front Benchers, who try to suggest that this is somehow like P&O. That is not true. We are putting salaries up. We want people to earn decent wages for decent days of work. We just need to get the reform so that we are not stuck in the 1970s on a railway that is having to recover from coronavirus.
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
These strikes will cause untold harm to businesses, students and vulnerable people who have lived through some of the toughest of the last two years. Considering the huge sums of money that the RMT donates to the Labour party, does the Secretary of State agree that Labour should publish a table of donor receipts so that constituents can lodge a claim for their lost wages from Labour party coffers or from the extortionate union salaries?
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
In generations past, the railway industry played a major part in developing seaside resorts such as Cleethorpes. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, were these damaging strikes to continue, all they would succeed in doing is damaging many small businesses in communities such as mine? Will he do all that he can to ensure that working people can get to work on the trains?
Grant Shapps
This is the great irony: the people whom the strike will hurt the most are not the white-collar workers who will sit behind their computers using Zoom and Microsoft Teams but the people trying to support tourist industries in places such as Cleethorpes—people trying to run bed and breakfasts—and people trying to get to work to do their jobs, and often they can least afford to lose a day’s work. However, they will lose not one day’s but at least three days’ work, and there will be chaos on the other days of this week. It is a disgrace, and the Opposition cannot find their way to condemning it, which is disgraceful, too.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
The trade unions decided to go on strike without even knowing what the industry was offering on pay and conditions. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that exposes the strikes for exactly what they are: political game playing from the Labour party and its trade union paymasters, without a second thought for the hard-working travelling British public?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is exactly right. He has seen through it. The leader, Mick Lynch, said that he is “nostalgic” for the union power of the ’70s, and that is exactly what they are driving for. As my hon. Friend rightly points out, Mick Lynch called his members out on strike, telling them that it was about getting a pay increase, but not telling them that they would already be getting a pay increase because the pay freeze had ended.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
The Labour party often says that it represents working people, but having taken £100 million from trade unions, and having failed to condemn the strikes, does the Labour party really represent misery and chaos?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This statement has been running for an hour, and we still have not heard the four simple words, “We condemn the strikes.”
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
This strike is a real kick in the teeth for hard-working taxpayers, who have dug deep over the past 18 months to keep this industry alive. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Labour party—the spineless party opposite—should grow a backbone and condemn these strikes?
Grant Shapps
That is an appropriate place to end. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. People have dug deep—that is exactly what they have done; it was £600 per household. People are furious. They paid out that money to make sure that nobody lost their jobs, and what thanks have they got? Where is the reward? Where is the “thank you” for keeping the railway going? It is a strike that will put people out of pay and hit people’s pockets once again, and Labour Members cannot even find their way to say, “We condemn the strikes.” It is a disgrace.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the Secretary of State and all Members who took part in that item of business.
Points of Order
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Ahead of last week’s debate considering these strikes, I sought counsel from the Standards Commissioner about the declaration of Member’s financial interests. You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that many members of the Labour party have a relationship with the trade unions that we are incredibly proud of, including with the RMT. The advice that I received from the Standards Commissioner ahead of that debate, and therefore ahead of today, stated under the requirements for declaration:
“Members are required, subject to the paragraphs below, to declare any financial interests which satisfy the test of relevance, including:
a) past financial interests (normally limited to those active within the last twelve months)”.
It is my recollection that the general election was two and a half years ago, so can you advise, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether a declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests should keep being raised two and a half years after it has been made?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the hon. Lady for her very reasonable point of order. There has been some confusion as to what is required. She read out advice and rules from the Standards Committee. I believe what she said is absolutely correct, and it is useful for the House to hear that.
I cannot judge here and now, without having had a while to look at all the circumstances, exactly what any individual hon. Member should do when they have received in the past, are receiving, or might receive in the future, any financial help. There is, however, a very simple principle that transparency and honesty is always best. I know the hon. Lady will agree with me on that, and if any Member has doubt as to whether or not they should disclose anything about their own financial situation, I suggest that they think about what is the honourable thing to do, and what is the transparent and reasonable thing to do, rather than ask exactly where the line would come were it to be challenged in a court of law or a committee. If we all stick to principles, rather than the exact black and white of the rules, we are likely to have a Parliament that works best. I honestly think that the vast majority of Members act honourably in this respect. Does that answer the hon. Lady’s question?
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Members may be aware that early editions of Saturday’s Times included a story regarding the conduct of the Prime Minister when he was Foreign Secretary. The piece alleged that the Prime Minister attempted to appoint the then Carrie Symonds, now Carrie Johnson, as his chief of staff—a taxpayer-funded role paying a significant salary—at a time when their relationship was not public.
I have particular concerns regarding the disappearance of the story from The Times. A Downing Street spokesperson has confirmed that they did contact The Times and asked it to retract the story, and it has been alleged that the Prime Minister attempted to take out an injunction. Following the resignation last week of the Prime Minister’s independent adviser on ministerial standards, there is now no mechanism by which any investigation under the ministerial code can be undertaken into the Prime Minister’s conduct, other than at the behest of the Prime Minister himself. While the ministerial code remains a matter for Government, Members will remain concerned by the standards and conduct of those in Downing Street. Can you advise, Madam Deputy Speaker, on ways in which Members of Parliament such as I might be able to make assessments of the Prime Minister’s conduct in relation to standards following the adviser’s resignation?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order and, of course, it is not a point of order for the Chair. I understand that she is using the device of a point of order to raise on the Floor of the House a matter that she thinks is of political interest. My understanding is that this was an article in a newspaper, and one can believe or not what one reads in a newspaper. If she is concerned, as she said she is, about allegations that might have a bearing on matters to be considered by the Standards Committee, she should raise the matter with the Standards Committee.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. An investigation by tonight’s BBC “Panorama” programme appears to show that social media companies are still directing vulnerable young people to content that promotes the carrying of knives. The programme reveals this one and a half years after my constituent, 13-year-old Oliver Stephens, was brutally murdered in a Reading park in a knife attack that was linked to social media. To make matters worse, the “Panorama” investigation, I believe, shows that young people who are opposed to knife crime, and who have stated that they are opposed to it and concerned by it, are sent damaging content about knives. This is utterly appalling. Our whole community is shocked, deeply upset and angry at the behaviour of these companies, and this is happening at the very time that the Online Safety Bill is being debated in this House. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make this point of order. I wonder whether you could direct me as to how I can raise this with Ministers.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for having given me notice of his intention to raise it. First, may I say what a terrible tragedy it was that young Olly Stephens, aged only 13, was murdered in this dreadful way? No one must ever diminish such a dreadful occurrence. However, I am afraid that as I said to the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), this is not a matter for the Chair, although I understand the hon. Gentleman’s desire to use the device of a point of order to raise the matter on the Floor of the House. It will undoubtedly come to public attention if, as he has described, the programme is to be shown on television this evening.
I say two things to the hon. Gentleman. First, as he points out himself, the Online Safety Bill is currently going through the House and therefore there is an opportunity for him to raise the matter then. Secondly, he might wish to apply for an Adjournment debate or something of that kind to have a proper discussion about a very serious matter on the Floor of the House.
Bills Presented
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
As the House will be aware, a great many Bills are to be presented today. To save time and get on with today’s main business, when Members are presenting more than one consecutive Bill I will accept private notice of the dates of Second Reading for those Bills; those dates will be minuted accordingly in Hansard and in Votes and Proceedings. I will ask Members presenting individual Bills to name the date for Second Reading in the usual way.
The first Bill was to be presented by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely), but he is unable, for very good reasons, to be present today, so we will move to the next Bill on the Order Paper.
Carbon Emissions (Buildings) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Jerome Mayhew presented a Bill to require the whole-life carbon emissions of buildings to be reported; to set limits on embodied carbon emissions in the construction of buildings; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 November, and to be printed (Bill 34).
Care Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone presented a Bill to make provision about meeting the needs of people providing care and of people receiving care; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 9 September, and to be printed (Bill 35).
Flashing Images Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Tom Hunt presented a Bill to make provision for an offence in relation to the sending of flashing images; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 3 February 2023, and to be printed (Bill 36).
Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Robin Millar presented a Bill to make provision about veterans advisory and pensions committees; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 February 2023, and to be printed (Bill 37).
Pensions Dashboards (Prohibition of Indemnification) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mary Robinson presented a Bill to make provision about prohibiting the trustees and managers of pension schemes from being indemnified in respect of penalties imposed under pensions dashboards regulations.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 July, and to be printed (Bill 38).
Firearms Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Shaun Bailey presented a Bill to make provision about the regulation of certain rifle ranges and shooting galleries; to make provision for an offence in relation to the possession of component parts of ammunition; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 3 March 2023, and to be printed (Bill 39).
Palestine Statehood (Recognition) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Layla Moran presented a Bill to make provision in connection with the recognition of the State of Palestine.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 17 March 2023, and to be printed (Bill 40).
Chalk Streams (Protection) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sarah Green presented a Bill to provide for a category of protection for chalk streams for the purpose of providing additional protections from pollution, abstraction and other forms of environmental damage; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 17 March 2023, and to be printed (Bill 41).
Corporate Homicide Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Stephens presented a Bill to amend the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 to make provision about the offence of corporate homicide; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 November, and to be printed (Bill 42).
Short-term and Holiday-let Accommodation (Licensing) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Rachael Maskell presented a Bill to give local authorities the power to require licences for the conversion of domestic properties into short-term and holiday-let accommodation; to give local authorities the power to issue fines and to remove such licences when safety, noise and nuisance conditions have not been met; to make provision about banning the licensing of such properties in defined geographical areas; to give local authorities the power to vary the rates of local taxes in relation to such properties; to give local authorities the power to restrict the number of days per year for which such properties can be let; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 9 December, and to be printed (Bill 43).
Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (Amendment) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Caroline Lucas supported by Sir Peter Bottomley, Clive Lewis, Bell Ribeiro-Addy, Ian Byrne and Wera Hobhouse, presented a Bill to amend the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 to extend the right of public access to the countryside, including to woodlands, the Green Belt, waters and more grasslands; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 October, and to be printed (Bill 44).
Covid-19 Vaccine Damage Payments Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope supported by Hannah Bardell, Mr Peter Bone, Miriam Cates, Philip Davies, Richard Drax, Esther McVey, Nigel Mills, Jim Shannon, Sir Desmond Swayne, Mr William Wragg and Sir Jeremy Wright, presented a Bill to place a duty on the Secretary of State to make provision about financial assistance to persons who have suffered disablement following vaccination against Covid-19 and to the next of kin of persons who have died shortly after vaccination against Covid-19; to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the merits of a no-fault compensation scheme to provide such financial assistance, on whether there should be any upper limit on the financial assistance available, on the criteria for eligibility and on whether payment should be made in all cases where there is no other reasonable cause for the death or disablement suffered; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 September, and to be printed (Bill 45).
Animals (Low-Welfare Activities Abroad) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Angela Richardson presented a Bill to prohibit the sale and advertising of activities abroad which involve low standards of welfare for animals.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 3 February 2023, and to be printed (Bill 46).
Public Advocate (No. 2) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Maria Eagle, supported by Sir George Howarth, Derek Twigg, Alison McGovern, Dame Angela Eagle, Peter Dowd, Bill Esterson, Conor McGinn, Dan Carden, Ian Byrne, Paula Barker and Kim Johnson, presented a Bill to establish a public advocate to provide advice to, and act as data controller for, representatives of the deceased after major incidents.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 July, and to be printed (Bill 47).
Telecommunications Infrastructure (Consultation) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Dame Diana Johnson, supported by Karl Turner and Emma Hardy, presented a Bill to make provision about mandatory local consultation in relation to the installation of telecommunications infrastructure in residential areas; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 November, and to be printed (Bill 48).
Hereditary Titles (Female Succession) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mark Jenkinson presented a Bill to make provision for the succession of female heirs to hereditary titles; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 January 2023, and to be printed (Bill 49).
Minimum Energy Performance of Buildings Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sarah Olney presented a Bill to make provision to increase the energy performance of buildings; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 March 2023, and to be printed (Bill 50).
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Owen Thompson is unable to be present today, so we move to the next Bill on the Order Paper.
Plastics (Wet Wipes) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Fleur Anderson presented a Bill to prohibit the manufacture and sale of wet wipes containing plastic; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 September, and to be printed (Bill 52).
Public Bodies (Representation from Devolved Nations) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Wendy Chamberlain presented a Bill to require the Government to have regard to the desirability of boards of public bodies including at least one person with relevant experience in at least one of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 March 2023, and to be printed (Bill 53).
Local Authority Boundaries (Referendums) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Robbie Moore presented a Bill to make provision to enable parliamentary constituency areas to form new unitary local authority areas if agreed by referendum; to make provision for such referendums; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 February 2023, and to be printed (Bill 54).
Fertility Treatment (Employment Rights) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Nickie Aiken presented a Bill to require employers to allow employees to take time off from work for appointments for fertility treatment; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 November, and to be printed (Bill 55).
Hares (Close Season) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Anthony Browne presented a Bill to create an offence of killing, injuring or taking hares at certain times of the year.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 9 December, and to be printed (Bill 56).
Workers (Predictable Terms and Conditions) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Scott Benton presented a Bill to give workers and agency workers the right to request more predictable terms and conditions of work.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 3 February 2023, and to be printed (Bill 57).
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Helen Morgan is unable to be present today, so we move to the next Bill on the Order Paper.
Sexually-motivated Manslaughter (Sentencing) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Laura Farris presented a Bill to amend the Sentencing Code to provide for a minimum sentence for cases of manslaughter which are sexually-motivated.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 November, and to be printed (Bill 59).
Access to Elected Office Fund (Report) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Daisy Cooper presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the merits of reinstating the Access to Elected Office Fund.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 17 March 2023, and to be printed (Bill 60).
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Tim Farron is unable to be present today, so we move to the next Bill on the Order Paper.
Copyright and Performers’ Rights (Extended Collective Licensing) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Giles Watling presented a Bill to make provision about extended collective licensing in relation to copyright and performers' rights; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 November, and to be printed (Bill 62).
Automated External Defibrillators (Public Access) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Jim Shannon presented a Bill to require the installation of automated external defibrillators in public buildings, sporting facilities, schools, higher education and other education and skills facilities, and facilities that provide care to vulnerable people; and to make associated provision about training and signage.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 9 September, and to be printed (Bill 63).
British Bill of Rights and Withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone presented a Bill to make provision for an application to the Council of Europe to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights and the introduction of a British Bill of Rights.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 September, and to be printed (Bill 64).
BBC Licence Fee (Abolition) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone presented a Bill to abolish the BBC licence fee and make the BBC a subscription service; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 November, and to be printed (Bill 65).
Business of the House Commission Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone presented a Bill to create a Business of the House Commission to regulate the timetabling of business in the House of Commons; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 November, and to be printed (Bill 66).
Electoral Commission (Abolition) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone presented a Bill to abolish the Electoral Commission; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 9 December, and to be printed (Bill 67).
General Election (Leaders’ Debates) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone presented a Bill to set up a commission to make arrangements for debates between leaders of political parties during a General Election; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 January 2023, and to be printed (Bill 68).
Hospitals (Parking Charges and Business Rates) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone presented a Bill to prohibit charging for car parking at NHS Hospitals for patients and visitors; to make provision for NHS Hospitals to be exempt from business rates; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 3 February 2023, and to be printed (Bill 69).
Human Trafficking (Child Protection) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone presented a Bill to make provision for the creation of secure safe houses for children that have been subject to human trafficking; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 February 2023, and to be printed (Bill 70).
Human Trafficking (Sentencing) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone presented a Bill to make provision about penalties for human trafficking offences.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 3 March 2023, and to be printed (Bill 71).
Prime Minister (Accountability to House of Commons) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone presented a Bill to impose duties on the Prime Minister relating to accountability to the House of Commons; to require the Prime Minister to be available to answer questions in that House on at least two occasions during a sitting week except in specified circumstances; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 17 March 2023, and to be printed (Bill 72).
Prime Minister (Temporary Replacement) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone presented a Bill to make provision for the carrying out of the functions of the Prime Minister in the event that a Prime Minister, or a person temporarily carrying out the functions of the Prime Minister, is incapacitated; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 October, and to be printed (Bill 73).
Voter Registration Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone presented a Bill to prohibit persons from being registered to vote in Parliamentary elections at more than one address; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 March 2023, and to be printed (Bill 74).
Workers (Rights and Definition) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Stephens presented a Bill to make provision about workers’ rights; to amend the definition of worker; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 January 2023, and to be printed (Bill 75).
Full Employment Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Stephens presented a Bill to place a duty on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to pursue a policy of full employment; to make associated provision for an employment guarantee scheme for benefit claimants who have been unemployed and looking for work for longer than six months; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 January 2023, and to be printed (Bill 76).
Devolution (Employment) (Scotland) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Stephens presented a Bill to amend the Scotland Act 1998 to grant legislative competence for employment matters to the Scottish Parliament.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 3 February 2023, and to be printed (Bill 77).
Health and Safety at Work Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Stephens presented a Bill to amend the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 to make provision about civil liability for breaches of health and safety duties, and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 3 February 2023, and to be printed (Bill 78).
Asylum Seekers (Accommodation Eviction Procedures) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Stephens presented a Bill to make provision for asylum seekers to challenge the proportionality of a proposed eviction from accommodation before an independent court or tribunal; to establish asylum seeker accommodation eviction procedures for public authorities; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 January 2023, and to be printed (Bill 79).
Disability Benefit Assessments (Recording) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Stephens presented a Bill to place a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that applicants for Disability Benefit are given the option of their eligibility assessment being audio recorded; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 January 2023, and to be printed (Bill 80).
Benefit Sanctions (Warnings) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Stephens presented a Bill to make provision for warnings to be given to benefit claimants before they are given sanctions; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 3 March 2023, and to be printed (Bill 81).
Universal Credit Sanctions (Zero Hours Contracts) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Stephens presented a Bill to amend the Welfare Reform Act 2012 to provide that a Universal Credit claimant may not be sanctioned for refusing work on a zero hours contract; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 3 March 2023, and to be printed (Bill 82).
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (Powers) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Stephens presented a Bill to grant powers to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman to identify and investigate systemic problems in the benefits system and make associated recommendations to the Secretary of State; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 9 December, and to be printed (Bill 83).
Under-Occupancy Penalty (Report) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Stephens presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the merits of repealing those provisions of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 which provide for persons to be paid reduced rates of housing benefit or universal credit because their accommodation is deemed to be under-occupied.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 9 December, and to be printed (Bill 84).
Asylum Seekers (Permission to Work) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Stephens presented a Bill to make provision for granting permission to work to asylum seekers who have waited six months for a decision on their asylum application; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 October, and to be printed (Bill 85).
Housing Standards (Refugees and Asylum Seekers) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Stephens presented a Bill to make provision for national minimum standards in accommodation offered to refugees and asylum seekers; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 October, and to be printed (Bill 86).
Social Security Benefits (Healthy Eating) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Stephens presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to publish annual calculations of benefit and tax credit rates that would be required for a representative household to afford to buy meals in accordance with the Eatwell Guide to eating healthily; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 November, and to be printed (Bill 87).
Evictions (Universal Credit) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Stephens presented a Bill to place a duty on the Secretary of State to prevent the evictions of Universal Credit claimants in rent arrears; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 17 March 2023, and to be printed (Bill 88).
Mobile Homes Act 1983 (Amendment) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to amend the Mobile Homes Act 1983; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 October, and to be printed (Bill 89).
Mobile Homes (Pitch Fees) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to amend the provisions about pitch fees in the Mobile Homes Act 1983; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 November, and to be printed (Bill 90).
Anonymity of Suspects Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to create an offence of disclosing the identity of a person who is the subject of an investigation in respect of the alleged commission of an offence; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 October, and to be printed (Bill 91).
Covid-19 Vaccine Damage Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to establish an independent review of disablement caused by Covid-19 vaccinations and the adequacy of the compensation offered to persons so disabled; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 October, and to be printed (Bill 92).
Covid-19 Vaccine Diagnosis and Treatment Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to place a duty on the Secretary of State to improve the diagnosis and treatment of persons who have suffered or continue to suffer ill effects from Covid-19 vaccines; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 November, and to be printed (Bill 93).
Domestic Energy (Value Added Tax) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to exempt from VAT supplies of electricity, oil and gas for domestic purposes; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 9 September, and to be printed (Bill 94).
Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 (Amendment) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to amend the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 to make provision about parliamentary scrutiny of regulations made under that Act; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 3 February 2023, and to be printed (Bill 95).
Caravan Site Licensing (Exemptions of Motor Homes) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to exempt motor homes from caravan site licensing requirements; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 3 February 2023, and to be printed (Bill 96).
NHS England (Alternative Treatment) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to make provision about arranging alternative non-NHS England treatment for patients who have waited for more than one year for hospital treatment; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 October, and to be printed (Bill 97).
British Broadcasting Corporation (Privatisation) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to make provision for the privatisation of the British Broadcasting Corporation; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 February 2023, and to be printed (Bill 98).
Children’s Clothing (Value Added Tax) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to extend the definition of children’s clothing for the purposes of exemption from VAT; to extend the VAT exemption to further categories of school uniform; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 February 2023, and to be printed (Bill 99).
BBC Licence Fee Non-Payment (Decriminalisation for Over-75s) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to de-criminalise the non-payment of the BBC licence fee by persons aged over seventy-five; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 9 September, and to be printed (Bill 100).
Regulatory Impact Assessments Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to require a Regulatory Impact Assessment to be published for all primary and secondary legislation introduced by the Government; to make provision for associated sanctions; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 March 2023, and to be printed (Bill 101).
Barnett Formula (Replacement) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to report to Parliament on proposals to replace the Barnett Formula used to calculate adjustments to public expenditure allocated to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland with a statutory scheme for the allocation of resources based on an assessment of relative needs; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 9 December, and to be printed (Bill 102).
Rule of Law (Enforcement by Public Authorities) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to require public authorities to exercise their statutory powers to investigate and take enforcement action for breaches of the law; to make provision for sanctions for failing to take such action; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 January 2023, and to be printed (Bill 103).
Illegal Immigration (Offences) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to create offences in respect of persons who have entered the UK illegally or who have remained in the UK without legal authority; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 September, and to be printed (Bill 104).
National Health Service Co-Funding and Co-Payment Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to make provision for co-funding and for the extension of co-payment for NHS services in England; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 November, and to be printed (Bill 105).
Caravan Sites Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to amend the requirements for caravan site licence applications made under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 17 March 2023, and to be printed (Bill 106).
Public Sector Exit Payments (Limitation) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to limit exit payments made by some public sector organisations to employees; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 3 March 2023, and to be printed (Bill 107).
Green Belt (Protection) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to establish a national register of Green Belt land in England; to restrict the ability of local authorities to de-designate Green Belt land; to make provision about future development of de-designated Green Belt land and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 9 September, and to be printed (Bill 108).
Decarbonisation and Economic Strategy Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Caroline Lucas, supported by Clive Lewis, Zarah Sultana, Debbie Abrahams, Wera Hobhouse, Nadia Whittome, Claire Hanna, Stephen Farry and Beth Winter, presented a Bill to place duties on the Secretary of State to decarbonise the United Kingdom economy and to reverse inequality; to establish a ten-year economic and public investment strategy in accordance with those duties which promotes a community- and employee-led transition from high-carbon to low- and zero-carbon industry; to require the Government to report on its adherence to the strategy; to establish higher environmental standards for air, water and green spaces; to make provision to protect and restore natural habitats; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 October, and to be printed (Bill 109).
Participation in Court Proceedings (Live Links) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Robbie Moore presented a Bill to make provision about participating in certain court proceedings through live links; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 March 2023, and to be printed (Bill 110).
Removal of Titles Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Rachael Maskell presented a Bill to give the monarch powers to remove titles; to provide that such removals can be done by the monarch on their own initiative or following a recommendation of a joint committee of Parliament; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 9 December and to be printed (Bill 111).
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Owen Thompson is unable to be present today, so we move to the next Bill on the Order Paper.
Paternity (Leave and Pay) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Gareth Davies presented a Bill to extend eligibility to paternity leave and pay; to make provision for more flexibility in the timing of, and notice period for, paternity leave; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 September, and to be printed (Bill 114).
Employment (Dismissal and Re-engagement) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Gavin Newlands presented a Bill to make provision for safeguards for workers against dismissal and re-engagement on inferior terms and conditions; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 March 2023, and to be printed (Bill 115).
High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill
Monday 20th June 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill 2021-22 View all High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill 2021-22 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:39 - The House divided: - Ayes: 205 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Wendy Morton)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Today, the House is considering the next stage of HS2—the section from Crewe to Manchester, a route that will bring high-speed rail to the heart of the north for the first time. When this section is completed, HS2 will link the UK’s three largest conurbations, Greater Manchester, the west midlands and London. It will double capacity on the UK’s busiest rail route, freeing up much-needed space on other congested rail lines. It will halve journey times between Manchester and Birmingham, and it will speed passengers from Manchester Piccadilly to London Euston in just one hour and 11 minutes —a trip that takes over two hours today. By transforming rail travel for millions of people each year and acting as a catalyst for investment, jobs and regeneration, this vital route will honour the Government’s defining commitment to levelling up our country.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
My constituency contains a large town called Northwich. Just over a year ago, part of the station collapsed: the roof collapsed. Through the grace of God, nobody died.
As the Minister may well imagine, people are somewhat sceptical about HS2. We see significant investment going into it, while we have a station where those who are disabled cannot go in one direction because they cannot cross a bridge. Will the Minister consider intervening and genuinely levelling up for the people of Northwich, as part of this project?
Wendy Morton
I am aware of that station, but I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that the Government are investing record amounts in conventional rail alongside HS2.
I am sure that the House was as delighted as I was to see the Elizabeth line open last month: a major new artery to meet growing passenger demand in the south-east for decades to come. The Elizabeth line had its beginnings in a hybrid Bill, and it is great to be able to celebrate the fruits of our labours. Today, we push forward again with another Bill for HS2, the third of its kind. This Bill, and what we are delivering for the north and the midlands, is even more ambitious than the Elizabeth line was for London.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I am sure the Minister appreciates that even the Tory leader in the Senedd has now said that we in Wales should receive our fair share of HS2 funding. When will her Government respect this clear and—I emphasise this—cross-party message? Or will they continue to sell Wales short?
Wendy Morton
Perhaps I should gently remind the right hon. Lady that, owing to the way in which the Barnett formula works in spending reviews, the Welsh Government have received a significant uplift in Barnett-based funding as a result of the UK Government’s spending on HS2.
Let me return to the subject of investment. We have a £96 billion integrated rail plan, including Northern Powerhouse Rail, to overhaul infrastructure and services across both regions. This is the largest rail investment ever announced by a UK Government.
Several hon. Members rose—
Wendy Morton
I will make a little more progress.
This is the biggest upgrade to the north and midlands rail network since the Victorian era, and the Bill is pivotal to the entire plan. Getting HS2 from Crewe to Manchester involves far more than just a 38-mile stretch of the high-speed network. It also provides critical infrastructure for Northern Powerhouse Rail services between Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool, cutting journey times and significantly boosting capacity on east-west routes. For decades, passengers have put up with slow journeys and overcrowding on many routes across the north and the midlands.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
Can the Minister tell the House whether she is determined to press ahead with HS2 irrespective of how high the cost goes? Is there a price at which she will say, “Actually, this no longer represents value for money for the taxpayer”, or is she prepared to give HS2 a blank cheque and press on with it irrespective of how much it costs? If she is, I have a house to sell her.
Wendy Morton
I can tell my hon. Friend that there is no blank cheque book. I can also tell him that we are delivering within budget. Thirdly, I know that the Minister for HS2—the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson)—is keeping a very close eye on these matters.
Wendy Morton
I am going to continue.
The infrastructure was simply not built for a 21st-century economy. For example, daily passenger journeys in the Greater Manchester region have quadrupled since 1995. This Bill will transform rail capacity into Manchester. There will be extra platforms and extra junctions, making it one of our best connected cities.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I fully understand the reason for improving the high-speed railway between Crewe and Manchester, but at the same time I have great concerns about the environmental impact and particularly the loss of traditional forests and trees. Can the Minister give us some indication of what has been done to retain them, and what has been done to replace them?
Wendy Morton
The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point in raising the environmental impacts. We are keeping negative environmental impacts to an absolute minimum, creating new habitats and planting 7 million new trees in phase 1 alone. It is also fair to say that on the Crewe-to-Manchester phase, we have committed to raise our ambition even further, and we aim to deliver a 10% net gain in biodiversity.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
Will the Minister give way?
Wendy Morton
I want to make some progress, but then I will take some more interventions.
Turning back to HS2 and the north-west, I must mention that this section of HS2 includes a new high-speed station at Manchester Piccadilly and a new high-speed station at Manchester airport, offering the potential to use the airport station to further promote the international airport.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the Second Reading today and I absolutely agree with the Minister about the crucial importance of integrating HS2 with Northern Powerhouse Rail, which I think is equally as important as, if not even more important than, HS2. But would it not be better to do this properly and have an underground station at Manchester Piccadilly that properly links to Northern Powerhouse Rail and future-proofs the network?
Wendy Morton
On the specific point of a Manchester Piccadilly underground station, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my Department has been working closely with Greater Manchester stakeholders for a long time to try to understand their reasons for supporting an underground station at Piccadilly. HS2 Ltd has considered these reasons and done extensive investigative work on the feasibility of this option. That work has found that an underground station would cause major city centre disruption during the construction period and significantly delay the opening of services into Manchester by more than seven years. It would also add around an additional £5 billion to the cost of the Crewe-to-Manchester scheme alone. That is an absolutely crazy amount of money to spend on something that is quite frankly worse.
Wendy Morton
I am going to make some progress.
HS2 will truly future-proof travel across the north. It is crucial for local services, regional services, national services and international services.
Sir Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)
My hon. Friend mentions the station at Manchester airport, but she must beware that the proposed station is actually a quarter of a mile away from the airport, at Davenport Green. Would it not make far more sense to put the airport station at the airport?
Wendy Morton
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. Obviously, a huge amounts of engagement has gone on, and in deciding on the location, extensive optioneering work has also considered connectivity, engineering and environmental matters as well as cost issues. The Manchester airport station is located as close to the airport as possible, given all of those competing factors.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
I welcome the airport connectivity, which is brilliant not only for our domestic rail travel but for those connections that we need with the airport. Would my hon. Friend agree that it is also crucial because we want to welcome investment into the north? What effect does she think this new airport link will have on that?
Wendy Morton
My hon. Friend makes an important point and reminds us of the importance of investment. This investment will bring many new jobs and investments into the area, and that will bring benefits to local communities, local people and local businesses.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Will the Minister give way?
Wendy Morton
I am going to make some progress, then I will take more interventions.
This hybrid Bill is the first one to deal with infrastructure in both England and Scotland. The Bill includes a new depot on the west coast main line in Dumfries and Galloway to ensure that HS2 trains can travel to and be maintained in Scotland. The environment will benefit greatly too. Rail is already the greenest form of public transport in this country, and the most sustainable, carbon-efficient way of moving people and goods quickly over long distances. HS2 will bring further significant reductions in emissions, with new trains and modern tracks helping us to move towards a net zero transport system. This Bill is going even further than previous transport hybrid Bills.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
We welcome the reduction in the greenhouse gas emissions, but phase 2b of HS2 without the Golborne spur will actually increase the greenhouse gas emissions. With the Golborne spur, they would be decreased by 750,000 tonnes. Does the Minister not agree, therefore, that the Golborne link should be further considered?
Wendy Morton
We are looking at alternatives, because it is quite possible that we could come forward with something better. I know this is something that the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle, is looking at very carefully.
The huge economic benefits that HS2 will bring to Scotland are not in question. HS2 services between London and Glasgow are set to be available once the HS2 trains start running on to the conventional rail network. We are also committed to exploring alternatives that deliver similar benefits to the Golborne link within the £96 billion envelope of the integrated rail plan.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
I warmly welcome the Government’s decision to scrap the Golborne link. It is a £3 billion white elephant. The opportunity to put HS2 trains into stations such as Warrington is something that I know Warrington Borough Council and the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) would also welcome. Can the Minister tell us if that is something that HS2 is considering?
Wendy Morton
Within the envelope of the funding, I would like to assure my hon. Friend that we are considering all options.
Going back to the issue of biodiversity, we are aiming to boost biodiversity along the Crewe-to-Manchester route, which will mean greater environmental diversity than existed before construction, thereby continuing HS2’s commitment to leave a green legacy. This Bill will contribute not only to a greener economy but to a more skilled economy. In the two years since the construction of HS2 began between London and Birmingham, significant progress has been made on this milestone project.
I mentioned earlier that this is the third HS2 Bill. It is absolutely incredible to watch the move from the Bills being presented to this House to seeing real spades and tunnel-boring machines in the ground and the unveiling of the staggering 700-tonne bridge-building machine that is set to begin work on a 3.4 km bridge across the Colne Valley. We have also awarded the £2 billion contract for the delivery and maintenance of HS2 trains for phases 1 and 2a, and under budget, I might add.
Jonathan Edwards
Further to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), is it not the case under the current constitutional arrangements that every political party in Wales has concerns about HS2’s funding? Nearly every single politician in Wales, including Ministers in the Wales Office, have concerns about this issue, yet the British Government can ignore their concerns.
Wendy Morton
We are not ignoring Wales or those concerns. The current plans will see Welsh passengers benefit from the HS2 interchange at Crewe, with shorter journey times to north Wales than are currently possible on the west coast main line. The proposed integrated station at Old Oak Common will be served by HS2, the Elizabeth line and conventional rail, including trains to Wales and the west of England.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that Welsh passengers would benefit even further if the line between Crewe and Chester were electrified?
Wendy Morton
The hon. Gentleman is a passionate campaigner for the electrification of that stretch of railway, and he is nothing if not persistent in using every opportunity to raise that issue.
The state-of-the-art HS2 train fleet, capable of up to 225 mph, will be designed and built by a Hitachi-Alstom joint venture located in Newton Aycliffe, Derby and Crewe. It is a truly national endeavour encompassing three regions, each with a proud engineering pedigree. The construction of HS2 is already supporting more than 26,000 jobs, and there will be many more jobs with the coming of this Bill. There will be more apprenticeships, which is great news as we build a workforce with transferable skills that are fit for the future.
Since the Oakervee review and the notice to proceed for phase 1, this Government have remained, and will continue to remain, relentlessly focused on controlling costs. We will ensure that this ambitious new railway delivers its wealth of benefits at value for money for the taxpayer. HS2 is within budget, and we expect to get the job done within budget.
Andrew Gwynne
I support what the Minister is saying about bringing HS2 in on budget and keeping a tight control on costs, but we also have to get best value for the taxpayer. On the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith), the Piccadilly proposals are suboptimal. They will economically damage the growth potential around Piccadilly, and the interrelationship between HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail will be far worse than the Transport for Greater Manchester underground station option. [Interruption.] I see the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) shaking his head, but Greater Manchester is adamant. We want and need the best option at Piccadilly, and I hope Ministers will think again.
Wendy Morton
The hon. Gentleman’s suggestion is a suboptimal option, and I am sure my hon. Friend will have more to say about that. I reiterate that we have been working closely with Greater Manchester stakeholders for a long time, since 2013 I think.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Andrew Stephenson)
indicated assent.
Wendy Morton
I see my hon. Friend nodding. We have been working closely with Greater Manchester stakeholders since 2013 to understand their reasons for supporting the idea of an underground station at Piccadilly, but I will leave it to him to say more.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for being kind in taking a range of interventions.
I observe from their interventions that Opposition Members’ mindset might best be characterised as making the perfect the enemy of the good. Does the Minister agree that this £96 billion investment will transform Piccadilly station?
Katherine Fletcher
It doesn’t half sound like you are picking holes in it because you want to play politics. This is the best thing for the economy in the north of England.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I will just clear this up. The hon. Lady means to say “he” and not “you.”
Wendy Morton
Will the hon. Gentleman let me continue, instead of getting carried away on the Back Benches? If we were to pursue the underground option, it would result in a more than seven-year delay to the HS2 project reaching Manchester Piccadilly; a cost increase of around £5 billion compared with the surface station; and at least 130,000, but realistically up to 350,000, additional HGV journeys in and out of Manchester over the construction period due to much greater quantities of concrete and steel needing to be imported and surface material needing to be exported from the construction site. I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees that the impact on local residents and businesses would be quite unbearable.
Wendy Morton
I will make some progress.
We are continually improving the design of this railway. This is a hybrid Bill, which means it is both a public Bill and a private Bill. It will have all the normal public Bill stages, but there will be an additional stage in which a specially appointed Select Committee will consider its private aspects.
If this Bill is given a Second Reading, we will commit it to that Select Committee today and, in doing so, ask it to look at the detail of the route and make decisions on the evidence put before it. This process allows for changes to the railway design to take the needs of local communities into account. It also allows for improvements to be made where new information comes to light, which brings me to the Golborne link.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
Of course it is right that mitigations are considered during the Bill’s passage. As the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson), will be aware, because he kindly visited Eddisbury earlier this year, there are plans that we hope might be changed during the Bill’s passage to build a rolling stock depot, as well as two borrow pits and a significant construction site, in close proximity to Wimboldsley Primary School. The route through Cheshire is also on ground with a complex geological make-up, which will cause difficulties with salt mines and understanding the unknown quantities of salt that still lie beneath the soil. What assurance can the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), give the House and my constituents that these two issues will be properly resolved before shovels go into the ground?
Wendy Morton
I am aware that my hon. Friend the Minister of State recently visited Eddisbury. The Crewe North rolling stock depot will support the scheme’s operation, and alternative options for its location were considered and discounted as unsuitable because of their location, size or lack of connection to the existing network.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson) mentions Cheshire’s special environmental conditions, including its salt. HS2 Ltd has taken the special geological conditions in this part of Cheshire into account, and the design of the scheme has been informed by a wide range of information, including from British Geological Survey maps and surveys, salt extraction operators and local action groups.
As I said, the Bill will have all the normal public Bill stages and an additional stage for a specially appointed Select Committee to consider its private aspects. If the Bill is given a Second Reading, we will commit it to that Select Committee today. In doing so, we will ask the Select Committee to look at the detail of the route and make decisions on the evidence put before it. This process allows for changes to the railway design to take into account the needs of local communities. It also allows for improvements to be made where new information has come to light, hence my comments about the Golborne link, to which I now wish to move on.
That section of the line runs from a junction at Hoo Green to the west coast main line south of Wigan. Sir Peter Hendy’s Union connectivity review made it clear that the Golborne link “does not resolve all” the current constraint issues between Crewe and Preston. It recommended that we review alternative options for this section of the line. We have therefore announced our intention to remove the Golborne link from this Bill, so that we can get on with the important work of finding the best solution to deliver the most benefits for passengers, while also ensuring value for the taxpayer. HS2 services to Scotland are not in question; they will continue to serve Wigan and Preston, as well as Lancaster, Cumbria and Scotland. The options to be considered are those that could be delivered within the £96 billion integrated rail plan envelope. So whether to remove this section of track from the Bill is a decision for the House here today. There is a motion that instructs the hybrid Bill Select Committee on the scope of the scheme. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that it is important that we take the time to ensure that every aspect of HS2 is right for this country, so I urge them to support that motion while we consider the options, which will allow the Government to get on with bringing HS2, and faster, greener and more reliable train services, to Manchester as soon as we can.
Of course, the way in which the Government engage with those impacted by the construction of HS2 is vital. Those living along the line of the route may see nothing good in this Bill for them, especially where it directly affects their homes or businesses. That is why the Government appointed my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle to be HS2 Minister and why so much hard work is being done to try to reach all of the communities affected. HS2 Ltd has run in-person events in community hubs up and down the route, telling people about the Bill. In fact, an in-person event is taking place right now in Greater Manchester. These events are telling people about the environmental statement that accompanied the Bill and about the property compensation schemes accompanying this railway, which go above and beyond the statutory framework. HS2 Ltd has run webinars online for those not wanting to attend an in-person event. There is a 24/7 helpline available; it is a freephone number and it is open every day of the year. People can email HS2 Ltd with their queries. For those who need extra help, HS2 Ltd can offer one-to-one appointments. I recognise that some will never support the project, but if people cannot get behind the railway itself, perhaps they can get behind some of the legacy benefits it will bring, which I have spoken about at length here today.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I would be amiss if I did not point out that in my constituency, where HS2 is proposed to go from top to bottom, the experience of consultation, communication and the manner in which it has been handled has been deplorable. My right hon. Friend the late Cheryl Gillan had exactly the same experience in Chesham and Amersham. I strongly recommend that the Minister takes account of the fact that we lost the by-election in very similar circumstances to what will happen elsewhere in other parts of the country as this matter progresses without the degree of consultation that is really required. I have to put that on the record.
Wendy Morton
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue this evening. I can understand why he would want to place his views on the record in this debate, but I know that the HS2 Minister is clear that we continue to listen as we go through this process. That is why I was keen to set out the ways in which HS2 Ltd continues to engage.
Today, I am asking the House to support the next major step in building a national high-speed rail network. But the question for us to answer today is not whether this railway should go ahead, it is: how can this project ensure maximum benefits for as many people and as many businesses as possible, long into the future? That is what this Bill will deliver, and that is what I am asking Members to support. The Bill is not only transforming rail services in the north-west and vastly improving the passenger experience, but providing the foundations for new east-west services on the Northern Powerhouse Rail network and levelling up communities across the north and the midlands that have been poorly served by transport for too long. I commend this Bill to the House.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
It is an honour and a privilege to open the Second Reading debate on this Bill on behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition. First, let me say that the shadow Transport Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), sends her sincere apologies for not being able to attend today’s debate. As the political lead for Wakefield, she has had to make her way back up north, before the Tory rail strikes kick in to add to the misery already faced by Brits when they have to queue at our ports and airports.
Let me restate Labour’s support in principle for HS2, which creates quality jobs, boosts UK construction and engineering, and gets people and freight off the motorways, with fewer lorries clogging our towns and polluting the air. HS2 boosts business, from steel to sports; links communities, families, and markets; boosts rail capacity; provides comfort and convenience to passengers; and helps to deliver a 21st-century rail network for the great British public.
Philip Davies
I am going to give the shadow Minister the same opportunity I gave the Minister. Is there a price at which the Opposition would withdraw their support from HS2 or will they support it irrespective of how expensive it becomes? If there is a limit to the price the Opposition are prepared to accept, what is that limit?
Mr Dhesi
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I would have expected nothing less. One thing he has helped to highlight with his question is that under a Labour Government we would have control of the finances, unlike what we are seeing with the Tory mismanagement, where there is a ballooning budget. I wanted to come on to that and his intervention is timely, because it is thanks to the usual Tory mismanagement that we are all accustomed to that this is already a watered-down offering, betraying millions and letting down communities across towns and cities in the north and midlands. The continued slashing of HS2, which was born under a Labour Government more than a decade ago, means it is becoming merely a ghost of its former self. So from this Front Bench, we simply urge the Prime Minister and his Transport Ministers to deliver on their promises and ensure that HS2 is built on time and in full.
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman talks about betraying millions. Is the leader of his party —he voted to block HS2—betraying millions in the north?
Mr Dhesi
As a constituency interest for the Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. and learned Friend voiced his opinion on behalf of his constituents, but I would not be at the Dispatch Box extolling the virtues of HS2 if the Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition was not firmly behind this Bill.
This Bill has come at a poignant moment, where the Government’s inept management of our railways has come to a head. We have Department for Transport cuts to the tune of 10% on rail alone, tens of thousands of vital train services slashed and a national rail strike looming.
Christian Matheson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; my next-door neighbours in the area around Chester are still battling with Network Rail and Avanti West Coast to get more direct services back on the London to Chester and north Wales line. At the moment, there does not seem to be a definite plan to bring them back. We are hopeful that we might get them by the end of the year. That is surely exactly the point he is making.
Mr Dhesi
My hon. Friend is a doughty champion for his constituents and he has made that point in the House on several occasions when we have faced such significant cuts to services. As a country, we cannot invest in rail if we are in the process, because of this Government, of slashing services, including to Chester.
Sir William Cash
I am listening with great interest to what the hon. Gentleman is saying, as I did to the Minister. On the question of the financing, I happened to be sitting on the train from Euston to the midlands the other day. A gentleman to my left knew who I was and said, “I’m actually involved in the HS2 project.” I said, “That’s very interesting indeed.” Then he said, “By the way, I think you have been complaining about the vast overspend.” I said, “Yes, I have.” He then said to me, “Well, I know a great deal about it and it won’t cost less than £150 billion—you do know that, don’t you?” Does the hon. Gentleman—or, for that matter, the Government —understand that this white elephant, such as it is, is costing the British people an arm and a leg and is obsolete already?
Mr Dhesi
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I hope he has furnished the rail Minister with those figures and that that is not merely an anecdote, because it is important that the cost of the project does not balloon. If whistleblowers are to be believed, the cost is rising. That is why the Labour party has consistently called for the management of the budget, and the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), has done a great deal of work on that.
When it comes to rail, there is sadly a theme of mismanagement, broken promises and missed opportunities. That prompts the question: what is the point of having major infrastructure projects if the Secretary of State is intent on presiding over the managed decline of our railways?
Let me turn to the national Tory rail strike—[Interruption.] I know Conservative Members like that. It is not too late for the Secretary of State for Transport to prevent the national rail strike. We do not want to see strikes. The only people in the country who are frothing at the mouth with excitement at the prospect of strikes are sitting on the Government Benches, because this is a strike cooked up by the Cabinet and driven by Downing Street. Ministers are relishing the prospect of division—anything to distract and take the focus away from their own incompetence, law breaking and infighting.
The Secretary of State should be picking up the phone and convening talks, not throwing petrol on the fire. If I, as the shadow rail Minister, was able to organise and attend separate meetings with the Network Rail chief executive Andrew Haines in his office last month, and with the RMT general secretary Mick Lynch today, why can the Secretary of State not do likewise?
The Secretary of State’s handling of this crisis certainly does not bode well for the successful delivery of the largest infrastructure project in Europe. He seems far more focused on harming industrial relations and gunning for a strike than on showing leadership and doing what is best for passengers, rail workers and the industry, so Members should forgive my cynicism when it comes to the Government’s management of this significant project.
Sadly, it seems like the Government are simply not up to the job. They overpromise and underdeliver. For a decade or more, we have been listening to Conservative Transport Secretaries extolling the virtues of HS2 and then reneging on their pledges. In their 2017 election manifesto, the Conservatives promised to
“continue our programme of strategic national investments, including High Speed 2”.
Their 2019 manifesto said:
“Now is the time to invest in Northern Powerhouse Rail”.
They say one thing before a general election and break their promises as soon as the votes are counted.
The cancellation of the eastern leg of HS2 is indeed a betrayal of the north. Upgrades to Leeds station have been scrapped; a new station at Bradford has been scrapped; electrification from Selby to Hull has been scrapped; and extra capacity on the Cumbrian coast line has been scrapped. What have the Secretary of State and this Government got against the north of England? Spending on transport in the north is half the spending for transport in London, and the Government are cutting Transport for the North’s budget by 20%. What an absolute mess.
Christian Matheson
My hon. Friend the shadow Minister talks about the cuts to Transport for the North budgets; is he aware that the Secretary of State refused to see the acting chairwoman of Transport for the North, Councillor Louise Gittins, when she was in post? He declined to have a meeting with her; surely that shows this Government’s contempt for transport in the north.
Mr Dhesi
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Such contempt is what is holding our country back, and that is leading to the mismanagement of our network. Indeed, as I said earlier, that is emblematic of this Government, because with the impending rail strikes their behaviour is going to lead to such disruption for hard-working Brits up and down the country.
I can count more than 60 times when Ministers have promised from that Dispatch Box to deliver HS2 in full. Hopes are raised, then dashed. Promises are made, then broken. Why should anyone believe a word they say? And what of addressing the concerns raised about HS2—on community consultation, as the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) aptly pointed out; on spiralling costs; on ensuring value for money for taxpayers; and on environmental mitigations, as pointed out by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)? It is within the grasp of Ministers to address those concerns today, but I fear we might all be left disappointed.
Andy Carter
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman could answer a straightforward question, because many constituents in Warrington would like to know. Does the Labour party support scrapping the Golborne spur?
Mr Dhesi
As we will discuss later in respect of the amendment, we are in favour of excellent alternative proposals from the Government, because until then we cannot support the scrapping of the Golborne link. We will look in detail at what the Government propose in respect of the link.
As the Bill progresses, Labour is keen to see progress on the northern powerhouse. The Bill must deliver the right infrastructure for the north of England but, rather than levelling-up the country, it could in fact entrench the north-south divide for generations to come. It must deliver a solution for Manchester Piccadilly station that enables a future Labour Government to build Northern Powerhouse Rail to Bradford and Leeds.
Jeff Smith
I am pleased that my hon. Friend has mentioned Manchester Piccadilly. We were told earlier that the extra costs would be £5 million; we do not know that, because the costings have not been published, but even if that is the case, the added extra economic value will get that money back in around 15 years. Yes, there would be more costs and more disruption and delay, but this is a once-in-a-century economic project and we need to get it right. Is that not why the council, the Mayor, the business leaders—everybody in Manchester —supports the underground option for Manchester Piccadilly?
Mr Dhesi
My hon. Friend has been a firm champion on behalf of his constituents. His views are also echoed by my good friend, the Mayor of Manchester, Andy Burnham, with whom I have discussed this project. Many are exasperated by the Government’s lack of ambition for Manchester and the north, which is why Labour is very much in favour of this. We need a solution for Manchester Piccadilly station that enables a future Labour Government to pick up the pieces and to deliver that Northern Powerhouse Rail in full to Bradford and Leeds.
Robert Largan
The hon. Gentleman is being most generous. As much as I enjoy being lectured about the north by the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), I know that this Government are putting £96 billion of integrated rail investment into the north and the midlands, compared with pretty much nothing from the last Labour Government.
Let me return to the point the hon. Gentleman made earlier about the leader of his party having a constituency interest. I find it remarkable that he suggests that if something were inconvenient for a small area of north London, the leader of his party would side with that ahead of the north and the midlands.
Mr Dhesi
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is pleased to be lectured by the hon. Member for Slough when it comes to standing up for the north. Indeed, it often seems the case that the hon. Member for Slough stands up more for the constituents of the north than Government Ministers. That is why the hon. Gentleman is so happy. Moreover, it was the previous Labour Government who stood up for the people of the north, with amazing investment not just in our rolling stock, but in the west coast main line—billions of pounds of investment for our northern communities.
It is also important to highlight the fact that Labour is keen to see the Government addressing the rail capacity constraints on the west coast main line, allowing for improved connections to Scotland from the north of England. If the Golborne link, which has been mentioned umpteen times, is not taken forward, any funding saved should be reinvested in local transport projects in the north. Labour will fight to ensure that working people across our country see the benefit of this project in jobs and opportunities. Labour wants to ensure that more public contracts go to British companies, big and small, through our plan to buy, make, and sell more here in Britain. That would boost economic growth, create jobs, and open markets, linking neglected regions and towns to help us meet net zero.
That is why the next Labour Government will complete HS2 in full, including the eastern leg and Northern Powerhouse Rail. We will connect 13 million people across our great northern towns and cities, from coast to coast, and set up an office for value for money to oversee spending on major projects and make sure that they do not run out of control. Ministers must get a grip.
Andy Carter
I just want to be clear about this, because I do not think that I quite got an answer to my previous intervention. The hon. Member has just said again that Labour will complete HS2 in full. Does that include the Golborne spur?
Mr Dhesi
As I have already said, Labour believes in delivering HS2 in full. On the Golborne link, we have said that we want that connection to happen, but the Government have said that they will put forward alternative proposals to make sure that that connection is made. We are waiting for those alternative proposals, so that we can make sure that those communities are connected in that part of the country.
As my hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor has said, we will “buy, make and sell” in Britain. Let me take UK steel as an example. We would support jobs in UK steel and along the whole of the UK supply chain. Why will this Government not commit to buying UK steel and to supporting the 33,000 jobs in our excellent steel industry? Perhaps the Minister would like to give way now, because I know that the Government would very much like to support the steel industry at this time and commit to buying UK steel—[Interruption.] Perhaps not then. HS2 is not only about increased capacity, faster journeys, new stations, more jobs, more apprentices, and a boost for struggling British businesses, but about helping us to deliver net zero.
For decades, rail has produced by far the lowest carbon footprint, compared with cars, coaches and flights. We want national roll-out of electrification. HS2 will use net zero carbon energy from day one, and, as a whole, it will be operationally net zero by 2035.
In conclusion, we all want to see our railways thrive. We want them to be accessible, affordable and green. We need them to connect us all, from villages to towns to cities. We should be striving for a world where the best way to travel is by rail. What we cannot do is to allow the poor leadership of this Government to dampen those ambitions for our country. Time and again, the Tories have proven that they are incapable of delivering on rail and have brought chaos to our network. It is time that they got their act together and delivered for our country.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
The hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) had the brass neck to refer to this strike as a Tory rail strike. I have never seen a rail strike more inspired by the Labour party than any other policy that I have heard of in the last generation.
The Minister will be very well aware of my long-standing reservations about HS2—I have made my point on this already today—and of why I am convinced that the project, as currently proposed, has no chance of achieving the objectives that the Government have set for it in terms of creating improved rail connectivity, increased capacity on the west coast main line, real economic prosperity and value for the many billions of pounds being spent on it.
I am also profoundly disturbed and deeply disappointed that the Government have failed to revisit the collapsing economic case for this project in the light of changing travelling and working practices following the covid pandemic, and to cancel the HS2 project, or at least everything north of Birmingham, in favour of targeting public transport investment to the areas of the country that really need it. Only yesterday, I heard the Secretary of State say, in relation to this rail strike, that fewer people will be using rail because of the amount time that is spent on Zoom calls and because of the changes in business practices. That is an important and relevant point.
I am also dismayed about the haste at which the Phase 2b Bill is being brought before the House for its Second Reading, especially as it has only just been announced that the project will be subject to 20 substantive amendments, including the removal of the Golborne link. My concern is that these changes should be the subject of formal consultation. The public are entitled to be granted sufficient time to formally respond in writing before Second Reading and before the formal petitioning process begins.
I ask the Minister to take the opportunity of making better use of the public investment given to the HS2 project by ensuring that the company responsible for it, together with his departmental officials, adopt the best possible and most cost-effective engineering design solutions for the project. Sadly, from experience, I know that that is not proving to be the case, as HS2 management and Department for Transport officials seem unwilling to fulfil the commitments that the Minister has made to me and my constituents. They are therefore frustrating the promised independent and impartial review of our proposals for an alternative railhead and maintenance base to replace the unworkable and calamitous proposals that HS2 seems hell-bent on imposing on Stone, my constituency, and nearby communities.
Incontrovertible evidence has been compiled by my constituents to demonstrate that their alternative solution would remove tens of thousands of HS2’s construction lorries from the local road network in Staffordshire, North Shropshire and Cheshire, while also eliminating any need to construct the Ashley railhead and the two proposed Phase 2b maintenance facilities at Ashley and the Crewe North rolling stock depot. Not only would my constituents’ proposals save £650 million of public money, but, were less than half of that sum to be reinvested in the reopening of an eight-mile section of the North Staffordshire railway between the west coast main line and Stoke station, it would create the best and most cost-effective levelling-up opportunity in the country.
With the Government now having confirmed their decision to remove the Golborne link from a phase 2 hybrid Bill, the capacity on the west coast main line through and to the north of Crewe station will be significantly reduced. As a consequence, phase 2b will achieve the precise opposite of what is intended. The public therefore ask, “What is the point of phase 2b?”. I have much sympathy with such viewpoints, as do my Cheshire colleagues, whose constituents’ lives will be so blighted by this project.
However, if the Government remain determined to continue with this expensive folly, let us at least get something positive out of it. The only way to do that is to ensure that Crewe station gets the full upgrade it requires to overcome the capacity constraints that will be imposed on it and on the west coast main line by HS2. That will require new platforms to be constructed on the independent lines on the western side of the station.
Combined with the reopening of the North Staffordshire railway, the improvements at Crewe station would for the first time enable multiple train services to cross the west coast main line and enable services from north Wales and the north-west to connect to north Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent and thereafter to link to the east midlands, Yorkshire, East Anglia and the east coast. Such a bold plan would put a huge part of the population of the north of England in direct rail contact with four international airports and create a direct freight line between Liverpool and several east coast ports, while putting both Crewe and the Potteries at the centre of this new transport and economic activity.
Finally, the Minister knows that he has an open invitation to visit my constituency and meet me and my constituents. I urge him to take up that offer as soon as possible so that we can demonstrate to him first-hand how our proposals will provide the unique short, medium and long-term levelling-up benefits that the population of my own and many other constituencies so richly deserve.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Let me first say that we on the SNP Benches and my colleagues in the Scottish Government support HS2, such as it is. We support anything that increases capacity on our rail network and improves the prospects of driving up modal shift for journeys between Scotland and the rest of the UK and Europe, whether for passengers or for freight.
The UK has lagged hugely behind comparable European countries for years—decades, in fact—in rolling out modern, technically advanced high-speed rail networks, but rather than dwell on how late Britain has come to the party, let us welcome the fact that it has turned up at all. I, too, welcome the plans by HS2 to locate a depot at Annandale, creating jobs in the southwest and border regions.
However, as always with this Government, it is not the headlines that give the picture; it is the small print and the details that tell the real story of what their priorities are. We saw that the other week, as has been mentioned several times already, with the cancellation of the Golborne link. We have been told time after time that HS2 would deliver transformational change on our cross-border railways. HS2’s website boasts:
“HS2 will re-balance the country”,
while the UK Government tell us that Scotland will,
“receive the best possible HS2 service”.
In reality, now that Golborne has been chucked in the bin, no doubt we can expect another bargain basement bodge job, designed to keep the Tory Back-Benchers happy rather than provide real investment in our transport infrastructure.
Scotland has been told for years that the rationale under which we will benefit from HS2 is reduced journey times and increased capacity. We support HS2 on that basis. Now we are told—or rather an announcement is whispered elsewhere on the day of the Tory leadership boorach—that a crucial connection between the classic network and the high-speed network is to be scrapped, with any prospect of an alternative link delayed indefinitely.
The Government’s own Union Connectivity Review, which has already been mentioned, said plainly,
“Further work is needed to determine the…benefits, costs and deliverability of an alternative connection”.
Or, in other words, “We haven’t a clue how, where and when an alternative to Golborne will be delivered, other than pointing vaguely towards Preston on a map and promising, it will definitely, positively, absolutely be built there—honest.”
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
I agree with the point the hon. Gentleman is making, but can he clarify the SNP’s position? Is the party in favour of having high-speed lines on both the east and west side of the country, to Edinburgh and Glasgow?
Gavin Newlands
We were in favour of phase 2b’s being constructed all the way to Leeds, which would allow for that development of twin-tracking high-speed lines to the border, but that has been cancelled. The Scottish Government have long supported HS2 and has a memorandum of understanding with the Government for HS2 to be delivered to Scotland, massively improving journey times and helping to drive the modal shift I have spoken about previously.
The decision to cancel the link highlights once again that the UK Government cannot be trusted to lead on levelling up, especially when it comes to Scotland. The move has met near-unanimous objections—despite the protestations of the hon. Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter)—especially from the rail industry. A combined statement from the Railway Industry Association, the Rail Freight Group, and the High Speed Rail Group said:
“It is hugely disappointing to discover that, on a day when much political attention was focused elsewhere, the Government confirmed that the ‘Golborne Link’ is to be removed from the HS2 project.
Only six months ago, the Golborne Link was included in the Integrated Rail Plan, as well as the HS2 Phase 2b Bill. The Link has been provided for in the budget for HS2 and is needed to allow adequate capacity on the national rail network to fulfil its vital function of handling the nation’s longer distance movements of both passengers and freight. Without this connection, a bottleneck will be created north of Crewe on the West Coast Main Line, which in turn will negatively impact outcomes for passengers, decarbonisation and levelling up.”
The statement went on:
“Such an important, strategic question of how HS2 services connect into Scotland cannot be left open or uncertain.”
The move has been seen as a cynical betrayal of Scottish interests, aimed at placating Tory voters and MPs at the expense of Scots. With levelling-up funds disproportionately invested in Tory seats, a Tory cost of living crisis undermining any possible progress, a Prime Minister who cannot even be bothered to turn up to his own party’s levelling-up conference and now key levelling-up projects cancelled on a whim, this Tory Government cannot be trusted to deliver levelling up. While the UK Government continue to withhold and abuse money that is meant to replace EU funding, Scotland will continue to be undermined by a Tory Government without integrity, honesty, or a plan.
If the UK Government do not want to spend the money needed to properly link up HS2 with the classic network, they should give the money to the Scottish Government, who can do something real and tangible with it. With electrification costs in Scotland less than two thirds, and an aim to get to nearly half, of those in England, Transport Scotland will get a bigger bang for its buck, and ultimately at zero extra cost to the UK, as until two weeks ago it planned to spend the money anyway.
That £3 billion of extra funding for Scotland’s Parliament to spend on Scotland’s transport network would be welcomed by a Government who have been matching big ambition with action, whether on rail electrification, zero emission vehicles or active travel spending that is nearly eight times that of England. The benefits of HS2 will be substantially reduced if, at the end of a Rolls-Royce service through HS2, the rest of the rail network is a clapped-out banger.
Thankfully, in Scotland we have invested in both electrification and new rolling stock, meaning that HS2 arrivals in Glasgow and Edinburgh—should they ever get there—will be met with modern railways. Sadly, the same cannot be said for the north of England, which is again at the back of the queue when it comes to improving the railway that the majority of people will continue to use, and where cities such as Leeds and Bradford are still left in the sidings of what should be a 21st century railway.
I also want to mention Wales, since the Treasury has magically created a railway line serving Wales that has not a single inch of track in Wales—I hope the Ordnance Survey have been notified of the Government’s ground-breaking cartography. Scotland and Northern Ireland will receive Barnett consequentials from HS2 expenditure, as they should, but Wales has been told that HS2 is a joint England and Wales enterprise, despite its being entirely in England, and that not a penny of consequential spending will find its way to Cardiff Bay.
That consequential funding could be invested in one of the Welsh Government’s priorities, like the South Wales Metro or even the Cardiff to Swansea electrification previously binned by the Westminster Government. Instead the Senedd will get nothing. Even the Welsh Affairs Committee, which has an inbuilt Tory majority, called for Barnett to be applied to HS2 to give Wales the fair funding it should receive. The progress of this Bill is an opportunity for the Treasury to think again, do the right thing and ensure Wales gets the money it deserves.
Christian Matheson
The hon. Gentleman has talked about the South Wales Metro and the south Wales main line, but he has not mentioned the north Wales main line, which could easily also be electrified, particularly if it was connected to an electrified line from Crewe to Chester.
Gavin Newlands
I did not mention it because I knew that the hon. Gentleman would intervene and mention it for me. I wholeheartedly agree with the point that he makes.
Just as Scotland and, in particular, Wales have been short-changed by this Government, so has the north of England. Leeds and Bradford were cut out of HS2, affecting potential services across the east coast. It is shameful that this Bill is going ahead without the equivalent scheme for Yorkshire and the north-east of England. The previously vaunted Y-shaped HS2 network now seems more like a V sign to millions of people in communities who would have been connected to the new network but who, like Scotland and Wales, will rely on crumbs from the UK’s table and vague promises of future improvements.
We need to talk about the rather grubby and suspicious timing of this announcement, which came just minutes before the confidence vote on the Prime Minister on 6 June. Given that we hear that levelling-up funding was promised as sweeteners for support in that confidence vote, it is not beyond reason to question whether there is a link between the last-minute cancellation and the vote. The DFT has claimed that the timing of the announcement with the confidence vote on the Prime Minister was purely coincidental, but this Government have shown themselves to have such a casual relationship with integrity and honesty, is it any wonder that the public openly question whether such claims can be trusted?
Despite concocted complaints that the Scottish Government do not co-operate on transport connectivity, the Tories did not even bother discussing cutting the Golborne link with Scottish Ministers before acting. Transport is a devolved matter. The Scottish Government should not just be consulted; Scottish Ministers must give their consent to any projects relating to devolved matters. Despite this, the UK Government’s decision to cancel the Golborne link was unilateral and made without so much as a by-your-leave to the Scottish Government. The UK Government claim that they are working with the Scottish Government on alternatives, but in reality they have shown an utter disregard for the Scottish Government in this process. Scottish Ministers had already aired concerns about the Bill that thus far have gone unanswered, so this latest unilateral move proves beyond doubt that this Government have no intention to respect the Scottish Government on transport issues.
Notwithstanding the fact that this Government have long since abandoned the concept of honouring the Sewel convention, this Bill requires legislative consent from the Scottish Parliament. It is absolutely right that the Scottish Parliament considers in detail the implications around legislative consent resulting from the Bill. The Cabinet Secretary, Michael Matheson, has recommended that consent be given at this time to a number of clauses, but not all clauses, pending further policy discussions. The devolved issues that the Bill seeks to amend that we see as overreach are the water environment in clause 28, building standards in clause 29 and schedule 22, Crown land and the Scottish Crown estate in clauses 51 and 54, and roads and roadworks provisions in schedule 24. Depending on the outcome of any discussions with the Scottish Government in the coming weeks, we may look to amend the Bill on these matters, in addition to the removal of the Golborne link at later stages of the Bill.
The Tories’ mismanagement of rail infrastructure and labour relations highlights the need for Scotland to take full control of its rail network. While Scotland is tied to the UK rail system it will continue to suffer the consequences of UK Government misrule. The Scottish Government’s processes for identifying transport investment priorities are not undertaken in isolation and are in place to allow assessment of cross-Government spending priorities across a whole host of other portfolios. Transport infrastructure investment should focus on projects that improve lives, boost our economy, support communities, and work towards net zero. That is how the Scottish Government are planning Scotland’s future transport infrastructure investment, and they are doing so through the second strategic transport projects review, not the Union connectivity review or any other UK Government plan that does not align with Scotland’s interests.
Since 2007, the Scottish Government has invested more than £9 billion in rail infrastructure in Scotland. Since 2009, the communities of Alloa, Laurencekirk, Armadale, Blackridge, Caldercruix, Conon Bridge, Shawfair, Eskbank, Newtongrange, Gorebridge, Stow, Galashiels, Tweedbank and Kintore have been reconnected to the rail network through a reversal of Beeching cuts and other historic closures. In the next three years, Reston, East Linton, Dalcross, Cameron Bridge and Leven will follow. The SNP is working hard to create a rail service for the 21st century, but meanwhile the UK Government are bungling infrastructure projects, stoking industrial disputes with unions, and proving definitively that the Union cannot and will not deliver for Scotland.
We support HS2 because all of us across these isles have a shared interest in improving connectivity and doing everything possible to drive decarbonisation and the transition to net zero. Renewing existing railway lines and building new ones must be a key part of that ambition, just as it is in Scotland, but the limits of the UK’s ambition are contained through this Bill. We will seek to push those on the Government Benches to extend that ambition before Royal Assent and to demonstrate how they intend to level up the huge swathes of this island who will feel little or no benefit from HS2. It is incumbent on the Government to explain what else they are doing to integrate HS2 into the wider transport network and how they intend to do that over the course of this Bill’s passage.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
I rise to oppose the Bill, which is highly contentious, especially for my constituents in Tatton. The Minister will be well aware of my long-standing opposition to this white elephant. In fact, it will come as no surprise when I say that I would like nothing more than for this project to be consigned to the history books where it belongs. It was conceived by the Labour lord, Lord Adonis, back in 2004, which is so long ago to a world that has moved on significantly. Since covid and lockdown, people no longer need to travel hundreds of miles for a meeting when they can do it online, saving both money and time.
HS2 has had a bumpy ride. What was the justification? What was its purpose? When it was devised in 2004, it was about an alternative to airport expansion; it was to connect regional airports to Heathrow. When that case fell, it became all about speed—hence High Speed 2. In fact, in Tatton it is now known as “Low Speed, High Cost”. When that reason fell, it was all about capacity; capacity was what we needed. Now it seems to have moved on from that to job creation. As one business case falls, another is seized on. If it is about job creation, I remind the Minister that we have 1.3 million job vacancies in this country at the moment. Where will we get that workforce from? Let us hear no more justifications for this project. What we need instead is reliable, digital infrastructure and 1 gigabit capability—which would benefit everyone, everywhere—along with better local transport links and an east-west line across the north of England. That would do significantly more for the levelling-up agenda than this out-of-date project.
As a constituent wrote to me only the other week when I asked a question at Prime Minister’s questions—he wrote to me and the Prime Minister—HS2 is nothing other than “political virtue signalling” and it has totally lost its cause and purpose. If something costed at £150 billion has such a great business case, can we have sight of that business case? The cost is breath taking. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), the Minister said that she and fellow Ministers were keeping a close eye on cost, so let me remind them that the cost, which started off as £37.5 billion, is now up to £150 billion and continues to rise. I am not sure how closely their eyes are on that cost.
Philip Davies
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for highlighting my intervention on the Minister. Does she agree that given that the Minister said in her opening remarks that there was not a blank cheque for HS2, it would be helpful if the Minister who winds up told us what the cost of HS2 would have to reach before the Government scrap it altogether?
Esther McVey
I agree with my hon. Friend. With the pressures on steel and raw materials and rising inflation, the cost is set to soar further. I reiterate his question: is there a price at which HS2 is no longer seen as value for money by the Government, or are they prepared to build it irrespective of cost? If that is the case, for Conservatives who believe in value for money, it is an unjustifiable extravagance and a waste of taxpayers’ money.
A recent petition saw 155,000 people calling for HS2 to be scrapped, and more than 2,000 of the signatories were from across Tatton—the highest number from any constituency opposing phase 2b of the line. I must pay tribute to the excellent work of people and groups in Tatton, including Ashley parish council, Lach Dennis and Lostock Green parish council, Mid Cheshire Against HS2 and geologist Ros Todhunter. They have worked tirelessly to unearth the shortcomings of HS2 with regard to the fundamental concept of the line and its business case.
Ros Todhunter is an expert in her field and made clear the impact that the line will have on the area, given its complex geography. She has provided Ministers and HS2 with high-level technical reports that explain some of the real difficulties that such a line would pose for the area and for the project; the land is unstable with sinkholes and salt mines, yet the Government continue to push ahead.
The line will cause huge devastation across Cheshire, as documented by Mid Cheshire Against HS2, which has described it as a running scar from Crewe to Manchester. It has calculated that, across Cheshire, HS2 will irreparably damage five internationally protected wildlife sites, 639 local wildlife sites, 108 ancient woodlands and 33 legally protected scientific sites. Although the Minister talks about new trees being planted, I am sure that we can all see the difference between saplings and ancient woodland.
We need to dispel the myth that the Department is touting some kind of carbon zero travel of the future. Its figures show that only 1% of travellers will switch from planes to rail, and only 4% will switch from cars to rail, yet the construction of the line alone will add 1.5 million tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere and HS2 will still produce a net increase in carbon emissions 120 years on. I was also curious about how much energy will be needed to power HS2. A former National Grid electrical engineer told me that the power needed per year would be a third of what Hinkley Point produces. As we have all become aware of energy, its cost and where we will get it from, Ministers should pause and think about that.
I must also mention the suffering that many constituents have faced—some have been dealing with this for 12 years. Their properties have been and remain under threat. Many will be hugely affected but do not qualify for any compensation. They have nowhere to move to and they cannot sell their homes. Other constituents have been in conversation with HS2 to try to negotiate terms for their property or for mitigating issues, but I am afraid that they have got nowhere. They describe it as like talking to a brick wall. HS2 Ltd has been a particularly difficult organisation for people to engage with, as the Prime Minister acknowledged in February 2020 when he suggested that it would not be the delivery body for phase 2b. Here we are today, however: it is still representing, so my constituents are still dealing with it and suffering.
For many of us, this trainline has run out of track. The best thing for the project would be to put it out of its misery and scrap it altogether, but if the Government are determined to press on regardless, there are certain things that absolutely need to be done for my constituency and my constituents. As has been mentioned, my constituents need to know the exact location of Manchester airport station, its construction, whether it will be adequately sized and how accessible it will be—will we be able to get there on the mid-Cheshire lines or via the Altrincham Metrolink? Can we make sure that we do not lose the Wilmslow to Euston line that serves people well at the moment? The mid-Cheshire rail line also needs to be put into a cutting.
There is also a question about whether the infrastructure maintenance bases are in the right place and whether suitable consideration has been given to them. Ashley parish council makes it clear that there is no justification for locating a large, incongruous, permanent industrial facility in the heart of a rural community, especially when its function could be more appropriately carried out from Aldersley Rough, which would maintain the entire western leg of HS2 in perpetuity without any need for satellite infrastructure maintenance bases at Ashley or Crewe.
Thought has not been given to how parts of Tatton will be isolated, and I bet that is true for other rural areas too. One example is the planned closure and diversion of Ashley Road—a busy and important road that connects Ashley to Knutsford and the wider rural area. It is regularly used by emergency service vehicles, with people travelling to Manchester airport and Wythenshawe Hospital, but that will be significantly affected with everyone driving through Mobberley.
There is also the construction of a viaduct crossing of the A556 at the Lostock Gralam triangle, which will cut a swathe through Winnington wood and destroy 30% of ancient woodland. We have no information from HS2 on the proposed embankment, but a width at ground level of over 100 metres suggests that it will go up to 30 metres high, which equates to almost the height of Stockport viaduct or more than six double-decker buses.
Ministers should give a thought to the residents of Ascol Drive—I will highlight only one road—who will be subjected to 10 years of noise, dust and light pollution from the main construction compound sited on the field to the south of their road. That will affect them for some time to come, as well as affecting yet another site of special scientific interest.
The land-grab is significant too, and residents cannot understand how the information keeps changing so significantly. The land-grab between the Morrisons roundabout and the Lostock triangle is 150% greater on January 2022 maps than in the October 2018 working draft.
Those are just some of the issues. If I were to relay all of them, we would be here for some time. If that is true of Tatton, it must be true across the country for other places. I want to stand up for those people who are going to be significantly affected at an astronomical cost. It is time that we brought this project to an end. We cannot just keep throwing money at it or giving it another purpose, justification or reason for being. It is time for a Conservative Government to say, “Enough is enough—HS2 must be scrapped.”
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey). Although I disagree with her analysis of HS2, she is absolutely right to raise her constituents’ concerns here on the Floor of the House of Commons. I hope that Ministers will listen to some of her constructive suggestions. I hope that HS2 goes forward, but with amendments that mean that the communities affected by the line’s construction get something in return.
I do not consider HS2 to be an out-of-date project. France and Germany have high speed rail; high speed rail is about the future and what country we want to be, and about improving the links between all regions and nations of the United Kingdom. For me, it is not about speed; it is precisely about ensuring that we have adequate rail capacity on the network. Speed happens to be a bonus of building a railway line to 21st-century standards, rather than to 19th-century standards, which nobody in their right mind would do with an infrastructure scheme such as the one proposed.
HS2 will also free up local transport slots on key parts of the current rail network. From my campaign to get more than one train a week on the Stockport to Stalybridge line, which is now part of a Restoring Your Railway study, I know that part of the issue is the crossover from that line on to the west coast main line to access slots at Stockport station. That is impossible at the moment because there are three trains an hour from Manchester to Euston, which take up a lot of the slots that would cross over at Heaton Norris junction. HS2 and a change of the configuration around Manchester would free up a lot of slots coming into and out of Stockport station. It also creates more capacity for freight, which we should also be supporting.
Yes, HS2 creates jobs and brings economic development, which is the bonus of a massive economic infrastructure scheme, but it also creates long-term jobs with the economic development that it brings along the route. That is why I passionately want the Government to get this scheme right—to get it right for the country, but, given my own personal self-interest as a Greater Manchester MP, to get it right for my city region as well.
This is a once-in-a-century opportunity to massively improve the accessibility to Greater Manchester, through Greater Manchester and around Greater Manchester, and I welcome such an opportunity. That is why I really urge the Minister to look again at the issue of Piccadilly station. I know the argument she put forward following the interventions made earlier, and I get that, but the fact is that Piccadilly, if we get this right, will have a huge growth opportunity for Manchester, both in connectivity and economic development in that part of the city centre.
I am really concerned about the blight that the Piccadilly station, as currently proposed, will inflict on the approach into Piccadilly. As the Minister will know, the proposal is to bring the tracks out of the ground near Ardwick and into the new Piccadilly station with a concrete platform on stilts. That will blight about half a million square metres of city centre land, and restrict the economic development around the south of Piccadilly. That is a travesty. Worse than that, it will create the situation that, almost from day one, the new Piccadilly station will be at capacity. If we are planning for the next century, let us get the infrastructure right for the next century, and that means getting Piccadilly station right.
We also have to have better connectivity between Metrolink, HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail—I hope with Northern Powerhouse Rail in its fullest design at some stage in the future. That does mean having the connectivity of the through route under Piccadilly station. Without it, I think the opportunities for Manchester would be greatly missed.
Christian Matheson
My hon. Friend is giving a fantastic exposition of the effects in Manchester, but does he agree that this is largely a regional issue as well? I cannot get more trains to Manchester for my constituents because of the congestion that exists, particularly around Manchester Piccadilly and on the line through Castlefield. If he is talking about more capacity, that would also benefit my constituents.
Andrew Gwynne
Oh, it absolutely would. We are in a Second Reading debate on HS2 and I appreciate that we can veer away from the subject, so it is very tempting to go into a rant about the lack of capacity through Deansgate, Oxford Road and into the current Piccadilly station. That is a huge issue that this does not resolve.
However, what will be resolved is that some of the east-west links, if they can be tunnelled under Manchester into the new Piccadilly station and beyond into Yorkshire, will free up some capacity in the rail network around Manchester, although it does not fundamentally solve the problem between Deansgate and the existing Piccadilly station, despite lots of promises we have had over a very long period of time that we would increase capacity through the Piccadilly corridor.
Graham Stringer
On my hon. Friend’s final point, only platforms 15 and 16 at Piccadilly will deal with that issue. On the major thrust of his arguments, he will not be surprised to know that I agree with him. We are often told by Ministers about the success of the regeneration at King’s Cross, where the land next to King’s Cross was used to bring enormous economic benefits to that part of London. Does he agree that what is happening at Manchester Piccadilly is that Manchester is being denied those benefits because of blight caused by ill-thought-through proposals?
Andrew Gwynne
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I will let the House know that we both went on a walk around Piccadilly, with Transport for Greater Manchester officers and combined authority officers, to have a look at what is being proposed and what could be developed there—indeed, the hon. Member for High Peak (Robert Largan) attended the tour as well—and the tour was illuminating.
For a start, keeping the ugly monstrosity of Gateway House on Station Approach in its place means that when people come out of the new Piccadilly station, as proposed by the Government and HS2, they will be at the delivery bay of Greggs. It is just not the welcome we want for Manchester. It is not even the shopfront of Greggs; it is the back door, with the bins and the ovens. Let us have a bit of vision here, and let us free up the front. Let us have a nice piazza, and a nice welcome to Manchester.
More than that, let us get the economic development in place behind Piccadilly station, and do not just take my word for it. Business leaders in the Financial Times today are urging Ministers to revise what they call—not my words—a “hugely shortsighted” design. They say—not me—that the economic development around Piccadilly would bring in the equivalent of £333 million a year of additional economic benefit if we get this right. That is why I do say to Ministers: let us look again at getting a better solution for Manchester and a better solution for the north to Piccadilly station.
Katherine Fletcher
I have spent many an hour in the environs of Piccadilly station that the hon. Member mentions. Can he remind the House which political party was in control when that socialist concrete monstrosity was constructed, and can he also remind the House what powers the current Labour Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, has over streetscaping and investment in the town centre?
Andrew Gwynne
I would caution the hon. Lady about making a silly political point, because I think Gateway House was probably built in the late 1960s. I certainly know that, for a period of time before local government reorganisation, Manchester City Council was actually a Conservative-controlled council, so she may well find that Gateway House was built under her party’s watch, if she is not too careful. [Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), who was the leader of Manchester City Council for a very long time, says, for four years Manchester, in the 1960s, was indeed a Conservative council. That is a silly point about a building built over 40 or 50 years ago, but it needs to go.
Robert Largan
I think the hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. The point about having a lovely piazza and welcoming people into Manchester is a very good one. Would he agree with me that we also want to see long-awaited improvements at Piccadilly Gardens? We would love to see Manchester City Council pull its finger out and sort out what really lets down my home city. It is an amazing city, and if that is fixed as well, it could make the welcome to Manchester even better.
Andrew Gwynne
Again, I am straying far off the issue of High Speed 2, but I actually agree with the hon. Gentleman. I think the current Piccadilly Gardens do nothing to enhance the vision of Manchester, and—as a small-c conservative, I suppose—I would actually like to go back to the old sunken gardens with flowers, as we used to have in those pictures Lowry painted, but we are where we are. Absolutely, I want to see Piccadilly being the gateway to the great city of Manchester, with the kind of street scene we are now seeing around Albert Square and the town hall, which is absolutely what can be done with really good streetscaping and landscaping.
To return to HS2, as I say, business leaders in the FT do not accept the £4 billion extra cost that HS2 has put in. Look, I was a local councillor, so I know what officers do when they do not want to do something—they give you a million and one reasons why you cannot do it rather than one reason why you should—and I am sure that it is the same with civil servants and those in the Department for Transport. They will give Ministers a million and one reasons why they should not do the right thing by Manchester. We need someone to stand up to them and say, “Think again. There is a better way forwards.”
I turn to one of the unintended consequences of HS2’s construction. It would be remiss of me not to mention the closure of the Ashton-under-Lyne Metrolink line for a period of at least two years while HS2 is developed around Piccadilly. For those who are not aware, that Metrolink line is an essential piece of transport infrastructure for people right across Tameside. It connects communities from Ashton-under-Lyne through to Audenshaw in my constituency, east Manchester and right into Piccadilly, where it connects with the rest of the Metrolink network through the city centre to Eccles via MediaCityUK. It provides transport links to the 60,000-capacity Etihad stadium at Sportcity and the massive Co-op Live arena currently being built at the Etihad campus.
I find it unacceptable that the Bill plans to mothball the Ashton line and fob off residents with replacement bus services. The Ashton New Road route is already well served by double-decker buses, and people who want to use buses are using them. The beauty of the Metrolink system is that it has attracted people who would not use buses out of their cars and on to public transport, and my fear is that they will go back into their motor cars for the period when the line is mothballed.
I will give a logistical argument. Three double-decker buses are required to give the same capacity as one tram, and to replace a Metrolink service of 10 trams an hour between Ashton and Piccadilly—a tram every six minutes, which by London standards is appalling but by northern standards is remarkable—needs an awful lot of extra double-decker buses in addition to those already using that route. Some of the infrastructure in place—the tracks, the overhead lines and the island stations—may have to be taken out temporarily, at great cost to the public purse, to give extra road capacity. I will give the example of Droylsden, which the Minister will be aware of, because his family’s solicitor’s office is there. The Droylsden tram stop, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), is a pinch point because it is slap-bang in the middle of a busy road at a crossroad junction in Droylsden town centre and the vehicular part of the road is pinched down to one lane only. It queues back now. If we put all those extra buses along that route without taking out the tram stop altogether, we will have traffic chaos through Droylsden. That is why we will not be fobbed off with a replacement bus service.
I am grateful to the Minister for meeting me last month to discuss my concerns and those of Transport for Greater Manchester, Tameside council and Manchester City Council. However, I am afraid to say that he and the Department for Transport fundamentally underestimate the extent of the damage that the suspension will cause and are stubbornly refusing to explore any alternative solutions.
In addition to massively inconveniencing residents, there are three areas where the Government’s plan to suspend the line falls short. First, we have decarbonisation and green investment. Suspending the Ashton Metrolink line will, as I said, increase congestion from buses in an already urbanised part of Greater Manchester, incentivise individuals to travel by private car rather than by zero-emission Metrolink trams, and undermine the Government’s own transport decarbonisation plan.
The second area of concern is economic. The Greater Manchester Combined Authority, alongside Tameside council, recently identified the Ashton mayoral development zone as one of its priority areas to deliver growth in the region. The combined authority has clear and bold ambitions for Ashton and surrounding areas. Tameside council has significantly invested in Ashton town centre, having delivered the new Ashton interchange, learning facilities and new council head offices. Ashton Moss, which is in my constituency, has been identified as a major strategic employment site, with a significant scale of employment and residential growth expected to accelerate the area’s economic development. Transport connectivity is essential for that development to succeed, and the suspension of the line would wholly undermine that.
The third area of concern relates to long-term planning. Transport for Greater Manchester has a simple approach to infrastructure and a mantra that I hope the Minister will take on board for HS2: build it once and build it right. The suspension would ride roughshod over that principle. The Government are planning to commit taxpayer money to temporary mitigation works instead of contributing to a permanent solution that would benefit the people of Tameside and east Manchester for generations to come.
I want to be clear that we in Greater Manchester want improved connectivity and investment in transport infrastructure. However, that must be done right and in consultation with the local authorities and Transport for Greater Manchester. Fobbing us off with paper-thin replacement bus services is not going to crack it.
There is a solution—the Minister knows this—because Transport for Greater Manchester has a plan that would allow for the development of HS2 without penalising the people of Tameside and east Manchester. TfGM has proposed the operation of a Metrolink shuttle service from Ashton to New Islington—the station before Piccadilly —during the period of construction. That would necessitate the development of a depot at Ashton Moss to accommodate the fleet as well as the addition of a crossover at the New Islington Metrolink stop. The Minister has cited a cost of £200 million for that work. That is a figure that I dispute and that TfGM and Tameside council strongly dispute. I remind him that construction of the entire Metrolink line from Piccadilly to Ashton-under-Lyne, including the moving of all the public utilities out of the road and into the pavement, the construction of the line and the stations, and the procurement of the trams to run on the line and to the stations, cost less than what he says a depot would cost.
The Minister also cited as a reason for the cost being extortionate that a high-pressure gas main would need to be relocated. That very same gas main was relocated when the Metrolink line was built and that was included in the overall cost that I just cited—and, 120 metres or so from where the depot would be built, the tramline crosses over that gas main. If it does not seem to be an issue 120 metres away, it should not be an issue for the depot.
In closing, I say to the Minister that, please, we have a solution, and that solution has a legacy benefit. If we built that depot on Ashton Moss, not only could we keep a shuttle service to Manchester going on the Metrolink line, but, in future, tram-train operations in eastern Greater Manchester could make use of that same depot, given that the railway line to Stockport via Denton and Reddish South, which I have been campaigning for, runs alongside Ashton Moss and the depot, so it could be used for generations to come.
The best outcome can be achieved only if the Government agree to implement Transport for Greater Manchester’s recommendations in full, and work collaboratively with local leaders to ensure that we get this right. I fear that we will be in petition mode, and that there will be a petition from Greater Manchester if the Government do not change tack. I hope not, because I do not want this massive infrastructure upgrade for my city region to be delayed. Let’s crack on, let’s get it right, and let’s build it right first time round.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), and I hope he does not mind if I am bold enough to reassure the nation, on his behalf, that although he might have a problem with where Greggs is located, I am sure he remains a passionate fan of its hot goods.
It is fantastic to welcome another big milestone for HS2 in Parliament, and I have spoken frequently about how important the project is for my constituency. This will be levelling up in action as it brings jobs, investment, and opportunities to Crewe and the surrounding area. Let me challenge some of the misconceptions about what is most important about the project. Although speeding up journeys from Manchester or Crewe to London is positive, the real issue this project tackles is capacity. Importantly, given concerns about activity because of the pandemic, this is about not just short-term capacity but futureproofing our railways for decades to come.
A congested railway line is limiting our freight capacity, reducing reliability because it is run so tightly that it does not take much for it to unravel, and limiting local journeys because everything is squashed on to the main intercity routes. That does not means that speed is not important, but one of the challenges that levelling up has to tackle is young people leaving our towns to find opportunities in big cities. If we want to keep bright, young successful people who want to build their careers, we do not want them having to travel to live in big cities to do that. I know many people in Crewe and Nantwich who would like to stay in the places where they were born and grew up, in the community they contribute to, and where their friends and family are. This leg of HS2 will give them even more quicker, more reliable journey options for Manchester, and encourage them to make a choice to stay living locally and commute.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that this especially promotes the opportunities of engineering to the next generation, which we as a country need far more of? We have projects such as nuclear and HS2, and there are other projects in which young people can see their futures as engineers.
Dr Mullan
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have spoken to people in the Alstom factory in Crewe, which has been the homeplace of industrial activity related to trains in the town. Speaking to the current generation of workers, companies in the rail industry are clear that their ability to provide a succession of future jobs and opportunities relies on decades more work that would be derived from HS2.
Better train services will enable young people to stay in a town, and in contrast to what people think the pandemic has done and what virtual working might do, I suspect that for some groups such services will encourage more commuting, not less. If someone is going to be in Manchester, Birmingham or London only two or three times a week, the choice to stay living in Crewe, and places like it, will be even easier when they do not have to make the journey so often. Reduced journey times from Crewe and places that connect to it, and onward to the big cities, as well as more reliable services, will allow us to level up by letting young people stay and raise a family in the towns and villages they come from.
Railways are at the heart of Crewe’s history. Indeed, the town came after the railway, because until the station and rail works were built, Crewe had been just a village. Although we do not have the same dependence on the railway industry that we used to, it remains a key part of our local business sector and a proud part of our history. Major investment in the railways, in whatever form, can only be good news for Crewe. The fact that Crewe is at the heart of these plans means that it will benefit directly from the single biggest investment in the railways ever in the north and midlands.
What we are doing with HS2 feeds into our wider investment in the railways. It is not just journey times that are improving. Across the north and midlands, capacity on the busiest routes is being doubled, tripled, and in some cases quadrupled, as part of the integrated rail plan. Contrast that with how under Labour, the Northern Rail franchise was let on the basis of zero passenger growth and zero investment. The Opposition like to talk big, but their record is not so impressive when it comes to passengers in the north.
Many companies in Crewe and Nantwich contribute to the building and maintenance of trains and railway lines in all sorts of different ways. Crewe has 7% of the rail workforce in England, despite having just 0.1% of the population. HS2 is already creating jobs and investment locally. For example, as part of a conglomerate bid Alstom, which runs the site I mentioned earlier, has won a contract to build bogies that sit beneath train carriages. Crewe is back to building trains for the first time in decades—I know how happy the town was, as well as the workers on that site, to hear that.
I recently held a meeting with the support of HS2, which I am grateful for, to enable local businesses to hear about how they can win contracts and opportunities. Those opportunities are vast, and go beyond big construction companies. A huge workforce is mobilising on various sites, including in Crewe, to deliver construction, and local businesses will have opportunities to do everything from housing that workforce to feeding them and even cutting their hair. It was great to see the enthusiasm displayed at the event, and I am keen for local SMEs to gain more contracts from phase 2. There is a great track record in the number of local UK businesses and SMEs that have won contracts to date.
Crewe will be a flagship connector station, connecting high-speed services and the existing railway network. I want—I would like the Minister to listen closely to these remarks—the station and the surrounds to reflect that status, and to get the investment that is needed to match up to the likes of London, Birmingham and Manchester. The Minister knows well that I have been pressing him and Minister responsible for levelling up to work closely with Cheshire East Council and our local enterprise partnership, to get the funding we need to ensure that we are not the poor relation on the route. The Government are right to want local government to invest as well, and to leverage other opportunities. Cheshire East is committed to providing land and investment, and I hope the Government can play their part.
In the near term, the Secretary of State for Levelling up, Housing and Communities will receive a bid for levelling up funding to transform the car, pedestrian and cycle infrastructure around the station, to prepare it for the arrival of HS2. I hope the HS2 Minister, who I am sure will be asked to give his views, will give the bid his full support as a first step towards all arms of national and local government working collaboratively to deliver a station that matches the ambitions for the residents and businesses of Crewe.
With the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) in her place, it would be remiss of me not to mention that the centrality of Crewe to HS2 is just one of many reasons why Crewe is the best possible candidate for the headquarters of Great British Railways. I know we have support for that across the Chamber from MPs from Stoke, Chester and around Cheshire, advocating for Crewe’s uniquely placed role in freight, the existing railway network, and the high-speed future of the railway. Crewe is at the heart of our railways and railways are at the heart of Crewe. Our community is raring to go when it comes to the public vote, and I hope we hear good news about the shortlist soon. Crewe has a bright future ahead of it beyond just HS2. We have a £22.9 million town deal that we are working hard to bring to life, £14 million of future high streets funding, and £5 million invested in the Institute of Technology at South Cheshire College. However, HS2 will help us to supercharge all those opportunities and deliver the best possible future for my constituents. That is why I am happy to speak in support of the Bill today.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in such an important debate, and to follow the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan). I was fascinated to hear his points about his town. I represent a town that also grew dramatically due to the railways. Indeed, the whole spread of southern England, from west London through Slough, Reading and smaller places such as Didcot, Swindon and over to Bristol, benefited hugely from that historic railway investment. We look forward to further investment and benefits from Crossrail and the Elizabeth line, and I send the hon. Gentleman good wishes, and hope that his constituency benefits in the same way.
I have a few important points in general support of HS2. This is a crucial piece of national rail infrastructure, and even though it does not directly relate to the part of the country I represent, I believe it is a national priority for us all. I will also mention the overall benefits of rail investment as a mode of transport, the need for further investment, and the need for more sensitivity and thought from the Government on some of the finer points. In particular, we should learn lessons from Crossrail, which is a fantastic project and piece of investment that we should all be proud of in this country. Hopefully, the lessons of that huge infrastructure project can be learned for HS2.
Starting with the wider point about national infrastructure, it has been fascinating to hear the speeches tonight. One or two Members have mentioned how our country has sadly lagged behind other western countries and, indeed, some emerging economies in investment in high-speed rail. The economic case for investment at scale is clear, and HS2 is a huge national priority. I am proud that the last Labour Government began the process that has continued under the current Government. There is cross-party agreement and it is a national priority.
HS2’s benefits are about capacity, as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich rightly pointed out, but also reducing time and, as others have mentioned, the regeneration of major cities and smaller towns around the country and the overall benefit to British industry and engineering prowess. We should all be very proud of that and support it. I hope that those who have reservations about HS2 can see the benefits, and I thought my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) was right when he challenged one of the strident opponents to think about some of the benefits. The Minister, the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), made the same point.
On supporting rail investment as a whole, HS2 fits within a wider range of investment in rail as a mode of transport. Rail has so many advantages over other modes of transport, particularly on our highly congested island, where we suffer from enormous amounts of car pollution. There are physical limits to capacity for car travel in most British cities and towns, and through rural areas. We all have residents who are concerned about traffic, congestion and parking from the number of cars we have in the country. We need to think more about using rail, which in many ways is an under-utilised national resource, yet is so wonderful in its economic and environmental benefits.
I want to pick up on a couple of examples to illustrate the need for wider rail investment and its benefits to the country as a whole. We have discussed the benefits in connectivity and time on many fronts, but it is also worth considering the significant advantages of rail in reducing carbon emissions in the UK. Even rail that uses fossil fuels as a fuel has a far lower level of emissions per capita than other modes of transport. It is a much more effective means of transport in that way, and electrification and using renewable, low-carbon or zero-carbon energy has huge benefits to this country and will help us to meet our ambitious carbon reduction targets in a way that is difficult to envisage for other modes of transport.
We need to see investment in rail in the broad sense as a huge national benefit, both economically and environmentally on a big scale. It can help the local environment in our constituencies by getting people out of car commuting and into rail commuting and easing the pressure on neighbourhoods, which can be blighted by car travel. Obviously some people need to use roads for work if public transport is not available, but the two things can be complementary. In my town and the surrounding suburban areas, there are huge benefits when people use public transport. It frees up road space—that is at a premium, and it is extremely difficult to create any more in urban areas—for people who have to travel, such as those who have a trade or an urgent need to drive or are using a route not provided by public transport. On balance and in general, we need to think about the overall benefits of rail investment, and on that basis I am pleased to support the Bill.
I would like to challenge the Minister and the Government on a number of ways in which they are falling short at the moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Slough is right that we should deliver HS2 in full. It is a very ambitious line, but comparable countries have had much greater investments in high-speed rail over a long time. I remember travelling on the Eurostar from Geneva to Paris in the early 1990s as a student and being staggered by the speed at which I could get across France. That was 30 years ago; we need to invest properly in this link for the whole of England so that the whole route is properly delivered, as was originally envisaged, to provide the benefits we would all like to see for communities across the country—the kind of benefits that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich rightly highlighted in his own area.
The Government need to be careful to listen to MPs and local councils in the north of England, many of whom are rightly holding them to account and expressing serious concerns about how the current proposals are selling local communities short. In particular, the failure in the east midlands is significant. The failure to complete the eastern part of the HS2 network is a huge shortfall to large parts of the north and midlands. If I were representing that region, and particularly if I were a Government MP, I would be disappointed in my colleagues that that change is being put forward.
I will move on to some brief lessons from Crossrail and in particular some local ones from our area in the Thames valley that apply nationally. We need to see significant infrastructure projects not as an end in themselves, but as a resource for future projects. The team that delivered Crossrail have achieved amazing things. It was the biggest infrastructure programme in Europe for many years, and the emphasis is now shifting on to HS2, which will become the greatest exercise of its kind in the continent. We need to learn from the technology and the project management skills.
Getting things back on track when they go wrong with a complicated project of this type is extremely difficult, as I have learned on two visits to Crossrail and the Elizabeth line. I am sure there will be times when there are issues with HS2; we need to address those and learn the lessons of other major infrastructure projects. Problems with delays or teething problems are not just a British phenomenon; the long-delayed new airport in Berlin has taken seven years over its original planned time to be rolled out. I am sure the Minister, the hon. Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) knows that only too well, but I urge him to work closely with the team that delivered Crossrail to learn the full lessons on project and programme management, engineering advances, the skills and training that were delivered and the interconnection with local communities and local business needs.
In our area, we would have seen Maidenhead as the western terminus of Crossrail, had there not been heavy lobbying within Berkshire and the wider Thames valley for Reading to be that terminus. Obviously, I have a slight bias towards my own home town being the terminus, but arguably there were bigger economic cases to be made. Every council in the Thames valley area, whether Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat, supported Reading becoming the western terminus. Parties worked together to get the good for the whole area, and in the same way we worked together on other projects and programmes, including the western rail link and other enhancements to our region.
Graham Stringer
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need to learn the lessons of major infrastructure programmes. Does he agree that one of the lessons we should learn is that if we get major infrastructure right, it lasts for hundreds of years? We are still benefiting from the Victorian investment 200 years ago and 150 years ago in railways. The current methodology for assessing the benefit of HS2 belongs in the 18th century, not the 21st century. The Department for Transport is not really trying to capture the economic regeneration effect and the fundamental change in the structure of transport in this country with the way that it assesses it.
Matt Rodda
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and he is right that we need a wider look at the methodology. It is extremely complicated to make long-term economic predictions at this time, but back in the first phase of the rail revolution in this country in the 19th century, visionary engineers did amazing things that we still benefit from, as he rightly mentioned. Imagine how much potential we are yet to tap into with HS2. We should think of this as a once-in-a-century project, as he rightly says. It benefits all of us across the House, whatever party or area we represent.
In terms of other lessons from Crossrail, I once again urge Ministers to work closely with colleagues from the Government and the Opposition, local councils and, above all, business. We were able to reap the benefits in our area with this huge inward investment to Reading town centre. Companies relocated from within the south-east and from car-dependent developments in such places as Surrey. For example, Ericsson’s European and British head office has moved from an industrial estate in Surrey, which was poorly connected to sources of graduates and highly skilled people and physically to other locations such as London, Swindon or Slough. It came to Reading town centre because of that rail connectivity. We need to think in those terms with business and in a much broader sense across party. We need to think about relocating attractive new business opportunities into the transport hubs that have long-term sustainable connections, that do not suffer from delays and congestion like road transport and that are much quicker and more flexible. I am grateful for the Minister acknowledging those points.
Finally, before I sum up, I would like to reiterate the economic and environmental benefits. We need to see them in tandem rather than in contrast to one another, particularly the economic benefits for advanced manufacturing and the regeneration of cities, and the environmental benefits of reducing carbon emissions. Regenerating cities as liveable and walkable places is important in itself, and of huge environmental benefit in reducing suburban congestion from cars.
To sum up, I support the Bill and I am grateful for the cross-party co-operation. We need to have a very long-term approach, as a number of hon. Members have mentioned. The Government could do more to engage with local political representatives and business. I look forward to them doing that.
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda), who made some very interesting and worthwhile points about how HS2 will be delivered and especially on talking to the team behind Crossrail. Crossrail had its own teething problems, as has HS2, so if we can learn some of those lessons, that would be excellent.
It is also a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan), who made some excellent points. He has been a doughty champion on this issue for a long time, although unfortunately he did misspeak when he said that Crewe and not Heywood should be the home of Great British Railways. I will forgive him.
I completely understand the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) about the effect of suspending Metrolink. I have been having my own battle to get it to my constituency, so I definitely understand why he does not want it to go anytime soon.
This is a very timely, some might say slightly overdue, Bill and I welcome it very warmly. For some of us, getting HS2 to Manchester has been a labour of love for well over a decade. I think back to my time in Salford town hall, having these debates and talking about, “Oh, it’s only a couple of years down the track.” Of course, then it was a couple more years and then a couple more years, so it is very nice to be here debating this Bill in this Chamber.
At the heart of the Government’s manifesto at the last general election was the commitment to level up the UK. The Bill is evidence of that commitment. The industrial revolution began in Manchester. It was the world’s first industrial city and it should be at the heart of the next industrial revolution and the industrial revolution after that. Of course, the unspoken truth is that for a very, very long time investment in this country was tilted very heavily towards the south, creating the perverse situation where what was once the cradle of this country’s productivity was dependent on handouts from the part of the country that we dragged kicking and screaming into first the 19th century and then the 20th century. HS2 is an investment in infrastructure that the north of England desperately needs. We are not talking about the old “teach a man to fish” argument. We know how to do that. We basically invented fishing in this scenario. We just want our fishing rod back.
One of the most spurious arguments against the project is that the time it takes to get from Manchester to London is already a little over two hours and that HS2 will not really make a big difference. That, of course, spectacularly, and often deliberately, misses the point. This is about capacity, not just speed. The demand to do business up north far outpaces our ability to deliver, because we are choked off from the vital infrastructure we need to compete. It is a fact that HS2 will not just enable better north-south connectivity; by doubling capacity between London and Manchester, regional lines will also be freed up for more east-west and local services, too.
Andy Carter
My hon. Friend is making a very good speech and his point on north-south is very well made. He will know that there is to be a new high-speed line which will pass through Warrington, through Warrington Bank Quay, into Manchester. The value of creating north-south, east-west in the north of England is the big picture we should be considering. We are talking about an HS2 Bill, but we should look at the full picture with the £96 billion investment that the Government are making in the north of England. When we add all those things together, it really is a phenomenal investment in rail in the north of England.
Chris Clarkson
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. In fact, this is the biggest investment in rail, I believe, in the history of this country and it is certainly more than the sum of its parts. That £96 billion will multiply and multiply again. Warrington is already a hub of both commercial and industrial activity. It is not properly connected to Manchester. It is a bit of a mission to get from A to B, as it is to get from Warrington to Liverpool. To get from Liverpool to Manchester is like pulling teeth. The very first seat I contested, in 2015, was Wallasey. I had to start very, very early in the morning on a Saturday to get there in time for my first canvassing session. I would welcome more connectivity, especially the high-speed rail link my hon. Friend talks about.
This Bill is more evidence that the Government are delivering on the integrated rail plan for the north. The Crewe-Manchester scheme will also provide the basis on which much of Northern Powerhouse Rail can be developed. I hope that eventually it will provide connectivity from Liverpool in the west to Hull in the east.
Mike Amesbury
On connectivity and levelling up the north, my constituency includes Northwich, not far from Manchester and certainly not far from Crewe. HS2 is wonderful in terms of the job opportunities it will create in Crewe and the surrounding area, but on average it takes one hour 40 minutes to get from Northwich to Crewe, which the hon. Member will know is not actually that far up the road. Those who are disabled or immobile and who need to use a buggy cannot go in one direction, because there is no disabled access. He paints a wonderful picture on investment, but does he agree that there is a considerable way to go?
Chris Clarkson
I paint a wonderful picture because there are so many wonderful things to work with, but I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point. Accessibility to public transport is hugely important. I have the same problem with the stations in my constituency. I only have two and one of them is completely inaccessible for those with even the slightest of mobility issues, so we have a lot more to do. Investment in local services will be driven by the fact that there will be more demand for them once we free up capacity, but I absolutely take the hon. Gentleman’s point. I know his part of the world very well and for somewhere so well located it is surprisingly poorly connected.
I hope that providing connectivity from east to west will be a vital part of our long-term competitiveness as a region. I strongly urge Ministers to keep up the pressure on that part of the project. East-west will be as important, if not more so, than north-south in the long run.
I am pleased that Ministers from the Department for Transport have been engaging with local government to make sure they can build on the opportunities of HS2 and spread the benefits of this public investment in levelling up across the region. It will not just be the centre of Manchester that will benefit. Those on the outskirts will also see the rewards. It will bring more investment into our area and into other areas of the north-west, too. It will spread the good around.
That is not to say there are not some sticking points. My hon. Friend the Minister, Department for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) will have heard from most Greater Manchester MPs at one point or another. Obviously, there will be some snagging issues, but I am pleased to say that in the round when I have had questions or concerns, I have been able to have a frank and open conversation with him and have received honest answers, even if they are not always the ones I wanted.
I understand that the Greater Manchester Combined Authority has a number of concerns about the Bill in its current form, the largest of which is how Manchester Piccadilly will be developed and configured to accommodate HS2. Its preference is for an underground through-station, rather than the proposed new six-platform overground station next to the existing one. I am pretty agnostic about that—I can see arguments for both—but I took the time to do a bit of homework on the underground option. My concerns, essentially, are that the project calls for a huge tunnel to be built under the station which is larger than anything that has ever been drilled before. We would end up with the same situation as Euston, where we have to build a giant box underground. That, in turn, means it cannot be situated under the existing station, so it needs to be either alongside it, as is the case with the overground station anyway, or somewhere else altogether, which is largely pointless.
As the GMCA wants a through station, we will need to have very bendy tunnels, which will slow down the trains on their approach and increase journey time, or we will have to build the station at a right angle to the existing station, which will mean it will be an absolute nightmare for people to get from A to B, again negating its value. Added to that is the fact that we will have a hole in the ground for a period of about seven years, which will basically be an opencast mine, with trucks making thousands of movements a year to take spoil through the centre of Manchester.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
I am reminded of a session we had yesterday about protestors tunnelling to prevent HS2. Does my hon. Friend think that Opposition Members who support HS2 should rethink their opposition to the Public Order Bill, which HS2 Ltd says is necessary to prevent protestors holding back HS2?
Chris Clarkson
My hon. Friend knows that I am an enthusiastic supporter of the Public Order Bill. To be fair, if we could get the protesters to do the tunnelling for us, it might save us 5 billion quid. That might be a way of doing it—get a few Swampy types in and get the job done.
We have regenerated the centre of Manchester many times, certainly in my adult lifetime, but this is not the kind of regeneration that we particularly want. It will undo a huge amount of good. Digging up a square mile of the city centre will certainly not deliver the value for money that we want. Having said that, may I encourage the Minister to publish in the Library the cost-benefit analysis of both versions of the station? That would enable a fuller debate, especially when the Bill comes before the Select Committee. The subject needs to be discussed further.
Mike Amesbury
If an underground station is good enough for London, why not Manchester? The scale of this investment will benefit generations to come. We have to get this right. What is good enough for London certainly should be good enough for Manchester.
Chris Clarkson
As a proud northerner, I do not think there is any bit of London that cannot be improved by digging it up. I do not think that the same is true of the centre of Manchester.
As for the cancellation of the Golborne spur, I join my hon. Friends the Members for Leigh (James Grundy) and for Warrington South (Andy Carter) in welcoming the reconsideration of that ludicrous white elephant. As hon. Members well know, it was originally included only as a sop to the former Member for Leigh, who is now the Mayor of Greater Manchester. That money could be much better deployed elsewhere, including on integrating our public transport properly.
That point brings me to my favourite subject: public transport. One area on which I can make common cause with the GMCA is that the project needs to be fully integrated into whatever network the Mayor gets around to implementing. I particularly note the call for a new Metrolink station, Piccadilly Central, to be included in the project. I support that call fully, although I will be less than chuffed if central Manchester gets yet another metro station before either Heywood or Middleton is connected to the network.
I urge the GMCA and Transport for Greater Manchester to get their collective digits out of wherever they are, and get on with the feasibility studies that are supposed to deliver these projects. Obviously, levelling up needs to be more than just a railway, but building HS2 is a vital first step towards drawing wider investment into Greater Manchester and the wider north-west. Building this scheme will help to bring businesses, jobs and prosperity to our region.
Katherine Fletcher
We have heard in interventions from Opposition Members the idea that somehow this is not enough. Has my hon. Friend considered how many generations of neglect the north of England has had to put up with in its transport and rail infrastructure? Does he welcome, as I do, the fact that it is this Conservative Government who are sorting it out?
Chris Clarkson
I absolutely do. For generations, we have had our faces pressed against the glass of economic opportunity, only to be told that it is too expensive for us or that it is not the sort of thing our part of the world needs. It is always an over-investment; then, of course, as soon as we are the ones spending the money, we are not spending enough. It is the Andy Burnham textbook—but people seem to like that, so who knows?
The region, which a couple of centuries ago levelled up this country, and consequently the rest of the world, will be our link to a new economic horizon for the north-west and for the entire country. It will allow us to connect our world-class businesses, our world-class universities and our innovation in science and technology to the rest of the country and beyond. HS2 between Crewe and Manchester is a major step towards rebalancing regional discrepancies in investment, and I expect it to have a similar positive effect on economic development elsewhere.
We need to get on with the project now. The longer it takes, the more opportunities are lost. As I have said, it is not just about speed; it is about capacity.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak on the Bill’s Second Reading and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson). It goes without saying that improving connectivity across the whole UK is fundamental to the Government’s levelling-up agenda. HS2 can promote growth across the country, open up new employment opportunities and enable more efficient travel for millions, all while supporting net zero by 2050.
Even the most ardent supporters of HS2 must accept that it does not command ringing endorsement from all quarters. Many of my constituents, understandably, question its cost in particular. Personally, however, I believe that a 21st-century Britain needs a modern rail link such as is proposed. We have fallen behind our continental neighbours, making do with dated infrastructure.
The overriding reason for the development of HS2 has not been reducing journey times to and from London, but creating much-needed new capacity on a crowded network. That is important for all of us, but from the perspective of north Wales, this national infrastructure project can do more. First, in combination with Northern Powerhouse Rail, it can much improve our connections to the cities of Manchester and Liverpool and their airports, as well as beyond.
Secondly, the project can and must prompt investment in the north Wales coast main line to Crewe and Warrington. Electrifying and upgrading the north Wales main line in the manner proposed by Sir Peter Hendy in his Union connectivity review would result in fit-for-purpose regional connections and could allow through-running of HS2 trains, both southbound and northbound. All this would be transformative. It is a No. 1 priority for regional MPs and for the all-party parliamentary group on Mersey Dee North Wales, which I chair.
Matt Rodda
One of the things that so excite me about Crossrail is that local authorities and businesses are already thinking about the next stage—about spurs off it, other uses and so on. It is wonderful to hear that the hon. Member and his colleagues are thinking about taking HS2 along the coast into north Wales. I wish him well.
Dr Davies
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. A huge amount of work has certainly been done with the campaign organisation Growth Track 360, which is looking at that. There is an amazing graphical interpretation to be found online of how it might look, with the train passing Conwy castle; it was developed by a Ukrainian, in fact. It is fantastic.
Today, Manchester and Liverpool can be reached in just over an hour by road, on average, from Rhyl in my constituency. In comparison, existing rail services take about two hours, yet a similar distance by rail in the south-east of this country takes as little as 40 minutes.
Katherine Fletcher
I have family there: my nain and taid—well, not mine, but I borrowed them—came from Rhyl. They always used to talk about the income lost to the tourism industries of the beautiful north Welsh hills because the public transport connections were not what they could be. Has my hon. Friend done any assessment of the scale of the economic improvement that could be made?
Dr Davies
Yes, work has been done by Growth Track 360 and others to look at improvements that could be made to the regional economy. Tourism, as my hon. Friend says, is right at the top. So many people in the north-west, the west midlands and further afield would visit north Wales if they could get there more quickly.
Poor regional rail services stifle economic growth, including in our vital tourism sector. They suppress efforts to reduce higher-than-average unemployment and result in just 2% of commutes to the north-west of England being made by rail, which is about 80% less than the national average.
I strongly urge the Minister to ensure that when the updated rail network enhancements pipeline is due, it includes an ambitious programme for the north Wales coast main line. Signalling improvements, line speed enhancements, infrastructure to allow express trains to overtake slow trains and capacity improvements in and around Chester station are all required to deliver that programme, as is electrification. Electrification will ultimately be required regardless, of course, to fulfil the decarbonisation agenda, but it needs to be prioritised. Placing all those improvements at the formal RNEP decision-to-develop stage now will allow north Wales and west Cheshire to properly benefit from HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail.
Andy Carter
My hon. Friend is making a very good speech indeed. He talks about north Wales and the north-west, but a very obvious benefit of improving the main line along the north Wales coast is that it would also improve connections to Northern Ireland, because of the ferries from Holyhead to Dublin. The opportunity to connect all parts of the UK by improving rail is critical for the north Wales coast.
Dr Davies
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is what Sir Peter Hendy looked at in his Union connectivity review, which makes that point about the links across the UK, to Ireland and to the continent.
By investing in the improvements that I have outlined, we can prepare the ground to bring much of north Wales within a two-hour journey of London once the London to Crewe 2b section of HS2 is completed. Work on some elements of that agenda has already been conducted, or is due to be undertaken shortly, meaning that initial works could get under way sooner rather than later. I look forward to meeting the Chief Secretary to the Treasury shortly, alongside my colleagues in north Wales, to discuss further the soon-to-be-updated RNEP.
HS2 is an important British engineering and infrastructure project, which, like the M6, will be located in England but will benefit north Wales. There are those who say that HS2 should be considered an England-only project with Barnett consequentials arising for Wales. Journeys to and from north Wales overwhelmingly run on an east-west axis, and in my view there is absolutely no value in engaging in separatism and seeking to pretend otherwise. However, after many decades of underinvestment, the time for a significant financial commitment to the Crewe to Holyhead line has well and truly arrived. With such investment, HS2 will bring greater benefits to north Wales and thereby help to bring the Union closer together. With that in mind, I hope the Minister can give some clarity about when we might anticipate the Government’s full response to the Union connectivity review.
The inclusion in the Bill of a Crewe northern junction joining the west coast main line and HS2 north of Crewe is important for north Wales in ensuring an adequate throughput of northbound services at Crewe, and therefore sufficient connecting services for my region. I was pleased to help to lobby for this northern junction some years ago, alongside colleagues at the north Wales and Mersey Dee rail taskforce, who lead the Growth Track 360 campaign that I have mentioned. However, it is vital that funding be found for a fit-for-purpose Crewe hub station building and infrastructure, and that the design be future-proofed to allow rapid connections and HS2 through services to north Wales.
I move on to the recent announcement that the Golborne link will no longer be constructed. That brings with it potentially good news for north Wales, assuming that the route northbound via Warrington is to be upgraded accordingly. I encourage the Minister to examine that possibility carefully.
I recently met the head of public affairs for Manchester airport, Andy Clarke, who outlined to me the airport’s enthusiasm for HS2 but emphasised the need for several matters to be properly examined in the near future, including the likely impact of construction, the concern over the requirement for a local funding contribution towards the new airport HS2 station and the need to ensure that public transport links between the new station, the existing station and terminal buildings are up and running from day one. Once again, I hope the Minister will take that on board.
Graham Stringer
On the point about Manchester airport, does the hon. Gentleman think it is discriminatory, and that it certainly does not help the levelling-up agenda, for Manchester airport to be expected to make a financial contribution to the station at the airport, when none of the other airports along the line are expected to do so?
Dr Davies
That is a valid point. I do not have the detail of other airports and the value that they are destined to derive from HS2. Clearly, Manchester international airport is a busy and successful one, and perhaps it can contribute towards the costs. It needs to be closely involved in the precise design and costings of the proposals.
This Bill will provide significant opportunities to level up across the UK, while protecting and strengthening the Union. It will also create very many well paid jobs during the construction phase and beyond. I urge the Minister to ensure that the potential opportunities for north Wales from HS2 are seized upon, in part by confirming and ensuring that the future through running of HS2 trains from Crewe on to an electrified north Wales coast main line is a serious aspiration for the Government.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
My opposition to HS2 has been expressed somewhat forcefully in this House over the two and a half years for which I have had the privilege of representing the Buckingham constituency. I note with some sadness, and certainly bewilderment, that we continue to debate this relic from the Blair-Brown Labour Government; and, worse than that, to extend it yet further with this Bill, bringing to more parts of the country, and more lives, the human misery that my constituents have experienced since enabling works and construction started. We have heard some commentary about the Leader of the Opposition’s previous stance, and perhaps this is one occasion on which Captain Hindsight got it right the first time.
It is not lost on me that this debate comes on the eve of the hard left and the unions bringing our railways to a halt, and preventing hard-working British people, schoolchildren and people who want to go out for the day from getting on the railways that we do have. I was struck by what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport said in his earlier statement, which provides important context to our debate:
“The railway is in a fight…not just competing with other forms of public and private transport but competing with Teams, Zoom and other forms of remote working. Today, many commuters who three years ago had no alternative but to travel by train have…the option of not travelling at all. Rail has lost a fifth of its passengers.”
In the light of the Secretary of State’s words, it has to be asked why on earth we continue to plough in excess of £100 billion into a railway project that blights the British countryside and delivers none of the real or quantifiable benefits that some—including, and I say this with great respect, hon. and right hon. Members who spoke before me—believe it does. I welcome the cancelling of the eastern leg and the cancelling of the Golborne spur, but even before those bits were chopped off, the benefit-cost ratio was only 0.6:1.7. We are yet to see from the Government where that BCR sits today with a scaled-back HS2.
I want to focus on two things. First, why on earth are we continuing to plough money into this thing? Secondly, from my constituency experience, I say to hon. and right hon. Members who support the Bill and want to extend HS2 further that they should be careful what they wish for. But before I get on to that, I want to explore a point that others have raised today about the ongoing HS2 debate.
At the start, HS2 was all about speed; it was all about how fast we could get to Birmingham or Manchester, which are fantastic parts of our United Kingdom. Personally, I have never had a problem with the time it has taken to get by rail to Birmingham, to Manchester or, for that matter, up to Glasgow, where I had clients when I ran my business. The debate very quickly became about capacity, and we have heard that word a lot today. As the Secretary of State said in his statement, however, rail has lost a fifth of its passengers, so presumably we no longer have that capacity problem. Earlier this year, we even saw suggestions reported in the press in relation to the Transport Committee and others that HS2 had become about propping up the construction industry. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) said in her excellent speech earlier, with 1.3 million vacancies in the economy, I do not think that the taxpayer should be propping up anything at all in the construction industry. At present, it is almost impossible to find a builder for either a big or a small project. It is almost impossible to work to a tight timescale.
I challenge my hon. Friend the Minister, when he sums up the debate, to give us an answer to this question. Is it about speed, is it about capacity, is it about propping up the building industry? There is a further question that should worry all those on this side of the House, all those with a free-market, low-tax, small-state viewpoint: how it can be that we are building this thing entirely at cost to the taxpayer? If there really is such high demand for HS2, if it really is the great railway, the golden bullet, that will solve all the north-south transport problems in the country, why does no one in the private sector want to risk their own pounds and pence in real investment? Why does no one have the confidence to put their own money into this project? That is a massive alarm bell that should sound in the minds of certainly every Conservative, if not every Member in the House.
As we look at extending high-speed rail yet further, from Crewe to Manchester, I say again that those who support this should be careful what they wish for. I extend an open invitation to any Member to visit my constituency, and to travel through villages and hamlets such as Terrick, Butlers Cross, Ellesborough, Little Kimble and Great Kimble, Marsh, Stone, Fleet Marston, Waddesdon, Quainton, Edgcott and Grendon Underwood, Steeple Claydon, Twyford, Charndon, Chetwode, Westbury, Turweston—and there are more. I invite Members to come and see the scale of not just the devastation caused to the Buckinghamshire countryside, but the real human misery that goes with that. There are the endless road closures, often taking place at a moment’s notice. In a rural environment, that does not mean a five-minute diversion to get the kids to school, to get to work, or to go wherever else people wish to go; it is often a half-hour or a 45-minute diversion.
Let me give the House a tangible example of where that can really strike. The Princes Centre is a daycare centre in Princes Risborough, quite a long way from the trace of HS2, but serving clients from all over the county of Buckinghamshire. It has had to pay 75% more in overtime rates for its employees to account for the time for which those carers are stuck in traffic—for no good reason, other than the HS2 road closures and endless traffic lights and diversions—while trying to reach the people who rely on their care. We have all seen the price of fuel rise in recent months, but the centre’s fuel consumption has increased by more than a quarter because of those diversions. This is an independent daycare centre, a charity, suffering severe financial penalties because of all the road closures and other disruptions that HS2 has brought to the county of Buckinghamshire.
Let us travel a little further up the road, to Fleet Marston on the edge of the town of Aylesbury, where the Hunters farm land all around the A41. HS2 has acquired a significant proportion of their land—farmland, arable land—and as a result of the way in which it has treated that land, it has become entirely waterlogged. No proper drainage has been put in place, and where the Hunters still have land to farm, their crops are completely ruined. No signs have been put up around the farm, and HS2 HGVs are constantly driving through the farmyard, finding it almost impossible to do three-point turns to get out again. This has also created an extremely dangerous stretch of the A41, the main road that runs through my constituency from Aylesbury to Bicester, where every day hundreds of HGVs come very close to people who are trying to go about their daily business. There have been many near misses on that stretch of road, and, sadly, there have been fatalities.
I could give countless examples of other farmers across the constituency who have been messed about time after time. They have, for instance, been subject to poor timescales for crop loss compensation, when they have not been able to farm their land or grow the crops or graze the cattle. In some cases, it has taken two harvests for farmers to receive the compensation.
Great Moor Sailing Club, just outside Calvert, has experienced massive construction disruption, which has almost prevented it from carrying out its activities. Agreements made between contractors and the club have constantly failed to be met and honoured. A good neighbour High Speed Two Ltd is categorically not.
Let us go a little further up the road to Steeple Claydon, where the bus company Langston & Tasker operates. That company has one of the main home-to-school contracts in the county of Buckinghamshire. Andy and Dan Price, who own the business, are having to deal not only with the increase in overheads that the cost of living pressures and the global oil price have brought to them, but massive increases in overheads because of the diversions that are affecting their school buses, and the damage to their vehicles caused by the crumbling roads that have been unable to cope with the thousands of daily HGV movements. Tyres have been torn off the company’s buses because the edge of the road has become like a bread knife as those thousands of HGVs have been forced out on to the verge, causing huge damage.
There are cases of landowners being messed around by not being offered a fair price for their land, or having land taken only to be told, “We have taken too much” or “We have taken too little and will have to take a bit more, but we are not going to tell you when you will get it back, or if you will get it back”. There was one tragic case of a farmer in my constituency who suffered a fatal heart attack. It is certainly the family’s view that the strains and the pressures and the stresses of the way in which he was treated by High Speed 2 Ltd were in part, if not wholly, to blame.
Construction projects like this bring real misery to communities. They will bring that same misery along the stretch from Crewe to Manchester. They will bring that same misery wherever big state infrastructure is put in place.
I am grateful to the HS2 Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson), who has visited the constituency and always been available to discuss concerns. I am grateful to the new residents commissioner, Stewart Jackson, for spending two and a half hours in my car on Friday morning as I personally drove him round all the sites where roads have been damaged and showed him the inexplicable contradictions between what HS2 said it would do and what it has actually done. I showed him some of the farms that have been so badly messed about, and the homes have been boarded up and taken. I am also grateful to the construction commissioner, Sir Mark Worthington, for the time he has spent in the constituency and in engaging with me.
However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) said earlier, there are still no answers about the price that has to be hit before anyone says, “Enough!” The reality is that when these big projects set off, with their huge commitments and unlimited budgets, they take on a life of their own. Completing these projects becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and the contractors are out of control, no matter how much goodwill and fantastic effort goes into trying to rein them in.
To put this into perspective, let me say that I doubt that any other right hon. or hon. Member has a member of staff working full time just on the construction of this railway and East West Rail in their constituency. Such is the scale of the workload—the incoming—on HS2-related matters in my constituency.
No matter how much goodwill and engagement there is, and no matter how much the issues are looked at and properly interrogated, the contractors will carry on regardless. HS2 Ltd will carry on regardless. They see it as building this railway, full stop. We often get warm words. We often get roadshows at which they say they are listening, but the problem is that nothing changes. I give this to the House as a warning: this is the reality that underpins some of these infrastructure projects, particularly this one. I live in hope that one day sense will be seen and this project can be scrapped for good, but in the meantime we need a massive change of attitude from HS2 Ltd, from the contractors and from all who work for them, so that they start to put communities first.
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith), who I have known for nearly 15 years. He is a great friend of mine and I know he is a fantastic champion for his constituents. He spoke passionately about how he is standing up for them and how this project has impacted them. On his wider points opposing HS2, what he said was almost entirely nonsensical and I look forward to demolishing it in a moment.
In the long run we are all dead, according to John Maynard Keynes, and that attitude has been wholeheartedly embraced by many politicians throughout the years. That is understandable, because it is all too easy and tempting to focus on short-term urgent political gains and it is always difficult to spend all our political and financial capital on long-term strategic decisions for which we will get no credit and whose benefit will not be felt for decades to come. We are seeing this short-termism hurt our country in many ways, most acutely through the failure of the Blair Government to renew our nuclear power stations, which we are really feeling now, so I think this Government deserve a lot of credit for going ahead with high-speed rail.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
There might be a contrary view that people in this place sometimes decide on these nice shiny things—for example, George Osborne and his super-duper high-speed trains—knowing full well that they will not have to be there to implement them. The Government might say that in 50 years’ time they want net zero or whatever it is, but they are not going to be there. That is what has happened in this case: it is a white elephant. Come on!
Robert Largan
Well, I am very glad I took that intervention. I would say that perhaps George Osborne did expect to be here, but that is beside the point.
As I was saying, I believe that the Government deserve significant credit for taking a very long-term decision that will be of huge benefit to the country, although they will not get any credit for it for a long time to come. Let us contrast that with the Leader of the Opposition, who spent his first four years in Parliament focusing on two objectives. The first was to block High Speed 2 and the billions of investment in the north of England. The second was to try to make the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) Prime Minister.
Chris Clarkson
Does my hon. Friend think that is proof that the only north-west the Leader of the Opposition is interested in is NW1?
Robert Largan
I could not have put it better myself. When I flagged this point earlier, Opposition Members said it is a constituency interest, which is very revealing. A Member of Parliament’s list of priorities is supposed to be country, constituency, party and then self. It is slightly worrying that, when the interests of the country come up against the interests of a narrow corner of north London, the leader of the Labour party opts for self, party, constituency and then country last, which is very revealing about his priorities.
HS2 is an important infrastructure project, so I take great pleasure in busting some of the myths we have heard this evening. A series of myths about high-speed rail have been perpetuated over the last decade by a combination of muddled thinking and well-financed interest groups, and I will take them one by one.
As we have heard tonight, this is all about time. Who needs an extra 30 minutes off rail journeys down to London? First, this has never been primarily about journey times and speed; this has always been about capacity.
Greg Smith
My hon. Friend and I never fell out when we took opposite sides in the Brexit referendum, and we will not fall out over this. He says HS2 has always been about capacity, so why did it have to be built as a high-speed line so dead straight that it had to go through the middle of ancient woodland and the Calvert Jubilee nature reserve? If it were about capacity, the line could have been slower from the outset and could therefore have gone around ancient woodland and nature reserves.
Robert Largan
If we are going to spend billions of pounds on a new railway line, we want to make it a fast line. If we were to give in to my hon. Friend’s demands and scrap HS2 tomorrow, we would quickly run up against gridlock on the west coast main line, which is almost at complete capacity already.
Katherine Fletcher
The internet is a wonderful thing, and I have just looked at trains from Wellingborough into central London and at trains from Preston into central Manchester, a not dissimilar distance. Should my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) be in his wonderful constituency, he could get three trains before the trains close even on a day of disruption.
Katherine Fletcher
I have just checked. And from Preston to Manchester, a similar distance, there is one train because the capacity is not there. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) made a wonderful speech, people need to understand what it feels like to be a rail user in the south-east of England. Does my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Robert Largan) agree that capacity is the key point?
Mr Bone
As my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) obviously knows more about Wellingborough than I do, she might mention that the cattle trucks they are now using, as we cannot spend proper money because it is being wasted on HS2, are of great detriment to my constituents. By the way, a person cannot get on at Wellingborough and go north. It is a total waste, totally wrong. If there was any argument not to pass this nonsense tonight, she should come to Wellingborough and then she would be on my side. Does my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Robert Largan) agree?
Robert Largan
It gives me great pleasure to facilitate that tête-à-tête between my hon. Friends the Members for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) and for Wellingborough (Mr Bone).
One of the most frequent tropes used by opponents of HS2 is, “We don’t need to invest in rail because we have high-speed broadband. Everyone will be working from home and having remote meetings, so it is not a problem at all.” How would we deliver freight via Zoom? It is not possible to deliver millions of tonnes of freight a year over the internet, and those who argue otherwise are completely missing the point. We desperately need to move away from road haulage and on to rail freight, which is one of the big benefits of HS2. It opens up capacity not only for passengers but for rail freight, too. I am very proud to represent a large number of quarries, and I chair the all-party group on mining and quarrying. One big challenge is getting all the aggregate out of our quarries and on to site. At the moment, a huge volume of that is done by road, by HGVs, which causes huge problems across the Peak district. Being able to increase that capacity is a big benefit of high-speed rail.
I next come on to address the point about cost, which has always been mentioned. People say that the cost of high-speed rail is “astronomical” and “completely ridiculous”, and that this is “a white elephant”. Let us consider the opponents of HS2’s worst-case-scenario cost figures—I think they are massively inflated, but let us take them at their word. How much would that actually cost when we spread it out over the lifetime of the project, which is decades? Even on the worst-case scenario, we are looking at about £5 billion a year, which is half of what we spend on overseas aid every year. When we are talking about a huge investment to upgrade the most important railway line in the country, spending 0.25% of our GDP a year over several decades does not seem to be a disproportionate amount of money.
Another of my favourite myths is, “HS2 is bad for the environment.” I recall that in the last one of these debates the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) referred to HS2 as “environmental annihilation”. I am not sure whether she has ever been to Kent, where HS1 exists; it is still the garden of England. One wonders whether some of the opponents of HS2 have ever seen a railway line. We are not talking about eight-lane superhighways; we are talking about a relatively narrow footprint and about beautiful pieces of infrastructure. I would happily take all those people to places such as New Mills and Chapel Milton, where stunning viaducts criss-cross a national park, no less, and are beloved parts of the landscape.
Next, people say, “It’s a false choice. We should be investing in local lines, not spending billions on this big infrastructure project.” That is just a completely false narrative. A big part of opening up this capacity is that it helps existing commuter lines, with High Peak being the perfect example of that. Commuters on the Buxton line heading into Manchester from places such as Whaley Bridge, New Mills, Chapel-en-le-Frith and Buxton are on a really poor service. Why is that? It is because it has to go through the Stockport-Piccadilly corridor, which is one of the most congested lines anywhere in the country. There is not enough space on that line to get a more frequent or more reliable service into Manchester. HS2 opens up the Stockport corridor and will allow for a more reliable and more frequent service for my constituents.
We are also doing all the investment in the local lines too. The £137 million upgrade of the Hope Valley line in my constituency is under construction already; the HS2 Minister recently came with me to see the construction progress. That is also going to have a huge positive impact on commuters in my constituency and, again, it is going to open up freight capacity to help get goods out of the quarries in the Peak District and through into market.
Yes, I would like us to go even further. I would love to see us upgrade the Glossop line as well, as there are interesting proposals to go for a double track beyond Broadbottom to Glossop and to improve signalling on the way into Manchester Piccadilly, which could open up even more improvements on one of the fastest growing and busiest commuter lines anywhere in the country. That would be fantastic too.
Having gone through a number of the myths in relatively quick fashion, let us have a look at what we are talking about tonight, which is this Crewe to Manchester Piccadilly leg. It is really important that we get this right. A number of Opposition Members have talked about Manchester Piccadilly station, and I agree that it is essential that we get this right. Huge sums of money will be involved and this is an opportunity to dramatically improve one of the key stations not just for Manchester or for people in High Peak who commute in there, but for people across the entire north of England. This needs fixing and it is important that we explore all the options, including an underground line.
Mike Amesbury
It is good to hear that we have some consensus on that issue. As the hon. Member powerfully said, it is not a trade-off between a national project and local services and facilities. My constituents in the Northwich part of my constituency would love to have the promised two trains an hour, but because of the lack of capacity in and around Manchester it just cannot happen. That is where Ministers need to focus a little more energy and to invest to ensure that this project lasts for generations.
Robert Largan
I know Northwich very well—in fact, I used to work there—and HS2 will open up huge opportunities for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents.
I am pleased that, after my discussions with the HS2 Minister, the instructions to the Select Committee on the Bill allow it to look into all options at Piccadilly. That is really important. The Committee also needs to look into all options at Manchester airport. A few people have already talked about making certain that we get that right, with the proper Metrolink, rail and bus links. There is lots of work to be done in the Bill’s next stage.
Let me conclude by saying that high-speed rail and the Government’s wider £96 billion investment in rail in the north of England is good not just for the environment, the economy, jobs and the High Peak; it is good for the whole of the north of England and for the whole country. Let us get on and build it.
James Grundy (Leigh) (Con)
First, I declare my interest: the Golborne spur affects the Grundy family farm, as it affects thousands of other families and businesses in Lowton and Golborne in my Leigh constituency. It has been fascinating to hear so many people talk about Golborne today. I do not think Golborne has ever been mentioned in Parliament so much since Colonel Blood, who came from Golborne, stole the crown jewels from the Tower of London. The people of Golborne are getting all their mentions in Parliament all at once today.
I strongly welcome the decision to scrap the Golborne spur of HS2. My local community and I have campaigned on the issue for 10 years. The news has been almost universally welcomed not just in Lowton and Golborne in my constituency but by the communities affected all along the line. Indeed, so popular was the decision to scrap the spur that when the HS2 Minister and I attended a charity event in neighbouring Culcheth in Warrington shortly after the announcement, not just Conservative councillors but Labour ones were keen to have their photograph taken with him.
The Golborne spur would have had a devastating impact on my constituency. It would have harmed the King’s Avenue estate, Pocket Nook Lane, Newton Road, the Oaklands and Meadows estate, the Braithwaite Road and Garton Drive estates, Slag Lane and the Scott Road estate. It would have demolished the Enterprise Way industrial estate, costing hundreds of local jobs that are always vital in a former mining community such as mine but especially important in the current economic climate. It would have also destroyed both Byron wood and Lowton civic field—much-loved green spaces and recreation areas.
Yvonne Fovargue
I have sympathy with all whose homes and land are impacted, but is the hon. Gentleman not prepared to look at the mitigation measures—such as the green tunnel at Lowton—that TfGM has suggested to mitigate the effects on the constituents in Leigh?
James Grundy
I thank the hon. Member for mentioning that. It is interesting, because for pretty much the past 10 years I and other community representatives from Lowton were arguing for that kind of mitigation and we kept being told no. Then, all of a sudden, the Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, rocks up a week before the decision is made saying, “D’you know, we’re very interested all of a sudden in this mitigation.” I turned round and said to the Mayor, “The only form of mitigation that I’m interested in at this point is it not coming through my community at all.” We have suffered for long enough throughout this process and for the Mayor to come along at the last minute saying, “Oh, mitigation, mitigation”—no, thank you.
I remember—to digress from my written speech—when the Mayor of Greater Manchester and I stood on a stage together at Lowton Labour Club and promised our constituents, me as the councillor for Lowton East and him as the MP for Leigh, that we would fight the Golborne spur. I am happy to tell the Chamber today that one of us has kept that promise.
It is astounding what has been happening. Wigan Council has made noises off about the Golborne spur. I understand why the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) wants to represent what she thinks is in the best interests of her constituents. None the less, it sticks in my throat that, during the recent local elections, a very short time ago, the Labour candidate for Lowton East and the sitting Labour councillor for Golborne Lowton West told us that Labour was against the proposal—and one of those people is a cabinet member on Wigan Council. All of a sudden we find out that that is not the case and that, perhaps, it never has been the case. It is incredibly infuriating to see this kind of politics where people stand in elections and say one thing, and then we find out that they actually stand for the exact opposite. It is the worst kind of politics. It is absolutely infuriating.
I am delighted that this amendment has been tabled tonight. Finally, the Opposition cannot hide where they stand on this issue. It has been like Schrödinger’s Opposition. Their view depends on whom they are talking to—whether people are for it or against it. Oh, they are always on your side. Well, that is no longer the case.
Christian Matheson
The hon. Gentleman is describing a situation in which some Labour Members are in favour and some are against, but does he not have exactly the same situation on his own Benches? We have heard some excellent speeches tonight against and in favour of HS2. It is just a situation that some support and that some do not.
James Grundy
Sometimes that happens: different boroughs have different opinions, as one might expect. But it is a bit rich for party members at one end of the borough to be saying one thing, and, others at the other end, to be saying another. That is outrageous. That is the job of the Liberal Democrats.
That kind of double standard is totally and utterly insufferable. I am very glad that, tonight, the colour of the Opposition’s money will be on the record. I give credit to the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) because she stood up and said that she welcomes this proposal, and I think that she was right to do so, because everyone along the section of the line has done so, including, my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter), the hon. Member for Warrington North, myself, and my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady), many of whom have long-standing records on this.
I think the hon. Member for Warrington North, who is no longer in her place, will be greatly disappointed by the actions of her colleagues. Labour cannot hide anymore behind this equivocation of being both for it and against it. I am very pleased that we finally know the colour of people’s money on this issue.
I shall now return to my written notes. I feel that I have made my position pretty clear on this issue—pretty clear. There will be thousands of residents affected, hundreds of jobs at risk, and untold environment damage, and that is in my constituency alone. Is it any wonder that the Golborne spur has attracted near universal and cross-party opposition except from Wigan Council, which cannot see a bad project ever without backing it enthusiastically.
I should like to pay tribute to the thousands and thousands of local residents who have backed the campaign to scrap the Golborne spur over the past 10 years. Many of them must now feel like pen pals to some Ministers in DFT, so often have they written in to object. We could not have done this without their stalwart support. The community has been overwhelmingly onside. I should mention a few of the groups: Lowton East Neighbourhood Development Forum, Lowton West Residents, Lane Head Residents and Golborne Voice, and a couple of individuals. I have mentioned them before in the Chamber, but I would like to mention them again.
One of those individuals is Ted Thwaite, who sadly passed away six months before the decision was made. I remember his great friend Bob Hamilton saying at his funeral, “If the Almighty’s looking down on us with favour, then before too long Ted will have his way and we’ll have rid of the Golborne spur.” Most people spend their 70s with their feet up in a caravan somewhere. Ted decided that he was not going to let this stand, and spent the entirety of his 70s fighting like hell to ensure it did not happen. I am so sorry he is not here today to see the result—he was a great man—but I hope the decision will stand as a testament to his efforts.
The second person is Linda Graham, who used to be Andy Burnham’s office manager, and whose house was very close to the route of the spur. Some hon. Members may have seen me on the BBC’s “Sunday Politics” last weekend; we were at Linda’s house. Her house backs on to Byrom Hall Wood, which would have been destroyed. Linda was delighted, and there were a huge number of people there from around the local area. She fought and she fought, and she did not care that I was a Conservative and she had been a strong supporter of Andy Burnham. We fought together to get this result, along with all those other people. Especially since Ted passed away, she has been the heart and soul of keeping the community behind the campaign.
For Ted and Linda, the fact that 100 or 500 years from now Hansard will record their efforts, when I had never expected in my born days to be standing here, is terribly important. I love the fact that they have been put into the records and the history books for future historians to look at as the kind of people who fight for their communities and win against all the odds.
It was against all the odds, because I remember when the campaign started we had to fight literally everyone. Every political party was in favour of Golborne spur; there were so many institutions and the rest that it seemed like insurmountable odds. I was the only Conservative on Wigan Council at the time the spur was first proposed, and the fact that over 10 years later we have finally got this end result is simply unbelievable. I am delighted that we have done so, and I genuinely hope that this decision will not be reversed by some sort of procedural chicanery later on.
James Grundy
I would be interested to know whether, if the situation was reversed and several villages in Scotland were being destroyed to send a railway line to a large city in England, the hon. Gentleman would be so sanguine, or whether things would be very different. I suspect things might be very different, to put it that way.
To round up, this is the right decision. The communities that were affected by the spur are firmly on board, unanimously delighted, and we will be having a party to celebrate. I welcome the decision with open arms and I am immensely grateful, as are my constituents.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
It is a pleasure, as always, to follow my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Leigh (James Grundy). I am only sorry there were no Lib Dems here to hear his—[Interruption.] Actually, on reflection I am not.
Back in November last year, we saw the release of the long-awaited integrated rail plan, which set out the Government’s intentions for delivering and sequencing major rail investment across the north of England. That was something I warmly welcomed at the time. On the day of the release, the Prime Minister visited Warrington Bank Quay station. I stood on the platform with him and the Secretary of State and we talked about Warrington being at the heart of the country’s rail network, with the potential to be the best-connected town in the north of England. I am pleased to say that they were both absolutely right. Warrington is being helped by the addition of a high-speed line through Bank Quay station taking us east to west—but I do not want us to stop there. I want a high-speed line to go through Bank Quay station taking us north to south to deliver on the Prime Minister’s statement that we will become the best-connected town in the north of England.
The new high-speed line from Warrington to Manchester and on into Yorkshire will also make use of the Fidlers Ferry goods line to Liverpool. This will create opportunities by releasing capacity on the existing network for commuter trains and freight, meaning that a new station hub can be created at Warrington Bank Quay right in the heart of Warrington town centre.
To give an example of the need to release capacity, just three years ago Warrington Borough Council and the Government spent about £20 million on building a new station, Warrington West, to service the more than 10,000 new homes built in Chapelford and Great Sankey. At the time, it was promised that three trains an hour would pass through that station, taking commuters who chose to live in Warrington into Liverpool and Manchester. Today, one train an hour stops at that station because there is not the capacity into Manchester to be able to accommodate more. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) mentioned, if this were in the south of England, we would see many more trains per hour travelling through those stations. The north of England needs to be levelled up, and that capacity is really fundamental.
Katherine Fletcher
My hon. Friend is arguably the best MP Warrington South has had for about 40 years. I have constituents in Leyland who want to come to the thriving economic hub that is Warrington, but at the moment there is no public transport option available to them, so the Department for Work and Pensions is supporting them in gaining car or bike transport to take up the economic opportunities from being near Warrington. Will the integrated rail plan and this change to HS2 make it easier to get the capacity in so that Warrington’s growth is growth for the whole of the north-west of England, including Leyland?
Andy Carter
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It will be a catalyst for development not just in Warrington or in Lancashire and Cheshire but for the whole of the north-west of England. That is why the integrated rail plan, with its sequencing and rail investment, is so fundamental for the north of England.
While I was standing on Warrington Bank Quay station, I listened to Opposition spokespeople talking down the £96 billion plan being put forward by Government. There was no recognition of the fact that this Government are putting investment into trains in a way that has never happened before in the north of England—that was completely overlooked by the Opposition parties. There is now an opportunity to deliver on the levelling-up promises and allow people to travel around the north-west of England in a way that they have never done before.
Mike Amesbury
The eastern leg of HS2, Northern Powerhouse Rail at the time, was cancelled. That took out billions of pounds and actually levelled down the north. We cannot rewrite history; that is a fact. It is also a fact that there are people in constituencies such as mine who are waiting an hour or an hour and 40 minutes for a train. It is still just not good enough.
Andy Carter
I accept that train services from the hon. Member’s constituency are not as good as they should be, but the Government’s plan is about addressing those issues by investing in the north of England. I have to ask him: when did the last Labour Government invest in trains in the way that this Conservative Government are doing in the north of England? I do not think they ever did.
I remember knocking on doors at the general election and talking to constituents across Warrington about their priorities. They were really clear that they wanted better opportunities to commute into the principal cities of Manchester and Liverpool, but when they arrived at the station in Manchester on a Monday morning to try to catch a train, there was no capacity—the two carriages were absolutely full. The Government’s investment will address that and resolve those issues, and I know that my constituents welcome the proposal to build a new line far more quickly than was previously proposed.
When I was standing on Warrington Bank Quay station with the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, the fly in the ointment was the HS2 Golborne spur, which would have meant that trains from London bypassed Warrington. It would have been a £2 billion to £3 billion rail investment that would have caused nothing but pain for my constituents in Heatley and Lymm, and for constituents along the line in neighbouring constituencies in Warburton and, crossing the Manchester ship canal, in Rixton and Glazebury, in Culcheth in Warrington North, and in Leigh.
For once, there was an outbreak of unity between me and the leader of Warrington Borough Council. We both opposed the scheme and, finally, the Government have listened and taken steps to put it on hold. On Saturday, I met one of the families who were expecting to lose their house. They had lived under the cloud of the Golborne spur for more than 10 years. I visited their lovely farm on Wet Gate Lane, Lymm and met some of the family who live there. They said to me, “Thank you.” They thanked the rail Minister, the HS2 Minister and the Prime Minister for listening to their pleas. Finally, the Government are listening to local people, but the clear message was that we now urgently need to review the safeguarding measures that are in place because, although there is a clear intention to move forward, they still live under the cloud that HS2 could be built in their area.
This is not just about HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail; it is also about investment in public transport through buses. I am incredibly grateful to the Government for the £42 million that is coming to Warrington to level up public transport through buses. An entire new transport fleet is going to Warrington’s Own Buses’ zero-emission buses, and £16 million of support will help to improve the frequency of buses and ensure that fares are kept low. That will make a massive difference to people living in my constituency, and I am grateful that this Conservative Government are levelling up in the north of England.
Mr Dhesi
With the leave of the House, I will close this HS2 debate on behalf of Her Majesty’s official Opposition. I am sincerely grateful to all hon. Members who have contributed today and made eloquent points. They have sometimes opposed one another, but they have been eloquent on behalf of their constituents.
The hon. Members for Stone (Sir William Cash) and for Buckingham (Greg Smith) and the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) spoke eloquently in opposition to High Speed 2. They spoke about the need for consultation and for more reliable and better local transport links. It is right that they did so on behalf of their constituents, who are vociferously opposed to the high speed link.
I thank the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan), who spoke in favour of High Speed 2 and about the huge benefits for his constituents and the increased number of engineering and other jobs available. I also thank the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson), who rightly said that it is not about speed, but about capacity, and that it will help to bridge the north-south divide.
The hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Dr Davies) spoke about the need for electrification of north-west rail lines and the need to improve east-to-west connectivity with HS2, because that is the only way his constituents and many others in Wales can benefit from HS2. He also spoke about the need finally to publish the rail network enhancements pipeline, and I hope that the Minister was listening. That is in addition to the various written parliamentary questions that I have written to him about that.
The hon. Member for High Peak (Robert Largan) also spoke in favour of HS2, and about the lack of capacity in the Manchester corridor and the need to improve that. The hon. Member for Leigh (James Grundy) welcomed the scrapping of the Golborne link, as did the hon. Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter). Indeed, I know from my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) speaking to me that there is a lot of cross-party support for that in their area, although there is not consensus, as we will soon find out, given the amendments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue).
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) spoke extremely passionately about the need to get on with High Speed 2, and about the need to free up and increase local transport links and increase rail freight. He spoke at length about Manchester Piccadilly station, as did other Manchester colleagues. I ask the Minister to look again at the proposals, particularly with reference to the blight that they would inflict on Manchester and the growth opportunities that would be forgone as a consequence.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) has spoken to me on various occasions about her opposition to the closing of the tram Metrolink for two years. That is completely unacceptable, as my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish also referred to. We need to rethink this proposal, rather than fob off local residents, particularly those in Tameside and the east Manchester conurbation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) spoke about the need to look on this as a national infrastructure priority for all of us, and he also dwelled on the need to learn lessons from the incredible Crossrail project. He spoke about the need to catch up with our European neighbours and those in other parts of the world on high-speed rail.
My hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) made numerous interventions in the debate and, collated together, they would have more than sufficed to make a speech. He spoke eloquently about the need to get basics right. It is important, in particular, to solve issues such as the collapsed station roof in his constituency as well as the local transport links before we embark on further major infrastructure projects.
I appreciate that, across the House, this Bill can be very divisive, but what is not controversial is wanting to see solid and fair investment across our communities, which I know the whole House can stand behind. I support investment in our great northern and midlands towns and cities, but I cannot in good faith say that, as it stands, this Bill delivers the right infrastructure to long-suffering passengers. I want to see real ambition from Ministers and Government, but, sadly, all I see is broken promises and excuses. While we should be building a shiny new future for rail, we have, unfortunately, already started on the wrong foot. As we progress through the passing of this Bill, we need to see better, and I hope that the rail Minister has made note of the important contributions today.
The good people of our country deserve better—much better—and we in the Labour party will continue to press Ministers throughout the passage of this Bill on key areas. For example, we will look for: a commitment to Northern Powerhouse Rail being delivered rather than seeing promises reneged upon; a solution to Manchester Piccadilly station that minimises disruption and enables future connectivity to Bradford and Leeds; a solution for the Ashton Metrolink rather than fobbing off local MPs and residents; and for capacity constraints on the west coast main line to be addressed, as referenced by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson), allowing for improved connections to Scotland from the north of England. If the Golborne link is also not to be taken forward, any funding saved should be reinvested in local transport projects.
The people of our country deserve a Government who are serious about improving our transport network no matter where one lives or works. We need not just an improvement in route planning and engagement with local leaders and communities but better procurement and employment opportunities for the Great British people. I stand committed to ensuring that people across our country see the benefit of the project in jobs and opportunities, especially having seen the talented young apprentices and engineers during my recent visit to the HS2 Old Oak Common station organised by the all-party parliamentary group for women in transport. We simply cannot stand by when, for example, only one UK-based firm has been shortlisted for £2.5 billion-worth of track and tunnel systems. We must ensure that the bidding process for HS2 contracts takes a holistic approach, looking at the net economic benefit of proposals and the companies who complete them. Labour would ensure that more public contracts went to British companies, from small construction businesses to national corporations. Buying, making and selling more in Britain benefits us all.
Matt Rodda
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Does he agree that railway towns across the country, whether in the north, the south, the midlands, Wales or Scotland, would all benefit from such strategic procurement and that it is incumbent on the Government to look at exactly what he talks about?
Mr Dhesi
I fully agree. Indeed, those benefits should not come at a disproportionate financial cost. HS2 should ensure value for money for taxpayers. In 2020, the National Audit Office noted that HS2 was over budget and behind schedule due to an underestimation of its complexity and risk by the Department for Transport, HS2 and the Government. Where is the leadership that the project desperately needs? It urgently needs to get back on track.
Fundamentally, the project’s potential is being missed and the only thing that Ministers have brought to the table is a lack of ambition. I hope that, as we move forward with the Bill, key areas of concern will be addressed. Promises made must be kept, including on the completion of HS2 in full. The Labour party and I will hold the Government keenly to account to ensure that that transpires.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Andrew Stephenson)
HS2 is a substantial investment in our railways. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who spoke in the debate. All contributions demonstrated the need for us to continue to listen to those who know their local communities best. Both I and my officials will continue to engage with local residents and communities to improve the scheme, to ensure that it is part of building vibrant communities and to support the Government’s ambitions to deliver net zero.
Mike Amesbury
Residents, Cheshire West and Chester Council, and Cheshire East Council have real concerns about the geology due to the salt mines around that spur of the line. Will the Minister assure us that he and his officials will address those concerns and respond as a matter of urgency?
Andrew Stephenson
As the hon. Gentleman will know, I work regularly with the leaders of both councils, and on visits to HS2 line-of-route constituencies I have met local campaign groups. HS2 Ltd has taken into account special considerations of the geology in that part of Cheshire, and the design of the scheme has been informed by a wide range of information, including the British Geological Survey’s maps and surveys, salt extraction operations, and the locations of mines. We will continue to carry out significant ground investigations as we progress the scheme.
Before I turn to the contributions made during the debate, I will briefly set out some of the motions that we will be seeking to move formally, following Second Reading. The committal motion passes the Bill to a specially appointed Select Committee. It will be tasked with looking into the detail of the route, and hearing any petitions on different aspects of the Bill. I thank the Committee in advance for the work it is about to do. A separate instruction motion is designed to allow the Committee to have a full understanding of the work. That includes an instruction to the Committee to remove the Golborne link from the Bill. If the House passes that motion, the Government will make an additional provision to remove those powers from the Bill. I recognise that the Labour party has tabled an amendment that opposes our motion to remove the Golborne link, but I urge it to give the Government time to consider all the different options to deliver maximum benefits to Scotland, and to deliver Scotland the transport solution it deserves. To maximise those benefits to Scotland and the north, it is right that we remove the Golborne link at this stage, because the principle of the Bill is agreed on Second Reading.
Gavin Newlands
I hear what the Minister is saying about the Golborne link, but how much slower will a train from Glasgow to London be without it?
Andrew Stephenson
Potentially there is no detriment whatsoever to Scotland, because we have said that we are only removing that link to look at alternatives. One alternative is to upgrade the existing west coast main line, and other alternatives will be considered as part of the study. It is entirely possible that we could deliver a better and faster journey time to Scotland as part of the removal of the Golborne link—something I am sure the hon. Gentleman would welcome, because the Scottish Government and the UK Government have a shared ambition to reduce journey times between London, and Glasgow and Edinburgh.
There is a motion on how habitats regulations should be dealt with in the Bill, and it would apply the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 to the parliamentary process. The Government’s view is that there has already been extensive consultation on the environmental statement that accompanied the Bill. There were more than 6,000 responses to the consultation. That is reflected in the instruction to the Select Committee, which makes clear that it does not need to hold a further consultation specifically in relation to the habitats regulations. It is my view that the requirement has been satisfied in relation both to the Bill and to further consultations on any additional provisions.
I draw particular attention to the carry-over motion. This is a more extensive motion than the House is used to seeing. That is because hybrid Bills take much longer than normal Public Bills, and the aim is to save parliamentary time. I trust that the House will give its support to all those motions this evening.
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)
I thank the Minister for inviting me to view the HS2 site at Old Oak Common last week, where I was able to see first hand how HS2 Ltd and its contractors are learning lessons as they go along. There is every chance that when we come to the Crewe to Manchester leg, it will be more impressive, reliable and sustainable than phase 1. Will the Minister outline what conversations are happening about proceeding with an eastern leg of HS2, which would greatly benefit my constituents in Broxtowe?
Andrew Stephenson
My hon. Friend remains a strong champion for his constituency and region. As he will know, as part of the integrated rail plan we said that we will build a first phase of the eastern leg from the west midlands to East Midlands Parkway, and we will then consult on how we are taking trains from East Midlands Parkway to Leeds. That is in addition to the study we are undertaking on the Toton site in his constituency, looking at maximising regeneration and development opportunities in that area to supply the maximum number of jobs and benefits for his constituents.
I turn to the points made in the substantive speeches in the debate, starting with the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi). I welcome Labour’s ongoing support for the Bill. I remain keen to continue to work with him and his colleagues to ensure that as the Bill passes through this House, we continue to make the right decisions to deliver maximum levelling-up benefits across the country. He says that the project has been watered down so much that it has become a ghost, but I am not sure how many ghosts employ 26,000 people. We are keen to get on with delivering this project, which started under Labour, but which we have gripped and started to make real progress on. There is not a choice here—it is not either/or; we are investing in the conventional rail network at the same time as investing in high-speed rail services. The trans-Pennine route upgrade is the biggest investment across the whole country in the conventional network, and it is taking place in the north of England.
Philip Davies
Does it not trouble the Minister that he is getting such wholehearted support from the spendthrifts on the Opposition Benches? Does the fact that they are so happy to see taxpayer money thrown about with gay abandon not worry him, and does it not make him think that actually this is not a Conservative thing to be proceeding with?
Andrew Stephenson
My hon. Friend remains consistent in his views on the HS2 programme, but I would be happy to remind the House that in addition to that cross-party support, the Second Readings of the legislation for phases 1 and 2a secured some of the biggest majorities this House has seen in recent years. The project has significant support on the Conservative Benches and the Opposition Benches.
Andrew Stephenson
Excellent. I could not make the point better myself.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) talked about the business case and whether there was still demand for the HS2 programme. It is worth emphasising that the delivery into service for the Crewe to Manchester section is 2035 to 2041. We have a lot of time for post-pandemic recovery in demand for our rail services. He also talked about the debate around the location of the railhead and the Stone infrastructure maintenance base. I am keen to continue to work with him and his constituents on that issue, and I look forward to visiting his constituency soon to meet some of those residents and to see what more we can do.
The SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) also spoke. I welcome the SNP’s continuing support for the HS2 programme. This Bill is the first Bill that will create infrastructure in Scotland, and 100 permanent jobs will be created at the new depot in Dumfries and Galloway. The Golborne decision is certainly not a betrayal of Scotland, and the shared ambition remains for us to reduce journey times between London, Glasgow and Edinburgh.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) has been a consistent critic of the project and its business case, which I appreciate will have significant impacts on her constituency. In terms of cost increases, the budget for HS2 was set following the Oakervee review in February 2020. Since then we have remained within budget. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) asked when HS2 would cost so much that it would be scrapped. I simply say this: we keep the project costs under constant review. We are constantly looking to make cost savings and efficiencies, and I report not just on the budget but on any emerging cost pressures in my six-monthly reports to Parliament. We are fully open and transparent about cost pressures emerging on the project.
I understand that there are many line-of-route constituencies where MPs are concerned about the benefits they will receive. I am pleased to announce that we will be increasing the amount of community funding available by £10 million to the HS2 community and environment fund and the HS2 business and local economy fund. That extra funding will help renew community facilities used by residents between Crewe and Manchester, contribute to vital community services to help improve community health and wellbeing, and support local environmental projects.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
The Minister will be aware of the construction work going on in the beautiful village of Balsall Common in my constituency. For many years, HS2 Ltd’s contact has left a lot to be desired. It ignored my constituents’ requests to minimise disruption to the point that a country lane normally used by school kids and families will now be used for hundreds of lorry movements. Does he agree that the residents of Balsall Common deserve greater respect? Will he agree to meet me to discuss how we can get through this problem together?
Andrew Stephenson
My hon. Friend and I have met several times on this issue. I am keen to meet him again and continue to work with him to address the challenge of respecting the challenges local residents face while delivering this transformational project.
It is worth me focusing on Manchester Piccadilly underground station, as the hon. Members for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith), for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) and for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), and my hon. Friends the Members for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson) and for High Peak (Robert Largan) all mentioned this one issue. There has been extensive engagement with stakeholders on the underground station. Following three years of engagement between HS2 Ltd and Greater Manchester stakeholders, the Secretary of State proposed a four-platform overground station in January 2013. That was followed by a formal consultation in January 2013 and in 2016 a further design refinement consultation on proposed changes around Piccadilly was also announced. As the same time as the 2016 consultation, the Government provided funding for Greater Manchester to create a growth strategy for the Piccadilly area. Between 2017 and 2018, the Government again worked extensively with Greater Manchester partners to refine the options.
The Government have always been clear that there needed to be a strong business case to justify the extra spending on an underground station, because we always believed that it would be the more expensive option. The Bechtel report, commissioned by Manchester City Council, was one example of making the case for an underground station. The Government, however, felt that there was no new information in the 2019 Bechtel report, with nothing to change the Government’s fundamental conclusion that a surface station design can cope with the full capacity of the HS2 line and that the underground station option remained hugely more expensive to deliver. In June 2020, I commissioned HS2 to investigate further options on the underground alternative.
Graham Stringer
I am grateful that the Minister has listened attentively and is answering some of the points, although not to my satisfaction. Will he do two things? Will he meet a delegation of the Greater Manchester MPs who have spoken in this debate to discuss the matter further? Secondly, I think he dismisses the Bechtel report too quickly. Will he agree, after a discussion, to commission a report that looks at the cost of the opportunities lost by not having an underground station?
Andrew Stephenson
I thank the hon. Member for that point. We did not believe that the Bechtel report was convincing, but I was happy to do further work and have done further work since then. I will briefly mention the further study I commissioned at the request of the Mayor and others, because I believe that is important information, and then we can perhaps talk about a way forward.
In June 2020, I commissioned HS2 to investigate. By September 2020, HS2 Ltd, the Department for Transport, Transport for the North, Transport for Greater Manchester and Manchester City Council had agreed the scope for the work to look at a like-for-like comparison between a surface station and an underground alternative. In summer 2021, HS2 Ltd was commissioned to undertake that like-for-like study to compare the underground station alternatives to the surface station. HS2 looked at not only one alternative, but three possible alternative solutions for an underground station. HS2 Ltd worked closely with Transport for Greater Manchester, the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and Transport for the North at every stage of the study. From developing the scope of the work to selecting the underground options they considered, they ensured that they represented the best alternative underground designs. That study concluded in August 2021. It recommended that the Government proceed with the surface station for the HS2 Crewe to Manchester scheme. We confirmed our intention for a six-platform surface station when we deposited the Bill in January.
Based on the report’s findings, I am absolutely confident that a surface station design will deliver what Manchester needs at a lower cost and with a lower construction impact than underground alternatives. The study has been shared with Manchester stakeholders. The Government intend to publish the report shortly, to allow everyone to have sight of the work undertaken and compare the alternative underground design options with the surface station. My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton asked whether I could put a copy in the Library; I am more than happy to commit to doing so.
Andrew Gwynne
We are at an impasse here, because Greater Manchester MPs disagree fundamentally with the Minister, the Greater Manchester Mayor disagrees fundamentally with the Minister, and the 10 councils of Greater Manchester disagree fundamentally with the Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) suggested a meeting to try to break the impasse. Will the Minister agree to that meeting?
Andrew Stephenson
I am more than happy to agree to that meeting. I am sure that the Select Committee will also want to look at all the options for Piccadilly and the proposals put forward by stakeholders. I am more than happy to meet, but I am sure that this debate will continue. Given the shortness of time, I will jump over the hon. Member’s contribution about Metrolink, but we have met several times and I am happy to continue to work with him to ensure that we deliver this in a sensible fashion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) made some incredibly supportive comments about the Bill. He can be especially proud that the historic railway works in his constituency will help to deliver the HS2 rolling stock contract.
I thank the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) for his support and for speaking so eloquently in favour of more investment in rail infrastructure. We are learning lessons from Crossrail about project management and various other things; one of the first meetings that I had in the Department was with the outgoing chairman of Crossrail.
Matt Rodda
Will the Minister meet me and other Berkshire and west London MPs to look at local issues relating to Old Oak Common, the western rail link and other matters in our area?
Andrew Stephenson
I am very happy to commit to that meeting. We have to continue to learn lessons from Crossrail and other major transport investments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton made some great comments about focusing on capacity, and about the benefits that will come from doubling the capacity between Manchester and London. I welcome his support for removing Golborne from the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Dr Davies) spoke about the benefits to Wales, particularly north Wales, and about Growth Track 360. I can tell him that we hope that RNEP will be published soon, and that the response to the Union connectivity review will be published soon. I am happy to continue to work with him on all the issues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) has been a consistent opponent of HS2 and has spent a huge amount of his time raising his constituents’ concerns. I thank him again for the time that he took to raise those issues directly with me when I visited his constituency. I am keen to follow up on many of the issues that he raised today. I am also pleased that the new residents’ commissioner, Stewart Jackson, recently visited my hon. Friend’s seat.
My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak spoke about the need to focus on long-term investment. He is completely right: we must not underestimate the importance of freight. HS2 will free up existing rail lines to deliver greater freight capacity across the country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (James Grundy) has without doubt been the strongest opponent of the Golborne link over many years. I pay tribute to his campaigning work on the issue. Given his support for the action that we have taken to remove the Golborne link from the Bill, I hope that he will support the Bill’s Second Reading tonight.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) talked about the benefits to Warrington of the £96 billion integrated rail plan. It is important to remind the House that that is the biggest ever Government investment in our railways. I also thank him for his support for removing the Golborne link from the Bill.
I am very proud to have been born in Manchester, and I am very proud of the railway history of Manchester. Almost two centuries ago, the first train locomotive ran from Manchester. We have come a long way since those days of the early steam trains. It is only right that now, 193 years later, we make progress to bring high-speed rail to the people of that great city.
Through the Bill, we will strengthen the connectivity between Manchester and Birmingham, more than halving the time by rail. Capacity will be increased, improving journey times on rail routes across the north. Above all, the Bill will bring prosperity and growth to the north, helping to deliver our commitment to level up the country. I commend it to the House.
Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Business of the House (Today)
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
This is a small but important procedural point, and I could be corrected later on, but it seems to me that this Business of the House motion says that four very complicated provisions relating to HS2 have to be put within one and a half hours. This is contrary to standing orders. If a number of colleagues and I wanted to look into this matter for more than one and a half hours, the Government’s business would never be got to today. If we look at the motion, the Government propose to ignore Standing Order No. 16, which requires a one and a half hour debate on motions, not a one and a half hour debate from when the business of the House motion is moved. This is a trick that Governments of the day have been using for a number of years.
Tonight’s debate is perhaps not of the utmost importance, but if motions are tabled for a one and a half hour debate and there are questions about whether the motions should have been tabled, about the method and about whether the time should be extended, discussing the business of the House motion would eat into the one and a half hours. However long I have talked for will be knocked off the one and a half hours. I could go through each of these motions.
Mr Bone
My hon. Friend may want to bring this up afterwards, but the motions are very complicated and it might take the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson), at least an hour and a half to explain to the House what on earth they mean. Perhaps he does not know—I do not know—as they are extremely complicated.
This is not about that, really. I am trying to complain about the Government’s habit of tabling business of the House motions to eat into the time for debate so that anyone with a concern about the procedure who speaks to the business of the House motion is hurting the people who want to talk about the actual issue.
Will the Leader of the House tell us that, in future, the Government will stick to the Standing Orders and allow a proper one and a half hour debate after the business of the House motion has been decided upon? It is a small but important part of our democracy that the Government do not tweak our Standing Orders to their own advantage.
We have a great Leader of the House, and he does not need to detain the House much longer. Will he just say that this will not happen in future?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mark Spencer)
I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) recognises that the Government would be in listening mode in the circumstances he describes. Where there is some excitement about the amount of time for debate, the Government would take that into consideration and would be more generous with their time.
I think it unlikely that we will spend the next hour and 20 minutes debating this business of the House motion. We will then get to the main business, and I am sure all will be well on this occasion. Should things be more excitable in future, I am sure we would be in listening mode.
Question put and agreed to.
High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill: Committal
Monday 20th June 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill 2021-22 View all High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill 2021-22 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
The five motions on high-speed rail—motions 4 to 8 on the Order Paper—will be debated together. The debate may therefore range over all five motions. I should inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected manuscript amendments (a) and (b) to motion 6, tabled by Yvonne Fovargue. The manuscript amendments are available in the Vote Office and online.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
(1) That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of seven members, all of whom are to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.
(2) That in determining the composition of the Select Committee the Committee of Selection shall nominate four members from the Government and three members from opposition parties.
(3) That there shall stand referred to the Select Committee—
(a) any petition against the Bill submitted to the Private Bill Office during the period beginning at 9.00 am on 21 June 2022 and ending at 5.00 pm on 4 August 2022, and
(b) any petition which has been submitted to the Private Bill Office and in which the petitioners complain of—
(i) any amendment as proposed in the filled-up Bill,
(ii) any amendment as proposed by the member in charge of the Bill which, if the Bill were a private bill, could not be made except upon petition for additional provision, or
(iii) any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the Select Committee,
(and references in this paragraph to the submission of a petition are to its submission electronically, by post or in person).
(4) That, notwithstanding the practice of the House that appearances on petitions against an opposed private bill be required to be entered at the first meeting of the Select Committee on the Bill, in the case of any such petitions as are mentioned in paragraph (3) (a) above on which appearances are not entered at that meeting, the Select Committee shall appoint a later day or days on which it will require appearances on those petitions to be entered.
(5) That any petitioners whose petitions stand referred to the Select Committee shall, subject to the rules and orders of the House, be entitled to be heard upon their petition by themselves, their counsel, representatives or parliamentary agents provided that the petition is prepared in conformity with the rules and orders of the House; and the member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard through counsel or agents in favour of the Bill against any such petition.
(6) That the Select Committee shall require any hearing in relation to a petition mentioned in paragraph (5) above to take place in person, unless exceptional circumstances apply.
(7) That in applying the rules of the House in relation to parliamentary agents, any reference to a petitioner in person shall be treated as including a reference to a duly authorised member or officer of an organisation, group or body.
(8) That the Select Committee have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place and to report from day to day the minutes of evidence taken before it.
(9) That the Select Committee have power to make special reports from time to time.
(10) That three be the quorum of the Select Committee.—(Andrew Stephenson.)
Mr Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Motion 5—High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill: Instruction—
That it be an instruction to the Select Committee to which the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill is committed to deal with the Bill as follows—
(1) The Committee shall—
(a) make an appropriate assessment, in accordance with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (“the 2017 Regulations”), of the implications for a site within paragraph (2) of the provisions made in relation to the site by the Bill in view of the site’s conservation objectives, and
(b) make a recommendation to the House in relation to whether those provisions adversely affect the integrity of the site.
(2) The following sites are within this paragraph—
(a) the Rochdale Canal special area of conservation, and
(b) a site to which paragraph (3) applies that the Committee determines, in accordance with the 2017 Regulations, is likely to be significantly affected by a provision of the Bill.
(3) This paragraph applies to a European site (within the meaning of the 2017 Regulations) in relation to which—
(a) an amendment has been proposed by the member in charge of the Bill which, if the Bill were a private bill, could not be made except upon petition for additional provision, or
(b) the Committee has been provided with additional information by the promoters after the date of this instruction.
(4) For the purposes of making an assessment under paragraph (1) or a determination under paragraph (2)(b), the Committee may require the promoters to provide the Committee with such information as the Committee may reasonably require.
(5) For the purposes of making an assessment under paragraph (1), the Committee—
(a) must consult the relevant nature conservation body and have regard to any representations made by the body within such reasonable time as the Committee specifies;
(b) is not required to consult the general public.
(6) In paragraph (5)(a), the “relevant nature conservation body” means—
(a) in relation to a site in England, Natural England, and
(b) in relation to a site in Scotland, Scottish Natural Heritage.
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.
Motion 6—High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill: Instruction (No. 2)—
That it be an instruction to the Select Committee to which the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill is committed to deal with the Bill as follows:
(1) The Committee shall, before concluding its proceedings, amend the Bill by—
(a) leaving out provision relating to the railway between Hoo Green in Cheshire and a junction with the West Coast Main Line at Bamfurlong, south of Wigan, except for a spur from Hoo Green to the Parish of High Legh in Cheshire, and
(b) making such amendments to the Bill as it thinks fit in consequence of the amendments made by virtue of sub-paragraph (a).
(2) The Committee shall not hear any petition to the extent that it relates to whether or not there should be a railway between Hoo Green in Cheshire and a junction with the West Coast Main Line at Bamfurlong, south of Wigan.
(3) The Committee shall treat the principle of the Bill, as determined by the House on the Bill’s Second Reading, as comprising the matters mentioned in paragraph 4; and those matters shall accordingly not be at issue during proceedings of the Committee.
(4) The matters referred to in paragraph (3) are—
(a) the provision of a high speed railway between a junction with Phase 2a of High Speed 2 south of Crewe in Cheshire and Manchester Piccadilly Station,
(b) in relation to the railway set out on the plans deposited in January 2022 in connection with the Bill in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Private Bill Office of the House of Commons, its broad route alignment, and
(c) the fact that there are to be no new stations (other than Manchester Piccadilly and Manchester Airport) on, or spurs (other than the spur from Hoo Green to the Parish of High Legh) from, the railway mentioned in sub-paragraph (b).
(5) The Committee shall have power to consider any amendments proposed by the member in charge of the Bill which, if the Bill were a private bill, could not be made except upon petition for additional provision.
(6) Paragraph (5) applies only so far as the amendments proposed by the member in charge of the Bill fall within the principle of the Bill as provided for by paragraphs (3) and (4) above.
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.
Manuscript amendment (a) to motion 6: Leave out paragraphs (1) and (2).
Manuscript amendment (b) to motion 6: In paragraph (4)(c), leave out
“, or spurs (other than the spur from Hoo Green to the Parish of High Legh) from,”.
Motion 7—High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill: Carry-Over—
That the following provisions shall apply in respect of the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill:
Suspension at end of current Session
(1) Further proceedings on the Bill shall be suspended from the day on which this Session of Parliament ends (“the current Session”) until the next Session of Parliament (“Session 2023–24”).
(2) If a Bill is presented in Session 2023–24 in the same terms as those in which the Bill stood when proceedings on it were suspended in the current Session—
(a) the Bill so presented shall be ordered to be printed and shall be deemed to have been read the first and second time;
(b) the Standing Orders and practice of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with or dispensed with in the current Session or in the previous Session of Parliament (“Session 2021–22”), shall be deemed to have been complied with or (as the case may be) dispensed with in Session 2023–24;
(c) any resolution relating to the Habitats Regulations that is passed by the House in the current Session in relation to the Bill shall be deemed to have been passed by the House in Session 2023–24;
(d) the Bill shall be dealt with in accordance with—
(i) paragraph (3), if proceedings in Select Committee were not completed when proceedings on the Bill were suspended,
(ii) paragraph (4), if proceedings in Public Bill Committee were begun but not completed when proceedings on the Bill were suspended,
(iii) paragraph (5), if the Bill was waiting to be considered when proceedings on it were suspended,
(iv) paragraph (6), if the Bill was waiting for third reading when proceedings on it were suspended, or
(v) paragraph (7), if the Bill has been read the third reading time and sent to the House of Lords.
(3) If this paragraph applies—
(a) the Bill shall stand committed to a Select Committee of such Members as were members of the Committee when proceedings on the Bill were suspended in the current Session;
(b) any instruction of the House to the Committee in the current Session shall be an instruction to the Committee on the Bill in Session 2023–24;
(c) all petitions submitted in the current Session which stand referred to the Committee and which have not been withdrawn, and any petition submitted between the day on which the current Session ends and the day on which proceedings on the Bill are resumed in Session 2023–24 in accordance with this Order, shall stand referred to the Committee in Session 2023–24;
(d) any minutes of evidence taken and any papers laid before the Committee in the current Session shall stand referred to the Committee in Session 2023–24;
(e) only those petitions mentioned in sub-paragraph (c), and any petition which may be submitted to the Private Bill Office and in which the petitioners complain of any amendment proposed by the member in charge of the Bill which, if the Bill were a private bill, could not be made except upon petition for additional provision or of any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the Committee in Session 2023–24, shall stand referred to the Committee;
(f) any petitioners whose petitions stand referred to the Committee in Session 2023–24 shall, subject to the rules and orders of the House, be entitled to be heard upon their petition by themselves, their counsel, representatives or parliamentary agents provided that the petition is prepared and signed in conformity with the rules and orders of the House; and the Member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard through counsel or agents in favour of the Bill against any such petition;
(g) the Committee shall require any hearing in relation to a petition mentioned in sub-paragraph (f) above to take place in person, unless exceptional circumstances apply;
(h) in applying the rules of the House in relation to parliamentary agents, any reference to a petitioner in person shall be treated as including a reference to a duly authorised member or officer of an organisation, group or body;
(i) the Committee shall have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report from day to day minutes of evidence taken before it;
(j) the Committee shall have power to make special reports from time to time;
(k) three shall be the quorum of the Committee.
(4) If this paragraph applies, the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and to have been re-committed to a Public Bill Committee.
(5) If this paragraph applies—
(a) the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and from the Public Bill Committee, and
(b) the Bill shall be set down as an order of the day for consideration.
(6) If this paragraph applies—
(a) the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and from the Public Bill Committee and to have been considered, and
(b) the Bill shall be set down as an order of the day for third reading.
(7) If this paragraph applies, the Bill shall be deemed to have passed through all its stages in this House.
Suspension at end of this Parliament
(8) If proceedings on the Bill are resumed in accordance with paragraph 2 but are not completed before the end of Session 2023–24, further proceedings on the Bill shall be suspended from the day on which that Session ends until the first Session of the next Parliament (“Session 2024–25”).
(9) If a Bill is presented in Session 2024–25 in the same terms as those in which the Bill stood when proceedings on it were suspended in Session 2023–24—
(a) the Bill so presented shall be ordered to be printed and shall be deemed to have been read the first and second time;
(b) the Standing Orders and practice of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with or dispensed with in Session 2023–24 or in the current session or in Session 2021–22, shall be deemed to have been complied with or (as the case may be) dispensed with in Session 2024–25;
(c) any resolution relating to the Habitats Regulations that is passed by the House in Session 2023–24 or in the current session in relation to the Bill shall be deemed to have been passed by the House in Session 2024–25;
(d) the Bill shall be dealt with in accordance with—
(i) paragraph (10), if proceedings in Select Committee were not completed when proceedings on the Bill were suspended,
(ii) paragraph (11), if proceedings in Public Bill Committee were begun but not completed when proceedings on the Bill were suspended,
(iii) paragraph (12), if the Bill was waiting to be considered when proceedings on it were suspended,
(iv) paragraph (13), if the Bill was waiting for third when proceedings on it were suspended, or
(v) paragraph (14), if the Bill has been read the third time and sent to the House of Lords.
(10) If this paragraph applies—
(a) the Bill shall stand committed to a Select Committee of such Members as were members of the Committee when proceedings on the Bill were suspended in Session 2023–24;
(b) any instruction of the House to the Committee in the current Session or in Session 2023–24 shall be an instruction to the Committee on the Bill in Session 2024–25;
(c) all petitions submitted in the current Session or in Session 2023–24 which stand referred to the Committee and which have not been withdrawn, and any petition submitted between the day on which the Session 2023–24 ends and the day on which proceedings on the Bill are resumed in Session 2024–25 in accordance with this Order, shall stand referred to the Committee in Session 2024–25;
(d) any minutes of evidence taken and any papers laid before the Committee in Session 2023–24 or in the current session shall stand referred to the Committee in Session 2024–25;
(e) only those petitions mentioned in sub-paragraph (c), and any petition which may be submitted to the Private Bill Office and in which the petitioners complain of any amendment proposed by the member in charge of the Bill which, if the Bill were a private bill, could not be made except upon petition for additional provision or of any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the Committee in Session 2024–25, shall stand referred to the Committee;
(f) any petitioners whose petitions stand referred to the Committee in Session 2024–25 shall, subject to the rules and orders of the House, be entitled to be heard upon their petition by themselves, their counsel, representatives or parliamentary agents provided that the petition is prepared and signed in conformity with the rules and orders of the House; and the Member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard through counsel or agents in favour of the Bill against any such petition;
(g) the Committee shall require any hearing in relation to a petition mentioned in sub-paragraph (f) above to take place in person, unless exceptional circumstances apply;
(h) in applying the rules of the House in relation to parliamentary agents, any reference to a petitioner in person shall be treated as including a reference to a duly authorised member or officer of an organisation, group or body;
(i) the Committee shall have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report from day to day minutes of evidence taken before it;
(j) the Committee shall have power to make special reports from time to time;
(k) three shall be the quorum of the Committee.
(11) If this paragraph applies, the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and to have been re-committed to a Public Bill Committee.
(12) If this paragraph applies—
(a) the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and from the Public Bill Committee, and
(b) the Bill shall be set down as an order of the day for consideration.
(13) If this paragraph applies—
(a) the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and from the Public Bill Committee and to have been considered, and
(b) the Bill shall be set down as an order of the day for third reading.
(14) If this paragraph applies, the Bill shall be deemed to have passed through all its stages in this House.
Other
(15) In paragraphs (1) and (8) above, references to further proceedings do not include proceedings under Standing Order 224A(8) (deposit of supplementary environmental information).
(16) In paragraphs (3) and (10) above, references to the submission of a petition are to its submission electronically, by post or in person.
(17) In paragraphs (2) and (9) above, references to the Habitats Regulations are to the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017.
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.
Motion 8—High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill Select Committee: Additional Salaries—
That the Order of the House of 19 March 2013 (Positions for which additional salaries are payable for the purposes of section 4A(2) of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009) be amended, in paragraph (1)(a), by inserting, in the appropriate place, “the Select Committee on the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill”.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
My manuscript amendments seek to extend the discussion on the Golborne spur and to allow petitions relating to this link to be heard by the Committee, as I do not believe the full facts have been taken into account by the premature and ill-informed decision to remove the link and to explore alternatives that deliver similar, although I would say inferior, benefits within the £96 billion envelope of the Government’s integrated rail plan.
HS2 phase 2b, Crewe to Manchester, including the Golborne link, will cost £17 billion at 2019 prices. The proposed removal of the Golborne link is expected to reduce costs by approximately £3 billion. The Government committed to publish a supplement to the January 2022 strategic outline business case for HS2 phase 2b to set out the implications of removing the Golborne link ahead of the Second Reading, but that has only just been published. How can a reasonable decision be made without full and costed alternatives that allow time for full consideration of the implications for all, especially those in my borough of Wigan? It does state that it will deliver benefits sooner to Manchester and the north-west, but it is pretty difficult to see the benefits that will be delivered to Wigan, and to Lancashire and Cumbria.
The January 2014 update to the business case for HS2 included a
“without link to the West Coast Mainline”
sensitivity test, which showed a benefit-cost ratio of 0.7, which equates to gaining £7 billion of benefits from spending £10 billion. The benefit-cost ratio with the Golborne rink is 1.2. It is difficult to understand how the Golborne link can be considered a “white elephant” and its removal a
“worthwhile saving of taxpayers’ money”
on that basis. The environmental statement included an alternatives report, which considered a wide range of alternatives for the western leg of HS2 phase 2b, before arriving at a shortlist and then a clear preference for the Golborne link as part of HS2 phase 2b.
One alternative that was considered, and is clearly now back on the table, is the upgrade of the west coast main line north of Crewe. Parts of the west coast main line between Crewe and Wigan are heavily congested, notably the section between Winsford and Weaver in Cheshire, including the Weaver junction. That section is twin track for the majority of its length and is used by long-distance services between Scotland, Liverpool and London, inter-regional services between Liverpool and Birmingham, and freight services. It is already constraining service improvement. This alternative option would include partial four-tracking of the Weaver junction, the provision of an alternative freight route via Sandbach and substantial grade separation between Crewe and Preston. Upgrading the west coast main line was found to deliver faster journey times compared with the existing situation. However, they do not match the journey time benefits provided by the Golborne link, which would deliver substantially faster journey times between cities in the north and the midlands, as is set out on page 20 of the alternatives report.
Both the upgrade of the west coast main line and the Golborne link were found to create extra capacity on the national conventional rail network for other services. However, only the Golborne link would create extra capacity for potential high-speed services north of Birmingham, and would therefore better meet the Government’s strategic objectives for HS2. So without the Golborne link there is a fundamental concern that provision for additional high-speed services north of Birmingham would be to the detriment of local and regional services, and freight services, which would need to be removed or reduced, or at the very least would remain constrained against their potential for growth, including in response to any carbon reduction challenges. This alternative option would also result in years of significant disruption to passengers and freight on the west coast main line compared with building a new railway. The Government have suggested that a solution could be delivered more quickly than the Golborne link, but we have not got any evidence for that. Given that they have made similar claims in removing the eastern leg of HS2 and in downgrading Northern Powerhouse Rail, in preference to upgrading existing lines, there is not enough capacity in the industry to do all of this work, and there is also the time constraint in working around live railways to consider. Even if there was, it is not possible to close different routes at the same time to facilitate the work without causing widespread disruption. Instead, it is highly likely to take much longer than building a new railway.
This alternative option would also be more expensive than the Golborne link, as the works needed between Crewe and Wigan would be of a similar scale to those needed between Wigan and Preston to accommodate the high-speed trains. That is likely to cost in the region of £5 billion to 10 billion—and that is the estimate from Network Rail. On that basis, the cost of upgrading the west coast main line between Crewe and Wigan will exceed the £3 billion needed for the Golborne link by around £7 million.
It is pertinent for the Wigan borough that the loss of the Golborne link will be to the detriment of the service provision at the proposed new rail station at Golborne, which is on the west coast main line south of the proposed junction with HS2. Significant capacity enhancements to the west coast main line between Warrington and Wigan, particularly around the junction with the Chat Moss line, would be needed if that station was to be served by the stopping trains without disrupting the high-speed through services. In the absence of the Golborne link, they will all pass through that location.
The report also considered a connection to the west coast main line north of Preston, near Brock. It would be 46 km in length as an extension to the Golborne link north of Lowton. It would pass close to a number of communities, including Hindley and Ince-in-Makerfield, as well as numerous other communities in Lancashire, and would require an elevated crossing of the River Ribble and a new parkway station west of Preston. That would clearly mean additional noise and visual and landscape impacts that would all need to be mitigated. A further 63 demolitions would be needed, it would impact the setting of up to three scheduled monuments and up to six grade II listed buildings, and it would impact on two ancient woodlands.
Preston City Council did not support the need for a new parkway station on the outskirts of Preston, instead favouring investment in the regeneration of the existing city centre station. Although such a connection would deliver journey-time improvements between London and Glasgow, it was considered that the benefits gained from the journey-time savings and new markets did not outweigh the substantial costs and additional sustainability impacts. It was therefore determined that this alternative option did not deliver sufficient economic or journey-time benefits to offset the higher costs, sustainability impacts and lower regional connectivity.
Option 3 was a new connection to the south of Preston, on the basis that it would have the potential to deliver more benefits and reduce journey times by two to three minutes more than the Golborne link. As with the connection north of Preston, this would be an extension to the Golborne link north of Lowton. The alternatives report explored the recommendation in detail and determined that various connections to the west coast main line south of Preston performed less favourably in terms of construction complexity, sustainability and journey time when compared with the options connecting to the north of Preston. That was despite a shorter length of track.
There is a clear contradiction between the Union connectivity review and the alternatives report. A connection to the west coast main line south of Preston may deliver greater benefits than the Golborne link, but the feasibility of such a connection has been examined by HS2 across a number of locations and been deemed unsuitable for progression in favour of other options. It should be noted that any connection to the west coast main line south of Preston would in effect extend the Golborne link and cost significantly more than the link’s £3 billion cost. It is also highly likely to cost more than the works that would otherwise be needed to accommodate high-speed trains on the west coast main line between Wigan and Preston, which Network Rail has advised would cost in the region of £5 billion to £10 billion.
There is another option. If Government chose to extend HS2 northwards, which currently seems unlikely, the council would want to retain the Golborne link connection to Wigan to avoid the borough being bypassed by HS2. This would need a junction with the extended route north of Lowton and the retention of that part of the Golborne link from that point to the west coast main line at Bamfurlong, which is a short length of around 3 km. The remainder of the Golborne link would be part of a longer link regardless. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Lady is making a serious speech. There are people sitting in this Chamber who are not whispering to one another but speaking as if they are in a normal evening conversation. If you are in the Chamber and someone else is speaking, it is polite to speak quietly to one another. I am not suggesting that there should be no conversations going on, but I should not be able to hear those conversations from the Chair.
Yvonne Fovargue
This is an important factor for Wigan, for my borough and for the people who live in my borough. It is important that we get HS2 right so that we get the economic benefits for all the north-west. In any such connection, the council would seek to progress the items that have been identified for petitioning on the Golborne link, to mitigate the adverse impacts of the proposals on local communities, including the proposal for a green tunnel at Lowton.
The Golborne link would free up capacity on the west coast main line for residual passenger services and rail freight and maximise the time that services can travel at high speed between London, Birmingham and Scotland, minimising end-to-end journey times. The significance of that is set out in the January 2022 update to the HS2 Phase 2b business case, which is explicit about the role of the Golborne link in unlocking capacity and services to Scotland. As the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) mentioned, this is important for Scotland, not just for Wigan.
The Golborne link also gives rise to the opportunity to connect to the Manchester spur and bring significantly improved journey times to Manchester airport and Manchester Piccadilly, avoiding the congested Castlefield corridor in central Manchester—from Wigan, the north-west and Scotland. Our services to Manchester Oxford Road are always under threat in Wigan. We have very poor transport links, and we will not even get a tram until 2040, so it is important that HS2 provides actual benefits for my borough.
At £3 billion, the Golborne spur is clearly cost-effective compared with the option of upgrading the west coast main line, and it could be delivered more quickly, with minimal disruption to passengers and freight on the existing rail network.
Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Is it the case that the Government are maintaining safeguarding on this route so that, if they change their minds in the future, this will still be able to go ahead?
Yvonne Fovargue
Indeed, safeguarding has been maintained, but there is no opportunity in the Select Committee to put forward the proposals to include the Golborne link. There is no opportunity to put a petition. Basically, debate has been stifled by this amendment, which is why I am objecting to it.
There are no alternatives that are cheaper than the Golborne link. In fact, it becomes more likely that phase 2b without the Golborne link will cost more than it delivers. There are no alternatives that can be delivered with less disruption to passengers and freight on the west coast main line than the Golborne link. There are no alternatives that can be delivered quicker than the Golborne link other than small-scale isolated improvements. Wigan Council has identified a number of measures that could easily be incorporated in the Golborne link that would substantially reduce the adverse impacts on local communities. Greenhouse gas emissions will be increased by removing the Golborne link.
The Government have insisted that any alternative should deliver the same benefits and outputs. There is no alternative to match the benefits at similar cost. As concluded in all the independent analyses that have taken place, the solution to all of this is the Golborne link. It is simply wrong to stifle debate by removing any possibility for the Select Committee to re-examine it and for people to petition for this. It is stifling debate. The land is still safeguarded and people are still blighted by it and yet we cannot even talk about it. That is why we need to re-examine it and local people, local councils and Transport for Greater Manchester all need to be able to have their say.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
There are three possible positions to take on the Golborne link. There is the position that my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) has just put very convincingly that it should still be able to be considered during the passage of the hybrid Bill and that one should be able to petition against it. She made the powerful case in support of it, not just the facility to talk about it.
There is a second case, which the hon. Member for Leigh (James Grundy) made in the previous debate, that there was significant disturbance to his constituents and that on their behalf, which he is completely entitled to do as a constituency MP, he objects to the Golborne link. That is a completely reasonable position to take, although, when it comes to building high-speed lines that are good for a region or the whole country, it is inevitable that there is little immediate benefit for many constituents. It is the nature of high speed that it will go “whoosh” past a lot of places, and people will not be able to get the normal benefit they get from a train service by going to the local station. This is a particularly difficult project for national, and not local, benefit.
Sir Robert Goodwill
Is it not the case, though, that by having a high-speed network we will take the pressure off the existing Victorian network and allow more routes for passenger services and particularly for freight, which will help us to reduce our carbon footprint?
Graham Stringer
Absolutely right. I was talking about the inconvenience and disamenity there is to a local community. In many cases, they will not be able to get on the high-speed link, because it will have very few stations—if it had a lot of stations, that would defeat the objective of high speed. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) made a strong case against the whole of high speed 2, which, again, he is completely entitled to do. However, a previous Member for Buckinghamshire, Cheryl Gillan, managed to get a great deal of money out of the Government for tunnels under Buckinghamshire, and one point that could be made is that not only are we unable to discuss the link, but we will not be able to discuss amelioration of that route.
I am left with those two cases, put by my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield and the hon. Member for Leigh. The third case has not been put. We have not heard at all from the Minister about what the alternative is—just that he will have a look at it. That is a strange way for Government to do business. “We have a perfectly good line that will cause some disruption; we will not allow you to talk about it and we will not pursue it, but we don’t know what we’re going to do instead or how much it will cost.” That is not a good way for Government to do business.
I am left thinking that maybe there are other reasons, and I have two suspicions. One is that we suddenly get that change not because of the powers of persuasion of the hon. Member for Leigh, strong as they may be, but because of the desperation of a Prime Minister under pressure, wanting votes from his Back-Benchers before a vote of confidence within the parliamentary Conservative party. That may be over-cynical, although I suspect there is an element of truth to it. The other side of the argument is that this is not a cut of £3 billion that is waiting for another scheme yet to be specified by the Government, but simply a cut.
James Grundy
That is a very interesting theory from the hon. Gentleman that this decision was somehow buying me off. However, the problem is that my position is also the position of Labour-run Warrington Borough Council and the Labour Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols). This is immensely frustrating from my view, and I hope the hon. Gentleman would agree. He says that there has not been enough debate on the Golborne link, but we have been debating it for nearly 10 years. Is it not time for the suffering of my constituents to end?
Graham Stringer
I said there has not been enough debate. We have just had the Second Reading of the Crewe to Manchester hybrid Bill. There has been a great deal of debate all over the north-west about the link, particularly in Wigan and Leigh, but I was referring to debate in this Chamber, where it should be taking place and where, in the future, it will not be allowed because it is not part of the hybrid Bill.
It may or may not be coincidence that the decision was made. Other people from different political parties may agree with the hon. Member for Leigh, but if the Prime Minister wanted votes from the parliamentary Conservative party, he would not go to Wigan Council looking for those votes; he would go to his own Back-Benchers.
The second reason not to do with the Prime Minister is that this is simply about cuts. We saw £3 billion appear, and my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield made a persuasive argument that there is no cheaper option but only more expensive options. So, when they have spent time on this project from the very beginning, are the Government looking at ways of cutting it? Leeds and Yorkshire have lost out. Parts of the east-west link have gone. It looks to me as though, if it is not about votes for the Prime Minister, it is about cuts. I cannot see any real alternative explanation.
That brings me to an overall point that was also referred to by my hon. Friend. If one goes back 40 years to when this country first started looking at high-speed rail—I was a Manchester politician then, leader of the council, not a Member of Parliament—we were promised high-speed rail coming into Manchester Piccadilly when the cross-channel link was made, but it was cut. The trains were bought for that route. They used to say in French—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not speaking widely about the general concept, because we are not on the Second Reading debate now; we are very specifically debating motions 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. I have allowed him to range quite widely. However, I hope that he is not going to range too far as he should be speaking specifically to these motions, not making a Second Reading speech.
Graham Stringer
I am grateful for your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will now finish in two or three sentences. I was trying to make the point, while not extending the debate too widely, that over a long period there have been cuts to the original high-speed link and to this high-speed proposal that a Labour Government originally decided to take forward in 2010. We have had a long history of cuts. I think the most objective view of what is before us is that it is not a chance to look at an alternative, because there is no such chance within the hybrid Bill; it is another cut in a series that has gone on for a long time.
Gavin Newlands
I rise briefly to put on record the SNP’s support for the comments by the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue).
I made clear on Second Reading the Scottish Government’s displeasure on the Golborne link issue because the current position is total unsatisfactory. When I asked the Minister how much slower a journey from Glasgow to London would be without the Golborne link, an answer was not forthcoming, or certainly not a number, but the answer is that at least 20 minutes will be added to the journey. There is now a shared ambition to reduce journey times rather than anything definite, because the business case for HS2 from a Scottish perspective is massively weakened without the Golborne link or an effective replacement scheme. Call me a cynic, but I wonder whether we will ever see a replacement scheme, and if we do, just how much disruption to the west coast main line it will cause.
Just to be clear, there has been no consultation with the Scottish Government on the Golborne link and no notice about the change on the removal of the Golborne link, so we have an entirely unsatisfactory situation.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
First, I point out that the Minister may have inadvertently misled the House, because he said earlier from the Dispatch Box that a vote for the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) would be fatal for the Bill. I do not think that that would be the case given that the Bill has passed Second Reading. Perhaps he could correct that later for the record.
The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) has outlined the Scottish Government’s position. The Opposition also believe that the Golborne link would free up capacity on the west coast main line for passengers and freight, and would maximise services that can travel at high speed between London and Scotland. As my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield pointed out, the significance of that was set out in the January 2022 update to the HS2 phase 2b business case.
We should have been informed in the House that the Golborne link was likely to be cancelled, but we actually learned about it in April when the media reported that the 1922 committee chairman, the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady) had been assured by the Transport Secretary in private that it would be scrapped. That builds further on the excellent points that were not quite cynical, but were sharply made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer). It is important that as many parts of the UK as possible reap the long-term benefits. Without the link, there will be a bottleneck on the already busy west coast main line.
The Government have said that we should give them time to propose alternatives now that they have decided to scrap the link, but surely they should have come up with those excellent alternatives before taking the current option off the table. The amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield is not fatal to the Bill and does not prevent us from deciding not to progress with the Golborne link in Committee or at a later date once all the Government’s proposals have been fully considered and compared against the Golborne link. As the Government’s proposals have not yet been published, or as is likely, even fully considered by the Government, we simply do not know what those alternatives will be or when they will be proposed.
If the Government are developing proposals at the rate at which they have been working on the annual rail network enhancements pipeline update, we could be waiting for decades—if they ever come at all. We know that the Government have a track record of promising rail projects that never actually transpire. I am getting quite sceptical that we will ever see an alternative to the Golborne link, but I hope that the Minister will allay my concerns.
This is the important point: the only reason that the Opposition would support the Golborne link not proceeding is if there is an excellent alternative proposal. I hope that I am proved wrong. The Government’s motion binds the Committee’s hands unnecessarily and prematurely. Surely, we should allow the Committee to undertake its work and then decide how best to link the west coast main line to HS2.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Andrew Stephenson)
I start by addressing the comments of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi). I do not recognise his comment that I said the amendment would be fatal to the Bill; it would not be, because the Bill has passed Second Reading. I hope that he will recognise that the last two HS2 hybrid Bills for phase 1 and phase 2a took around four years to pass through this place. If we were to keep the Golborne link in while the Government thought about and studied alternatives, and waited to make any progress until we had done that, we would probably be delaying the Bill by a further two years. I am not prepared to delay the delivery of benefits to people in Greater Manchester and across the north of England by a further two years. I think we need to get on with delivering the benefits of high-speed rail now.
The Union connectivity review set out that the Golborne link would not resolve all the rail capacity constraints between Crewe and Preston. We have therefore decided to look again at alternatives that would deliver similar benefits. The hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) made an eloquent case for some of the merits of the Golborne link, which has of course been a part of the Government’s proposals up until now, but I hope that she will take into account and recognise the many speeches made on Second Reading by Members who do not support the Golborne link and support motion 6 to have the Golborne link deferred while we consider alternatives, including her fellow Wigan MP, my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (James Grundy). Members from her own side of the House who have not spoken today, including the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols), and of course the leader of Warrington Council, have welcomed the Government’s decision to bring this motion forward.
Yvonne Fovargue
I recognise that there is debate about this, but I have to say that the whole of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority supports it, plus Transport for Greater Manchester. Despite Warrington Council being held up—I appreciate there are different views—the whole of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority does support the Golborne link.
Andrew Stephenson
I think we would all agree that we have to get high-speed rail right. Without the Golborne link, this is still a £13 billion to £19 billion scheme; including the Golborne link, it a £15 billion to £22 billion scheme. We have to get it right: we have to ensure that we are delivering the maximum reductions in journey times to Scotland, that we have the least environmental damage possible and that we are building this infrastructure —the infrastructure that the House has just supported on Second Reading—in the right way. That is why I believe we are right to bring forward the motion to remove consideration of the Golborne link from the Bill while we look at alternatives.
I would like to tidy up some misunderstanding, as this has been mentioned by a couple of hon. Members, about the decision to remove the Golborne link on Monday 6 June—a day when there was also a confidence vote in this House. I think anybody who is aware of parliamentary procedure—I know all the Opposition Members here are very well aware of parliamentary procedure—will know that for me to table a written ministerial statement on the Monday, I had to inform the House I was doing so the week before. I notified the House authorities and also tabled the title of my written ministerial statement, which was well before any confidence vote was anticipated.
The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) said that his only other explanation for what this could possibly be about was cuts. With the £96 billion of rail investment in the midlands and the north in the integrated rail plan, this is the biggest ever Government investment in our railways, and it cannot be described—seriously, it cannot—as a cut. I look forward to continuing to work with the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) to reduce journey times to Scotland.
I think we all have an interest in getting this infrastructure right, and I therefore ask the hon. Member for Makerfield not to push her amendments to a vote.
Question put and agreed to.
High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill: Instruction
Ordered,
That it be an instruction to the Select Committee to which the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill is committed to deal with the Bill as follows—
(1) The Committee shall—
(a) make an appropriate assessment, in accordance with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (“the 2017 Regulations”), of the implications for a site within paragraph (2) of the provisions made in relation to the site by the Bill in view of the site’s conservation objectives, and
(b) make a recommendation to the House in relation to whether those provisions adversely affect the integrity of the site.
(2) The following sites are within this paragraph—
(a) the Rochdale Canal special area of conservation, and
(b) a site to which paragraph (3) applies that the Committee determines, in accordance with the 2017 Regulations, is likely to be significantly affected by a provision of the Bill.
(3) This paragraph applies to a European site (within the meaning of the 2017 Regulations) in relation to which—
(a) an amendment has been proposed by the member in charge of the Bill which, if the Bill were a private bill, could not be made except upon petition for additional provision, or
(b) the Committee has been provided with additional information by the promoters after the date of this instruction.
(4) For the purposes of making an assessment under paragraph (1) or a determination under paragraph (2)(b), the Committee may require the promoters to provide the Committee with such information as the Committee may reasonably require.
(5) For the purposes of making an assessment under paragraph (1), the Committee—
(a) must consult the relevant nature conservation body and have regard to any representations made by the body within such reasonable time as the Committee specifies;
(b) is not required to consult the general public.
(6) In paragraph (5)(a), the “relevant nature conservation body” means—
(a) in relation to a site in England, Natural England, and
(b) in relation to a site in Scotland, Scottish Natural Heritage.
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—(Andrew Stephenson.)
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We now come to motion 6. Do I understand that the hon. Lady does not wish to move amendment (a) or (b)?
Yvonne Fovargue
indicated assent.
High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill: Instruction (No. 2)
Ordered,
That it be an instruction to the Select Committee to which the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill is committed to deal with the Bill as follows:
(1) The Committee shall, before concluding its proceedings, amend the Bill by—
(a) leaving out provision relating to the railway between Hoo Green in Cheshire and a junction with the West Coast Main Line at Bamfurlong, south of Wigan, except for a spur from Hoo Green to the Parish of High Legh in Cheshire, and
(b) making such amendments to the Bill as it thinks fit in consequence of the amendments made by virtue of sub-paragraph (a).
(2) The Committee shall not hear any petition to the extent that it relates to whether or not there should be a railway between Hoo Green in Cheshire and a junction with the West Coast Main Line at Bamfurlong, south of Wigan.
(3) The Committee shall treat the principle of the Bill, as determined by the House on the Bill’s Second Reading, as comprising the matters mentioned in paragraph 4; and those matters shall accordingly not be at issue during proceedings of the Committee.
(4) The matters referred to in paragraph (3) are—
(a) the provision of a high speed railway between a junction with Phase 2a of High Speed 2 south of Crewe in Cheshire and Manchester Piccadilly Station,
(b) in relation to the railway set out on the plans deposited in January 2022 in connection with the Bill in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Private Bill Office of the House of Commons, its broad route alignment, and
(c) the fact that there are to be no new stations (other than Manchester Piccadilly and Manchester Airport) on, or spurs (other than the spur from Hoo Green to the Parish of High Legh) from, the railway mentioned in sub-paragraph (b).
(5) The Committee shall have power to consider any amendments proposed by the member in charge of the Bill which, if the Bill were a private bill, could not be made except upon petition for additional provision.
(6) Paragraph (5) applies only so far as the amendments proposed by the member in charge of the Bill fall within the principle of the Bill as provided for by paragraphs (3) and (4) above.
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—(Andrew Stephenson.)
High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill: Carry-Over
Ordered,
That the following provisions shall apply in respect of the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill:
Suspension at end of current Session
(1) Further proceedings on the Bill shall be suspended from the day on which this Session of Parliament ends (“the current Session”) until the next Session of Parliament (“Session 2023–24”).
(2) If a Bill is presented in Session 2023–24 in the same terms as those in which the Bill stood when proceedings on it were suspended in the current Session—
(a) the Bill so presented shall be ordered to be printed and shall be deemed to have been read the first and second time;
(b) the Standing Orders and practice of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with or dispensed with in the current Session or in the previous Session of Parliament (“Session 2021–22”), shall be deemed to have been complied with or (as the case may be) dispensed with in Session 2023–24;
(c) any resolution relating to the Habitats Regulations that is passed by the House in the current Session in relation to the Bill shall be deemed to have been passed by the House in Session 2023–24;
(d) the Bill shall be dealt with in accordance with—
(i) paragraph (3), if proceedings in Select Committee were not completed when proceedings on the Bill were suspended,
(ii) paragraph (4), if proceedings in Public Bill Committee were begun but not completed when proceedings on the Bill were suspended,
(iii) paragraph (5), if the Bill was waiting to be considered when proceedings on it were suspended,
(iv) paragraph (6), if the Bill was waiting for third reading when proceedings on it were suspended, or
(v) paragraph (7), if the Bill has been read the third reading time and sent to the House of Lords.
(3) If this paragraph applies—
(a) the Bill shall stand committed to a Select Committee of such Members as were members of the Committee when proceedings on the Bill were suspended in the current Session;
(b) any instruction of the House to the Committee in the current Session shall be an instruction to the Committee on the Bill in Session 2023–24;
(c) all petitions submitted in the current Session which stand referred to the Committee and which have not been withdrawn, and any petition submitted between the day on which the current Session ends and the day on which proceedings on the Bill are resumed in Session 2023–24 in accordance with this Order, shall stand referred to the Committee in Session 2023–24;
(d) any minutes of evidence taken and any papers laid before the Committee in the current Session shall stand referred to the Committee in Session 2023–24;
(e) only those petitions mentioned in sub-paragraph (c), and any petition which may be submitted to the Private Bill Office and in which the petitioners complain of any amendment proposed by the member in charge of the Bill which, if the Bill were a private bill, could not be made except upon petition for additional provision or of any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the Committee in Session 2023–24, shall stand referred to the Committee;
(f) any petitioners whose petitions stand referred to the Committee in Session 2023–24 shall, subject to the rules and orders of the House, be entitled to be heard upon their petition by themselves, their counsel, representatives or parliamentary agents provided that the petition is prepared and signed in conformity with the rules and orders of the House; and the Member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard through counsel or agents in favour of the Bill against any such petition;
(g) the Committee shall require any hearing in relation to a petition mentioned in sub-paragraph (f) above to take place in person, unless exceptional circumstances apply;
(h) in applying the rules of the House in relation to parliamentary agents, any reference to a petitioner in person shall be treated as including a reference to a duly authorised member or officer of an organisation, group or body;
(i) the Committee shall have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report from day to day minutes of evidence taken before it;
(j) the Committee shall have power to make special reports from time to time;
(k) three shall be the quorum of the Committee.
(4) If this paragraph applies, the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and to have been re-committed to a Public Bill Committee.
(5) If this paragraph applies—
(a) the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and from the Public Bill Committee, and
(b) the Bill shall be set down as an order of the day for consideration.
(6) If this paragraph applies—
(a) the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and from the Public Bill Committee and to have been considered, and
(b) the Bill shall be set down as an order of the day for third reading.
(7) If this paragraph applies, the Bill shall be deemed to have passed through all its stages in this House.
Suspension at end of this Parliament
(8) If proceedings on the Bill are resumed in accordance with paragraph 2 but are not completed before the end of Session 2023–24, further proceedings on the Bill shall be suspended from the day on which that Session ends until the first Session of the next Parliament (“Session 2024–25”).
(9) If a Bill is presented in Session 2024–25 in the same terms as those in which the Bill stood when proceedings on it were suspended in Session 2023–24—
(a) the Bill so presented shall be ordered to be printed and shall be deemed to have been read the first and second time;
(b) the Standing Orders and practice of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with or dispensed with in Session 2023–24 or in the current session or in Session 2021–22, shall be deemed to have been complied with or (as the case may be) dispensed with in Session 2024–25;
(c) any resolution relating to the Habitats Regulations that is passed by the House in Session 2023–24 or in the current session in relation to the Bill shall be deemed to have been passed by the House in Session 2024–25;
(d) the Bill shall be dealt with in accordance with—
(i) paragraph (10), if proceedings in Select Committee were not completed when proceedings on the Bill were suspended,
(ii) paragraph (11), if proceedings in Public Bill Committee were begun but not completed when proceedings on the Bill were suspended,
(iii) paragraph (12), if the Bill was waiting to be considered when proceedings on it were suspended,
(iv) paragraph (13), if the Bill was waiting for third when proceedings on it were suspended, or
(v) paragraph (14), if the Bill has been read the third time and sent to the House of Lords.
(10) If this paragraph applies—
(a) the Bill shall stand committed to a Select Committee of such Members as were members of the Committee when proceedings on the Bill were suspended in Session 2023–24;
(b) any instruction of the House to the Committee in the current Session or in Session 2023–24 shall be an instruction to the Committee on the Bill in Session 2024–25;
(c) all petitions submitted in the current Session or in Session 2023–24 which stand referred to the Committee and which have not been withdrawn, and any petition submitted between the day on which the Session 2023–24 ends and the day on which proceedings on the Bill are resumed in Session 2024–25 in accordance with this Order, shall stand referred to the Committee in Session 2024–25;
(d) any minutes of evidence taken and any papers laid before the Committee in Session 2023–24 or in the current session shall stand referred to the Committee in Session 2024–25;
(e) only those petitions mentioned in sub-paragraph (c), and any petition which may be submitted to the Private Bill Office and in which the petitioners complain of any amendment proposed by the member in charge of the Bill which, if the Bill were a private bill, could not be made except upon petition for additional provision or of any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the Committee in Session 2024–25, shall stand referred to the Committee;
(f) any petitioners whose petitions stand referred to the Committee in Session 2024–25 shall, subject to the rules and orders of the House, be entitled to be heard upon their petition by themselves, their counsel, representatives or parliamentary agents provided that the petition is prepared and signed in conformity with the rules and orders of the House; and the Member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard through counsel or agents in favour of the Bill against any such petition;
(g) the Committee shall require any hearing in relation to a petition mentioned in sub-paragraph (f) above to take place in person, unless exceptional circumstances apply;
(h) in applying the rules of the House in relation to parliamentary agents, any reference to a petitioner in person shall be treated as including a reference to a duly authorised member or officer of an organisation, group or body;
(i) the Committee shall have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report from day to day minutes of evidence taken before it;
(j) the Committee shall have power to make special reports from time to time;
(k) three shall be the quorum of the Committee.
(11) If this paragraph applies, the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and to have been re-committed to a Public Bill Committee.
(12) If this paragraph applies—
(a) the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and from the Public Bill Committee, and
(b) the Bill shall be set down as an order of the day for consideration.
(13) If this paragraph applies—
(a) the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and from the Public Bill Committee and to have been considered, and
(b) the Bill shall be set down as an order of the day for third reading.
(14) If this paragraph applies, the Bill shall be deemed to have passed through all its stages in this House.
Other
(15) In paragraphs (1) and (8) above, references to further proceedings do not include proceedings under Standing Order 224A(8) (deposit of supplementary environmental information).
(16) In paragraphs (3) and (10) above, references to the submission of a petition are to its submission electronically, by post or in person.
(17) In paragraphs (2) and (9) above, references to the Habitats Regulations are to the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017.
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—(Andrew Stephenson.)
Positions for which additional salaries are payable for the purposes of section 4A(2) of the parliamentary Standards Act 2009
Ordered,
That the Order of the House of 19 March 2013 (Positions for which additional salaries are payable for the purposes of section 4A(2) of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009) be amended, in paragraph (1)(a), by inserting, in the appropriate place, “the Select Committee on the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill”.—(Andrew Stephenson.)
Business without Debate
Delegated Legislation
Illegal Off-road Biking: Islwyn
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
Many people will have been enjoying the recent warm spell. The summer should be a time when people can appreciate their garden, walk their dog and enjoy the countryside. Sadly, for many of my constituents, that has proven impossible.
Many people have had their peace ruined by motorbikes or run for cover as these bikes tear up the mountainside, bringing misery in the summer months. Anyone who has been near these vehicles will recognise their deafening hum, intruding on people’s right to enjoy peace in their own homes and scaring animals, including horses, dogs and other wildlife.
I know that the issue is not unique to my constituency. It is not even a rural or an urban issue. Anyone with a patch of countryside in their constituency will be plagued by these bikes. The matter has been raised in the past year by the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), for Darlington (Peter Gibson) and for Redcar (Jacob Young) and my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Colleen Fletcher). My hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) recently raised a Westminster Hall debate about the issue, and a ten-minute rule Bill stood in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins).
There is clearly a wide range of support for getting to grips with the problem. In Islwyn, it is particularly acute. For those who do not know, Islwyn comprises a series of small towns and villages scattered along the mountains and valleys of west Gwent. It is lucky to have a beautiful natural habitat including areas such as Cwmcarn forest drive, Gwyddon forestry, Twmbarlwm, and Mynydd Machen. It is that nature and mountainous terrain that attracts off-road bikers, whose vehicles are tearing up our beautiful landscape. The bikes rip up footpaths and undo the conservation work done by so many excellent volunteers in the area.
Last year, I presented a petition to the House from the residents of Abercarn that received more than 100 signatures. Signatories told me of the true destruction caused by scramblers and quads. The petition said:
“The Gwyddon Forestry in Abercarn…has, until recent years, been a safe haven for wildlife to flourish and for cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders to enjoy the rights of way and footpaths afforded to them”,
but the use of
“off-road vehicles has caused and continue to cause irreparable damage to the environment”
and is
“destroying the natural habitats of wildlife”.
It continued:
“Residents have been threatened when confronting these illegal vehicle users and have concerns for their own safety when reporting these issues to the police.”
Furthermore,
“the off-road vehicles are driven…recklessly by uninsured and unlicensed individuals.”
It is therefore inevitable that accidents will take place.
With these reckless, uninsured and unlicensed individuals comes antisocial behaviour. They know that they are not allowed to be riding on public land, or sometimes private land, without permission, but they continue. Residents are being left intimidated by some off-road bikers who become incredibly aggressive when challenged. One constituent told me of an incident when she was simply enjoying a walk on Mynydd Machen. She said:
“It was gorgeous, and the views were stunning. This was spoilt by the hordes of off-road unregistered motorbikes, which hurled past me at great speed. Some shouted obscenities when I failed to move out of the way quickly enough for them to continue at their breakneck speed. On my return…on this walk yesterday afternoon, I was assaulted and robbed by a chap on an illegal off-road motorbike…I feel these hordes of off-road motorbikes are becoming far too brazen and aggressive when riding the mountains above our communities. I also feel they are aware Gwent Police have limited resources to curtail their illegal off-road activities and are under the misguided illusion they have free rein to cause havoc on our mountains.”
That is just one example of the havoc caused by those who think they are above the law. I have so many more in my constituency postbag that I could fill a whole debate just reading out the terrible experiences of my constituents.
This is completely unacceptable. Residents should not be afraid to do things as simple as walking their dog or enjoying the stunning scenery that our valleys have to offer. When incidents are reported through the 101 service, constituents are often left frustrated by the waiting times. The delay stops accurate reporting and enforcement of these and other incidents of antisocial behaviour. I have heard accounts of members of the public being left waiting for 30 minutes, as well as calls being dropped altogether. When calls are answered it is often too late for police to attend. I believe we need to improve the resources attributed to the 101 number, and as a matter of urgency the Government should look into this issue and ensure that the phone is answered on time and in a speedy manner. It is crucial that we make such changes so that my constituents, and members of the public from across the country, can enjoy the amazing landscapes that Islwyn has to offer without fear or intimidation.
There are, of course, people who enjoy off-road biking responsibly. They go to designated tracks or use private land with permission. Unfortunately, those who do not respect the law ruin the reputation of the sport for everyone. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith), who has done so much on this issue, including bringing stakeholders together. However, the legislation is clear: this behaviour is illegal. The difficulty comes when police try enforcing the laws and preventing repeat offences.
Gwent police have worked incredibly hard to tackle this issue, and I pay tribute to them for their work on Operation Harley, in which they have seized more than 135 illegally driven off-road vehicles. However, several issues are making enforcement difficult, and changes to the law are needed to tackle this issue. There are three areas in which I believe we can make progress in ending the scourge of illegal off-road bikes. First, it is often not safe or indeed feasible for the police to chase culprits, especially in the mountainous landscapes of my constituency. Often, those bikes are extremely fast, and police cars cannot catch them. The riders have helmets on, which makes them difficult to identify, and they currently do not even need a registration plate. We need to make it more difficult to own such vehicles, and we need to make sure they are registered so that they are identifiable. Someone who is not doing anything wrong has nothing to fear in registering their vehicle. Every sale of an off-road bike should be registered, and when ownership is transferred that should be registered too, or the previous owner will be held accountable for its illegal use.
The Government should give the police powers under section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002 to punish those who drive vans transporting bikes to the mountains. We should also increase the minimum cost of recovering those vehicles after they have been seized. The current fine of £160 is far too low, and it is not enough of a deterrent to prevent future law breaking.
There are those who always say there is a simple solution to this problem. Why not provide a place for off-road bikers to enjoy their pastime freely, and create a circuit for them to go to? However, illegal off roaders have little or no interest in such schemes, and would much prefer to go off on their own, tearing up our countryside.
Considering the interest in this issue right across the House, I hope the Minister will listen to my points tonight, and agree to meet me and other interested MPs to hear how much of an impact this issue is having on our communities. This is a cross-party issue, and I hope we can work with the Government to bring an end to the matter. Illegal off-road biking may not draw massive amounts of attention in the press, but for those affected, it has an enormous impact on their day-to-day lives, from the noise to the intimidation. People should be free to enjoy their communities without fear of noise or intimidation. It is time to drive these illegal bikers off the road once and for all.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rachel Maclean)
I start by expressing my thanks to the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) for securing this important debate. He has raised specific concerns about illegal off-road biking and the harm it causes communities. Any form of antisocial, dangerous or inconsiderate behaviour involving vehicles, including misused off-road bikes, is a serious issue.
I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman and his constituents that the misuse of off-road bikes and the resulting dangerous and antisocial behaviour causes a huge amount of concern and distress. In fact, I also answered for the Government during a Westminster Hall debate on this topic just a few weeks ago. I said then, and I repeat it now, that the Government are not prepared to accept a situation in which law-abiding citizens are adversely affected by the behaviour of others, whether it is taking place in the beautiful Gwent countryside, as he sets out, or even in Worcestershire or anywhere else. We are all aware from talking to our constituents just how harmful and damaging any form of antisocial behaviour can be. At its worst, it can have a detrimental effect on the natural environment and it can ruin people’s enjoyment of public spaces and their communities. I pay tribute to Gwent police for all the work that it has done very effectively. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has played his part in that, and I thank him for that.
The Government are focusing on this issue through our beating crime plan and also through our police recruitment programme, and we are using those levers to drive action to make our cities, towns and villages safer and more peaceful places to live, work and socialise. The police, local authorities and other local agencies have a range of flexible tools and powers under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. The hon. Gentleman has highlighted some of the issues he sees in his constituency, and he is right to say that this is an acutely local issue. That is why we believe local areas are best placed to decide how best to deploy those powers, depending on the specific circumstances. They are best placed to understand what is driving the behaviour in question and the impact it is having, and then to determine the most appropriate response.
Importantly, the 2014 Act contains specific measures designed to give victims and communities a say in how complaints of antisocial behaviour are dealt with. I am referring to the community trigger, which gives victims of persistent antisocial behaviour the ability to demand a formal case review. In addition to antisocial behaviour powers, the police have the power under section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002 to seize vehicles, including misused off-road bikes being used in an antisocial manner. This can be as a result of someone using a vehicle in a careless and inconsiderate manner or in a manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public. I must remind the hon. Gentleman and anyone listening that enforcement of road traffic law and the deployment of resources is the responsibility of individual chief officers and chief constables, taking into account the specific local problems and demands.
The hon. Gentleman has called for the introduction of a mandatory registration scheme. We have reviewed that, but we do not believe at the present time that the introduction of such a scheme for off-road bikes would be the most effective way to tackle dangerous and antisocial use. It would place a burden and cost on law-abiding citizens who would be most impacted by the requirements. We believe that the police have adequate enforcement powers to deal with the vehicles being used. In response to his comments and his ask of me, I would be happy to meet him and any other members of this House or any other local parties who would be interested. He highlighted a number of areas of policy and law that sit within other ministerial portfolios, most notably those of the Department for Transport, and possibly even the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if a farm vehicle is being referred to.
The hon. Gentleman referred to funding. He will know that we have devoted considerable resources and funding, during the course of our time in government, to ensure that all local areas have additional funding for their police forces. In Gwent, I am sure he will welcome the 143 officers who have been recruited as part of the police uplift programme, with a further 82 to be recruited next year.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate and for his contribution. It is clear that this subject is generating considerable interest in some areas, not least his own. He is doing exactly the right thing by raising this issue with his local police and crime commissioner and chief constable.
The Government fully recognise the damage and distress caused by this type of antisocial behaviour, including the wilful and illegal misuse of off-road bikes. We should never accept a situation in which law-abiding people suffer as a result of others’ reckless and selfish actions. The Government certainly will not. That is why we will continue to support the police to enforce road traffic legislation. We will use every available measure to confront the scourge of antisocial behaviour.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Local Government (Exclusion of Non-commercial Considerations) (England) Order 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Local Government, Faith and Communities (Kemi Badenoch)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Local Government (Exclusion of Non-commercial Considerations) (England) Order 2022.
The order was laid before the House on 25 May 2022. If approved, it will enable best-value authorities and parish councils in England to, if they so wish, terminate proposed or subsisting public supply or works contracts where either the country or territory of origin of supplies to the contractor is the Russian Federation or the Republic of Belarus, or the location of the business activities or interests of a contractor is the Russian Federation or the Republic of Belarus.
The illegal invasion of Russian forces into Ukraine earlier this year shocked the world and has been met with unprecedented global condemnation. I am sure hon. Members agree that Vladimir Putin’s unprovoked, illegal war is a reprehensible premeditated attack on Ukraine and on the principles of self-determination and the rule of law. Soon after the invasion, many local authorities publicly condemned Russia’s actions, and some noted their intention to break contracts with Russian-controlled companies. They were clear that local taxpayers’ hard-earned money must not be used to fund Vladimir Putin’s war machine. I take this opportunity to commend the strength of feeling that those local authorities demonstrated.
However, local authorities are subject to section 17 of the Local Government Act 1988, which prohibits them from taking non-commercial considerations into account when making commercial decisions. Non-commercial considerations as set out in the Act include
“the country or territory of origin of supplies to, or the location in any country or territory of the business activities or interests of, contractors”.
The Cabinet Office’s policy procurement note PPN 01/2022, issued on 28 March, set out the limitations on local government in this area. That PPN, which is advisory in nature, asked Government Departments, non-departmental public bodies and Executive agencies to review their contract portfolios to identify Russian and Belarusian prime contractors and consider the termination of those contracts. The PPN also noted that Government officials were actively considering a solution for local government to enable councils to follow the Cabinet Office’s advice for central Government.
The Secretary of State wrote to all local authority leaders on 11 March preparing them to consider their exposure to Russian and Belarusian-owned companies, and council leaders have shown themselves to be not only receptive to action, but actively calling for it. A number have written to the Secretary of State requesting that the Government accommodate a flexible approach for councils that wish to terminate contracts with Russian state-owned companies. They are clear, as are we, that they do not wish public money to go towards the income of the Russian state during the present military crisis.
Hon. Members may recall a debate in the other place on 24 March regarding Gazprom UK. Members there were keen to know the Government’s plans to support local authorities and NHS trusts that wished to terminate relevant contracts, and stressed their desire to see legislation brought forward to amend public procurement rules to allow such termination, thus aligning local authorities with the rest of the public sector. As such, I am pleased that today we are considering this order, made under section 19 of the Local Government Act 1999, which will enable us to disapply the provision in section 17 of the 1988 Act.
It is important to note the intention of the order: the Government are not creating a new burden on local authorities, nor are we mandating termination of relevant contracts. Rather, we are responding to the sector’s requests and creating the opportunity for local authorities to terminate Russian or Belarusian contracts should they wish to do so. This is a permissive power; the decision to terminate relevant contracts remains solely at the discretion of the authorities in question.
The order will allow local authorities the flexibility to terminate both proposed and subsisting contracts, should they so wish. It will therefore allow them to take comparable action to central Government, as set out in PPN 01/2022, by declining to consider new procurement bids from entities that are constituted or organised under the law of Russia or Belarus, therefore ensuring they are not funding Vladimir Putin’s unwarranted aggression. In line with the PPN, and as the Secretary of State has advised local authority leaders, the Government are of the view that decisions to terminate such contracts by those authorities should be made on a case-by-case basis, in accordance with the terms of the contract, and only where an alternative supplier can be sourced in line with value-for-money and affordability concerns and with minimal disruption to public services. The policy will not enable those bodies to instigate their own unofficial, municipal foreign or defence policies, but will not prevent them from undertaking their own divestment measures where those align with official Government sanctions, as in this case.
In his recent letter to council leaders, the Secretary of State acknowledged that taking the type of action this instrument will enable may have an impact on local authorities. That is why all decisions on terminating contracts must be taken locally. In addition, it is why I, as Local Government Minister restate the commitment that the Secretary of State made in his letter: the Government stand by to engage with any local authority that has concerns about its financial position or service delivery or that may be facing pressures it cannot take steps to manage locally.
Today’s order further demonstrates that our support for Ukraine at all levels of government remains undiminished. The UK and our allies have shown remarkable strength and unity in response to President Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, and we will not be party to funding his war machine. I hope hon. Members will join me in supporting the proposed order.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to once again serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. I thank the Minister for her speech outlining the very sensible and pragmatic proposal before us, which responds to the sector and ensures that we show our solidarity not only at national Government level, but at local government level up and down the land. I am pleased to say that the official Opposition are happy to support the statutory instrument.
I declare an interest, as might a number of people in this Committee room, because I and others have been sanctioned by the Russian Federation. If supporting today’s order reinforces that sanction, every one of us will be mightily proud of that fact—it will become a badge of honour. The Secretary of State and the Government giving local authorities the flexibility to make the decisions that are right for their localities is the right thing to do, and as such, once again, we support the instrument.
Kemi Badenoch
I am grateful to the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman and Opposition Members for supporting the regulations. We have been united across the House in our support of Ukraine through military and humanitarian means and in leading international efforts to support Ukraine’s objectives and levy financial and investment sanctions. Today’s order, which enables local authorities to cease their contracts with businesses linked to Vladimir Putin’s regime, further demonstrates that the Government will use all levers at our disposal and will not tolerate the abhorrent attack on Ukraine. I commend the order to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm (Amendment) 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 Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Eddie Hughes)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm (Amendment) Regulations 2022.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. 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. I hope hon. Members will agree that, only days after the fifth anniversary of the tragedy of Grenfell Tower, it is both appropriate and fitting that we are meeting today to discuss strengthening safety standards in the social housing sector. In the aftermath of the disaster, the Government committed to putting in place much greater protections for residents against the risk of fire and carbon monoxide in their homes.
Hon. Members might recall that we published a social housing Green Paper seeking the public’s view on the proposals to create parity between the private rented sector and the social rented sector on safety standards. It will come as no surprise to hon. Members that the overwhelming majority of respondents were in favour. We have subsequently built on those proposals with our social housing White Paper to drive up standards across the board in the social housing sector and make sure that all tenants live somewhere that is decent, safe and secure. To deliver on that vision, we are amending the regulations to bring requirements for social homes in line with private rented homes. I am delighted to be the Minister taking this legislation through, given the fact that I proposed something similar in my ten-minute rule Bill as a Back-Bench MP in 2018.
Currently, the Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm (England) Regulations 2015 make it mandatory for private landlords to install smoke alarms on every floor of a home that they let. Carbon monoxide alarms must be installed in every room with a solid fuel-burning appliance such as a log-burning stove or a coal fire. At present there are no such requirements for social landlords, and that is despite the Home Office suggesting that someone is around eight times more likely to die in a fire if they do not have a working smoke alarm in their home. Hon. Members might also be shocked to hear, as I was, that there are on average 20 deaths from accidental carbon monoxide poisoning each year in England and Wales. So let us be clear: smoke alarms and carbon monoxide alarms save lives.
Through this statutory instrument we will amend the Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm (England) Regulations 2015 so that they replicate those for the private rented sector. The changes will mean that for the first time all social rented homes in England will be required by law to have smoke alarms installed. Specifically, social landlords will need to make sure that at least one smoke alarm is installed on the floor of a home where there is a room used for living accommodation. All landlords, regardless of tenure, will need to install a carbon monoxide alarm in rooms that are used for living accommodation but which have a gas boiler or similar appliance, or a solid fuel-burning appliance. That does not include gas cookers, which are responsible for fewer incidents of carbon monoxide poisoning than gas boilers.
These strengthened regulations will also require all landlords to repair or replace a faulty alarm as soon as they practically can.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Does that obligation on the landlord extend to replacing the battery? If someone has a smoke alarm that is beeping because the battery has run out, does that obligation fall on the tenant or the landlord?
Eddie Hughes
I suggest that it would be the responsibility of the tenant, only in as much as they would want that done quickly. However, if they were unable to afford to do that, I suspect that the social landlord would take that up. I guess it is a question of proportionality and speed. Tenants would want it done quickly, and it is unlikely to be something that a social landlord would prioritise, given the other calls on their time.
The changes will not just make it easier for tenants to detect a fire in their home. They will also protect them from the risk of carbon monoxide fumes, which are undetectable and can cause serious illness or death. We will update guidance on the placement of smoke and carbon monoxide alarms, and on the types of alarms that need to be installed, so that landlords have absolute clarity on what they need to do to meet the standards.
On the timescale for the changes, I am sure that hon. Members will agree that a lengthy delay between regulations being made and taking effect could put lives at risk. We have therefore decided that 1 October 2022 is an appropriate date for the regulations to come into force. Landlords have known about the changes for a while now, but that gives them a little more time to get everything in place before the regulations come into force.
To conclude, the regulations will save lives and 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, including these changes, will drive up standards so that people across the country have a safe and decent home to live in. I hope that colleagues will join me in supporting the draft regulations. I commend them to the Committee.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
It is an honour, once again, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the Minister for providing the detail of the draft regulations to make smoke and carbon monoxide alarms mandatory in social housing from 1 October this year. As the Minister said, they come just as we commemorate the fifth anniversary of the Grenfell Tower tragedy, in which 72 people lost their lives. We have seen where a race to the bottom can lead, and how a culture of deregulation—the bonfire of red tape—has total disregard for human life, with tragic consequences.
I have a couple of points on which I will press the Minister. First, accidental carbon monoxide poisoning kills an average of 20 people each year in England and Wales, as he said. Although I understand that gas cookers cause fewer cases of poisoning than gas boilers, surely we want to reduce harm as much as possible for everyone, regardless of the status of the appliance. It does not seem like the greatest leap or a real burden to ask landlords to do both. Do the Minister and the Department hold any information about the potential addition to the reduction in poisonings and deaths that could come from including cookers in future regulations? I do not require an immediate answer. I am sure that the Minister and the Department can write to me and the Opposition about that.
Secondly, on the topic of the types of alarms used, too often—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central pointed out—batteries are used, which need to be changed every six months in some cases. In lots of cases, they might be removed from the ceiling and put in a drawer by the tenants. That seems to be an omission, and something that needs to be strengthened in the not-too-distant future. Has the Minister made any assessment of the potential impact of requiring interlinked concealed battery alarms, which last up to 10 years? I believe that that is the requirement in Scotland, along with a linked heat alarm in the kitchen. Has the Minister looked at whether bringing the regulations into line with their Scottish counterparts would further prevent deaths from carbon monoxide poisoning and, indeed, fire?
Finally, the penalty for non-compliance stands at £5,000, which brings it in line with those set as part of the private rented sector regulations passed in 2015. However, given that we know just how dangerous it can be not to have working fire alarms or smoke alarms, and how many lives could be saved, does the Minister think there is an argument for increasing the penalty, especially when other civil penalties for landlords, under the 2004 Act, go up to £30,000 for offences related to failures to comply with improvement notices for the licensing of houses in multiple occupation?
As I have said, I want to give my full support and that of Her Majesty’s Opposition to the introduction of these regulations. However, we would certainly like to see them go further, for the sake of public safety, in order to prevent tragic deaths in the future.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I begin by congratulating the Minister on introducing something he wanted to introduce as a Back Bencher. That does not always happen when one is a Minister, so he should enjoy it while he can. He is doing the right thing.
There are a couple of points I would like the Minister to deal with. One was alluded to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central, who asked whether replacing a battery counts as a repair. My own view is that it probably does not, but it possibly ought to. We are left with some ambiguity as to who would be responsible. It is easy to say, “Surely the tenant will just replace the battery,” and many tenants will, but not everybody can. Some tenants are elderly and live alone, or they may be disabled, so they cannot reach up to change the battery. Indeed, some people cannot afford things such as batteries. I just wonder whether a little more clarity in the regulations might help make it absolutely clear whose responsibility this is, because they seem slightly ambiguous.
At the back of this instrument is something called an explanatory note, which I cannot say I have seen that often—if at all—in an SI. I am probably wrong; they are probably published all the time. We also have an explanatory memorandum, although I am not quite sure what the difference is. The explanatory note says:
“An impact assessment of the effect of this instrument on the costs of business, the voluntary sector and the public sector is published with this instrument on www.legislation.gov.uk”.
However, when one goes to that website for this instrument, it says that no such impact assessment has been published—there isn't one, which is not very “explanatory”. If that is the explanation in the explanatory note, I am not sure what the explanatory note adds.
However, in the explanatory memorandum, there is reference to an earlier impact assessment that was done during some of the consultation. One assumes—perhaps the Minister can confirm one way or another—that that impact assessment was thought to be adequate and that things have not changed since it was done. If that is the case, the wording in the explanatory note and on the website can be said, at best, not to be helpful. I felt like I was being sent round in circles between the explanatory note, the explanatory memorandum and www.legislation.gov.uk. That could have happened on an instrument that we did not all essentially agree on, which could have caused us significantly more problems as a Committee. Perhaps the Minister can take that point back and suggest that sending people around the houses is not very helpful. If we are going to add an explanatory notes, they should at least explain or help in some way, rather than hinder.
The 2015 regulations, which the changes before us will helpfully improve—I think that is a good thing—were previously reported by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for
“doubtful vires, defective drafting and unexpectedly limited use of powers.”
I cannot think of too many instances where the Joint Committee has a go at Ministers for
“unexpectedly limited use of powers.”
I imagine that that must be a first. However, is the Minister now satisfied that the problems highlighted by the Joint Committee at that time have been fully remedied by these regulations, or does he think that there is still work to be done to deal with the criticisms that the Joint Committee made in 2015? These things have taken a long time, particularly given the serious consequences of not having smoke and carbon monoxide alarms. The Minister himself referred to the mercifully small but none the less significant number of people who are killed but who may had been saved had there been smoke or carbon monoxide alarms, and in that sense, time is of the essence.
Having made those points, I am happy to endorse the Labour party’s support for the regulations, but I would like to know whether more work is planned.
Eddie Hughes
First, the responsibility for batteries and their replacement would fall to the tenant, and we will issue guidance that says so, but given that we are talking about social housing providers, it would be lovely if social housing landlords decided to act with a degree of social conscience and assist those who are unable, for whatever reason, to get their alarm working by replacing the battery. Should tenants replace the battery and find that the device is still faulty, the responsibility would fall to the landlord.
We have considered the point about whether alarms should have batteries or should be wired in, and the other suggestions. From a proportionality point of view, it seems appropriate that we stick with the wording in the regulations and do not prescribe, but allow, batteries. We are keen to roll out the measures and get the alarms in place as quickly as possible, as several million properties will require them, and hardwiring them would delay things further.
On the impact assessment, I completely apologise that the hon. Lady was sent around in circles. I guess we are not used to people being quite so diligent in their preparation for a Statutory Instrument Committee. That is a valuable lesson for me, as Minister, to ensure that we are appropriately prepared in future. I am happy to send her a copy of the impact assessment. On the issues raised by the Joint Committee, we are assured—I, personally, feel assured—that the regulations are robust and will deliver as expected.
Finally, a £5,000 penalty is a proportionate and sufficient deterrent. We are talking broadly about social housing providers, which will have a system to implement and will be organised and thorough in doing so—especially in the light of the pressure and focus on them in a post- Grenfell world—and I would like to think that they will comply as a matter of course. The £5,000 penalty will be sufficient motivation for those that otherwise would not. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
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
Farmed Animals: Cages
(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
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 593775, relating to the use of cages for farmed animals.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I am delighted to lead this debate on behalf of the 109,000 people who signed the petition and the organisation Compassion in World Farming, which organised it and is determined to see an end to the cage age.
In recent times, there have been huge changes in the way that animal cages are used, with bans on veal crates and on barren battery cages for laying hens, and a partial ban on sow stalls. However, 16 million animals across the UK are still confined to cages. Legislation now recognises animals as sentient beings, and the British public love our chickens and pigs; from Peppa Pig to Chicken Little, and Miss Piggy to Camilla the Chicken, we treasure our farmyard friends and their personalities. We are a nation of animal lovers and, for that reason, the UK rightly enjoys the highest animal welfare standards in the world.
We have introduced a raft of legislation to further protect our animals, extending custodial sentences and introducing fixed penalty notices for those who abuse animals. We have banned barbaric glue traps, created an offence of pet abduction for those sick and depraved individuals who would steal someone’s cherished pet, and introduced the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill to tackle puppy smuggling, the export of live animals and livestock worrying. Ending the cage age is the logical next step.
I think that many people assume that the end of barren battery cage farming meant the end of the cage age, and that our chickens now enjoy the freedom they are naturally owed. However, that is simply not the case. Across the world, 60% of eggs are produced in industrial systems. Here in the UK, 35.5% of all eggs produced are from caged birds. Imagine the life of a chicken that has never felt the grass underfoot or the sun on her back.
In 2012, barren battery cages were banned and, in many cases, replaced with enriched cages. However, while enriched cages are a step up, they still do not offer the quality of life that the public would think our chickens enjoy. Some are little bigger than an A4 sheet of paper and restrict many of a hen’s natural behaviours, including wing flapping, running, perching at a reasonable height above ground, dust bathing and foraging. There is a wealth of scientific evidence demonstrating that hen welfare is still compromised in enriched cages.
All of the UK’s main, responsible supermarkets have either already stopped selling eggs from caged hens or committed to doing so by 2025. The Government must get behind that progressive development by banning the use of those cages to protect the hens that are not part of supermarket supply chains, and by ensuring that the majority of British farmers are not undercut by farmers still using cages, whether they are in Britain or exporting to us. It is also important to note that, as well as being sold in shells, eggs are ingredients in products we buy. We must strive for a higher standard for all our chickens.
The petitioners also request a ban on the use of fixed farrowing crates for sows. It seems more than appropriate to look back at the last time that was proposed, when the late and great Sir David Amess brought forward a ten-minute rule Bill—the Pig Husbandry (Farrowing) Bill. A change to this area of the law would be an incredible tribute to an incredible man who constantly fought to further animal welfare standards in this country.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech; I, too, reflect on the fantastic advancement in animal welfare that Sir David Amess made during his time here. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, because 60% of UK sows farrow indoors in severe confinement caused by the crate, with no space to stand up or turn around, they are unable to perform natural social behaviours, and that we should join other countries, such as Norway, Sweden and Switzerland, in outlawing these crates?
Matt Vickers
I will come on to that issue, but I think there are better alternatives that will still support the safety of piglets.
Farrowing cages rightly seek to prevent the death of piglets by crushing. More than 50% of UK sows are placed in farrowing crates a few days before giving birth. They are kept there during farrowing and until the piglets are weaned at three to four weeks of age. That means that every year in the UK, over 200,000 sows are confined in those systems for some nine to 10 weeks of the year—in some cases longer—despite the fact that scientific evidence has shown that sow welfare is severely compromised in farrowing crates. The crates result in sows being forced to give birth in a tiny space and then to nurse their young through bars. The space in the crate is so restricted that sows cannot even turn around: all they can do is stand up or lie down until their piglets are weaned, usually at around four weeks of age. Confined in those crates, sows bite and chew the bars and scrape at the floor in frustration. Many endure painful wounds and sores on their legs, feet and shoulders caused by slipping or lying on the hard slatted floors.
Some 40% of the UK’s sows are reared in outdoor free farrowing systems. Calculations based on figures from the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board show that total piglet mortalities—stillbirths and pre-weaning mortalities combined—have been lower in outdoor systems than indoor ones in 19 out of the past 20 years. A large-scale study by E. M. Baxter looked at the role of farrowing crates and found that designed free farrowing pens had the lowest pig mortality rate, at just 16.6%. That was followed by outdoor systems, at 17%, and farrowing crates, at 18.3%. Indoor group multi-suckling systems had the highest piglet mortality, at 23.7%. Farrowing crates clearly appear to be worse for piglet mortality than free farrowing pens.
Now is the time to work with the industry to find a way forward that protects both piglets and sows, supports our farmers during the transition, and ensures that those farmers remain competitive. I know our great British farmers want the best for their animals—in fact, there is no one better qualified or driven than a farmer to look after our animals. Their expertise, care, and commitment to the welfare of animals is second to none. Anything done in this space must be done with farmers, not to farmers. The Government must use their new-found Brexit freedom to support our farmers in transitioning from the cage age, ensuring that they are not undercut by those who continue to use cages.
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
When we banned veal crates in the United Kingdom, we thought we had solved the problem. In fact, all we did was deny British farmers an advantage, because those veal crates were used on the continent and we then imported the product. The difference now is that post Brexit, we can prevent those imports, so does my hon. Friend agree that there is now no excuse for not banning crates?
Matt Vickers
That is an incredibly valuable point, and one that I am sure the Minister will respond to. We can now determine the future of those crates ourselves, which I think is wonderful.
It is up to the Government to work with the sector to ensure that an informed and achievable transition plan is put in place, and to support farmers financially through the subsidy scheme to meet transition and capital costs. Both the Minister and the Prime Minister have outlined an ambition to ban the use of farrowing crates for sows. In May 2021, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs published an action plan for animal welfare that committed to examine the use of crates for pigs and cages for laying hens, and in March 2022, a response to a written parliamentary question confirmed that the Government plan to consult on the issue. I hope the Minister can confirm when that consultation will begin.
I am proud of the steps that the Government have already taken to ensure that our animal welfare standards are the best in the world, and I am delighted that great British farmers strive to reach—and, in fact, maintain—very high standards for animal husbandry. I hope this debate can help to progress that cause and result in happy chickens, happy pigs and happy farmers.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers) for his comprehensive introduction.
In advance of the debate, I was contacted by a number of constituents who expressed their disappointment that there was nothing in the Queen’s Speech about the sort of animal welfare reforms that will be the main part of our discussion today. They told me that, as we have heard, DEFRA’s action plan for animal welfare, published over a year ago, said that the Government are committed to issuing a consultation. We have heard that that will be on its way shortly, but the action plan also stated that
“we will introduce other reforms to improve farm welfare, including examining the use of cages for laying hens and farrowing crates for pigs.”
A year on, we are still waiting for that action.
Every year that passes without action means that millions more animals are kept in unnatural and often distressing conditions that we ought to be shamed into doing something about. I hope we will hear today about substantial progress, because some of the conditions are awful. I have heard about cages that are so small that pregnant mothers are unable to turn around and move for four or five weeks once a litter is born. Even DEFRA recognises that these conditions can restrict a sow’s normal behaviour, including nesting behaviour.
We know that the European Commission plans to ban cages for all farmed animals, hopefully by 2027. Significantly for us, it will also look to prohibit the import of food from caged systems. We no longer have to automatically follow what the EU is doing, but we ought to be using our new-found freedoms to go further and faster than the EU so that we can genuinely say that we are the world leader in animal welfare. Let us do that rather than go the other way.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
Further to that point about our new-found freedom, many of my constituents voted to leave the European Union in order to enhance our animal welfare standards. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when we introduce new animal welfare legislation, we must ensure that we do not repeat the mistake, which my right hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) mentioned, of looking only at the domestic position and outsourcing poor practice to other countries? If we introduce a ban, we must ensure that we do not enable poor practice via imports.
Justin Madders
The hon. Member makes an important point. That should be said not just for animal welfare standards but for environmental standards and employment protections, all of which we used to have on a clear level from the EU.
Three out of four UK adults back a ban on the use of cages for breeding game birds, and a large coalition of animal welfare charities also backs a ban on cages. As I mentioned, the EU is the largest export market for UK farmers, so I hope we all agree that there is an economic case here as well as a moral one. If we are truly to call ourselves a progressive nation of animal lovers, we must phase out this outdated and cruel practice. The lack of action over the last year paints a very different picture from the commitment to keeping these reforms on the go.
The use of cages for breeding game birds should be also banned. Wider action against cages in farming should include the breeding of game birds to end cruelty and provide consistency across species. Figures from the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust show that more than 60 million non-native pheasants and partridges are released every year in the UK to be shot for sport. Many of these birds are bred in the UK using factory-style farming and raised laying cages.
Breeding birds are often kept in small wire cages for much of their breeding lives. As we have heard, those cages are incredibly small. They provide approximately 0.0011% of the space that a pheasant would typically enjoy in the wild, and 0.00004% of the space that a partridge would enjoy. We would not tolerate that for a dog or a cat, so why should we tolerate it for game birds?
Given the semi-wild nature of pheasants and partridges, the cramped conditions of the cages cause stress and injury, including painful open foot sores, exposure to extreme temperatures and injury caused by escape attempts. Aggression is also a common sign of stress in these birds, which can result in self-injury or injury to other birds. Given the conditions they are kept in, that is hardly surprising. It is also hardly surprising that most people, when told about these conditions, agree that as a nation of animal lovers we should not allow those kinds of things to happen.
I hope that we get agreement and acceptance from the Minister that this kind of treatment of any animal should be consigned to history, and that there is a clear road map and timetable for that to happen as soon as possible.
Sir Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
I am quite concerned about what is going on here today. I do not think anybody wants to defend sow stalls or enriched cages, but we need considerably more detail and honesty. The 16 million “animals” that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers) referred to are all chickens—well, there are 200,000 pigs—so realistically, this is not exactly about “animals”; the petitioners could have put “birds”.
We saw one of the most infuriating attacks on poultry during the avian influenza outbreak: all free-range chickens were put inside, and no free-range eggs were available in our shops. There was not one campaign about that appalling treatment of poultry. It is entirely understandable why the Government insisted on locking up our chickens, but there was a real welfare issue and we heard not a squeak.
The same applies to all the other things we are dealing with here. My hon. Friend made a lovely speech, but 180,000 extra piglets will die if those crates are not used. That may be acceptable, but it is part of the story. The real problem is that unless the farmer can make a decent living—unless agriculture is profitable—he cannot undergo those kinds of losses, yet that is what we want.
We need to be much more honest about this issue. When we go to Tesco and see bacon from Brookfield Farm, it is coming from Denmark; it is not British-produced. When we get a letter about game birds, we should be aware that most of the game birds released in this country are bred in France. Because of the avian influenza over there, there has been a massive shortage of eggs and chicks. That is because the French reacted differently.
A lot of this animal welfare debate needs to be focused on truth and accuracy, and on the points my hon. Friends made earlier about what we import. We cannot expect to have better animal welfare if we do not honestly and accurately tell the truth about it to each other.
Sir Roger Gale
I have listened with wry amusement to my hon. Friend, who I think I am right in saying is a Brexiteer. One of the advantages—some might argue the only advantage—of leaving the European Union was that we were going to be able to exercise control over what came into the United Kingdom. I argued vociferously for a long time that we should not disadvantage our own farming community by putting up costs in a way that prevented them from making a living in competition with, for example, Denmark on pigs. Now that we have left the European Union, we have the power to say that we will not allow into the United Kingdom a product that has been produced under circumstances that we would not permit here. That is what we are asking for. I hope that my hon. Friend understands that.
Sir Bill Wiggin
How could I not understand? My right hon. Friend was crystal clear. However, I am not sure it is quite as straightforward as we would like. He will be aware that people in dinghies are coming into his constituency. We have not quite got the hang of border control yet, but I hope that we will in due course.
In respect of this debate, there are wider problems. The biggest problem for pig farmers is the foot and mouth outbreak we suffered in 2001. The best thing to do with pigs is feed them waste food. Until we can get back to doing that, it will always be difficult for our pig farmers to make a margin, but I agree with my right hon. Friend that it would be wonderful if we could stop other people doing horrible things to animals. Unfortunately, he also supports the ban on foxhunting, which led to the complete eradication of my chickens. There are balances to be had in the countryside, and we need honesty in this debate.
The more accurate we can be, the better. For example, 55% of UK egg production is free range. It is only 9.1% in Spain and 4.9% in Italy, so we are actually doing an extremely good job in this country. We should be supporting our farmers rather than criticising them, particularly for things that are going on abroad.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers) for opening today’s debate, and the near 110,000 members of the public who took the time to sign e-petition 593775. We should acknowledge that it is the not the first petition on this issue, and one containing a similar call to action received over 100,000 signatures back in 2019.
I have said many times before that animal welfare is an issue on which I always receive a high number of emails from my constituents, and this debate has been no exception. One hundred or so of my constituents have signed the petition, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to represent them here this afternoon. I thank the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Compassion in World Farming for their informative, interesting and useful briefings.
Before I get into the main content of my speech, I want to take a moment to recognise the ten-minute rule Bill brought forward by the late Sir David Amess last spring: the Pig Husbandry (Farrowing) Bill, which would have prohibited the use of farrowing crates by 2027. Animal welfare was one of Sir David’s most passionately pursued causes, and I am sure we all agree that if the Government agree to changes in caged animal law, his contribution to so many debates and campaigns will have been a significant driving force.
The petition text highlights some of the key issues well, but there is an important specific point: caged animals have a low quality of life. They are cooped up, their movement is restricted, and they are left unable to exhibit their natural behaviours. It is unnecessarily distressing for the animals and causes suffering when it need not. The European Commission intends to ban farm animals from being caged by 2027, and is considering imposing restrictions on imports from cage systems. In fact, several European countries have already proactively banned cage systems. The petition is correct in its statement that, by not doing the same, the UK will fall behind the EU in animal welfare standards, creating further issues for future trade.
Battery cages for laying hens were outlawed across the EU, including in the UK, a decade ago. Unfortunately, along with most of Europe, we continue to allow enriched cages. Although they are better than battery cages, they are still too small for the birds inside them—the size of an A4 sheet of paper. The lack of space severely restricts the birds’ natural movements, and they are not able to run, fly or even flap their wings. The restriction on physical exercise has real health impacts, leading to bone weakness or osteoporosis. The RSPCA puts the number of laying hens in enriched cages at around 14 million, or approximately 35% of the UK’s total supply chain.
Luxembourg and Austria have already outlawed enriched cages, and Germany and Slovakia have committed to a ban in the near future. France announced five years ago that all shell eggs sold in supermarkets would be free range by this year. Further afield, Taiwan is beginning the process of phasing out cages. The removal of hen cages has huge support, with large national brands such as Nestlé and Nando’s supporting calls for the Government to introduce legislation. Another petition on change.org is closing in on 100,000 signatures.
When we go into supermarkets and do our weekly shop, we should not have to keep an eye out for free-range eggs. It should not have to be something that businesses point to as a mark of their animal welfare morals; it should be the norm. Every egg should be free range and there should be no laying hens confined to cages in the UK. With the cost of living crisis currently hitting families hard, there should be no disparity in the cost of free-range and caged-hen eggs. Retailers have a responsibility to allow the public to make the ethical choices they would like to. The RSPCA’s animal welfare index reported no evidence that income was related to the animal welfare considerations that people make when purchasing their food. It should not cost more to make the ethical choice.
We have to consider the impact on the farming industry too, bearing in mind the evidence that consumers are willing to support free range and higher animal welfare standards, even when there is sometimes an increase in cost. Retailers such as Aldi, Lidl, Marks & Spencer and Sainsbury’s stock RSPCA-assured products, such as eggs and pork, showing the retail willingness to support the farming industry in that movement. Most importantly for farmers is the impact a potential EU ban would have on their ability to trade. It would be economically damaging and the work to mitigate that must start now.
I have said in previous animal welfare debates that the Government set out an ambitious agenda with their animal welfare action plan, and they have said consistently that they are committed to high standards of animal welfare in the UK. That is why it seems contradictory to overlook important areas of policy such as the use of cages. I recognise the past few years have seen improvements to farm animal welfare in the UK. I also recognise the publication of the animal health and welfare programme, and the announcement of a forthcoming public consultation, and I hope the Minister can update us on the timings. The Scottish Government have also committed to a consultation this year on phasing out caged animals. It is an area in which the UK must continue to show its ambition and commitment. The public have made their view resoundingly clear for years.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard, and to follow excellent speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers) and the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier). I thank all those who have taken the time to sign the petition.
I am here today to make the case for a managed transition away from the use of cages in farming. We have heard about the harm caused by the kind of intensive farming that deploy those methods. I am worried about enriched cages in which laying hens may have little more space than a A4 sheet of paper. As RSPCA research shows, such systems restrict natural behaviour such as wing flapping, running and dust bathing. Constraints on the ability to move around compromise welfare and can contribute to bone weakness and osteoporosis. With all UK supermarkets either having stopped selling eggs from caged hens or committed to do so, now is the time to set the timetable for an end to enriched cages.
I appreciate we have to take that forward in a viable and sustainable way for the farming sector. I hear the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South on getting the facts clear. At a time of inflation we must take care not to do anything to cause pressure on food prices. The Government have now started delivery of their new farm support system. When the Minister responded to the previous debate on this issue, she emphasised that improved animal health and welfare were an important goal for environmental land management. This debate demonstrates that we need an ELM scheme that is focused on higher welfare standards in the poultry sector. That is one of the ways we can smooth the way for the ban on cages that so many of our constituents want to see happen. Many major companies are backing the campaign, including Nestlé and Greggs. Over 75% of the restaurant sector have committed to going cage free in the eggs that they buy.
The fact that countries such as Switzerland and Germany have banned enriched cages shows that there are economically viable ways to do that. The Government promised to look at the issue in their 2021 action plan on animal welfare, so let us see the consultation published to take us closer to the day when we ban cages for laying hens.
We must also see the same urgency given to the replacement of farrowing crates, as called for by the late Sir David Amess in Westminster Hall in 2020. I accept that there are delicate factors to balance if we are to safeguard both the sow and her young, but there are commercially available free-farrowing systems that give the sow room to move while protecting her piglets.
How do we make such systems financially viable for our producers? The Government have stated their ambition to end the use of farrowing crates. They have done so several times, with even the Prime Minister stating it. Again, I ask for a clear plan from the Government, working with farmers, to reach the goal that they have set themselves.
Sir Roger Gale
Does my right hon. Friend endorse entirely the view that that has to be done in a managed way, so that the impact is not catastrophic overnight? Does she agree that, in tandem with that, if we are to go down this road, we must ensure that we start to control the import of products produced in conditions that we would not allow in this country?
Theresa Villiers
Indeed. I have been clear that I do not believe that we should allow our own producers to be driven out of business by competition from lower-welfare imports. That should be a much bigger priority in our trade policy than it is at the moment. I urge the Minister to raise these matters with the International Trade Secretary.
In fact, I was about to come on to that point. Whether it is cages or crates, we have to ensure that the rules we impose domestically are reflected in our international trade rules. It is important to ensure that our farmers can compete on a level playing field and that they are not driven out of business by low-welfare competition from overseas.
The Government have a strong record on animal welfare. Our animal-welfare commitments are more wide-ranging than those in any winning manifesto of any party. We have introduced measures such as CCTV in slaughterhouses; we have banned third-party sales of puppies; we have increased the maximum sentence for animal cruelty; we are delivering compulsory microchipping for pet cats; we have introduced one of the toughest ivory bans in the world; and soon, I hope, we will become the first European country to ban the live export of animals for slaughter or fattening. Let us strengthen that record still further by listening to the petitioners today, who want to see an end of the cage age.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I extend my thanks to the hon. Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers) for the tone and content of how he opened the debate.
The decision as to whether we permit farm animals to be kept in cages is not a party political issue, and nor should it be. I am sure that the almost 110,000 signatories to the petition come from a whole cross-section of the population, with a whole range of different political affiliations and none, as is the case today in this Chamber. That should surprise none of us, since animal welfare clearly matters a great deal to the vast majority of the population and certainly to the vast majority of my constituents in North Ayrshire and Arran. Some 78% of people across the UK oppose factory-farming practices, such as breeding chickens to grow unnaturally fast and keeping large numbers of animals inside crowded facilities as a means of producing affordable food.
We should all instinctively recoil from putting a sentient being into a cage. To put animals in cages deprives them of expressing their natural behaviours and can only cause them suffering. Yet across the UK, as we have heard, millions of farmed animals are kept in cages, so it really is time to end the cage age once and for all.
If we look to our European neighbours, we see that banning the caging of farm animals is set to come into force, potentially by 2027, and they are also seeking to ban the import of food from caged systems, which is a critical point, as we have heard this afternoon. As the Brexit debate raged on, I recall that Minister after Minister came to the main Chamber and indeed to TV studios to proclaim confidently that leaving the EU would mean that the UK could forge ahead with improved animal welfare. Yet now, unless we get cracking, the UK is set to lag behind the EU, with the EU banning the import of food from caged systems, which will have further implications for our farming exports. Therefore, instead of falling behind, across the UK we should be working to secure a ban on farrowing crates for sows and individual calf pens.
In their programme for Government for 2021-22, the Scottish Government committed to starting consultation this year on proposals to
“phase out cages for gamebirds and laying hens, and farrowing crates for pigs.”
In its 2021 manifesto for the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish National party committed
“to shifting to entirely free range, woodland or barn chicken and egg production”,
as well as promising to
“modernise and update the Animal Welfare Act from 2006”
and to implementing new livestock legislation. I urge the UK Government to mirror those actions. We know that the action we want to see cannot happen overnight; we have already heard that. However, we need to get on with the transition that we all want to happen.
Scotland’s agriculture sector has some of the highest standards in the world and it is really important that those standards are not sacrificed for trade deals with countries with lower standards. This matters not only for animal welfare, important though it is, but for the quality of our food supply. For example, a wealth of scientific evidence demonstrates that hen welfare is compromised in cages. That is why all the UK’s main supermarkets have either stopped selling eggs from caged hens or have committed to doing so by 2025. In addition, companies such as Burger King and Tim Hortons have announced that they, with all their worldwide locations, will stop sourcing eggs and egg products from caged hens by 2025 in 92% of their markets, and by 2030 for the remaining 8%.
Businesses that survive and thrive do so because they give their customers what they want. What consumers want is more ethical and more humane treatment of animals, which means no caging and as little suffering as possible. If businesses can respond to consumer demand, then Government can do so too—indeed, they should do so.
However, vitally, even if we set the very highest standards for our own agriculture sector, we cannot allow, as many Members have already said, those standards to be undercut by imports from countries that have lower standards, including caging animals, which would cause a race to the bottom. For example, we know that barren battery cages, which were banned in the UK in 2012, are legal in Australia, as are sow stalls, which were banned in the UK in 1999. There is clearly no point banning a practice in the UK because it is cruel and inhumane yet allowing that cruelty to be outsourced, so that the product of this poor regard for animal welfare is still allowed to land on our supermarket shelves, whether it is eggs, meat or any other food produce.
The EU has taken a lead on banning cage systems; the UK Government must follow that lead. The SNP Scottish Government will work and seek to work collaboratively with the UK Government to ensure that animal welfare legislation within the remit of the UK system is of the highest possible standards. We in the SNP will continue to press the UK Government hard not to undercut domestic farmers in trade deals with distant lands that treat animals in a way that we know the people of the UK strongly disapprove of.
As the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) and others have pointed out, this is a very important matter, and it requires the UK Government to ask some hard, searching questions about trade deals. That is a critical point that the Minister will be keen to address. I know that she is listening, and I really hope she heeds these calls, for the sake of animal welfare, the quality of our food and our agricultural sector as a whole.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I join Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers), who introduced the debate in a very measured way. I also thought he was very brave to mentioned Peppa Pig in his introduction. He set the scene very effectively for a debate on what is a large petition, with over 100,000 signatures. I congratulate Compassion in World Farming and others on securing such support. We know that the support is widespread across the country. I very much enjoyed addressing the rally by Compassion in World Farming outside Parliament last week. It demanded that the Government get on with ending the live export of animals. I will return to that issue.
We had a very similar debate on this issue just over two years ago in Westminster Hall. Members might reflect on whether much has changed in that time. I am sure the Minister would be keen to say that much has, but I am not sure that it has. I reflect on the very powerful contribution made by Sir David Amess that day. It was the most powerful contribution in that debate, I think. He made a plea to move things forward.
Members have noted that there have been improvements over the past few decades. We have seen the end of barren battery cages, veal cages for calves and sow stalls for pigs, but we still have a long way to go. Every year, we keep around 16 million farmed animals in cages. There are alternatives. I thought some of the points made by Government Members were very interesting. There is clearly not a settled position on the Government side on trade policy on this issue. There is absolutely no point making improvements here if we just export cruelty elsewhere. There is also no point introducing measures that our industry cannot cope with. That is why we must make changes in a sensible, measured way.
I thought the point made by the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), was powerful. These are not easy issues. There are easy slogans, but these are hard issues. Those who saw the article in The Times on Saturday will see that the current Secretary of State is perhaps at odds with other members of the Government on this. It is an ongoing discussion. There can be no solution to this problem unless we can work with others.
I will not repeat a lot of the statistics that have been mentioned about egg-laying hens. These points are probably the same ones that I and others made two years ago and which others have made today. It is interesting to see the supermarkets moving in response to consumer demand, but it is not just the retail sector that uses eggs, and not all supermarkets have come to the same conclusion.
When consumers are hard pressed, price does matter. There is no point denying that. There are extra costs, particularly at a time when we are suffering huge problems with avian flu, which has created difficulties for the sector. Earlier this afternoon, I was talking to people in the industry, who warned me that some egg producers are within weeks of having to make some big decisions. That is bad for them, but it is also bad for us, because later in the year there is a risk that we will suddenly not have a regular supply of eggs. These are complicated questions.
Tracey Crouch
Does the hon. Member agree that as the UK continues to be gripped by the cost of living crisis, it is really important that retailers—especially ones that pride themselves on offering less expensive food—embrace the drive to be cage-free, so that all consumers can benefit from better welfare standards?
Daniel Zeichner
Indeed. That goes to the heart of some of the difficult issues in the supply chains. It is also the case that the Groceries Code Adjudicator has seen more claims in recent times because of the pressure in the supply chain. We can all understand that. It goes back to some fairly basic questions about how we address rising energy prices, but that is a debate for another day. The knock-on effect through sectors like this is very real. I fear that it will be difficult for some in the supply chain. We have problems in the poultry sector, but we have also seen huge problems in the pig sector over the last year or two. The Minister and I have exchanged strong words about this many times at the Dispatch Box.
Leaving aside the issue of the cages, some of the ways in which we have had to cull healthy pigs are not great, nor are some of the conditions that pigs have had to be kept in, as they get too big for the space. There are problems throughout the sectors. We have heard about the problems with cages, and the distress that that can cause by stopping pigs engaging in out their natural behaviours, such as nesting. I have been on pig farms and must say, when I see biting behaviour, it worries me, because they are clearly intelligent animals and, sometimes, they are stressed.
The cages can lead to higher stress levels, longer farrowing durations and higher stillbirth rates. Again, I understand the arguments from the industry about why it thinks it needs those things to prevent the deaths of piglets by accidental crushing. However, I hear what other Members have said, and when I look at the evidence, it seems that there are other ways of doing it in other places, and I think that we must move on to loose-housing systems.
In passing, I would mention the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) and others about the fact that other countries are moving forward on these issues. The EU’s 2027 target may be optimistic, but I think that there is sometimes a danger that Government Members that the world is standing still out there—it is not. The automatic assumption is that we will be in a better place—not necessarily. It would be sensible, I would say, to move at a similar pace, because then some of these problems could be resolved sensibly.
There are also, of course, concerns about calf pens. Although veal crates are banned, young calves can still be kept in solitary caged hutches for the first eight weeks of their lives, as soon as they have been taken away from the mother cow. The logic for that is said to be that young calves are highly susceptible to disease. I was on one of my local farms the other day and witnessed exactly that. However, again, it is pretty clear that cattle are social animals, and there is evidence that calves are more stressed and fearful when caged individually in that way so soon after birth. There is also research that shows that housing calves in pairs leads to a number of positive outcomes without compromising health or production, so there are things that can and should be done.
We have also heard that cages are not only used for animals farmed for food. The issue of the millions of pheasants and partridges that are mass-produced to be shot still raises serious issues and concerns for many of us. Our worry is that they live in so-called raised laying cages that can be left outside, exposed to the elements and to extremes of temperature, with the birds suffering from feather loss, scalping and injuries inflicted by their stressed cage mates.
The regulatory system for that seems not to be up to date. The current code of practice for the welfare of game birds reared for sporting purposes is, I am told, not legally binding, and was due to be reviewed a few years ago, but that did not take place. I am also told that the Minister has indicated, in response to parliamentary questions, that the Government are examining the use of cages for game birds, so I am sure that she will be able to confirm that. As an observation, there seems to be a lot of examining going on in the Department these days; we need action rather than examining. Will the Minister confirm that, as previously stated, DEFRA will be calling for evidence later this year as part of the investigation into the welfare of game birds?
The Opposition watch these developments with some interest. Two years ago, when we were scrutinising through the Agriculture Bill we tabled a number of amendments to increase the maximum stocking density for chickens reared in barns and to end the use of sow-farrowing crates. We did so again in the Committee that scrutinised the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill. Sadly, the Government chose not to support those amendments, but I am rather hoping that, over time, they will come round to our way of thinking. The Kept Animals Bill seems to be a little delayed, I think it is fair to say.
The Minister for Farming, Fisheries and Food (Victoria Prentis)
indicated dissent.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
The Minister is shaking her head. In that case, I am sure that she can give us a good timetable. That will come as a relief to many of us. It has been carried over; let us hope that we see it soon. As has been said by many others, we need action now to bring an end to the cage age.
It is also vital that we ensure that any domestic production of animal products, produced through higher welfare, cage-free standards, is not simply undercut and replaced by imports from countries that still use lower-welfare cage systems. Any conversation with farmers at the moment leads very quickly to their concerns about being undercut in trade deals. I think we may be discussing this issue again later in the week but, to our eyes, the Government’s long-delayed national food strategy failed to include proper protections for imported food. Henry Dimbleby, the author of the Government inquiry that was set up a few years ago, said:
“Yet again the government has ducked the issue of how we don’t just import food that destroys the environment and is cruel to animals—we can’t create a good fair farming system, then export those harms abroad. I thought the government would address this but it didn’t.”
Well, perhaps the Minister can do so today.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman is making excellent points, which are echoed by the many emails I have had from constituents on this issue. Does he agree that when food is produced much further away from where it is eaten, trying to interrogate animal welfare standards becomes almost impossible for consumers and shops?
Daniel Zeichner
The hon. Lady raises a very important question, and one of the challenges of the years and decades ahead will be to try to resolve these conundrums. The Opposition feel strongly that the more we can produce food closer to home, the better off we will be.
Although I appreciate that there are concerns about the impact that increasing animal welfare standards could have on food prices—particularly at the moment, when many households are struggling with sky-high inflation—the fact is that, as set out in Dimbleby’s report, our food system is not working. It fails animals, it fails the environment and often it fails the consumer. In our view, the national food strategy has not addressed those issues. We want to see the Government work with the food sector to ensure that we can improve animal welfare without pushing up the cost for consumers. As I said two years ago, we need rock-solid commitments that ending the use of cages on our farms is a priority for the Government, and we need proper detail on how they plan to do that through a proper farming policy.
The Government have stated on numerous occasions their aspiration for the UK to become the global leader in farm animal welfare, and they really could embrace a cage-free future now. I ask the Minister to explain why this suffering should be allowed to continue, and why the Government have consistently kicked the can down the road when it comes to ending the cage age.
The Minister for Farming, Fisheries and Food (Victoria Prentis)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I, too, thank the Petitions Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers), and all the people who signed the petition and enabled us to debate this important subject.
I agree with the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) that these are not easy issues to resolve. I think everybody in this room shares the goal of working to improve animal welfare, but we also live in a world where we are conscious that such improvements may increase the price of production of our food. I am committed, as are the Government, to working with producers and the food sector to raise standards across the board, and it is important that we set my remarks in that context.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South introduced the debate very well by emphasising that we need to work with, not against, the farming industry. I hope that my remarks will give him some reassurance on that. My hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Sir Bill Wiggin) called for honesty in the debate, which is critical. Many of us do not really know what we are eating or where it comes from, and nobody could have lobbied me more heavily than he did on behalf of chickens during the winter. There is nothing about his now sadly demised flock of chickens that I do not know, and I am sorry that they spent their final winter housed because of avian influenza.
I reassure my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) that improved animal health and welfare is integrated into all our farming schemes. There is very good news—I would be delighted to discuss it with her in greater detail—on the vet visits that are being rolled out next year, which will specifically target cattle, sheep and pigs. Those will be a good way to provide farmers and vets with a safe space to have a discussion that is not reported to me or the Department afterwards, and they will lead to some really sensible and long-term improvements in the health of the national flock.
I reassure the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) that animal welfare is right up the agenda when it comes to forging trade deals. I think everyone in this Chamber is of one mind that animal welfare is important and needs to be improved. Most of us are also aware that this is an extremely challenging time for Britain’s farmers, with enormously increased input costs—of food, fuel and fertiliser—affecting almost all production systems to a greater or lesser extent.
The UK has a strong record of banning battery cages for laying hens, sow stalls for pigs and veal crates for calves. What have the Government been doing in recent years? The Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 was given Royal Assent in April, and provides legal recognition that animals are sentient, and that general Government decision making should continue to reflect that sentience. The Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021 increased the maximum sentence for the worst animal cruelty offences from six months to five years in England and Wales. The Animals (Penalty Notices) Act 2022 will, I hope, support transparent enforcement and encourage good behaviours in husbandry generally.
I reassure everyone here that the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill remains a priority for the Government. As soon as the business managers can find us time in a busy parliamentary schedule, we expect a date on which we will debate the Bill on Report. That Bill will, alongside other measures, deal with the issue of excessively long journeys for slaughter and fattening. As I have discussed with Members in the Chamber whose names I will not mention for fear of giving their age away, many of us have been committed to campaigning to end animal exports since we watched those pictures on “Blue Peter” as children.
I am pleased to say that moving away from cages is the direction of travel for the egg industry, so 60% of our hens are now kept in free-range systems. Supermarkets are playing their part, with the major supermarkets pledging to stop selling eggs from the remaining 40% of hens in colony cages by 2025. Some supermarkets and other retailers have gone further to extend that pledge to include processed products; that is to be welcomed.
So what is the plan? We are almost ready to go with a consultation on the caging of laying hens, but we must recognise that the transition must be done with, rather than against, the industry. As we move away from cages, we need to continue to work with the industry on improving feather cover and keel bone health, and reducing the amount of beak trimming that is done. The challenges for the sector in recent times—covid, staffing and, of course, the largest ever avian influenza outbreak—have been significant, but we will continue to take steps forward.
Broiler chickens perhaps do not fall quite so neatly into this debate, but they comprise a significant proportion of the animals reared in this country, so it is important to recognise that almost all of them—nearly 95%—are reared in barns, in confinement. Although we have better stocking densities than much of the EU, there is a great deal more to do in this area, some of which I will set out later.
As the hon. Member for Cambridge acknowledged, it has been an extremely difficult year for pig farmers. When we look at welfare in global pig systems, some 40% of our pigs are kept outdoors, so those sows have outdoor farrowing systems. The pig sector also gives us the clearest evidence of what happens when we ban a system without having a plan to help the industry through it. The ban on sow stalls 23 years ago led to a 40% decline in the UK’s pig production statistics, which, truthfully, we have never recovered from.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) and my right hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) put this point extremely clearly: we must not offshore our animal welfare harms, because that would do the pig world as a whole no good at all. There are difficulties—we are bound by World Trade Organisation rules, of course—but active work is being done to establish how, if we banned a system here, we could ban imports from that system. We are working hard on that, but these things are not easy.
Sir Bill Wiggin
It would be much easier if we had honesty in food labelling, because then at least as consumers we can make a choice.
Victoria Prentis
I will get to that point.
Our consultation on pig farrowing crates is not quite ready, particularly the impact assessment on costs, and this is an industry that has really struggled over the past year. The consultation is still being worked on and clearly further work is needed. I am very much in touch with the pig industry, as we come through what has been a very difficult period. We continue to work collectively to try to solve its problems. We are also in the middle of a serious supply chain review, looking at how contracts could be made to work better for the industry as a whole.
In order to raise standards, it is important that we have other tools at our disposal; it is not just about banning systems. I very much refute the allegation that no action has been taken over the past two years. It is important that we put this in context, because probably not since the last major period of rationing have a Government been so involved in ensuring that the food supply system remained operational, and that good-quality food was available on the shelves. I absolutely refute the suggestion that nothing has been done.
Our action plan for animal welfare was published in May last year, when we committed to working with the farming sector to support higher welfare conditions. The animal health and welfare pathway is being used to raise standards all the time, not just through banning things, but through a three-pronged attack. It states that financial rewards will be available for farmers who use higher welfare systems. It also sets out a plan for stimulating market demand—that is the labelling point—and, working hand in hand with that, for strengthening the regulatory baseline.
On pigs specifically, through the animal health and welfare pathway we will continue to improve biosecurity in order to control endemic diseases, and of course the vet visits will help in that area.
On meat chickens, through the pathway we are encouraging producers to implement the Better Chicken commitment, which requires the use of slower growing breeds and lower stocking densities. Only 5% of chickens are produced to higher standards. Frankly, we all need to interrogate where our meat comes from.
Labelling obviously plays an important part in enabling consumers to interrogate where our meat comes from, and we know that it works to stimulate market demand for higher welfare products, as we have seen with shell eggs. We have issued a call for evidence on animal welfare labelling, and last week affirmed our commitment to working on this issue in the food strategy. The food data transparency partnership will help, because the way we work with retailers is critical to changing their behaviours and forcing change from the consumer end up.
In conclusion, the Government are committed to phasing out confinement systems and supporting the industry to do so, not least to underpin UK food security. However, we need to work carefully and sensitively with the pig and poultry industries, which are both struggling with some difficult input costs and other challenges at the moment.
Matt Vickers
I thank the Minister. It is good that she recognises the impact of the cost of living; the need to ensure processed eggs, as well as shelled eggs, are included in any changes; the challenges that have faced the sector; and the fact that the solution lies in working with farmers, rather than against them, to ensure we do not offshore our farming. I thank her for the work to ensure that we continue to proudly lead the world on animal welfare. I welcome that the consultation is imminent, and the commitment to end the confinement of our animals.
I pay tribute to the many hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) spoke of the need to include game birds in any ban and the need for urgent action. My hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Sir Bill Wiggin)—the chicken ambassador himself—contributed with his usual vigour and authority. He said that we must ensure that farms remain profitable and competitive, that interests must be balanced, and that we need to be honest in the debate.
The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) spoke of the great interest shown by her constituents in the subject, and of their love of animals. She paid tribute to the amazing Sir David Amess, and spoke of the international context of our legislative position. I did not realise that Nando’s is on board—I will go there more regularly.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) spoke about the need for a smooth and balanced transition, and the urgent need for the consultation. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) talked about the need to maximise the freedoms we have gained from Brexit and to ensure that our farmers are not undercut by imports.
The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) said that customers want the measures called for in the petition, and spoke of the need to continue our role as world leaders on animal welfare. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) spoke about the history and nature of this ongoing debate, both here and in our supermarkets and supply chains.
I thank all the petitioners and animal welfare organisations for ensuring that the welfare of our animals remains firmly on the agenda of this House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 593775, relating to the use of cages for farmed animals.
Written Statements
UK Conformity Assessed Marking Regime: Support for Business
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
I am pleased to announce that the Government are going further to make it easier and cheaper for businesses to move to the new UKCA product regulation regime.
Our new UKCA regime gives us the chance to take control of the way products are regulated and ensure these rules work to the benefit of business and consumers in Great Britain. The UKCA marking will become mandatory for most goods which previously used the CE and reverse epsilon markings if they are first placed on the market in Great Britain after 31 December 2022.
The Government understand that moving to this new regime has meant changes for businesses. While change is necessary, we want to take a pragmatic approach. We have been consulting with industry to understand their key concerns in the transition to the UKCA marking regime.
The Government want to make it easier for businesses to comply with the changes so we will introduce four measures to further support businesses adopting UKCA. These measures are designed to reduce compliance burdens and prevent costs that could be passed on to consumers. These changes will apply to BEIS sectors requiring the UKCA marking, other Departments will make related announcements on arrangements for their sectors as required in due course. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is making a UKCA announcement in conjunction with BEIS today, as indicated below.
These measures are as follows:
Government will reduce re-testing costs for UKCA certification, by allowing certificates provided by EU (European Union) conformity assessment bodies (CABs) issued before the end of this year to be used as a basis for UKCA marking certification—including a specific arrangement for construction products, via the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. This will prevent duplication and immediate increased costs for businesses.
Government will make clear there is no need to re-test existing imported stock, as these products will be considered already placed on the Great Britain (GB) market. This will prevent the costly, and unnecessary re-labelling of existing stock for businesses.
Government will make clear that spare parts that repair or replace goods already on the GB market can meet the same requirements as the goods that they repair or replace. This will allow products and goods requiring spare parts to continue to be maintained.
Government will allow the UKCA marking and importer details to be added to products using a sticky label or on an accompanying document until 31 December 2025. This will allow business to adjust their product design to accommodate marking changes at a convenient and cost-effective time.
The Government intend to lay secondary legislation before the end of the calendar year to give effect to the changes for labelling and testing. Our guidance will be updated to reflect our changes to spare parts and existing stock.
These measures are being implemented to address the concerns we have heard through working closely with industry. Officials in the Department for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy, in collaboration with other Departments, will continue to engage actively with industry and support their preparations ahead of the full introduction of UKCA rules at the end of 2022.
[HCWS113]
“Data: a new direction” Consultation: Government Response
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Media, Data and Digital Infrastructure (Julia Lopez)
On 17 June 2022, we published the Government response to the “Data: A new direction” consultation document, and in the Queen’s Speech on 10 May 2022 it was announced that a data reform Bill will be introduced in the third Session of this Parliament.
Data is the driving force of modern economies and, by removing barriers to responsible data sharing and use, we aim to become the world’s No. 1 data destination: an open, welcoming and secure environment where companies from all over the world can innovate and grow, and where responsible data usage improves people’s lives.
It is because we have left the EU that we have the opportunity to build an independent data protection regime that works in the UK’s interests. We have the regulatory freedom to simplify some of the cumbersome parts of the UK General Data Protection Regulation and reduce the barriers of responsible data use.
The new regime will also maintain the fundamental data protection principles established by the UK GDPR. The Government remain committed to ensuring continued, high data protection standards and public trust in data, both of which will continue to be at the heart of our new regime.
The consultation response sets out how we will create a new, flexible, independent regime under which the value of data can truly be maximised. By clarifying data protection rules regarding research, we can give scientists the confidence to use data responsibly and effectively, meaning greater data-driven innovations.
We will remove some of the most prescriptive but unnecessary rules in UK GDPR, which organisations currently must follow to demonstrate compliance. This will reduce the burdens on businesses by giving them the flexibility to protect personal data in ways that work most effectively for their organisations and their clients. By reducing burdens, we can make businesses more efficient and more productive.
We will also use our repatriated “adequacy” powers from the EU to remove inappropriate barriers to the flow of UK personal data overseas, so that we can support trade and scientific collaboration as well as national security and law enforcement cooperation.
We will also make sure that there is better enforcement of data protection and privacy breaches, and we will take firmer action against nuisance callers and make it easier to stop this predatory behaviour to begin with. We will also make sure that data can be used to empower people and improve their lives.
Our reforms will directly benefit the public—we will make it easier for public bodies to share data, making public healthcare, law enforcement and Government services more effective.
The consultation response also sets out reforms to the Information Commissioner’s Office—we will modernise its governance framework with an independent board and require it to take into account the impact of its activities on areas such as economic growth, innovation and competition. We will also make the ICO more accountable to the public and Parliament by setting out a range of key performance indicators and other reporting requirements.
The consultation response recognises that political parties and elected representatives frequently need to process personal data for the purposes of democratic engagement. We intend to create a clearer legal basis for such processing to occur. The intent is to allow MPs, councillors and political parties to undertake democratic engagement that they have done for decades—such as opinion surveys of local residents or targeted letters to constituents—but where GDPR has added unnecessary complexity and confusion. This builds on measures in the Data Protection Act 2018 which received broad cross-party support at the time.
The UK is firmly committed to maintaining high data protection standards, and we will continue to operate a high-quality regime that promotes growth and innovation and underpins the trustworthy use of data. EU adequacy decisions do not require an “adequate” country to have the same rules, and our view is that reform of UK legislation on personal data will be compatible with maintaining free flow of personal data from Europe.
The reforms we have set out will create a new and independent data protection regime that will confer many benefits on people, businesses and researchers, while maintaining high standards of personal data protection. The Government response to the consultation is available on www.gov.uk and I will also place a copy in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS120]
Antimicrobials: Evaluation and Purchase
(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)
The ability of bacteria—and other types of pathogen—to develop and propagate resistance to the available therapeutic drugs and medicines, such as antibiotics, used to treat them is a significant and growing threat. Alongside extensive efforts to tackle this threat, as set out in the Government’s five-year National Action Plan, we have sought to reduce the need for antibiotics. This is being achieved through both effective infection prevention and control, and through careful stewardship of the antibiotics that we have at our disposal, by reducing inappropriate prescribing. It is also essential that we incentivise the development—by pharmaceutical companies—of new antimicrobials, which has historically been challenging. To address this challenge, we committed to develop and test a new purchasing model for antimicrobials that de-links payments for antibiotics from the volumes used.
As a result, NHS England and Improvement (NHSEI), the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) launched a joint project in July 2019 to test a “subscription-style” payment for two antibiotics, basing the annual payment on a NICE-led assessment of the value of the medicines, rather than on the volumes of drugs used. On 12 April 2022, NICE published guidance estimating the value of the two antibiotics to the NHS. This guidance informed negotiations between NHSEI and the two companies to agree payment levels in the “subscription-style” contracts.
I would like to inform the House that the contracts between NHSEI and the two pharmaceutical companies have now been signed. Payments to the companies for their antibiotics, Cefiderocol—manufactured by Shionogi —and Ceftazidime with Avibactum—manufactured by Pfizer—will start on 1 July 2022.
This world-leading project represents an important development in our approach to incentivising innovation in antimicrobial drugs and in our efforts to tackle antimicrobial resistance (AMR). We will continue to build on this work to develop routine arrangements for the evaluation and purchase of new antimicrobials as they are developed. I will be writing to my counterparts in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to formally invite them to participate in these next steps, to ensure that the project can be adapted and scaled across the UK.
Maintaining momentum on our international advocacy and action on market incentives is crucial. We hope other countries will offer similar incentives in their own domestic markets, so that collectively we can achieve a meaningful incentive for global investment in antimicrobials. This project is representative of our leading role in this area, aligning with the Government’s vision for a Global Britain.
[HCWS116]
Women's Health Ambassador
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
In December 2021 when we published “Our Vision for the Women’s Health Strategy for England”, we announced that we would be appointing a Women’s Health Ambassador.
I am pleased to announce the appointment of Professor Dame Lesley Regan DBE MD DSc FRCOG as the first ever Women’s Health Ambassador for England.
The Ambassador will focus on raising the profile of women’s health, increasing awareness of taboo topics and bringing a range of collaborative voices to implement the Women’s Health Strategy. The Ambassador will develop networks across and outside Government to champion women’s health and break down stigmas which surround particular areas of women’s health, such as the menopause, endometriosis and PCOS, and mental health and wellbeing.
We will also appoint a deputy Women’s Health Ambassador to maximise the positive impacts of the role. The deputy ambassador will work collaboratively with the Women’s Health Ambassador to help increase awareness and build relationships with community groups and women and girls across the country.
Dame Lesley Regan is Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at Imperial College’s St Mary’s Hospital Campus, and Honorary Consultant in Gynaecology at the Imperial College NHS Trust. She is also Honorary Secretary of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) and the Immediate Past President (2016-2019) of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), only the second woman to ever hold this role and the first in 64 years. As President of the RCOG, she oversaw the publication of the ground-breaking Better For Women report, the findings and recommendations of which have informed the development of our Women’s Health Strategy.
When we set about recruiting the Women’s Health Ambassador, we heard from many highly qualified candidates who were interested in the role. I am very grateful for their interest in the role.
Next steps on the Women’s Health Strategy
The Women’s Health Strategy will set out an ambitious and positive new agenda to improve the health and wellbeing of women across England and reduce disparities, focusing both on the priority healthcare issues for women and key thematic priorities across the life course. I look forward to announcing the publication of the new Women’s Health Strategy shortly and to working with the new Women’s Health Ambassador to deliver real change for women in England.
[HCWS114]
HS2 Phase 2b Western Leg: Crewe to Manchester
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Andrew Stephenson)
As set out in a written ministerial statement to Parliament on 6 June 2022, the Government are today publishing a supplement to the January 2022 update to the High Speed 2 (HS2) Crewe - Manchester Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC). This supplement to the SOBC sets out the implications of removing the Golborne Link from the High Speed (Crewe - Manchester) Bill scheme.
The January 2022 update to the SOBC set out the importance of the proposed scheme in linking Manchester to the high-speed network, reducing journey times between the UK’s biggest economic regions—the south-east, midlands, and north-west—and generating much needed passenger and network capacity on the West Coast Mainline (WCML), the UK’s busiest mixed rail use corridor. It also outlined the scheme’s central role in rebalancing the UK economy by providing the platform for economic growth and regeneration in Manchester and the North West, and its importance as the strategic enabler for Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR) and the wider Integrated Rail Plan for the North and Midlands (IRP).
This scheme also included the Golborne Link, a proposed connection from the HS2 network near Hoo Green to the WCML just south of Wigan, aimed at increasing the number of HS2 services between England and Scotland.
As announced on 6 June 2022, subject to the will of Parliament, the Government no longer intend to seek powers to construct the Golborne Link as part of this Bill. As Sir Peter Hendy’s Union Connectivity Review made clear the Golborne link might not resolve all the rail capacity constraints on the West Coast Mainline between Crewe and Preston. The Government will therefore take time to consider alternatives which deliver similar benefits to Scotland as the Golborne link, so long as these deliver for the taxpayer within the £96 billion envelope allocated for the Integrated Rail Plan, and to understand the deliverability of the alternatives.
HS2 is an essential factor in achieving the transformative impact of the Government’s £96 billion Integrated Rail Plan, connecting our major cities, including connections between the North and Midlands. With other elements of the IRP, it will encourage businesses to invest beyond London while retaining ready access to the capital. It will make it easier for people to find high-wage, high-skilled jobs without having to travel south. This will help drive productivity and growth, benefiting the whole country.
A copy of the supplement to the Strategic Outline Business Case will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and made publicly accessible online.
[HCWS118]
Restoring Your Railway Update
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Wendy Morton)
Today I am pleased to announce further development funding for nine rail schemes under the restoring your railway fund. This brings communities in Yorkshire, Staffordshire, County Durham and beyond one step closer to being reconnected to the rail network, with the transformational levelling up opportunities for jobs, homes and education that public transport provides.
The restoring your railway fund is making substantial progress to restore previously closed rail lines: the £500 million commitment is supporting the development or delivery of over 45 schemes across England and Wales, and we have already reintroduced services to the Dartmoor line between Okehampton and Exeter.
I am today announcing further funding for schemes that entered restoring your railway as early-stage ideas, which have already been supported through the Fund to develop a Strategic Outline Business Case and will now be progressing further. I am also announcing funding for proposals at more advanced stages.
The nine schemes receiving further funding with the potential to level up and reconnect communities are: the Barrow Hill line between Sheffield and Chesterfield; the Ivanhoe line between Leicester and Burton on Trent; new stations at Meir in Staffordshire, Haxby in Yorkshire, Devizes in Wiltshire and Ferryhill in County Durham; Aldridge station and line upgrade in Walsall; reinstating the Fleetwood line; and the Mid Cornwall Metro scheme for services between Newquay and Falmouth.
More than 50 years since the railways were radically reshaped during the infamous Beeching cuts of the 1960s, when thousands of miles of both track and stations were closed, the restoring your railway Fund is now focused on developing and delivering the benefits of the schemes within its portfolio. If delivered, these lines and stations will make a real contribution to levelling up the country, reinvigorating high streets and breathing new life into previously cut off areas.
Alongside this announcement we are publishing a restoring your railway fund update, which sets out progress on all schemes that have received funding and will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses, as well as being publicly accessible online through the www.gov.uk website.
[HCWS117]
HGV Levy Reform Consultation
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Trudy Harrison)
My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) has made the following ministerial statement.
Today the Government are publishing a consultation on reforming the heavy goods vehicle (HGV) levy. The HGV levy has been suspended since 1 August 2020 to support the haulage sector and aid pandemic recovery efforts. Today’s consultation seeks industry views on two ways in which the levy could be reformed when the suspension ends as planned on 31 July 2023.
Firstly, the Government are considering reforming the HGV levy so that it is more reflective of the environmental performance of the vehicle. The levy would be restructured to be based on the weight of the vehicle, as an indicative proxy for carbon dioxide emissions. If this reform were carried out, the majority of UK vehicles will pay less or the same than they did before the previous levy was suspended. The alternative would be to continue with the current structure and rates.
Second, the Government are minded to reform the levy liability for foreign HGVs, such that they pay only when driving on major roads. This is to clarify that the levy design is unambiguously in line with the Government’s international obligations.
The consultation will be published on the Department for Transport website and will run for four weeks.
[HCWS115]
Office for Nuclear Regulation: Corporate Plan 2022-23
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
My noble Friend The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) has made the following written statement.
Later today I will lay before this House the Office for Nuclear Regulation corporate plan 2022-2023. This document will also be published on the ONR website.
I can confirm, in accordance with schedule 7, section 25(3) of the Energy Act 2013, that there have been no exclusions to the published documents on the grounds of national security.
[HCWS119]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Bull) (CB)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Warm Home Discount (England and Wales) 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 Warm Home Discount (England and Wales) Regulations 2022.
Relevant document: 2nd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
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 12 May.
For 11 years, the warm home discount scheme has ensured much-needed support to millions of households. Since it began, it has provided more than £3.3 billion in direct assistance to households. Primarily, this support has taken the form of direct rebates off household energy bills.
The Government committed in the 2020 energy White Paper to extend and expand the scheme and to reform it better to target households in fuel poverty. These regulations provide for that expanded and reformed warm home discount scheme in England and Wales. Under the regulations, the scheme is set to last until 2026. The regulations succeed the previous warm home discount regulations in England and Wales. The Government will lay separate regulations for an expanded warm home discount scheme in Scotland, which will be debated separately.
The regulations have six main provisions. First, the expanded annual spending envelope is set in the regulations. For winter 2022-23, the spending envelope is £474 million, rising each year thereafter. Secondly, participating energy suppliers will be obligated to provide rebates directly off the energy bills of fuel-poor households. The value of the rebates for households is set at £150—an increase of £10. This means that around 2.8 million households will receive a rebate every winter. Thirdly, the scheme will continue to provide rebates to pensioners on the lowest incomes—those in receipt of the guarantee credit element of pension credit. This “core group 1” of eligible pensioners, as it is known, has been a key feature of the scheme throughout its existence.
Fourthly, there will no longer be a “broader group” of other low-income and vulnerable households. Under the former scheme, this group was required to apply to their supplier every year for a rebate. Even if eligible, these households were not guaranteed to receive a rebate, and the criteria varied by supplier. The Government are therefore creating a “core group 2” of households on the lowest incomes and with the highest energy costs. Eligible households will be those in receipt of one of the qualifying means-tested benefits or tax credits and meeting a high energy cost threshold. These households will be identified through data matching using benefits data, property characteristics data and energy supplier customer data. The Government intend to publish a statement setting out the exact details of the eligibility, including the high-cost threshold.
Fifthly, these regulations make it mandatory for suppliers to contribute to Industry Initiatives. Industry Initiatives allow suppliers to fund other financial and energy-related measures such as financial assistance payments, debt write-off, benefit entitlement checks, energy advice and energy efficiency measures. Industry Initiatives will be set at £40 million for this winter and rise each year thereafter. The regulations also set minimum obligations and caps regarding financial assistance. This recognises the value that they provide, while ensuring that other high-value Industry Initiatives measures still receive funding.
In addition, the Government are maintaining aggregate and household-level caps on debt write-off to avoid this measure being misused to reduce bad debt. The last Industry Initiatives restriction is to limit the number of mains gas-powered boilers and central heating systems that can be installed. These will still be permitted to support particularly vulnerable customers during emergencies but will be restricted to align with the heat and buildings strategy.
Sixthly, and finally, the regulations set the thresholds for suppliers participating in the scheme. The Government are lowering the thresholds so that more suppliers participate, and to reduce the barriers to customers switching suppliers. In 2022-23, the threshold will be set at 50,000 domestic customer accounts; from 2023-24, it will be set at 1,000 accounts. This means that 99.9% of the market is covered.
The Government are expanding the scheme to provide rebates to 750,000 more households. Thanks to these reforms, the vast majority of eligible households will receive their rebates automatically, without having to apply. A small minority will be contacted and required to contact a helpline to confirm their details.
The Government’s analysis shows that, by focusing support on households on the lowest incomes, the fuel poverty targeting rate will increase to 47% overall and 560,000 more fuel-poor households will receive a rebate compared with an unreformed scheme.
The Government held a consultation on these reforms last summer and we published our response in April. The consultation responses supported extending and expanding the scheme as well as proposals for reform. The Government are proceeding with the main proposals; however, we decided to make a number of changes in light of the consultation responses. We have added housing benefit to the list of qualifying benefits, and tax credits in the eligibility criteria for core group 2. Energy suppliers will be required to provide estimates of the value and proportion of spending under industry initiatives in relation to households where a person has a disability or a health condition. This will enable the Government to monitor the level of support provided to disabled customers. The Government have removed the proposed mid-year adjustment to the Industry Initiatives budget. This risked creating significant uncertainty and delivery risks. Lastly, the Government are keeping the overall debt write-off cap under Industry Initiatives at £6 million per year.
The warm home discount remains a source of critical support for many low-income households. The regulations extend this scheme, expand the support to more households and focus that support on those most in need. I therefore commend these regulations to the Committee.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate and thank my noble friend for presenting the regulations before us, which I warmly welcome. I set out my interest on the register, as president of National Energy Action, and raise some of its concerns about these regulations—or rather, what is not in the regulations—with my noble friend and ask for his positive response.
First, I point out that the regulations were drafted at a time when the scheme was very successful, prior to the Covid crisis. I will come on to that in a moment. My first concern is that the way of selecting core group 2, to which my noble friend referred, is potentially unfair. While National Energy Action supports the guiding principle that the Government should help the worst first, the proposed methodology creates a significant risk that some households that are currently eligible for support and live on the lowest incomes could miss out on rebates, if they are falsely estimated to have lower energy costs. The new core group 2 methodology also means that you cannot access a rebate without receiving a means-tested benefit. What happens to the 50% of fuel-poor households that do not currently receive such a benefit? Have the Government considered what will happen in those circumstances?
If a household is not selected as part of core group 2 but should have been, it seems very difficult to contest the decision. The customer journey is not particularly user-friendly. How does my noble friend expect to resolve issues arising from that circumstance? National Energy Action is not convinced that the funding available through Industry Initiatives is sufficient to meet the expected demand. The way that funding has been allocated for Industry Initiatives means there is significant uncertainty about the total available pot each year. The first year of the scheme could see a reduction in funding compared to 2021-22, which does not seem sensible given the energy crisis and is surely not what the Government envisage happening.
The department has still not made amendments to the scheme to ensure that, if and when there is a supplier failure, the supplier of last resort takes on the full obligation of the failed supplier. This means that there is a risk that some obligation can be lost through the process, so that the overall number of rebates is reduced and projects that have been committed to go through industry initiatives actually go unfunded. Then, there is the significant issue that I raised earlier: the scheme was designed for good times and against that background; it was not put together with an energy crisis in mind. Although it is too late to go back to the drawing board now on the warm home discount, could not the Government look at what additional protections are necessary? Given that the Treasury has agreed one-off payments this winter, and that the crisis will outlast that support, something extra might be necessary against that background.
National Energy Action would therefore like to propose a number of things that it believes the Government could do to overcome this. One is to investigate deeper price protection or a new social tariff, which I have raised with my noble friend before. This would make energy more affordable for a discrete and well-defined set of low-income energy customers. Such a tariff must be additional to existing schemes, mandatory for all suppliers, targeted at those most in need, reduce the costs of eligible households and use auto-enrolment. It might need primary or secondary legislation so that it could sit alongside the price cap.
Secondly, will the Government consider accelerating the repayment of utility debts across the UK? This would provide financial support for households that have a debt repayment plan with their energy supplier, with government matching every pound paid by the customer with £1 of Treasury funding. This would help every indebted household, but it would cost £500 million per year.
A further proposal is accelerating the improvement of energy efficiency through three possible methods, the first of which is prioritising parliamentary time for the passage of ECO4 legislation. The second is committing the remainder of the funding promised in the Conservative Party manifesto for upgrading fuel-poor homes. Apparently, the Government have committed only £1.1 billion of the promised £2.5 billion for the home upgrade grant scheme. Committing the remainder would help more than 100,000 households to save more than £750 a year on their energy bills. The third method is setting regulatory minimum energy efficiency standards for rented properties. This would help those in the private rented sector, which has some of the leakiest housing in the UK. Despite winter temperatures being as low as they are, we probably have some of the most poorly insulated housing in the whole of northern Europe.
Finally, I would like to raise the issue of the role of the regulator, which has probably not costed in, in general, the failures of existing energy companies over this past year. Will the department consider a number of measures, such as reducing the standing charge for pre-payment users by recovering SOLR costs on a volumetric basis, and better identifying and acting on the financial vulnerability of energy consumers? Will they ensure that the costs of failed suppliers are spread over a longer period, to reduce the immediate burden on consumers? Will they reduce the wider burden of energy debt on consumers by enforcing licence obligations? Finally, will they work to ensure that all prepayment users can receive a smart meter as a priority, and perhaps have a more general debate on what the role of the regulator in this market should be?
With those specific comments, which I hope my noble friend will look on favourably, I give a warm welcome to the regulations before us.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the powerful commentary of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I declare my interest as president of the Sustainable Energy Association, and I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for a very engaging and encouraging speech at our annual reception last month.
While welcoming the new measures, I am asked to raise the position of the more than 500,000 private renters whose landlords manage their bills. When it comes to accessing the £150 the warm home discount affords, these 585,000 people may be barred from applying as they do not pay their energy supplier directly as the WHD stipulates. There is no legal requirement for landlords to pass on the energy grant to their tenants, and there seems to be a lack of guidance on how the process should be managed by landlords. By extension, this would be the case for the £400 energy grant which the Government will be offering this October. This can be a particular problem for those living in park homes, where the site owner pays for the energy supply and passes on costs to the residents. I believe Sir Peter Bottomley MP has been in touch with the Minister on this subject. Can the Minister share plans for ensuring that the warm home discount directly supports those who are in need of its help but who do not pay their suppliers directly? Will the Government be providing any guidance to enable fair management of the moneys by the landlords involved?
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, who asked excellent questions, particular the question about park homes. There are some 85,000 residents in park homes in this country, and they do not always have the sort of landlords we would like them to have. They are a big issue generally.
Although I welcome this secondary legislation in principle, it is worth noting that this is a reflection of a policy failure over decades, in that we have such a requirement to help people with energy bills because our housing stock is nowhere near the standard it should be. All this, including the £15 billion being spent by the Treasury on the cost of living, specifically around energy issues, is about standing still rather than investing in the future. I know the Minister will say that the Government are investing, but it is a trickle in comparison to what we need. Past Governments have been equally bad at resolving that. This is a symptom of a policy failure over decades in this country.
I shall ask a couple of technical questions on this and will then come on to one or two other things. The figure that rather shocked me—it may be because I misunderstand it—is in paragraph 7.2 on page 3 of the Explanatory Memorandum:
“The Impact Assessment models an improvement to the fuel poverty targeting rate of the scheme from 39% to 47%.”
Does that mean we have moved getting it wrong to 61% from to 53%? I would like to understand that. I remember going through these statutory instruments for Governments, and I understand the problem of trying to target these things correctly and that somehow the statistics or working with data from other departments does not work. But it is worth understanding whether that figure is what I understand it to be and how we improve that for the future because, my goodness, if that is it, we certainly need to improve it.
The next page refers to an algorithm that there were the largest concerns about. We all know the problem with algorithms. They can be great things but, as the Department for Education found out on A-level results, they can be disastrous. I am interested to understand what that issue was and whether it was resolved or was altered in the final prospectus.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Best, what I do not understand—the Minister will forgive me if I have missed it—is how private renters get their money back from prepaid meters. It seems straightforward when the core group are just paid the electricity on their bills. What happens in terms of prepayment meters?
I want to ask about one more thing before a more general point. This is for England and Wales; it talks about Scotland coming on later on but Northern Ireland is not mentioned. Northern Ireland has a much higher rate of fuel poverty than England and Wales—18% historically, though I am sure it will be a lot larger by the end of this year. We do not have a functioning Executive or Assembly in Belfast. Can the Minister say whether the Government will have to legislate directly regarding schemes over there or are schemes that have already been agreed carrying on? Clearly, fuel poverty is a big issue in Northern Ireland.
Lastly, I have a more general question for the Minister. We had an announcement today—it came through on the news—that, rightly, the Government wanted to protect the additional money paid by consumers to retail energy companies that tended to get washed out when they went bankrupt. The answer seemed to be—I know that news reporting is not necessarily accurate—to ensure that the balance sheets of these companies were better in order to solve it. If a company goes into administration, it goes into administration; the balance sheet is washed out automatically in that case. Why cannot we put that money into an escrow account or find some way in which that can be isolated from the company and remains the consumers’ money in trust? I do not understand why that is not a way forward. If the Minister could give me some clue on that, I would be very grateful.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing these proposals, which are an improvement on the previous scheme. I also thank noble Lords for their contributions, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, who represented the NEA’s concerns about the core group 2 and how some of them will miss out, on the way that the scheme is set up, on the funding sufficiency—or insufficiency—and on the prepayment customer concerns, which the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, also raised. The noble Lord, Lord Best, is an expert on the private rented sector. We share his concerns about that; I will come on to that in what I have to say. The overall theme of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, is that it represents a failure in public policy that we have to have this scheme in any place, but here we are: we have to have it and this is, as I have said, an improvement.
The Government have said that they intend to bring forward a new set of reconciliation regulations “later this year”, which is better than “when Parliament has time” or “in due course”, but can the Minister be a little more precise about when “later this year” means?
On the criteria and the algorithm used to estimate energy costs, how satisfied is the Minister that the algorithms used will not lead to an education-type embarrassment for the Government and, therefore, a failure in terms of there being lots of customers who potentially would benefit from this scheme but may then miss out? Have the Government included all eligible households, including persons with a disability, in their revised six criteria for the new scheme?
The scheme has an impact on energy suppliers, the authority and the Government. The energy suppliers are likely to recover their costs from their customers, which is estimated to be £19—a £5 increase on the former scheme. The authority and the Government are likely to incur costs of approximately £22 million for their work in issuing notices and identifying customers eligible for core group rebates. The Secretary of State will conduct a review or partial review of the scheme, and the authority will review participation of suppliers in the scheme and publish an annual report. This is welcome.
However, Labour would introduce legislation to uplift the warm home discount for 9 million working families and pensioners during the present inflationary crisis. As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, pointed out, this is an extraordinary time for energy costs. I am not saying that it could have been predicted but Ukraine is upon us and, therefore, more may well need to be done in the lifecycle of this scheme.
Core group 2, which has replaced the broader group, will not now have to apply for inclusion in the scheme, which is welcome. However, there will be households beyond that group who remain in fuel poverty, such as those in rented accommodation. They may be on low incomes and with disputed levels of energy use, particularly when they have no access to what proportion of the payment they make to their landlords is for energy supply. They may not be receiving benefits, which would usually give them automatic inclusion. It may be impossible for them to contest their exclusion. The Minister’s observations on this would be very welcome.
If an energy company goes into administration or disappears entirely, will the supplier of last resort take on the full obligation of the failed supplier or are there now no small-enough energy suppliers left—that is, those with 50,000 customers—that can go bust? Have they all gone bust already? The recovery of the scheme from customers will mean that, in some cases, energy companies will be recovering money from those who have received the warm home discount, thus giving with the one hand and taking away with the other. Would Minister like to comment on that?
The overall scheme is likely to add to the rise in the socialisation of the expenses of suppliers of last resort, resulting in a probable £100 contribution to the increased price cap. Have the Government considered whether the scheme should be covered by Exchequer funding or by a wider group of people contributing, not just individual customer payers?
In welcoming the progress the Government have made with these changes to the scheme, there are a number of observations on which I would welcome the Minister’s response.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. The context is that, this year, as we all know, we have witnessed an extraordinary increase in the cost of energy. The Government recognise that millions of households across the UK may need further support with the cost of living, in particular energy bills. That is why the Government have so far announced additional support this year worth more than £37 billion, including targeted support for many of those in the groupings we are talking about today—those on the lowest incomes.
All domestic electricity customers in Great Britain will receive £400 off their bills from October through the energy bills support scheme. Meanwhile, more than 8 million households across the UK in receipt of means-tested benefits will also receive £650 as a cost of living payment. Further payments will be made to pensioners and disabled people. The Government remain committed to helping low-income and vulnerable households heat their homes over the coming winter. Although energy efficiency measures provide long-term assistance in reducing energy bills, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, reminded us, there is a clear need for direct financial support now. In this context, the warm home discount remains a key part of our overall approach to tackling fuel poverty.
This is the largest expansion of the scheme since it began. In 2021-22, the energy envelope was worth £354 million across Great Britain; in 2022-23, it is rising to £523 million. This scheme will ensure that 2.8 million households in England and Wales receive a rebate off their energy bills each winter right through to 2026. That means that around a third more households than previously will receive a rebate each year. In addition, most will receive their rebates automatically. This means that households will have much more certainty about receiving the payments when they need them most. A large part of my postbag has been people writing to their MPs and then on to me if they have not been selected as part of the core group 2 element; people do not understand how the scheme works.
The Government have recognised the need for certainty about the support to households in Scotland. We recently consulted on an extension and expansion of a separate warm home discount scheme in Scotland. That was as a result of the Scottish Government not being able to make their minds up about whether they wanted to be part of this scheme, not because of any delays on our part. The Government will publish the response shortly and lay the regulations for the scheme in Scotland as soon as possible.
Lord Teverson (LD)
That is a very useful explanation, but will the department look at how accurate it was in retrospect? Will it take a sample of properties and see whether the scheme reflected how things were on the ground to check the effectiveness of the algorithm?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Yes, of course we will conduct a process of constant improvement. As more data become available, as universal credit is rolled out, and as EPCs are increasingly rolled out and more properties have one, it will make targeting easier. We will modify the scheme as we go forward, using new and improved targeting data.
I thank noble Lords for the useful points they made. I am pleased that virtually everyone who spoke was in broad agreement that the scheme should continue at this time because it has been very successful at providing householders on the lowest incomes with critical support.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Before my noble friend takes his seat, there seems to be a discrepancy in the figures. My noble friend said that 69% of the fuel poor are in receipt of means testing, which means that 31% are not. The NEA said 50%. I would be interested to know, however many there are, how those who are not in receipt of the means-tested benefit under core group 2 will qualify. Is it the Government’s intention to commit all the funds that were highlighted in our manifesto at the last election?
Lord Callanan (Con)
My noble friend has asked me a number of difficult questions. Yes, we want to ensure that as much of the funding as possible is committed to this scheme, perhaps all of it will be. I am not sure what my noble friend is referring to by the funds we promised in our manifesto. Is she referring to energy efficiency? In that case, the majority have already been allocated.
On the targeting of those in fuel poverty, I default to the information that I have been given as opposed to the NEA figures, but if there is a mistake in those numbers, I will write to my noble friend.
National Health Service (Integrated Care Boards: Exceptions to Core Responsibility) Regulations 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kamall
That the Grand Committee do consider the National Health Service (Integrated Care Boards: Exceptions to Core Responsibility) Regulations 2022.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
My Lords, this statutory instrument seeks to ensure operational continuity as the changes under the Health and Care Act 2022 are implemented. It relates specifically to the transfer of functions from clinical commissioning groups, or CCGs, which were abolished by the 2022 Act, to newly established statutory integrated care boards, or ICBs.
Under the National Health Service Act 2006, amended by the 2022 Act, NHS England must set rules so that integrated care boards have “core responsibility” for every person who is provided with NHS primary medical services through registration with a GP practice in their area of England and every person usually resident in their area who is not registered with a GP practice. This means that, where a person is seeing a GP in an area, the relevant integrated care board is responsible for commissioning secondary health services that that person may need. This instrument provides an exception to this obligation for individuals who are usually resident in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland but are registered with a provider of NHS primary medical services in England.
This SI does not prevent those who are resident in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland accessing healthcare services in England. Instead, it simply makes clear where the commissioning responsibility sits for these patients. It promotes autonomy for devolved Governments to commission secondary care services for their residents, while still allowing these patients to continue to access secondary healthcare services in England. It is about which authority commissions and pays for a patient’s care, not the patient’s right to access care. This instrument is vital to ensure consistency and clarity between authorities in England and those in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland regarding who commissions and pays for a patient’s secondary care.
This statutory instrument allows for the continuation of the approach to devolved health policy introduced by the disapplication regulations 2013, which are being revoked as a consequence of the Health and Care Act 2022. Just to be clear, this instrument does not change existing cross-border commissioning arrangements; it simply transfers existing commissioning exceptions from CCGs to the new ICBs. We hope that these regulations will ensure operational continuity of services for patients as the English health system implements ICBs and are supported by the devolved Administrations, providing clarity on the role of integrated care boards within the existing cross-border arrangements.
I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I thank the Minister for his clear explanation. One can see from the number of noble Lords who wish to take part in this debate that this is not very controversial.
The instrument appears to tidy up the problems of people in different countries in the UK who may need to use NHS services in a neighbouring country and of who purchases those services. However, despite Ministers telling Parliament repeatedly that noble Lords could not vote on certain amendments because they had pre-agreed the legislation in the then Health and Care Bill 2022 with the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Senedd and the Northern Ireland Assembly, it now appears that they had not made arrangements to continue the status quo—the very basic—of who commissions cross-border issues. These regulations enable that to happen. It would have been easier if such amendments had been allowed when the Bill was going through, rather than Ministers telling noble Lords from across the parties that such amendments around cross-border issues could not be voted on.
Many in the House along cross-party lines complained that, as the Health and Care Bill was progressing through the House, Ministers were taking considerable powers on themselves to create regulations. The Bill was enacted only two months ago yet we are already seeing their errors in the legislation being tidied up by this statutory instrument. How many more are still to come to ensure that all tidying-up arrangements are in place by 1 July? Would it not have been better for hard-working civil servants, both in the department and in Parliament, for the Bill not to have been brought out when there was still considerable focus on Covid and the omicron outbreak? Errors such as this are basic and waste civil servants’ and Parliament’s time.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I start by thanking the Minister for his extremely helpful introduction to these regulations. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Scriven; I want to pick up some of the points he made. Let me say at the outset that we on these Benches support the regulations, which we accept are consequential and will not change services for people.
The words that have been used are that this is a “tidying-up exercise”. I want to dwell for a moment on the general point that there has been considerable time for this. The Health and Care Bill was introduced in July 2021 and we all know how long it spent in Committee, both in this House and in the other place. We also know how extensive the consideration of it was so it seems strange for us to find ourselves back discussing what are described as “consequentials”. This may be a simple tidying-up exercise—I accept that is what these regulations are—but calling it that ignores how we could have avoided the need to tidy up and, therefore, the amount of bureaucracy, time and effort that has been spent, not least in the department, in having to make these changes. Perhaps the Minister could address the general point that has been made in the course of this debate about why we find ourselves in this situation.
In the debate in the other place, the Minister talked about five more consequential statutory instruments that we should expect as part of this so-called tidying-up exercise. Perhaps the Minister can advise us on those. It is important that everybody, including system managers, knows what is coming down the track. I say that particularly given the record waiting lists and waiting times that the NHS is seeking to manage, yet we are talking about regulations that must be in place for 1 July so that everyone has certainty about what needs to be put in place and to be done. I accept the Minister’s assurance that this does not affect services to patients in a practical sense, but whenever we discuss regulations there is always an air of uncertainty around. Patients need to be assured that they will have a seamless service wherever they live or wherever they are. Therefore, knowing that we will be considering similar consequentials raises questions about certainty.
We hope that the regulations go through and that the Minister will respond to the points of concern that have been raised today. I hope that the regulations will ensure that the NHS can get on with the job that it is here to do.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, said this statutory instrument is not controversial, as reflected in the attendance at the debate, but when I saw that the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, was present I thought, “What’s controversial? I’d better look into it.” The noble Lord did not disappoint in that way. He quite rightly holds the Government to account.
Before I conclude I shall try to address some of the points that were made. The department has laid eight instruments so far to support the ICBs for 1 July. They ensure the continuation of the existing policy and provide the supporting legislative framework. The Health and Care Act 2022 (Commencement No. 1) Regulations 2022 were made on 6 May to commence a small number of preparatory sections from 9 May to enable preparatory steps to take place for the establishment of ICBs on 1 July. There are six negative resolution statutory instruments and one affirmative instrument—this regulation. The Health and Care Act 2022 (Commencement No. 2) Regulations 2022 are planned to be made by 30 June. This SI will commence major elements of the Health and Care Act on 1 July, including, but not limited to, ICBs, ICPs—integrated care partnerships—and the merger of NHS England Improvement, TDA and Monitor. We will be laying a further consequential statutory instrument which will amend redundant references to previously existing bodies and update legislation to support the implementation of ICBs.
On the point that the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, made about the federated data platform, I assure him that I have been in conversation with NHS England, particularly the transformation directorate, and it has been quite clear with me that it is an open tender. There is no preferred bidder. It has seen all the speculation in recent press articles and I have asked it directly about it. I will be quite clear: this is a very difficult for me to walk because as a Minister I do not want to interfere too much in those technical solutions and favour one or the other, but at the same time I have to warn about the politics around this. When I was speaking to the officials, they were very clear about that. We have to be clear about this. Whatever you chose, there will be some story out in the press, so we must make sure it is as open as possible.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I hope that the Minister takes it in the spirit in which I asked the question, but this is an example of senior officials in the department—not for the first time—being involved with a commercial company and there being a revolving door going into that commercial company when specific multi-million-pound contracts are made. Do the Government feel comfortable that that is correct or do they feel that rules such as those for the Civil Service—where there are rules about revolving doors and taking this up—should also apply to NHS England employees? If not, does the Minister think that it should be looked at and that such rules should apply as they do for the Civil Service?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that clarification. My initial reaction was that I wanted to take this back to the NHS and ask. If the noble Lord will allow me, I will make that point directly, as the noble Lord made it so eloquently, to the NHS officials. Of course, as he rightly says, it is not just about the reality; we also have to address perception. We know that in a number of areas, for politicians but also officials, people are very concerned about revolving doors for those who have recently left and potential conflicts of interest. If the noble Lord will allow me, I will talk to NHS officials about this and get back to him.
On the particular issues, there will be more SIs. I am advised, but I will clarify it once again, that these regulations are made under the powers of the 2022 Act; it was previously done by regulation, and this will replace previous secondary legislation on disapplication from 2013. However, I take the point about whether this could have been done in the Health and Care Act. I will get a clear answer for noble Lords from my officials, if that is acceptable.
To conclude, I reassure the Committee that this instrument will not change how residents from devolved nations can access healthcare services in England. It is right that patients from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland continue to access secondary healthcare services in England as they do now, in a seamless way. Nor will there be any adverse financial consequences for devolved Governments or newly established ICBs, relative to the previous CCGs, in developing these regulations. This will continue the existing arrangements, which have been in place for several years and have the support of the devolved Administrations.
Given the outstanding questions, I hope that noble Lords will accept that I will write to everyone who took part in the debate—that should not be too difficult. I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Animal Welfare (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Benyon
That the Grand Committee do consider the Animal Welfare (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2022.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, this instrument makes several minor, technical amendments to retained EU regulations, correcting deficiencies so that the legislation operates effectively. These regulations relate to the protection and welfare of animals during transport and to official controls on the imports of animals, animal products, plants and plant products, including food and other imports relevant to the agri-food chain.
In Great Britain, the Animal and Plant Health Agency issues authorisations to commercial transporters of animals which can show that they meet the regulatory requirements, such as having appropriately trained and competent staff. For long journeys, the Animal and Plant Health Agency also approves journey plans, known as journey logs, prior to the journey beginning. Approval of a journey log depends on the transporter demonstrating that it can meet the welfare needs of the animals being transported, through providing appropriate rest, food and water. The requirement for an APHA-approved journey log extends to EU transporters that wish to import animals to Great Britain.
This instrument clarifies the role and powers of the competent authority to grant or refuse requests for journey logs and transporter authorisations needed for the transport of live animals into, out of and through Great Britain. This will allow for better enforcement, as the role and powers of that authority would otherwise be unclear in some circumstances, resulting in possible confusion on the ground.
It also clarifies a power of the competent authority to recover the costs of enforcement action where appropriate; that is, it provides the competent authority with the discretion to decide whether to recover costs. The powers of the competent authority are not affected, and the change is intended to make it clear that cost recovery is an option for the regulator. The power to recover costs, without an obligation to do so, enables the authority to take into account circumstances and make decisions regarding cost recovery on a case-by-case basis.
This instrument removes defunct references to various EU systems and organisations—contact points, mutual assistance schemes and an oversight committee. It also removes the legal requirement to report annually to the European Commission on long journeys and animal welfare inspections. Multiple references to “EU member states” are replaced with “Great Britain”. An outdated requirement to provide rules on penalties for infringements of animal welfare in transport regulations by 5 July 2006 is removed, as those rules were laid by that date and are currently in force. Finally, outdated references to other regulations, relating to training for competent authority staff, other veterinary legislation and animal welfare inspections for animals destined for slaughter, are corrected, ensuring that the regulators’ ability to enforce welfare standards is maintained.
The amendments contained in this instrument are necessary to ensure that, in line with current government policy, we can enforce our high animal welfare standards and protect the UK’s biosecurity. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for that introduction. We agree that these changes are broadly technical in nature but, once again, we have an SI before us which, in its own words, corrects failures and deficiencies in retained EU law which should and could have been spotted earlier. First, can the Minister say how these errors came to light and why they were not identified earlier? Has there been any detriment to animal welfare controls since the adoption of the withdrawal Act in 2018, as a result of this incorrect wording?
Secondly, the Minister explained the rationale for changing mandatory cost recovery to discretionary cost recovery. On the face of it, this seems sensible, but can he say something more about the types of cases where it would not be in the public interest to pursue cost recovery? Is there a danger that, if we now switch to what he described as a “case-by-case basis”, it could lead to a broader fall in enforcement action, with many authorities making a financial calculation that the cost is just not worth the effort, particularly if it is a marginal benefit? Could there be an overall drop in enforcement as a result?
Finally, paragraph 7.5 of the Explanatory Memorandum says that the outdated references have been updated to refer to current legislation, and the Minister gave some examples of that. Are the current standards now in place equivalent to or better than the old ones that were there before? As this is quite a complex area of regulation, will it potentially be revisited as part of Jacob Rees-Mogg’s bonfire of EU regulations? If so, what will the process be and when will we hear more about how he intends to conduct that review? I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her questions and her understanding of the need for this. She rightly identified a number of areas that need clarification. I absolutely reiterate that these regulations do not reduce any current animal welfare standards. As the noble Baroness pointed out, they make technical but necessary changes to ensure that existing legislation on animal welfare during transport can continue to operate effectively in practice.
In answer to the noble Baroness’s first question, no detrimental effect nor operational issues have arisen since our EU exit but this legislation enables operational delivery. However, there is a need, met by this SI, to ensure that the role of the competent authority is clarified to avoid any points of confusion. There is also a need to ensure that the definition of the competent authority is consistent with that set out in the retained form of the official controls regulations. The other corrective measures in the SI, such as the removal of any obligations to report to the EU Commission and references to defunct legislation, are tidying-up requirements and so have not created any impact.
Leaving the EU was never going to be an easy job. The legislation that took us through the retained EU competence process left a number of anomalies, for which there is a time limit for us to sort out. This is one of them and is relatively minor. It could have been done earlier but is being done now. I hope that the noble Baroness understands.
The noble Baroness talked about the importance of recovery of costs. By providing discretion for costs recovery, we are allowing for situations where such actions would be impractical, uneconomic and not otherwise in the public interest. It is our view that this measure would enable money-saving decisions to be taken by the regulator or at least to ensure that the costs are net zero. We are not amending the powers available to the competent authority; this change is intended to make it clear that recovering costs is discretionary for the regulator. Currently, the competent authority is required to attempt to recover the costs of any and all enforcement actions undertaken. This relates to expenses incurred and there will be a de minimis where the activities exceed the monies recovered. We want to make sure that we are protecting businesses, not imposing costs on them. Giving that discretion to authorities is important.
The noble Baroness asked about making sure that the competent authority has the skills. Any references to other regulations related to training for competent authority staff, other veterinary legislation and animal welfare inspections for animals destined for slaughter have been deleted. They have been replaced by references to current legislation, which maintain the standards already in place. The training requirements for competent authority and veterinary staff are now set out in the retained versions of the official controls regulations. I hope that this gives the noble Baroness comfort that the new standards are at least equivalent, if not better.
On her point about the Government’s deregulatory drive, this is a key area in which we want to retain high standards. We want this country to continue to have the highest animal welfare and environmental standards, which is why it is important that we take this forward. I do not see that changing in this Government and I think that there is cross-party support for Britain remaining a beacon for animal welfare standards, constantly raising the bar and improving what we are trying to achieve. The Government’s animal health and welfare pathway is an example of that and has been broadly welcomed by the farming industry. It is just part of this picture.
We are proud of our world-leading standards on animal welfare. As I have outlined, these amendments will ensure that existing regimes for animal welfare during transport continue to operate effectively.
House of Lords
Animal Welfare: Tourist Attractions, Activities and Experiences
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they intend to introduce legislation to ban the selling of attractions, activities or experiences to tourists involving the unacceptable treatment of animals.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
My Lords, as the Government set out in Our Action Plan for Animal Welfare, we are committed to promoting high animal welfare standards, both at home and abroad. We want to ensure that money from tourists from this country is channelled towards animal experiences abroad that practise the highest welfare and conservation standards. The Government remain committed to exploring available options in order to prohibit the advertising and offering for sale here of such unacceptably low-welfare activities involving wild animals.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his response, but Save the Asian Elephants has identified some 1,200 companies in the UK promoting 300 unethical elephant attractions overseas. Can the Minister say exactly when the Government will keep their promise to ban the sale of these experiences, which are based on appalling cruelty?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, the Government very much appreciate the work that that organisation has done and share the view that numerous attractions, many of them advertised here in the UK, involve really appalling levels of cruelty. It is not just about cruelty to animals; there have been human consequences as well—for example, as the organisation has highlighted and as the noble Baroness knows, the death of Andrea Taylor in 2000 at an attraction in Thailand was linked to the abuse of the elephant in question. The Government are committed to the principle behind this measure, and that has not changed. We have not identified the legislative route, but, with the noble Baroness’s help, I am sure that we will.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, when may we expect the kept animals Bill, which I hope would include the kind of activities referred to by the noble Baroness? Will it also include the prohibition of the import of fur?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, the kept animals Bill is making its way through the process. It is still in the other place; it will be coming here shortly—I am afraid that I do not know the date, but there is no reason to believe that things are held up. However, the scope of the kept animals Bill would not include measures such as the one we are debating today, nor would it involve restrictions on imports. That would belong in a different legislative vehicle, formerly known as the animals abroad Bill, which we debated in Questions last week.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, the Minister in his opening remarks referred to commitments to the highest standards at home as well as abroad. What plans do the Government have to comprehensively ban the sale of pets as prizes in England?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
As the noble Baroness will know, in the kept animals Bill that we were just talking about, there will be measures to prohibit the keeping of primates as pets. That will, I think, be a first within Europe, and it will be comprehensive legislation. Defra has commissioned some work on the issue of pets being handed out as prizes. I cannot give her a timeline on that, but it is an issue that we are looking at very closely.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, how do we help travel companies identify these tourist attractions where animals are cruelly treated? I suspect some of them are innocently selling these holidays without having any realisation of the cruelty being inflicted on these animals.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
It is an important point and in fact, to give it credit, the Association of British Travel Agents—ABTA—has updated and published guidelines on a whole range of activities which it classes as unacceptable, and its definition is fairly closely aligned with that of many of the organisations that focus on this issue. It is a voluntary set of guidelines—what we are talking about today is something that will be harder than that, something mandatory—but it is worth acknowledging the steps that the industry is already taking.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, why are the Government so poor at managing their legislation programme? Every week, Ministers come forward and say that they are committed to something but they have not got a timeline for it. Is it not about time the Government got their act together and sorted out their legislation programme?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
This is a question that goes way beyond my own pay grade. All I can tell the noble Lord is that I am working very hard to bring the full range of animal welfare measures that we have been discussing now for a couple of years. I would also remind the House that, by my counting, there are 10 significant animal welfare measures which we have brought in, or which are very nearly through the process, so we are making progress in this area.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, as a youngster growing up in Liverpool, I spent many happy hours visiting Chester Zoo. I understand that my noble friend visited Chester Zoo recently. Was he able to find the zoo not only informative but educational, and did he experience the best practice during his visit?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I did recently visit Chester Zoo, and it was a hugely eye-opening experience and, in many respects, inspiring. I would say that it is probably the leading organisation in the world looking at the problem affecting Asian elephants in particular, which is the spread of elephant herpes—which does not sound all that serious, but it is life-threatening to animals in the wild. If the work that Chester Zoo has done proves fruitful—and it should do—this could be a very significant win for Asia’s dwindling elephant population.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, the Gough Island albatross and the Gough Island bunting were in great danger of being wiped out entirely. The Government very helpfully helped the RSPB in undertaking an eradication programme of the mice that were killing all the birds on the ground. Sadly, that eradication programme has not worked—though it almost worked—and it really needs to be done again, or those beautiful birds will be wiped out forever. Will the Government assist the RSPB on the next eradication programme?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
The noble Lord is right, and it is a real shame because the RSPB thought that it had succeeded, until it caught a single mouse on a camera trap, but obviously that means there are more. When we say “mice”, of course, anyone who has seen them would not recognise them as mice—they have swelled to look more like grizzly, very large rats, as a consequence of the diets they have enjoyed for the last few decades. The work continues: we are talking to the RSPB, and we have a range of measures and support that we are providing to overseas territories in their various attempts to remove invasive species—this is one of them. I very much hope that we will be able to support the next round.
Media Literacy
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Merron
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to their decision not to include media literacy provisions in the Online Safety Bill, whether they intend to impose an updated statutory duty on Ofcom relating to media literacy; and if so, when.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, Ofcom has a statutory duty to promote media literacy under the Communications Act 2003. A clause in the draft Online Safety Bill sought to clarify Ofcom’s responsibilities under this duty. Since then, Ofcom has published a strategy paper outlining its plan to expand its media literacy programme, including going further than that draft clause. It was therefore no longer necessary to include these clarifications in the primary legislation.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, Covid showed the danger of conspiracy theories, while research shows that most internet users want the skills to judge for themselves what is true or false. As the Minister said, Ofcom has indeed published a strategy for promoting media literacy, but this will not be enough. Will the Minister undertake to look at restoring media literacy provisions to the Bill to put them on a statutory footing? Could he also tell your Lordships’ House what is being done to ensure that schools equip our young people with the digital and media literacy skills they need?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The Online Safety Bill includes provisions to strengthen Ofcom’s media literacy functions. Its transparency reporting and information gathering powers will include media literacy, giving Ofcom greater visibility of what the industry is doing. The Secretary of State will have powers to direct Ofcom’s media literacy activity in emergency circumstances—for example, where there is significant threat to public health—and, following a recommendation from the Joint Committee, media literacy is also included in the risk assessment duties. The noble Baroness is right that schools have an important part to play in equipping young people with the skills they need to navigate the internet safely. Citizenship education covers this, as indeed do subjects such as history, English and art, which encourage people to think critically about information that they receive in whatever medium.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the register of Members’ interests, particularly on Common Sense Media and NewsGuard. I am sure that the Minister will have seen the EU code of practice on disinformation, which was published last week. Does he agree with me that there is much more to this than just media literacy? There has to be a comprehensive strategy that includes the role of platforms, the ability to cut off money from some of the sites which spread disinformation, transparency on political advertising and better research. Will the Minister commit to a much more comprehensive approach to tackling disinformation on the internet than simply media literacy?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Misinformation and disinformation are subjects which are covered in many ways through the Online Safety Bill, which will force companies to tackle harmful misinformation and disinformation, ensuring that they are accountable for dealing with this damaging content on their services. My noble friend is right that we must look at these issues in the round.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I am co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Religion in the Media. The element of literacy in relation to the media with regard to religion is deplorable, and it needs very seriously to be considered.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am afraid that I am not sure that I fully follow the point that the noble and learned Baroness makes. If she is talking about the importance of respecting freedom of expression and views and protecting debates through the Online Safety Bill, as well as guarding against misinformation and disinformation, there are important protections in the Bill to make sure that we can have free and unbridled debate. However, if I have misunderstood, I will be very happy to speak to her afterwards in more detail.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I remind the Minister that, as recently as April, his department was making the case for more powers for Ofcom in its Year 2 Online Media Literacy Action Plan, so the Minister’s replies today have been somewhat extraordinary. Given the extent of misinformation and disinformation on social media, is it not absolutely clear that we need more specific powers and duties on Ofcom, in particular to ensure that Ofcom can set minimum standards for media literacy initiatives? Why do not the Government commit to put these in the Bill?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Through the Online Safety Bill, we are giving Ofcom strengthened media literacy functions on transparency reporting, information gathering and the other areas I set out. However, through its strategy announced in December last year, Ofcom has set out its own expanded work programme to discharge its existing duty, which includes pilots, campaigns to promote media literacy, establishing best practice and creating guidance on evaluation, so we are pleased to see that it is using and extending the powers that it has.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, many digital literacy programmes are provided free of charge to schools by private companies with an emphasis that teaches children about user behaviour rather than the risks created by those very same companies. Given the lack of provision in the Bill, perhaps the Minister could say what plans Her Majesty’s Government have to ensure that schools are not simply marketing tech products but offering a holistic digital literacy to children that is independent of those tech companies?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Digital literacy is a key priority in the computing national curriculum in England, which equips people with knowledge, understanding and skills to use the internet creatively and purposefully. Through citizenship education and other subjects, as I mentioned, we are making sure that schoolchildren are equipped with the skills that they need, and of course the companies themselves have a role to play in delivering and funding media literacy education. We welcome the steps that platforms have already taken, but we believe that they can go further to empower and educate their users.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, the 2003 media literacy duty on Ofcom that the Minister referred to predates social media and urgently needs updating. Carole Cadwalladr’s work has shown how online misinformation has potentially perverted our democracy. The Ofcom strategy is insufficient. Will the Minister agree to meet me and other members of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Media Literacy in advance of the Online Safety Bill being introduced in this House to try to resolve this problem?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I would be very happy to meet the noble Lord and other members ahead of the Online Safety Bill, during which I know we will debate this important area in greater detail. He is right that much has happened since the Communications Act 2003 was passed, but Ofcom’s own strategy published in December last year shows its up-to-date thinking and work in this important and evolving area.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, could my noble friend help those of us who are struggling to understand what exactly media literacy means? Is it about the truthfulness of content or about how to access content, and what on earth can the Government do about that?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
It is about equipping users to decide for themselves what is truthful and giving them the critical skills to look inquisitively at the material that they see online, which often conflicts with other sources, and make their mind up. That was an important skill long before people received information from the internet. It applies just as much to traditional media, such as books and other areas of learning, but is particularly important online.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I want to follow on from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. Given that we are talking about the safety of children and vulnerable people, to what extent will Ofcom’s duty incorporate the broad range of emerging technologies such as the metaverse and Web3, which include virtual reality and facial recognition?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the strongest protections in the Online Safety Bill are for children. We are making sure that, through that Bill, we are protecting young people from harmful or inappropriate content such as grooming, bullying, pornography and the promotion of self-harm and eating disorders. There are many provisions in the Bill looking at these.
Lord McNally (LD)
No, they have had about three goes.
I was a member of the Puttnam committee that gave pre-legislative scrutiny to the 2003 Act. The truth is that Ofcom put on the back burner its responsibilities in this area until it came under pressure by the fact that the new Online Safety Bill was going to increase its responsibilities in this area. I think the Minister’s answers so far have been very complacent given that, since 2003, we have become much more aware of the abuses and dangers inherent in this technology. We must give Ofcom more specific legislative powers in the coming Bill.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I have pointed to some of the provisions in the Online Safety Bill which will strengthen Ofcom’s powers in this area. The Government are taking action as well. Our media literacy programme is supported by £2.5 million of funding in this financial year alone, so the Government are also acting to make sure that we are strengthening civil society groups and others who have a role to play in making sure that people are kept safe and well informed online.
Special Educational Needs
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they will take (1) to increase the Special Educational Needs budget in the current financial year, and (2) to ensure that this is a separate and protected budget line in the education sector.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and with her permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in her name on the Order Paper.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, we are already increasing high needs funding for children and young people with more complex special educational needs and disabilities by £1 billion this financial year to a total of £9.1 billion as part of a schools funding allocation of £53.8 billion. It is important that local authorities and schools can use their budgets flexibly to assess what provision is required for the young people for whom they are responsible.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, there are currently more than 1 million children in the UK with special educational needs. In a Written Answer from the Minister received by my noble friend Lady Ritchie, it was disclosed that the mainstream allocation, which is supposed to represent £6,000 per student, was last year £4,136. As the funding is discretionary per local authority, as opposed to being allocated in a separate budget line by the Government, some children will get even less than that £4,000. In view of this, will the Government sort the problem by simply creating a separate budget line for SEN funding that they can then provide to local authorities in full?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I understand the point the noble Lord is making, but we believe it is very important that we give schools flexibility in how they spend their money. Local SENCOs, head teachers and other professionals working locally will be best placed to understand the needs of pupils in the school and the support they require.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interests in this area, as in the register. Does the Minister agree that schools are not being properly prepared to teach children they know they will get in their classrooms on a regular basis? It is reckoned that, on average, you will get three dyslexics, for instance, in every mainstream class, and those with other special educational needs will bring that up to five, six or seven pupils. Unless we get more training for teachers to handle these problems, which they know are going to occur, we will always be going back to this budget. Would it not be much more sensible to prepare teaching staff and the establishment to handle these things without going to a special budget?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I think the noble Lord would acknowledge that we are working in that area. In particular, we have been supporting teachers in the use of assistive technology, which I know is something close to his heart, and by professional qualifications and training focusing on all the areas to which he alludes.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware of the catastrophic pressures and impacts on dwindling LA budgets, with countless pressures on schools themselves. What assessment have the Government made of the number of children with unmet needs?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Government have made a big commitment to increasing funding in this area. High needs funding has risen by 40% over the past three years, but we work proactively with local authorities which are under particular pressure. We have a safety-valve programme, where we provide additional funding to those local authorities that can demonstrate they have a strategy for addressing their overspend.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness said that she understood the point being made by my noble friend Lord Kennedy; I fear I did not entirely understand her answer. She appears to be saying that it does not matter that schools are not getting the money per pupil originally intended for them because they have flexibility to spend it as they wish. I do not quite see how those two things go together. Could she explain?
Baroness Barran (Con)
As the noble Baroness knows, schools get two amounts of funding for children. In the current financial year, they will receive directly almost £9 billion, and the notional SEN budget was £4.3 billion. We believe that it is best for them to decide how that is spent. The noble Baroness will also be aware that we are moving to the national funding formula, which will create greater consistency and transparency in how those funds are used.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned flexibility. We agree that schools should have flexibility to implement support for children with special educational needs. I have frequently been told by parents of children with special educational needs that the budget for their child and the staff employed are increasingly being used to cover staffing shortages in other areas and taken away from their children. Is that acceptable in the flexibility she talks about?
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I cannot comment without knowing a little more of the detail of the case. Perhaps the noble Baroness can share that, then I will be happy to look into it. I think that she is hinting at some of the strains in the system in terms of provision for children with special educational needs and those children in alternative provision. She will be aware that we published the SEND and AP Green Paper in March, which looks to provide a system that works for children but is sustainable. The consultation is open until the end of July.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I recently visited a school in County Durham—not a church school in this instance—where 25% of the children had special educational needs. The head teacher pointed out to me the significance of not only the teachers but the teaching assistants, and the training that they too required, and said that there was pressure on her budget to sustain that level of staffing with some specialism. Can the Minister comment on that?
Baroness Barran (Con)
Again, different schools will approach these issues in different ways. Our commitment is to give them sufficient funding to deliver on the needs of children. However, the right reverend Prelate will be aware that there is some discretion in how schools define whether a child has special educational needs. One thing that we hope will come out of the Green Paper is much more consistency on that.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is the Minister simply saying that equalisation of funding will be a good thing? Is it not the case that equalisation will mean that the poorer schools with the worst problems will have less funding than they have at present?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I apologise to the noble Lord: that was not the impression that I sought to give. We are looking for a consistent approach to funding so that children with the same level of needs in two parts of the country get the same per-pupil funding, which is not the case today. I hope that the noble Lord agrees that that is a good ambition.
Leasehold Reform: Forfeiture Provisions
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to reform the forfeiture provisions of leasehold housing.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as a leaseholder.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
My Lords, I declare my residential and commercial property interests as set out in the register. The Government believe that forfeiture is an extreme measure which should be used only as a last resort. In practice, forfeiture happens very rarely, and the leaseholder may apply for relief from forfeiture subject to the court’s discretion. We asked the Law Commission to update its 2006 review of forfeiture law, Termination of Tenancies for Tenant Default, to account for wider leasehold reforms currently under way, and we are considering what action may be needed.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, there is a desperate need for root and branch leasehold reform. Does the Minister agree that the execution of forfeiture, or even the threat of forfeiture of a lease on a home, to recover a debt or deal with a dispute is totally disproportionate in comparison with the value of the asset, and that what should be in place is a simple procedure to recover the debt or deal with the issue at hand commensurate with the issue or the value of the debt concerned?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that forfeiture is an extreme measure. We have asked the Law Commission to look into this and it has come back not with removing forfeiture but with simplifying the process, making it more transparent and coming up with a mechanism that is more proportionate. We are considering these as part of the second stage of our leasehold reform.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend recall saying on 9 June last year that it was the Government’s aim to complete the leasehold reform programme in this third Session of Parliament? Is that still the case, because the Bill was not in the Queen’s Speech? If it is not, can we at least have a draft Bill in this Session so that we can hit the ground running in the fourth?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
I always thank my noble friend for his interventions. We want to move forward with the second stage of leasehold reform. It will not be part of the third Session but there is a commitment to this Parliament. My noble friend is right that we can use this time to get a Bill drafted. We will take time so that we can get it through Parliament as soon as possible at the beginning of the fourth Session.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I look forward to the leasehold reform.
Two weeks ago, I attended a meeting of leaseholder residents in a block of retirement flats. It will be no surprise to the Minister that their main complaint was the exorbitant increases in management fees, with no transparency of cost or answers as to why the increase had in one year gone from 5% to nearly 16%. When will the Government finally put a stop to this obfuscation and general bad practice by regulating management companies, as advised by the Government’s own expert working group, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Best, back in 2019?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
Once again, the noble Baroness is right that we need to sort out some of the practices that we see among managing agents. We are still considering how to take forward the recommendations of the noble Lord, Lord Best, but as noble Lords know, there is also a move to introduce voluntary codes, which I hope will elevate this. Overall, we need to see professionalisation of managing agents.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, we have a virtual contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, with vulnerable, low-income elderly groups in this highly inflationary period facing unaffordable, escalating service charges and possible loss or even forfeiture of their homes, why not promote or sponsor a national scheme for elderly leaseholders that rolls up service charges in the form of a debenture against property title—effectively a rising legal charge? The debenture holder would pay the service charge on behalf of the resident, and then claw back payments—interest-serviced or otherwise—on death or even before.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for some exciting policy ideas. It is important that we recognise that forfeiture is a very lengthy process, and there are ways in which we can cover debt. In fact, where there is an outstanding mortgage, you typically find that mortgage companies step in and pay off any remaining amounts, because they want to protect their financial interest in a property that is worth far more than the debt. But it is an idea that I will take back to the department.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I support fully the Government’s intentions for urgent leasehold reform; I look forward to seeing the legislation. Does my noble friend agree that it is really important to ensure that landlords are still incentivised to let their properties? With the shortage of housing that we have, it is important to balance the interests of leaseholders and freeholders. There are really important areas of reform, such as have been raised, that need attention for this market to function much better than it does.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
I thank my noble friend for once again underlining that, when we reform landlord and tenant law, we need get the balance of interests right. As a Government, we have committed to a number of ways in which we try to get that balance right and, indeed, to move away from the idea of having leasehold as the tenure of choice to an era where we have full-throated commonhold, which I hope has the support of many Members of this House.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that there is great interest in leasehold reform? Would not this be an ideal opportunity to take advantage of a procedure which we have always had and greatly valued, pre-legislative scrutiny? If, indeed, there is to be a Bill in draft, perhaps this procedure could be used to let the House look at this in the round, which is urgently required.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for raising that. I am conscious of that way of starting the process; when you get the Bill written, pre-legislative scrutiny is a good way of getting broad support. In fact, that is how we started the process of scrutiny for what is now the Building Safety Act.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, as we are not going to have the Bill in this Session of Parliament, which is very disappointing, would the Minister welcome seeing a number a campaigners to discuss the reform with him, so as to get ready for the Bill period in the last Session of this Parliament?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I reassure the House that, as the Minister with responsibility for leaseholds, I engage regularly with campaign groups, including the National Leasehold Campaign, and, of course, the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, but I am always happy to meet other campaigners so that we get the reforms right. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity, and it is important that we listen to those stakeholders.
Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 11 May be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 15 June.
Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) and Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Pollution) (Law of the Sea Convention) Amendment Order 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the draft Order laid before the House on 12 May be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 15 June.
Social Security (Special Rules for End of Life) Bill [HL]
Monday 20th June 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Social Security (Special Rules for End of Life) Act 2022 View all Social Security (Special Rules for End of Life) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Schools Bill [HL]
Monday 20th 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-V Fifth marshalled list for Committee - (20 Jun 2022)
Lord Shipley
“Creation and funding of careers programme for primary schools in areas of disadvantage(1) The Secretary of State must work with sector experts to develop a framework for careers education in primary schools that is aligned with the eight Gatsby benchmarks.(2) The Secretary of State must provide financial assistance available to support the delivery of a careers programme for primary schools in areas of disadvantage.(3) In this section—“areas of disadvantage” include areas with primary schools with the top 10% proportion of pupils with free school meal eligibility;“the eight Gatsby benchmarks” means the benchmarks set out in the report “Good Career Guidance” published by the Gatsby charitable foundation in 2014.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to create a framework for careers education in primary schools and to give financial assistance to primary schools in areas of disadvantage to deliver the programme.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, this amendment would require the Secretary of State
“to create a framework for careers education in primary schools and to give financial assistance to primary schools in areas of disadvantage to deliver the programme.”
I am grateful for the advice given by Teach First on this amendment, which also draws on the success of the North East Ambition project, supported by Ernst & Young’s EY Foundation. It also reflects the conclusions and recommendations of this House’s Select Committee on Youth Unemployment, which reported six months ago.
Last week Teach First, the education charity, launched a report entitled Rethinking Careers Education: Investing in Our Country’s Future, which highlighted the impact of the pandemic on young people’s career opportunities. Teach First concluded that schools with catchment areas covering the most disadvantaged communities have been hardest hit by the pandemic and that specific extra resource is needed for them. It also concluded that careers education should start in primary schools. Teachers support this, with clear evidence of primary teachers believing that career-related learning for their pupils would raise those pupils’ awareness of different career pathways, with two-thirds feeling that pupils’ aspirations would be raised by this.
These conclusions are similar to those underpinning the work of the North East Ambition project, which aims to put in place the good career guidance benchmarks in all schools in the North East Local Enterprise Partnership area by 2024. This is welcome, and we know from the recommendations of the Youth Unemployment Select Committee that those career guidance benchmarks should be
“rolled out to primary schools and be more effectively embedded in the national curriculum so that all young people learn about the myriad opportunities that are open to them from an early age.”
This is about raising aspiration and personal ambition, and through that, crucially, social mobility. The committee heard conclusive evidence that children begin to think about their futures when they are as young as five or six. By the age of seven, life-defining decisions are being formed in their minds. By the age of 10 many have already made career-limiting decisions, and by the age of 14 those decisions will be very firm. Such decisions can be based on where they live, who they know and what jobs those people do. For social mobility to be successful, it requires much earlier intervention.
Recently, statutory careers guidance advice in schools was rolled out to include year 7 pupils. Now is the time to take a further step and to extend statutory provision to our primary schools. I beg to move.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 171F in my name. Had I not had an amendment in this group, I would have risen to support the amendment to be addressed by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth. I very much support the gist of that amendment on citizenship, having worked with him on some of the committees. What it says makes absolute sense and I hope we will see progress with that idea as we take the Bill forward.
Amendment 171F is on something completely different. I do not think it is contentious. I hope that we will all agree that there is a problem that needs to be solved. I do not think for a minute that it has been deliberately created by Ministers or anyone else. I think it is a loophole, but a very big loophole, and the Bill is an ideal opportunity to address it.
We all would sign up to the idea that partnership between schools and parents is absolutely crucial. Whether we are mums, dads, grandparents or whatever, we all make speeches and know that partnership and the strength of it between the teacher, parent and child are crucial. It is possibly more crucial in some areas of the curriculum than in others: sex education, faith education and some aspects of history. That understanding about what is happening in the school is very important so that the parent can support the teacher and the teacher can support the parent, all in the interests of the child.
If we look at the Government’s guidance on relationships and sex education, it says that parents should have visibility of what is being taught to their children. That is the central core of what I have always thought was the case, both as a teacher and through my time in politics. I was therefore surprised to see a letter that a parent made available to me after she had gone to her child’s school to ask to see some of the curriculum papers that were being used in relationships and sex education. In this case the child was in key stage 2, the latter years of primary education. The head had written to the parent to say that he could not make the curriculum materials available to her because the organisation that was delivering that part of the curriculum said that it was exempt under Section 43(2) and Section 42 of the Freedom of Information Act.
In many areas of the curriculum, especially the contentious areas, schools look to outside bodies to bring in their expertise. We have already had a discussion in Committee on the importance of sometimes not necessarily using teachers with QTS but going to where there is specialist skill. This school had asked an organisation to come in and deliver sex and relationships education. But the organisation had said, “This is our intellectual property. It can’t be photocopied and shown to a third party.” The law allows it to claim that parents are a third party. That cannot be right. It does not matter whether they like the curriculum material or not. This particular bit of curriculum material was, I think, very contestable in terms of appropriateness for age. However, even if I thought it the best bit of teacher material I had ever seen, I would say it could not be right that a parent could not have access to it and see it. There are so many areas where a parent would want to know what is being taught to a child, and something needs to be done about this.
It is in the area of contested facts and difficult things to teach that schools are most likely to turn to outside organisations to help. They tend not to do that with maths and English and things like that, because they have the qualified staff in the school. It is for the areas that are difficult to teach, because they are contested, that outside organisations are particularly likely to be approached.
Whether we like it or not, we live at a time when there are lots of curriculum areas in which facts are not facts, and what we all assumed was appropriate to pass on to the next generation is now being contested. We have contested information and different views; as a society and a generation we are trying to work these things out. It is critical that giving ideas and words to the next generation is done with care, openness and the support of all the adults possible.
I very much hope that the Minister will be able to do two things when she responds to this amendment: first, to accept that there is a problem and, secondly, to say how it will be addressed before Report. I do not want—as was the position in the letter I read—the head to have to come between the parent and the outside provider. It was not fair for that head to have to write to the parent, with whom they would be having a longer-term relationship than that over the relationships and sex education lesson. We can all see that it potentially damaged the working relationship between the head and the parent.
Even if it were the case that the law could be got round, or it would have been possible for parent to see the material, or the outside provider need not have said that that should happen, we cannot make the head the go-between. We must have greater clarity. I do not think that this is intentional on anyone’s part. If this amendment is not appropriate, that is fine. We think it works but, if it is not appropriate—or perhaps I should say, if there is a better way of solving this problem—I know that everybody who supports this amendment will be delighted to discuss this with the Minister in the intervening weeks. I hope we can solve this problem.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I too have put my name to Amendment 171F because, as your Lordships have heard, it is important that parents should be able to discover what their children are being taught and, in particular, to see the materials. This has arisen because the commercial providers of materials have apparently tried to prevent parents getting access to those materials. They have met requests for information or to see the materials with the assertion that these are protected, and they can rely on an exemption under the Freedom of Information Act.
I find that surprising. The material has been, or will be, referred to in class to the children, perhaps with slides shown. I should have thought that any duty of confidence on the part of the school to the commercial provider has been waived by that disclosure in class, but so be it—the effect of the assertion is to put parents off and, as we have heard, it puts the schools in an embarrassing and awkward position. The parents and the schools are on the same side.
The issue is, of course, particularly sensitive where the subject matter is RSE—relationships and sex education—but it is not limited to that nowadays. History, economics and politics—a whole range of subjects—raise awkward and difficult matters in which there are strong differing philosophies and political views. It is very important that parents should know what is being taught and, in particular, whether their children are in fact being indoctrinated; things are not always the facts that they appear to be. The content must be accurate and balanced.
This amendment will give statutory force to a policy to which, we would argue, there can be no reasonable objection. In the case of RSE material, there is already statutory guidance, provided by the Government in 2019. I note that only the other day, on 17 June, my noble friend the Minister wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. I quote one short passage, as follows:
“When schools choose resources and external provision for Relationships, Sex and Health Education and PSHE, we expect schools to consult with parents on these matters and to make reasonable decisions about the content of their curriculum. Schools should also ensure that when they engage parents, they provide examples of the resources they plan to use (for example, the books they will use in lessons).”
That seems to be the Government’s policy, and who could argue against it? If that is the policy, what possible objection could there be to having it reinforced by statute, which would meet the arguments put forward by certain providers?
In 2019 the Secretary of State wrote in the foreword to the statutory guidance:
“We are clear that parents and carers are the prime educators for children on many of these matters. Schools complement and reinforce this role and have told us that they see building on what pupils learn at home as an important part of delivering a good education.”
The guidance says in paragraph 13:
“All schools must have in place a written policy for Relationships Education and RSE”,
and in paragraph 24, under the heading “Use of materials”:
“Schools should also ensure that, when they consult with parents, they provide examples of the resources that they plan to use as this can be reassuring for parents and enables them to continue the conversations started in class at home.”
Who could argue with that? It is common sense and uncontroversial. However, as we have heard, parents are not always getting the access to which they are already entitled and should be getting. We have heard about the school that obviously felt on the spot because the provider did not want them to see the material. The provider wrote that the material was exempt and that the placing of the copies of the actual documents in the public domain by inspection or copying is not justified. What on earth does that mean? How can it be right not to put a copy in the public domain or show it to the parents?
So there we are. We suggest that the amendment strikes a reasonable compromise. It would not require schools to copy all the materials, some of which might be quite lengthy, but would allow people simply to go into a school and see what is there. That would spare schools the burden of copying. The amendment is necessary and reasonable. Without it, it appears that parents will not be assured that, without recourse to litigation, they can see what their children are taught. I commend the amendment to the House.
Lord Macdonald of River Glaven (CB)
My Lords, I have also put my name to this amendment. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, that the present position is untenable. In 2019 the Government updated the relationships and sex education guidance to make the teaching of certain content compulsory in all schools. The guidance was clear that content should be age-appropriate, developmentally appropriate and—I underline the next words—anchored in science and material facts. It seems that a significant number of independent so-called RSE providers have created materials that promote to schoolchildren, including quite young children, the idea that biological sex is a spectrum, that we all have an inner gender identity that should take priority over biological sex and that our assumed genders are assigned to us at birth.
One may agree or disagree with those propositions, and one may agree or disagree with them being put forward as scientifically based fact, but it is also clear that the 2019 guidance made paramount that parents should have visibility of what is being taught to their children. There are many references to that in the guidance, which says that parents must be consulted in developing and reviewing RSE policies; that
“All schools must have in place a written policy”;
that policies should reflect the communities they serve; and that policies should be “made available to parents” and published on the school website.
However, the intention for openness also covered RSE content because policies should:
“Set out the subject content, how it is taught and who is responsible for teaching it.”
and
“include sections covering … details of content/scheme of work”.
I support this amendment for three main reasons. First, there is clear evidence that the 2019 RSE guidance has resulted in some schools using ideologically driven materials not grounded in science, in my view, with children, including some very young children. This has particularly been so in the field of gender ideology, where some materials appear to deny the reality of biological sex. These teachings have consequences, not least for women’s sex-based rights.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 168 on fundamental British values. The law at present requires every school to teach fundamental British values and the purpose of my amendment is simply to build on what we have at the moment to strengthen it more firmly into the structure and teaching of the school.
The law we have at the moment was introduced in 2015 in the wake of the Prevent programme. Almost inevitably, it was orientated in a particular direction; the result is that it is lopsided and strangely missing in certain fundamental matters of our society. That law says that democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, mutual respect and tolerance of those of different faiths and beliefs have to be taught. It may be obvious to everybody that there is one fundamental gap in that list: the equal respect to be accorded to every person in our society. We all have one vote—only one, not less and not more—and the law has to treat each of us equally, whether we are wealthy or poor. Government departments have to treat everybody equally, whether they are powerful or powerless. This is of course not a value which has suddenly been dreamt up; it goes back to Runnymede. Therefore, in the revised list before us in Amendment 168, there is included
“equal respect for every person”.
The two first values on the list, democracy and the rule of law, remain unchanged but, as we all know, democracy can mean anything or everything. Most countries in the world claim to be democratic when, in fact, more than half of them are not at all, so it needs to be spelt out in law what we mean by a liberal democracy. That can be seen in proposed new subsection (4), and I shall mention two obvious things in it: “an independent judiciary” and
“in a Parliamentary system, a Government that is accountable to Parliament”.
Freedom, of course, is also fundamental to our society and it is a word whose meaning is very well established in law and international law. It is actually to be preferred to the present wording of “individual liberty”, because it goes much wider. That is spelt out in proposed new subsection (5), which says that
“‘freedom’ includes … freedom of thought, conscience and religion … freedom of expression, and … freedom of assembly and association.”
At the moment, fundamental British values are hardly being taught in schools at all. I was speaking to somebody at lunch today who is trying their best to get something taught and was telling me that it meets a great deal of opposition from teachers and pupils because of the phrase “British values”. That was part of the original unease when this was introduced in 2015. It is a great pity to be distracted on that kind of debate, and there is an easy solution to it in this amendment. The values are to be called “values of British citizenship”, and are legally clear. It claims not that the values are unique to society or that they are better or worse than others but that if you are a British citizen by adoption or birth, these are the values of our society. I do not see how anybody could possibly object to that. It would help to avoid a debate that at the moment is distracting and stops this matter being properly taught in schools.
Although the law states at the moment that these values have to be taught in schools, it does not say who is responsible for teaching them. That is why proposed new subsection (3) says that these values
“must be taught as part of citizenship, at the first to fourth key stages.”
Teaching them does not have to be confined to that—it may be that a head will want to talk about British values in assembly—but at least there would be a clear place in the curriculum where the values have to be taught. This would strengthen citizenship education in schools, which at the moment is very patchy. In some schools it is hardly done at all, while in others it is elided into PSHE. There would therefore be something much more substantial to grasp and to teach children.
There is one further addition that is not there at the moment, “respect for the environment.” From talking to people, there is no doubt that including this in the list has very widespread support, particularly among young people. Seeing that in the legislation would help to arouse their interest in the list as a whole. It is not just a personal value but a political one, which is why proposed new subsection (6) says that
“‘respect for the environment’ means taking into account the systemic effect of human actions on the health and sustainability of the environment both within the United Kingdom and over the planet as a whole, for present and future generations.”
That is a widely agreed definition of what is meant by respect for the environment.
I am a passionate believer in the teaching of British political values in our schools. At the moment it is not being done properly, if at all. This proposal is a real way in which to strengthen the teaching of those values, and I am glad that it has such substantial support, including from the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, from the Labour Benches, the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, from the Conservative Benches, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, from the Liberal Democrats. I very much hope that this will continue to gain support from all around the House.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 91 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Garden. Helping children to understand the different opportunities and career paths that might be open to them, what sort of work they involve and how to pursue them is one of the most important tasks for schools to undertake—in partnership with parents and employers.
It is therefore disappointing that the Bill says so little about careers education, information, advice and guidance. The schools White Paper in March included commitments about careers education that do not appear in the Bill, such as the one covered by Amendment 91 on launching a new careers programme for primary schools in areas of disadvantage and the one on improving professional development for teachers and leaders on careers education, including strengthening understanding of apprenticeships and technical routes.
The importance of starting careers education in primary schools was recognised in the 2017 Careers Strategy. Its aim has been well described by the Careers & Enterprise Company, CEC, which has done so much valuable work in promoting and supporting careers education. It states:
“Career-related learning in primary schools is about broadening pupils’ horizons, challenging stereotypes and helping them develop the skills and sense of self that will enable them to reach their full potential.”
The CEC has conducted a number of research studies and pilot programmes both to demonstrate the effectiveness of primary careers education in achieving these aims and to establish what approaches work best in practice. From these studies it is clear that there is not only a clear appetite for careers education in primary schools but growing evidence that such education has a positive impact on overall school engagement and attainment, raises pupils’ aspirations, enhances their motivation and helps to clarify their life goals and break down biases about the world of work. There is plenty of good experience, best practice and resources to draw on, such as the CEC’s report What Works? Career-related Learning in Primary Schools, the Career Development Institute’s Career Development Framework: Handbook for Primary Schools, and the Teach First report that the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, referred to.
I strongly support this amendment but ideally I would like it to be extended, with a requirement that the delivery of a careers programme within the framework required by proposed new subsection (1) to be inserted by the amendment should be mandatory for all primary schools. There are three questions I ask the Minister in responding to this amendment. First, what are the Government’s plans to ensure that all primary schools have a careers programme in line with the Gatsby benchmarks? Secondly, how will they ensure that adequate resources and facilities are available to deliver these plans, including not just financial assistance for disadvantages schools but an adequate pipeline of fully trained and qualified career guidance professionals, as well as careers leaders in schools? Thirdly, what action will they take to ensure that all teachers learn about careers education as part of their training?
I also support Amendment 158, which sets out a number of subjects which should be a mandatory feature of every school’s curriculum, including digital skills, financial literacy and life skills. In my view, one of these life skills should be first aid training, which I shall say more about, noble Lords will probably be relieved to hear, when we get to Amendment 167. It always astonishes me that skills such as these, which are so vital to everyone, and which schools are ideally placed to teach, are not taught as a matter of course. Digital literacy in particular is rapidly becoming a category of functional skills complementary to, if not on a par with, literacy and numeracy. This was suggested by the House of Lords Select Committee on Digital Skills in 2015, which pointed out that
“Digital literacy is an essential tool that underpins other subjects and almost all jobs.”
I support the other amendments in this group, including the amendment on British values introduced by my noble and right reverend friend Lord Harries, and Amendment 171I tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Chapman and Lady Wilcox, to make work experience mandatory—to which I add only that it needs to be high-quality work experience.
If we are looking for the Schools Bill to help create an education system that is designed to meet the growing needs of the future, it should ensure that all young people are taught the subjects listed in Amendment 158, are made aware of the values set out in Amendment 168, undertake high-quality work experience as required by Amendment 171I and are helped to start thinking about their own career aspirations and potential from primary age onwards, in line with Amendment 91. I hope all these requirements and amendments will find their way into the Bill.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Shipley and the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, on Amendment 91, to which I added my name, to ensure that careers education is supported in primary schools. It is really important that young people are introduced to a range of careers before they become convinced that some jobs are boys’ jobs and some are for girls. We need women engineers, firefighters, police and military officers, just as we need men to become nurses, teachers, hairdressers and carers. If very young children are encouraged to see where their interests lie, it will serve them well later on.
There was a wonderful programme—I do not know if it is still going—called Drawing the Future, where primary children drew their ambitions. One eight year-old girl had drawn a very accurate picture of an RAF Hawk aircraft and written “When I grow up, I want to be an RAF Red Arrows pilot”—no matter that the Red Arrows have hardly ever had women; that did not daunt her. What a wonderful aspiration. She and the other prize-winners were then greeted by an appropriate adult in their chosen field, and an elegant woman pilot appeared to give her a prize and talk to her about her aspirations.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group and will just say a few words in support of Amendment 168. In the absence of a written constitution, we need a much more explicit statement of the values we hold dear, with which we must acquaint our children. This amendment would fulfil that educational obligation, as set out magisterially by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth. It includes acknowledgment of our diversity, as well as the elements which bind us together. It also signals the environmental pressures of our time. It could, with great advantage, be the basis of the content of those lessons which are offered to pupils who opt out of worship. My only rider is that open and continual class discussion is an essential part of the teaching of these values, and this perhaps could have been made explicit also. In the words of the inspirational thinker Amartya Sen, public discourse is a vital part of democracy.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 168, on which noble Lords have spoken very well. It is very important, particularly for people who come to live in this country, to understand our values and to feel happy living here.
I also support Amendment 171F, which the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, explained clearly and eloquently. As a parent, I find that it is so important to be involved in your children’s education, and children also want their parents to be involved. If there is a loophole—which is so easily amended by this amendment—it is important for it to be included, and it should not be difficult to do so. If it is not corrected, we run the risk of being on a slippery slope. There are consequences if parents are not involved in what is taught to their children—this is what happened under Nazi rule and in communist China and communist Russia, and is possibly happening even now with what President Putin is doing with children in Russia. It is important for parents to be involved and, if there is a loophole, I hope that this Government will amend it.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, I speak in favour of all the amendments in this group, and in particular Amendment 168. However, before I get to that, I will speak in respect of Amendment 91, on careers education, and the amendments from my noble friends around work experience.
It is really important, in its own right, that we nurture in young people an interest in their future in work and the future careers they might have. I am particularly passionate that they should think about more than one career; it is about not just what you want to be when you grow up but the variety of things in a long working life that young people might want to do when they are older. I also believe in its importance for more than just that purpose, as part of a broader and more balanced curriculum than we have at the moment in our schools, at every one of the key stages, where things are particularly narrow. I would hope that, in the context of Amendment 158, which talks about digital skills, this might include media literacy—something we were talking about earlier at Oral Questions.
I would also say in passing that if any noble Lords are interested in how the career aspirations of children change as they grow up, they should talk to the people at KidZania. It is a rather unusual experience in this country, at Westfield shopping centre, where you drop your children off and they are immersed in a two-thirds size world where they can choose from different work options for them to enjoy as work experience while you go shopping. KidZania exists in various cities around the world, and it collects data about the different backgrounds and genders—all the aspects of diversity—of children and what their choices are, and it is fascinating to see how those change as they get older and become more gendered. The different aspirations according to background are indeed fascinating.
On work experience, I know that, as ever with anything where you are looking at a broader and more balanced curriculum, people in schools have to make some difficult choices about resources and what aspect of the curriculum they are going to let go to make space for something different and new. I think we need to be honest about that. My sense is that we have an overemphasis on academic and cognitive skills and not enough on some other skills. That is a point I make regularly, and it is where I would want schools to focus. I would also want them to use the good work of organisations such as the Careers & Enterprise Company, which has been mentioned; Founders4Schools, which has a great platform to help connect schools with local employers and people who run local businesses to ask them for work experience opportunities or to come in and speak in schools; Speakers for Schools; and the few remaining education business partnerships. In a world where every school is an academy, one thing I would really like to see is for all those academies to be in local partnerships with local employers so that they can help drive this important work at a localised level. I think the partnership in Hounslow still exists, but such partnerships are very few and far between, and I wish that they could be revived.
On Amendment 171F, transparency for parents is really important. They should not be treated as a third party in a school, as my noble friend talked about some being treated. They are an integral part of the community, and for community cohesion purposes among other things, it is important that such transparency exists.
That leaves Amendment 168 in the name of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, which is excellent. I am somewhat partial, in that I tried to introduce through a Private Member’s Bill “sustainable citizenship” as a way of amending the citizenship subject in order to introduce sustainability. I will not rehearse all the compelling arguments that I made during the passage of that Bill, but interested Members of your Lordships’ House can look it up in Hansard. But the rest of the amendment, in respect of codification of British values, is really valuable and important. Indeed, if we could introduce this really quickly, perhaps members of the Cabinet could take some instruction in citizenship and learn about equal respect for every person, an independent judiciary, government that is accountable to Parliament and freedom of assembly—all things that appear to be threatened at the moment.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
I have not contributed so far to this debate, either at Second Reading or in any of the subsequent stages. I am no expert in the field of education, but I wanted to contribute today, just once, in support of Amendment 168 in the name of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, for reasons I shall come to in a minute. As he pointed out, the amendment has had pretty strong cross-party support.
But before doing so, I want to take just a moment to reflect on earlier days in Committee, which I sat through, covering the opening clauses of the Bill. As I have just made clear, while I am not an expert and know very little about education policy, wearing my hat as chairman of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, listening to those earlier debates—particularly the contribution from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, who is in his place—left me quite disturbed. Of course, we come to the point made by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, that part of democracy includes,
“in a Parliamentary system, a Government that is accountable to Parliament”.
Many noble Lords will be aware of the recent reports by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and its sister committee, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, drawing attention to the Government’s increasing use of what we have come to call framework Bills. These are Bills in which only the broadest direction of policy travel is revealed in the primary legislation and is, therefore, subject to a proper level of scrutiny, or the detail—and it is the detail that really matters—is left to secondary legislation. The hard-hitting report by the DPRRC about this Bill in particular set out the case in detail.
We on the SLSC have a wonderful staff, but we are concerned that we are going to be asked to report to the House on regulations which are of sufficient importance to justify a much higher level of scrutiny and consultation. The SLSC’s report, Government by Diktat, has been commented on—less so our more recent report published about six weeks ago, What Next? The Growing Imbalance between Parliament and the Executive. To be honest, it is simply not good enough for the Government to say that all these regulations are approved by both Houses. While that may be true technically, it is none the less a sophistry; as the House knows, statutory instruments are not amendable—they are either passed or rejected. Therefore, it is not surprising that when faced with this nuclear option the House has, understandably, been reluctant to press the button marked “reject”.
I have some sympathy with the Government’s view that public policy is evolving too fast for the rather stately pace of primary legislation to keep up. But if this argument is to be accepted, then the Government, in turn, must accept there is a need to examine and redesign our secondary legislation scrutiny procedures to cover these framework clauses—not necessarily very many of them—that come in the Bills before your Lordships’ House. Yes, it will make the Government’s job more difficult—that is why they do not like it—but better consultation and wider debate will lead to better law; most importantly and most significantly, it preserves and strengthens the principle of informed consent which is a critical part of any properly functioning democratic system. So, I urge my noble friend the Minister to encourage some fresh thinking by the Government, who have had, after all, “taking back control” as a primary policy objective.
I turn now to the amendment from the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries. I had the pleasure—it was a privilege—to chair the House of Lords Select Committee on Citizenship and Civic Engagement on which he, the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley—from whom we have just heard a very interesting and informed expert speech—all served. One key issue on which the committee focused was what held us all together—the glue that binds us. It must be true that if we are to adhere to that glue, to accept that glue, we need to establish some values that form an essential part of it. This is the essence of the argument of the noble and right reverend Lord.
I have to argue that there is an urgent need to debate, to agree, to teach and to then stand up for those values. Why is this important? I think there are three reasons. First, the impact on our society and on our social cohesion of social media. Social media is a shouty place, it is not a reflective one. It emphasises rights and can often forget responsibilities, and responsibilities inevitably run—and must run—parallel to our rights. If our society is to be successful, every one of us has to be prepared to put back in as well as just take out. Indeed, if I have a concern about the amendment from the noble and right reverend Lord, it is that the words “rights” and “responsibilities” do not appear in it.
The second reason for the glue weakening is the rapid changing of our society and the way it is made up. I touch here on the point made by my noble friend Lady Meyer. ONS statistics tell us that 28% of the children born in this country last year were born to mothers who themselves were not born in this country. That is not an anti-immigrant remark; it merely points out that if you were not born in the country, you will inevitably have a slightly more tangential knowledge of the values that are essential to the country in which you have arrived and are now living, as my noble friend pointed out.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, having said to the Minister that I would be quiet today, I had forgotten that this group did not get debated last week when I was away. I support all these amendments. It is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. He and I do not always agree, but on this occasion I want first to thank him for his incredibly helpful contribution on primary and secondary legislation. It was astoundingly clear and helpful. I thank him very much and hope it will be heeded by Her Majesty’s Government. Secondly, I agree with him on Amendment 168, but I will come back to that in a moment.
I support Amendment 91 on primary careers guidance because it would help to break down false dreams, as well as raise aspirations. I hear too many false dreams arise from children in primary schools when I visit them, which is a regular feature of my work and that of all my right reverend friends. We visit primary and secondary schools and listen to children there. We absolutely want to raise aspirations but we do not want to give false hopes either. Well thought-through careers education at the primary level helps this.
It also helps children in primary schools develop the sense of work as vocation and calling rather than simply a job that you do to earn money. We need to recover a much deeper sense that work is part and parcel of being a human and that it is not simply what you get paid for but what you contribute to the life of society as a whole and what helps you flourish as a person. If we do not inculcate that thinking during the primary years, we only ever go down the more and more utilitarian road that work is about what you get paid for so that you can enjoy yourself in the rest of life, rather than enjoying work and being fulfilled in it.
Such careers education also helps the sense of why it is important to have literacy and numeracy. The reason why I regularly struggle with the emphasis on literacy and numeracy as if they were utterly distinct subjects, rather than part of education for the fullness and wholeness of life, is that literacy and numeracy are there for a purpose, not simply for their own sake. They enable people to fulfil their calling and their task, and lots of children struggle with literacy and numeracy because they do not see any purpose in it. However, if you get a vision of what work and career might look like—I pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Knight—it must be about the potential numbers of careers that you might hold in the future. Very few people now end up with simply one career, and certainly will not in the future. Therefore I strongly support Amendment 91.
On Amendment 168, I thank the noble and right reverend Lord who used to sit on these Benches for his proposal. I am utterly behind it. However, there are two things that I wish were there but which are not at the moment. I would have liked to have seen something on the social responsibility that flows from the five areas outlined. Freedom, respect for persons and care for the environment require social responsibility. This is where I agree again with the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, that we need something around the fact that rights and responsibilities go together. I hope that the Government will pick up this proposal, and that would be one of the possible tweaks that I would look at.
On Amendments 158 and 171I, I say “Absolutely” but—I am never sure whether I am allowed to do this—I have a question for the opposition leadership, who proposed this rather than for the Minister. Amendment 171I says “All schools”. Does this therefore mean that we are introducing work experience at primary level and if so, what does that look like, or is secondary level meant? If it is the former, it ties in with primary careers stuff and so on; I am just teasing out how that would look.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, for spotting an obvious flaw that needs to be dealt with. She explained it so clearly, and I hope that it is accepted and moved forward.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, there are some splendid amendments in this group. I very much liked what the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, had to say. I will speak briefly to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and to that of my noble friend Lady Morris. The former is an extremely important amendment on the broad principle that it is never too early to widen the horizons of children at school as to what may be possible and the options that may be there. We all know that there is a tendency for the career horizons of students to get narrower rather than broader, and if it is not there at a very early age then certainly is by the time they are in secondary school. They are affected by their peer group very strongly, and I hope that it is not too old-fashioned a phrase to say that it is a matter not just of gender stereotypes but of class stereotypes.
People are often restricted in their view of what is possible by the careers of people they know, such as their parents. These may be very good choices, but people need the whole bandwidth, as it were. I hope it is not seen as too facetious a comment—I know we are not talking about private schools—but if you attended Eton College and said that your career ambition was to be Prime Minister, that would be a reasonable and statistically likely objective, given that, I think, 20 Prime Ministers went to Eton. If that was your objective in life, the strong recommendation would be to go to Eton, assuming, of course, your parents could afford to send you there. If, however, you had been to the schools that most of us have been to and had said in your teenage years that your ambition was to be Prime Minister, you would have been told to sit down, have a drink of water and be more realistic in your expectations. I really think that before children start commenting, essentially in the same language as their peer group or their social background, the broader the options made plain to them the better—and, of course, the ways of achieving those options.
The other amendment I want to speak to is the one from my noble friend Lady Morris. I emphasise that, for me, the issue is not so much about parental examination, if you like, of life sciences, life relationship skills and the like; it is about the principle of accountability that could apply to any area of school activity. I must admit that it was news to me—I am nothing like the professional that she is—that schools could contract out pretty well anything they liked. To take an absurd example, it is possible that parents would not be able to discover what was in the English curriculum at school because it was commercially sensitive. Quite apart from that being unacceptable, it seems pretty impractical. Given that these subjects are being taught in schools to teenagers and the details of the curriculum are being withheld from parents because they are commercially sensitive, you would simply have a situation in the family where a teenager came home from school, their parents asked what they had been doing that day and the teenager responded by saying, “I’m afraid I can’t discuss it—it’s commercially sensitive.” On a practical level, even if the principle is right, which I do not think it is, my noble friend’s amendment should be supported.
Lord Triesman (Lab)
My Lords, I support pretty much all the amendments in the group. The one tabled by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, is particularly helpful and casts a glow over most of the others. That is why I plead it in aid when talking about Amendment 171F, spoken to by my noble friend Lady Morris of Yardley and so strongly supported by both the noble Lords, Lord Sandhurst and Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, with both of whom I align myself.
I should like to make three points. First, almost all of us in ordinary conversation talk about the importance of the relationship and the fact that education is a team sport—schools, kids and parents are all involved. We take it as a truth and do not question it any further. But the other thing about this team sport is that none of the bits is sealed off from another. All of us who have brought up children must have had the experience of them coming home and wanting to talk about something that has arisen in the curriculum they are being taught. If we do not have the smallest idea of what that might be, it will be a much less fruitful conversation than any parent, or the child who introduced the subject, would want to have. These points have to be fundamental and this amendment goes to the heart of the issue. If we mean that it is a team—something shared and collaborative—it must mean that we are all in the position where we can talk about what the other experiences and what the other knows. If not, it does not really mean anything. I hope that point will be taken very strongly.
Baroness Stroud (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 171F, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, and to add my support for this group of amendments.
It is already well established in national and international law that parents have the right to raise their children and the duty to safeguard their well-being. It is also well established that this includes the obligation to ensure that their children receive a suitable education and that this is then underpinned by general presumption in law that, except in cases where there is substantial risk of serious harm, parents do act in the best interests of their children.
Further, under Article 13.3 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which the UK has ratified, it is also enshrined that parents have the prior right to choose the kind of education that their child will be given. Many parents chose to exercise this right by delegating the education of their children in certain subjects to more qualified teachers in schools in order to provide them with the best education possible. None the less, it is still their choice as parents to do so.
It follows, therefore, that to make this choice, as we have heard this afternoon, parents must be able to review all teaching materials, in order to make a fully informed decision about the education of their children. This must include third-party curriculum resources. Many schools choose to make use of a wide range of these third-party resources, some of which are extremely useful. However, as noble Lords are aware, there is increasing evidence from parents that schools are using third-party teaching materials which are often ideologically motivated and lack factual basis, particularly in relation to some relationships and sex education materials, as well as other contentious issues.
As we have heard this afternoon, even more concerning is that some of these materials are being withheld from parents. Amendment 171F seeks to maintain the right of parents to view all teaching materials, not just the curriculum lesson titles. Schools have a duty to provide these materials for parents to view and therefore this amendment is necessary in order to close that particular loophole in legislation.
In addition, it has long been communicated to parents that children learn best when they are supported at home by parents who are interested and involved. I can remember hours of testing my children on spellings, maths and history. If parents cannot view and understand the materials their children are being taught, they are hampered in their ability and responsibility to support their children in their education.
Parents should not only be allowed to view teaching materials but actively encouraged to read and engage with their child’s education and the materials being taught in schools. That is why, while I wholeheartedly agree with the amendment, there is one issue that I would encourage the noble Baroness to smooth over, perhaps by Report, should she bring the amendment back, which I very much hope she will. For parents to be able to engage fully with their child’s education, the material needs to be freely available to parents online or at home. The phrase “on the premises”, meaning on the school premises, is an unnecessary restriction. These third-party organisations are commissioned to provide a service, not to teach secret material.
Research has consistently shown that the impact of parental engagement in a child’s education has a far greater effect on the child’s educational success than the schooling itself. This is a trend found across the age range and social backgrounds. Parental engagement is particularly important when children start to engage in some of the personal and social issues in society. There are many examples of good practice in this area already in place in schools across the country, such as making the curriculum, teaching resources and guidance for parents available via parent portals. It would be fun to see some of this material taught on BBC Bitesize, for example.
As parents, we have a duty to ensure that our children are receiving a high-quality education, but in order to fulfil that duty, we must retain the right to engage with the material that our children are being taught in schools. With one tweak in mind, Amendment 171F has my full support.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I very much welcome this debate. First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for his intervention and the work of his Select Committee, which is invaluable to the House. He put to the Minister very stark choices that we face as a House when presented with the kind of Bill that the noble Baroness has brought before us. In essence, either we take those clauses out or we must see from the Government a new approach to the way we deal with secondary legislation. As the noble Lord suggested, either we must be able to amend such regulations—framework clause regulations, as he referred to it—when they come to us, or we must have a much more extensive system of scrutiny. Otherwise, the House will start to change the convention and reject secondary legislation, because we cannot allow Governments to steamroller through this type of legislation. I suspect we will see, time after time in this Session, the House becoming much more assertive about the way we are being treated.
I very much welcome Amendment 168, from the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries. I was tickled by the definition of democracy, which, in subsection (4)(d) of the proposed new clause, means to include
“decentralised decision-making, accountable at an appropriate level to the electorate”
and then comparing it to the Bill, which is taking powers away from local education authorities and giving it to either the Secretary of State or non-accountable academies. Ministers should certainly pay attention to the noble Lord’s amendment.
I strongly support my noble friend Lady Morris on Amendment 171F, and I say to the Minister that, if she thinks the wording is unacceptable and there may be some perverse incentives in it, I hope she will say that the department will make it absolutely clear to schools that parents must be able to see the materials we have been talking about—not to veto, because we need a partnership between the school, the teachers, the students and the parents—and she must come up with something firm. A lot of people have raised issues with her department and officials, and they have been mealy-mouthed in their approach and reluctant to say anything firm at all, but I think that time has passed.
Finally, on 10 June, the Children’s Commissioner published a blog in which she said she had been asked by the department to review the content of RSE, and that she has been specifically asked to look at
“How we can support schools to teach high quality RSE effectively and with confidence .. How teachers can feel fully equipped to teach these subjects well … How we can include the voice of children and young people in achieving the DfE’s aims for RSE more widely.”
That is to be welcomed. I have attempted to get a copy of the letter that the department sent to the commissioner, but the Library of the House has so far been unable to get a copy—I suspect it has not yet been written. I am surprised that it has nothing to say about parents and their involvement. Would the Minister look into this to see that the letter, when it finally goes to the commissioner, makes it clear that parents are seen to be a partner as well?
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I support Amendment 171F, excellently introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, and backed up by others. First, I will comment on this whole group of amendments and the interesting speeches we have heard on them.
I think what lurks behind some of the frustrations with the Bill is an absence of anything about the content of education and the curriculum—the whole question of what education is for. I regret that we are not spending more time on the substance of schooling rather than the structures and systems. These speeches indicate that people want to talk about something that is not in the Bill: education, which is, after all, the point of schools.
One trend we have seen over recent years is the tendency to see schools instrumentally as a means to address social, economic and cultural problems, which I worry squeezes out a focus on knowledge for its own sake, which is my particular hobby horse. Regardless, because that has led to an ever-expanding demand on teachers to solve myriad non-educational social problems, I fear that it is stirring up tensions over the distinct division of labour between schools and families—a sort of mission creep that often makes parents feel that teachers are encroaching into areas, such as values, that are either politicised or at odds with their own values. I think that lies behind some of the tensions that have emerged around Amendment 171F.
At the very least, this expanded remit has dragged teachers into some highly contentious arenas that they now have to teach. We have heard the contributions on British values in this debate; one could argue indefinitely over those things, and there have been arguments. The question is whether schools are the places where they should be fought out.
I have a couple of examples. Head teachers and senior teachers I know told me that there was something of a panic after the Black Lives Matter moment, when teachers were told that they had to decolonise the curriculum in the wake of the murder of George Floyd in 2020, and also in relation to the government extension of relationship and sex education in 2019. Teachers were saying, “Well, this isn’t just teaching biology”—they are aware that it is a toxic topic these days. It is not just something you can send in the teaching staff to do; they know it goes far more broadly than science or facts.
The solution has been to bring in outside experts—third parties, NGOs—with their ready-made materials, but I think there is a real problem here. This is actually undermining the professionalism of teachers. These experts can be used to train governors and teachers or to run workshops directly with pupils and to supply materials, as we have heard. But when you look at who is doing it, some of them at least are partisan political activists who embrace one-sided ideological approaches to contentious issues. They are not trained as teacher trainers, they are not accredited and there is no central regulation.
One would think from the Bill—which is, as several people have noted, such a centralising power grab that it is likely to squeeze the life out of school autonomy—that the Government might be all over a situation where there are all sorts of people going into schools and teaching things and nobody knows what they are teaching. However, on this issue, the DfE seems to be washing its hands, saying that it is up to schools to vet third-party providers. But without clear guidelines it is hard for schools to navigate around what are, if we are honest, contentious culture war issues.
I do not know whether Ministers have looked at the resources produced by some external organisations, but I urge them to go through the research provided by Transgender Trend or the Safe Schools Alliance, because it is more ideology than facts: pronouns for primary school kids, et cetera—I will not rehearse it. I think the excuse is that the material is commercially sensitive, but often what is going on here is that things are politically sensitive. These are not benign ideas, let alone facts; they are often divisive and totally at odds with parents’ values, and certainly fall short of statutory requirements for teacher impartiality.
Moving to a different subject, so that it is not all gender, I was struck during the lockdown by the Channel 4 documentary, “The School That Tried to End Racism”, which involved 11 and 12 year-olds at a school in south London. Many parents I knew were horrified at the use of pseudoscientific implicit association testing and the splitting of classrooms into white and non-white affinity groups, all through the prism of critical race theory. The campaign group that I was involved in setting up at the time, Don’t Divide Us, was drowning in concerned parents asking what was going on and whether their kids were being taught that all white people are racist. Parents went into schools to ask whether they could see the materials being used—even though sometimes that meant dodging lockdowns—and were told that there was nothing to see here, treated as a nuisance and told to go away.
When a group of parents led by DDU challenged Brighton & Hove City Council about its Racial Literacy 101 materials for schools, they were constantly rebuffed. Eventually, what was revealed showed some shockers. For example, under the heading “Overt and Covert White Supremacy”, lynching was listed alongside colour blindness. This is a shocking slur against generations of civil rights and anti-racist activists who took Martin Luther King’s mantra that we should judge on the content of character and not skin colour—no longer, it seems.
When you finally do see some of the teaching materials, they show that Martin Luther King’s position is dismissed as “old-fashioned” and that pupils are often being told that parents are the problem—that they are old-fashioned and backward. We must be very wary of this. For example, parents who go along with colour blindness are being described as exhibiting unconscious bias; those parents who believe in the biological facts of sex rather than the fluidity of gender identity are labelled to their own children as bigots and transphobic, guilty of cisnormativity.
The Government have a responsibility to diffuse what could become quite a nasty set of tensions. Potentially, one of the ways of ensuring against this breach of trust between schools and parents would be more transparency. It is a no-brainer for the Government: they should ensure that the spirit of Amendment 171F goes flying through and becomes part of the Bill.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness has made a very interesting speech and said some extremely sensible and some provocative things. However, sitting through this debate, and when I first saw the Bill, the one word that kept coming to my mind was “superficial”. We are in danger of pandering to a superficial society and being involved in the evolution of a superficial society.
When I was a young schoolmaster, over 60 years ago, a very well-respected headmaster said to me, “Whatever you do, be thorough.” I was appointed the careers master, and he told me to remember that what was important in the boys that I taught—in that case it was boys—was that they recognised that the job which they have when they leave school, whatever it is, is only part of them and that, in whatever they do, they must seek be a part of the community in which they live. I paraphrase, but that is the essence of what he said.
I often think of that when I go across to Lincoln Cathedral, as I do every day when I am in my hometown. I sit above the choir-stalls before evensong, while the choir is training and rehearsing. These young people are being given a thorough grounding. They can sing often the most complicated music with great beauty and accomplishment because if they get a note wrong, kindly but firmly and—to use the word again—thoroughly, the master of the music or his deputy points it out and they do it again, and, if necessary, again. In what they are doing to create great music in one of our greatest cathedrals, they are, in a sense, emulating the people who built that great cathedral and who, through the ages, had long, complicated, detailed apprenticeships.
I know, as the founder of the William Morris Craft Fellowship, in which I declare an interest, that today many young men and women—we have awarded fellowships to many young women—are able, through mastering their craft, to become much more important members of the society in which they live. They have mastered something and done it thoroughly. A great many of those young people play a role in their local communities—some even as councillors—or in the voluntary sector.
The Bill must be put into some sort of order; I pick up on the substance of the amendments spoken to so splendidly by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, and others, and in the fine speech made by my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. We are saying, in effect, “Do not be superficial; remember that aspiration is important.” I remember a Minister in the other place saying in a Queen’s Speech debate many years ago that the real poor of the 20th century, as it then was, “are those without hope.”
Hope and aspiration are terribly important; they have to be encouraged, through partnership between parents, teachers and students. The Bill comes nowhere near that. We need to inject the spirit of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, and my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts if at the end of the day we are to get a Schools Bill that is worthy of its name. At the moment it is not. This is no personal criticism of my noble friend the Minister, for whom I have real regard. Nobody would call her superficial but she is in charge of a Bill that is. That needs to be put right; I hope that it will be.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support the speech made by my noble friend Lady Morris—and in no way to demur from anything she said about appropriate access to curriculum materials for parents—but also to reinforce the point made by my noble friend Lord Hunt that we are not talking about a veto. We have strayed into some extremely difficult areas. It is important, therefore, to stress that we are talking about partnership between schools, parents and students, and looking at curriculum content in a collaborative way. This is not saying that a group of parents, or indeed one parent, should be able to turn up and say, “I would like to look at this and, by the way, my child is not having it”—and expect that somehow the writ of that will run throughout the school. That was clearly not the intention of anyone who has spoken in the debate.
For example, in previous debates we have talked about parent councils, originally introduced by my noble friend Lord Knight under a different kind of Government. We have to be in that place throughout this; it is not just about access to curriculum materials. We need to be saying that the work of a school is a partnership between the parent body, the students, the wider community and the teaching and other staff. This is not in any sense to demur from the notion of access, but it is perhaps to draw the balance. This should not be about a veto but about developing a relationship so that parents understand what is going on in schools. They may feel that they can and should influence that in some small way, and that may be welcomed by the school. However, there is a very big difference between that and vetoing. That is all I wanted to say.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, and to agree with everything she said. This has been a rich and full debate, reflecting the importance of these amendments. I am going to join the breadth of support for Amendment 168, to add another party to the list, and will make some contributions that are different from, and a point of disagreement with, some of the discussion we have had.
Picking up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, I entirely agree with Amendment 171F but we have been somewhat driven off course. When we think about this being about commercial confidentiality, we are talking primarily about commercial companies, which are going to be citing commercial confidentiality. I reference a question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, in the DCMS Oral Question earlier today. She was expressing concern about giant multinational media companies providing materials on media literacy to schools. That might be a cause for concern.
I also have great concern about very large multinational companies selling curriculum materials all around the world; these may or may not be appropriate to the British context. That is where we are much more likely to encounter that argument of commercial confidentiality. I query whether any commercial company should be providing materials going into our schools. I fully accept that NGOs, social enterprises, and people who start out with a social purpose to produce materials for our schools, are very valuable and worthwhile in specialist areas. However, if you have a company where its entire purpose is to make money—that is what a commercial company is—what will that do to the materials it produces?
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
Just to note, a lot of the charitable organisations and so on are making money. I am not suggesting that because they are making money, they are evil, but I do not think that it quite works in this instance because the phrase “commercial sensitivity” is used by organisations which are not big businesses going in; they are small and socially worthy, but they are also commercial. Let me tell you, a lot of them are making quite a lot of money, even if they are doing it with the best intentions. That is not really the point.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
While we are at it, I declare my interest that I work with a company called EVERFI, which does some of this work, but it liaises with money-making commercial organisations to provide resources at no charge for teachers. Some of those, for example, relate to careers, which is part of this group of amendments. There are excellent science employers or computer gaming companies, for example, which are trying to help create the learning that will mean that people from all sorts of backgrounds are more inclined, readier and more confident to think that they could work in those industries. I would not want anything that the noble Baroness is saying to curtail that sort of important learning resource.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I take the noble Baroness’s point that NGOs and social enterprises may indeed have commercial interests. I still think that there is a difference between them using that to fund their work and a company that exists purely for making profit, but I take the point about commercial confidentiality. I will circle back to the question on computer gaming companies when I comment on some of the other amendments.
I entirely support Amendment 91 and the related Amendment 171I on careers programmes and work experience. We have already had an interesting debate, but a bit more needs to be drawn out. Some of the discussion was about raising aspiration and social mobility; the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said that in introducing his amendment. We need to acknowledge that there is a huge amount of aspiration in our societies that people cannot fulfil because they lack opportunities. We need to acknowledge all those strangled aspirations.
I pick up the point from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, that we need to think about this not just as a way of helping people to think about different careers—although I very much agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, that addressing gender stereotypes is really important—but as people going out into and spending some time in operations in society as a way to see how they might contribute in all sorts of ways, not just through whatever paid employment they might eventually take up. It is important that we see that.
On this whole language of aspiration and social mobility, I contend that we have to ensure we value everyone contributing to our society in all sorts of ways. I will pick up the point from the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, about Eton. Would we not have got somewhere when pupils at Eton aspired to be a school dinner person or a bus driver? Maybe there are pupils at Eton who do, but I doubt it somehow and I doubt they are encouraged to. Yet those are both vital jobs in our society that people can make a large contribution through.
I entirely support Amendment 168. Its importance has been powerfully covered by lots of people, in particular the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth. However, I question one word in it. It refers to British values as “values of British citizenship”. The values in the amendment—
“democracy … the rule of law … freedom … equal respect … freedom of thought, conscience and religion”—
are ones that the international community has collectively agreed should be the values of human rights and the rule of law and should be observed all around the world. I do not think this necessarily has to be referred to as “British” citizenship; they are the values of citizenship that we encourage in our own society and all around the world. Indeed, British jurists, British campaigners and British Governments have played a very powerful role in spreading those values around the world, such as through the European Court of Human Rights. They are not uniquely British values but values we want to encourage everywhere.
On that point, I have to challenge a comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, who suggested that those who were born overseas and have chosen to become British citizens may have less awareness of these values than those who were born here. Of course, people who have chosen to move here—I declare my own interest as someone who chose to become a British citizen—have consciously chosen to sign up to those values. It is very important that we do not suggest that this is an issue for some people and not everyone in our society.
I had a lot more but I am aware of the time and we have not yet heard from the noble Baronesses on the Front Bench about mandatory curriculum subjects. I will just come back to the point about computer gaming. Some of the items that the noble Baronesses suggest as crucial are “financial literacy” and “life skills”. I looked to a report from the Centre for Social Justice, On the Money: A Roadmap for Lifelong Financial Learning, which points out that there is a huge problem with a lack of financial knowledge among young children being exposed in digital online marketplaces, particularly with gaming loot boxes. We need to be very careful about the involvement of companies such as that because there are very large financial interests there.
Finally—I am aware of the time and wanted to say a lot more—the one thing that I do not agree with, which I have to put on the record, is that all academies must follow the national curriculum. The Green Party does not believe that there should be a national curriculum. We think that there should be a set of learning entitlements whereby learners and teachers together develop a curriculum content to suit their needs and interests.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid the noble Lord was not here at the start of the debate on this group, so we should move to Front-Bench contributions.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, this group of amendments is extremely important and I just want to raise a number of issues arising from them. Let me remind noble Lords that in the early 1970s the only compulsory subject on the school curriculum was religious education. Anything else was left to the schools themselves to decide what to teach. Then in 1974, the William Tyndale Junior School in London had a parents’ protest outside because of the radical learning going on in that school. That resulted in a huge educational row and the Government wanting to develop a curriculum in schools that flowed down to local authorities. Then, of course, we had the national curriculum of the noble Lord, Lord Baker, which was very inclusive. People had an opportunity to say what they felt should be included in that national curriculum, which we followed, by and large, with great joy.
Then came the academy movement, and we said, “Do you know what? We need schools to have the freedom to choose what they want to teach”. So we now have a system whereby some schools have to follow a national curriculum and some have the freedom to choose what they want to do. I will not comment on the rights and wrongs of that, but it creates real problems in our learning.
The amendment of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, is absolutely stunning, but while we talk about British values, we live in a multicultural society. Our curriculum does not reflect that multicultural society, which is why Amendment 158 from the noble Baronesses, Lady Chapman and Lady Wilcox, is so important.
Over the last few years, in a series of Written Questions I have tried to probe the opportunities for black studies in our curriculum. They are incredibly limited and, by and large, it is left to schools themselves to say, “Do you know what? I would like to do a unit on slavery”. If schools in Liverpool and Bristol, which were the centres of slavery, did not have to pull down statues but there were a historical unit on slavery, it might have been a very different situation altogether. Again, it is left to schools to decide. In her written replies, the Minister will come back to me and say, “They can do so and so”. They can choose to do that but it is not mandatory, so we have a society in which it is mandatory to study the Egyptians but not other important multicultural and historical issues.
I turn to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Morris. I had not thought about this at all, in the sense that when I was a head teacher I always assumed that parents had the right to know what was being taught to their children. We spent a lot of time making sure it was on the school website and, before that, they would come in and find out. This is such an important amendment that we have to get right, because I see issues that can arise. We have to road test it in our minds to make sure that it works. There is another side to it that we have not mentioned. The noble Baroness has perhaps come to it from one direction, but we have unregistered schools, which we will talk about later. They are unregistered for exactly that reason: they want to teach things that are not inspected. The curriculum and the materials they use are not inspected. Also, the only subject that parents can withdraw their children from is relationship and sex education. Maybe, if parents saw the materials used, they would feel comfortable enough to let the children come into school. It is important that it can have a very positive impact on parents and on learning.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Storey. By the time we finish this group, we will have spent more than two hours on it, and that says a lot about the meaty topics that we have in this group that really could have been separated into more groups. The fact that we have had to table amendments to get these topics discussed tells you something about what is not in the Bill.
I still do not understand why the Government are taking this approach. We understand, say, the measures on home-educated children and why the Government are doing that—we will have questions and we will want to challenge specific areas, but we know why they are doing it. With most of the rest of the Bill, we do not know what they want to do, and we do not know why they are doing it; we know how they intend to do it—by taking powers—but we really need to understand why the Government have decided to bring the Bill forward in the way that they have.
Amendment 91 proposes a careers programme for primary schools. It has been spoken to very well by several noble Lords, and I will not repeat everything that they have said. We support the focus on encouraging quality careers advice, information and sharing ideas about different careers with young children. This should be embedded throughout the curriculum. Amendment 158 insists that all schools should follow a national curriculum. The Secretary of State is giving himself the power to do these things—or not—by regulation. We want to know whether he intends to use that power, and how. That gets to the crux of all this: we are all just talking about what we would like to do. That is all very well but, unless we know what the Government are going to do, we are really just having an interesting conversation among ourselves without having anything to properly hang it on. As the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, said very well, this is about democracy and the role of Parliament. Forgive us, but we take our role seriously and want to use the time afforded to this Chamber to make a positive contribution to the legislation before us. I know that the Minister is listening, and I feel for her, but we are very firm on this point that we keep coming back to. We need to know why.
Many people spoke to Amendment 168 from the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries so, again, I do not want to take up time repeating what others have said. This amendment talks about citizenship and British values; we think it is interesting and a sensible evolution of the current situation. I would like to know what colleagues in the other place think about this. Given that the Bill is a Lords starter, the only way I know how to do that is to get something into the Bill to send to them so that they can debate it. It would be incredibly valuable for us to get the reflections of the elected House so that we can take that forward, because it does make sense—especially given the debate that my noble friend Lord Knight led last week on including environmental education.
Our Amendment 171F—no, sorry, that is the amendment of my noble friend Lady Morris, but my support for it is such that I want to take ownership for myself—is obviously about sharing information with parents and getting rid of the issue of commercial confidentiality in this context. It is perfectly sensible and I hope that the Minister can say something positive about it when she responds.
Our Amendment 171I is about mandatory work experience. I totally take on board what the noble Lord, Lord Storey, has just said about the burden this would place on schools. I hope my noble friend Lady Blower does not mind me saying that she raised this with me earlier and it is an absolutely fair challenge. But the way we are looking at this is that if you are going to have work experience that is of value, it ought to be accessible to all children. It cannot be right that those children with parents in careers or with good contacts get a really good experience, while others get to do a school-based activity or end up in the nursery school run by the noble Lord. That does not seem fair so, in that way, it needs to be made an entitlement so that it is properly supported. We know that is an onerous responsibility but it is one that we think ought to be fulfilled. If noble Lords look at our amendment, they will see how: by doing it in partnership with local organisations.
We think it is wrong that, too often, young people rely on their social networks and connections to get work experience. We think that this disadvantages children and the community of employers because, be they small businesses, public bodies or voluntary and community sector organisations, they are missing out on the opportunity to engage with their local young people. Building a partnership with local organisations equipped to provide quality, horizon-broadening placements would, if the partnership is stable, be long lasting and benefit everyone.
There are lots and lots of examples of this being done very well all over the country but it is patchy. To namecheck just one of them, I say that the Social Mobility Foundation runs a scheme called One +1. It is a good example of a project that could be done in partnership across a wider area, where an employer who has already agreed to take on a young person whom they know, which could be the child of a childhood friend or relative, agrees to take an additional young person which the project has put in touch with them. Taking on two young people on work experience can often be a bit easier than taking one, so it is a minimal extra responsibility for the employer but it doubles the opportunity and makes sure that it is available based on the interests of the young person. That is just one example of how this could work.
Our Amendment 158—to which a few noble Lords have suggested enhancements, which are very welcome—is about the national curriculum. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has suggested that we add first aid, my noble friend Lord Knight would like to include media literacy and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, wants us to include online marketplaces, and I think all of that is sensible. I know there is an irresistible temptation to chuck things into the national curriculum and ask, “Why can’t schools do this thing that I am passionate about?”, but the intent of this amendment was more about honing things that are already taking place. We already have financial literacy education in schools, for example, but we think it is important to ensure that that is kept up to date and covers things that are of current concern.
The reason why we feel strongly about this issue and have done for some time is that there are choices here about what is important in what we teach and what skills we think our young people will need to benefit them and indeed all of us as a country. The answer to that question informs the values and attitudes that we as a society want to promote. We should take great care and consideration, as well as debate, in deciding what our children learn. There should be, and there is, flexibility for schools, teachers and parents to influence what is taught, but it cannot be right that the governance structure of a child’s school is what determines whether they benefit from the national curriculum. My noble friend Lady Morris made that point in an article that I found she had written over 10 years ago, and the argument is probably even more relevant now that we are going to see so many more of our schools becoming academies. She talked about the curriculum being
“an entitlement to all children”
and said:
“It stops schools giving up on children who find it difficult to learn or who are difficult to teach.”
There is something in that.
If everything worked perfectly in every school at every stage then there would be an argument for moving away from the national curriculum, but we are just not there at the moment. If we had universally high-quality teaching and leadership, and parents were always getting excellent feedback about how their kids were doing, then perhaps we could be more relaxed about this, but our mission here is to develop the potential of every child. That requires flexibility but it is right that gold-standard core knowledge is available to every child—including, I suggest, my noble friend Lord Knight’s suggestion about environmental education.
Subsection (3) of the proposed new clause in Amendment 158 is about the teaching of black history, something that the Welsh Government have decided to take forward, and we very much welcome that. Michael Gove removed the curriculum’s focus on diversity, and we would say that some of the richness of our national story—which is becoming appreciated more and more, and that is a good thing—has been lost. Teaching black history is essentially optional now. There have been black people in Britain since at least Roman times, fighting in the most famous battles, including Trafalgar, as well as both world wars. Obviously, issues such as the slave trade, colonialism, apartheid in South Africa and segregation in the US have had a significant and long-lasting impact on the world as it is today. However, we make the point that it is vital that the teaching of black history should not only be about empire and slavery, vital though these things are, but should celebrate figures who have achieved incredible things, such as those who were part of Henry VIII’s court or, I would say, someone like Arthur Wharton, the first black professional footballer, who played for Darlington. Those are important too.
This issue is important to us—I think it is important to explain why you are doing things—because we need to connect our history to the world around us as it is today. These are not just fascinating and exciting stories; this is about a history that has too often eliminated women, people of colour, the non-literate and even children. Learning to see past events from different perspectives is a key skill, not just for historians but for everyone who wants to understand the world around them.
I make the point again to the Minister that the Government have so far not explained why they are taking the Bill forward in the way that they are. Unless we get to that, there are several clauses of the Bill that I think are not going to make it to the other place.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their very thoughtful contributions to the debate on the amendments in this group. I start by thanking the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Aberdare, and the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, for their Amendment 91. The Government believe strongly that starting career-related learning early is important. As noble Lords have said, children as young as seven start to adopt stereotypes based on gender, ethnicity and social background which can limit their future subject and career choices. In fact, on Friday I was lucky enough to take part in a careers session at the Howitt Primary Community School outside Derby. I am not sure that I converted anyone to a political career, but there were definitely budding newsreaders, scientists, paramedics and others in the room.
The importance of early career-related learning is why we announced in the schools White Paper that we will fund a new careers programme for primary schools in disadvantaged areas, and we will announce more details of that in due course. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, raised some particular questions; if I may, given the time, I will write to him with answers to those.
As your Lordships will remember, careers advice also featured prominently in the Skills and Post-16 Education Act, with many helpful contributions from this House. We have strengthened provider access legislation by requiring schools to put on six encounters—if I remember rightly, that figure was quite challenging for us all in terms of our maths, whatever our curriculum was—with providers of technical education or apprenticeships to take place during school years 8 to 13.
Turning to Amendments 171I and 158 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Chapman and Lady Wilcox, of course the Government agree in principle with what the noble Baroness said about every child having access to work experience. We want that happen in practice; it is not enough to agree in principle. The first part of Amendment 171I would require schools to provide pupils with at least 10 days of work experience. We believe it is right to give schools the autonomy to provide a range of experiences of work of different type and duration, rather than to impose a blanket 10 days. Schools can deliver this as part of their legal duty to provide independent careers guidance for year 8 to 13 pupils. Of course, work experience is part of the Gatsby benchmarks, which all schools are expected to follow. We believe that the second part of the amendment is unnecessary as we already fund the Careers & Enterprise Company to deliver careers hubs. We are extending access to careers hubs so that they will cover approximately 90% of schools and colleges by August next year.
On the first part of Amendment 158, many academies choose to use the national curriculum, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, said on another day in Committee, we trust heads and trust leaders to determine their own curriculum. I find a slight irony in the mix between areas where the Government are being encouraged to lean in and influence the curriculum, and others where the Government are being accused of taking too much power. We believe that heads and trust leaders should determine their own curriculum but that the national curriculum is something of great quality for them to benchmark against.
We recognise the value of academy freedoms and do not intend to undermine them with this legislation. Academy trusts have been at the forefront of curriculum innovation. We believe that many of the topics suggested in the remaining parts of this amendment are already covered in the existing curriculum. After a period of disruption in education due to the pandemic, we have committed to make no changes to the national curriculum in this Parliament.
I turn now to Amendment 168 in the names of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, the noble Lords, Lord Blunkett and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, and my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth. The amendment seeks change to the phrase “fundamental British values”, the list of values and their definition, and their place in the curriculum. The national curriculum does not add the level of detail in this amendment as it is our policy that schools should lead on the development of the detailed content of their curriculum. However, the key principles of the amendment—democracy, law, freedom, respect and sustainability and climate change—are already covered across the citizenship, science and geography curricula.
It is rightly highlighted that these values are not exclusive to our society; however, we believe it is important to articulate those values fundamental to life in modern Britain. “British values” is a shorthand for those values that unite us and are commonly understood to be at the core of what it means to be a citizen in a modern, diverse Britain. Developing and deepening pupils’ understanding of these values is already part of the Ofsted inspection framework. Ultimately, school leaders are best placed to make decisions about how to embed these values to meet the needs of their pupils, and many good schools already do so very effectively.
As I hinted at, we think that adding “respect for the environment” to the values is unnecessary because this is taught through the geography, science and citizenship curricula. Whether we refer to “fundamental British values” or “the values of British citizenship”, what ultimately matters are the values themselves and how they are embedded in schools’ ethos and practices. We do not believe that it is the role of the Government to try to manage the delivery of the curriculum in this way.
The point about quality of delivery was behind what the noble and right reverend Lord and other noble Lords spoke about. As I mentioned, Ofsted inspects how well schools and colleges promote these values and, by 2018, nearly all leaders and teachers—98%—reported that they were confident that their school effectively taught the values of respect and tolerance for those from different backgrounds.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 171F in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, my noble friend Lord Sandhurst and the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven. Of course, we should encourage parents to engage with their child’s curriculum to allow them to support their child’s learning at home. However, as the noble Baroness and other noble Lords expressed very clearly, parents should feel confident that they understand what their children are learning. We also think it vital that schools and teachers are focused on the activities that add the greatest value to pupil outcomes. It is a priority for the Government to reduce teacher workload. We are concerned that introducing this amendment could drive teachers to focus on tasks which become very burdensome—which I know is not the noble Baroness’s intention. There are already ways for parents to engage with their child’s school curriculum to the extent needed to support learning at home. My noble friend Lady Stroud spoke about online learning. The Oak National Academy, for example, provides packages of optional, free and adaptable digital curriculum resources and video lessons which pupils and parents can access to supplement learning.
Baroness Stroud (Con)
May I clarify with my noble friend the Minister that my comment about online learning was that schools could put the materials online so that parents could access what was being taught in school? I was not actually encouraging online learning.
Baroness Barran (Con)
Just to be clear, the Oak National Academy, as my noble friend may know, was set up during the pandemic to provide online resources. It continues to make those resources available to any parent or child who wishes to use them and to teachers who want high-quality curriculum resources to teach in a physical setting.
Furthermore, the statutory guidance for relationships and sex education is clear that schools must have a written policy in place for these subjects and must consult parents. My noble friend Lord Sandhurst referenced our guidance in this regard: schools should provide examples of the resources they plan to use when they consult to reassure parents and enable them to continue the conversation started in class when their children are at home. I think those are exactly the points your Lordships raised this afternoon.
The department has published guidance to support school engagement with parents and leaflets for schools to provide to parents when communicating about their teaching of these subjects. As was referenced, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has asked the Children’s Commissioner to look at the RSE curriculum to complement the work that the department is already doing to improve the consistency and quality of RSE teaching, to make sure that children are being taught well and that we have equipped teachers with the right tools to teach these sensitive and difficult subjects well.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, this is an incredibly disappointing reply. My worry is that I do not know whether the Minister has offered all she is going to offer. This is not about using Oak National Academy resources rather than those of an outside organisation. It is not about how to communicate with parents. The amendment has nothing to do with that. I am quite sure that the Government have a lot of good ideas on advising schools about how to communicate with parents. This was very specifically about schools using materials from outside bodies, which save them work and having to rewrite the curriculum in line with what the Government want them to do—but, by law, they are not permitted to show parents these materials. I hope the Minister will forgive me if she was about to address that point, but I do not want her to sit down before doing so and I am a little worried by the tone of the response so far.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am sorry; the last thing I want to do is worry the noble Baroness. I am not sure that I will be able to reassure her entirely, but I was coming to this point. Specifically on the intellectual property loophole, which I understand is the point the noble Baroness raised, if she would be agreeable, it would be helpful to meet and go through some of the examples. We would like to be confident that the law is being interpreted correctly and, without seeing the examples, it is difficult for us to establish that. If the noble Baroness agrees, we could look at this in more detail.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
I hesitate to ask this, but I simply do not understand. The material has been relied on and shown to children in class. What good reason is there for parents not to be able to inspect that material within the school?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I think two issues underpin the point that my noble friend raises. I will finish the point on intellectual property, which is where I think he was initially; perhaps I misunderstood. We want to be clear that the law is being applied correctly. We will be honoured to take the time to establish that and clarify it for the House. That is one point.
The second point is that I absolutely understand the spirit of my noble friend’s question. When I spoke to colleagues in the department who had previously been head teachers, their answer was that they understand the sentiments that my noble friend expresses but are also concerned that one could end up in a situation in which there are vexatious requests and a school becomes unable to cope with them because of the number of them. With the permission of the Committee, I would just like to be able to explore that in more detail.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
A very good point was made earlier about this not being a matter of veto. We have only to remember what happened with the RE teacher who was driven into hiding because he offended local activists from the more extreme Muslim wing—not the majority of Muslim parents, I hasten to add. We get that. Nobody is saying that. Can the Minister clarify that none of us are trying to give a parent veto to what is taught? Can the Minister also acknowledge that this is not just a technical question and that the Government are in danger, if they do not see what is going on, of parents starting to withdraw their children from these lessons because they hear that all these terrible things are being taught?
The Minister pointed out—or somebody made the point—that if they could see the materials, they would be reassured. I think they would be horrified, but that is not the point. The point is that you need to be able to see them so that you are not relying on reading in the newspapers what is in them. The Government surely have to tackle this and be sensitive to it.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I understand the noble Baroness’s point and I do not think I said for a second that I thought the Committee was suggesting that parents should have a veto. If I may, I will take this point away and write to your Lordships on it.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
The department and the head teachers the Minister has spoken to have chosen to go down a dangerous avenue on this. If the issue is to stop parents being vexatious and demanding too much of schools in asking for materials, they can do that now with almost all the curriculum materials that are taught in schools and they do not. The only ones they cannot see are these in the most contentious areas of the curriculum. I am not worried about parents being vexatious and asking for all the curriculum materials; that is not what happens at the moment. I am not sure how there can be any justification for the one area where, by law, you cannot see the teaching materials happening to be the area where parents would have most concern about curriculum content.
Baroness Barran (Con)
All I was trying to say to the noble Baroness is that I think there are two steps in this. First, is the intellectual property law being applied correctly and, secondly, how does that then translate? I think we have to answer the first question first, but I will undertake to give a full answer to the House when we have a chance to look at this in more detail. If your Lordships have specific examples, it would be extremely helpful to share them with us so that we get a broad sense of the issue.
With that, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, to withdraw Amendment 91 and other noble Lords not to move their amendments.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for her reply. We have now been on this group for two hours, 21 minutes and 51 seconds. I think it rather demonstrates the problems that we have been experiencing in the first three days of this Bill—it is now day four—where a whole set of matters being proposed have not been properly thought through. I hope the Minister will understand my concern—and I think that of others in your Lordships’ Chamber—that perhaps Report should be deferred until the autumn.
However, I am slightly encouraged by what the Minister said in relation to my Amendment 91 on careers guidance in primary schools. I hope very much that the Government will come forward with proposals, maybe before we get to Report. If that is not to be, I need to give notice that I am likely to come back on Report with a further amendment and debate on this matter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in my name.
Lord Shipley
“Funding: 14 to 16 school-college partnership fundThe Secretary of State must make arrangements within the nationally determined funding formula to establish a ‘14-16 school-college partnership fund’ to enable school children aged 14-16 to access college courses, where this is agreed by their school and the local college as benefitting the student and their learning.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment establishes a 14-16 school-college partnership fund to ensure that students can benefit from being able to study periodically in a college setting.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I will try to be as brief as I can. Four of the five amendments in this group are mine, so I rise to move Amendment 91A and to speak to Amendments 91B, 171A and 171B. These amendments will ensure that colleges delivering education to 14 to 16 year-olds are funded at the same level as schools delivering the same curriculum and experience. They will strengthen partnerships in education to benefit 14 to 16 year-olds and, finally, they will create a duty for all parties to consider greater collaboration in the education system.
The reason for wanting to strengthen existing joint working and generally to re-establish partnership working between schools and colleges more strongly reflects the successes of the increased flexibility programme that was abandoned a decade ago. That programme encouraged more school students with strong vocational interests to follow opportunities in a college setting while studying academic subjects at school. Student confidence, attitudes and behaviour were found to be improved. Students were more engaged in learning and in developing their social skills. Extending such collaborative methods of working would enable young people to have a wider range of opportunities across vocational and academic routes. They would also, I submit, support stronger outcomes at key stage 4.
Amendments 171A and 171B would strengthen partnership working between colleges and schools and include a duty on providers of pre-16 education in England to consider collaborative agreements with other education and training providers, including over-16 providers, with a “14-16 school-college partnership fund”, which is proposed in Amendment 91A.
Amendment 91B is about the national funding formula, which aims to deliver funding to each mainstream school on the same basis. Funding for 16 to 19 year-olds in colleges has been allocated directly from the Department for Education and the Education and Skills Funding Agency, so this amendment relates to pre-16 funding. The issue is this. The three blocks of the DfE’s dedicated schools grant cover schools, early years and high needs. High needs amounts to £9 billion a year, £300 million of which goes to colleges to support some 30,000 students. When a student reaches the age of 16, funding drops and, despite recent increases, is still lower than it should be. There are several differentials between academies and colleges. Several thousand 14 to 16 year-olds study full-time in colleges, but they attract college funding only at the post-16 rate for pre-16 courses. There seems to be a clear funding disparity here, and the Bill offers an opportunity to re-examine 14 to 16 partnership working. I hope the Minister will be willing to do this, because it is in the interests of so many of our young people. I beg to move.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, in supporting all these amendments I add my support for Amendment 171R, which my noble friend Lady Wilcox will speak to from the Labour Front Bench at the end of the debate.
This is a very good means to rescue the missing third of children. This is the large number of children who are capable of further education but never get to the starting point for a variety of reasons. Prejudice and discrimination play a part, for instance in the case of Gypsies, Travellers, Roma, boat workers and the children of showmen. It is really important that schools get ahead with this kind of arrangement.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, given the way in which she champions the Roma community.
I support all the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Shipley and those from the Labour Front Bench. They indicate the important role of further education colleges in our education system. They link to the demand for young people in schools to be aware of all the possible programmes of learning available in colleges at an early enough stage to be able to make informed choices about future work and study opportunities. It is really important that colleges be funded at the same level as schools and that college teachers and tutors should be paid at the same level. It is quite wrong that college pay should be lower than school pay.
Amendments 171A and 171B would ensure better continuity of education. Too often, FE has been the forgotten element in our education system, but it is a vital part of the options available to young people, as it spans school, vocational options and university provision. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure us of the value the Government place on the FE sector, and perhaps indicate the parts of the Augar review—whatever has happened to that?—which concern FE that the Government intend to implement.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, we support the principle of Amendment 171B. There are currently many barriers to further education institutions working effectively with academies and MATs, and it is apposite that this is being raised. Funding further education appropriately continues to be a prime issue, as noted by several noble Lords. Schools are more often part of the solution, not the problem, so we need a concerted, cross-government commitment to improving the life chances of young people in our most marginalised and deprived communities and addressing the root causes of underperformance, as noted by my noble friend Lady Whitaker.
Our Amendment 171R obliges the Secretary of State to consult on and establish access to further education for all schoolchildren aged 14 to 16 within one year of the Bill’s enactment. We understand that the Minister has discussed the matter of academies working effectively with FE organisations, and I wondered whether she could update the House on any progress made on identifying and unblocking the barriers to working together.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss further education and take the opportunity offered me by the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, to say how much the Government value further education and its part in the educational landscape.
I turn to Amendments 91A and 91B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and start with a general point. The framework set by the Bill does not intend the content of the funding formula to be specified in legislation itself. As such, any detailed provision would not be dealt with here. More specifically, schools are already fully able to make arrangements with colleges to allow their 14 to 16 year-old students to undertake part of their education at college, so there is no need for further legislation.
The funding arrangements in the Bill are designed for schools and could not be readily applied to colleges. The noble Lord will know that there is a separate approach to funding the relatively few 14 to 16 year-olds on full-time courses at colleges, aligned to their post-16 funding. However, I agree with noble Lords that we need to ensure that funding for 14 to 16 year-olds in colleges is sufficient. Noble Lords will know, and I hope be reassured by the fact, that the basic rate of funding per student will increase by 8% next year as part of the work to close that gap.
Lord Shipley (LD)
In a moment, I shall, but I tell the Minister that I shall read very carefully in Hansard tomorrow the exact wording that has been used.
It is of course true, as the Minister said, that schools can collaborate with colleges. The problem is that there is not as much of that as there might be, and it would help enormously if my amendments had been supported by the Government. There is a huge amount of competition; we need a bit more collaboration between the various institutions at local level. That is where I am headed with the amendments.
I may well come back to this at Report. I will consider carefully what the Minister has said, but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Barran
“Education Act 1996
A1 (1) Section 494 of the Education Act 1996 (recoupment: excluded pupils) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1)—(a) after “maintained by” (in the first place it occurs) insert “, or from any Academy located in the area of,”; (b) after “provided with education by” insert “or in the area of”;(c) for “or otherwise than at school” substitute “, at an Academy located in that authority’s area, or by that authority otherwise than at school”.(3) In subsection (3)—(a) after “maintained by” (in the first place it occurs) insert “, or from any Academy located in the area of,”;(b) in paragraph (b)—(i) after “education by” insert “or in the area of”;(ii) for “or otherwise than at school” substitute “, at an Academy located in that authority’s area, or by that authority otherwise than at school”.(4) After that subsection insert—“(3A) For the purposes of this section references to an Academy do not include a 16-19 Academy.””
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
“Funding for specialist education services for children and young people with sensory impairment(1) An English local authority must secure that provision of specialist education services to children and young people with sensory impairment and their parents is sufficient to facilitate the development of the child or young person with sensory impairment and to help him or her achieve the best possible educational and other outcomes.(2) Specialist education services include support to the parent of a child with sensory impairment, following the point of identification of any sensory impairment.(3) The Secretary of State must ensure that funding to local authorities for provision of services under this section is sufficient.(4) In discharging their duty under subsection (1), a local authority must have regard to any guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State.”Member's explanatory statement
Part 2 of the Schools Bill makes a number of changes to school and local education funding. This amendment seeks to introduce a new duty for local authorities and the Secretary of State to ensure there is sufficient funding for specialist education services for children and young people with sensory impairments.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I have two amendments in this group, Amendments 97 and 99. I also have Amendment 129, which is in a later group, for which I apologise that I will be unable to be present. I also support the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, in his Amendments 163, 164, 165 and 166. I pay tribute to him for his excellent and compelling report and recommendations about disabled students that was published earlier this year.
I make it clear that I support the Government’s ambition, through the schools White Paper and the Bill, that all schools should be welcoming and inclusive for all children, including those with special educational needs and disabilities. I also support the Government’s target for 90% of children to achieve expected outcomes in reading, writing and maths by 2030. But to achieve these goals for deaf children, it is particularly important that expert support is available from local specialist education services for children with sensory impairment. I pay tribute to the National Deaf Children’s Society for its work and its help in drafting these two amendments, and to the Special Educational Consortium for its work.
Part 2 of the Bill sets out a number of changes to schools and local education funding. One key area that is currently funded through local education funding is specialist education services for deaf children. These services are usually formed of small teams of peripatetic or visiting teachers of the deaf and other specialist staff. These teachers play a key role in ensuring that deaf children achieve good language outcomes, and as well as advising on and supporting the inclusion of deaf children in mainstream schools, their early intervention work with families of pre-school deaf children helps to ensure the best possible start in life for deaf children.
Despite the importance of this role, there has been a 17% decline in the number of teachers of the deaf since 2011. In addition, the National Deaf Children’s Society’s annual freedom of information request to local authorities shows that specialist education services continue to be under threat, from either cuts to budgets and staffing or local SEND reviews of provision. Parents also repeatedly say that services are not sufficiently funded to meet their children’s needs.
These specialist educational services for deaf children are usually commissioned by the local authority and funded through the high-needs block, but these services have no formal statutory basis so funding for their work is discretionary. The SEND Green Paper observes that a “vicious cycle” has emerged, where funding is moved away from early intervention and inclusion, so leading the system to not delivering for children, young people and families. It is my belief that specialist education services for deaf children and other low-incidence needs are a critical part of the solution to the problem, in helping to ensure that deaf children start primary school with good language, and ensuring that mainstream schools have access to specialist advice and support.
Improvements to the Bill are required if the Government are to meet their ambitions around inclusion for children with SEND. Indeed, it will also need improvement if the Government are to reach the target set for 90% of children to achieve expected outcomes in reading, writing and maths by 2030, as I said earlier. Looking at the results of deaf children and those with sensory impairments, who do not on the whole have a learning disability—so there is no reason why they should not achieve the same as hearing children—we see that, currently, they achieve an entire GCSE grade less than hearing pupils and have done so for at least six years in a row. Too few deaf children receive tailored or specialist careers advice that focuses on their needs and, as a result, many have limited expectations for what they can achieve.
There are many other examples of poor outcomes for deaf children, including in later life, so it is very important that we do more in our education system to get them started on a much firmer base and foundation. I would welcome a great deal of reassurance by the Government that they understand this and will be taking action to do it. I beg to move.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this group, and a particular pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. I not only thank him for his kind words about my report on the disabled students’ allowance but thoroughly and full-throatedly support his amendments, particularly Amendments 97 and 99 in this group. Everything that he said in relation to deaf and hard-of-hearing students was absolutely right and applicable to partially sighted and blind students and, indeed, all SEN and disabled young people in our education system. I will speak to Amendments 163 to 166 in my name, all of which largely come out of the review that I conducted earlier this year.
Amendment 163 deals with that horrific—shocking in the 21st century—educational attainment gap for our young people with special educational needs and disabilities. According to key stage 2 stats, at age 11, only 22% of SEN students are achieving the appropriate level in literacy and numeracy. At GCSE, they are achieving pretty much half of what their non-disabled counterparts are achieving. When one looks at the progression rate—that is, young people going into higher education—the rates are over 47.5% for non-disabled students, 20% for those with SEN, and 8% for those with an education, health and care plan. If we go further and look at those progressing to Russell group universities and the higher-tariff providers, it is 12% of non-disabled students, but only 3% of those with SEN, and 1% of those with an EHCP.
This is all about levelling up, or the lack thereof, and what needs to be done to close that educational attainment gap for our SEN and disabled young people. The amendment proposes a review into this, and indeed a plan, reviewed every year, until we close the educational attainment gap by the end of 2027.
Amendment 164 speaks directly to the disabled students’ allowance and what should be happening in our schools and colleges right now to promote it, so that our SEN and disabled young people can be aware of it and can know that higher education is a route for them where they will be supported and enabled to succeed and fulfil their potential. Only 29% of disabled people in higher education currently take advantage of the DSA. One of the main reasons cited for this low take-up was lack of knowledge or awareness of its existence. That is why this is recommendation 1 of my review. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that an information and awareness campaign in every school and college about the existence of the DSA and what it can do for our disabled young people would be a thoroughly good thing, and is very much supported by the Student Loans Company, among others?
Amendment 165 speaks to the idea of a passport that disabled people could carry through their education and higher education and, indeed, into their working lives, to cut through the bureaucracy of having to constantly declare what their disability is, what their needs are, how that impacts on their education, higher education and work experience, and what needs to be put in place.
It seems to me that all of this could be enabled through a passport, not least now in a digital real-time format, cutting bureaucracy and time at every beat point of the interaction that the young person would have with the state, and cutting costs. All too often, young people are asked to provide evidence, and they have to pay to get it from one part of the state—be it the NHS, a doctor or whatever—and present it to another part of the state to get a particular allowance. I believe a passport is overdue and would be beneficial to all concerned. I know there is an excellent pilot under way between higher education and access to work, but I believe that, if we are to gain all the benefits and lay out a seamless process for all our young people, it should run right through school and higher education and into work.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. I invite her to speak now.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and as a former chair of governors of Mayfield Primary School in Cambridge, which at that time had the hearing impaired unit for southern Cambridgeshire.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, introduced his Amendment 97 on arrangements for funding for specialist SEND services for children and young people with sensory impairment. I completely support it. I have heard very recently of a profoundly deaf child, the only one in his mainstream primary school, who has access to a deaf teacher for just one afternoon a week. That is not inclusive education.
The Secretary of State must give local authorities the right level of funds, in this case through the high-needs block, so that they can deliver the support that SEND children need. This is the key to the current SEND issue: the money does not get to the local authority so the local authority cannot follow the child and the child’s needs; this probably explains many of the problems that we are discussing in this group.
Amendment 99 adds to Clause 48 that the details of any SEN or disability that a child has need to be listed; I support that too. I also support the amendments in this group in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, who set out so eloquently the further protections needed for pupils with SEND. Amendment 163 at last demands a strategy to close the education attainment gap for young people with SEND.
Last Friday I attended a webinar run by the Disabled Children’s Partnership, at which parents recounted many of the problems they are facing in getting the right level of support; or worse—as in the case of one parent of a child with multiple physical disabilities but who was intellectually on a par with his peer age group. The only school available to manage the former issue could not teach him at his chronological age; every other child in that school also had learning difficulties.
Even worse, Oskar Nash and Sammy Alban-Stanley, two disabled teenagers with complex medical needs, both died after their school and LA failed in their duty to follow their care plans. Their families had pleaded for support in helping them to cope with the boys’ disabilities. Sammy’s mother told us at the webinar how exhausting it had been to constantly have to fight for the support he needed. CAMHS had recommended a care education and treatment review, but it was not actioned before his death. Oskar Nash was moved from a special school to a mainstream school without further review of his EHCP. Despite urgent referrals to CAMHS, which passed him on to an external counselling service without any clinical assessment, at the time of his death his local authority, Surrey County Council, had not done an assessment of his needs. Coroners in both these cases are extremely concerned about the boys’ deaths and have written recently to Mr Zahawi, Mr Javid and the local education and healthcare bodies involved.
I have worked with families with disabled children for years. These cases are the tip of the iceberg. The system is broken. Children are dying and children are being let down. While many of the amendments relating to Part 4 of the Bill relate to the concerns of parents who have chosen to home-educate their children, I want to focus in this group on a number of different groups of pupils who do not wish to be out of school but who face difficulties, either with their needs not being met or who have medical conditions that mean they are out of school. They broadly fall into the category of school being an unsafe place for them either without medical advice being followed or, for some, without reasonable adjustments that would have made school safe for them.
Almost universally, all these affected children are getting no alternative provision at all. They include pupils so severely bullied that they are waiting for mental health appointments but cannot face school until they get help. There are also pupils who are young carers known to their local authorities, who are doing a full-time job caring for a parent or other family member and are emotionally and physically exhausted. There are pupils with complex medical needs, with clinical requirements that are not being followed by the school. There are pupils who are either immunosuppressed or immunocompromised, whose doctors say that special arrangements should be made for them in school; otherwise, they are at risk of catching illnesses—such as, but not only, Covid—which might kill them.
Dr Lee-Anne Kohli’s son Kieran is clinically extremely vulnerable. His paediatric cardiologists requested remote learning for both of her children. This was agreed until Department for Education policy changed. From September 2020, the school enforced new government policy that every child must attend school. When the school threatened fines and prosecution for persistent absences and recommended to the parents that the child be off-rolled, the parents eventually did this. Children such as Kieran should have access to remote exams but most exam centres do not permit remote exams. The parents say that, if a school attendance order were enforced against them, the children would have no option but to relocate overseas to live with their father as UK schools are not safe for their child; the hospital doctor says so too.
“Child EA” is due to start primary school this autumn. Both she and her mother have primary immunodeficiencies and her father is also clinically vulnerable. The family are acutely aware of the issues faced by high-risk families. Both parents have been supported by their employers to work from home. All their child needs to be able to go to school is a HEPA filter to be installed at the school, but the school will not do that. Currently, these parents are considering delaying their decision until their child reaches compulsory school age. They face having to educate her at home alongside her attending a private forest school to allow her to socialise outdoors if there is no HEPA filter in the primary school.
There is one thing that many parents from this group share: they are already being fined for their child being out of school because currently schools have the right to ignore professional medical advice or the advice of other experts such as social workers. This is because the statutory guidance for schools on pupils with medical conditions has been diluted away from its original intentions. It cannot be right for parents to be fined if their child’s safety or needs are not being met in school and where an expert says that, until their safety is assured or their needs are met, the school should make alternative provision for them. Parents are being fined now despite their children being ill. Clauses 48 and 49 will make this much worse, especially if Ministers, local authorities and head teachers are able to decide what is and is not medical, contradicting the advice of professional doctors.
There is a way to remedy all this. Section 100 of the Children and Families Act says:
“The appropriate authority for a school to which this section applies must make arrangements for supporting pupils at the school with medical conditions … In meeting the duty in subsection (1) the appropriate authority must have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State.”
The statutory guidance published in 2014 after the Secretary of State worked with schools, parents, medical charities and Peers, including myself, stated clearly:
“The aim is to ensure that all children with medical conditions, in terms of both physical and mental health, are properly supported in school so that they can play a full and active role in school life, remain healthy and achieve their academic potential.”
It further said:
“Governing bodies should ensure that the school’s policy is explicit about what practice is not acceptable”,
including ignoring “medical evidence or opinion” and penalising
“children for their attendance record if their absences are related to their medical condition.”
That guidance also states how schools, local authorities, doctors, parents and the children themselves should together create a healthcare plan for these children that sets out how best the child’s medical needs can be met. As I have said at earlier stages of this Bill, unfortunately this statutory guidance was changed in 2017, with no consultation with medical charities or parents, to remove the statutory elements about schools having to work with, and not ignore, medical advice.
Page five of the new guidance talks about schools having to follow the duty under the Equality Act for disabled children, but not all children with medical conditions are classified as disabled. Worse, some of the excellent parts of the previous version are now reduced in strength to being merely “further advice”, including working with medical practitioners who know the child.
At the webinar on Friday, I heard about a six year-old child with type 1 insulin-dependent and complex diabetes, ASD, sensory processing disorder, Pica, communication difficulties, severe anxieties and more who has not yet attended school. Nursery consisted of one and a half hours per day and was very inconsistent. Nursery staff were said to be trained in diabetes, but mum was called on a daily basis to check her son’s dropping levels. The family recently attended a SEND tribunal. The tribunal judge found that a SEN school with no medically trained staff or qualified nurse on site can meet need against parental choice of a non-maintained special school. The problem is that the tribunal decision was made of the grounds of the best use of resources, even though the parents argued, “How on earth can you put a price on his life?” The actual effect of that decision is that it is dangerous for the child to be left in school without experienced staff who understand the child’s diabetes properly. I have laid my amendment to make sure that we go back to a previous version, where medical advice is followed for these children.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I am speaking in place of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, who was at a meeting at the DfE. As he arrived late, he did not want to be accused of not being part of the debate. He was talking about dyslexia at that meeting. I would rather hear from him than me, but I will just say a few words.
First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for his very important amendment. I want to understand a bit more about the usage of language in respect of that. He gave some examples, but he did not give any real steer on the language we should use. Maybe that is something we could have between now and Report. I am conscious that special educational needs will loom large over the next few months in any case.
I was at a meeting at lunchtime hearing from families of children in alternative provision. These are children and young people who have been permanently excluded from school. The fact that linked them all was that they all had special educational needs. Had those needs been identified at a very early stage and provision made, maybe the problem of exclusion from school would not be as great as it currently is.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I looked at these amendments and what struck me is that there did not seem to be an awful lot of trust in the Government on this area. I think we are all very worried about this because we have all spoken to families. I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, on her speech, which was quite a difficult listen. The cases she described were harrowing in the extreme. However, reflecting on the conversations I know many of us here have had over the years with parents in not completely dissimilar situations, we recognise that sense of desperation. Reluctantly removing your child from school because you feel their needs are not being met is such a big thing to have to do as a parent. It should trouble us all that families are put in this situation.
It gets to a pretty fundamental issue about who is entitled to support, how much they get, what it is used for and how it varies so wildly across the country. We are obviously used to locally determined provision on various things, but this seems to be so fundamental to a child’s well-being that it should not be dependent to the extent that it is on where you happen to live.
When I looked further into this, I came across a report from the House of Commons Library, which explained that in January 2007 there were 1.6 million children with special educational needs in England, which grew to 1.7 million in 2010 before declining and reaching its lowest level of 1.2 million in 2016. This fluctuation suggests that something is going on here that is about not just the child’s need but assessment, local availability of support or some other change of approach. Clearly, we want children to be supported appropriately and consistently.
It would have been helpful to have had the benefit of the SEND review ahead of this Bill, because there is very little in the Bill on this. Amanda Spielman has said that the 2014 SEND reforms, which were some years ago now,
“had the right aspirations, but did not have the intended impact because insufficient attention was given to their implementation.”
She was absolutely right about that because, according to the National Audit Office, between 2014 and 2018—so after the last set of reforms—
“the Department increased high-needs block funding by £349 million (7.2%) in real terms. This rise was larger than the 2.3% real-terms increase in schools block funding for mainstream schools, meaning that the Department has shifted the balance of funding towards high needs. However, because of a 10.0% rise in the number of pupils in special schools and those with EHC plans in mainstream schools, high-needs funding per pupil fell by 2.6% in real terms”
over that period, after the last review. The NAO’s report continues:
“Per-pupil funding in the schools block also reduced over the same period, despite a £754 million real-terms increase in total funding”.
We are very concerned that this new review does not fail on its implementation in the way Amanda Spielman says the last one did—I know many people would agree with her. We wonder whether we will look back when we get the SEND review and think, “My goodness, if only there was a Bill coming before us.” It is not too late for the Government to set out the concrete steps they might want to take to get this provision right. To be positive with the Minister, we would very much welcome government amendments on this on Report or when the Bill enters the other place. These children are often our most vulnerable. They need our support as soon as possible. It is a shame that we are not getting the benefit of the consideration that will take place as part of the review before the Bill reaches Report.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to discuss further issues related to SEND on this Bill. As the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, said, some of the individual examples and stories were quite harrowing. It is an issue that the Government take very seriously and, through the process of the SEND Green Paper, are committed to improving. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, my noble friend Lord Holmes and others that this Government are just as ambitious for children and young people with SEND as for every other child and young person.
Amendment 97 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, highlights the importance of local authorities providing specialist educational support services for children and young people with sensory impairments, and there being sufficient funding to do so. As we have heard, local authorities have existing duties to ensure that appropriate support is available to meet their needs. To enable them to do this, they have flexibility on how they use high-needs funding, including to support those with sensory impairments. The budget has increased by £1 billion this year to a total of £9.1 billion. In a number of contributions, we heard about the pressures on the high-needs budget. This is something that the Government acknowledge and have tried to take action to improve. We have seen unprecedented increases in high needs funding. The SEND and alternative provision Green Paper proposals for changes are also intended to establish an improved system that is financially sustainable, as well as securing better outcomes for children and young people. We are really clear on the need to do that.
Within the current system, Ofsted and the CQC report that some areas, such as Barnsley and Hounslow, are highly successful in offering good provision for children and young people with sensory impairments. We want to spread good practice such as this to all areas and, as several noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Storey, referred to, remove the postcode lottery that can be associated with special needs. That is why we are consulting on introducing national SEND standards as part of our Green Paper.
Amendment 99 from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, proposes a new requirement that all local authority “children not in school” registers must include information about any special educational need or disability that child may have. I know that we will speak in much more detail later in Committee about those registers, but I assure noble Lords that we plan to legislate via regulation to require local authorities to record information about any special educational needs and disabilities a child may have within their register.
Turning to the amendments from my noble friend Lord Holmes, Amendment 163 seeks clarity on the Government’s plan to improve outcomes for pupils with SEND and report on those pupils’ attainment in key examinations. The Government have plans to reduce the attainment gap and improve the SEND system in, as I said, both the SEND and alternative provision Green Paper and the schools White Paper. Taken together, these papers contain ambitious proposals to improve outcomes. Regarding my noble friend’s point on data, the Government already publish information on the attainment levels of children and young people with SEN.
I share my noble friend’s view, set out in Amendment 164, of the importance of ensuring that all students eligible for disabled students’ allowance are made aware of it. That is why existing legislation already requires local authorities to publish information about disabled students’ allowance in their local offer, which must be accessible to all those with SEND and their families. In addition, the Student Loans Company provides information about student finance to schools and colleges, actively engages with higher education providers about student finance, including disabled students’ allowance, and supports higher education institutions to publicise it through events.
On Amendment 165, on every child having access to the support they need and the role that the right documentation can play in this, which the Government would acknowledge, children and young people who require them will receive EHC plans, which are statutory documents describing their needs, and the educational, health and social care provision required to meet those needs. Mainstream schools may, when complying with their existing statutory requirement to deploy their “best endeavours” to secure special educational provision for children and young people with SEN, use appropriate documentation to do so.
Finally, my noble friend’s Amendment 166 would require the department to consult academics, including those who subscribe to the social model of disability. I assure him that one of the key principles underpinning the SEND system is the social model of disability. Where a child or young person needs additional support to access education, their educational setting must put in place appropriate support. The nature of that support is not contingent on any particular diagnosis.
Finally, Amendment 171V in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, would require schools to follow medical advice provided by a pupil’s doctor. I assure the noble Baroness that the Government are committed to supporting pupils with medical conditions at school. That is why we already set expectations that schools consider the advice of healthcare professionals.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an interesting and useful debate. For me, the report by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, was very telling. As he said, taking his report and the amendments together would be very empowering for young people with SEN and disabilities. The Minister responded to each of the amendments and that is encouraging, but I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, hopes the Government will go further. I hope there can be further discussions.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for her support. Like my noble friend Lady Chapman, I found her speech moving and instructive. I am afraid that experience is all too common. I am sure all of us have experienced discussions with parents who have real problems when their children have illnesses and the school is not able to respond in the necessary way. As I have mentioned before, I think that, in the new arrangements in the health service—the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, will know about the integrated care partnerships—there must be an opportunity for the health service and schools within health ICS boundaries to talk together about how some of this can be resolved.
I noted what the Minister said about statutory guidance. She will know that the problem is that it is not working in some areas—the noble Lord, Lord Storey, talked about inconsistencies—so I am sure that her offer of a meeting with the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, will be very welcome.
I turn to my amendments. I am struck by the poor outcomes for deaf people. Some 55% to 58% of deaf people are in employment, compared with 81% of non-disabled people. More generally, disabled people experience higher rates of unemployment and economic inactivity. I am convinced that part of the issue lies with schools and the need for more support of them. The Minister said on my Amendment 97 that local authorities are required to provide specialist support, but they are flexible on funding and, unfortunately, over the last few years that flexibility has not worked in deaf children’s favour.
I note what the Minister said about the school register on Amendment 99. That is very welcome, and I thank her for that assurance.
My noble friend Lady Chapman ended by saying she thought the Government could table amendments later on to meet some of these points and respond after the Green Paper. The Minister said that that was not possible, but I still think there are great opportunities to pause the Bill to allow her time to do so, and I hope the Government will think again about that. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lucas
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is to enable the meaning of “is” in this context to be clarified.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 97A I shall speak also to the other amendments in my name in this group.
The substantive amendments in the group concern the completeness of the register. I personally see no justification whatever for the register targeting only people who are home educating. To my mind, the point of the register should be that we know what is happening to every child in this country. We should be able to track their progress through education, know what it has been, see the outcomes, understand what is going on and, through that process, improve our education system and make sure that every child benefits from our determination that they should have the opportunity of education.
Amendment 101B asks that we specifically identify those who are electively home educating so that we can know exactly which children come under that category—we do not want it cluttered up by people who have been off-rolled by schools into the care of parents who are clearly not up to home educating; this should be a definite decision—and understand how support for those parents and children in different local authorities, because it is very different between local authorities, results in the outcomes that it does. Then we can get a good picture of the benefits of, and concerns that we might reasonably have about, home education, rather than the darkness which is all that confronts us at present. Anyone who has been involved in home education will have a fistful of wonderful examples of parents who have made a great success of children who have been abandoned by the state, but is that the universal picture? None of us knows, but most of us suspect not. Home educators know that there are some parents who do not make a success of it.
We really need to know what is going on with all our children, so to my mind there is no justification for not putting on a register people who are not being electively home educated but who are not registered for full-time attendance at school. We should know who these children are, why they are not at school and what is being done to support them. The first thing the register should do is identify the home educators and, specifically, those who are not electively home educated and who therefore should be in the direct care of the local authority, and to pin a duty on the local authority as to why they are not in school and what is being done about it.
That is echoed in my suggestion that we should not grant local authorities an exemption for Section 19 children. To my mind, that is a disgraceful dustbin that is used by local authorities to deal with difficult children and put them out of mind. We should be focusing on them. We should know exactly who they are, where they are and what is being done about them. All that information should be easily accessible so that we can hold local authorities to account. It is really important that children who are difficult to educate should be educated well; they will only cause us much greater difficulties later on if we do not do so. We should not allow local authorities this escape hatch. We as a Government, and as people who hold the Government to account, should be able to see clearly what is going on with children who come under Section 19.
We should also have a very clear picture of what is happening in independent schools. If you try to track a child through education at the moment and they switch from state to independent, they go into a black hole: they are no longer in the national pupil database. They reappear when they take GCSEs or A-levels, but otherwise they are gone. Why? We should know what is happening; we should be able to judge the progress these children are making. We should be able to see how they are being educated and what pattern of education our children are going through. It is really important to have the data on which to base decisions about our education system.
We should have a universal pupil number that applies to every child, and we should know where every child with a UPN is; they should not be able to disappear off the system. That a child with a UPN does not appear on the register should be a cause for immediate concern; someone should be looking for them and finding out what is happening to them. At the moment, there are so many holes in the register we just cannot see. My plea in Amendments 101B, 122B, 130B and 132A, and 97E in the next group, is that the register should be complete and that this completeness should be used to make sure we know exactly what is happening by way of education to every child in the UK on at least an annual basis.
There are three small amendments in this group. On Amendment 97A, the phrase used in the Bill is that
“the child is in the authority’s area.”
Does that apply when they are on holiday? What is being “in the authority’s area”? How does this apply to Travellers’ children? What is the meaning of that phrase as it is at the moment—where is it established?
On Amendment 97B, the current wording rather sounds as if permission is needed to take a child out of school to home educate. I know that is not the case, but I just want to query the wording used in that clause.
Amendment 97C says that this is a big change as we are suddenly requiring a lot of people who have not had to register their children previously to register them now. We ought to provide them with information, support and plenty of time to get up to speed with what they need to do. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is contributing remotely.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is right that we need to know about all children, whether in school or not. In this part of the Bill, the problem is the focus on a one-size-fits-all approach that is all about truants or bad children, when we have already heard about the complexity of the difficulties that many of these children are facing—often, but not only, SEND.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, talked about a unique pupil number. We had the same debate during the passage of the Health and Care Act about a unique child identifying number, and an amendment was passed. As a result of that, there are certainly discussions going on with the DfE to have a unique children’s number because often, for the most vulnerable children, the information is not shared between different departments—health and education are the two obvious ones, but there are others as well. It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s response.
This group moves us on to some of the detail about how the register of children who are not in school will work, and I share many of the concerns that have already been expressed about whether this part of the Bill is ready to be enacted and whether it will actually ever really work in practice.
My Amendment 129AA picks up on the last group of amendments, where I outlined the long list of children currently being let down by schools and local authorities, many of whom are not in school for their own health reasons. I will not repeat that detail. My amendment in this group seeks to ensure not just that the local authority must have regard to the parent’s request but that it takes account of
“the advice of an independent expert familiar with the particular circumstances of the child.”
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, this is an important set of amendments about Part 3 of the Bill, and it is our first opportunity to really debate it. It is not a part that I had time to really reflect on in my Second Reading speech. I would like to be able to set out a little bit of thinking about the right approach to home education and school attendance in that context.
I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for having done the grunt work of going through all this and putting down a swathe of amendments—I do not necessarily agree with them all, but I have put my name to some of them, and to those from the noble Baroness, Lady Garden. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has also put in some useful amendments. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and I think she made some really useful points.
First, I fundamentally support the right of parents to home educate; it is an important freedom and right. We have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, some of the circumstances where the parents of children with special educational needs and disabilities find that mainstream schooling does not work for their child and that special schooling and alternative provision might not be right—or might not be right for now. It is important that they have an alternative: to take responsibility themselves, as long as they are “providing a suitable education”—which I think is the phrase used in law. I also know of examples where parents have an alternative view on the values and vision set out in the national curriculum or in mainstream schooling. There are examples of really innovative, interesting practice from aggregated home schoolers who are coming together at different times of the week. Indeed, I have friends who elected to home school their daughter so that they could take off—literally—and travel and circumnavigate the globe with their child who was, I think, nine years old at the time. He is a primary school teacher and took responsibility for educating her while she went around the globe. I would hate for us to pass any kind of legislation which would criminalise someone for providing such a rich educational experience for their child. I must say that it would not be my choice to home educate; the experience of Covid meant that many parents had suddenly to educate an eight year-old or nine year-old—depending on at what point in the pandemic they were. I had to home educate only one child, and that was enough—thank you. So it would not be my choice, but I respect the rights of others who want to do it.
It also true that this right can be abused to hide children from the authorities that we ask to keep children safe. Here, I pay tribute to the work of my noble friend Lord Soley, whom I am glad to see in his place, and others in this House and the other House who have been working to bring in a requirement for parents to register their children with the local authority if they are not in school. I absolutely agree with that, alongside the right to home educate. I am pleased that the Government, in this part of the Bill, are bringing that in. Indeed, it is logical that, if we are mandating parents, there are consequences for those who flout that mandation. This is why penalties are being introduced, and fines are probably right. I am concerned by feedback I have received from correspondents that the Government have not consulted with home schoolers on the monetary penalties. I know that there have been various consultations around changes to home education, registration of home education and so on, but this move to criminalise parents through the use of the single justice procedure—given the specific way in which that works—is causing some significant concern which I ask the Minister to look at.
Of course, most local authorities already operate a register, so this ought to be an incremental measure that could be introduced without too much controversy. Sadly, however, that is not the case; huge concern has arisen, and these amendments allow us to debate some of them. Indeed—surprise, surprise—it feels a little bit like the Government have rushed to take overweening powers in this Bill—as with other parts of the Bill—rather than think it through and win the argument on the detail of how they want to implement it. There is a concern that much of this has been written with a mindset that all parents who choose not to send their children to school are colluding in some kind of truancy—and that is informing quite a lot of the concern we need to explore.
I understand some of the concern. When I read new Section 436C(1)(c)—
“details of the means by which the child is being educated”—
I thought that was maybe okay. I could see some over-intrusion in it. I know of examples of people providing services to home schoolers, among others, who have had Ofsted inspectors using powers of entry and filming themselves entering premises in a way that even the police are not allowed to do. There are examples of people using their powers in ways that are over the top. However, when I read new Section 436C(1)(d)—“any other information” as required—the alarm bells then ring about taking on excessive powers, and I understand why parents worry. I remember, for example, the case in 2009 of the local authority in Poole, not far from the South Dorset constituency I used to represent, using powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act to implement surveillance on some parents who were living in an area in order to be within the school catchment area of the Lilliput school, which is very popular in Poole. In the end, that was thrown out as an unreasonable use of RIPA powers by that local authority. I also read the Square Peg briefing that was helpfully supplied, and of the anger that some parents feel towards local authorities about the way they are already being dealt with—before these powers are even brought in.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is right to want to define what data is collected in the register, and some of that comes up in the next group. I am slightly concerned by his comments about tracking and how that feels. I do not self-identify as an overly libertarian sort of politician, but it raised some concerns about tracking individual children. If he is talking about aggregation and anonymisation in the context of tracking so that we understand the general trends, I feel somewhat calmer about some of the privacy concerns around children’s data that might flow from where he was going. I was very happy to add my name to Amendment 97A on the main address; it is important to establish the principal address, rather than penalising people when they are on holiday—as the noble Lord said.
In the next group, we have Amendment 97D, where my noble friend Lady Whitaker and I question why we would not add gender and ethnicity to the data collection. It is important, as in Amendment 101B, that we should establish the reason for not being registered in school, and specifically to identify home education, and people electing to home educate, so that it is properly acknowledged and that a proportionate response from the local authority, and a proportionate relationship between it and the parent, follow. It is also right that these regulations—particularly if they remain as wide-ranging as “any other information” as required—should be brought in by the affirmative procedure. My noble friend Lord Hunt was not able to stay to speak to his Amendments 131 and 132, but I have signed my name to Amendment 131 and support Amendment 132, which would give Parliament more oversight over the regulations.
This data collection should then be the basis of some kind of annual check by the local authority; it should be able to see the child to fulfil its child safety duties, but in a reasonable and proportionate way that respects the right of parents to home educate their children. I had a very interesting conversation with Professor Eileen Munro of the London School of Economics, who is opposed to any of these measures. She made a really important point that, if we had properly funded child social care workers who could go around and do the human business of working with the children in their area, things would be a lot easier, and it would take a lot of the heat out of this debate. At the moment, the worry is that this is all going to be done by algorithms, registration and data collection—an inhuman approach. I also put it to your Lordships that this whole regime will become easier as and when local authorities are no longer providers of schools. That is because if they are no longer running schools and we get to a position where all schools are academies—as is the policy direction of travel—they no longer have a vested interest in the funding that goes with getting pupils into school; they can become a more independent advocate for children and families. I think that being their voice first and foremost—unfettered by any of those other interests—could make a difference to this regime.
Lord Soley (Lab)
If I may come in at this stage, I first thank the Government for putting in this Bill my original Private Member’s Bill, as they said they would. It was brought before this House in 2017—a mere five years ago—and went through with support on all sides and the key bit of it, of course, was to create a register. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for this, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, the first Minister I dealt with, and the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, who also understood my argument and supported it. I also thank the clerk to the House who helped me draft it in the first instance, even though I have forgotten some of the things they drafted. It was well drafted and I was pleased about that. I see that most of it is in the Bill, which is great. I also thank my noble friends Lady Morris and Lord Knight, who have been very supportive on this, and others, including the noble Lord, Lord Baker, who came up to me the other day and said, “Clive, you’ve won”. I thought that was some sort of accolade. I am not sure I have won yet—I want to see the Bill on the statute book before I leave this place. That is what I am after.
I have just a couple of points. I will want to return to this issue, probably on Amendment 112A in my noble friend’s name, because there is the question about the appeal process which we need to look at. I will perhaps speak on that when we come to that amendment. On this group, the important point, which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, made very well, is that there is a right to home educate. I have never had any doubt about that; I have supported it fully, and that right is clear. Again, the fact that this is in the Bill is one of its positives. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was keen on that too. I want to make clear that it is very important that we see this as a supportive measure, not a punitive one—supportive of parents who are home educating either by choice or because of necessity.
One of the things I learned in promoting my Bill back in 2017 and 2018, when I consulted very widely—with remote meetings on Zoom and other things, meetings in this House and individual meetings with people who are home educating—is that I would put home educators broadly into three, very rough groups. There are a group who do it extremely well, are very keen on doing it and, frankly, are likely to give their children a better education than you get almost anywhere else. Then there are probably the biggest group, who are doing it either because they want to try it out and see if they can do it or—this is very common—because they have special problems of one type or another. They are not necessarily the child’s problem; it may be a problem with the school or the local authority, which parents feel, rightly or wrongly, cannot deliver the education they think their child needs. They are a very big group. Then there are this thankfully very small, but profoundly worrying, group who do it for all the wrong reasons. One reason might be radicalisation. I want to emphasise here that it is not just Islam, which people tend to think of; I have been given examples in the Christian and Jewish faiths of unreasonable behaviour or radicalisation. We perhaps need to remember something I have said to people a number of times about religion: God is an idea, and there either is or is not one, but religion is more like an ideology. Of course, with ideology, people have different interpretations. As I say, in Christianity, Judaism and Islam, I have seen examples of abuse and radicalisation. It is important that we look at it in that way and not just at one particular religious group.
In the course of that consultation, I had other letters which were very deeply moving. I remember one man who wrote to me, who I think was in his 30s or 40s. He said, “I don’t want to criticise my parents. They home educated me and they really meant well, but it meant I never mixed with other children and I ended up profoundly lonely. I’m still a very shy person and I find it difficult to hold down jobs and mix in company.” There are all sorts of things to consider, and that is why I say the provisions on home education have to be supportive in a way. If the parents are trying to do it well but are missing out on certain opportunities that might be available, it is the child who loses as well. The support aspect of this, which we might spend more time on later, is very important. One thing that education authorities have to be much better at is finding out what level of support the parent and the child need and providing that. It might be some of the obvious things, such as support in more complex subjects such as physics or maths, but it might also be simply having a way for the child to mix with others who are learning and dealing with the problems of isolation and loneliness.
However, in that more extreme group, there are people who sadly take the child out of school for abuse reasons, either sexual or physical. The Minister will know that a couple of children have been starved to death under the guise of home education, and that the parents are not necessarily caught until it is too late. The views of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, on this are well worth listening to, having chaired the Climbié report and others. We might well come back to this when we touch on Amendment 112A, but it is important to remember that there will be examples where the parents try to deny the education authority access to the child, yet if it does not have access to the child it not only cannot tell how much education is being delivered to enable the child to survive in modern society—basics such as reading, writing, arithmetic and so on—but cannot tell whether the child is physically well. I do not in any way want to imply that this is a social welfare measure. It is not; it is an education measure. But just as in health, where we make sure that parents of newborn children can be seen to ensure that the child is developing properly, in education this role for the local authority is essential in modern society. The local authority needs to be able to make sure that the child is getting their education. Some of the examples I had were particularly tragic; the child was being abused, radicalised, used virtually for slave labour, or in some cases trafficked. It is for that reason that we need this register.
I got quite a few strong criticisms from people who felt I was being unnecessarily authoritarian by insisting on a register, but I ask those people to understand that there is a balance between the rights of the child and the rights of the parent. At the end of the day, the rights of the child should always triumph. The parent who insists that the local authority is somehow or other abusing its powers if it asks to see how the child’s education is progressing is missing the point about the welfare of the child. That is extremely important. I do not wish to say much more on this at this point.
I agree with the point made by my noble friend Lord Knight and with quite a few made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, as well. However, before I speak again, on Amendment 112A, I emphasise on this group: please can we make sure that this is done as a supportive measure—supportive of the children and of the parent—to make sure that the child is getting a good education and is properly able to develop while enabling those parents, many of whom want to do this well but who struggle to do it as well as they can? One of the other ways they need help is that if you have three or four home-educated children sitting exams, it is an expensive business, whereas if we could bring them into a system where they were able to sit exams under local authority procedures, or whatever, the costs for those families who are not so well off would not be such a major factor.
The Minister will be grateful for a few thanks here, but thanks go to the Government for bringing this in. I will not go away until I have seen it on the statute book so I will stick around for a bit, but after that I will be glad to say that this was a good bit of legislation with regard to home educators—and a necessary bit that we should have done long ago.
I end by saying that one of the reasons I have some knowledge of this is nothing to do with my knowledge of education generally, which, frankly, is very poor. However, many years ago, before I came into the House of Commons, I was a probation officer, and one of the things I learned was that if you took a child out of school you could hide abuse. When you have seen cigarette burns on a child, you know that this is a serious matter.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I rise with some trepidation because schools and education are not my areas, and when I hear the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, and the noble Lords, Lord Soley and Lord Knight, saying something and I do not quite agree, I pause. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Soley, on getting something close to his original Bill through. I hope I have the same success with my clean air Bill, which will come up in July. It is good to see such a broad coalition of Peers with concerns about this part of the Bill on the so-called children not in school register, who are bringing so many amendments to this part of the Bill.
I disagree slightly with the noble Lord, Lord Soley; no, in fact I probably do not. He talked about the three groups, but part of the problem is that the Government are trying to fix all three with one piece of legislation, and they are extremely different. We should be trying to find children who will receive no education or a dangerously poor education. However, the net is cast far too wide and it risks trapping many home-educating families within a web of unnecessary bureaucracy and red tape. I am standing up to speak on this only because some of my grandchildren were home educated and it has served them extremely well, so I feel that I have a voice in this.
A great many families are worried about this prospect in the Bill, and I am sure that they have contacted many noble Lords about their concerns. Some concerns are fairly simple, such as the time limits being too short and the registration requirements being unclear. However, others are much deeper, such as the breadth of discretion granted to local authorities to decide whether a child is receiving an adequate home education or should be subjected to a school attendance order. If the Government’s intention is to extend the grasp of the state into the lives of home-educating families, they should be explicit about it, but so far the Government justify this policy as being about helping children who are not receiving any education. If that really is the policy intent, there must be a better way of legislating for it than this bureaucratic mess.
I am sorry—I should have thanked the Minister for meeting me and two concerned people. I have not seen any letters in return but I am sure that they are winging their way.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Soley, on his work in the area of home education. I would have thought that the duty of society is to ensure that its children and young people are educated or have the opportunities to be educated, and that we keep them as safe as we possibly can. I will be disappointed if anyone disagrees with that. Yet, in our desire to have everybody educated, we have arrived at a situation where, if you ask any Government, “How many children are missing from school?”, they would not be able to tell us. They would not know the number of children who are not in school. How is it that we as a society are trying to ensure that every child is educated and safeguarded?
We have unregistered schools, and over the years we have tried to discourage them and to close them down. We have had some success—I pay tribute to the Government in that regard. If you hear the stories of some of the pupils in those unregistered schools—a boy who was locked in a cupboard because he admitted that he was gay, for example—you would be absolutely horrified. This has gone on in some radical religious schools, and it is just not acceptable. We have had our hands tied behind our backs and have not been able to do anything about it.
Because of the fear of getting a poor Ofsted or poor examination results, our maintained sector has off-rolled children—it has taken children off the registers at a stroke. If you tried to find out where those children had gone, you would not know. Then we have home education. Home educators do an absolutely fantastic job and I praise them for the work they do. I remember that during the passage of the Bill in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Soley, I met a number of home educators and I was just so impressed. For example, did noble Lords know that in the London area they have an annual weekend camp of all home educators and get specialists in to come and talk to those children and young people? It is fantastic.
But there are some very poor home educators as well, and some situations where children are not being safeguarded. It may be that a parent cannot adequately cope with a situation, so they take the child out of school and say that they are going to be home educated—and that is not happening at all. They are just being left at home, maybe in front of the television, if they have one. That is just not acceptable. We cannot allow that to happen in the 21st-century UK.
Noble Lords will all have received a very good campaign from some sectors of the home education lobby. I have also received some different emails, so let me try to balance that a little. One says: “Home educating parents are having views put forward by a small minority that they do not agree with. Most home educators are too busy home educating children and are not concerned with the proposals that are being made”. Here is another one: “I would like the people who will be making the decisions related to the Schools Bill to be aware of this handful of people who appear to speak for the majority of home educating parents … They encourage an aggressive stance towards local authorities, advise parents against face-to-face contact and encourage them to write reports instead”—and it just goes on.
The fear that has been put into genuine home educators is frightening. I am happy to share these emails with the Minister so that we can see the other side of what has been going on. I will not read any more of them but it is not a very good situation to be in, so what are we going to do about it? Are we just going to leave it as it currently is? No—we cannot go on like this.
We need to ensure that we know where every pupil is. That is why the sorts of measures we have heard about on registration are important. That is why it is important to close down unregistered schools. By the way, one of the ways in which unregistered schools get around being closed down is suddenly to transform themselves into home educators as well. That is what happens, so we need to tackle unregistered schools as well. There is a third issue that we have talked about, and I think we have dealt with it: the off-rolling of pupils must not continue.
I congratulate the Government on having the integrity to grasp this difficult situation. Some of the issues that we have heard about perhaps need to be thought through a little more carefully between Committee and Report, given how they relate to each other. Some of the amendments bring a bit of realism to this issue, but I thank the Minister for, at long last, tackling what has been an appalling situation.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
This has been an interesting debate and I suppose I am a bit nervous about speaking, inasmuch as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, assures us that he sees this register, in his work, as supportive and not punitive for home schoolers. But if that is the intention they have not got the message, because there is great concern at the moment. In the previous contribution, the noble Lord said that not all the emails that one receives represent all home schoolers. That is true, but there is sufficient anxiety created by the Bill that it would be wrong for the Government not to take note of it.
Personally, I am with Professor Eileen Munro, who has been raised already. I am opposed to a large amount of Part 3 but, in trying to intervene more specifically on this section of amendments, it is important to keep stressing the key point that the noble Lord, Lord Knight, raised: that parents have a right to home education. They do not have to apologise or explain in a free society. It is not something to be ashamed of. It might be a minority pursuit and a lot of us might think it a bit quirky, but in a free society, unless the Government are changing that, it is their free right. I think they feel as though they are being told that they have to explain why they are doing it and are going to be intruded upon—and, in the course of it, are being demonised as well.
That is why I supported a lot of the qualms that the noble Lord, Lord Knight, raised. It is also why I support Amendment 172 in this group from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, as a review of home education would at least give us an opportunity to look at it in the round a bit more. It feels as though there might be some dangerous unintended consequences here.
I am afraid that, despite the assurances of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, his first and second groups feel as though they are being punished for fears that are concentrated on the third group, as it were. He described one part of that small group who might not be in schools as being radicalised. We had some images and we all know what we are talking about in terms of madrassas and fundamentalists of Christian, Jewish or Islamic faiths, which is no reflection on those faiths per se. But there is a danger here that this small group is then used to attack the reputations of everybody else.
Even in relation to those groups, we have to be careful about using the term “religious fundamentalist” as a dismissive and dangerous model as well. As an atheist, I happen to stand for religious freedom. We have to be careful that we do not just dismiss that. It is also the case that “fundamentalism” is used promiscuously these days to describe people with a different set of values or ideology, whether religious, political or philosophical. They are the kinds of things that I am concerned about.
My greatest fear, which I talked about in my Second Reading speech, is of an unintended slur: that this is all about safeguarding and the welfare of children. In some of the contributions so far, we have gone from loneliness to physical abuse and cigarette burns, and the idea that there are children being kept at home so that they can be abused and will not be seen by social services. We have to be careful not to simply make safeguarding a matter of the children who are not in school, because many children who are in school and in plain sight are missed by social services and the authorities in terms of their abuse. This seems to be the greater problem.
There is an irony that some children are being withdrawn from schools precisely for safeguarding reasons. The parents, for whatever reason, feel that their children are not safe in school because of bullying or particular ideas of how they are taught—things that we are familiar with. I am no fan of de-schooling. I do not like the de-schooling movement and have argued against it many times. School is a hugely vibrant and important part of socialising children and our passing over to the generations but, in a free society, we have to be careful.
Finally, while a register sounds sensible it is right that we raise concerns about data tracking and surveillance. There are those who have indicated that we cannot just allow data collection to happen without asking some questions about why it is needed and how it will be used. I know that the obsession with data collection in schools themselves—turning people into data points and often replacing actual professional judgment with data collection—drives lots of teachers mad. I do not think it necessarily always helps. I also feel that in the name of the autonomy of home education, we have to be careful that this does not become yet another centralising part of the Bill with unintended consequences.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I will briefly come in here. My interest in home education has been based around special educational needs. It is a fact that in the past—I hope that this is decreasing—many people have not felt that their needs were met by the school system. The child, because they are having a bad time, reacts badly. We have gone through all this before. I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to let us know what the Government’s vision is for supporting people who are occasionally outwith special educational needs and how the local authorities will give that support to them. How will they allow parents who are doing it to ask for that support?
I do not think that we can do this without a register. We need to make it more viable. That is something that we have to do. If we can get some indication on that, not only would it put my mind at rest, more importantly, some of the people who are worried by this would probably feel much more comfortable. If the Minister cannot answer me now, I hope the information can be put out afterwards. A group of people has done home educating for the best possible reasons, not because their child has failed or is not getting the right support. How will the local education authority—indeed the state—support them in this? That is all I want to say on this.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
As my noble friend Lord Knight expressed, we support the fundamental right for home education. Interesting practice is evident in a variety of settings. However, checks and balances need to be present in the system. I echo what others have said in paying tribute to my noble friend Lord Soley, who told me earlier today that he began this work in 2017.
I also echo the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, about local authorities having to assume these extra responsibilities without appropriate funding, and remind the Government that local government finances are paper-thin and cannot continually absorb extra responsibilities.
Eventually, the Government have acted on concerns around the increasing number of children receiving an education outside the classroom. We have talked about them missing out on the many benefits that a school environment brings. An old education professor of mine once said that education is “caught not taught”. I eventually got to understand what that meant, because learning and socialising with other children is very important, as are safeguarding issues.
For some children, home schooling can be a positive experience. The calls for a register for all home educators, as my noble friend Lord Soley pointed out earlier, have been around for at least the last five years, to ensure that children are receiving a suitable education in a safe environment, as well as the tools and flexibilities that that register would bring to check on a child’s home schooling.
I cannot see how we can argue with the fact that these are vital safeguards in helping to ensure that children are not being taught in unsuitable or dangerous environments. We support these school register measures in general, but we also recognise, as has been discussed in the debate, that there is a need to balance the concerns of some stakeholders.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to the debate and acknowledge particularly the work of the noble Lord, Lord Soley, in making sure that the issue of children who are not in school is addressed effectively. I thank him very much for his remarks.
Before addressing your Lordships’ amendments, perhaps I might say something about the tone of the debate. It is absolutely the right of the House to challenge what the Government are doing, but, as a number of your Lordships pointed out, there are parents who are incredibly anxious about their children and the implications of these measures. The approach of the Government is as the noble Lord, Lord Soley, said and as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, suggested: we are there to support parents. I wrote down terms such as “criminalisation”, “colluding”, “demonised” and “attacking”. The Government are doing none of those things. I just ask your Lordships, out of respect for the parents who listen to this debate, who are worried about their children, to be fair in the challenge that is put to the Government and not to suggest that any of those things are in the Government’s mind, because I can absolutely assure noble Lords that they are not.
Amendment 172 from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, seeks to require the Government to complete a review of their policy on children not in school, considering less intrusive measures and the financial cost of implementation. We believe that this is an area that is long overdue for reform to ensure that the rights of children are upheld.
We have had many reforms to the school system over recent years but home education has not been addressed. The registers are not just about those who are being home educated. They are for all those children who are not in school full-time. I think that the noble Baroness was unfair when she suggested—my words, not hers—that this is a one-size-fits-all process. As the noble Lord, Lord Storey said, once local authorities know where children who are not in school full-time are and what kind of education they are getting, they can then focus their attention on those who are not receiving suitable home education and who are missing out in a range of different ways. It will mean that in future local authorities will know this information for all children.
It is important that it is a fundamental right of a child to have a good education, which is in their best interests. The rights of parents to choose how to educate their children are upheld by the Government, but the right of the child for their parents to operate in the child’s best interests are paramount, as set out in the law. If the noble Lord, Lord Laming, were here, I am sure that he would put that point more eloquently than I can. As the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said, we know, not least from correspondence cases, whether from parents or teachers, that there are instances where some children who are not in school have not had a proper education.
I absolutely recognise the three groups that the noble Lord, Lord Soley, described and that is how we are approaching this. But our problem is that we do not know how widespread the situation is of children who are not getting a proper education. That is the problem that these clauses seek to address. We do not even know how many children are in home education; how many are ostensibly in home education but are not receiving a proper education; or how many are not receiving anything at all. That is not acceptable and as a nation we need a better grip on this, for the good of the children themselves and to make sure they all receive the education that is their right.
The measures in the Bill were consulted on in 2019 as part of the Children Not in School consultation, which received nearly 5,000 responses from parents, local authorities and other interested groups, so we do not believe that a further review would be beneficial. Our published response to this consultation and our policy statement outlined why the legislation is needed to promote the welfare and education of children not in school. The consultation also considered the financial implications, since we used the consultation to ask local authorities about the costs.
We know that registers are not a panacea, but they will help us to identify the children who are missing out, and the process of addressing that and getting them a proper education can then begin, while, of course, upholding the principle of choice for parents in the education that they feel is best for their child. I thank the noble Baroness for having arranged for me to meet parents the other day and I hope we can work across the House to reassure those parents who are concerned.
With Amendments 97A and 97B, my noble friend Lord Lucas raises important clarification points about eligibility for inclusion in the register, as well as parents’ ability to withdraw their children from school to home educate should they choose. I reassure my noble friend that the Bill already ensures that only those children ordinarily resident in an area would be eligible for registration within a local authority register. It remains the case that parents do not normally need the permission of the school or local authority to home educate. Agreement needs to be sought only in exceptional circumstances, such as when a school attendance order is in force.
The noble Lord, Lord Knight, proposes in Amendment 97BA that no child who is registered at a school should be included on a local authority register. It is critical for the registers to include those children who are not receiving education full-time as a registered pupil. The main exception to this, which we intend to provide for in regulations, is where a registered pupil is receiving some education outside of the school, at a non-school setting but arranged by the school. In that case, the school is still responsible and accountable for the provision, but in other cases, where the provision is arranged by third parties, it is important that the children are included on the register so that the local authority can be assured that, taken together, the provision for the child adds up to a suitable full-time education. This should ensure that children do not fall through the cracks and miss education when not attending school. We will set out further exceptions in regulations so that children who are regularly absent from school for short amounts of time are not included in local authority registers.
My noble friend Lord Lucas raised valuable points with Amendment 97C around the importance of parents having sufficient notice to understand what is expected of them in relation to the registers. The Bill already includes a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out how local authorities are to maintain their registers and how they will publicise them. This will be supported by statutory guidance, setting out operational details on how they should implement their registers, which could also include guidance on assistance to parents.
Amendments 122B and 130B, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas, are about the importance of ensuring that children who are entitled to receive alternative provision are within scope of the parental duty to provide information for the registers, as well as the support duty. These children will be excepted from the parental duty if they are receiving full-time education through a Section 19 arrangement, as local authorities will already have the required information available to them. Otherwise, it is important that these children should be on the register; for example, where they are in receipt of some part-time alternative provision which is supplemented by home education. The local authority will need to assure itself that, taken together, the provision for the child adds up to suitable full-time education. Similarly, local authorities have existing obligations to ensure that these children are receiving adequate support to promote their education. I hope that this reassures my noble friend that there is not an escape hatch, as he described it.
Amendment 129AA, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, would require a local authority to consider any views expressed by an independent expert when considering how to respond to a request for support. It is already the case that, when taking its decisions, a local authority must consider all relevant information that is before it, including information from independent experts. Our statutory guidance will add further clarity as to what factors local authorities should take into account when discharging their duty to provide support. We will be consulting with local authorities and other interested parties, certainly including home educators, prior to the issuing of the guidance.
Amendment 132A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas, would require non-maintained special schools and independent schools to provide information prescribed in regulations to the Secretary of State, and for this information to be added to the national pupil database. Existing legislation already allows for regulations requiring non-maintained special schools and independent schools to provide information to the Secretary of State, and already enables the collection of information from all non-maintained special schools. This is done via the termly pupil level school census.
Additionally, independent schools, like state-funded schools, are required to notify their local authority when new pupils are admitted, and to provide all the information that is held on their admissions register to the local authority. They are also required to notify the local authority when a pupil’s name is deleted from the admissions register and of details including information that they hold about the pupil’s current address and destination school. Therefore, local authorities already have access to the pupil-level data about those at independent schools that they need to maintain a children not in school register. Data from non-maintained special schools and from independent schools, where collected, is also already included, and made available from the national pupil database.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for her answers to my amendment. By and large, she has answered extremely well, and I thank her for that.
I would like to press her a bit further on the business of identifying people who identify themselves as elective home education. There is a real importance in making that distinction, because elective home educators are taking responsibility for educating their children and the local authority has only a supervisory duty. If a child is not in education and is not being electively home educated, the local authority needs to take a very different kind of action. It is therefore very important that, in this register, we should differentiate between the two so that we can focus on what local authorities need to be doing. I am delighted to see my noble friend shaking her head on that.
I have been a user of the national pupil database for a very long time and, in the annual school census, I have never found information on independent schools. The pupils appear for the first time in the data when they take GCSEs—if they take GCSEs. I am puzzled by my noble friend’s response that the data is there. I will write to her, if I may, to see if we can solve that problem.
I am grateful for what my noble friend has said about Section 19. At the moment, some children under Section 19 get five hours of education a week. My understanding is that those children would have to be on the register because that would not qualify as full-time. If I am wrong about that, I would be grateful if my noble friend could let me know, because I am comforted that, where a child is not being provided with full-time education, it must get noticed, and that there are no circumstances under which five hours of education counts as full-time for the purposes of the conversation that we have just had.
I am attracted by the idea from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, of a unique children’s number—a crossover between the medical and teaching professions—and getting some integration there. It really helps to know where and how children are, particularly when it comes to supporting children well. Knowing that the information is available to professionals when appropriate and required in an integrated way seems sensible. But then I am very much a data person so perhaps I am pushing further there than the noble Lord, Lord Knight, would do.
Baroness Barran (Con)
In the interests of time, I will be brief. My noble friend may be aware that the recent Health and Social Care Act commits the department to report to Parliament in the summer of 2023 on the feasibility of using a consistent child identifier. I will of course include more information on that in my letter to your Lordships.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for that. Perhaps we will get to the stage when there is a single identifier for a school. At least three different numbers are used by the Department for Education, as far as I know. It would be nice to have consistency. There is a fourth number, too—universities—so it all gets extremely confusing when one is trying to understand which school the data is talking about. I am all in favour of identifiable numbers. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Soley, for saying that he sees this proposal as a supportive measure. That is good and is, I hope, absolutely the basis on which we are all going forward on this.
When we come to later groups, my focus will be on: how do we make this a Bill whereby it is advantageous to be a supportive local authority and harder to be one that is not supportive? At the moment, I have big worries about the Bill making things easy for an abusive local authority, without giving any incentives to supportive local authorities. There are some wonderfully supportive local authorities. I come back to what the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said. There are local authorities that are just hymned by the home educators in their patch, who say what a wonderful experience they have had and how supported they feel, how good the relationship is and how good the authority is at picking up cases where home education is not working because everyone feels like telling the local authority about it and because they know that the parent will be treated well and the child will be looked after.
I therefore approach the rest of the discussion on this part of the Bill with optimism—but possibly after supper. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Industrial Action on the Railways
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Transport Secretary in another place. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, with permission, I would like to make a Statement on rail strikes. We are now less than eight hours away from the biggest railway strike since 1989—a strike orchestrated by some of the best-paid union barons, representing some of the better-paid workers in the country, which will cause misery and chaos to millions of commuters.
This weekend we have seen union leaders use all the tricks in the book to confuse, to obfuscate and to mislead the public. Not only do they wish to drag the railway back to the 1970s but they are employing the tactics of bygone unions: deflecting accountability for their strikes on to others; attempting to shift the blame for action that will cause massive disruption and damage to millions of people; and claiming that others are somehow preventing an agreement to their negotiation.
But I do not think the public will be hoodwinked: the families who will be unable to visit their relations; music fans hoping to go to Glastonbury; the students unable to get to their exams—their GCSEs and A-levels; businesses just beginning to recover from Covid; and people who will miss out on medical treatment because of these strikes. That is what they are supporting. They know that this week’s rail strike—created by the unions, organised by the unions—is the full responsibility of the unions, too.
Of course, we are doing our utmost to get the unions and the rail industry to agree a way forward and call off the strikes. This is because in discussions such as this, it is always the employer and unions who need to get together and negotiate. In this case, that is the train operating companies, Network Rail and union representatives. We are not the employer and we will not undermine the process. I hear the calls of the Labour leadership opposite saying that we should somehow get involved and perhaps invite the unions for beer and sandwiches to discuss the situation. Well, we all know that the Labour leader thinks that beer and a curry is a work meeting but we will be leaving this to the employers, who are the right people to negotiate with the unions. Indeed, the unions are in daily talks with the employers—or at least they were until they walked out an hour ago to go and hold a press conference saying that the strikes would be on.
We are doing everything can, despite these strikes, to minimise the disruption throughout the entire network. We are working with the Civil Contingencies Secretariat, the Government’s emergency planning team, to keep critical supply chains open wherever possible. Operators will keep as many passenger trains as possible running, although, of course, with much disruption to the timetable, that will be very difficult on strike days. It is estimated that around 20% of planned services will operate, focused on key workers, main population centres and critical freight routes. But there will be mass disruption, and we advise passengers to avoid travelling unless absolutely necessary, which, of course, for many it will be.
The National Rail Enquiries website will be kept up to date with the latest travel information to ensure that passengers can make informed decisions about their travel. Passengers are strongly advised to check before they travel and encouraged to look for alternative means of transportation if their journey is affected, including on the days between strikes.
We are looking at different options for the railways in order to maintain services amid disruption in both the medium and longer term. We can no longer tolerate a position where rail workers exercising their right to strike can do it without any regard for how the rights of others are affected. Nurses, teachers and other working people who rely upon the railway must be able to travel.
Minimum service legislation is just one part of that. Minimum service levels are a government manifesto commitment and will require train operators to run a base number of services, even in the event of future strike actions. It is a system which works well in other countries, including Belgium and France. So we will be bringing in legislation to protect the travelling public if agreement cannot be reached when major disruption, as with the strikes this week, is expected.
The rhetoric we have seen from union leaders and the Opposition Benches this weekend seems to be focused on widening the division rather than bridging the gap. The whole point of the railway reforms based on the Williams review, which engaged with unions very extensively, is to unite and modernise the industry. Just as we cannot reform the railway with obsolete technology, we cannot do it by clinging on to obsolete working practices. For example, leisure travel at weekends has huge growth potential at the moment. After Covid, people are coming back and travelling at weekends more than before. But on most of the railway, under an agreement that dates back to 1919, Sunday working is voluntary. So the industry cannot do what everyone else does—what other businesses and organisations do—and service its customers. Instead, it has to appeal for people to come and work. Sometimes that is simply unavailable, as happened with large football matches such as the Euro finals, when 170 trains were cancelled. So the industry needs to change.
Unions claim that this strike is about a pay freeze, but this is factually incorrect. We are not imposing a pay freeze. The whole point of these reforms is to build a sustainable, growing railway, where every rail worker receives a decent annual pay rise. Let me be clear: for modernisation and reform to work, we have to have unions that are prepared to modernise, otherwise there can be no deal. This strike is not about pay, but about outdated unions opposing progress—progress that will secure the railway’s future. These strikes are not only a bid to stop reforms; they are critical to the network’s future. If these reforms are not carried out, the strikes will threaten the very jobs of the people who are striking now, because they will not allow the railways to operate properly and attract back customers.
The railway is in a fight. It is in a fight for its life, not just against other forms of public and private transport but competing with Teams, Zoom and other forms of remote working. Today, many commuters who three years ago had no alternative but to travel by train have other options, including the option of not travelling at all. Rail has lost a fifth of its passengers and a fifth of its revenue.
Since the start of the pandemic, the Government have committed £16 billion of emergency taxpayer support—we all know the numbers; that is £600 for every single household in the country—so that not a single rail worker lost their job. We have invested £16 billion to keep trains running and ensure that no one at Network Rail or DFT-contracted train operating companies was furloughed. Now, as we recover and people start to travel again, the industry needs to grow its revenues. It needs to attract passengers back, and make the reforms that are necessary for it to compete. The very last thing that it should be doing now is alienating passengers and freight customers with a long and damaging strike. So my message to the workforce is straightforward: “Your union bosses have got you striking under false pretences, and rather than protecting your jobs, they are actually endangering them and the railways’ future.”
We have a platform for change. We want the unions to work with the industry and the Government to bring a much brighter future to our railways, and that means building an agile and flexible workforce, not one that strikes every time someone suggests an improvement to our railway. Strikes should be the last resort, not the first. They will stop customers choosing rail, they will put jobs at risk, they will cause misery across the country, they will hit businesses that are trying to recover from covid, and they will hurt railway workers themselves. So please, let us stop dividing the railway industry, and let us start working for a brighter future.”
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Secretary of State’s words, but I have to say that they did not get any better on the second time of hearing, and I listened to the Statement with increasing despair.
When such a serious dispute is going to cause huge disruption and misery across the country, there are two approaches that a Government and a Secretary of State can take. The first is that they can sit back and do nothing—except perhaps a few media interviews where they blame everyone else and take no responsibility—but that negligent approach makes it even harder to tackle the issue. There is another approach: they can recognise the responsibilities that come with being in government. They can recognise the social and economic cost of strike action and then roll up their sleeves, show some leadership and do everything they possibly can to ensure that there are urgent, meaningful discussions and official talks. That is the job that Governments are elected to do. Even now, at the 11th hour, it is possible. Some of us think it is an essential government duty to facilitate and hold last-minute talks to avert strike action that will be devastating for workers and passengers alike and damaging to an already fragile economy. I heard the noble Baroness trivialising the meetings, talking about beer and sandwiches; I do not care what they eat and drink at these meetings, as long as the meetings take place.
We all know that it is better and probably easier to prevent industrial action than to try to resolve it once the workers have gone out on strike. If these strikes go ahead, it is obvious that there is only one way they can conclude: by negotiation and discussion. Even the Government’s own MPs know that that is the case. This Secretary of State’s former PPS, Jake Berry, expressed his frustration with the Government over the weekend. Pointing out that he was a lawyer, he said:
“I can tell you that the only way out of a dispute is via negotiation.”
He called on all parties—and explicitly named the Government—to get round the table and sort it out.
Can the noble Baroness give me one example—just one will do, even if it is a very small one—where the Government have convened any discussions at all between the employers and the employees in this dispute to find a way through? Unfortunately, I suspect that she cannot. I suspect that there has been no attempt whatever, and yet surely that is a basic requirement of government. If the Minister and the Secretary of State are not prepared to get a grip and do their jobs then they should move over, because there are plenty of others on this side of the House who would be happy to ensure that there are negotiations, rise to the occasion and show some real leadership.
This is worse than just a failure of leadership. The Government have not only stepped back when they should have stepped up but they have tied the hands of those charged with resolving the situation. It has been revealed that the train operating companies have no mandate from the Government with which to negotiate, so when they do have meetings there is nothing to discuss. That information has come from a source inside the train operating companies. Then we have the Secretary of State, as partly repeated by the noble Baroness today, accusing union negotiators of leaving talks to go to a rally. When those talks ended on Friday, the understanding was that further discussions were scheduled for Sunday, after the rail bosses had engaged with the Department for Transport on what they might be able to discuss with the unions. And yet no talks were convened. Why?
When a rail manager said in a radio interview this morning that there would be no compulsory redundancies, the union’s response was that this was the first it had heard of that and how significant it would be for going forward with the negotiations, yet the Secretary of State appeared to refuse to rule out any such job losses on TV. Which is true?
It is really hard to escape the conclusion that government Ministers are content for strikes to take place as long as they are not their fault and they do not have to take any responsibility for them. I have a couple of questions for the noble Baroness.
First, could she say something about how withholding a negotiating mandate from the train operating companies means there can be any meaningful progress? Secondly, given that safety is a key issue, what assessment has been undertaken by the Government regarding the cuts to the maintenance workers? Thirdly, as I came into the Chamber I was given information about a letter written by Steve Barclay, the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, to Rishi Sunak. The Government’s message has been very clear on how important it is that we have wage restraint, and they have been very clear on that in this dispute and others. But tonight, this letter reveals that the Government apparently want to remove curbs on bankers’ bonuses to attract more people into the City. On the one hand, we are telling people who are working that they must have wage restraint, so does it not seem somewhat hypocritical to say that the constraints and curbs that have been in place are to be removed in the City? I am grateful to Paul Waugh and the i newspaper for that information.
It comes back to the Government seeming to think that the rules are for other people but not them and their friends. I hope the noble Baroness can say something about this; she must realise how deeply it will affect those who do not want to go on strike and who are trying to negotiate if they find that the Government are using two sets of rules—one for those in the City on high incomes with large bonuses and another for those who are working.
No one wants to see these strikes go ahead; they will be devastating and they will hit hard. But if the Minister thinks that government means not lifting a finger other than to point the blame at others, that is not a way forward. It is a gross dereliction of duty that fails every single test of leadership. The public deserve better from this Government, who want to sit back and do nothing to try to resolve this position.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon. I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, which opens with a list of those affected by the strikes. I should say that my plans have had to change for the latter part of this week. Potential revellers in Glastonbury have had their plans ruined and people going on holiday have had their plans upset. But it is workers, school and university students, and patients who will be most affected, and whose lives will be most impacted in the longer term by these strikes.
I would take the ministerial hand-wringing about this issue much more at face value if the Government had moved heaven and earth to solve this strike, but they have not. They have not lifted a finger and are making a virtue of this inactivity. Perhaps the Minister could update your Lordships’ House on when the Government last discussed this issue properly with union representatives. What does “doing our utmost” mean in terms of actually doing things? What is the Government’s utmost when it comes to stopping this strike?
This would be bad enough if the railway was being organised under the old franchise system, but as the Minister knows, the Government “took back control” of railways during Covid and essentially imposed a TfL-style service contract system. They are the real employer, and not to negotiate is a dereliction of duty. The Government hide behind the “we are not the employer” excuse, but with the formation of Great British Railways the Government are in charge. They have effectively nationalised the railways. The Government cannot expect this power of owning the railway without responsibility. Their responsibility is to negotiate.
The unions should not be inflicting this misery and should not be in a position to, but Grant Shapps is just as much to blame for failing to have acted to stop it from happening. We should look at the facts. As the Minister said, the railways have suffered throughout the pandemic and passenger numbers are yet to bounce back. This huge interruption will only hurt the recovery of passenger confidence in the railways. Here I agree with the Minister. I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that the Government need to understand that and get everybody around the table and thrash this out. Until that happens, we will not get resolution. Can the Minister please explain why her Secretary of State for Transport is more willing to step into the media and try to save the Prime Minister’s neck than he is to sit around the table and save rail passengers from the problems we are seeing?
Meanwhile, we have seen sabre-rattling about agency workers from the Business Secretary of State, Kwasi Kwarteng. Can the Minister please tell your Lordships’ House when we might expect a statutory instrument to be laid here so we can find out what his plans are? On the face of it, it looks like a political gimmick which is actually deeply impractical. This is a tight labour market; it is a tighter labour market than we have ever known. Agency workers are in really high demand. They can pick and choose the jobs that they take. Agency staff are unlikely to choose a role that causes them to have to cross a picket line rather than a job that does not. Where are these people coming from?
Even if the Government manage to find workers, it will not fundamentally address the underlying issues causing the strike actions and it will not save many of the services. For example, train drivers are trained for weeks to learn a new route. We saw this complication during the Covid crisis. You cannot just swap one driver for another, even if they know how to drive the train. What this looks like is the Government seeking to pour petrol on an already incendiary situation. The tone of this Statement adds to my suspicion that this is what is happening. Inserting third-party agency workers into this scenario is likely to inflame tensions and elongate strike action.
For my part, I think the Government think this is putting pressure on Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition and are not intending to solve the dispute. That is wrong. The Statement laughably urges divisions to end, but the Government’s language is inherently very divisive. It is the people of Britain who will suffer: the cancer patient who misses an appointment, the student who fluffs an exam after having to take a much longer journey to school, and the zero-hours worker who misses a whole week’s wages because they cannot get to work. These are the lives the Government are using to fuel their narrow political aims. Does the Minister agree with me that this is beyond reprehensible?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am grateful to both noble Lords for their contributions on this Statement. I have listened carefully to what they had to say today, and nothing that they said convinced me that there was an alternative way of bringing this dispute to a resolution, because:
“I do not negotiate with a Tory Government.”
Who said that? Mick Lynch. He does not negotiate with a Tory Government. He said that on 23 May. When we are dealing with that sort of attitude—one might say—it is all very well to turn round and say, “Well, have a meeting”. Have a meeting with who, about what? The Government are not the employer here.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I think that the noble Baroness is challenging me on that point. Has she actually invited the unions to a meeting with the Government at any point? I did ask that, and I would be grateful if she would respond to it.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Well, that is marvellous; I have only just started my response, so if the noble Baroness could just hold her horses, that would be brilliant. Let us get back to the questions that she asked and indeed to the Government’s Statement. At face value, it is indeed the case that the current Rail Minister and her predecessor have met the unions in the past to press the need for reforms, and to outline the reforms set out in the Williams-Shapps plan for rail about the establishment of Great British Railways, changes to terms and conditions, modernising railway and creating this fantastic thing that we all want. But this was not part of the negotiations, because the negotiations are between the employer and the unions, as they have always been. That does not mean that the Government do not take great interest in the negotiations—we want to see an increase in pay—but it has to be done fairly, between the passengers, the taxpayer and the workers.
There are working practices that need to change. I am sure that all noble Lords will have heard of some of them, and I suspect that some have thought, “Yeah, it does need to change”. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked about job losses. Over the course of the Covid pandemic, any job losses that have happened to date have been voluntary. A very successful voluntary severance scheme was launched in October 2021. There were 5,000 applications for that scheme—I am sorry, would the noble Baroness like to intervene?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, we should let the Minister respond, as is the way that it should be on a Statement.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The noble Baroness was mumbling, and I was desperate to know what she had to say.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
Could the Minister answer the questions that I asked?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am trying to answer the questions that the noble Baroness asked. As I was about to go on to say, it is clear that the industry will do whatever it can to avoid job losses. There will be voluntary schemes, and we expect them to be popular. But of course each train operating company, and indeed Network Rail, has a vision for how we will put the reforms into practice, and there will be different ways that each organisation will do that, with the human resources available to it. We will have to see how that all pans out because, obviously, different organisations will require a different number of people to carry our different levels of service.
I turn to some of the other questions that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, raised. She mentioned that there is no mandate. There is a mandate for both Network Rail and the train operating companies. However, even so—I will say this again and again and no doubt I will be at the Dispatch Box many times talking about it—this is not just about pay; this is about terms and conditions, and we have known about changes to those for a very long time. We need to think about how we get to a stage where we manage to operate a seven-day railway in circumstances where, at the moment, you simply cannot. Southeastern’s high-speed operation, which has been in place since 2009, is incredibly successful. It is a great service, and that is the level of customer offer that we really should be giving to our customers on a modern railway, particularly as leisure travel is so important.
The noble Baroness also mentioned safety. Safety is, of course, the Government’s top priority. We have one of the safest railways in Europe, and there is an enormous uptick in the amount of advanced technology used for safety on railways—such as drones to check rail lines, which is much more effective than doing that by eye, and all sorts of machines that check for internal cracks in the rails. So, yes, there is an increased use of technology, and sometimes that means that people’s roles will necessarily have to change. The noble Baroness said that this will deeply affect the workers, and I agree. I feel very sorry for that, because at the end of the day we need those workers, and we want them to create these railways of the future. We do not want them to go on strike; we do not want them to damage their own livelihoods, which is what striking will do.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said that the Government are apparently not lifting a finger. I can absolutely reassure them both that the Government have been working on this all through the weekend. Obviously, at the moment, this is the biggest priority for my department. It is taking up an enormous amount of time in the department—rightly so—because you cannot build a modern railway on poor foundations. That is what we run the risk of doing. We must make sure that we have reforms, particularly to working practices, such that we can create the modern railway that we all want. At the moment, we are not there.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked about agency workers, and we are looking at all options for them, because we do not want future strikes to punish the travelling public. When I have more information, I will of course bring it back to your Lordships’ House. In the meantime, I believe I have answered all the questions.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I am a great supporter of the railways and use them the whole time—in fact, I used them today. I am also a believer, contrary to what some opposite might think, in everybody deserving a decent day’s pay for a decent day’s work, and I think the unions have a role to play in that. However, this strike is politically motivated: the pronouncements of Lynch and others show that to be the case. Their stopping on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday is designed to cause chaos on Wednesday, Friday and Sunday as well. Would not the answer therefore be—I understand the Secretary of State has this power—to close the railway system between Tuesday and Sunday?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I recognise that my noble friend is trying to be helpful here, and I appreciate it, but the Government are committed to working with the train operating companies to put in place as many services as we can to minimise disruption to both freight and passenger operations where possible. Shutting the railway for the entire week would be shooting ourselves in the foot. We absolutely need to provide those services for as many people as possible, because we know that so many people are reliant on the railways.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I get the impression that this crisis has just occurred in the past week, but that is not the case. The trade unions have been talking about this for a long time; the Government have been talking about Great British Railways for a very long time. We do not really know the extent to which these two issues are combined and whether the noble Baroness’s wish for change and the examples she gave will be included in legislation, but it seems very odd that we are now waiting until the last day before anything significant is happening.
I do not buy this business that the Government are not a principal. Since Covid, for very good reasons, the Government have been micromanaging the railways, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said. They are not allowing the train operators or Network Rail to negotiate. I do not know whether they mind about that but if they do not, the Government should take it on themselves.
I ask the Minister: what next? We have three strikes this week and, if there is no solution, what happens next? She and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, mentioned agency workers, but the last time we had an issue with agency workers related to P&O Ferries. Ministers were quite critical of P&O, to the extent that the Secretary of State said that he would sack its chairman. Whether he actually had the power to sack the chairman is a different matter, but if this goes on and agency workers are brought in, how can the Secretary of State sack himself? That really would not work. I hope that next week or by the end of this week, whatever the reasons, the Government encourage everybody to sit around the table and start talking about change and how it can be implemented while keeping the services going at the same time. As the Minister said, in France—I have a lot of experience of what happened on the railways in France—there is a rule that the trade unions allow one train in four to keep going, whatever the strike, so that there is at least a minimum service.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, asked: what next? The most important thing, to my mind, is for the unions to come back to the table—to sit down with the train operating companies and Network Rail to reach a resolution.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I the interesting part of the Statement was, as someone said, its tone, which I think was accurately reflected in the Minister’s delivery to the House. There is clearly no intention from this Government to achieve a settlement. They have convinced themselves that it is in their interest to wind up the issue, reflected in the ministerial Statement in the use of terms such as “union barons”. This strike was because of the frustration among the membership of the unions involved; a massive majority of the entire unionised workforce was in favour of taking action. This is not down to the leadership; it is down to the members and their dissatisfaction. When the Minister comes and reads us a Statement that is more like a Daily Mail op-ed on a bad day, it demonstrates the Government’s total lack of interest in achieving any settlement.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Sorry to interrupt the House again, but I urge Peers to keep their questions succinct to allow more Back-Bench questions to be asked.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
Does the Minister understand that part of the reason for this discontent is the Government’s intention to wind back on the pension schemes that cover the railway staff? The Government make policies to make people’s pensions worse; that is part of the problem. Does she understand that?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
A review by the independent regulator for pensions recognised the pension scheme is underfunded. There clearly has to be some sort of remedy to address that. In most train-operating companies, workers can retire at 62—several years earlier than most people are able to retire—and, for those who worked for Network Rail after 2012, at 65. There is lots of work to do on pensions, but the noble Lord spoke about the tone and it is quite interesting to see how this has developed. I do not know if the noble Lord was able to watch Mr Lynch on the television this afternoon and take note of his tone.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn
My Lords, I want to try to take some of the vitriol out of the conversation, just for a moment, to ask the Minister a question. Considering the number of conversations that have been going on behind the scenes, which have not produced a result and have, therefore, not prevented the strike, has any thought been given to working on a really long-term plan—not just for the rail industry but for a number of other industries that are talking about some kind of industrial action? This would allow there to be some hope and clarity in the longer term rather than immediately just trying to resolve this issue at this moment. The longer-term plan could be a real help, if that could be talked about.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I completely agree with the right reverend Prelate and noble Lords will have the opportunity to quiz the Government on the longer-term plan as we bring the legislation forward to put it into place. The right reverend Prelate may have seen the Williams-Shapps plan for rail: it sets out exactly what we want to do with the railways. We are hugely ambitious for our railways; we are investing in our railways; we are reopening abandoned routes all over the country; we are electrifying lines all over the country; we are opening high-tech networks such as the Elizabeth line; we have HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail; and we are creating thousands of jobs, particularly, for example, in train manufacturing. But, as I said, you have to build a modern railway on firm foundations, and we have to get to the stage where there are firm foundations on which to build that modern railway.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, which I have to admit she did with relish, but when I listen to the tone and content, I find it hard to escape the conclusion that the Government are content, if not enthusiastic, for this industrial action to go ahead because they think it will bring them political advantage. I have only a few moments to ask a question, so I ask the Minister to explain to the House: what is the role of an engaged, ambitious Secretary of State in a dispute such as this? What more, in her view, could the Government do to bring about the solution to this dispute that we all hope to see?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The role of the Secretary of State is, of course, to support the sector in reaching an agreement.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it was misjudged of Her Majesty’s Government not to engage more with the union on this issue. To treat the RMT as a pariah, even if the RMT tweets that the Government are a pariah, does not show respect to the members of the RMT. I hope that, after these three days, the Government will start to negotiate directly and ask the union to come in, even if they are not totally running the railways. I share one bit of good news: Northern Ireland railways are not on strike. Does the Minister agree that this might have something to do with the fact that Northern Ireland railways have always been, and probably always will be, in public ownership?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Obviously, in the discussions around this dispute, it is important to separate out the workers and the leadership. No disrespect whatever is intended to the members of the union. We believe that those members who are choosing to strike may not be doing the best for their industry as a whole or for their long-term future. We are trying to get that across to them. I say again that it is important for the union to come back to the table and meet to find a resolution.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in responding to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, who asked about the rhetoric in the Statement, the Minister reflected on the rhetoric of trade union leaders as she saw it. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Fox, also asked about this. The Statement speaks slightingly of the “rhetoric” of the union leaders. In my dictionary, rhetoric is defined as
“the exploitation of figures of speech and other compositional techniques.”
Does the Minister think that the rhetoric of the Statement is chosen to pour oil on troubled waters, or add fuel to the flames?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The structure of the Statement is very much to set out the Government’s position and, to be a little bit Cuprinol about it: it does what it says on the tin. It sets out exactly how the Government feel about this, how we see the necessity for reforms and how we would very much like the union to come back to the table. It tries to dispel some of the myths out there around the role of government and sets out how we can reach a resolution.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as co-chair of the newly formed UK freight and logistics parliamentary group. Might I turn the Minister’s mind to freight issues specifically? In her Written Statement on the Future of Freight White Paper, released just on Wednesday, she claimed:
“As a proud free-trading nation, moving goods domestically and abroad has always been a backbone of the United Kingdom’s economy.”
Arising from that, I have questions in two areas. First, what is being done to ensure that essential services are not too adversely affected by this whole circumstance? Might she concede that the railway industry is holding the country to account? For example, 40% of the fruit and vegetables consumed in the UK transit through the Lincolnshire South Holland region; in other words, 40% of the fruit and vegetables consumed in this country travel through an area that will be adversely impact by this process.
Secondly, to quote again from her Written Statement, will the Minister deliver on her intention to
“remove the barriers which prevent the seamless flow of freight”?
What is she going to do about this?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am very grateful that the noble Viscount is taking such a key interest in freight and I look forward to working with his APPG as it takes shape and moves forward. Freight is an incredibly important area that historically has sometimes been slightly forgotten about. We are hugely ambitious for freight on our railways. We have been working closely with the freight operating companies and Network Rail to see what we can do to get as many freight trains as possible moving over this period of disruption. We also had several meetings, in the weeks prior to any potential industrial action, about what is currently carried by rail freight that we would need to make sure continues to be so, so we feel content that we have a good handle on that.
On longer-term ambitions for freight on rail, we are hugely ambitious for it, as set out in the Williams-Shapps plan for rail but also in the Future of Freight strategy. I will have to beg the noble Lord’s patience because, when we come to debate Great British Railways in the transport Bill, I hope we will have many positive discussions about what GBR can do for freight.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I wish to declare an interest: I am a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for GWR, whose services I normally use almost every day but clearly will not be using tomorrow.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, my interests are slightly different: I try to travel on the trains most weeks.
We have a few minutes left. The Minister will have heard from across the House the disappointment in both the tone of the Statement and the fact that the Government have not been more proactive on behalf of the public in trying to resolve this issue. She said at the end of her comments that she had answered all the questions. Actually, she had not: I raised the issue of the letter from the Prime Minister’s chief of staff to the Chancellor, which appears to be saying that they should remove the curbs on bankers’ bonuses. I asked her if she felt that such action would be detrimental to those involved in this dispute because it seems rather hypocritical to urge wage restraint on one group of workers while allowing large bonuses for another. If she could comment on that, I would be grateful.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am grateful for the reminder that I had not commented on that. The reason is that I have not seen the letter so I do not know what is in it and am not able to comment.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, we have had one question about the Government’s structural vision for the future of rail freight. Let us turn to the content of the Statement about the structural vision for passengers. The Statement refers to commuters three years ago having no alternative to taking the train but today having the option of not travelling at all. That rather suggests that trains are competing with Zoom, Teams and so on. It talks about attracting passengers back. There are many advantages to home working in productivity, family life and health and well-being. Should the Government, instead of talking about attracting passengers back, not be talking about the modal shift of attracting drivers out of their cars and on to the rails?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, that question goes a little further than my brief today, but the Government are very clear that we want a cleaner and greener transport system. Yes, we want to attract passengers back to the railways. At the moment, as I think I said in the Statement, numbers are down by one-fifth, but the interesting thing about the number of passengers travelling at the moment is that the shift has changed quite significantly. Far more people are travelling for leisure purposes; it is wonderful that they are choosing to go by train if they are travelling in the UK for leisure reasons. We have to provide the best possible modern railway that we can, which provides value for money for the taxpayer and for the travelling public, and that is what we intend to do.
Lord Robathan (Con)
As we are all having a second bite at the cherry, if my noble friend believes that the strike is politically motivated—some of the comments from union leaders have been very political, such as “Get the Tories out”, and that is one of the nicer ones—does she expect these strikes to be repeated every other day, perhaps every month, on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays? If it is politically motivated, will she look again at the idea of taking on the political motivation of the union and closing it down?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I think the reality is that nobody wants this strike to continue. We will do whatever we can to support the train operating companies and Network Rail to reach a resolution. There has been some pretty sharp rhetoric, and one does not want to see widespread discontent, because that would be harmful to our economy and ultimately damaging to the workers themselves.
Private Rented Sector
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, we welcome the publication of the Government’s White Paper and the recognition in the Statement that
“conditions in our private rented sector are simply not good enough”.
I want to consider some of the 12 points of action that it introduces.
Section 21 evictions will be abolished, meaning that landlords will have to prove grounds to evict tenants. New grounds will be created to allow landlords to sell or move close family members in, while grounds around persistent rent arrears and anti-social behaviour will be strengthened. Landlords will be able to evict tenants on sale or moving-in grounds only after the first six months of the tenancy. If the landlord chooses to sell and is unable to do so, they will not be able to re-let the property for three months. Otherwise, tenancies will be indefinite and can be ended only by the tenant or the landlord giving legitimate notice. It is welcome that these changes should stop landlords from evicting tenants simply to re-let at a higher rent or to avoid making repairs after a complaint, but it must be made clear how renters or local authorities will be made aware of a property that is being re-let.
Indefinite tenancies will mean that tenants have the option of moving out with two months’ notice without penalty if their circumstances change or if the home turns out not to be suitable, which, again, we welcome. This should provide renters with more flexibility. However, there is a risk that if it is too easy to prove intention to sell or move family into a property, unscrupulous landlords could abuse this, creating Section 21 by the back door. Penalties for abuse should be easy to enforce. Scotland has wrongful termination orders, which can see tenants evicted on false grounds compensated. One of the big challenges for local authorities is the lack of skills and resources to enforce the law, so this must be addressed if we are to see success in this area. Can the Minister outline how the Government intend to deliver enforcement?
With fixed terms gone, automatic rent increases in the contract are also gone. If landlords want to raise the rent, they will need to use Section 13 notices, a maximum of once a year, which can be challenged at tribunal. It should follow that tenants can challenge Section 13 notices or negotiate with their landlord with less of a threat of eviction hanging over them. Extra notice of rent increases will give tenants more time to challenge if they deem it necessary. As things stand, landlords in areas with high demand for homes will still be able easily to use unaffordable rent rises to force tenants out, so does the Minister agree that there needs to be a limit set on rent rises based on affordability?
Does the Minister also agree that a key element in giving greater security, transparency and power to tenants is to ensure that letting agencies, which act on a landlord’s behalf, work to the very highest standards? Will he commit to looking at a code of conduct for letting agents, as has been done in Wales?
I turn to the welcome measure to require all privately rented homes to meet the decent homes standard and the new right to claim back rent on non-decent homes through expanded rent repayment orders. Private renting has grown as social housing has been sold off and not replaced, and, as a result, more people are paying more for less-regulated homes. However, the need to build more social housing is a debate for another day. Bringing standards into line with the social sector will stop private landlords from short-changing renters and, through the benefits system, taxpayers. Expanding RROs is welcome; they need to be a huge deterrent to criminal landlords but are currently underused. Can the Minister confirm that local councils will be given the resources they need to properly enforce the decent homes standard?
The new ombudsman that all landlords must join is a positive step, as this has been a huge gap in regulation. Currently, if you rent from a letting agency, you can pursue complaints through a redress scheme, but not if renting directly from a landlord. However, to be successful, it needs to be well-resourced so it can deal with the sheer volume of complaints that tenants will likely raise. Can the Minister shed any light, at this stage, as to how it will be resourced? A single ombudsman is better than the two-scheme system that exists for agents. So it is surprising that, despite acknowledging the confusion and perverse incentives resulting from competing schemes, nothing has been proposed about making changes for letting agents. Can the Minister explain why this is the case?
A digital property portal will be set up to help landlords demonstrate their compliance with legal requirements. This is basically what a landlord register looks like, so can the Minister confirm whether it is the Government’s intention to introduce a national register of landlords? Although councils will be responsible for enforcing portal membership, the Government should give tenants an incentive to take action if their landlord is not registered. This already happens with licensing schemes, and tenants with unlicensed landlords can get back up to 12 months’ rent via rent repayment orders. Is this something that the Government will consider?
One in three private renters lives with children, and nearly 40% of private renters rely on benefits, yet landlords are still able to deny both those groups a tenancy. So it is good to see this addressed with a proposal to outlaw blanket bans on children and benefit claimants. However, discrimination on these grounds often happens because many landlords do not trust the welfare system to cover their tenants’ rent, so the underlying problems still need to be addressed: universal credit delays and sanctions, the benefit cap and local housing allowance rates. Further, despite rapidly rising inflation, the Government are cutting funding available to local councils to support struggling renters through discretionary housing payments by £40 million. Can the Minister explain how he thinks this is going help the thousands of renters who are struggling with the cost of living crisis?
The White Paper also pledges to monitor private sector solutions to problems with deposits between tenancies and to keep the deposit protection system under review. Disappointingly, this is a retreat from the Government’s manifesto commitment to a lifetime deposit which would allow passporting of deposits between tenancies. Problems with deposits are probably the most common negative experience for private renters, so it is frustrating to see that it is only being kept under review. Can the Minister explain why this is the case?
I will say a few words on court reform. The Government are looking to digitalise the court process, but renters who are digitally excluded must still be supported. In addition, a digital approach will not always be suitable in some cases. Does the Minister agree that more funding could be provided to the courts so that they can deal with backlogs and more legal support could be provided to the renters who need it most?
I end by thanking the organisation, Generation Rent, for all its hard work on this issue. I look forward to this short debate and to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I say to the Minister that there is general support across all sectors for these reforms in the White Paper, which we too broadly agree with. In fact, I agree with so much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, has said that I could just say, “#MeToo” and sit down—but I am not going to. I will not go through the proposals and rationales for each point in the White Paper, because I believe that there will be opportunities to do that later. I want to stress our key points that we would seek a chance to influence and explore.
First, we are disappointed by the speed at which this has gone. We are now only going into consultations and pilots, not legislation—at a time when homelessness and evictions are set to rise. Does the Minister have any timelines or milestones for us?
Our greatest area of support for these reforms—and, paradoxically, of concern—is around evictions. We totally applaud the ban on no-fault evictions, but ask whether any lessons have been learned from Scotland about the application in reality of the new grounds for eviction. How tightly are they drawn, and how have they measured success? Let us take one example which the noble Baroness mentioned: eviction because the landlord wishes to sell the home. How will that be proved and dealt with, or are the Government considering recourse, as happens in Ireland?
We know that revenge evictions are more common than we might like and hope that the decent homes standard and the annual rent rise will discourage such evictions, as do the Government. But even after a year, a tenant can still be priced out of a flat by an unreasonable, excessive rise in rent that they can ill afford. Have the Government considered encouraging rent rises only in between tenancies—a practice that many good landlords already do? Given that the cost of living crisis will not be short lived, what, if anything, will the Government do to curb excessive rent rises, or will it all be left to the market? Why have the Government yet again decided to freeze the local housing allowance?
The Government’s commitment to extending a legally binding decent homes standard to the sector is a potential game-changer, but only if there is enough capacity in the system to monitor and enforce it. Local authorities are definitely down on capacity and funding. What reassurances can the Minister give us that there will be capacity and resources within the system to enforce this standard—a vital part of the reforms?
Regarding capacity, the proposal for a private sector ombudsman is a good one. After all, there is one for the social housing sector. But we know that the social housing ombudsman is under pressure due to capacity issues already, so how will this one be any different? After years of stressed budgets and the demands of the pandemic, will the Government use one of the pilot schemes to review the available capacity of all the partners whom they will need on board to make sure these reforms work, and look at how their roles effectively all knit together?
Finally, there is a legitimate concern in the sector that these changes will force landlords out of the system at a time when we need more, not fewer. Is there a danger of unintended consequences? There is some anecdotal evidence that this is happening in areas popular with tourists, such as Cornwall, the Lake District and Edinburgh. Homes once for long-term let are now seen on more lucrative Airbnb sites. Consequently, locals are priced out of the housing market due to second home owners and they are unable to rent due to a lack of supply. Do the Government recognise this as an issue? If so, are there any possibilities of looking at ways to incentivise landlords to stick with longer-term lettings? There will be time to go into detail in the future, but hopefully not too far in the future.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Opposition and Liberal Democrat Front Benches for a constructive critique of this important Statement. There is a recognition on all sides of the House that the private rented sector is the most expensive, least secure and lowest quality of all housing tenures. A fifth of renters are paying a third of their income to live in substandard accommodation, which is completely unacceptable. I think that is why the chief executive of Shelter described the proposals around the 12-point plan as a game-changer for the 11 million private renters in England.
This White Paper really is the biggest set of reforms in a generation. It seeks to ensure that tenants have access to safe and decent homes; to increase security and stability by abolishing Section 21, which I know is supported by the vast majority of people in this Chamber—I have not come across anyone who is against that; to improve dispute resolution but, importantly, ensure that there is better compliance and robust enforcement; and to improve the renting experience for private rented sector tenants.
I turn to some of the points raised in this short debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, raised enforcement of the decent homes standard, which is a centre point of the reform programme. We will consult on applying the decent homes standard to the private rented sector shortly and carry out a number of pilot schemes across the country to explore different ways of enforcing the standards, because it is important that we do not have the decent homes standard just defined but with an inability to enforce.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, also wanted to know why these reforms have taken so long to come forward. It is a legitimate question, but we have had a global pandemic and in the last couple of years we have been focused on supporting tenants during the pandemic with longer notice periods, a ban on bailiff evictions and unprecedented financial support. We have made the very clear commitment to bring forward this renters reform Bill in the third Session, and this White Paper is an important part of getting this right. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to get these reforms right.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, quite rightly wanted to know how these new reforms would be enforced. I have talked about the pilots, but equally the property portal will make sure that local authorities have the information they need to enforce the standards so that we are not relying, as we currently are, on tenants coming forward to point out when there is an issue.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Hayman, both raised the cost of living issue. The Government do not support rent controls. When this was introduced in the 1970s, we saw a disincentive and a private rented sector that did not get the quality of housing and investment that we needed. That is why we feel that focusing on allowing an increase in rents only once a year and ending rent review clauses are ways of ensuring that we get a more reasonable approach to rent increases.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, raised an interesting question around the burdens on landlords and whether we are going to get the unintended consequence of more Airbnbs and fewer people wanting to let. The English Housing Survey says that we are seeing some landlords leaving but an equal number coming in, so there is no evidence from the survey yet of an exodus of landlords. It is important that we think about landlords in these reforms, though, and that is why we have strengthened the repossession grounds for landlords, including in cases of serious anti-social behaviour and persistent arrears, and for landlords who wish to move back to their property.
I think there was a strong element of a briefing from Generation Rent in some of the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. Certainly, I am aware of the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, about the no-fault moving and selling grounds, wanting to extend that to 24 months and not seeing a Section 21, if you like, by the back door.
As a Government we feel that it is important to protect tenants, and that is why we are limiting the use of moving and selling grounds in the first six months of a tenancy. To mitigate any abuse, we are also restricting landlords from remarketing or reletting the property for three months when they use these grounds. It is about getting a balance between landlord and tenant.
Overall, it is fair to say that there is a fair wind behind these reforms. It is important, as they say, to get things done and better late than never.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare my interest as director of Generation Rent. The White Paper is welcome. It is serious and ambitious. If the detail of the words follows through to the legislation in the end, it will make significant difference to renters’ lives.
As the Minister said, the centrepiece of the reform is to end Section 21 and give renters a secure and stable home. Insecurity of tenure is the biggest issue for renters, which is why I feel that when we look at the White Paper and the mandatory no-fault grounds, there is a need to strengthen those grounds. I would like to hear a little more from the Minister about how the Government will ensure that those mandatory no-fault grounds will be strengthened to ensure they are not abused by unscrupulous landlords and give renters the security that this legislation is designed to do.
Does the Minister agree that if you are given a no-fault ground for eviction, you have a family and your kids are at the local school, you do not want to move in term time, you do not want to move over the winter and you would need longer than two months in which to make that move under no-fault grounds? It is also expensive, as the Government have acknowledged in the White Paper, so compensation should be given to renters for no-fault grounds. It should be longer than a two-month notice period and increased to four months.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness asks a difficult question. However, I have been encouraged, whenever I cannot directly answer a question, to say that my honourable friend the Minister in the other place will be conducting a drop-in session on 12 July between 11.30 am and 12.30 pm in Room W3, off Westminster Hall. Doing my best as someone who is not the lead Minister for private rental reform, as the noble Baroness realises, I can say that it is about the architecture. The important way of ensuring that landlords are not gaming the system around no-fault evictions is to have transparency through the property portal, so we collect all the available data rather than just relying on renters essentially having to get themselves legal representation and raise the issues themselves. Therefore the property portal is key. We also need to ensure that we get an ombudsman with teeth, with the right powers, and to ensure that the local authorities are resourced in the right way to step in if necessary as well. It is around getting that architecture which will turn the rhetoric into reality.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, in the light of the Minister’s previous answer, do I take it that the Government have undertaken a study of the potential effect of the growth of Airbnb on the proposals outlined in this White Paper? If it was felt that that was adversely affecting the rented sector, what action might the Government be minded to take?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
I am not aware that we have undertaken a specific study on the impact of Airbnb on the private rented sector. However, we have a clear mission within the levelling-up White Paper to reduce the number of non-decent homes by 50% and therefore see equality of supply. We are looking at whether there is an erosion in the private rented sector through the annual English Housing Survey, which gives some indication of whether there is a need to dig deeper. So far, all indications are that the sector is robust; 4.4 million households are renting privately and it seems to work well. However, we are keeping that matter under review.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I welcome many of the reforms. However, have Her Majesty’s Government made any sort of formal economic assessment as to whether these protections will do anything to address the higher costs of private rented accommodation, which can so often drive people to social housing? If not, can they assure this House that there will be sufficient affordable social accommodation for those who really need it?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
There are two parts to how the right reverend Prelate has put the question. The first is that we need to make sure that there is enough supply of social housing, otherwise people who should be in social housing rather than in private housing lose out. There is a real commitment in the affordable homes programme to deliver far more social rented homes: 32,000, which is double the amount of social rented homes in this period than in the previous one. On the cost of living, the best thing is to take action now, and there have been quite a few measures. Some are universal but some are aimed at pensioners; there is a separate one-off payment of £300 to 8 million pensioner households, and obviously there are the measures around people who require support around the costs of essentials. The Government have stepped in where there need to be specific measures, as well as universal measures around fuel bills. Equally, however, the right reverend Prelate is right that we need to ensure that we continue to build more homes and especially ensure that there are more social homes.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, tenants’ groups and campaigners say that they need three layers of foundation to give everyone the secure and stable home that they need. The first is decent structural condition, maintenance and repairs, and the second is not to be evicted unfairly. As other questioners have said, this White Paper makes considerable progress on both those areas. However, the third key part of the foundation according to renters’ groups is to have a home that you can afford. The Minister said that the Government were looking at rent controls and pointed back to the kind of rent controls that we had in the 1970s. However, are the Government prepared to consider different, more flexible, smarter forms of rent control? In Scotland, the Green Tenants’ Rights Minister is looking at ways in which rent controls can deliver what people actually need, which is rental costs that are not more than 25% of their income. Another way of looking at this might be that powers for rent control are given to mayors, like the Mayor of London and other regional and city mayors around the country. That would be a way of experimenting and working. How can the Government ensure that people can afford to rent, which is an essential foundation?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
I am sure the Government are happy to look at ideas. We have had ideas from Wales, Scotland and Ireland that I am sure the policy officials can look at and advise Ministers on. We have to recognise that there are often unintended consequences on supply if you tinker too much in the private rented market and try to control rent levels. We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, that you might find it more lucrative to use Airbnb than to have longer term rents. I think that what the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, is really saying is that to tackle the affordability crisis we need a fair amount of taxpayer subsidised housing, whether that is affordable rent or social rent. We recognise that as a Government. Not every person can own their own home or afford market rents. That is why we need a steady supply of affordable housing available around the country. We need communities of mixed tenure to allow households with different incomes to live cheek by jowl. That is good social policy and something that the Government certainly support.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
In that case, may I ask why the Government have frozen the local housing allowance, which was the question I asked, if they have what sounds like a very sincere commitment to social housing? Following what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans said, I was thinking that the people we are really concerned about, with the grottiest landlords and flats and the worst deals, in the past would have been in the social housing sector being looked after by good councils and housing associations. We are really trying to play catch up but let us not kid ourselves; it is a huge task that we have.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
It is fair to say that we raised the local housing allowance and maintained that raise. What the noble Baroness is saying is that we have not increased it further. Let us give the Government credit for having raised it in the first place and having maintained it. The reality is that it goes back to getting the balance of tenures right. We have far too many people who cannot afford to live in market-rate accommodation and therefore they need taxpayer support. The housing benefit bill has effectively ballooned from when I was first a council leader from around £7 billion to around £30 billion, I think—or at least, that is what the projections are. That is completely unsustainable. We need more affordable housing and social housing to mitigate the unintended consequences of getting the taxpayer to fund these very high-cost homes for people who cannot afford to live in them. That is why there is a need to look at other ways of answering that point.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I join the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, on the Minister’s celebration of social and genuinely affordable housing. In that case, why are we looking at extending the right to buy instead of ending that great privatisation of social and affordable housing?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
I can answer that very sincerely, having been a local authority leader in an area where one-third of the housing was social housing. It had very high levels of council and housing association housing. I start with a definition that social housing should be a springboard to home ownership, for those who want it to be. It should not just be a destination. The issue is that once you have got the receipt, it gets pocketed by the Treasury and not reinvested in social housing—something that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, has raised before now. The Government are putting more flexibility in and allowing more money to go back into supply. There are strong arguments that all that money should go back in; therefore, you allow mobility and fluidity and create a springboard for those people who can afford to own their own homes. That is a great thing, which should be available to both council tenants and housing association tenants.
Schools Bill [HL]
Monday 20th 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-V Fifth marshalled list for Committee - (20 Jun 2022)
Baroness Whitaker
Member’s explanatory statement
Inserted section 436C relates to the content of children not in school registers. This amendment is to ensure that data on the ethnicity and gender of such children is recorded adequately so that disparities can be kept under review.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the long-overdue register proposals and pay tribute to the persistence of my noble friend Lord Soley. I also commend the Department for Education’s Schools Bill fact sheet, which sets out the rationale calmly and comprehensively. Of course, with any new system there are adjustments that we can consider, but it will be a huge improvement to have registers for all the reasons my noble friend Lord Soley enumerated in the previous group and for the large proportion of Gypsy and Traveller children who have dropped out of secondary education because they feel it is not a place where they can thrive and some of whose parents struggle to educate them. Then there are those children who are not being educated at all, except by gangs and county lines—an increasing number, according to the police. Registers will be vital here.
In moving Amendment 97D, I shall also speak to Amendment 109A in this group. I am grateful for the support of my expert noble friend Lord Knight of Weymouth, even if he is only here in spirit. The point of adding gender and ethnicity in Amendment 97D is to ensure that the full facts of drop-out from school are captured in the knowledge that local authorities have of what is happening to the children in their area. There are disproportionate numbers of children from some ethnicities who abandon school and even, among a few communities, a tendency to withdraw girls, particularly from secondary school. The reasons can include prejudice and bullying, particularly evident in the case of Gypsy and Traveller children; misunderstanding and ignorance of cultural norms; and lack of positive liaison with parents. Unless the size of these problems is known, and they must be known on a national basis from each local authority, factually and quantitatively, remedies are unlikely to be tailored to the cause.
Amendment 109A respects the Department for Education’s own data protection and audit report of February 2020 concerning the safeguarding of data. Although the information officer’s conclusions in this report apply to the department itself, they are equally relevant to local authorities whose procedures vary from area to area in their competency in safeguarding data. I hope for a positive response from the Minister and, indeed, from your Lordships. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, before I speak to the amendments in this group, I wish to ask the Minister a question about her contribution at the end of the previous group. She said that it was inappropriate for Peers to refer to the word “criminalisation” because it was wrong. I used it when I spoke because parents are already writing to me and to other Peers with their concerns. These are the words that they are already using. They are already alarmed and worried because Clause 50, under new Section 436Q, “Offence of failure to comply with school attendance order”, states:
“A person … convicted of an offence under this section in respect of the failure, may be found guilty of an offence under this section again if the failure continues”
and in new subsection (8):
“A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 51 weeks, or both.”
Can the Minister explain why that is not a criminal conviction? If that is the case, the word “criminalise”—for very few parents, we hope—would be right, and I think that is what the Government seek.
Amendment 97D from the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, proposes the addition of gender and ethnicity to the register, and I support that. Her work with the Roma and Traveller community shows that we always need to remember the children of those communities, who often end up out of school through no fault of their own and are often the children having the toughest lives. We need to make sure that we can identify them to provide the support needed.
I have also signed my noble friend Lord Storey’s Amendment 102, which proposes that a register of children not in school should list the reason why they are not in school. I will not repeat the comments I made on the two previous groups, but would say that it is vital that those in authority—in local authorities and prosecuting authorities—are reminded at every turn why a child may not be in school. Without that reason listed on the register, it would be too easy to miss, and it may not be obvious to the key personnel who need to look at the register.
I now turn to data. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for proposing how we group some of our discussions on Part 3 but, inevitably, data seems to be running through every group. In both previous groups, other Peers spoke about data issues. I want to go back to the principle of why the Government want to publish this data.
I do not think any of us disagrees that it should be collected, but my concern is that the phrase I seem to recall being used on the day the Secretary of State launched the idea of attendance orders and the register was “similar to the electoral register”, but it does not exactly say in the Bill what will be published; nor does it say who will have access to this highly sensitive and personal data. I ask the Minister: is there any other form of public register in this country that lists the names and addresses of children or their parents? Is that information available? The Bill talks about how long the data needs to be held and, from what I can see, it will be held for long after children have left the school system. If data is held, it should be deleted once the child reaches 18, unless that is because the Government want to track their future lives. If that is the case, Parliament needs to know.
The Minister may be somewhat frustrated that noble Lords are proposing to increase the data collected, but we want to ensure that the collection is of the appropriate data best to help the children, as we have discussed on previous groups. I want reassurance on exactly what will be published. In my view, only pseudonymised data should be published, and that at local authority level. Otherwise, with a very small number of children on the register, it will be all too easy to backtrack and find out where they live. It is not appropriate for families’ private information to be published and, as I said on the previous group, a high percentage of children out of school have SEND, are on free school meals or are from black and ethnic minority backgrounds.
The Bill says in Clause 48, in new Section 436C(2):
“A register under section 436B may also contain any other information the local authority consider appropriate.”
New Section 436C(3) states:
“Regulations may, in relation to a register under section 436B, make provision about … (c) access to and publication of the register”.
We keep saying, on different parts of the Bill, that it is not ready to be enacted, is not going to work and is not fit for purpose. It seems completely inappropriate for the House to approve this part of the Bill without any notion of what personal information may be included or what will be published, or who will have access to that information. These are Henry VIII powers gone mad. As long as only the relevant staff, who will have to comply with GDPR, will see the raw data, a child’s personal information can be collected. Can the Minister reassure me that this is the case and, if it is not and is as printed in the Bill at the moment, can she please provide the House with a justification for why the Government are taking these very strong steps?
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 98 in this group is in my name. I will also speak to Amendments 106, 107, 110, 113 and 114, and to support my noble friend Lord Storey on Amendment 103. I think we all need to try to speak as briefly as possible if we are not to have a totally hideous day on Wednesday, when we will be expected to finish Committee on the Bill.
All these amendments are at the request of home educators. Amendment 98 reflects that home educating may be undertaken by a single parent; the other may be estranged or simply not interested in the education of the child. Requests for the name and address of each parent may not be appropriate, and the alternative wording proposed—
“the parent or parents responsible for the education of the child”—
is much more relevant.
My noble friend Lord Storey will be proposing Amendment 103, but I recognise the value of a unique pupil number in ensuring that children can be identified as being secure and educated.
Amendment 106 reflects the concerns of home educators that all sorts of irrelevant information will be requested of them, so inserting “relevance” is important. Again, this follows on from some of the words of my noble friend Lady Brinton. This is also reflected in Amendment 107, where what the local authority may “consider appropriate” may not be universally appropriate. We do not need those two lines.
In Amendment 110, there is concern about the register being published, with too much information being put into the public domain. We want “publication” to be deleted, because this is not necessary.
Amendments 113 and 114 would both insert “reasonably”. Once again, the concern for all sorts of information to be requested and recorded surely needs justifying in some way.
The home educators are very concerned about the Bill. They have sent me rafts of material, which they consolidated into amendments. I have tried to reflect this. We are naturally concerned about those who claim to home educate but are using it as a cover to abuse, indoctrinate or otherwise do damage to children. However, we are also aware of the amazing work that most home educators do and wish to ensure that they are not unduly disadvantaged by the Bill.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I am going to speak briefly as well, for several reasons: first, because I want to get home tonight; secondly, because I am cold; and, thirdly, because I quite agree that we do not want a terrible day on Wednesday.
Part of the fallacy on this children not in school register is the idea that local authorities do not already have the information about children who are not in school, but that is not true. For the most invisible children, who have had no contact with any service at all, of course it might apply; otherwise, the truth is that local authorities have a great deal of information about almost every child, whether they attend a school or not. Instead of adding yet more data collection, there should be an overhaul of how local authorities collect and process this data, and perhaps some sort of universality about it. That overhaul should be made in a code of practice, as set out in my Amendment 171S.
I have three other amendments in this group, which are basically probing because I feel that the legislation just does not have the detail that we need to understand exactly what it is going to do. Turning to the new registration requirements, I think the Bill really ought to be clearer about what information must be provided by home-educating parents to the local authority. We are left at the moment with “other information”, which leaves a large void of worry for the parents who will have to provide this information, which could be very probing and intrusive. I would much rather see such broad wording removed altogether or made subject to being necessary and in the child’s best interests. This group contains a range of possible ways forward, but the general gist is that the Minister must convince your Lordships’ House that any of this intrusive bureaucracy is needed in the first place.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I rise to speak to six amendments standing in my name. Amendment 101 removes from the register any requirement to record the means by which a child is being educated—something that ought to be discretionary on the parents. It replaces it with a less intrusive requirement to record only those details that demonstrate that the child is receiving a suitable education in accordance with the existing duty on parents to secure compulsory education for their child or children.
Amendment 105 curbs the local authorities’ proposed power to contain within the register
“any other information that may be prescribed”—
it is very broad and open to abuse—solely to instances where the safeguarding of the child is a concern. Surely that is the point.
Amendment 108 removes the wide-ranging power for local authorities to collect any other data they consider appropriate. Again, this is a highly undefined power that could be used to target individuals with protected characteristics, and it makes the state ever more intrusive. The amendment replaces this new subsection with a more clearly defined power permitting local authorities to collect special category data—such as ethnic origin, philosophical beliefs and sexual orientation—only in cases where the safeguarding of the child is concerned.
Amendments 111 and 112 ensure that parents are properly informed about the data collected: how it will be stored, shared, published, and when it will be deleted. These amendments are complementary to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, requiring the Secretary of State to introduce regulations related to the not in school register, which I welcome.
Finally, Amendment 127 safeguards any data collected by local authorities when directed by the Secretary of State to provide information on the register. This is done by requiring that all data is either aggregated or anonymised unless there is sufficient reason for the Secretary of State to request information relating to an individual child, the sufficient reasons listed being safeguarding concerns or issues of public safety and criminality.
At this stage, these are probing amendments. However, they reflect a number of serious concerns that many of us have about the danger that this Bill poses to home educators and the right they have to decide on a suitable education for their child. I do not oppose, in principle, a register containing information about home-schooled children in a local authority’s area. What concerns me is that the implementation of such a register as it exists within the Bill poses an attack on the principles of a free society where parents retain the discretion to educate their child in accordance with their own values. Without meaningful safeguards, this register could be the thin end of a slippery wedge resulting in Ofsted in the home: parents being mandated to teach specific things in a specific way, or being directed by law to send their children to school to receive a particular type of education.
After tabling these amendments, I decided to try and explore the rationale between the wide-ranging powers they sought to give to local authorities. I presumed there would be a vast array of evidence of why we desperately needed to have the collection of all this information. Well, the House of Lords Library kindly prepared a briefing at my request. The Government’s guidance from April 2019 stated that there was
“no proven correlation between home education and safeguarding risk.”
Furthermore, the Library was unable to provide any information on the exam success rates of children receiving an elective home education. However, from a cursory glance online, there is quite a lot of evidence to strongly suggest that children receiving EHE outperformed their counterparts in state education, so it is entirely reasonable to ask the Government why they believe local authorities should have the right to collect highly sensitive data pertaining to things that are not necessarily relevant to the child’s education. A register simply to track the number of home-educated children, at its core, is a sensible proposal. Likewise, there may be understandable instances where information beyond that needed just to register the child is required, but surely this should be the exception not the rule.
Her Majesty’s Government need to provide the rationale behind this proposal to give local authorities the right to collect to contain “any other information” they consider appropriate. This must be more specific so that there exists a clear legal boundary determining what information a local authority can collect, and for what specific reasons. Currently, this broad ambiguity allows local authorities to request entirely inappropriate special category data without good reason.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I have a few amendments in this group. Amendment 97E is an echo of Amendment 101B and may well have already been answered. Amendments 98A, 101A and 104A seek to offer a defence of reasonableness for withholding. An obvious example of that would be where a parent has escaped an abusive relationship and does not want the details of her spouse and other such information to be on, in effect, a public register, or one which the local authority can use widely down its existing channels. There have already been examples of local authorities leaking such data. It is reasonable, where you have a proven history of suffering abuse, to withhold the information of a spouse, and it ought to be a defence.
I also join the right reverend Prelate in my concern for the data-related clauses. Amendments 110A and 126B address that in rather more general terms than he did. This seems to be highly personal data, very loosely regulated, and I am concerned that that is neither appropriate nor actually needed.
I urge the Committee to take a close look at proposed new Sections 436C(1)(c), 436C(1)(d) and 436C(2), all of which seem to display the characteristics of some of the earlier clauses in the Bill that we have expressed concern about. Where there is already a mechanism for assessing whether a child is being offered a suitable education, what on earth would Section 436C(1)(c) be required for?
Paragraph (d) allows the Secretary of State to invent anything. This really gets at undermining the relationship between the Government and home educators; just at a flick of the pen, some whole new suite of information can be required of them, greatly altering the relationship between them and the system, and introducing that level of uncertainty. Unless the Government have clear plans for what they want to do, and a clear understanding of why it is needed, this seems very damaging for their plans and quite unnecessary.
Subsection (2) is devastating. It allows the local authority to invent anything. Given the powers of compulsion in this Bill, the short timescales and the way in which that could cascade into school attendance orders, this is really unreasonable. If we want to give powers to local authorities, we should specify exactly. We should not allow them to mess up the relationship on a whim. There are some lovely local authorities—I will give some quotes later—and some home educators are really happy in their relationships with them. However, I have read extensive correspondence from and about some of them that is, frankly, abusive.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans is right that parents should have the right to choose the educator for their children, whether they choose a voluntary aided school, a maintained school or an academy, or to home educate. I would be extremely concerned if they chose an unregistered school which in many cases would fail an Ofsted inspection every day it was inspected because of some of the practices that go on, but we do not know that because we do not have that information.
We probably all agree, including in respect of the amendments that I have put down, that we need to take a chill on this and think it through carefully, because I can see that there are issues here. We need to know what the real information is that we want, and why we want it in the first place. But let us not kid ourselves that it is just about this. For example, parents give all sorts of data when they apply for a school—far more detail than some of the requests that are in this Bill. Voluntary aided schools, for example, will ask the faith of the family. Why do they ask that? In a Catholic-run school, for example, they will have a percentage of children who are non-Roman Catholic who can take up places, and that is why they want that information. I make no comment on whether that is right or wrong.
Believe it or not—and I am not particularly keen on this—individual schools, even primary schools, have informal application forms that parents fill out. I remember only a few years ago that one of the questions on the informal application form was what the occupation of the parent was. There is a whole gamut of information out there and we need to rein some of that in.
My final point is that we must ensure that when we have had this pause and perhaps reflected on what we really want, this data is not retained at the end of a child’s schooling. The notion that the data is retained by schools or local authorities is not very helpful. That would be my concern.
I turn to my Amendment 103. I have never really understood this issue, in the sense that when I was first a head teacher—I was head teacher of two schools—you had to collect a unique pupil number. Why? So that when a child moved to another school, perhaps if they moved house, their parents moved jobs or they just did not like the school they were at, you could know that they were in a secure situation. This was brought in by the Blair Government. I never understood why we did not know how many children were in schools when we had this unique pupil number.
This came home to me when I had a pupil who, for all sorts of reasons, left the school I was at. The local authority contacted me and asked, “What happened to pupil X?”. I said, “Well, his parents told me that he’s gone to this school, and I have contacted the school and given it the unique pupil number”. The school never received the pupil, and nobody knows what happened to the unique pupil number. We have to think through what we really mean by that and how it will work.
If we want to have a proper system, it has to involve us being able to follow the pupil’s education—not in any way spying, but making sure that the pupil is, first, getting educated and, secondly, being safeguarded.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I do not want to rehash everything that has been said. I think that most noble Lords who have spoken support this idea in principle and want to see it work, so I hope the Minister takes what I am about to say in that spirit.
I think that this is really sloppy, particularly when you are talking about something that could lead to imprisonment. I have done a lot of justice Bills, and I do not think I have ever seen anything quite like this where, in new Section 436C(1)(d), parents are asked to provide
“any other information that may be prescribed”,
then, in new subsection (2), the local authority register
“may also contain any other information the local authority consider appropriate.”
That is limitless at that point.
The Bill goes on, in new Section 436D(2)(c), to say that the onus is on the parent to inform the registering authority—the local authority—of any changes to this information, which could be anything, as yet to be decided,
“of which the parent is aware”.
That is vague. Who decides whether the parent should be “aware”? How do you know that the parent is “aware”? That needs to be tidied up.
The Bill goes on to say that, should the parent fail—forgetting whether or not we can evidence whether they were “aware”—to provide something that is totally unspecified in the Bill, they can be fined and there can be an order that their child must attend school; they can decide which school. The parent can also be imprisoned for up to 51 months. I think it is pretty extraordinary that we are being asked to agree to an imprisonable offence—which we might well agree to if this was better drafted—when a parent is being asked to provide information that is unspecified. I do not think that is acceptable.
If the Government want to proceed with this, they need to think hard about new Section 436C in particular, because I can see that causing real problems in court should it need to be interpreted. It would be very helpful if the Government could have a rethink about this or, at the very least, if the Minister could say at the Dispatch Box, maybe this evening, what she thinks a parent who is “aware” looks like, because this will be looked to by a court that wants to understand the intention of this, should it need to. Does that mean a council has written to that parent? Would that be sufficient to then commence this whole series of interventions that could, as I say, lead to the imprisonment of a parent?
It is no good the Minister standing there and saying. “This will hardly ever be used; it will be an exceptional circumstance”, because we are here to consider those circumstances. If that circumstance should be a very rare thing, we need to know the circumstances that would lead to it, rare or not. Being asked to agree to including in the Bill
“any other information that may be prescribed”
is very troubling to us. So we support the idea of a register and want very much to support the Government in what they are trying to do but we cannot just let this matter go, given the slack way in which the legislation is currently drafted.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, if I may, before turning to the amendments in this group, I shall respond to the request of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that I should clarify my remarks regarding criminalisation. I am happy to do so.
The context in the previous group where this was mentioned related to parents who failed, if I remember correctly, because they were on holiday or away, to provide information in time for their home-educated child to be registered with the local authority. To be clear, there is no criminal sanction for not providing information for registers by parents. The offence mentioned by the noble Baroness is an existing offence: the breaching of a school attendance order. Nothing is being made an offence in this case that is not already an offence. I hope that that clarifies that point.
I turn to this group of amendments, which broadly concern requirements to collect information for the children not in school registers and how this information will be shared.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, it is fair enough if the Minister is saying that we have misunderstood. That happens. However, the legislation states clearly that a parent who is registered by a local authority under proposed new Section 436B “must”. That sounds to me as if the parent is compelled to do that and, if they do not do so, there will be a penalty. I do not understand what the Minister means when she says that it is not an offence.
Baroness Barran (Con)
The example to which I was alluding in my remarks on the previous group was the one whereby parents would be asked to provide information but missed the deadline because they were on holiday and would be criminalised. That is not accurate. Parents who are asked to provide information, who miss the deadline and then provide the information, will not be criminalised.
The general point that I was trying to make in the earlier group was that I felt that language was being used in the Committee about the way in which the Government were approaching the Bill that would be taken at face value by home-educating parents, many of whom, we all agree, are already anxious about this matter. That would not help. Any challenge is absolutely right and proper; I was just requesting that we should do this in a way in which home-educating parents are not alarmed inappropriately.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Nobody wants to alarm anyone unnecessarily, which is why we are trying to get the Bill right, but it states clearly that a person “must” comply with the duty within a period of not less than 15 days. To me, that reads like something that we are compelling people to do and that if they do not, there will be a consequence. I do not want to drag this out further but it is important that we interpret this as something that is being made into an offence. I can see why people are concerned.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I understand. However, that would be a civil matter but we will confirm it in writing.
If I may proceed, I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas, the noble Baronesses, Lady Whitaker, Lady Brinton and Lady Garden, and the noble Lords, Lord Storey and Lord Knight of Weymouth, for Amendments 97D, 97E, 102 and 103, which all seek for additional information to be included on the registers. The Bill allows for regulations to be made prescribing details of the means by which a child is being educated and other information that must be included in registers.
The Government have already signalled their intention for certain information to be required for inclusion on the registers via regulations, such as ethnicity, sex and other demographic information. This is in addition to whether a child is electively home educated or receiving their education in other settings. The delegated powers in the Bill would also allow for prescription of further data at a later date, which could include, for example, unique identifying numbers if that were desired.
I turn to Amendments 104 to 109, tabled in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, my noble friend Lord Lucas, the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans. Under the new measures, local authorities will be able to require parents to provide them only with the information prescribed in legislation. They may, however, record any other information in their registers that they consider appropriate and have collected through other channels.
To be clear, local authorities will be able to require parents to provide them only with the information that is prescribed in legislation; in this case it will be secondary legislation. I hear the concerns raised by noble Lords, particularly in relation to proposed new Section 436C(1)(d). I will take that away and reflect on your Lordships’ comments.
Amendments that limit this ability could cause local authorities to act with unnecessary caution in relation to the collection and inputting of information. There may be cases where data, such as special category data, is collected that may not be initially deemed directly relevant to safeguarding a child or in their best interests but could in future be critical to protecting that child from harm.
On Amendments 113 and 114 from the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, I will try to reassure her that any provision made in regulations will be lawful only if it has been “reasonably” made. I also thank her for her Amendment 98. Under education law, each parent of every child of compulsory school age is legally responsible for ensuring that their child receives an efficient full-time education. It is therefore appropriate that the name and address of each parent be recorded in the registers.
I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for Amendments 98A, 101A, 104A, 110A and 126B, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for Amendments 111, 112 and 127, which raise the important issue of data protection. Regarding data retention, the Bill already allows for regulations to make provision about the format and keeping of registers, as well as about access to and publication of the register. It is the Government’s intention to use this power to stipulate how local authorities must keep the information on their registers up to date and whether and how information is to be published. The requirement in the Bill for local authorities to provide prescribed information to the Secretary of State will help inform policy development; for example, in relation to the types and level of support needed by families and whether particular groups need more support than others.
It is also important that the Secretary of State is able to, if needed, collect individual level data. This can be linked to other datasets for research purposes; for example, to understand who benefits from home education. It is also vital in improving our understanding of children going “missing” from data systems. We would be unable to gather a full picture of this from aggregated data. The Government do not intend to use the power on setting out how the registers are published to instruct local authorities to publish personal information about children or families, but again, I will reflect on the comments made by your Lordships in relation to that.
Registers will also include important information on children that may aid other professionals’ work for the purposes of promoting or safeguarding the education or welfare of the child. It is therefore necessary to enable relevant information to be shared with certain other persons external to a local authority without delay, especially where children are at risk of immediate harm.
Existing UK GDPR obligations will apply, however, and should ensure that all the information held in the registers is protected like any other personal data. It also requires that personal data not be kept for longer than is necessary and is proportionate to achieve the purpose of keeping it. Data protection will be a strong focus in the new statutory guidance, and we will continue to engage with stakeholders on that prior to publication.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for Amendments 100 and 101. Regulations are likely only to require details of where a child is being educated and the proportion of time there. This will help local authorities to ensure that children are receiving a suitable education and identify those who are missing education or attending illegal schools.
I turn to Amendments 109A and 110. These amendments relate to the ability to make regulations relating to provisions for the maintenance and publication of children not in school registers. The power to make regulations about whether and how the contents of registers are to be made available or published is important to ensure consistency across local authorities; consistency, or rather the current lack of it, has been mentioned by many of your Lordships today.
However, it may also be appropriate for some of this to be for local authorities to determine, based on local circumstances and requirements. For example, while we would expect to make regulations concerning how the register is to be kept updated, we may not initially wish to prescribe the registration forms that local authorities must use. Similarly, we may not ultimately wish to prescribe whether an authority needs to publish specific information from its register.
I turn to Amendment 133 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Chapman and Lady Wilcox. The regulations prescribing the information to be provided to the Secretary of State have a narrow scope, as only information included within a local authority register can be shared. Information will be used to inform policy development to support safeguarding and children not in school. The Government believe that the negative resolution is appropriate for these regulations.
Regarding Amendment 171S, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, existing UK GDPR obligations will apply and require that all the information held in the registers is protected, like any other personal data. In addition, work is already under way in my department to develop a certification process, independently endorsed by the Information Commissioner’s Office, that will cover the education sector to regulate the sharing of children’s data across the whole sector in a better way.
I hope I have managed to cover this large group of amendments on this important topic. I will take away a number of your Lordships’ remarks and reflect on them. With that, I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, feels able to withdraw her amendment and that other noble Lords will not press theirs.
Lord Storey (LD)
Before the Minister finishes, I say that the local authorities have been heavily involved in this data information issue. What sort of consultations were held with the Local Government Association and what information do local authorities actually need about a child?
Baroness Barran (Con)
If I may, I will include the answer to that question in a letter to the noble Lord.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
In her very careful responses, the noble Baroness the Minister clearly recognises that there are very wide differences between the children who are not in school. Some are well educated and nobody wants to curtail that—adjustments may be made, but this is not thought to be a large percentage. An unknown number, but it is estimated to be a very large number, of children are not well educated; I suggest that the register needs to be primarily directed at these children. There are all sorts of reasons why they are not well educated. I will not go into them at this hour of the night but, for example, the schools are illegal or extreme, or the parents are at work or cannot educate the children; there are all sorts of reasons.
The Minister’s responses to our questions aimed at making the register more precise—more exactly tailored to what we all need from it while not curtailing the freedom of parents to educate their children at home well—seem mainly to relegate the details to regulations. For the reasons already given in earlier debates, there are problems with this; we have difficulty with it. However, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.