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
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Jo Churchill)
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has one of the five largest science and innovation budgets in Government. It is investing £270 million in innovation through the farming innovation programme to 2029, working with our leading-edge agricultural research institutions across the UK’s four nations to harness the power of innovation.
Chris Green
The advocate-general of the European Union recommended gene editing, but the European Court of Justice opposed it and put it in the same category as genetically modified organisms. Professor Nigel Halford said that
“the decision could set back agbiotech in Europe by another 20 years. We are already a generation behind. Young scientists interested in agbiotech are likely to move to places where common sense and scientific evidence prevail”.
In the name of better productivity, healthier food and scientific progress, when does my hon. Friend expect to see gene-edited crops on the UK market?
Jo Churchill
The EU has just opened a consultation on the issue, because my hon. Friend is totally right that precision-bred crops are very different. We have already taken steps, starting with the introduction of the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill, which will go into Committee very shortly. Through its agricultural research institutes, the UK is at the leading edge. There will be overwhelming benefits for climate change, food resilience, pest resistance and so on. I look forward to the Bill receiving support across the House, going through Committee and going on to the other place.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
Like the hon. Member, I am determined to tackle the issue. We have already run a call for evidence to explore policy options for tackling wet wipes, including a possible ban on those that contain plastic. We have also sought views on mandatory flushability standards, mandatory labelling and an extended producer responsibility scheme.
Fleur Anderson
I welcome the Minister’s response. Billions of wet wipes containing plastic are still being used across the country, causing environmental damage and blocking our sewers. The consultation finished in February and there is still no ban in sight. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the next steps towards achieving a ban?
Rebecca Pow
There was a huge response to the call for evidence, and we are working our way through the details. We have to make sure that if a ban is brought in, it does not have knock-on effects that will cause similar problems. Even though other wet wipes might be deemed suitable to flush, they still get stuck in sewers, so we have to be mindful of that. I say to everybody, “If you don’t need to use a wet wipe, don’t—and don’t chuck them down the loo.”
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Could the Minister expand on that answer? When are the results of the call for evidence on the proposals to ban single-use plastics likely to be published?
Rebecca Pow
My hon. Friend’s question demonstrates the interest in the issue. I am just as interested myself, but we have to get the science right. We must not jump out of the frying pan into the fire, so we are exploring all options and the science behind them before we make an announcement, but I assure him that it will be made shortly.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
My constituent Stephen, who is blind and partially deaf, has an assistance dog called Jodie. Stephen has told me that he is required to pay £160 for an animal health certificate and vaccines each time he takes Jodie to an EU country—
Mr Speaker
Order. That is a different question. We will come back to the hon. Lady.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
Anyone who has visited a sewage works such as Budds Farm in Havant or Bishop’s Waltham, as I have, can see the impact of wet wipes on the sewerage system. What more can we do now to raise awareness of the issues among the public so that only the three Ps are flushed down the loo?
Rebecca Pow
I am a mother who did not use wet wipes. It is all about comms and education. If one has to flush, one should look for the flushability logo. My hon. Friend is so right, because 93% of sewerage blockages are caused by wet wipes, which then get fat stuck around them, causing fatbergs. The more we talk about not using them, the better.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The Minister will know that when there are overflow discharges into rivers from water treatment works, wet wipes are not filtered out. She will also know that the River Tame has a very high concentration of microplastics. It is of massive concern to me, as secretary of the Friends of the Tame Valley, that the trees along the riverbank are littered with wet wipes. What is the Minister doing, not only to get the message out about not flushing wet wipes down the toilet, but to clean up our riverbanks so that they do not look like a horrific scene from “The Nightmare Before Christmas”?
Rebecca Pow
I can only agree that it is revolting. We are getting sewage overflows more frequently than we need because of blockages with wet wipes. It is slightly extraordinary really, but that is why we are doing all the work and that is why we have done the call for evidence. We will come up with some suggestions for what we propose to do very shortly.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
We will spend over £600 million on farm-based innovation over the next three years. Our recent food strategy outlined how we intend to use grant support to help businesses invest to improve their profitability and increase their agricultural output. While we will not tell farmers what to invest in, we will support the investment decisions that they judge to be right for their own businesses.
Mrs Sheryll Murray
My farmers are seeing rising production costs, from increases in fertiliser costs, feed prices going up, the price of red diesel agriculture fuel doubling and increasing labour costs because of low availability of labour in the south-west. Those pressures will increase food prices further or see farms go to the wall. What more can be done?
George Eustice
My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is true that farmers are facing increased input costs, particularly for fertiliser, fuel, animal feed and energy. Some farm-gate prices are also at record highs, and that is helping to mitigate the impact of those increased costs. The Government have already announced a package of measures to support farmers with the availability of fertiliser. To help with cash flow, we have brought forward basic payment scheme payments to July, and we have also announced an additional 10,000 visas through the seasonal worker visa route to help with labour shortages.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
What is the Secretary of State’s latest assessment of the impact on farm profits of plunging exports, new red tape and the labour shortage caused by the Conservative Government’s Brexit deal?
George Eustice
Farm incomes have seen a strong recovery since the 2016 referendum. Land prices are running at record highs and the price of milk has also increased. Farm profits have been on the rise in recent years. In the current year, it is true that the increased input costs caused by the spike in gas prices will put pressure on margins, but it is in the context of a successful post-Brexit boom for agriculture generally.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
While the other place’s International Agreements Committee report broadly welcomed the Australia-UK trade deal for sectors such as financial services, it was concerned about the deal’s impact on UK agriculture, highlighting that it will allow the importation of beef from deforested land, crops grown with pesticides not permitted in the UK or the EU, and often no protection from copies for products such as Scottish whisky and Cornish pasties. The Committee fears that that will continue with other trade deals that the Government pursue and criticises their refusal to involve the devolved Governments. How can farms and our food and drink sector remain profitable in the face of such free trade agreements? Does the Secretary of State accept that his failure to achieve protections from untrammelled competition for farmers and food producers will ultimately have an impact on their businesses and livelihoods?
George Eustice
In the context of the free trade agreement with Australia, we secured staging protections for the sensitive sectors of beef and lamb for a decade, and then a very strong special agricultural safeguard thereafter, set against volumes. We judged that that would be sufficient to manage any risks to the market. It is important to recognise that Australia cannot compete with the UK on the vast majority of agricultural products, including dairy. In lamb, New Zealand cannot compete with the UK and does not use the quota it already has. Beef is an issue that we are watching, but we believe that we have the right protections in place.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
We have a genuine focus on protecting and enhancing our peatlands, because that helps to tackle net zero and add to wider ecosystem services. We have an England peat action plan and a nature for climate fund, £4.8 million of which is to restore 3,500 hectares of blanket bog in the Pennines. That forms part of a bigger initiative working with the great northern bog.
Mr Holden
I thank the Minister for that answer. The North Pennines area of outstanding natural beauty contains some of the largest areas of blanket peat bog in the UK. Peat can trap up to four times as much carbon dioxide as woodland. The peatland code provides a real opportunity for the voluntary carbon market to show it has quantifiable and additional benefits for the environment. What are the Government doing to highlight that and enable more environmental opportunities for areas of blanket bog peatlands, and ensure that environmental schemes are concentrated on where they can do the most good and not taking up—
Rebecca Pow
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the value that restoring peat can bring to us. That is why we have nearly 100 restoration projects across the UK registered with the peatland code, which he referenced, enabling the restoration of nearly 14,000 hectares of peatland. Through the natural environment investment readiness fund and the peatland grant scheme, we are also developing a lot of pipeline investing projects that will bring forward all the things he is highlighting.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
Before answering this question, I would like to take this opportunity to correct the record. In an urgent question to which I replied on 19 May, I stated:
“We are largely self-sufficient in wheat production, growing 88% of all the wheat that we need.”—[Official Report, 19 May 2022; Vol. 714, c. 839.]
In fact, we produce 88% of the cereals that we need and the figure for wheat is a little lower, at 81%.
In answer to the hon. Lady’s question, let me say that the food strategy has themes that are cross-cutting and have effects on policy in many other Departments. I can therefore confirm that the process of securing collective agreement meant that this issue was discussed exhaustively with Cabinet colleagues and other Departments.
Kerry McCarthy
I thank the Minister for that response. Henry Dimbleby’s national food strategy was an
“excellent plan to help people escape the ‘junk food cycle’”.
That is what the former Conservative leader William Hague said when he was writing in The Times a few weeks ago. He went on to describe the Government’s U-turn on implanting any of the recommendations in that strategy as
“intellectually shallow, politically weak and morally reprehensible”.
Was he right?
George Eustice
No, he was wrong, because we have implemented new point-of-sale restrictions, which take effect later this year, in October. That is already driving reformulation; so we have put in place policies that deliver on the issues highlighted in Henry Dimbleby’s report. As for advertising and bans on promotions, we do not believe that that is the right thing to do in the context of rising food prices.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for issuing reports on food strategy, but I am still not entirely convinced that we have a long-term sustainable policy on the production of indigenous fertiliser in this country. Will he put into the House of Commons Library additional information for us to share with our farmers on this very important issue? Given the rising costs of fertiliser and the concerns about potential closures of fertiliser plants, may we have these assurances?
George Eustice
Although CF Fertilisers has confirmed its intention to close the Ince plant, it is maintaining production at the Billingham plant, which is the largest of the plants, and I understand that it has full order books until later this year.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
On CF Fertilisers, may I thank the Secretary of State for the time he took yesterday to discuss the future of the site? I am pleased to see that there is interest in purchasing the plant. Does he agree that despite the ongoing challenges that the industry faces, with a parent company that increased its dividends by 33% in the first quarter, there is no reason why the plant cannot be sold as a going concern?
George Eustice
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman; although CF Fertilisers has chosen to consolidate its UK operations into Billingham, the Ince plant remains viable and the best commercial exit from that plant for CF Fertilisers would be to progress an offer based on selling it as a going concern. There are many skilled people in his constituency who have been working at that plant, and the best outcome for all concerned would be for it to be sold as a going concern.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Secretary of State has just mentioned that we lack total self-sufficiency in wheat production. Presumably, given the skyrocketing prices in the wheat market because of what is happening in Ukraine, the Government food strategy is more about producing more of our own wheat. I do not ask him to comment on a particular planning application, but what does he think of an application to build a solar farm covering 7,000 acres of good agricultural land in my constituency? I am not asking him to comment on that proposal around Gainsborough, but will he consult his colleagues to ensure that we maximise food production on our farmland?
George Eustice
My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. Some years ago, we changed the planning guidance from the chief planning officer in the then Department for Communities and Local Government to make it clear that there should be a powerful presumption against the construction of field-scale solar on the best and more versatile agricultural land—that is defined as grade 3b land and above. I am aware that there are concerns that in some parts of the country that advice is no longer holding and applications are being approved, and we are discussing that across Government.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Jo Churchill)
We are clear that we meet all the requirements to gain both part 1 listed status and recognition of the UK’s tapeworm-free status. We see no valid animal health reason for those not to be granted. We are carrying out further engagement to make progress on this issue.
Margaret Greenwood
I thank the Minister for her answer and wonder whether she could elaborate. My constituent, Stephen, who is blind and partially deaf, has an assistance dog called Jodie. Steven has told me that he is required to pay £160 for an animal health certificate and vaccines each time he takes Jodie to an EU country. I wrote to DEFRA on Steven’s behalf more than a year ago and received a response that basically said that the change has still not happened. Does the Minister recognise the impact of this slow progress on Stephen and other people who rely on assistance dogs? Could she elaborate further on what Stephen might do?
Jo Churchill
I do recognise the challenge. There is no change for animals coming from the EU to here and there is no reason why that arrangement should not be reciprocal. We are proactively engaging with the assistance dog community and relevant stakeholders and we are continuing the engagement with the EU to make sure that we can overcome this challenge.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
The Minister for Farming, Fisheries and Food (Victoria Prentis)
As we have recently heard, we have a high degree of food security in the UK. We produce 74% of the food that we can grow here and we have robust supply chains for the rest. Our food strategy sets security as a goal. We are clearly concerned by the rising pressures on household incomes and are monitoring them very closely.
Jessica Morden
With studies showing that 9.9 million people across the UK cut back on food or missed meals altogether in April, why are the Government cutting money to FareShare, which, in my constituency, has supplied the equivalent of 63,200 meals to charities over the past year?
Victoria Prentis
We have worked very closely with FareShare, an organisation that I have the utmost respect for, during the last couple of years in particular. Tackling poverty in all forms is a real priority for the Government and the Chancellor has now committed £37 billion-worth of support as part of a package to help families with food costs.
Mr Speaker
Bob Blackman is not here, so I call Claire Coutinho who is here.
Claire Coutinho
An important part of food security is reducing food waste. I recently visited an amazing organisation in my patch, the Horley Food Club, which is doing tremendous work recycling food waste into the hands of the community, using great food that would otherwise have been thrown away. However, the big supermarkets say that some regulations are holding them back, such as use-by labelling. Will the Minister update the House on what we might be able to do about that?
Victoria Prentis
I thank my hon. Friend for her interest in this really important question. I am pleased to confirm that the Food Standards Agency has agreed to ensure that there are no more unnecessary barriers to food redistribution through food banks or other types of community sharing organisations. I would be ever so happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the issue further.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
The president of the National Farmers Union Scotland, Martin Kennedy, has said that the UK is on the verge of food security concerns not seen since world war two, due to a “perfect storm” driven by covid, Brexit and the Ukraine war, with the 300% increase in the cost of fertiliser impacting food production costs, on top of the rises in feed and fuel costs and the labour shortages affecting the sector. The SNP called for financial support for food producers months ago when the Russian invasion of Ukraine began. Will the Minister clarify whether the UK Government will heed that call?
Victoria Prentis
As the hon. Lady knows, agriculture is devolved. In England, we have been able to take steps to support our farmers through rising input costs, such as those for fertiliser. On fertiliser, we have been able to bring forward the support payment to July from December to give farmers the confidence to place orders for fertiliser, which is important. We have also made other changes to the guidance on farming rules for water and urea, for example, which really ought to help the movement from chemical fertilisers to biofertilisers.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
Yesterday, inflation hit a new 40-year high at 9.1% amid the cost of living crisis. Things seem to be getting worse with each month that passes. Currently, 7.3 million people are living in food poverty, including 2.6 million children. What assessment have the Government made of the number of people who will be in food poverty by Christmas this year? If that assessment does exist, can it be published and put in the House of Commons Library?
Victoria Prentis
We continue to monitor very closely both the cost of food and the effect that this has on household budgets of those who are struggling. The Chancellor, as I have said, has recently added £15 billion to his total support package for struggling families—£37 billion in total. We know that food, while a very important part of household expenditure, is not the largest part in terms of cost for families. It is around 11% in the average family and 14% in more struggling families. We continue to work very closely with a wide range of organisations to make sure that we know what is happening on the ground and that we can intervene where necessary.
Jim McMahon
The Government’s own food security report relies on the existence of food banks to keep the UK fed. However, food banks cannot keep up today with the rocketing demand. Far from levelling up, what we see in reality is that our northern regions are the hardest hit with the highest levels of food insecurity. Is it not the truth that the Government’s record of low wages, low growth, record tax rises and out-of-control inflation is keeping people skint and hungry, and that the Government just do not have a plan to address it?
Victoria Prentis
I dispute that. We very much have a plan to continue to help people with the pressures on the cost of living. This is a very difficult and sensitive issue. Often, the higher costs are in the housing or the fuel sphere, but it is important that we continue to work with the Trussell Trust and others, with which we have an excellent working relationship after the pandemic. We have all learned to deal in a much more granular way with food supply chains and how to get food to people who need it. It is important that we dial down the political tone on this and continue to help people who need it.
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
Village halls are at the heart of so many rural communities, and I am absolutely delighted that we have launched the platinum jubilee village hall improvement fund. Just as a mark of how important I think village halls are, let me tell Members that, when our own village celebrated 50 years of its village hall, I wrote a song about it, which I am still being teased about.
Craig Tracey
I thank the Minister for not sharing that song with us.
As a former chair of my local village hall, I know how important village halls can be in connecting people of all ages. That was particularly evident during the pandemic. Village halls are generally run by small dedicated teams of volunteers who, unfortunately, are continually scraping around for the cash to keep them open. What more can we do to give easier and more sustainable funding to ensure that as many of these vital community hubs as possible can stay open?
Rebecca Pow
My hon. Friend makes such a good point. I congratulate him on his former role, and all those who have been on village hall committees. That included my husband who regaled me with many tales of what was said at the village hall committee. Our platinum jubilee village hall fund will provide for many halls the support they need to modernise, upgrade, and put in new internet and so forth. We also have a grant to support Action with Communities in Rural England to provide support for village halls across the whole country with advice, including on other sources of funding.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
The Minister for Farming, Fisheries and Food (Victoria Prentis)
We are delivering on our manifesto pledge to crack down on the smuggling of dogs and puppies. The Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill includes powers to introduce further restrictions. We have recently consulted on these and we will be publishing our report very shortly.
Dr Hudson
The steps proposed in the kept animals Bill, in our Environment, Food and Rural Affairs report on the movement of animals across borders, and in the commercial and non-commercial movements of pets in Britain consultation are desperately needed. I, as a vet, along with charities such as the Dogs Trust, have serious concerns about the biosecurity of the UK’s dogs if smugglers continue to be able to abuse the system. Will my hon. Friend go further and commit to now introducing visual checks on dogs that enter the country and also institute pre-entry health checks and preventative measures such as tick treatments?
Victoria Prentis
My hon. Friend has long taken a particular interest in this matter and he was a very involved member of the Bill Committee. As I said, we will shortly publish the results of the consultation that deals with the matter. I very much look forward, as I am sure he does, to seeing the Bill back on the Floor of the House as soon as possible.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
This Government are the first to set out our expectation that water companies must take significant steps to reduce storm sewage overflows. Through the Environment Act 2021 we have set a legal duty on water companies to reduce discharges and enhance monitoring, and we have just consulted on the largest programme in history to tackle storm overflows. Sadly, the hon. Gentleman’s party voted against these measures in the Environment Bill.
Mohammad Yasin
The Environmental Audit Committee recently recommended that Ministers tackle water pollution by setting a stretching timetable for progressive reduction in sewage overflows. However, under the storm overflow discharge reduction plan, half the storm overflows would still be spilling untreated sewage in 2040. This is totally unacceptable to my constituents, who have every right to expect clean and healthy waterways. Will the Government show some ambition and commit to a target of 100% of sewage outflows in priority areas not causing ecological harm by 2030?
Rebecca Pow
The hon. Gentleman has referred to the storm overflow discharge reduction plan, which we will publish in September. A huge amount of scientific research is informing this, and we have set a revolutionary system in place that will tackle these storm sewage overflows. We also have to be mindful of the cost of this on water bills, but we are certainly tackling the worst areas first—bathing waters and protected sites. We have a very sound system in place to deal with this once and for all, and the water companies have to clean up their act.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
Windermere is England’s biggest lake, and the beautiful weather this week has attracted huge numbers of swimmers to its shores, but people are being advised by conservationists not to swim or let their dogs in the water due to the amount of raw sewage being pumped into it by United Utilities. However, the official figures report that the Environment Agency claims that the amount of untreated sewage has reduced and there were no spills last year. Will the Minister admit that the reporting system is broken and take urgent steps to ensure that there is reliable monitoring so that people can enjoy beautiful Lake Windermere?
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue, but that is why we have a very sound system in place through the Environment Act and through our directions to Ofwat, the regulator, to tackle this area. It is why event duration monitoring will be in all storm overflows by 2023. It is why we have such an important and comprehensive system of monitoring and reporting back on when these storm overflows are being used. It is why we are tackling the water quality above and below storm sewage overflows so that we can demonstrate what is happening and action can be taken—and action will be taken on the water companies; we make absolutely no bones about that at all.
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
I take this opportunity to welcome the confirmation this week that the UN convention on biological diversity, COP15, will now be going ahead at the end of this year in Canada under China’s presidency. This week, in preparation for that, the UK will lead ambitious calls to protect nature at Nairobi in the run-up to building ambitious biodiversity targets.
This week I met the US Deputy Secretary of Agriculture to discuss many issues around sustainable agriculture and trade. I am pleased to announce today that the UK will join the Sustainable Productivity Growth Coalition convened by the United States. I look forward to working with our international partners in this dialogue on innovation, science and sustainable agriculture.
Damien Moore
The wine trade, and particularly wines produced in the UK, plays an increasing important role in Southport’s food and drink industry. Will my right hon. Friend meet some of these businesses to listen to how the proposed duty reforms will affect their trade?
George Eustice
My hon. Friend will know that duty and tax is a matter for the Treasury, but I am more than happy to meet his constituents. The English wine industry has been a fabulous success story in recent decades.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
Given the impact covid has had on mental health and wellbeing, for many, access to the outdoors was a vital escape, but the Secretary of State will know that access is not equal. Research by Wildlife and Countryside Link highlights that the poorest communities are twice as likely to live in a neighbourhood without access to nature. What are the Government doing to ensure that every neighbourhood in every corner of England finally has access to a green and pleasant land?
George Eustice
We have set out some detailed proposals on this, both in our response to the Glover review, but also under the Environment Act 2021. Local authorities will be required to have local nature recovery strategies in future, and that will include commitments around public access in particular locations. We have also opened a new farming and protected landscape scheme, which is all about supporting public access to the countryside.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Jo Churchill)
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has highlighted, we have witnessed the worst avian flu outbreaks on record in recent months, having sustained 122 cases this year. We will lift restrictions in disease control zones, including those on racing pigeons, as soon as we are able to do so, because of the biosecurity need. This week, we have announced that scientists across the UK will join forces in a major new research consortium to fight against avian flu. I note that my hon. Friend has written to me, so he will get a fuller answer.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
George Eustice
I met FareShare recently to discuss a particular proposal it had around trying to ensure that waste on farms was redistributed where possible. We did increase the funding for FareShare temporarily during the coronavirus pandemic, and we continue to support it, but obviously I will look into the specific case he raises.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
Jo Churchill
I am very much looking forward to visiting next Monday, and I reassure the hon. Member that while there is no silver bullet, it is important that we use everything we have available. The innovation that is coming in vertical farms, in greenhouses and so on gives us the opportunity to produce more food in the UK to feed ourselves.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
Our landscape review highlighted that areas of outstanding natural beauty are often just as important as national parks to their local communities, as my hon. Friend is demonstrating. We will be working with the National Association for AONBs to better reflect AONBs’ significance through their name and their purposes, and we have allocated additional funding to support that this year. In terms of new AONBs, we are always happy to consider applications from interested parties.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
With prices spiking for fertiliser and vital fuels such as tractor diesel, farmers in Lincolnshire face extreme pressure on cash flow. Does my right hon. Friend agree that giving farmers the support and confidence they need to plan for the future is vital to our food security?
George Eustice
My hon. Friend makes an important point, and that is why we have decided this year to give the industry the confidence needed by bringing forward half of the BPS payment to July from December. That will help ease those cash-flow pressures. In the context of Lincolnshire, which has a particularly strong horticultural background, we have increased the number of visas so that farmers can have access to the labour they need.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
George Eustice
The hon. Lady raises a sad and tragic case, and our thoughts are with the affected families. On her specific question, she will know that we have introduced legislation to push for due diligence in supply chains; that will require producers in the UK to ensure there is due diligence right through their supply chain, in particular for forest-risk products.
Mr Speaker
We welcome the new Chair of the Select Committee, Sir Robert Goodwill.
Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Following last year’s mass shellfish mortality off the Yorkshire coast, the problem has still not gone away: catches of lobster are 50% down despite vessels venturing further out to sea. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has attributed this to algal bloom, but other theories are circulating. Will the Minister publish all the toxicology data available for sediment, sea water and dead crustaceans to independent scrutiny? Is it true that the recent extensive dredging of the River Tees is based on just one silt sample taken in February last year?
The Minister for Farming, Fisheries and Food (Victoria Prentis)
My right hon. Friend and the neighbouring MP are very concerned, as am I, about what happened last year, and I have been to see some of the crabs affected. As he said, we are not entirely sure of the cause of the mortality but algal bloom seems the most likely explanation. I have made it clear that we should publish every single piece of information available, and academics must work together on this.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Last Friday I was able to celebrate with the Environment Agency the investment of £45 million into flood resilience in York and the £38 million on the completion of the flood barrier. However, that came with a 17-year warning that unless investment is put upstream we could be here again by 2039. What steps is the Minister taking to address the upland resilience we need for the future?
Rebecca Pow
I am pleased that the hon. Lady welcomes that funding on the Foss barrier; it is a tremendous project and well done to everyone involved. She also mentioned upstream work: we are investing £200 million in projects to investigate innovative and creative ways to deal with upstreams so we can stop the water before it gets to where it is causing the problem.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous)
The murder of 50 Catholics in church this month in Ondo state in Nigeria and the ongoing murders for alleged blasphemy are a stark reminder of why the Church of England stands foursquare behind the implementation of the Bishop of Truro’s review.
Jim Shannon
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s response but the independent review of progress on Truro is due now, as required by recommendation 22. Will he join me in pressing for that? Does he agree that, whatever it says, there will be more work to do on the Truro recommendations and that that must continue as the problem of persecution across the world is getting worse? This year’s Open Doors world watch list indicates that 20 million more Christians than a year ago will be highly persecuted and that across the world a Christian is killed every two hours for their faith.
Andrew Selous
That is absolutely right, and the situation does indeed continue to get worse, not better, with over 4,000 Christians murdered for their faith last year. To end the work of the Truro review now would be unthinkable. Recommendation 6 calls for the establishment of the special envoy role permanently and in perpetuity, as for example in the United States of America, and the Church of England supports the full and ongoing implementation of recommendation 6.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Christian Matheson (City of Chester)
The commission’s view is that the digital imprints requirement in the Elections Act will increase transparency by helping voters understand who is paying to target them online. It could provide further transparency if the requirement were extended to cover all digital material from unregistered campaigners, regardless of whether they paid to promote it. The commission has said that other changes in the Act relating to non-party campaigners will bring limited additional transparency, while increasing the complexity of the law.
The Online Safety Bill would include new freedom of speech protections for some campaigning content, but does not include any provisions that would directly affect the transparency of political campaign activities.
Deidre Brock
Recently, openDemocracy highlighted research that suggests it is difficult to establish exactly what more than £3.6 million was spent on by the Conservative party before the 2019 general election because of unclear or even unavailable invoices. Without that clarity, it is obviously difficult to establish exactly what political campaigning communications resulted from contracts that included £700,000 and £1.6 million to political consultancy firms, or even from the 200 out of 300 local Conservative branches that apparently submitted returns with no invoices. Yet the commission said it was “not proportionate” to take enforcement action. Under what circumstances would the commission be prepared to take action?
Christian Matheson
The commission reviewed the spending return delivered by the Conservative party following the 2019 parliamentary general election, and is aware that not all the required invoices were provided. Having reviewed the compliance of the return as a whole, it was decided that it was not proportionate to take enforcement action in relation to those missing invoices.
The hon. Member mentioned local associations, and local association campaign spending and accompanying invoices or receipts at a UK parliamentary general election are submitted as part of the spending return from their central party. The commission is required to publish the returns as soon as reasonably possible, whether or not they are complete. When a return is incomplete, the commission will consider what action to take in line with the principles of proportionality, as set out in its enforcement policy.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous)
The Church of England educates over 1 million children in its community schools across England, including nearly half of the primary schools in the Penrith and The Border constituency. These schools are generally very popular with parents of all faiths and none, and have a vision to be deeply Christian, to serve the common good and to foster a thirst for knowledge across a broad curriculum.
Dr Hudson
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Unfortunately, the educational attainment of children across the country, including in rural areas, can all too often be impacted by poverty and isolation, including food and energy poverty. Would my hon. Friend join me in thanking the Church of England, including its schools in Cumbria and across the country, for supporting those vulnerable families, particularly in the challenging times of the pandemic and the cost of living crisis? Will the Church commit to continue to provide that vital support?
Andrew Selous
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s thanks, and I can reassure him that the Church of England will continue to support vulnerable families wherever possible—for example, by buying school uniforms, providing breakfast clubs for free and paying for school trips. In the village of Shankhill in his constituency, the Church school supports the whole community by acting as a village hall for gatherings, lunches and intergenerational activities.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
What assessment has the Church of England made of the impact, particularly on rural Church of England schools, of the dramatic reduction in the number of priests in some dioceses? Does the hon. Member share my concern that money generated by parishes is being increasingly sucked into diocesan administration and projects, meaning that an impossibly small number of priests serve huge numbers of parishes? That threatens the very future of English parish life, including the role of rural Church schools.
Andrew Selous
I totally understand the point the right hon. Gentleman is making. He will know that the Church of England absolutely holds to its vision to have a Church of England presence in every community. Of course, he is right that if there are not so many incumbents, it can be difficult for them to go in and do assemblies in Church schools and so on, but the Church is really focused on the frontline and putting the parish first.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
Church education is quite rightly a priority for our Church, particularly for its leadership, but can my hon. Friend assure me that significant appointments to the Church, particularly to the House of Bishops, demonstrate that the Church of England is actively seeking to represent the breadth of opinion among its members, particularly those of a more conservative theological disposition?
Mr Speaker
Order. Sorry, but that is not a relevant question. [Interruption.] I know that the hon. Gentleman is shaking his head at me, but I cannot allow open supplementary questions on a closed question.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Andrew Selous
The Church of England is working closely with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to support the international ministerial conference on freedom of religion or belief taking place in London the week after next, and very much wants the conference to make a difference. The Archbishop of Canterbury will address the conference.
Bob Blackman
Christian minorities across the world are clearly under threat of forced conversion or potentially death. What more can the Church do to ensure that minorities are protected across the world, starting with this conference?
Andrew Selous
My hon. Friend is right. Christians are the most persecuted faith, and the Church of England will always stand up for all people who are being persecuted. He is also right that the Church needs to show global leadership by building relationships with the leaders of other faiths and with Governments so that there can be truthful conversations about what change needs to happen. The Anglican communion has great expertise in inter-faith relations, and we will focus on that in the Lambeth conference this summer. He is also right that that needs to be a priority, given that persecution is getting worse.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough)
Following decisions by the House Commissions in February, the sponsor body paused its work on producing a business case for the restoration and renewal programme. The two Commissions have now proposed a new approach for how the programme should be governed and delivered. The hon. Lady will be pleased to know that the Commissions recommend that a priority area for the work should be
“Conservation of the building fabric including stonework.”
It is intended that the new proposals will be put to Members of both Houses for debate and decision before the summer recess.
Margaret Ferrier
I recently took a restoration and renewal Palace tour and saw historically significant artwork painted directly on to the stone in parts of the building that are at risk of flooding. How it can be ensured that that artwork is not lost for future generations to enjoy and that it is properly protected during restoration works?
Sir Edward Leigh
That is an extremely good question. As I sit on the sponsor board, I can say that that is an absolute priority for everybody working for the delivery authority. A huge amount of work has already been done in listing and understanding every part of the fabric and every piece of artwork; the hon. Lady can rest assured that, once the works commence, every effort will be made to remove those artworks so that they are not in any way damaged.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous)
The Church of England is trying to achieve net zero by 2030. Examples include solar panels on the roofs of Gloucester and Salisbury cathedrals, heat pumps and underfloor heating in Newcastle cathedral and Bath abbey using natural hot spring water. I even have a vicar coming to see me shortly about a tidal power proposition for his church.
Nick Fletcher
I recently attended a wonderful service at St Mary’s church in Tickhill; it is a beautiful 12th century church and the pride of Tickhill. However, it is struggling to raise finance to replace its dated heating system. If that was to be replaced with a ground-source heat pump, that would cost in excess of £750,000. What can my hon. Friend suggest to help the church? Many of my other churches will face the same issue, including those in Hatfield, Rossington, Bawtry and Thorne, among others.
Andrew Selous
I absolutely get the scale of the challenge as I have similar churches in my constituency, and I know that the churches that my hon. Friend mentioned in Hatfield, Rossington, Bawtry and Thorne will be looking at the issue carefully. In the first instance, I suggest that they look at the diocese of Sheffield’s green energy audit scheme and the “funding net zero” section of the Church of England website. Emissions savings can be made by, for example, switching from oil to under-pew heating from renewable electricity.
Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Andrew Selous
Four bishops and hundreds of clergy currently have Ukrainian evacuees living with them. The Church is also using vacant vicarages for Ukrainian families. The Church continues to encourage its members to open their homes and to support those who have.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his answer. Certainly, I have seen lots of activities in churches in my own constituency. We have a lot of mums with children arriving in the United Kingdom and in South Northamptonshire. Lots of them either want to work or are working, but with the summer holidays fast approaching there will be the need for childcare. Can my hon. Friend give us an idea of what the Church can do to provide summer playgroups, so that Ukrainian children can keep learning English and making new friends?
Andrew Selous
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is typically too modest to mention that she is herself host to a Ukrainian family. I thank her, on behalf of the Church of England, for what she is doing.
The point my right hon. Friend makes about summer holiday clubs for children is extremely important. I can tell her that most parishes are now operating such clubs, although we are not quite back to where we were before the pandemic, due to a shortage of volunteers. I will ask the Diocese of Peterborough to let her know the details of all our clubs operating in her area.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
May I take this opportunity to pay tribute to June Partington and others at the parish of Christ Church and St George’s in Denton? June and the parish have organised, on behalf of churches across Tameside in Greater Manchester, the Homes for Ukraine scheme. Is that not precisely what the Church of England, having parishes in every community, is about?
Andrew Selous
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: the strength of the Church is in its parish life. I am very happy to pay considerable tribute, and give thanks, to June and all the parishes in Tameside who are clearly doing such good and important work.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
Andrew Selous
The Archbishop of Canterbury has spoken frankly with Patriarch Kirill during the invasion. The Church of England has chaplaincies in both Russia and Ukraine, and will continue to foster dialogue in the pursuit of peace.
Felicity Buchan
Last week, the Foreign Office sanctioned the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church. What steps can the Church of England take to try to persuade the Russian Orthodox Church that it is wrong to back Putin and this barbarous war?
Andrew Selous
The Church Commissioners and our pensions board were some of the first institutions to take all practical steps to withdraw from their direct investments in Russia. The Church of England remains committed to a ministry of reconciliation based on love and truth, and will continue to reach out—for example, through the chaplain of St Andrew’s Anglican Church in Moscow, who is the Archbishop of Canterbury’s representative to the Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
The conflict in Ukraine has highlighted the importance of many freedoms, including the freedom of religion or belief. I am very pleased that Ukraine will be represented at the conference on freedom of religion or belief here in July. What, in my hon. Friend’s opinion, would be a successful outcome to the conference for delegates such as those from Ukraine and elsewhere, where freedom of religion or belief is being violated or denied?
Andrew Selous
It is a really important question. The bottom line must be a reduction in global persecution, which is going up, not down. Presidents and Prime Ministers need to prioritise this issue. We need better co-ordination with civil society. We need freedom of religion or belief in education and we want young freedom of religion or belief ambassadors.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Andrew Selous
Parts of the Church of England behaved appallingly in turning away Caribbean worshippers after the war. The Church has paid a heavy price in losing the spirit-filled vitality of those worshippers to spread the good news of Jesus. Work by Lord Boateng and the inspirational Peter Stream, which is drawing ordinands from a wide variety of races and backgrounds, is starting to redress that shameful episode.
Sir Desmond Swayne
The decision to refuse to ordain Calvin Robinson was a missed opportunity, but my hon. Friend is both a fair-minded and God-fearing person. I hope I can rely on him to ask the bishops to pray, reflect and reconsider.
Andrew Selous
I must say to my right hon. Friend that it would not be appropriate for me to comment specifically on an individual candidate for ordination. The period of initial formation for candidates is part of the discernment process, and not every candidate who starts training finishes it or is judged ready for ordination at the end of it. I am informed that, as with all applications for the ministry, this candidate was considered irrespective of Church tradition, political views or race.
British Council Contractors: Afghanistan
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con) (Urgent Question)
To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs to make a statement on British Council contractors in Afghanistan.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Vicky Ford)
Last August, when the situation in Afghanistan was deteriorating so rapidly, the UK Government worked at great speed to evacuate more than 15,000 people from the country within a fortnight. This was the biggest mission of its kind in generations, and the second largest evacuation carried out by any country. We are right to be proud of what our British forces and others achieved at that time. Those evacuated included British nationals and their families and about 500 particularly vulnerable Afghans, including some British Council contractors, journalists, human rights defenders, campaigners for women’s rights, judges, and many others. All former British Council employees who wished to resettle have arrived in the UK, with their family members.
The British Council played an important role in Afghanistan in working to support the UK mission there and to promote our values. It is right that the Government do the right thing for British Council employees and contractors, and that includes resettling eligible contractors if they are at risk. Therefore, in January this year the then Minister for Afghan Resettlement, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), announced the launch of a new Afghan citizens resettlement scheme, which will resettle up to 20,000 eligible people over the coming years. There is no application process for the scheme, but people can express an interest in resettlement.
Eligible individuals will be referred for resettlement via three referral “pathways”. Under pathway 3, we are committed to considering eligible at-risk British Council and GardaWorld contractors as well as Chevening alumni. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office will refer up to 1,500 people from Afghanistan and the region to the Home Office for resettlement, including eligible family members. On 20 June the FCDO opened an online system, whereby eligible individuals can express their interest in resettlement.
Mr Baron
Thank you for granting the urgent question, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Minister for her response.
Members on both sides of the House have expressed our pride in and gratitude for Operation Pitting. However, I must say to the Minister that about 180 British Council contractors remain in Afghanistan, 85 of whom have been classified by us as being at “very high risk”, while a further 90 or so are deemed to be at “high risk”. They live in constant fear for their lives, moving from safe house to safe house as they are hunted by the Taliban. After questions in the House and a positive meeting with Lord Harrington, we finally secured a written ministerial statement last week announcing the opening of the ACRS on Monday, and that was welcome.
As the Minister mentioned, there is now a window for British Council contractors, GardaWorld employees and Chevening scholars to submit expressions of interest in coming to the UK, but this application window is open for two months, which may mean that submissions will not be processed by the Government, or decisions confirmed on individual submissions, until the middle of August. That would further delay the contractors’ journey to safety. However, responses to my written parliamentary questions earlier this week suggest that there might be some flexibility to allow applications to be processed before the window closes.
I suggest to the Minister that there is too much ambiguity, given the urgency of the case. It is clearly unacceptable that, 10 months after the fall of Kabul, we remain in this situation in which contractors—not just British Council contractors, but personnel who have promoted British interests, values and culture in Afghanistan—are still trying to sort out an application process that has taken too long as a result of bureaucracy. I therefore seek clarification on two important issues, and I would appreciate that clarification, because I do not want to keep coming back to the Chamber to pressurise the Government. I want answers, to help these people.
First, will submissions from those who are deemed to be at “very high risk” and “high risk” be processed before the closing of the application window in two months’ time—and here we are talking about the third week in August? Secondly, will their relocation to the UK or, in the interim, a third country, also be expedited so that they are able to leave Afghanistan as soon as they have been approved under the ACRS?
Vicky Ford
My hon. Friend has played an important role in championing the British Council, which does amazing work across the world—I have seen a lot of that work at first hand. It is absolutely right that we try to support the contractors, which is why we have made this online scheme available. We need to give people reasonable time to submit their expression of interest. I will look at the issue of very high-risk individuals, but we have not stopped taking people from Afghanistan since the end of Operation Pitting last August. In fact, another 4,600 people have since come to the UK, many through the Afghan relocations and assistance policy, including Ministry of Defence contractors and a wide range of other people such as members of the LGBT community, journalists, prosecutors, women’s rights activists and some country-based staff. Those 4,600 people have come here, and others have been referred through the UN pathways.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) for securing this important urgent question.
On behalf of the Labour Opposition, I extend my thoughts to all those currently suffering in Afghanistan following the dreadful earthquake earlier this week.
In February it was revealed that hundreds of British Council staff were left stranded in Afghanistan following this Government’s botched evacuation from Kabul. The Minister told the House at the time that the Government were supporting those in need and that 50 British Council contractors had been evacuated. Four months on, we are faced with the same problem: hundreds of former British Council contractors are stranded, with reports that they are being attacked and beaten by the Taliban due to their previous work on behalf of the United Kingdom.
Many of those still in Afghanistan are security guards who protected British staff at the embassy as they undertook an extremely difficult task during the evacuation last August. We owe so much to these courageous British Council contractors, and the fact that they are still in Afghanistan and facing daily violence due to their co-operation with the UK is, frankly, nothing short of a disgrace.
I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could tell us how many British Council staff are still stuck in Afghanistan today. What urgent measures are being put in place to evacuate the rest of the staff who are still stranded in Afghanistan? What engagement has she had with regional partners to facilitate safe passage for the former staff who attempt to leave? Once again, what message does it send to other British Council contractors who work in challenging environments around the world if the UK leaves Afghan contractors stranded in this way?
It is high time the Government got their act together and stood up for those who worked with the United Kingdom to promote security, tolerance and democracy in Afghanistan.
Vicky Ford
I also send my thoughts to those affected by the terrible earthquake two days ago. The UK is one of the largest donors of humanitarian aid to Afghanistan, and we are already working with teams on the ground, including the UN, non-governmental organisations and the Red Cross, to get assistance to those who need it.
The hon. Gentleman asks how many British Council staff are still affected. I make it clear, as I did in my opening remarks, that all former British Council employees —in other words, British Council staff—who wished to resettle have arrived in the UK with their family members. British Council employees were prioritised both in Operation Pitting and in the immediate response to help those who were invited to take part in Operation Pitting but did not make it out, and they are among the 4,600 people who have since come out of Afghanistan.
The issue here is contractors. We have prioritised British Council contractors, GardaWorld contractors and Chevening alumni in the 1,500 places we have this year. They will be able to put in their expression of interest between now and 15 August. I must say—maybe this will also help my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron)—that if there are exceptional and compelling circumstances, for example a threat to life, they can set that out in their expression of interest and they will be considered for expediated action.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
The bigger picture is that we chose to abandon Afghanistan and hand it back to the very insurgents we went in to defeat. We make grand promises to help the people of Afghanistan, the 40 million people left behind who are struggling to survive. Is it not now time to unfreeze the $9 billion-worth of Afghan assets? They belong to the Afghan people. We are not going to change the Taliban’s behaviour. The people who are now suffering because of that are the Afghans themselves, not the Taliban.
Vicky Ford
Let me be very clear: it was the Taliban who chose what to do in Afghanistan, rather than the UK. Our British forces did amazing work in that two-week window to bring British people out. The sanctions are important, but we also played a key role in establishing a humanitarian exemption under the United Nations Afghan sanctions regime. Thus we have a Security Council resolution adopted in December that gives an exemption from the asset freeze in order to provide humanitarian assistance. It is humanitarian assistance that people need. That is why in January we also laid our own sanctions regulations, which mean that we can also ensure that money for humanitarian needs and supporting basic needs can still flow.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
I place on record my thoughts and those of all my SNP colleagues for all those impacted by the devastating earthquake in Afghanistan. If my calculations are correct, it is now 299 days since the end of Operation Pitting. While the efforts of our military personnel cannot be commended highly enough, what cannot be commended is the pitiful response of this Government, both in the weeks leading up to the fall of Afghanistan and in the many months since. Lest we forget, when Kabul was on the brink of collapse senior Government Ministers and senior civil servants were on holiday. Lest we forget, when people were literally falling from the outside of aircraft trying to flee the Taliban, the doors to this Parliament remained firmly shut. Lest we forget, it is nearly 300 days since Afghanistan fell and so many British Council contractors and others were left at the mercy of the Taliban. I ask the Minister this: why on earth is this taking so long, and when does she expect every single British contractor boot to be on UK soil?
Vicky Ford
Far from doing nothing over the past few months since Operation Pitting finished, the UK has been one of the leaders in the world in a) getting the exemption from the sanctions regime to help money to flow and b) ensuring that humanitarian aid is raised. In March we co-hosted the pledging conference and we are one of the largest donors of humanitarian aid ourselves. We have been working extremely closely to unlock the World Bank money, for example, and get that out. Since Operation Pitting finished, another 4,600 Afghan refugees or individuals from Afghanistan have arrived in the UK, including many from very vulnerable groups. It is a continuous process; we have committed to taking another 20,000 people through the ARAP system over the next few years, and that window is being prioritised for those contractors and our Chevening scholars.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
As my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) mentioned, there are just under 200 British Council contractors who are still trapped in Afghanistan. All of them are in fear for their lives. We must know the names of those individuals, but we probably do not know their exact location. Will my hon. Friend ensure that applications for those people to come out of Afghanistan to the UK can be lodged by other people on their behalf? Otherwise, people will have to spend time online and getting to places that will be unsafe for them to travel to.
Vicky Ford
I will certainly take up the point that my hon. Friend raises, but that is precisely why there needs to be a window of time for people to register their interest. I also point out that those taken under the pathway will be not only the individuals, but their family members; that is why 1,500 people will be able to come and we have a window of time to assess their needs and bring them through the pathway. I will certainly take on board my hon. Friend’s point about whether third parties can put in an application.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) is absolutely right. The hardest part of the process for the people affected is getting out of Afghanistan safely without it being detected that they are fleeing. Why on earth is there a two-month window only, rather than an open, rolling programme? Why is there a limit every year? As the hon. Members for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) and for Harrow East have said, we already know who these people are.
Vicky Ford
I remind the hon. Gentleman that 4,600 people have already come to the UK since Operation Pitting. We are working to get some of the most vulnerable people out. This is an important prioritisation that we are doing for those who have been contractors—security contractors or British Council contractors. They need the window to express interest, but if there are exceptional circumstances such as threat to life, they will be considered for expedited action.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
How many people have been resettled in the UK under the ACRS, since it opened in January, who had not been evacuated under Operation Pitting?
Vicky Ford
The 4,600 people who have been supported to leave Afghanistan and are either coming to the UK or, sometimes, moving to third countries—sorry, Mr Speaker; I should have been clearer on that point—includes people under both ACRS and ARAP.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
What assessment has the Minister made of whether all those who might be eligible can safely and securely apply online for permission to come to this country? If they cannot do that, there has to be a fall-back position, has there not?
Vicky Ford
The hon. Gentleman is right that in certain parts of Afghanistan it is particularly challenging. That is part of the reason why we are giving a window.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
I am listening to the Minister with a bit of incredulity. She said:
“It is right that the Government do the right thing…and that includes resettling eligible contractors if they are at risk.”
Minister, they are at risk! That is a totally mealy-mouthed and profoundly unhelpful statement. We have known about this for months and months. The UK Government have given those of us asking questions the runaround time after time. We know who these people are, we know that they are vulnerable and we know that their lives are at risk. Will the UK Government stop giving us all the runaround and tell us how and when these vulnerable people will be given the opportunity to come to safety?
Vicky Ford
I am actually extremely proud of the work that the UK does to support vulnerable people coming to the UK from so many different areas. Many of my constituents are working to bring in Ukrainian families and support the Afghans who have come to my constituency. Many tens of thousands of Hong Kong nationals have come here. As I said, 4,600 people have come under either ARAP or ACRS since then. This is an important prioritisation that we are doing to support these contractors. They will be given time to apply because, as the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) points out, sometimes it can be challenging to get online in these places. That is why we have to give them a window. We have brought 4,600 people, including some of the most vulnerable, during this period. These are difficult circumstances and the UK is doing much, much more than many others. I continue to be proud of what we are doing.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
These British Council contractors live in fear for their lives on a daily basis. Each day they wake up could be the day of their death sentence. We know who they are. The logistics of getting them out of Afghanistan are going to be incredibly difficult. I would like to know what preparations the Minister has in place, not only to expedite their applications when they come in, but to physically get them to safety and out of the grip of the Taliban.
Vicky Ford
The hon. Gentleman will probably understand that I should not comment on that at this stage, particularly for those who are at risk. We have said that we will expedite matters, for example if there is a serious risk to life. We need to give this window for people to apply, but I am not going to comment on the specifics that the hon. Gentleman raises at this time.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Given the recent devastating logjams at the Home Office and Her Majesty’s Passport Office, can the Minister confirm how many extra staff have been appointed to process the expression of interest requests from those stranded in Afghanistan?
Vicky Ford
I will need to get back to the hon. Lady with the details.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Afghan contractors worked to protect British Government officials and to keep them safe. We have left those contractors behind and done too little to repay the favour. What work has been under way for the past 10 months across the various Departments involved to try to ensure the safety of all contractors?
Vicky Ford
As I think I have said a number of times, we have brought in some of the most vulnerable people during this period, from various different groups. We have also been leading some of the international work to try to get aid into the country to help all of the citizens of Afghanistan with the extremely challenging economic situation. That is why we have led the pledging conference and put funding in for others to try to stabilise the situation. We are prioritising the contractors, which is why we have opened this window for them to express their interest and let us know their exact circumstances, and so we can bring out those who are most at risk.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, I put on record my thanks to the Minister and the Government for all they have done in the Afghan resettlement scheme. I know that my constituency has been eager and keen to assist and help. On the issue of the British Council contractors, does the Minister agree that our withdrawal from Afghanistan leaves much to be desired? When it comes to the contractors we are all concerned about, our support must be blameless, and I suspect that unfortunately on this occasion it may not be. How will the Government improve the current support system in Afghanistan?
Vicky Ford
The organisation whose approach to Afghanistan leaves much to be desired is the Taliban.
Business of the House
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mark Spencer)
It will be a pleasure.
The business for the week commencing 27 June will include:
Monday 27 June—Second Reading of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill.
Tuesday 28 June—Opposition day (4th allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition. Subject to be announced.
Wednesday 29 June—Consideration in committee of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill (Day 1).
Thursday 30 June—Debate on a motion on Iran’s nuclear programme followed by, general debate on 50 years of pride in the UK. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 1 July—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 4 July will include:
Monday 4 July—Conclusion of consideration in committee and remaining stages of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill.
Tuesday 5 July—Estimates day (1st allotted day). Subjects to be confirmed.
Wednesday 6 July—Estimates day (2nd allotted day). Subjects to be confirmed.
At 7.00pm, the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
Thangam Debbonaire
I thank the Leader of the House for the forthcoming business. I hope he had a wonderful time at the Tory party’s summer ball on Monday night. I hear the top prize auctioned off was a £120,000 slap-up meal for four including the Prime Minister, his predecessor and her predecessor. The absolute audacity of Tory MPs telling food bank users that they do not know how to spend their money, when Tory donors seem to be willing to pay the going rate of £40,000 per failed and failing Prime Minister. It is shocking. Tory donors, clearly unaffected by the cost of living crisis, are wined and dined by the Cabinet when working people face inflation at more than 9%, lower pay and backlog Britain grinding the country to a halt. Where in the upcoming business is the Government’s long-term plan to deal with all that?
Perhaps I can offer the three recent Conservative Prime Ministers a conversation starter: 12 years of underfunding and Tory mismanagement of our NHS; and record numbers of people waiting for care and waiting longer than ever before. In Wakefield, since 2019, the people of that great city have lost three local GP practices and 300,000 GP appointments per year, all while the Chancellor puts up their taxes. Does the Leader of the House think it is fair that his Government are asking the people of Wakefield to pay more, for less?
On Tuesday, Labour’s successful motion called on the Health Secretary simply to meet his Government’s own target of recruiting 6,000 extra GPs and to ensure that everyone who needs an NHS dentist can get one. Those are not unreasonable demands, but the Health Secretary cannot even meet them. He has admitted that he is not on track, so can the Leader of the House explain to his voters why his Government are breaking yet another one of their promises? What is the plan? People around the country, including those in Wakefield, will want to see it. Will he ask the Health Secretary to make a statement on how he is going to train, recruit and hang on to the GPs we need? I remind him that they are the Government and our motion passed. They should do their job and at least attempt to sort this mess out.
It is another week of the Government engulfed in Tory sleaze and scandal, instead of dealing with problems in our NHS. I do welcome the fact that they have realised that they obviously need an ethics adviser, but they must get on with recruiting a new one. On Tuesday, Labour’s ethics motion called for urgency. The Tories voted against it, so I ask the Leader of the House: when can we expect to see the ethics vacancy filled? Can he guarantee that the investigations that were ongoing prior to Lord Geidt’s resignation will be completed?
Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) asked the Prime Minister for a straight yes or no on whether he had ever considered the appointment of his now spouse to a government post or one in any other organisation. We hear that No. 10 spoke to The Times after it published an article on this and the story disappeared. There is clearly something going on and it is clearly unethical to use a position as a very powerful person, possibly the most powerful person in the country, to get your partner a six-figure-salary job. The Prime Minister failed to deny this yesterday, so I am asking the Leader of the House now: could he advise us on what conversations were had and how far was this allowed to go?
Last week, the Leader of the House failed to address my question on missing legislation. The proposals on renters’ rights reforms last Thursday are welcome, but they were promised three years ago and all we have got is a White Paper. This is another example of the Government picking an issue, waving it around on a day they need a distraction and dropping it the next. This is no way to run a country. So when will the Leader of the House bring forward the actual legislation and give renters the rights they deserve, for which they been waiting for so long? Whether it is the distraction of sleaze and scandal, missing legislation or countless failed promises, the choice is stark: a Tory Government unable to govern or Labour, a party that believes in democracy, decency and respect, with a plan to deal with backlog Britain and tackle the Tory cost of living crisis. People up and down the country will be waking up this morning, including in Wakefield, knowing that it is time for a fresh start.
Mark Spencer
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. What is clear is that the Government are getting on with the job. We are making our streets safer; we are recruiting 20,000 more police officers, and we have already got 13,500 of those recruited. We continue to grow the economy to address the cost of living challenge that people face. That is why we have invested £37 billion to help people through the challenges that we face—frankly, the whole world is facing these challenges. We are funding the NHS to deal with those covid backlogs, which is why we introduced the health and social care levy; we are talking about £39 billion-worth investment in our NHS. The Labour party did not support that investment in our health service. We are providing leadership that is needed in these challenging times. We are the strongest supporter of Ukraine. We have delivered the fastest vaccine roll-out in Europe, which is why the economy continues to grow.
There was one question that I will address—there was one genuine question in all of that rant: what did I know about the allegation that the hon. Lady made about the Prime Minister’s wife. I can tell her and the House that I was the Government Chief Whip from the moment the Prime Minister became the Prime Minister. I think I am the longest serving Chief Whip since 2010. I was in meetings and rooms with the Prime Minister probably more than any other Minister during that period. I never ever in my political career heard mention of the Prime Minister’s wife getting a role—ever, to be clear.
What we heard in the shadow Leader of the House’s comments was anything at all she wants to talk about, other than the crisis that the unions are delivering to this country as we sit here. Look behind her at those empty Benches. The reason those Benches are empty is that they all ran like rats to get a train yesterday—[Interruption.] Across the House, colleagues had to go and get trains yesterday because of the misery the unions are pouring on to this country. Let us look at some of the working practices they are trying to defend.
Whole teams have to change a socket when one person could do it; they want nine people to go and do it. They want a walking time of one minute to take 12 minutes. [Hon. Members: “Shocking!”] This is absolutely true. A break time starts, and if one of their managers says hello to them during it, the break has to start again because management have interrupted it. Technology now exists with cameras to check the safety of rail lines—a very important job—but the unions insist that they have to be walking checks. Eight rail workers have been killed on the rail lines in the past two years doing those walking checks when technology exists to protect those lives and to look after people on our railways. Best of all, there was a threatened strike over the replacement of a tea urn with a kettle.
That is the sort of thing that these people are defending. I call on the hon. Lady and her friends’ paymasters to get back round the table, talk to Network Rail, and ease the misery that they are imposing on working people up and down this country.
Mr Speaker
We now come to Bob Blackman, who is acting Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for announcing the business not only for next week but for the week after. At our meeting of the Backbench Business Committee on Monday evening, we will be determining the applications for estimates day debates. As an advert to the House, and beyond, could those who wish to submit applications do so by 1 o’clock on Monday at the latest? We will try to be as flexible as we can in terms of the number of speakers and so on that will be required for such a debate, but we obviously need to get on with the job.
My right hon. Friend announced the provisional business for the week of the estimates day debates but did not mention what is happening on Thursday 7 July. Could he update us on that, because we have a queue of applications?
Last night, the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) and I attended a symposium on the plight of Hindus across the world. Forced conversion, murder and, quite frankly, genocide have been committed against Hindus across the world. Can we have a debate in Government time on the threat across the world to Hindus, who are peaceful, law-abiding people who just want to live their lives in peace and harmony?
Mark Spencer
I encourage Members across the House to make representations to the Backbench Business Committee on the estimates, and I know that my hon. Friend’s door will be open to those requests. The business will be announced next Thursday, so I am sure that he will be in his place to hear what it will be on Thursday 7 July. I commend him for the work that he does in supporting Hindu communities not only in his own constituency but around the world. He is a true champion for rights and religious freedom—almost as robust and enthusiastic as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I am quite surprised to see so many Conservative Members in their places—don’t they know there are by-elections they have to fight? I suppose it is a lot safer being in here, though, than having to traipse around Devon or the north of England having to explain away all the many prime ministerial indiscretions.
Can we have a debate about job opportunities, because it seems to me that if you are intimately involved with this Prime Minister your chances of securing a top job in Whitehall, with the royal family or at COP seem to be greatly enhanced? I listened to the Leader of the House on this particular issue. I do not know if this piece of prime ministerial nepotism is true or not, but it seems to be quite consistent with what we have experienced of this Prime Minister over the past few months. I know—maybe it is a job for the ethics adviser. Oh yes—there isn’t one; his role is currently being reviewed. Translated from the Johnsonian, that means it is being abandoned. This is a Prime Minister with the ethics of a polecat. Not even all the ethics advisers in the world could start to scratch the surface of the many issues that need to be confronted.
I am quite surprised—I thought Government Members would all be on their feet today celebrating Brexit day. It is six years since that decision was taken—six years of chaos and misery for this nation. In Scotland, this day is marked with nothing other than dismay, disappointment and simmering resentment. We are a nation taken out of an EU we cherished against our national collective will, after being promised that our membership would be safe if we stayed in their Union. The absolute failure of their Brexit and the preparation to break international law on Monday on the protocol is the main driver for converts to the cause of Scottish independence. They may have got themselves out of the European Union, but they have inadvertently helped Scotland get out of the mess of this Union. Maybe that is something worth celebrating.
Mark Spencer
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I celebrate the fact that we left the European Union. I am not a democracy denier like the hon. Gentleman. We acknowledge that there was a democratic process and that is why we delivered on Brexit; that is why he should acknowledge that at the last referendum on Scotland’s place in the Union, he unfortunately lost. We are stronger together. He should celebrate democracy and join us in making the Union stronger.
The Government are getting on with the job. We delivered this week on the High Speed Rail (Crewe–Manchester) Bill, we are delivering on the cost of living with payments coming quickly to people, and we are supporting pensioners with disability benefits.
The hon. Gentleman talked about job opportunities. There is a job in Scotland available to people who want to engage in bureaucracy. This week, the SNP came forward with its plan to spend £1.5 billion on administration alone to secure the services of care workers from local authorities, only to then procure care workers’ services from the local authorities from which they have taken those care workers. It is absolutely bonkers. The SNP is too busy being distracted by its own Watergate moment, with its internal meetings being leaked. The SNP Chief Whip was so angry that he wrote to colleagues saying, “Please don’t leak”—only for that letter to be leaked. I think the SNP leaks more than its ferries.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
In May 2016, Diana, the wife of my constituent, Peter Walker, was killed in an accident with a cyclist in Pewsey High Street. The following year the Government announced a consultation on a new offence of causing death by dangerous cycling. The year after that, in 2018, my predecessor Claire Perry was assured by the Government that the response to the consultation would be issued shortly. Four years on, we still have no response. Since 2019, I have written to the Government four times to ask for a date for when it will happen. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this really is not good enough? Will he please use his good offices with the Department for Transport to get it to come forward with a timetable on the review and to bring forward the legislation that we need?
Mark Spencer
I am very sorry to hear about my hon. Friend’s constituent. I assure him that the Department for Transport takes the issue very seriously. We have had a tragedy in my own constituency, when a pedestrian was hit by an e-scooter on a pavement; the lady lost her life. The Secretary of State is planning to publish our response to the consultation as soon as we can and, as my hon. Friend knows, has already announced that we are considering bringing forward legislation to introduce new offences around dangerous cycling. We will do that as part of a suite of measures to improve the safety of all road and pavement users.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
My constituent, Mr David Hand, has generously agreed to sponsor two Ukraine nationals who are fleeing that awful conflict. He made an application to the Homes for Ukraine scheme on 22 May, but has not yet received any update. My office has spoken to the MP account management team at UK Visas and Immigration on several occasions, but, unfortunately, no update is forthcoming. Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate in Government time to discuss the unacceptably long wait that some refugees are experiencing in incredibly dangerous situations?
Mark Spencer
I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to Mr Hand who is doing a very generous thing in supporting and offering to host those people. Many people up and down the country are opening their homes to refugees. We should be enormously proud of that. I am sure the Home Secretary will have heard his comments, but to make sure I will pass them on directly to her and see whether she can assist him directly.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Can we have a debate on the huge disruption being caused to our constituents by tube and rail strikes? We need the opportunity to condemn the Labour MPs who are supporting these irresponsible strikes, even to the extent that they are actually joining picket lines, which is scandalous.
Mark Spencer
I thank my right hon. Friend for her question. That is something that is worthy of debate. We had a debate on this matter last week. I think 25 Labour Members have been on the picket lines along with Arthur Scargill this week. It is causing misery to commuters. It is making students miss exams and it is causing huge damage to the economy. The only way out of this is for the unions to go and speak directly to Network Rail and resolve these matters around the negotiating table.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Can the Leader of the House confirm when the Government’s proposal on the use of agency workers during industrial action will be brought forward for debate in the House? I understand that a statutory instrument is due to be published today but, having looked at the sheet with the business and having listened very carefully to what he said, I have not heard any confirmed timetable or process. Will this be brought on to the Floor of the House so that we can have a proper debate?
Mark Spencer
I do not have to hand the specific time when that will be brought forward, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman and let him know as soon as I am aware of that. The use of agency workers is an option available to employers up and down the country, but that must be done safely, ensuring that those agency workers can deliver a standard of service that is safe to members of the public.
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
I notice on the Order Paper that the restoration and renewal motion has been tabled. I welcome the proactiveness of the Leader of the House on the issue. Can he let the House know how individual Members can take part?
Mark Spencer
My hon. Friend is right that the motion is now on the Order Paper. It is important that the House understands that what the two commissions of the Commons and the Lords are seeking on this occasion is to take the sponsor body function back in-house to make sure that we can get on with the job quickly. Members across the House can engage. There are some drop-in sessions taking place. In fact, I hope that I and the shadow Leader of the House will do a joint one next week; I think it is currently in the diary for 2.30 in Committee Room 12. I encourage Members to come along, engage and find out more information.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
The Leader of the House may be aware that a major pilot of a four-day working week, with no loss of pay for workers, has begun in the UK. A previous trial in Iceland was significant in finding improvements in terms of wellbeing and productivity, so a win-win for workers and for employers. The Scottish Government are committed to helping businesses to pilot a four-day week. Can we have a statement in Government time on whether the UK Government will also support exploring the benefits of flexible working, including a four-day working week?
Mark Spencer
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. Clearly, this is something that the Government will observe and consider. I know that there are a number of pilots taking place up and down the country. It is an interesting concept, but we would need to understand all the implications before it was rolled out as a national policy. However, it is certainly an interesting area of debate.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
Speed cameras, love them or hate them, but for villages across my constituency, such as Felmersham, Thurleigh and Sutton to name just three, speeding through the village is a major issue. The desire for average speed cameras is at the top of the agenda for many parish councils, but funding is limited. Can we have a debate about alternative sources of financing? We do not want to make fines for speeding an incentive, but is there a way that we can help these rural areas to get the protection they deserve from speeding?
Mark Spencer
My hon. Friend will be aware that it is Transport questions next week, where he will have an opportunity to ask the Transport Secretary that question directly. Average speed cameras can be frustrating, but they happen to keep people alive and safe. I know in my constituency that several people lost their lives on the A614. Post the introduction of average speed cameras—I hesitate to say this, as I do not want to jinx myself—no one has lost their life on that stretch of road. They do work, and my hon. Friend is right to highlight it. I encourage him to seek a Backbench Business debate on the matter.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
The Port of Tyne is an important economic player in North Tyneside, as well as across the whole of Tyneside and the region. On behalf of the port, I invited a Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minister to visit just over two months ago, but as yet, I have not heard anything. As the port is so keen to showcase all the good work it is doing, could the Leader of the House urge the Minister to respond positively to the invitation?
Mark Spencer
I will of course pass on the hon. Lady’s comments directly to the Minister. Not just the Port of Tyne, but ports around the country are an important part of our infrastructure and getting trade in and out of the UK. They need to work efficiently, and I will make sure that the Minister is aware of her comments.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
My constituent Brian Leigh has been in a hospital in Corfu for 18 days, where he has been taken ill with a heart condition while on holiday. His wife, Michele, has come home and is desperately trying to get Brian back to the UK. His insurance company, Staysure, has handed responsibility for repatriating him to a company called Red Star, which has taken more than a week so far to get Brian home. Can we have a debate on the regulation of these arrangements, as my constituents have done the responsible thing and arranged travel insurance, but find it is little help to them when they need it?
Mark Spencer
I wish Brian a speedy recovery. Hopefully we can get him home soon with my hon. Friend’s efforts. I will make sure that the relevant Minister is aware of the case and encourage them to engage directly with my hon. Friend.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The Leader of the House will probably be aware that 6 July is the deadline for submissions for new bids to the next round of the levelling-up fund. What he will not be aware of is that Tameside Council is putting together an excellent bid for Denton town centre in my constituency, which I wholeheartedly support. It includes streetscape works, extensive improvements for pedestrians and cyclists and, at the heart of it, a new community hub at the Denton Festival Hall. Can we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities so that we can have a better idea of the timescales for this next round of bids, and so that I can champion Denton, Denton, Denton?
Mark Spencer
I cannot deny that the hon. Gentleman does that on a regular basis. I hesitate to wish Denton well in its bid, because I am sure that many Members across the House will have bids for the levelling-up fund. I am sure that once the Secretary of State has received all those bids, he will be able to assess them and come forward with the great amount of investment that the country is looking for and the Government are committed to delivering.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
I was very proud on Monday to attend the flag raising in Aylesbury for Armed Forces Week. It was an occasion to show support for everyone in our local armed forces community, from our cadets to our Army Reserve and from personnel at RAF Holton to service families. Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking all who serve in our armed forces at home and abroad and ensure that Parliament can mark its appreciation and gratitude, whether through a debate or other fitting means?
Mark Spencer
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend; I think he is part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. I am sure the whole House will want to recognise the great contribution that our armed forces make. I had the privilege of visiting the poppy factory in Richmond on Monday this week to hear directly about the fantastic work it does to support veterans and to see the wreaths being made in the factory. Members of the public can visit the factory and have a tour of it, and I highly recommend that they do so. There is a dedicated office team supporting veterans up and down the country, and it is something that the House would want to recognise.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
One food bank in Aberdeen distributed 600 parcels in a week, and another distributed 80 in just a 90-minute period. That is a scandal, but it is a necessity because of the economic and welfare policies of the UK Government. The Chancellor happens to be in my constituency at this moment in time, so I have asked him whether he would like to attend one such food bank to see for himself the devastating impact of his actions. I am not too hopeful that he will say yes. Bearing that in mind, will the Leader of the House agree to dragging the Chancellor to the Chamber for a debate on the impact of Tory policies?
Mark Spencer
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer regularly appears at the Dispatch Box. I think that the last time he was here, he topped up the support fund to £37 billion. That is a huge amount of cash going to support people with those challenges.
I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to those charities which, alongside what the Government are doing, assist people when they fall into difficulty. We have increased the household support fund to £1.5 billion, we have the £200 million holiday activities food programme and we are funding £24 million-worth of school breakfasts. The Government are doing a huge amount to support people, but I also pay tribute to the charities that he recognised.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
This week’s strikes have been incredibly disruptive for so many of my constituents, so I welcome the Business Secretary’s announcement today on temporary workers. Will my right hon. Friend agree to a debate on implementing minimum service levels similar to those in Italy and Spain so that we can limit the harm that these strikes do our people?
Mark Spencer
My hon. Friend is right to highlight once again the devastation that the strikes are causing. I encourage the unions to get back round the table and negotiate with Network Rail and the employers directly. I thank him for raising the matter, which is worthy of further debate.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
Part of backlog Britain is the court backlog, which is unacceptable to my constituents in Putney, Roehampton and Southfields, and it is getting worse. Justice delayed is justice denied. My constituents face delays in getting a hearing and many lost payments from courts, which delay hearings further. They also face delays in getting judgments respected. Rogue companies are taking advantage of the system breaking down. Can we have a debate in Government time or a ministerial statement about what action will be taken on the court backlog to get everyone the justice that they deserve?
Mark Spencer
Of course, one of the contributing factors in getting people to court is a decent transport system. If the transport system is not running, how can people get to court? We recognise that, post covid, there is a challenge in our health service and in our courts system. That is why we have introduced a quarter of a billion pounds to support the court recovery. The spending review provided an extra £477 million to the criminal justice system. We will also increase funding for the victim and witness support service to over £192 million by 2024-25. That, of course, is on top of the billions of pounds that the health and social care levy is pouring into our NHS to deal with post-covid challenges.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
Last month, I attended the Eastgate sheep show, which, due to covid, happened for the first time since I was elected. Later in the year, I will attend the Weardale show at St John’s Chapel, the Stanhope show and the Walsingham show. Will the Leader of the House join me in welcoming the fantastic news that these shows are starting up again? Will he consider joining me at one of them—given his farming background, he would be a great addition—and provide time for a debate on these shows, which are a vital part of life in our rural communities across Britain?
Mark Spencer
Actually, that is worthy of a Backbench Business debate or an Adjournment debate. This year, I have had the privilege of going to the Newark and Nottinghamshire show, and I hope to attend the Royal Welsh show this year. Hon. Members not in their places may be at the Lincolnshire show, which is taking place today.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Last week, my teenage constituent Jacob Naismith from Blantyre won in the final of the GB three nations boxing tournament—a great win for Scotland. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Jacob on his impressive achievement and schedule a debate in Government time on the value of youth sporting clubs in developing talent such as Jacob’s?
Mark Spencer
I am delighted to join the hon. Lady in congratulating Jacob on his achievements, and also the coaches and support teams of such clubs up and down this country. Whether it is rugby, boxing or football, there are thousands of volunteers who stand on the touchlines or around the rings watching these individuals develop their skills. These sports are great for people’s physical health and also great for their mental health.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Last time Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs mileage rates went up over a decade ago, the average price of a litre of unleaded petrol was about £1.20. It is now more like £1.90, so can we have a statement from the Chancellor, ideally at Treasury questions next Tuesday, about what can be done to bring mileage rates in line with the true cost of fuel?
Mark Spencer
Of course, there are challenges given the global fight against inflation that we are engaged in, which is why the Chancellor of the Exchequer reduced fuel duty—a huge tax cut—with £5 billion of tax reductions. I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be at the Dispatch Box once again very soon, when the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to challenge him directly.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Just yesterday, representatives of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and of the all-party parliamentary groups on refugees and on international freedom of religion or belief held an event marking the very grim milestone of 100 million people across the world who have been forced to flee conflict due to persecution. The meeting also highlighted the number of judges—and we met one of them yesterday—and vulnerable minority groups who are still stuck in Afghanistan, despite the UK’s Afghan citizens resettlement scheme. Would the Leader of the House make time for a debate on how we can best protect vulnerable groups in Afghanistan, which is very much in our minds today because of the earthquake?
Mark Spencer
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have just had an urgent question on Afghanistan. I know he was present for it, and was once again saved up right till the end. I do not know why we save the hon. Gentleman till the end. He is like the No. 24 on the Advent calendar—the little treat at the end. I pay tribute to him for all the work that he does on religious persecution, and I know that he knows that there are many options available to him to continue to raise the profile of the causes he holds so dear.
Point of Order
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not often raise a point of order, but I always try to be constructive and helpful, and I notified the Speaker’s Office of my point of order and spoke to the staff as well. I ask in a most respectful manner, and I make this point in a very helpful fashion: could you give me some guidance?
As someone who is absolutely engaged with and adheres to the processes and traditions of this House—I love the traditions in this House—can anything be done to increase the time for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs oral questions? The Department covers a massive issue and the time is always over-subscribed. It does not get the full time that other departmental questions get, and I believe it warrants additional time due to the sheer volume of right hon. and hon. Members trying to engage, but unable to do so. I very respectfully ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker: is there a way of doing that?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. It is actually the Government who set the timetable. He could have raised this in business questions this week, but he might like to ask the Leader of the House the same question next week, and I am sure he will be as helpful as he can be in his response.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mark Spencer)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would be welcome to seek a conversation with the Chair of the Procedure Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), who may be in a position to assist him in looking at these matters in more detail.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Excellent. There are lots of options there.
Backbench Business
Heart and Circulatory Diseases (Covid-19)
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of the covid-19 pandemic on people with heart and circulatory diseases.
May I say how pleased I am to have this debate in the main Chamber? It was originally earmarked for Westminster Hall, where most of my debates are—indeed, probably all of them—but on this occasion I have kindly been elevated to the main Chamber, and I am greatly humbled to have this opportunity. I spoke to Mr Speaker’s Office this morning to thank the staff for that. I understand the reasons for it, but the reasons do not matter: we are here, and that is the important thing. I am very pleased to be able to participate in this debate.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for taking on the opportunity to have a debate in this Chamber; as he well knows, had he not been so flexible the House would be rising now. He has enabled the House to continue, and on behalf of the Backbench Business Committee I thank him. Of course, his season ticket is honourably renewed.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kindness. The Backbench Business Committee is kind to everyone who applies for a debate, so I am always very pleased to do so, and on a regular basis. It will not be too long before I am back looking for more debates.
On this debate, I put on the record my thanks to the Committee. I am pleased to see that Members from across the House are involved, although I am mindful that today right hon. and hon. Members have many other engagements that mean they are unable to be here, even though the debate is in the main Chamber.
It is just over two years since the start of the lockdowns, and a little more since the pandemic first arrived. Life changed for everyone—I do not think there is anyone in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland who did not have a life-changing moment—and for some of us it may never be the same as it was. It will never be the same for those who have lost loved ones; that is very real for every one of us. Some of the changes that took place due to the pandemic and covid-19 were cosmetic, but others have been life changing, and it is those changes that we need to address.
I want to say a massive thank you to all the doctors, nurses, auxiliary staff and cleaning staff—there are so many to name—who have been outstanding. There is nobody in this House who does not know some of them, has not spoken to them and does not also want to put that on the record as well. I thank them at the beginning of this debate.
During lockdown, barriers and obstacles to providing care for heart patients and all patients rocketed. I know that happened across all health departments, but in particular I thank the British Heart Foundation and the Stroke Association for all the information, detail and evidence they sent to me and others for the debate. We are very pleased to have that.
Some of those efforts by doctors were heroic; I do not use that word often, but on this occasion it is a word that aptly describes their efforts. Despite those heroic efforts of doctors, nurses and other key workers in our health systems, however, we have seen cardiovascular services disrupted so greatly that people are still feeling the effects today.
I am beyond thankful for every NHS staff member who went ahead with emergency surgeries. The reality of life for elected representatives is that we do not get many people coming and saying, “Thank you very much for that.” We get the complaints, but that is what we do. We are a conduit for their complaints and concerns. Some of the people were waiting for emergency surgery were not sure whether they would pay a price for that, so again for that I sincerely say a big thank you.
We are all aware of the waiting lists, reduced access to primary care and the pressures on urgent and emergency care. They all have real consequences for people’s health. That is why hon. Members pushed for this debate and why we are so pleased to have the opportunity to hold it today in the main Chamber. I feel incredibly privileged, honoured and humbled to be able to present this case—not for me, because I am not important, but on behalf of our constituents who have experienced hardship because of those things.
Those problems have also had real consequences for families’ lives, their relationships and the happiness of their families. Very often, the issues for those who were ill reflected back on the families, who were under incredible pressure to deal with circumstances that would be difficult to deal with normally but that, with covid-19 and the pandemic, escalated even more. There are 11,000 people living with heart or circulatory diseases in my constituency. I know the Minister does not have responsibility for Northern Ireland, but I will provide examples from Northern Ireland that are relevant across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. There are 2,000 stroke survivors and 13,000 people who have been diagnosed with high blood pressure.
Long waits, difficulty accessing routine medical services and long ambulance response times make life more difficult for the 7.6 million people living with heart and circulatory diseases in the UK. I mention those issues not as a criticism, but to highlight them and raise awareness. Ambulance response times in many parts of the United Kingdom, including in my own constituency, have been difficult, as have been the waiting times outside accident and emergency departments, with ambulances in place. That is happening not just in Northern Ireland but elsewhere, as I am sure other hon. Members will confirm.
Someone in the UK dies from a heart or circulatory disease every three minutes. This debate has been going for six minutes, so that means two people will have died from heart disease since it began. By the time the debate is over—it is a stark headline, unfortunately—as many as 20 people will have passed away. That statistic reminds us of the fickleness of life. It also reminds us of what this debate is about and why we are here. Someone is admitted to hospital due to a stroke every five minutes. Indeed, someone will have been admitted to hospital since this debate began. Two thirds of patients leave hospital with a disability. Stroke as a standalone condition costs the UK economy £26 billion annually, yet it is largely preventable and recoverable.
I look forward very much to hearing the response to the debate from the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup). I know she is very committed to her job and has a deep interest in it, so I look forward to what she has to say in response to the questions we will ask her today. I also look forward to hearing from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), who is a good friend and with whom I seem to be in debates all the time. If we were not in the Chamber today, we would be in Westminster Hall.
Northern Ireland Chest, Heart and Stroke highlights that there were 15,758 recorded deaths in 2019. That is some figure and it is worrying. The top three causes were cancer, circulatory diseases and respiratory diseases; together, those accounted for 64.3% of all deaths in Northern Ireland. That figure reminds us of just how fickle life is and that we are just a breath away from passing from this world to the next. They have been the three leading causes of deaths since 2012. Deaths due to chest, heart and stroke conditions, when combined, are the No. 1 cause of death, at 36%. As I said earlier, that reminds us why this debate is so vital and why we look to the Minister for a response that can help us, encourage us and give us some hope for the future.
These are some of the most prevalent, serious and life-altering conditions that anyone could have the misfortune to suffer from. They touch everyone’s lives, be they in Northern Ireland, where my Strangford constituency is, Scotland or Wales—or England, with whose health matters this House is primarily concerned. I also very much look forward to hearing from—I apologise; I should have said it earlier—the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) on behalf of the SNP. She has a deep interest in health, too, and I look forward very much to her contribution.
Every one of us has a neighbour, a friend or a loved one who has problems with their heart. Those problems do not halt at any border. They do not even, dare I say it—rather mischievously, perhaps—stop at the Irish sea border, which is able to prevent most things from crossing over. What prevents them from getting the care they need? The most obvious issue is undoubtedly waiting lists, which are at record levels. One of the questions I would like to ask the Minister—I always ask such questions constructively; that is my way of doing things—is: what is being done to reduce waiting lists and to provide some hope? According to NHS England, only this month the queue for NHS care stood at 6.5 million, the highest number on record ever. The number of patients waiting more than a year to be seen has increased to 323,000, which is a massive number. These are record levels as the health sector recovers from the impact of the pandemic.
Although the pandemic has hugely affected waiting lists, the issue predates the pandemic. At the start of 2020, around 30,000 people were waiting more than 18 weeks for cardiac care. This problem was not caused by covid, but it was exacerbated and worsened by covid. If it was bad before, it is much worse now.
The pandemic has had a seismic effect. In April 2022, two months ago, 170 times more people in England were waiting more than a year for heart procedures than in February 2020. I look for an indication of how we can reduce that number, and I know there is a strategy. I am putting this constructively, because I believe there are ways to do it, and the hon. Members for Denton and Reddish and for Motherwell and Wishaw, other Members and I are keen to hear what they are. Waiting lists for cardiac care have also hit record levels, rising to 319,000 people. In Northern Ireland there are 31 times as many people waiting more than six months for cardiac surgery compared with the end of 2019.
And it is not only life-saving surgery, as some of this surgery is about people’s quality of life. Waiting times for echocardiograms, a kind of heart ultrasound used to diagnose a range of conditions, have risen, too. More than 170,000 patients were waiting for an echocardiogram at the end of April 2022, with 44.6% of them—almost half—waiting more than six weeks. That is a 32% increase on the year before. The covid-19 pandemic has increased those numbers, and I am not blaming anyone for that, but we need to address these issues, both as a Government and collectively, in a way that gives succour and support to our constituents.
In Northern Ireland, the number of people waiting more than six months for a cardiac investigation or treatment reached a new record in March 2022. That is the responsibility of Robin Swann, the Health Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly, and I know he has taken steps to try to address it, but this is a general debate about how we address heart and circulatory diseases across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland following covid-19.
Nearly three quarters of people in Northern Ireland waiting for an echocardiogram have waited longer than the recommended clinical maximum. A number of worried, heartbroken family members have come to my office to say that covid is killing their loved ones, even though they did not have covid themselves. The delays were and continue to be a threat to life. Covid-19 does not seem to result in the number of hospital cases that it once did, which is good news.
Although an echocardiogram is not open-heart surgery, delays still cause increased anxiety for patients and delay the treatment they need. Taken as a whole, cancelled operations risk a rise in avoidable deaths and disability, and they cause anxiety and put physical pressure on people with heart problems.
What can we do about this? The British Heart Foundation is watching this debate, and I thank it for giving me most of my information. I also have a staff member who is qualified in this, and she has given me some information, too. I am proud to work with the British Heart Foundation, which has welcomed the additional funding for the NHS and the announcement that 95% of patients who need diagnostic tests will receive them within six weeks by 2025. It is good news that we have a target but, with respect, that target is a few years away. We need to consider how we address the situation over the intervening three years. The foundation has also pushed for an accompanying Government strategy for cardiovascular disease to take us beyond recovery and address the problems that existed before the pandemic.
With all that in mind, we need to think about how we can do better and support those who need help today. The NHS long-term plan identifies cardiovascular disease as
“the single biggest area where the NHS can save lives over the next 10 years.”
If there is one issue I would love us to tackle, it is how we can save lives. I am ever mindful of the statistic I cited earlier that every three minutes someone dies as a result of heart problems. If we can save lives, that is what we want to be doing. We know that the NHS is doing all it can to deliver cardiovascular services, but without a properly funded cardiovascular disease strategy, it cannot meet its targets and deliver adequate care. When will a strategy be put in place to address the issues in the short term?
What else would such a strategy address? Cardiovascular diseases have many and varied impacts on patients, who need different forms of care as a result. Access to primary care is integral to the identification and management of heart conditions. When people cannot access primary care, opportunities to prevent heart attacks and strokes are lost, and more problems are caused for those who are already under pressure. How do we address that issue?
A 2021 survey of 3,000 heart patients found that 12% had a routine medication or condition review cancelled or rescheduled in the first year of the pandemic. I understand that the pandemic was not the Government’s fault; the Government are to be complimented and thanked for how they responded to it, because we are all beneficiaries of the vaccination programme and it is probably why some of us are alive today. However, the cancellation or rescheduling of routine medication or condition reviews explains the longer waiting lists. Four patients in 10 have had appointments cancelled or rescheduled more than once. I know people back home who have actually fasted for an operation and then been told that it would not go ahead, which has caused anxiety and worry.
Health Foundation analysis shows that 31 million fewer primary care appointments were booked between April 2020 and March 2021 than in the previous 12 months. The pandemic has also had an impact on how patients with heart and circulatory disease interact with primary care. Some people say that there are lies, damned lies and statistics, but statistics prove a point: there were 5 million fewer face-to-face GP appointments in 2020 and in 2021 than in 2019. We understand the reasons why, but we have had a lot of debates in this Chamber and in Westminster Hall about GP appointments, and there is not one of us who would not wish for the number of appointments that we once had. My constituents tell me that, and I am anxious and keen for appointments to return.
Many people welcome the flexibility and safety that remote appointments bring, but they can mean that healthcare professionals lose the opportunity to collect information that they usually gain through physical examination. Constituents have told me that their ailments and problems would be better assessed physically. The quicker we move back to physical assessments, the better. Someone cannot really be diagnosed at the other end of a Zoom call; they can say what their issues are, and by and large the doctor may get a fair idea, but in many cases it takes a physical examination. The situation is no one’s fault, but it may lead to a delayed or even missed diagnosis of a condition such as high blood pressure. I take a Losartan tablet for my blood pressure every day; I was told by my doctor not to worry about it, but after he told me I would have to take it every day, he said, “By the way, you can’t stop it.” At that stage, I realised that it is necessary to keep me on the straight and narrow and keep me breathing, so perhaps in a small way I understand the need to control blood pressure.
We do not know for sure how many missed diagnoses there have been but we do know that the NHS issued 470,000 fewer prescriptions for preventive cardiovascular drugs between March and October 2020 than in the same period of the previous year. The Institute for Public Policy Research forecasts that if those missing people with high-risk cardiovascular conditions do not commence treatment there will be an additional 12,000 heart attacks and strokes in the next five years. I ask the Minister what is being done to find those who have not been prescribed these preventive drugs over the last period of time, mindful that the unfortunate end result of that is more heart attacks.
This is a ticking time bomb, and we need to defuse it if we are to meet NHS long-term plan aspirations to prevent 150,000 heart attacks, strokes and dementia cases by 2028-29 and, more importantly, if we are to be able to look those families in the face. Behind every person who dies of a heart attack there is a grieving family; we know that probably personally and certainly from constituent cases. As the Good Book says, we have threescore years and 10; we might get less than that or we might get more, but one thing we do know is that our time will pass. We must address the issue of preventing heart attacks, strokes and dementia.
At least half of the 15 million adults in the UK who have high blood pressure are undiagnosed. We all need a bit of stress; it is part of life, and I thrive on a bit of stress, but we can only take so much and it is important to find the right balance. Many of those with high blood pressure are not receiving effective treatment. It is vital to find people early and support them to manage cardiovascular risk factors such as atrial fibrillation. The Automated External Defibrillators (Public Access) Bill was introduced in the House not long ago, with support from all parties; I hope the Government will support its progress so its measures can be introduced in health and education settings. Finding the people with conditions early is vital; we must try to help people manage conditions such as raised cholesterol and hypertension so they can longer and healthier lives.
However, we cannot do that if we do not know who they are, which shows that data is important; it comes up in almost every health debate I participate in. To be fair, the Government and the Minister understand this, as data helps to focus on the right strategy and develop it in a constructive way based on evidence. I ask the Minister to put on the record where we currently are in relation to the collection of data, as it will point the way forward.
Some patients do not need to be found, however, as they or a loved one call 999 because of a medical emergency. For cardiovascular conditions, that normally means they have had a heart attack or stroke. A fast response that gets the right person to the right hospital department at the right time in an ambulance can be the difference between life and death. The newspapers often present examples of ambulances not arriving in time for whatever reason and people passing away. Unfortunately, in England the average response time in May for a category 2 emergency such as a heart attack or stroke was almost 40 minutes; we must do better. The target is 18 minutes; it is not being met.
I did not manage to source the corresponding data for Northern Ireland, but I know personally of one 70-year-old lady who had called believing her husband was having a stroke. She was told to give him an aspirin to chew and that the ambulance was delayed. She was then told in another phone call, which was fairly frantic, that if possible she should bring him herself to hospital, so she dragged him to the car—he is a fairly big man—and arrived at the hospital crying and begging passers-by to help. This man was diagnosed with some form of hernia which presented like a heart attack, and I thank God for that because he could have died waiting on the ambulance and then waiting on his elderly wife to trail him to a car and on to a hospital; that is simply not good enough.
Owing to the scale of current ambulance and A&E delays, we will see more disability and deaths from heart and circulatory disease that could otherwise have been avoided, but if we can avoid them—if we can do things better—the debate will have achieved its goal. This is happening despite NHS workers and paramedics going above and beyond the call of duty to help those in need. I used the word “heroic” earlier, and I use it again now. It is not a word that is taken out of context when I apply it to those workers. Ambulance delays are the symptom of a system that is under immense pressure at every level. Problems in one part of the NHS affect other parts. Problems with accessing primary care lead to more emergencies, which means that, again, there is a greater demand for ambulances.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech, and I commend him for securing the debate. He mentioned the waiting times for category 2 emergencies. A constituent of mine lost her mother because the ambulance took more than an hour to arrive. This is a heartbreaking situation, and no family should have to go through it. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need urgent action to improve ambulance attendance times?
Jim Shannon
I certainly do, and I am sorry to hear of the passing of the mother of the hon. Lady’s constituent. If the ambulance had arrived earlier, perhaps she would be alive today. That example is probably replicated throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; I know that it is in my constituency, and indeed elsewhere. Perhaps when the Minister responds to the debate, we will hear some indication of how this could change.
A holistic response is needed. The NHS cannot begin to address this crisis, the very crisis to which the hon. Lady has just referred, without significant help from the Government—again, I look to the Minister—in the form of a cardiovascular strategy covering the whole patient pathway, as has been called for by the British Heart Foundation, which is also calling for a similar strategy in Northern Ireland. While the BHF wants the strategy in England, of which the Minister will be aware, to be replicated in Northern Ireland, I suspect that the same applies to Scotland and Wales.
The UK strategy, at its core, needs to address the issue of the workforce. Just as workforce shortages are key to issues involving waiting lists, access to primary care and ambulance delays; solving those shortages must be key to the response. I know from statements that Ministers have made, both in the Chamber and in Westminster Hall, that they are committed to increasing the number of nurses, doctors and other staff in the NHS, and the figures are certainly very encouraging. We have not yet reached the targets of 50,000 nurses and 20,000 GPs, but the Minister may be able to give us some timescales and some idea of when the Government hope to achieve those targets.
People who are at risk of cardiovascular diseases, and those already living with them, are supported by a diverse range of health professionals—paramedics, cardiographers, and specialist cardiac nurses—but the 2021 “Getting It Right First Time” cardiology report estimates that the NHS is short of nearly 100 consultant cardiologists; there are currently about 1,700. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us when those 100 vacancies will be filled. I ask these questions with the aim of being constructive and ensuring that our constituents throughout this great nation have a better idea of what is going to happen. It is said that we also need 760 new cardiac physiologists to meet the demand over the next decade. Is there a strategy and a recruitment plan? If there is, we will be greatly encouraged. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Margaret Greenwood
I thank the hon. Gentleman for being so generous with his time. He has talked about shortages, and how we should plan for the future. A number of my constituents have written to me about the financial difficulties experienced by medical students, particularly during the final two years of their training. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government really need to come up with a plan to protect and support student doctors, so that we can have the workforce that we need for the future, and ensure that people from all backgrounds can have a career in medicine?
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Lady for that helpful intervention. I am glad that she mentioned that: it should have been in my notes and she has reminded me. We do need to have a plan to help those students who wish to pursue a future vocation as consultant cardiologists. If we can recruit them now, it will take three, four or even five years before they are ready. I am not sure whether it is the Minister’s responsibility, but perhaps she could give us some idea of whether there is a plan to give students some financial assistance. I have asked the question before, and the answer would be very interesting. If people make a commitment to staying in the NHS for that period of time, perhaps the Government can make a financial commitment to them.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech and I am listening to it carefully. Doctors take between 10 and 15 years to become consultants once they have graduated, and they stay in the NHS for two years for the foundation levels. Many GPs are doing face-to-face appointments, and some departments are doing amazing work, such as St George’s Hospital in Tooting which is looking after a huge number of my family who have Brugada syndrome, a sudden death syndrome that affects the heart. I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising awareness of the issue: there are some very good things going on in the NHS at the moment.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Lady is right. There are some remarkable consultants, and we should be greatly encouraged by that, but I want to highlight some of the shortfalls and look to the Minister and the Government for how we can take that forward. I mentioned a timescale of three, four or five years, but I accept that 10 or 15 years is more realistic.
We greatly underestimate the number of heart failure specialist nurses required to deliver the NHS long-term plan. The recommendations do not consider the full extent of covid-19 backlogs and national recovery targets, meaning the shortages are likely to be even more pronounced now than they would have been before.
More generally, the number of full-time, fully qualified GPs in England decreased by about 6% in the five years between 2016 and 2021. Full-time equivalent district nurses have reduced by 45% between 2010 and 2021. Seven out of 10 practice nurses work less than full time, and around a third are aged over 55.
I accept that the Government have committed to recruitment, but the issue is how the shortfall can be made up. Without a workforce capable of meeting demand, heart patients are at risk across the entire patient pathway, from the moment they dial 999 to when they find themselves in limbo waiting for specialist treatment. The NHS is publishing its long-term workforce plan in the autumn, and that must address shortages at specialty level. We need to know where the gaps in the cardiac workforce are so that we can address them. Perhaps the Minister can give us some idea of where we are in relation to that.
I am also interested, as a Northern Ireland MP who is principally based in this House, in the discussions that take place with the regional Administrations. The shadow Minister from the SNP will speak shortly and I am sure she will give us—as she always does—good information and the evidential base for what is happening in Scotland. I am always keen that all the Administrations come together with their knowledge and information, whether from Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or England, so that we can swap ideas on how to do things better. I am keen to hear what is happening in that regard.
We also need to know where the gaps are regionally. While one postcode area may be exceptional, others may not be. While there might be a shortfall in England, we need to know what is happening in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. The number and type of cardiac health workers is not spread evenly across the UK. The greatest number and range of workers is concentrated in large urban areas in England, meaning that many rural areas find themselves at a disadvantage. I hope the Minister can give us some idea of what can be done to improve the situation. The areas with the most workers are not necessarily the areas with the highest rate of cardiovascular diseases, or the poorest outcomes. We need to reappraise how that is done.
The British Heart Foundation is conducting a research project designed to further pinpoint gaps in the cardiac workforce and predict where they may come in future. I wish the BHF all the best as it carries out this vital informative work. That research project might be helpful to the Department; I hope the Minister will be able to tell us what discussions she has had with the BHF on that.
If we address the issue of workforce, we can start addressing waiting lists, primary care and ambulances, and start saving more lives. Let us not forget that the NHS long-term plan identified cardiovascular disease as the single biggest area in which the NHS can save lives over the next decade. We all want to save lives and if there is a way of doing so, the Government need to grasp that. This House and our constituents need to see a clear plan.
So there we have it—I have encapsulated the debate over a bit longer time than I thought I might, but it is an important issue. We need a UK Government strategy specific to cardiovascular disease that addresses the cardiac workforce crisis, the disparity across the United Kingdom and provides sufficient resources for the delivery of cardiac services.
Cardiac care cannot wait, because those suffering from cardiovascular diseases deserve better. In this place, every one of us can be a part of life-changing post-covid changes for the better. I hope that today’s debate is another step in that programme to change things. I look forward to the contributions from other Members. I thank those who have already intervened. I look forward to the responses from the shadow Ministers and especially to that from the Minister.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
We come to the SNP spokesperson, Marion Fellows.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this important debate and for his passion in delivering his speech today. We all know and value the work he does to raise issues for his constituents here and in Westminster Hall. I also thank Chest Heart & Stroke Scotland and the British Heart Foundation for the valuable work that they do.
I start by pointing out that NHS Scotland is and always has been independent; NHS England or the NHS in Northern Ireland do not cover Scotland. We have always done things slightly differently, but work well in conjunction with the other health services.
Heart disease remains a major cause of death and disability in Scotland, accounting for more than 9,000 deaths each year. Ischaemic heart disease, which can lead to heart attack, is still Scotland’s single biggest killer, responsible for 11.2% of all deaths in 2019 and 25,000 hospital admissions every year. In March 2021, my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) spoke in a Westminster Hall debate on patients with heart failure, emphasising that the most important factor in such diseases and premature deaths is poverty. Within their limited powers, the Scottish Government are doing everything they can to help those in poverty in Scotland by such measures as mitigating the bedroom tax, introducing a baby box to give a good start to every baby born in Scotland, and introducing other benefits to those qualifying, including a best start grant, pregnancy and baby payment, and the Scottish child payment. These are all designed to improve life chances for people, and especially children, living in Scotland. If we keep the weans well, they will continue with good outcomes further on in their lives.
The covid-19 pandemic has been a worrying time for many folk, especially if they already had a pre-existing condition such as heart or circulatory disease. There is no doubt that covid-19 has impacted some groups more than others. It is an unwelcome reality that communities experience health, quality of life and life expectancy differently. Having a heart or circulatory condition probably does not make someone more likely to catch coronavirus, but if they have a heart condition, it can mean that they could get more ill if they catch it, so anyone with a heart condition is considered at an increased risk of more severe complications, and someone who is over 60 years old has a particularly high risk. The covid vaccine—we have to emphasise this—is safe for people with heart and circulatory conditions. Getting the vaccine is one of the main things that people can do to reduce the risk of becoming seriously ill from covid-19, as well as getting a booster shot when offered. During the first lockdown period of the pandemic, there was a deferral and reduction of services, including diagnostics, access to specialist support in the community, and cardiac rehabilitation. This needs addressing across the United Kingdom.
I am pleased that the Scottish Government are taking action on tackling heart disease in Scotland and have published an updated heart disease action plan. The covid-19 pandemic has brought the need to address heart disease in Scotland into even sharper focus, having had a significant impact on people with heart disease and on the services that support them. The heart disease action plan sets out the Scottish Government’s vision of minimising preventable heart disease and of ensuring timely and equitable access to diagnosis, treatment and care. The vision of the plan is to minimise preventable heart disease and ensure that everyone with suspected heart disease in Scotland gets what they need. We need to identify ways to support people with the emotional and psychological impacts of heart disease, giving as many people as possible access to specialist support, including vital rehabilitation services, and, where necessary, supporting access to palliative care. Addressing inequality will be monitored and considered carefully throughout the implementation of the plan. In Scotland, one of the things we are really good at is listening to a wide range of voices in efforts to create pathways and reshape models of care. The use of technology and care closer to home has also been vital to maintain care throughout the pandemic and has important lessons for delivering person-centred care in future.
Cardiovascular disease is one of the main causes of death and disability in the UK, but it can often be largely prevented by leading a healthy lifestyle, and the Scottish Government are supporting people to make healthier choices. It is not always good to talk about what has happened but good rather to think about how we can prevent it happening in future. Many people in Scotland live with cardiovascular risk factors such as high blood pressure or high cholesterol that place them at increased risk of heart disease or stroke. Health-harming products—alcohol, tobacco and unhealthy food and drinks—contribute to widening of health inequalities. Improving diet and levels of healthy weight is a public health priority. The Scottish Government are taking wide-ranging action to support healthier choices, as they have set out in “A healthier future: Scotland’s diet and healthy weight delivery plan”. The Scottish Government are shifting the emphasis from dealing with the consequences of obesity to tackling the underlying causes, which includes: ending poverty; supporting fair wages and families; and improving physical and social environments. The Scottish Government are committed to introducing during this Parliament a Bill that includes powers to restrict the promotion of food and drink that are high in fat, sugar and salt. They have long advocated that TV and online advertising of foods high in fat, sugar or salt should be restricted to give children the best start in life. The SNP welcomes the fact that the UK Government have now moved in line with the Scottish Government’s position, although it is disappointed at the delayed implementation.
The Scottish Government’s tobacco control action plan sets out the priorities for reducing smoking rates to 5% or less by 2034. Their alcohol framework sets out priorities for preventing alcohol-related harm, and it contains 20 actions, building on existing action to change Scotland’s relationship with alcohol, including Scotland’s world-leading minimum unit pricing policy.
The Scottish Government are investing in health and are committed to significantly reducing health inequalities. There is no doubt that covid-19 has had a disproportionate impact on people living in areas of socio-economic deprivation. The Scottish Government’s programme for Government includes commitments to improve life expectancy and to tackle health inequalities.
The Scottish Government are committed to ensuring appropriate staff resources and training to deliver timely and equitable services across Scotland for people with heart disease. Under the SNP, Scotland has record health funding: a total health portfolio funding of £18 billion, with resource funding up over 90% in cash terms under the SNP since 2006-07. Frontline health spending is £111 higher per head in Scotland than in England. That is important because the Scottish Government recognise that we start from a lower base of good health, and they are committed to improving health. As I have said, disease prevention is a big factor.
We now have higher staffing per head than NHS England. We have a record number of GPs working in Scotland, with more per head in Scotland than the rest of the UK. The Scottish Government’s NHS recovery plan, which is backed by more than £1 billion, sets out plans for health and care over the next five years. They are creating a network of national treatment centres, increasing capacity for more than 40,000 additional planned elective procedures and diagnostic care across 12 different specialities. They are also targeting improvements designed to maintain the 31-day standard and achieve the 62-day standard on a sustainable basis. They are also scaling up the use of NHS Near Me, which is a really good initiative and supported by £3.4 million a year. They are providing general practices and their patients with support from a wide range of healthcare professionals in the community. My own GP practice uses such healthcare professionals and it is really effective.
The Scottish Government also recognise the negative impact that long covid can have on the health and wellbeing of those affected, so they are spending more money to improve the care and support available for people with long covid across Scotland. The Scottish Government’s chief scientific officer is funding nine Scottish-led research projects on the longer-term effects of covid-19, which will also impact on those with heart conditions and circulatory diseases. Does the Minister agree that what the Scottish Government are doing will help people with heart and circulatory diseases, and will she consider emulating their actions?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the shadow Minister, Andrew Gwynne.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—I call him my hon. Friend because he is my friend—not only for securing the debate but for his skilful, seamless segue from Westminster Hall to the main Chamber. I join him in paying tribute to all those who work in our health and care system—from doctors and nurses through to porters, cleaners and cooks. They all keep our health and care system going, and we thank each and every one of them for the work they do.
As we heard from the hon. Members for Strangford and for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), who leads for the SNP on these matters, the issue of health inequalities cannot be ignored. The hon. Gentleman talked about postcodes and the workforce not being spread equally, and those health inequalities are not spread evenly across the UK. The hon. Lady mentioned some endemic health inequalities in parts of Scotland, and the same is true of every part of the UK. The maps of deprivation, of certain black and minority ethnic communities, of income levels, of education levels, of obesity and of smoking prevalence can almost be overlaid, and directly correlate, with those for the conditions that we are talking about. Those health inequalities and how we tackle them must be at the heart of everything we do, whether we are talking about the UK Government and their health policy for England, or the devolved Governments across the nations of the UK and the work they do to tackle these same health inequalities in the communities we represent. Health prevention must be at the core of what we do, and I am grateful for the insight the hon. Lady gave on the work of the NHS in Scotland and the insight that the hon. Gentleman brings on the work of the NHS in Northern Ireland. I am a big fan of the Marmot way of looking at health inequalities and how we tackle the social determinants of health. If we get that prevention policy right, we tackle the very conditions that we are talking about.
The pandemic piled massive pressure on the NHS, and indeed the motion is on the impact of the covid-19 pandemic on people with heart and circulatory diseases. But these problems did not start with the covid pandemic. They have been exacerbated massively by it, but I am afraid that we are now seeing the consequences of 12 years of Conservative Government in England: soaring waiting times, an acute staffing crisis and the worst levels of patient satisfaction since the 1950s. We went into 2020 with the NHS in crisis, and the pandemic ruthlessly exploited and exacerbated the failures. As the Culture Secretary recently admitted, a decade of Conservative rule left our NHS “wanting and inadequate” before covid hit. That is nowhere more apparent than in cardiac care. At the start of 2020, 30,000 people were waiting more than 18 weeks for cardiac care. That was already an unacceptably high figure, but it has ballooned by an unbelievable amount in the last two years. Now, 319,000 people are on an NHS waiting list for cardiac care—that is 319,000 individuals anxiously awaiting essential care, worried for their future, worried about their health and worried about their lives.
Cardiac care is time-sensitive. For example, patients with severe aortic stenosis—I will put my teeth in to say that—who are treated within two years have a 50% chance of survival, but that falls to 20% after five years. Every day that the Government fail to act, more patients face worse outcomes. About 15 million adults in the UK have high blood pressure and about 270,000 people over 65 have undiagnosed atrial fibrillation. What does that mean? It means we are sitting on a ticking timebomb, and unless we pre-emptively support people to manage cardiovascular risk factors, the system will come under even more pressure. I urge Ministers to work relentlessly to get a grip on this crisis. They need to come to terms with the fact that, on their watch, cardiac care has been allowed to falter. It is maddening that in these circumstances the Government have not set out a robust strategy for cardiac care and how they plan to address these really important issues. When the Minister comes to the Dispatch Box, will she commit to a timeline for that strategy, or will we hear more warm words with precious little action?
I want to reiterate concerns raised about urgent and emergency care. We now know that the average response time for a category 2 emergency, such as a heart attack or stroke, is more than double the target of 18 minutes. In some parts of the country, it is far, far worse than that, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) . Does the Minister agree that no one suffering from a heart attack or a stroke should have to wait 40 minutes or more for an ambulance? If so—I am sure that she does, as we all do in the House; nobody wants to see those failings—what discussions have she and her colleagues had to sort it out? This is a crisis on multiple fronts, and I am afraid that we need action rather than words.
From the moment a patient dials 999, they are being systematically failed. As we know, our NHS staff are heroes. Without them, the system would have buckled under the weight of incompetence and indecision during the pandemic, but they are fighting an uphill battle and the Government are letting them do it alone. That needs to change.
There is also a failure to acknowledge the role that prevention plays with health and social care. The Government have cut public health budgets here in England—that happened before the pandemic, and it is just not acceptable—and it means that only half of adults over 40 are attending regular health checks, which were introduced by the Labour Government in 2009. Those health checks have provided crucial evidence for spotting diseases early on, not least cardiovascular disease. With the fall in health checks, many opportunities to spot avoidable problems are being missed, especially among people from disadvantaged communities as I and the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw outlined earlier. Indeed, the disproportionate impact of covid-19 showed starkly just how unequal a country we have become in health terms.
We also have huge numbers of people reporting difficulty in accessing primary care, as the hon. Member for Strangford referred to in his contribution. Some 40% of surveyed heart patients or those at risk of cardio- vascular disease had their appointments cancelled or rescheduled more than once. In 2019, the Prime Minister promised the British public that he would deliver 6,000 extra NHS GPs. Instead, numbers have gone down—another broken promise to add to the never-ending list of broken promises that define this Tory Government. Will the Minister explain to the House why the target is not being met and explain to patients why they are waiting longer than ever before?
We know from the Getting It Right First Time national cardiology report that the NHS needs 760 new cardiac physiologists and almost 100 consultant cardiologists to meet anticipated demand. Again, I reiterate the concerns raised about urgent and emergency care, because we need those staff in place. We need that workforce.
Mrs Drummond
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but how does he then account for the fact that in Labour-run Wales the waiting lists are even longer? I think 21% of the population are now on the waiting list, and that has extended dramatically, far more than in the NHS in England.
Andrew Gwynne
As we discussed at the start of the debate, the NHS is four systems that work together. We are here in the UK Parliament to hold the UK Government to account for the NHS in England. In terms of the NHS in Wales, the Welsh Government receive a block grant, as indeed do the Scottish Government, and they decide how to spend that money themselves.
There are some great things about the Welsh NHS, not least its leading the way on public health issues across Wales, and we can learn things from there, but I want to ensure that the promise about GP access that the hon. Lady’s Government made to the people in my constituency in England is kept. That is why I posed that point to the Minister. Again, we need the Government to outline how they plan to fill those vacancies and whether the workforce plan, when it finally materialises, will include speciality-level data and strategy to fill those gaps.
We in the Opposition have been clear. Labour would put patients first and sort out the mess that the current Government have left our NHS in. The last Labour Government brought waiting lists down from 18 months to 18 weeks, and we would do that again—[Interruption.] The Comptroller of Her Majesty’s Household, the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), chunters from the Front Bench, but I remind him that, while patient satisfaction is worse today than it has ever been and our waiting lists are some of the highest in NHS history, when we left office, patient satisfaction was the best it had ever been and waiting lists were among the lowest in NHS history. That is our record and I am proud of it.
That progress has been undone by this Conservative Government. Again, we are on standby to step in and protect our NHS. But we would focus on prevention. That prevention would improve outcomes and guarantee access to GP services for those who need them. We would publish a robust and comprehensive workforce strategy, and transform pay and conditions in the process. As part of that, we would support the hundreds of thousands of cardiovascular patients who are anxiously awaiting treatment. We would support health and social care staff who are shattered and demoralised after carrying us through the pandemic, and we would build an NHS that was resilient, accessible and fit for the future.
At the heart of that is a public health agenda that will seek to resolve the health inequalities that are endemic in too many parts of the country, where those health conditions are holding back the life chances of the constituents we represent and causing misery, poverty and pain. That is why a holistic approach to public health, and within that a strategy to deal with heart and circulatory diseases, is crucial. I hope the Minister understands the real importance of that. We stand ready to support her while she is in Government to get the strategy right, but getting that strategy right is crucial.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maggie Throup)
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this important debate on heart and circulatory diseases. It is vital that we keep those serious diseases on the agenda. As he alluded to, many of us have personal reasons why that is so important. My mum had two heart attacks in her 60s, though she survived another 20 years thanks to the NHS, and my father had a debilitating stroke that took away his ability to speak and to walk independently. I also thank, as the hon. Gentleman did, the charities that support patients in their time of need and continue to support their families—a huge thank you to all those charities.
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that cardiovascular disease is a key priority for NHS England. One of the ambitions in the NHS long-term plan is to raise awareness of the symptoms of CVD and ensure early and rapid access to diagnostic tests and treatment. NHS England has a programme of work to support this ambition, which is overseen by the national clinical director for heart disease and supported by an expert advisory group of clinical professionals across the country. That work remained a priority during the height of the covid-19 pandemic. Like other hon. Members, may I take the opportunity to thank all the dedicated NHS staff who worked hard to maintain services, despite the incredible challenges presented by covid, and are now working hard to restore them? Urgent hospital cardiology services were maintained throughout the pandemic.
In February, the Department of Health and Social Care and the NHS published our delivery plan for tackling the covid-19 backlog of elective care. The plan sets out a clear vision for how the NHS will recover and expand elective services over the next three years, including for cardiology. To further reduce patient waiting times, we have committed £2.3 billion to increase the volume of diagnostic activity and roll out at least 100 community diagnostic centres by 2024-25, which will provide services to support the earlier diagnosis of cardiovascular disease, including physiological measurement tests such as echo- cardiography, electrocardiograms, pathology tests and CT and MRI scans. Some £1.5 billion is committed towards elective recovery services, to roll out new surgical hubs and to increase bed capacity and equipment. That includes surgeries and treatment for cardiovascular disease.
NHS England has also established a cardiac pathway improvement programme, which is taking an end-to-end approach to the restoration of cardiac services that will deliver improved prevention, early and accurate diagnosis, reduced waits and best practice treatment and enhanced recovery. People with heart failure will be better supported by multidisciplinary teams as part of primary care networks. Greater access to echocardiography in primary care will improve the investigation of breathlessness and the early detection of heart failure and heart valve disease.
Stroke services across England also continued to provide rehabilitation and post-acute services to stroke survivors during the pandemic. In part, that was helped by innovative methods of care delivery; clinical teams used virtual rehabilitation alongside face-to-face contact to ensure that every patient got the treatment and support that they needed, and 80% of patients reported positive or very positive experiences. However, we recognise that many people will want face-to-face rehabilitation. To that end, the NHS will deliver personalised, needs-based and goal-oriented stroke rehabilitation to every stroke survivor who needs it, in their place of residence. This will be a lifetime offer with annual reviews, recognising that a patient’s needs will change over the course of their life. The national stroke service model, which was published in May 2021, summarises the gold standard of care across the stroke pathway and advises providers and commissioners on how each element of the pathway can be improved, including how services can ensure that 90% of stroke patients receive care on a specialist stroke unit.
I would like to reassure the hon. Member for Strangford that preventing CVD from developing in the first place is a key priority. One of the aims of England’s NHS health check programme is to prevent heart disease. As the Labour spokesman, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), referred to, the programme was largely suspended between April 2020 and February 2022 as a result of the pandemic and in line with national guidance from NHS England. An estimated 2 million people will have missed out on an NHS health check as a result, of whom an estimated 500,000 would have been found to have raised blood pressure and 400,000 would have been found to be at risk of a heart attack or a stroke in the next 10 years. Data for July to September 2021 indicates that local areas had begun to recover the service, with 136 of 152 local authorities reporting some level of activity. However, the number of checks offered and delivered over the period is about 40% of what was reported prior to the pandemic.
The Office for Health Improvement and Disparities is supporting local authorities to recover the health check service, including by showcasing local delivery models that demonstrate innovative approaches to reaching people at higher risk of CVD and by working with local authorities to pilot a digital NHS health check that enables people to self-complete an NHS health check at home, including cholesterol sampling.
In addition, NHS England is working with doctors and other health professionals to support patients with heart disease through the roll-out of the NHS@Home scheme. This self-management scheme enables patients with heart disease to look after themselves in their own home. Patients will be supported to understand their medications, record daily weights and blood pressure and recognise symptoms if they deteriorate. It is anticipated that that will lead to a reduction in hospital admissions, increased quality of life and improved patient and carer knowledge of managing their condition.
Members will be aware that high blood pressure can lead to heart failure, and I am pleased that NHS England plans to increase support for people at greater risk by increasing the number of people who have access to remote blood pressure monitoring and management. That will particularly apply to people with high blood pressure who are from ethnic minority backgrounds, as well as those who are clinically extremely vulnerable, from areas of higher deprivation and aged 65 years or over. This intervention will allow people to monitor their blood pressure from home, avoiding a trip to their GP practice by communicating the results to their primary care clinician via a digital platform or phone call to the practice.
GPs also have an important part to play in reducing cardiovascular disease. The quality and outcomes framework is an annual voluntary incentive programme for GP practices in England, and it contains indicators promoting high-quality care for patients with coronary heart disease or with a diagnosis of heart failure.
For the two years of the pandemic, general practice was required to release capacity to support the pandemic response and to agree an approach to prioritising care for the most vulnerable patients. QOF was reinstated in full from 1 April 2022. That means practices will be paid based on their performance, including on the indicators relating to coronary and circulatory disease, which will ensure practices are again incentivised to deliver this care.
Our upcoming national vaccination service, announced by the Secretary of State in January, will bring together all the innovation, learning and good practice from the covid vaccination programme to deliver life-saving vaccinations. We are also keen for the service to offer people wider prevention services as they are jabbed, by taking the opportunity to have conversations about their health and lifestyle, to offer public health advice and impromptu health checks, and to signpost those who may need further investigation to wider NHS services. Making sure every contact with the NHS counts can help us to spot diseases such as CVD early and ensure people get the right advice and support to hopefully prevent more serious disease.
The hon. Members for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) and for Strangford talked about ambulance times. The number of ambulance support staff has increased by 38% since 2010. The NHS has been provided with additional funding to address the current situation, which we know is not acceptable. NHS England and NHS Improvement are providing a range of support, including targeted support and additional funding for hospitals facing the greatest delays to help with the pressures both now and in the future. NHSE and NHSI have tendered a £30 million procurement contract for an auxiliary ambulance service.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish talked about health disparities. He will know—I do not think he has any doubt—that I am determined to tackle this issue. It is something I am very passionate about. Very shortly, we will be publishing our health disparities White Paper. We need to tackle obesity, smoking, alcohol and drugs, because they are factors that impact on people’s health, including, disproportionately, cardiovascular disease.
Margaret Greenwood
I am pleased to hear the Minister’s commitment. Will she then support an increase in universal credit by £20 a week? Poverty has a huge impact on people’s physical wellbeing.
Maggie Throup
I think that question should be directed at the Treasury, not the Department of Health and Social Care.
If I may continue to address questions raised, I am pleased to say that our target of 50,000 more nurses is on track for 2024. My hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond) made the very good point that it takes quite some time to train our amazing healthcare professionals, particularly those who are highly specialised, such as in cardiology. She also highlighted the disparity in waiting times. In England, 11.6% of the population is on a waiting list, but in Labour-run Wales, as she rightly said, the figure is 21%. We have to be careful when we make comparisons and try to criticise one nation over another. Everybody is trying their utmost to get things back on track in whatever way they can, because we know that the population’s health is a priority.
Jim Shannon
One of the questions I asked, in a constructive manner, was about the shortage of 100 consultant cardiologists. I am mindful—this was referred to by another hon. Member—that that training can take 10 to 15 years. If the Minister does not have the answer today, I am happy for her to write to let us know.
Maggie Throup
The hon. Gentleman asks a specific question, so if I may, I will get back to him.
In conclusion, I hope today I have demonstrated the Government’s commitment to improve the lives of people living with heart and circulatory disease. Our commitment is there. If we can continue to make an impact on the lives of people with these conditions with better prevention, diagnostics and treatment, it will bring significant benefits to the NHS and better health outcomes for those affected. We can all agree that that really matters. Once again, I thank the hon. Member for Strangford for bringing this very important issue to the House for debate today.
Jim Shannon
I thank all Members who contributed to the debate, in particular the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) for giving us the Scottish perspective. I always wish to hear, as we all do, what the Scottish Parliament is doing on health. SNP Members often give us examples of how we can do things, which is why I talked earlier about exchanging viewpoints.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), the shadow Minister, is indeed a good friend. Both he and the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw talked about health prevention. That is clearly what I would like to see, too. We all, including the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood), referred to the ambulance shortfall. The Minister gave us some encouragement, which I appreciate, with £2.3 billion in the next three years on diagnostic activity, earlier intervention for cardiac, and a lifetime offer of virtual or face-to-face rehabilitation. On ambulance times, there was additional funding also to the auxiliary ambulance service—I think the figure was £30 million. And we are looking towards the 2024 target for 50,000 nurses.
With that in mind, I thank the Minister most gratefully for her response. I will be happy to take some of the other singular issues in a written reply, whenever she has that opportunity. Again, I thank everyone who participated. I thank you, too, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is not often said, but thank you so much for what you do.
Hon. Members
Hear, hear!
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the impact of the covid-19 pandemic on people with heart and circulatory diseases.
DWP Office Closures
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I want to raise the issue of Department for Work and Pensions office closures. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in particular my role as chair of the Public and Commercial Services Union parliamentary group.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I believe you have made representations on behalf of your constituents who are employed in the Department for Work and Pensions. This issue affects DWP staff across these islands. The PCS is the largest trade union in the civil service, representing 180,000 members, with workers throughout the civil service and Government agencies, including 50,000 members employed by the DWP. They are concerned, as hon. Members across the House are, about the DWP’s announcement of 17 March 2022 that more than 40 of its processing sites are to close, which we believe has the potential of putting more than 3,000 jobs at risk of redundancy.
There are three categories of processing site closures. The first is where the site is closing and the work will not be consolidated anywhere in the vicinity. I understand there are 13 sites in that category. The second category is where the site is closing but work will be consolidated into an office that the DWP has deemed is within the vicinity, which I understand is 28 sites. The third category is sites that were originally announced as transitional, which will be retained in the short to medium term but will remain badged as transitional. That is eight sites.
Despite the initial assurances given by Department Ministers at an urgent question I secured, the real concern is that we were told that the closures would not impact frontline services, but a further announcement, on 30 March, was for the closure of five jobcentres. That is very concerning and seems to be the latest push by the DWP to implement its network design strategy, which will put jobs and services at serious risk, and there is concern that the latest announcements could signal further jobcentre closures.
The PCS parliamentary group is clear that, following the previous closures under the people and locations programme, these closures will have a devastating impact on the services that staff provide and the local communities where the offices are based. They are a serious threat to DWP staff jobs.
On 17 March, when the original announcement was made, there were 1,118 staff in processing sites that will close without the work being consolidated within the vicinity and 7,341 staff in sites where the work is being consolidated into other offices. The speed at which the Department is operating and has moved to issue “at risk of redundancy” letters to staff across 25 of the 43 sites vindicates the concerns that many of us have that jobs will be lost as a result of the closures.
While some of the sites in the second category are seeing work moving into buildings that are very close by—the Falkirk and Preston sites, for example—other offices that the DWP has classed as being in the vicinity, and so plans to move staff to, are actually some considerable distance away. That includes the proposal to move the Doncaster office to Sheffield, which you will be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, is 22 miles away. In many of the offices, one-to-one meetings have taken place with members of staff and it is clear that many will not be able to move; it is therefore certain that many DWP staff will be faced with the very real prospect of redundancy.
There are two processing sites in Wales due for closure from a previous round of closures, where staff have also been confirmed as at risk of redundancy as part of the 16 June announcement. That is because there are more than 120 staff based across the two sites who are unable to make the long journey to the proposed new office. The offices are closing in two tranches. On 16 June, the Department for Work and Pensions announced that, of the 29 sites in the first tranche, at 25 sites a total of 903 staff were at risk of redundancy. We believe that at the remaining 14 sites, which are due to be closed on a slightly slower timeline, similar numbers of staff are likely to be at risk of redundancy.
Chris Stephens
No Adjournment debate would be complete without an intervention from the hon. Gentleman.
Jim Shannon
Adjournment debates do not usually come this early in the day, Madam Deputy Speaker, as you and I know, but none the less we are very pleased, and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on coming forward with it. He is assiduous when it comes to these issues, and I thank him for that. I think the whole House should thank him for it, by the way.
Coming from a rural constituency, with intermittent public transport as well as an intermittent internet and mobile service, I know that centralisation or closure of services is never a good suggestion for people in isolated areas. I know the hon. Gentleman is referring to towns, but does he agree and will he call on the Minister to consider, where this is possible, the suggestion of having satellite offices in rural areas such as where I live as well as in the centralised urban areas he has mentioned?
Chris Stephens
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention because I have family members in his constituency, as he knows, so I am well aware of his constituency. He raises a very important point about satellite offices, but there is also homeworking. We were told that homeworking was a suggestion, but it seems now that the Government want to force people away from working at home into offices—only the Government are now closing these offices, so there do seem to be some mixed messages from the Government. I do thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He makes a very important point, and I hope the Minister will respond to it.
On 16 June, a voluntary redundancy scheme was offered to those staff at the 25 sites identified as being at risk of redundancy. Most of these closures are based on plans originally drawn up in 2016 and announced in 2017, and they are seriously out of date. The sites chosen for closure have, according to the Department, been selected after not just looking at the condition and suitability of buildings, but considering the potential impact of taking work out of locations that score more highly for economic deprivation.
However, many of these closures do not seem to make a lot of sense if their impact on the local economy has been taken into account. Many of these closures are in areas of economic deprivation that can hardly afford to lose good-quality public sector jobs. For example, 29 of the 41 processing sites are in constituencies that have higher than the national average claimant rates, and 18 of the 33 England office closures are in constituencies rated in the top 100 most deprived constituencies in the country. I do not call that levelling up.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) has done a survey of businesses near the Springburn site, which is earmarked for closure. It makes interesting reading, and I will take a moment to mention what has been identified in that community impact assessment. There are many businesses that staff at the Springburn site use. The off-sales, where people may perhaps buy a bottle of wine before they go home for the evening, and the Chinese restaurant next door, have concerns about the closure of that office.
The local florist is very concerned because the staff use that service, the local pharmacy has concerns about the closure and the local butcher has made representations about the closure of the Springburn office. That is the very real impact, just in Springburn alone, that such office closures will have on the local economy. It seems—perhaps the Minister can confirm this—that the overriding reason for many of these closures is that the Department for Work and Pensions has itself let the buildings in which it is located fall into major disrepair.
Let me now turn to concerns about the lack of opportunities to redeploy staff. When offices have been closing, Ministers have sought to reassure Members that staff will be redeployed elsewhere in the DWP or in other Departments whenever possible. However, the potential for redeployment elsewhere in the civil service has become less likely following the Government’s announcement on 13 May, through the press and without consultation with staff or trade unions, of their plan to cut 91,000 civil service jobs. The DWP’s decision not to make permanent thousands of staff on fixed-term appointments will, I believe, have come as a blow to staff as well as service delivery.
Under the recent permanency exercise for 12,000 work coaches who joined the Department on fixed-term contracts, only 9,300 have been offered permanent posts. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us whether those who are not among the 9,300 will be offered permanent employment in the DWP. Not all the posts have been offered to staff in their preferred workplaces, so they face making significant journeys if they want to continue their employment with the DWP.
The current position is that 1,400 full-time equivalent staff are on a waiting list but are being told that their contracts will end on 30 June 2022. Other FTEs have not been put on the waiting list and have been selected out of the process, despite having joined the DWP on the basis of fair and open competition. If this position does not change, it will lead to significant shortfalls in staff in jobcentres and DWP offices, which face staff reductions of up to 5,000. That will lead to increased workloads, place greater pressure on existing staff, and have a detrimental impact on the services that the public receive from the DWP. We believe that it makes no sense to threaten experienced staff with redundancies when the Department needs more staff, not fewer, to deal with higher workloads. If these closures and job cuts are allowed to go ahead, we will face the absurd prospect of staff being made redundant in one area while new staff are recruited in another to do the same job. That would be both costly and inefficient.
There is also the issue of the buildings. I understand that the Department aims to rationalise its estate, taking into account matters such as hybrid working, making offices fit for the future, and considering the green agenda as it reviews existing offices. I am told that all offices will be looked at, including jobcentres, and that the Department wants to ensure that everyone is working in an office that is of good quality.
The employers seem to believe that much of the DWP’s existing estate is no longer fit for purpose. They will seek to leave sites that are no longer suitable and relocate in new premises in the vicinity where they want to maintain a presence, overhauling some sites and closing others where they believe the DWP no longer needs to be located. They also seem to believe that having fewer, bigger buildings is a more efficient way of running the Department, although, as we heard earlier from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), that will not necessarily always be the case.
However, many of the processing sites are based in buildings from which the DWP will still operate. For example, jobcentres remain in the same location in Doncaster, a site that could easily accommodate the 300-plus staff that the DWP considers to be the minimum number to make a building viable. It will not be possible to sub-let parts of the buildings that it will be vacating, so we question the sense in making experienced staff redundant only for the part of the empty office space that they have vacated to—potentially—become unused. One such example is the Gloucester jobcentre at Cedar House, where only one part of one floor is being vacated and more than 40 staff who are unable to move to Worcester have now been identified as being at risk of redundancy.
The Department and Ministers have claimed that the estate programme is in support of the Government’s commitments on sustainability and net zero carbon. However, these plans are likely to lead to staff having to travel further to work as a result, which in turn would lead to more carbon emissions. No doubt the hon. Member for Strangford would agree with that, given his earlier intervention. It is also worth considering that the DWP is not totally vacating many of the buildings in question but has not said whether it plans to invest in making these buildings more energy-efficient in future. There is little evidence that the DWP is doing anything to improve the rest of its estate. Much of the remaining estate is similarly unsuitable and unsustainable. We also have concerns that not all the buildings the DWP proposes to move staff to will be able to accommodate the numbers.
That brings me to the issue of equality impact assessments. The restrictions on the equality impact assessments have been lifted by the Department and they are now available in the House of Commons Library. However, there are concerns that the equality impact assessments have identified that there will be groups disadvantaged by the closures but said very little about what is being done to mitigate those impacts. The assessments were produced before the one-to-one interviews were conducted with staff facing closure of their offices. It is likely that this process would further confirm the impact on people with protected characteristics.
Women form a significant majority of the DWP’s workforce, on some sites constituting over 75%. There are no tangible mitigations offered in these documents that are likely to compensate for the clear detriment that women face from this office closure programme. People with disabilities, particularly if they impair their ability to travel to work, are likely to face disproportionate impact from office closures as they will have to travel, in some cases by making significant journeys, further to work.
The DWP aims to mitigate the impact on disabled staff by exploring reasonable adjustments and flexible working arrangements. However, this is unlikely to provide sufficient mitigation as the Department is currently not prepared to fully embrace working from home as a redundancy avoidance. I am sure that people in Strangford and other rural parts of these islands have benefited, and Departments have benefited, from staff working from home, particularly those in the DWP, where there was a huge increase in the number of universal credit claimants, for example. DWP staff should be congratulated on the work that they did during that period and should not now have to face their offices being closed and the prospect of redundancy.
In some sites—for example, Hackney—there is a high percentage of staff from ethnic minority backgrounds. The proposed solution inevitably means longer travel at greater expense if they are able to relocate, which is a clear detriment for those impacted. In Blackburn, 36% of staff have been identified as being ethnic minority. Despite this, the DWP’s analysis is that there is no evidence to suggest that they will be negatively impacted. We believe that that analysis is flawed. There are high proportions of part-time workers, who are more likely to be carers, in many of these sites. Again, there is little by way of mitigation offered to those workers.
We are aware that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the permanent secretary invited a limited number of staff to attend a meeting on 26 May 2022 that they addressed with a presentation of the departmental plan for 2022-25. Once again, the DWP and Ministers have gone to staff without proper engagement with the trade unions. I would suggest that there should be full and proper consultation with the trade unions on the detail of a plan that has huge implications for trade union members, DWP staff and the public they serve. The plan identifies a cut in funding for staffing resources while at the same time introducing more work. It suggests a 12% cut in funding for staff over the three-year period. It also suggests a 16% increase in payments for universal credit, legacy benefits and pensions. This can only mean more work for less staff.
We want to see the Department take a realistic approach to a likely surge in demand for services as the impact of the war in Ukraine and the fall-out from the pandemic devastate the economy. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer many of the points that have been raised on this office closure programme and the concerns that we have for DWP staff, who deliver a great service. I hope that she will be able to confirm that there are no redundancies for those staff.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I am checking whether anyone else present wishes to speak; there being time, I cannot stop that. Excellent; no Member has risen to their feet, so I call Minister Mims Davies.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) for securing the debate and for his immense interest in this issue, and I also note his register of interests declaration, but I want to take this opportunity to reassure him that there are currently no planned changes that would affect his constituency.
I have very proudly held the role of employment Minister at the Department for Work and Pensions for almost three years now and I greatly recognise the tireless efforts of our workforce up and down the country. From St Austell to Loughborough to Forres, I visit offices and meet staff regularly, and hear at first hand their experiences and some frustrations with the poor quality buildings, some of which have no proper kitchen facilities for example, but in which they are nevertheless delivering truly excellent DWP services.
Our staff are always positive and focused, and this was especially noticeable during the pandemic when their agility and commitment shone through as thousands of DWP staff were redeployed to process new claims, which doubled in a matter of weeks. This was a truly heroic effort, resulting in payment timeliness for our claimants remaining incredibly high and, vitally, vulnerable people receiving the support they needed in their time of need. I am proud and immensely grateful that our DWP Jobcentre Plus offices remained open throughout the pandemic for the most vulnerable.
Importantly, this transformation needs to be viewed alongside the significant recent investment in DWP frontline services. Since the start of the pandemic we have —or, rather, I have—opened 194 new temporary additional jobcentres as part of our rapid estate expansion programme to support our Plan for Jobs. We have also recruited 13,500 new work coaches in order to provide our claimants with the tailored face-to-face support they need. This new boost to our DWP workforce has played a leading role in delivering on our vital plan for jobs, getting people back into work and transitioning into growing sectors as we focus on building back better. I am incredibly proud of the over 163,000 young people under 25 most at risk of long-term unemployment due to covid impact who took advantage of the life-changing ability to take up a first job through the kickstart scheme and our brilliant Way to Work scheme which is on track to get half a million more people into work this year.
I want to strongly reassure Members here today that staff are being fully supported throughout this modernisation. While we are right-sizing our estate and making the DWP a better place to work—which is at the heart of this—we understand, and I very much do, that a change of work- place can be unsettling for people. However, we are committed to our plan of making our estate smaller, greener and—importantly, as we have seen with covid—more resilient.
These new sites will enable further progression and career opportunities due to larger teams being able to come together, meaning staff can more easily move between business lines and react to operational requirements, with more support in these larger cohorts. The support we are offering to our teams—to our people—absolutely includes regular one-to-ones with line managers about the impacts and confidential advice and support through the employee assistance programme, as well as CV and job application support if needed.
The DWP is absolutely committed to continuing to deliver for our customers, families and the economy. We need to continue to work positively with our teams to modernise and transform the way we deliver our service. As the hon. Gentleman says, that builds on the approach that was announced back in 2017. I am always struck by, and thankful for, just how positive and willing our DWP teams are to embrace the new changes and the challenges that we face in such a large operational Department. We believe that that means that we will drive better experiences for claimants and employees alike by building increased resilience in modernised and, crucially, higher quality sites, which will also reduce fraud and error.
These actions will generate savings for the taxpayer, which is the right and responsible approach that the Government must adopt, considering the fiscal position that we face. Given the recent increase in the cost of living, driven by global demand shock, the impact post covid and Russia’s unacceptable invasion of Ukraine, we are always looking for opportunities across Government to make taxpayers’ money go further. In reality, for the DWP, that means taking the decision to exit oversized, poor-quality estates when opportunities or—as in this case—lease breaks arise, making our public services more efficient and space-saving where we can.
Chris Stephens
I join the Minister in praising the supreme efforts of Department for Work and Pensions staff over the past couple of years, but why should those who will find it difficult to travel 20-odd miles to another site because of transport issues or disabilities face the prospect of losing their job? That seems to go against everything the Government claim to want for disabled customers, for example.
Mims Davies
I am trying to give some context and to reiterate to the hon. Gentleman that the DWP is the biggest public service Department. The current issue is that we occupy 20% of the civil service estate. It is right that we seek to reduce our footprint while committing to retain what makes us great—I absolutely agree with him about that—in our national presence, which means that we can deliver locally for our customers. I think that hon. Members will find it helpful if I provide some numbers to illustrate the point and, I hope, answer some of the hon. Gentleman’s questions.
The DWP currently operates from more than 920 buildings. In March 2022, it employed just over 92,000 people, but based on recent estimates, our buildings have the capacity for more than 158,000 people. More than 60% of our buildings are 30 years old or more; 3.3% of them currently meet the top two energy performance certificate ratings. The Department is committed to occupying only A and B-rated buildings by 2030. To answer one of the hon. Gentleman’s questions, we will be investing in the quality of the remaining estate, making sure that our buildings are the right places for our people to work. I believe that that will please him and those he represents.
The modification to a better estate will generate significant gross savings: it is estimated that £3.5 billion will be saved over a 30-year period, with ongoing annual savings of £80 million to £90 million realised from 2028-29, supporting the delivery of efficiency savings across Government. Importantly, we are bringing in a better quality of workspace for our employees, as the hon. Gentleman and many of our workers have requested. It is important to stress that the estates-driven rationalisation programme is ambitious in terms of how we reshape the DWP and how the Department works. I recognise the impacts on people, but it supports the ongoing modernisation and transformation that we also need to provide for our people to create career progression.
These changes will also support those Government priorities of fewer and better-quality buildings, investment in the condition of buildings, the future sustainability of the estate and, above all, our commitments to net zero. It is also about ensuring, vitally, that the Department maintains a footprint in Scotland and Wales and shows a firm and vital commitment to our precious Union. [Interruption.] You have to let me have that one. We are supporting our places for growth programme by committing to roles outside of London. It also supports levelling up. We are committed to retaining a presence in some of the most deprived areas throughout the nation and regions and creating career opportunity for our people.
Chris Stephens
It is good to see the Department for Work and Pensions preparing itself for an independent Scotland, but that is not the point I want to make. The point I want to make to the Minister is on areas of economic deprivation. Some of these offices will be closing in areas of economic deprivation—I am thinking of Springburn in Glasgow, for example, and I have raised the concerns that the businesses have—which seems to go against the levelling-up agenda. How would the Minister square her argument with the fact that offices in areas of high economic deprivation are closing?
Mims Davies
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, and I will go on to say how we are managing this and the opportunities that hybrid working affords us and our staff and how it supports caring and other responsibilities that people may have. I also draw back to the point of the nearly 200 new jobcentres—we are also heading towards 200 new youth hubs—that the DWP has invested in and brought forward as part of our plan for jobs. We are looking at a small part of a very large moving picture of a very large operational Department. For those affected, of course, this situation is concerning. The Department intends to make progress and during this pending review period, we have to set the foundation of the modernisation and transformation I have described.
Let me take the hon. Gentleman through the situation in Springburn in Glasgow, where 138 people are moving to Atlantic Quay. As part of the first tranche of conversations, all of the one-to-ones have been completed. I reassure him that only one of those 138 people is currently at risk. If people continue to live in the area, they will continue to spend in the area, especially through hybrid working.
On the question of fixed-term appointments, 8,800 permanent positions have been confirmed, with more offers. We have had to safeguard the opportunities for permanent staff, with 500 more offers—I do not know the exact number; it is around that number but it is a moving picture. I am trying to give the House an idea. We are continuing to engage with the attrition we have with an older workforce and with people looking to progress and stay, but we are also trying to make sure that those who have come in and given their all to the Department get the opportunity to stay with us.
To respond to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I will take him through the issues in Northern Ireland. The areas are operated, as he will know, through the Department for Communities, and the sites affected are GB-only. Homeworking was a covid business-related opportunity measure. Hybrid working is absolutely there. It is not our preferred operating model for the DWP—our people need to be face-to-face with our claimants, and that is very important—but we have opportunities in terms of GB for outreach and help through the flexible support fund and partnerships within our local communities, and that is something I encourage. The DWP is not only in jobcentres; it is working in youth hubs, it is partnership working and it is supporting communities in a completely different way—not everyone will come and meet us in a jobcentre.
The recent additional JCP closures mentioned by the hon. Member for Glasgow South West are not related to the wider network design. However, the Department is taking opportunities over the coming years, as I have said, to improve incrementally our jobcentre network and the quality of the buildings both for colleagues and for customers. For example, we should get those jobcentres into town centres and on bus routes. We should use the opportunity to take forward some of those new temporary jobcentres, which offer better quality buildings and, above all, a better quality working experience.
Let me turn now to hybrid working. The Department has introduced hybrid working, where colleagues are expected to spend 40% of their time in the office. It is anticipated that this will help those colleagues who may need to travel a little further to get to their new sites. Relocating individual teams into current roles or into existing smaller offices does not fit. What we do not want to do is create more smaller offices. We are trying to create hubs of 300 to 500 plus people. As I have said, those hubs work well in terms of people being able to pivot into the operational needs.
Chris Stephens
That was a helpful response to my questions on hybrid working. Does that suggest that all redundancies can be completely avoided if there were an offer of either hybrid or home working for staff? Is that the Department’s intention?
Mims Davies
Let me take the hon. Gentleman back to the point that I just made with regard to Glasgow Springburn. A total of 138 people are moving to Atlantic Quay. In terms of the one-to-ones, only one person is at risk at this point. This is, of course, an ongoing process of conversations around the redeployment, retraining and retaining of staff. We have an ageing workforce. We need to future-proof things and look after people and bring them forward. As I have said, this is only one moving part of what we are doing with our 92,000 people.
Drawing on that, the DWP is taking advantage of shifts in post-covid expectations around customer service delivery—not at the expense of face-to-face work—making use of the opportunity of estate lease breaks in 2023 to enable the Department to achieve its future service delivery aspirations. I want to reassure hon. Members that our people are at the heart of this transformation and that their needs will not be overlooked. The transformation is being delivered in two tranches over the next 18 months. Where possible, if an alternative strategic site has been identified, subject to colleagues’ ability to move to that new site, they will transfer, in their current role, to that new site. Where no consolidation site is available, all efforts—I reiterate the words “all efforts”—will focus on retaining and redeploying colleagues.
I have consistently reassured hon. Members, whose constituencies are affected, that the driver for this programme is not a reduction in our headcount. Where possible, colleagues in offices that are due to close are being offered opportunities to be redeployed, or retrained so that they can undertake a new role in the DWP, or be offered opportunities with other Government Departments. We are currently working with 15 other Government Departments, which are madly keen on having those people with DWP operational experience join them. Absolutely, we note that recent announcements about the future of the civil service may have caused additional concern. The DWP will consider its response to the challenge and will come forward with its proposals in due course.
Chris Stephens
The Minister has been extremely generous in taking my interventions. She outlined the discussions that she has had with other Government Departments, which is very welcome. Can she outline the discussions that she is having with the trade unions within the DWP, because, as yet, that is not something that she has mentioned in her reply?
Mims Davies
The hon. Gentleman keeps interrupting me. I can assure him that I will get to that in good time. Let me just follow through on this and then I will reply to his question.
Let me return to how we will support those who may be affected by our estate changes. Again, our focus continues to be on the best quality of estate, alongside retaining colleagues and supporting them. We are absolutely determined to continue to follow up on the conversations that we are having with individuals. Around 5,800 individual conversations with colleagues took place in 29 of the 43 affected sites. Pleasingly, following those conversations, more than 80% of colleagues have confirmed that they can move to a new site.
On trade union engagement, consultation is ongoing with the trade unions. Meetings are scheduled for twice a week, and they ensure that appropriate time is dedicated to discussions with the unions about their members’ concerns. In the period from 6 January to date, we have spent more than 65 hours in discussions with the unions, and we are fully committed to continuing that as we deliver the programme’s outcomes. Officials have also arranged a number of deep-dive sessions in consultation with the unions, including one with MyCSP on the civil service compensation scheme. I hope that that allays the hon. Gentleman’s fears about our conversations, which are ongoing, important conversations. I do not want this transformational change to impact our operations and, above all, the morale of our staff.
A clear measure of the success of the DWP’s updated hybrid working is that we have more flexible and inclusive workplaces that are capable of adapting to the needs of employees—those with health conditions, for example—and our customers. That has been welcomed by much of our workforce. In return, as I mentioned, the Department has been able to retain more people by enabling them to commit to moving with their role to an alternative, larger site. At those sites, they will get more training, learning and progression.
On 11 May, the Department started the engagement of redeployment activity for about 1,000 colleagues in the first tranche who were impacted by the closure of their site. The process has already successfully matched more than 100 colleagues with new roles, and it continues to happen on a weekly basis. As a responsible employer, the Department has had to explore all options, including voluntary redundancy. That just might be an option for some, depending again on personal circumstances and on the outcome of our redeployment activity. However, voluntary redundancy is the absolute last resort, and it is boring, but I will continue to say that all our efforts are to retain, retrain and redeploy both within the DWP and in all other Government Departments. We will continue to do that until all avenues have been exhausted. Importantly, the scheme does allow our colleagues to request a quotation to allow them to consider what it might mean for them if an offer is made. No offers will be made until September. Every effort throughout this period is about supporting colleagues with redeployment.
Colleagues will be delighted to hear that I will conclude. Reducing the back-of-house estate’s footprint will deliver value for money for the taxpayer, with significant gross savings of £3.5 billion over a 30-year period. We will deliver better quality estates and better quality working experience and progression opportunities. I hope to have reassured the hon. Gentleman and the House that we at the DWP are doing everything we can to redeploy and support DWP colleagues who are impacted by the modernisation and that they will continue to be fully supported throughout the process.
Question put and agreed to.
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Third sitting)
Thursday 23rd June 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 View all Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 23 June 2022 - (23 Jun 2022)
The Chair
We will now take evidence from Victoria Hills, chief executive of the Royal Town Planning Institute; Tony Mulhall, associate director of the Land Professional Group and the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors; and David Jackson, head of planning at Savills. Before I call the first Member to ask a question, I remind Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill, and that we must stick to timings in the programme motion that the Committee has agreed. For this session, we have until 12.15 pm. Could I ask the witnesses to introduce themselves for the record, please, starting with Victoria Hills?
Victoria Hills: Good morning. I am the chief executive of the Royal Town Planning Institute.
David Jackson: Good morning. I am David Jackson, head of planning at Savills. I also lead our sustainability and environment service, which is called Savills Earth.
Tony Mulhall: Good morning. Tony Mulhall is my name. I am a chartered surveyor and town planner, and I am a senior specialist at RICS, with a particular focus on land matters.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
Q
Victoria Hills: We think the intention to streamline local plans and take some of the bureaucracy out of them is something to be welcomed. We support that. At the moment, it is not clear to what extent the policies are going to be nationalised or not. We know the intention is there, but if you take an average local plan, we do not know—because we have not seen the detail yet—whether, for example, 10%, 50% or 80% of local policies will be effectively nationalised in this way.
In addition to the streamlining—as I say, we are not against the streamlining; if there is an opportunity to streamline, we support that—one of the areas of interest to us is the extent to which the community and, indeed, both Houses of Parliament will be involved in any consultation on these policies, which are very important policies. If they are to be pulled out of the local plans and put into a national framework, we think it is really important that an element of consultation and engagement, both with the community and across both Houses, is included in that. That is not in the Bill as currently drafted, and we think it is important.
I cannot answer the question exactly, because we have not seen the detail as to what proportion of local policies are going to be nationalised. If it were to be a significant proportion, we would be making the case even more for local consultation, engagement, and involvement of both Houses.
David Jackson: I entirely support what Victoria has said. There are some significant prizes to be won if we can streamline the process: speeding up decision making, adding certainty for investors and communities alike, and, through that process, building the prosperity and the flourishing communities that the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill anticipates. But it is in the nature of the planning system and the complex legislative framework that it sits within that there are also downside risks. Victoria has identified those in terms of perhaps less room for discussion and negotiation. I would also put in there the risk of reduced flexibility—we might come on to that under another topic.
The other downside risk I would identify is the inevitable disruption as we go through the transition from the old system to the new system. Indeed, we will see some examples of that, so I think there are some downside risks. Again, I agree with Victoria that we have not seen the detail yet to be specific about the nature of those downside risks in their totality.
Tony Mulhall: I would like to add to that. We take soundings from our members around the country quite regularly. The sense I get is that members would like to see settled national policy and standards incorporated into these national development management policies, so that the same issues do not keep arising and being reconsidered. It is administratively efficient to do it this way, but it is also in line with the levelling-up agenda, where agreed standards and policies should apply to all areas. Many of the issues that are arising to do with climate change apply across the country. It also avoids the criticism that high planning and development standards can only be had in high-value locations.
In that regard, I refer back to a piece of work that we did called “Placemaking and value”, where we looked at exemplar places in the south-east of England. The criticism that we got about that was that a lot of people in the north of England said, “That would not be possible here because we do not have those land values.” It is very important that when we set national development management policies, we recognise what it is we are doing. We are ensuring that the standards apply to all areas and that all areas get the benefit of these standards.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Victoria Hills: I think that any further delay to where we are currently—reminding ourselves that this process of the White Paper initially started back in 2020—is something to be avoided, because it creates uncertainty not only for those preparing local plans, but for those who want to bring forward proposals. We would urge that any changes, including the NPPF, come forward quickly—as soon as possible—to get shot of that uncertainty. It is really important. We have seen the slowdown of local plans already. You will be aware that only somewhere in the region of 60% of local authorities have an up-to-date local plan. There are some really important aspects in the NPPF that we think need to be improved, not least adding in the climate change legal requirement and putting a greater emphasis on that. We would like to see that expedited, and I think that any further delay is not going to be helpful.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
David Jackson: Very briefly, I think that is absolutely right. The Government are now referring to this as a prospectus of changes, multi-level—[Inaudible.] I think in those circumstances, we risk delay. Each component is a crucial part of the overall system. I referred earlier to the complex legislative framework within which planning sits, and it all comes together as a unified process. Any missing component or uncertainty risks being a drag anchor, if I can use that phrase, on the whole system, so we want to see these issues addressed as urgently as possible. Again, we are seeing local planning authorities withdrawing their local plans because of this uncertainty. Given the costs of preparing them, authorities do not particularly want to have to do the process twice. Equally, given the costs that our clients are putting into the local planning process and their commitment to it, any delay is hugely unhelpful.
Tony Mulhall: I would like to add to that. I am particularly watching this in relation to the infrastructure levy, the implementation of which seems to be quite a long way down the line. The delivery of effective infrastructure is such a critical part of the system, so it would be useful to have a clear picture of the timeframe for implementation, given that there is quite a lengthy testing period associated with that as well.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
It strikes me that the levy is not that dissimilar to the current set-up of the community infrastructure levy. Do you think that is fair? If not, what advantage, if any, do you think the levy will provide over the current system? How do you see it operating in practice on complex brownfield sites? Given the ability to vary rates—in the sense that the Government are proposing a new metric for end-use value, not a new flat rate—what will that do for levelling up? Will local authorities in areas with low land value not just set low levy rates that do not afford much public gain?
Tony Mulhall: Yes, that is a concern we have expressed all along. For the last three or four years, we have expressed the view that a concept of land value capture as a way of funding your infrastructure is not adequate in itself. There are lots of areas where there will not be value to be captured, and we would like to see where the funding is for essential pieces of infrastructure.
One of the interesting aspects of the Bill is that the Secretary of State can intervene if they feel that the levy was set too high and will impact on viability. I think something like that should be directly connected to the alternative infrastructure source for that particular area. The funding for the infrastructure needs to be pointed out by the Secretary of State if they decide to reduce the levy. Quite a lot of small areas of the construction and design of the levy really need to be resolved fully. I know there is a consultation coming, but those details will be very important.
One of the main objectives is to capture additional land value, but also to avoid the contentious area of viability being contested at so many different stages in the process. We are very happy to help the Department to devise a system that will be easy to apply. Being easy to apply means that the metrics being used are easily discoverable and not contentious. That is a fundamental part of an efficiently operating taxation system, which is how this is described. What we are dealing with here is not an assessment of viability for planning purposes; these are valuations for taxation purposes.
You asked about two other issues—one was complex brownfield sites. It is quite understandable that the Government would look for a measure to deal with this subject, and I think something like the section 106 agreements will be the natural fall-back position here. Officials often say that it is amazing how derided these measures are until you try to remove them, but there is a logical reason for using a section 106 agreement on complex sites because the developer is in the best position to phase and programme the necessary infrastructure. The question then will be how this is to be set off against the liabilities that would have accrued under the infrastructure levy. Varying the rate is an important aspect as well, and I think it should be retained.
This is quite a complex proposal, and it sounds as if it is intended to be rolled out in phases, to make sure that lessons are learned in operation, as they had to be for the CIL measures. The real question is: will this be the replacement of one complex system by another complex system that we will have to learn and run simultaneously, because there will be a transition period? There is quite a lot to be resolved with regard to the infrastructure levy and we are quite happy to contribute to resolving it, to make it work better.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
The Chair
David, could I ask you to face the microphone please? The sound quality in your last answer was not good, and if you face the microphone, Members may be able to hear your evidence better. Thank you.
David Jackson: I beg your pardon. I think what Tony has said is correct. There is uncertainty around this new system. Fundamentally, it is one tax being replaced by another form of tax. The benefit of the new system is that it is charged on development value. That is a clearer metric than the rather complex viability assessments that led the CIL process, which was front-loaded in that respect and did not take account of changing market conditions, whether up or down. Clearly, there is a benefit in that simplification of the process based on value.
It is welcome that there is flexibility or variability in the system to take account of different circumstances. Complex brownfield sites are clearly very different from greenfield sites, as the question rightly identifies. The most important thing is that new development, new growth and new investment is facilitated rather than obstructed by the system, because none of those good things can come unless development and growth is facilitated. That is beneficial, whether it is by way of taxation, the CIL, the new infrastructure levy or, indeed, the investment that is brought forward through section 106. We started off with some uncertainty around the future of section 106, and one of the most welcome aspects of the legislation is that section 106 is being retained. It gives both developers and the community certainty about when that new infrastructure—whether it be social, physical or other infrastructure—is to be provided.
One area where there is less certainty, so far as we can see at the moment, is where the infrastructure levy is going to be spent. Previously, under the CIL system, we had regulation 123, which set out local authority priorities for investment and how money should be spent. The emphasis in discussions to date has been on affordable housing, but is this investment going to be directed towards other locally set measures? I think there needs to be transparency in relation to that.
Finally, I agree with Tony’s point about the need for road testing. This is complex new regulation. It needs to be road tested by way of pilot schemes before we invite local authorities across the country to invest resources into this complex process.
The Chair
We are now 20 minutes into this evidence session. In the interests of time, I will call the Minister. If there is any time left at the end, I will come back to you, Mr Pennycook.
The Minister for Housing (Stuart Andrew)
Q
Victoria Hills: I represent 27,000 members. Practically, and on a strategic level, we welcomed the Bill, because we welcome the recognition that, rather than having a planning Bill, planning is integral to levelling up and regeneration. That is why we warmly welcomed the Bill: it has elevated the status of planning from being some regulatory thing over there to being fundamentally essential to delivering levelling up. Indeed, we say it is the lead domino; if you get the planning system right, you have the framework and the foundations to deliver regeneration.
That is our starting point. Within that, we have to have a broader conversation—perhaps not today—about how we ensure that local authorities in particular are resourced for the changes. We look forward to the forthcoming consultation on the fees to help to fund some of the additional work. Practically, it will mean that our members are going to be extremely busy—first, with responding to all the consultations, and secondly, moving forward with implementing the new system. There is an urgent need to address the resourcing, as I have highlighted, because local authorities are somewhat struggling at the moment anyway to deliver business as usual.
Some of this will be a bit business as unusual. We have heard that the CIL is potentially a major change. Changing local plans and updating them will take time and resources. It will be a busy period for the members I represent. That said, although we welcome the recognition that planning is integral to levelling up, we do need to have an open and honest conversation with you about how we now move forward quickly to resource local authorities to enable the changes. I hope that answers the question.
David Jackson: Likewise, given the high profile that has been given to the levelling-up agenda, it is very welcome that planning is so closely associated with such an important part of the Government’s programme. We very much welcome that.
For the people I represent, it is difficult to define exactly what the changes will mean, because they are multifaceted. For people I work directly with, there is a lot to get through and understand about the changes, but we are planning professionals and that is what we direct ourselves towards. That is part of our responsibility. For our clients, there is an expectation of a transition period, and that is a process to be navigated through. We are there to help them through that process. I repeat what I said earlier about the importance of trying to get through that phase as quickly as possible so that we can move on to obtaining the key objectives of building prosperity and creating flourishing communities.
On flourishing communities, in the work that we do as planning professionals we become very much associated with and embedded in communities for the period of a project. It is really important that that process of local engagement and projects being opened to the public scrutiny that leads to improvement—[Inaudible.]
The Chair
David, you are looking away from the microphone again and we missed what you said.
David Jackson: Sorry. Public scrutiny is necessary to improve projects and win public trust.
Tony Mulhall: Chartered surveyors provide their services largely at the level of strategic land preparation and development delivery, so they are acutely aware of the increasing risk associated with development projects proceeding. Planning comes with certain risks—in other words, getting a project through the planning system—so it is very important that we have a system that works well in process terms.
From a development point of view, planning is one of the factors. We have huge pressure on costs at the moment. I have here a document that I have just received from the Building Cost Information Service that says that the materials cost index has continued to grow, with annual growth in excess of 20%, and figures say that the cost of complying with the building regulations is around 6%. Those are cumulative risks, and the planning system is just one of those. It is a very important one, and getting it right is very important, but in a development context the danger is that investors will defer making decisions on taking projects forward until they have greater certainty about the regulatory environment they are heading into and that that regulatory environment can be priced, in a sense—what is it going to cost to get through the regulatory environment?
We need to take account of that, and not just in relation to large house builders. They are capitalised very well, but a lot of small and medium-sized enterprises find it extremely difficult to engage with the planning system at a level they can afford. That impacts on borrowing: you cannot engage a lender if you have what I would describe as planning risk associated with your side. These are the realities that our members face in advising their clients.
Stuart Andrew
Q
Victoria Hills: We welcome all those aspects, and particularly the investment in digital transformation and a bit more structure around what that looks like for local authorities so that they can make the investments in digital that are required. We also absolutely welcome neighbourhood planning, and also, potentially, street votes and all that comes with that.
Something equally important that we are strongly advocating for is that virtual planning committees can continue in the way they did during the pandemic. We are seeking an amendment to the Bill for that purpose, because we think it provided an additional aspect to the ways in which communities could be genuinely engaged, particularly for those people who cannot get to committee meetings in the evenings because of their own commitments.
We welcome all the aspects that have been included in the Bill to broaden engagement. Our top two omissions are the one that I started with—involving the community in the national policies—and enabling them to join in via a virtual committee.
Tony Mulhall: This is a really important point. Our experience, and what we get reported back, is that the community does not tend to engage with the plan-making process—people need to get a development on the corner of their street before they become exercised—so it is very important for us to understand what is a meaningful way to get feedback from the community about what it is that they do not like and what is top of their list of what they want.
I am not sure that the plans that we put through have the legitimacy we might expect from real engagement with people, because I think they do not fully understand what the plan is saying. We have seen the kind of developments in neighbourhood planning that were really good but probably did not get to the people who need to participate to improve their local communities. There is an interesting measure in the Bill to facilitate that. I would say that we really need to rethink what meaningful participation in plan making is about, because people are coming away from the production of a plan without much knowledge of what is going to turn up in their neighbourhood.
David Jackson: I agree with that point. What we need is engagement at all levels of the plan-making process, from the SDS—spatial development strategy, the new strategic level of plan making—all the way through. It is down to the profession to go out and do that. That is where the parallel development of the levelling-up agenda, putting planning alongside that as the key delivery mechanism, has some advantages, because it demonstrates exactly the role that planning has in facilitating the benefits that we want to see for those communities. My slight concern is in what I might call the hyper-local, because that allows people to focus just on their immediate areas, but as I say, what we want is a focus across the plan-making portfolio, so that people have that aspiration.
One example of the risk of the hyper-local is footnote 54 in the NPPF, which requires onshore wind turbines to be supported by the local community that is most affected. While onshore wind has overall high levels of public support, a massive drop-off in the delivery of onshore wind has been the result of that particular control. It does not take us away from the need to engage with communities at the local level to win their support, but it does create difficulties—challenges—in that hyper-local environment.
Stuart Andrew
Q
David Jackson: On replacing CIL with the infrastructure levy, the simplification of the infrastructure levy based on value is certainly advantageous. In our experience, we were very engaged in the preparation of CIL on behalf of the Home Builders Federation. We engaged with many local authorities on that basis, and it was indeed a very complex process, looking at viability and trying to project that over a period of time and for a range of development scenarios. That simplification is welcome.
I take a slightly different view on section 106. It goes without saying that where section 106 is engaged, we are dealing in large part with complex, difficult, challenging projects. We have to ensure that local communities have trust in the process and that it will deliver the outcomes they expect to see. Inevitably, there is an element of commercial negotiation, because viability can often be engaged where we have multiple demands on investment in a local community, so it is right that we go through that complex process. I think CIL helps in terms of taking—[Inaudible.] The complexity of section 106 is merely a reflection of the complexity of the projects we are dealing with and the wish on both sides—both the community and the developer—to ensure that the infrastructure that is required to make the project work is actually delivered.
Victoria Hills: We have been very clear that anything that comes in needs to not overcomplicate an already quite complicated system. As proposed, the infrastructure levies will all go through PINS—the Planning Inspectorate —which we think will add more delay and cost to the system. We are advocating for the new infrastructure levies to get directly agreed by local authorities with the Secretary of State or the Department, to take out some of what I think you are alluding to—the horse trading, the negotiation and all the rest of it. Then, there is one discussion between the directly elected authority and the Department, and that gets agreed. You can take months and significant cost out of the whole system by not running it through PINS.
Another important point, which I could not make earlier, is that it is really important to understand how, in simplifying the system, the new infrastructure levy will sit alongside other statutory requirements—not least biodiversity net gain and affordable housing—and how, in simplifying it, it will balance out those quite complex aspects. The requirement for affordable housing has always been the case, but biodiversity net gain was not a thing before.
At the moment, until we see the detail, we are not convinced that it will all be simplified. There are some important complexities to take on board.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
Victoria Hills: We have always been very clear that the way to deliver great places and great communities is through a robust local plan and framework where the local authority has the opportunity to set out their priorities, which could include some of the aspects you referred to. The elevation of the importance of the local plan in all this is welcome. The detail, which we do not yet have, is on to what extent local authorities will be able to carry on delivering priorities through policy, and to what extent they will get pulled out into the national framework.
We support the principle of the local plan being elevated. We recognise that it is the only way you can move ahead with delivering on agendas including net zero, affordable housing and well-designed, healthy homes. If you are going to have policies against second homes, that may well be something to prioritise in your local plan, or in national guidance—the detail is yet to be seen on that.
Whether or not it meets the housing numbers is still an area for debate. The Government are on the record saying that is very much the plan in action. We will be advocating for local authorities to be well resourced, without delay to the national framework, to enable them to get on with the business of producing local plans as quickly as possible, in order to provide certainty for local communities and the development sector, so that it can get on and start planning and then building. It really just relates to the earlier theme of resourcing.
However, there also needs to be no further delay. There is an urgent need to deliver more homes, as we know. The housing waiting list continues to rise, and more and more people are still desperate to have a place of their own. The need continues to grow, so it is important that we move forward quickly on any regulatory reform and that we move forward with a resourcing package—which surely must include bringing up the planning fees as well, to help to move those things forward as quickly as possible.
Tony Mulhall: I totally agree with Victoria’s point about the importance of having up-to-date local plans, and the important aspect in the Bill of being able to combine local authorities so that they better match their functional urban region or their socioeconomic hinterland. That is important because we are spending a lot of time and money squeezing the carbon out of our buildings, but there will not be much point in doing that if we have to drive miles to get to our jobs and schools. It is critical that we have a proper planning system linked with the standards of quality construction that will achieve climate change.
On the point as to whether the measures in the Bill will deliver the target of 300,000 houses per annum, the feedback that I get from our members is “No.”
Rachael Maskell
Q
Tony Mulhall: There are many other factors besides planning that have an impact on the delivery of housing. The market has typically provided a certain level of housing delivery. It has fallen to housing associations and Government to supply what is actually needed. There is a big danger here—we raised this during Sir Oliver Letwin’s review—that if you allow house prices to increase to a certain level, there is nobody who is in favour of them falling. Everybody is invested in them staying at that level. If we continue to have a shortage of supply, which is resulting in price rises, then that is what is pulling up land values. It is the price of the house that is pulling up the value of the land, not the value of the land pushing up the house price.
Those are very important things to understand, because once a certain price level is arrived at in the housing market, nobody is in favour of that falling. Every metric that we are relying on extols the increasing value of property. We need to be very careful about what our expectations are with the affordability of housing if we allow there to be a very tight supply, like there is at the moment. The lending industry is not going to welcome a managed reduction in values. Those are really big issues that are outside of the planning Bill, but are crucial to the delivery of housing.
Rachael Maskell
Q
David Jackson: I will just comment quickly on the target of 300,000 and then come to your question. The 300,000 target is correct; we are in the midst of a housing crisis, so it is right to set that as a national ambition. If we look at vacancy rates for residential property across the country, they are typically very low—between 1% and 2%. That ties in well with what the levelling-up agenda is trying to achieve. If we are seeking to create a stronger economy, then the availability of homes near to the jobs that we are creating is an essential component part of that. Tony was talking about creating sustainable relationships between jobs and homes. We have to boost the delivery of homes, but they have to be related to the availability of jobs and the growth in the economy. As Victoria was saying, the fundamental requirement of the local planning process is to get those balances right and to put in any checks that need to be in place to control the downsides of that—be those downsides secondary homes or whatever else.
Rachael Maskell
In view of the time, can I just move quickly over to Ms Hills—[Interruption.]
The Chair
Order. I am afraid that brings us to the end of the allotted time for the Committee to ask questions. May I thank the witnesses on behalf of the Committee for their evidence? We now move on to the next panel.
Examination of Witnesses
Jonathan Owen and Tony Burton CBE gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear evidence from Jonathan Owen, chief executive of the National Association of Local Councils, and Tony Burton CBE, convenor of Neighbourhood Planners London. They are both appearing via Zoom. Gentlemen, may I please you ask to introduce yourselves?
Jonathan Owen: Good afternoon. I am Jonathan Owen. I am the chief executive of the National Association of Local Councils, which works closely with 43 county associations to support and promote the interests of 10,000 parish and town councils across England that are keen to help with levelling up and address many of the missions that are set out to support the Bill.
Tony Burton: Hello. I am Tony Burton. I am one of the convenors of Neighbourhood Planners London. We are a volunteer-run network, which supports neighbourhood planners in the capital and raises the profile of neighbourhood planning. I can also bring some personal insight, as a neighbourhood planning examiner.
Stuart Andrew
Q
In the previous evidence session, we heard that people often describe planning as something that happens to them. Do you think that the measures in the Bill will increase community engagement in all aspects of the planning process, particularly the development of local plans and other individual planning applications? Do you think that some of the measures, such as the introduction of the neighbourhood priority statements, will help to increase the number of neighbourhood planning groups that might be spread in areas that have been difficult to reach so far?
Tony Burton: Generally, we think the Bill is helpful for communities who want to have more of a say on planning issues. There are one or two headlines. The most pre-emptive one is that the Bill confirms the statutory role for neighbourhood planning, given the uncertainty since the publication of a White Paper that said relatively little about it and that brought forward some proposals that would have shut out community input, such as those at the planning application stage.
The specific measures around neighbourhood planning, and I appreciate that your question goes wider than that, are relatively limited. The adjustments to the basic conditions and the broad definition that has been provided, which is helpful, will not have a significant impact on take-up. They will help to clarify some elements of process. And neighbourhood planning will be caught up in the same changes as local plans, when it comes to the primacy of the development plan and the centralisation of the development of management policies. Again, they need to play out, but much of that is welcome, because it attaches additional weight to the document, and to the time and effort that volunteers invest.
The neighbourhood priority statements are triggering some interest among the groups we work with, but they are also raising a significant number of questions. In our view, if the aim is to support greater take-up, particularly in urban areas, which I know the Minister is keen to see, then more needs to be done. They need to be seen as something that is additional to and complementary to neighbourhood planning, not a replacement for it.
The legislation is quite weak in the weight that needs to be attached to it by local authorities; the “have regard” requirement is weak. We have a decade of experience in London of boroughs not really taking that much notice even of neighbourhood plans, which are statutory documents, so we would like to see a stronger weight attached.
It needs to be confirmed in the legislation, not just elsewhere, that it is about more than informing local plans. We understand that that is the Government’s intention, but the current drafting of the Bill is quite restrictive. We think that it would be really sensible if the Government supported communities to pilot and to try to make all priority statements before the legislation is finalised, so that we get a real sense of what they could achieve.
The disappointment is that the local planning provisions are not more extensive, to encourage wider community involvement. We are about to publish our “The State of Neighbourhood Planning in London” report this evening, and it shows that progress in engaging communities is still being hampered by obstructive local authorities in many cases. Therefore, we believe that if the Bill is to effectively engage communities in leading development, as opposed to responding to it—doing planning, as opposed to having it done to them—it really needs to strengthen the legal duty on local authorities to support neighbourhood planning. It needs to give neighbourhood forums the same powers as parish and town councils in receiving and spending the neighbourhood element of the community infrastructure levy. At a stroke, that is the single most important thing that the Government could do to encourage local planning in cities. The Bill also needs to set time limits on local authorities making decisions on key stages.
The final point we would make is that the Bill itself will not be enough, and that there will need to be support for communities to engage and involve themselves. We would put particular attention on the role of the neighbourhood planning support programme, which is probably the single most important measure available to accelerate community involvement in planning decisions. It could be significantly improved and increased.
Jonathan Owen: I am sure it will not surprise any of you to hear that probably the No. 1 issue affecting 10,000 parish and town councils and 100,000 councillors is planning. That is top of their agenda, and I think it would be fair to say that we need to look at every way we can to make sure that the public are more effectively engaged with the system. We are pleased with the emphasis on a plan-based system—that is right—and public engagement in that planning is absolutely vital.
The main area of interest for us is neighbourhood planning, and parish and town councils have really been in the driving seat of producing those plans. I think there have been about 3,000 so far, with about 90% done by parish and town councils. They have had amazing referenda, with something like a million people voting in them over the last few years. I think they cover an area of about 10 million people. That is a really good way in which the public can engage with the planning system, but there are thousands and thousands of other communities that are being left behind and that do not have neighbourhood plans by parish and town councils or neighbourhood forums.
Some of the feedback that we had from our 10,000 parish councils was that they were concerned that it will be costly and time consuming, and that the neighbourhood plans will be overlooked and not taken seriously by principal authorities. A lot of the measures in the Bill will help address those issues, which should help with promoting neighbourhood planning.
This must not stop with the Bill. If you are going to reach the other 7,000 or 8,000 communities, we need to make sure that we are promoting neighbourhood planning and its benefits, and that we are investing in helping those communities to do that work. I would encourage you to continue with the grants that are available, and perhaps to make them easier to access. We have had a good start to neighbourhood planning, and I am really pleased that you are committed to continuing with it and making it more effective. We will work with you to try to make that happen.
There are a couple of bits of other feedback around the infrastructure levy. Again, that is to be supported, but there is a risk that because the percentage is the same regardless of whether you have a neighbourhood plan or not, there might be a slight disincentive to produce a neighbourhood plan. As you know, there is a boost to the share of the community infrastructure levy if you have a neighbourhood plan. It would be good if you could consider how best to address that point, so that people are incentivised to have neighbourhood plans and to engage effectively with the public.
On the specific matter of the mini neighbourhood plan, I think that is fine but, again, we need to make sure that doesn’t limit communities’ ambitions to go further and to have neighbourhood plans. We probably need to balance that territory.
I have been amazed by the innovation of many neighbourhood plans and the things they are now trying to address, including climate change, health and wellbeing, such as dementia-friendly aspects, and a vast range of other things. Clearly, we must not lose that innovation. We must use this Bill to drive forward neighbourhood planning and get more people involved with it, and I think that would be a good thing.
Stuart Andrew
Q
Jonathan Owen: I think one thing we have learned over the last couple years is that people are getting more and more used to digital engagement and using such systems, so that probably will be the case. Obviously, you will need to review and monitor it, but I think it is certainly something that is worth developing further.
Many of our parish and town councils are already using digital processes when considering planning applications for principal authorities, so I think that could well make a difference. There might be some capital investment required to ensure that even remote communities in the middle of rural Suffolk, where I live, can access the material online without being excluded.
Tony Burton: Our experience is that digital is part of the answer. In relation to local and neighbourhood plans, we would point to the opportunities it presents around new, complementary forms of community engagement—there are now a variety of tools available to support that—and more effective ways of pooling and analysing the evidence that is required, which is often a minefield of PDFs that do not link to each other or help people to navigate the system or get to the nub of the issues.
There is a potential—this is something we have been pressing for—for the neighbourhood planning support programme to provide bespoke support around this and to offer provision for particular elements, such as centralised tools or databases. Also, we would emphasise more digital mapping. Almost by definition, planning is about maps and places—it is spatial—and yet the ways in which we bring everything together on a map are still rather clunky and not all that effective. The best of what is out there shows what can be done, and the best should be the norm.
I would emphasise that digital is only part of a solution. It is no panacea and nothing is more important than the peer-to-peer, face-to-face support that communities need to support them to be their best when it comes to engaging with these processes.
The Chair
I am afraid that this will have to be the last question from the Ministers before I move to the Opposition spokesman. Minister O’Brien, I believe you have a question.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Neil O'Brien)
Q
Jonathan Owen: We are really keen to see the detail on some of the other aspects of the neighbourhood governance review. The White Paper held out for us real promise to ensure that the opportunities of devolution and levelling up were really seized, so I hope you will not mind if start off by encouraging you to consider how you can build aspects of that wider review into the Bill. We are particularly keen to see the review conducted within quite a reasonable timescale, to be involved in the process and to make sure that any proposals that come out of it are enacted. We would quite like to see some sort of placeholder clause put in for street votes, to say that the neighbourhood governance review will be completed within a certain time and the agreed proposals enacted. I do not know whether that is possible, but I really do think you might miss an opportunity if you do not engage fully in that review and implement some of its actions.
The key things for us are about making it easier to set up parish and town councils. At the moment, about two thirds of the country has a parish, but only about a third of the population, which means that two thirds of the population are missing out on having the first tier of local government supporting community empowerment and helping them address the big challenges that we face. Many of you will be aware of the research done by Onward. Its social fabric index showed that places with parish councils tended to have a stronger community identity and so forth. I think there are some real opportunities that need to be picked up either as part of the Bill or as part of that wider neighbourhood governance review.
The other big area for us is funding of the sector. At the moment, our councils are not necessarily able to access some funding streams, such as the community ownership fund and other things. It would be good to look at making it possible for them to access that funding. An interesting example of that was how, through the covid pandemic, a lot of our 10,000 councils stepped up really early, as you will be aware, to set up volunteering arrangements and support local communities. Many of them did really great things, but many of them lost out from lost income. You were able to compensate the principal authorities but unable to compensate parish councils that had lost out. To be honest, principal authorities were reluctant to devolve much of the funding they received down to our level.
I think you should consider using the Bill to put in place a mechanism whereby you would be able to fund local councils directly. That could be really helpful to this Government and probably to future Governments when another big problem happens, such as the pandemic, so that you would be able to reach down to communities throughout the country and provide some financial support or lifeline as necessary.
On the street votes, we will be interested to see the detail on that and, again, picking up on my other point on neighbourhood planning, we just need to make sure that that complements and does not replace the wider neighbourhood planning role.
Finally, returning to the last question on digitalisation, the holding of remote meetings has been really useful in the last couple of years. We have seen evidence that lots of members of the public have attended parish and town council meetings because they are able just to attend for the one item that interests them, which is often a planning matter. Enabling councils to meet remotely and have engagement remotely from residents would be really good.
Tony Burton: I think it is a really helpful question to be asking at this stage. There is experience from similar questions that came through on the Localism Act 2011, from which some of the existing community rights measures stemmed. If we look back over those 10 years, we see that some have been successful and some have disappeared, frankly—they might be on the statute book but no one is using the power they provide. The things that worked are those that responded to what people want—there may be lessons here for the provisions you cited and others in the Bill. They were a response to what our communities were asking for, as opposed to us saying, “We’ve got a good idea. Please will you use it.” Some came with support and help, which allowed communities to really understand how to navigate and use the process and talk to others that are maybe slightly further ahead of them in the process. Some in a sense held the ring on some of the bigger questions.
That is why neighbourhood planning is so good. It is such a flexible and strategic tool, as well as being locally specific. You can make it a single policy about a single issue if you want, or you can make it a mini local plan that covers the bases. It is up to the community to drive that process.
I would also encourage you to anticipate where there will be blockages in the application of whatever powers or rights are being established. With neighbourhood planning we have had to retrofit a lot of those, and it has not been that helpful. There have been things such as the timetables for local authorities to make decisions and some of the powers to appeal to the Secretary of State. It is actually worth stress testing these against the worst cases within which they are trying to be applied as well as thinking that we are always going to be operating in a benevolent environment.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Jonathan Owen: As I said, we are strongly supportive of a plan-led system, and we are concerned that those national development management policies might well take primacy over neighbourhood plans and cause difficulties. We would like to see the Bill amended so that they do not have primacy over those other local deals. I also think there should be consideration to make sure that if those national policies are changed, it does not require an immediate updating of a neighbourhood or local plan. I think there is a risk that we will have waves of new national plans that will then set aside some of the local policies.
Tony Burton: I agree with that. [Inaudible.] There is merit in setting out at a national level those policies that are appropriate to be expressed at a national level: policies that are universally applicable and set the framework within which other things happen. We see completely unnecessary repetition, rewording, obfuscation and a lack of clarity when they are carried forward through development plans and some neighbourhood plans.
The risk is that national policies stray too far into matters that are much better decided at the local or neighbourhood level. There will always be a very strong temptation for Whitehall to overstep the mark, as history shows. We think that there need to be clear measures that prescribe and limit the national development management policies to those things for which they are appropriate and which do not fetter the nuance and local understanding that is brought at local and neighbourhood level.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Tony Burton: Yes, indeed. We don’t necessarily think that they are sufficient on the NPSs or indeed the national planning policy framework, so it is not just about equivalence. That could all be significantly improved to a much more citizen and community-led insight into how these policies are being drawn up.
Jonathan Owen: As for the first tier of local government, I think that the more engagement and consultation, the better. So yes, I think that is something that should be looked at.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
“in accordance with the development plan and any national development management policies, unless material considerations strongly indicate otherwise.”
Is that language sufficiently clear to be easily understood by councils?
Tony Burton: May I digress briefly? This is a personal question, because over 30 years ago, in a different campaigning role, I was responsible for drafting all the amendments to what became the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, which includes the provisions that clause 83 now seeks to change. At that time, we went through about a dozen variations of how to express on the face of the Bill what we were seeking to achieve. Sir George Young was the Minister responsible and was seeking a plan-led system. We even tried “strongly” at the time and, if my memory serves me right, it was rejected by Parliament’s legal experts. So although the language is clunky—it is legalistic—it has a 30-year track record. The insertion of a single word is a helpful expression of a more plan-led approach. It might be more helpful to go down that route than it would be to develop an entirely different set of wording, which would then trigger a whole new set of case law having to be established. In terms of the pragmatic achievement of what we are trying to do here—to strengthen a plan-led approach—the pragmatic approach, as suggested in the Bill, is reasonable.
Jonathan Owen: I agree with Tony. Adding “strongly” is helpful.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Tony Burton: Again, it is the same point that we have made throughout. You cannot, on the one hand, have a Bill that has written through it political rhetoric about communities having more insight and influence, being less done to, and strengthening the role in local planning, but on the other hand have critical documents prepared by other parts of the system being drawn up without the benefit of the insight that those communities that will be involved in other ways can bring. Providing those legal safeguards is an essential process, in our view, and that needs to be more than six weeks of a PDF being on a website; it needs to be something that requires positive interaction being secured with those who are going to be interested and engaged in it.
Jonathan Owen: There is some helpful evidence from the neighbourhood planning process. Where communities have been engaged and have inputted effectively to the development of neighbourhood plans, they have understood the reasons for some of the development pressures and other things. Actually, where there are neighbourhood plans, additional housing to that anticipated in the local plan has often been put in place. Engagement and full consultation, as Tony suggested, is sensible.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
Q
Jonathan Owen: Well, that is a $60 billion question. That is an issue for parish councillors.
I have a few reflections. First, we need to promote their work more effectively, publicising what they can do and understanding their potential. Parish and town councils can deliver exciting and good things for their communities. They are not just a place to go and sit for a boring meeting; they are about getting out there to help communities. I think that was the experience of the pandemic, actually: a lot of parish councils rolled up their sleeves, as they often do, and made things happen. I remember that my previous chair, Ken Browse from Devon, who was a small parish councillor, used to get his tractor out and dig out the ditches when there was flooding in Devon. It is about trying to use that potential of councillors, rather than getting them borne down, as you say, under a sort of semi-professional thing. That is not what they are there for: they are there to represent their local constituents and do their bit to make their local places much better.
We would like to see some real promotion of parish councils. It is ironic that over the past year they have probably had much more of a national profile because of the Jackie Weaver affair, but I think national Government should be investing significant money in promoting the potential of parish councils and why people should get involved. The National Association of Local Councils has its Make a Change campaign going at the moment, which is trying to encourage more people to get involved and stand for election. We are putting out a lot of material and, I think it would be fair to say, getting a lot of interest. The average age of a parish councillor is something like 61. We would like to see that much reduced, and we would like to see people from different backgrounds getting involved. As with all things, it needs to be marketed and promoted.
The second point I would make is that principal authorities get something like £18 million from Government to support the work of the Local Government Association and build the capacity and competence of councillors. We are really grateful to the LGA, which we are able to work with in some limited areas to access some of that funding, but our sector and our 100,000 councillors need some support from Government too, to make sure they are able to deliver the things that are required in a sensible way. I think that that investment in councillors as local leaders and place shapers, making a difference for their communities, would help tackle burnout.
Tony Burton: If burnout is an issue in town and county councils—which I can well acknowledge—imagine what it is like when you are dealing with an entirely volunteer network. We do not have a National Association of Local Councils; we do not have a parish clerk or a town clerk; we do not have an infrastructure organisation; we do not have an email address; we do not have an office; and we do not have a place to meet. When a neighbourhood forum is set up, it is set up from nothing, and it requires volunteers like us to put forward networks for London. London is unique in having a network that provides a bit of mutual support.
There are two points I would emphasise to make the life of being a civic volunteer something that you really want to do, and where you don’t burn out. One is to remove as many of the obstacles we spend much of our time fighting against as possible. We are not naive—of course life is going to be difficult—but there are pointless, and sometimes gratuitous, obstructions being put in the way of volunteers trying to do the right thing in their area. We have a range of evidence for that in relation to neighbourhood planning in London or from the research we have done. We do not have the time to go into it here, but it is available to the Committee if it wishes to look at it. The second is to put booster rockets under the support programme, which we have touched on already as being the single most important intervention—far more important than the Bill—so that it can be effectively delivered, ensuring that neighbourhood planning is one of the tools available to communities to take back more influence over planning.
Greg Smith
Q
I ask that through the lens of having been a London councillor for 12 years, before moving to the countryside and later having the privilege of being elected to the House of Commons. Thinking through some of the geography, the London borough I sat on was smaller geographically than some of the parishes in my constituency now. While I totally salute the efforts of volunteer networks across the capital, do we think that the geography in some parts of London, particularly inner-London boroughs, lends itself to those boroughs still having that primacy?
Tony Burton: I hear what you are saying, and I am sure the populations of those boroughs and parishes are dramatically different. We need only point to the “city of villages” and Ebenezer Howard. The neighbourhoods of London are defined much more tightly than the boroughs, and many London neigh-bourhoods cross borough boundaries. One example is Crystal Palace, which is a very identifiable community, yet it crosses five London boroughs. It has been almost impossible to establish an effective boundary through the neighbourhood planning process, but that does not mean Crystal Palace is not Crystal Palace.
Crystal Palace identifies with itself, as do all the other neighbourhoods in London. We think there is significant scope below the borough level. There is an open question, which goes beyond the scope of the Bill, as to whether London might have too many boroughs, and the way they share services at the moment would suggest they acknowledge that—they share chief executives, legal services and all the rest of it.
London is an example of where there is still a need. There is the question of whether areas are willing to take on those responsibilities, linked to the issues of support, the attitude of professionals and politicians within the boroughs and the question of where this is going. What happens after they produce a neighbourhood plan? We would like to see the evolution anticipated by the Localism Act 2011 of neighbourhood forums evolving into the urban equivalent of a town or parish council, of which we have only one in London at Queen’s Park, which has a particular history. There are opportunities in this Bill to help the process mature and to create more sustainable models that might start with a neighbourhood forum producing a neighbourhood plan before growing into a much more all-encompassing, community-led form of governance.
Jonathan Owen: It would be great if we could make it easier to set up local structures that are equivalent to parish and town councils. I would love to change the name to “community councils,” which would help to dissociate the sector from the connotations of the word “parish” and enable them better to reflect urban communities. Slimming down some of the legislation would make it easier to set that up. We would have community councillors and a community co-ordinator, otherwise known as a clerk. The clerks do a brilliant job, but they are often community co-ordinators. We obviously support the work Tony mentioned.
There has been a degree of uncertainty about neighbourhood planning over the past few years, and some people have been concerned that it is overlooked on appeal. The measures in the Bill might well help with that, and it is important to reboot and refresh the support package.
Finally, it would be good if we could boost the infrastructure levy for areas with neighbourhood plans. We are keen to work with the Government on driving greater numbers of parish and town councils to do neighbourhood plans. We share with our councils the things that have been done in so many places to tackle climate change and to promote health and wellbeing as part of the neighbourhood planning process.
Greg Smith
Q
Jonathan Owen: Tony, do you want to go first?
Tony Burton: There are two issues here. The first is the numbers, and I do not think it can be done by just adding up all the local levels, because the nature of the housing market is such that you need a blend of strategic and local insight. It is about how we make sure the discussions and negotiations that take place mean there is an effective blend.
There are particular opportunities to strengthen the identification of particular needs that would not otherwise be met, whether they be house sizes and types; questions around affordability and rent; or the provision of alternative tenures—community land trusts and others. There is plenty of evidence now that neighbourhood plans are providing a much more refined insight into what is needed in areas, which can then carry appropriate weight through not just planning decisions but housing decisions. That would ensure that whatever the total number, a higher proportion are meeting the needs that are being expressed and are not just being used for investment or other less publicly useful purposes.
Jonathan Owen: It has to be an interplay between the various levels. We need to change the culture around planning to get different tiers talking and engaging with each other. That often does not happen at the moment, and it would be really good to see better engagement between the various tiers coming out of this Bill. The experience of neighbourhood planning is people being engaged and consulted, and having an effective input. They understand the pressures for local housing and the need to meet the needs of their local residents and their young people. I am a glass half full man and it would be great to see better dialogue and interplay between the various tiers to deliver what we all need, which is more local housing.
Tony Burton: Briefly, the evidence is that neighbourhood plans are delivering more housing locally than would otherwise be the case if it was left to local councils.
Rachael Maskell
Q
Tony Burton: We would like to see a Bill that gives more incentives to produce neighbourhood plans and ensures that neighbourhood forums have access to and can make decisions on the spending of the community infrastructure levy. We would like to see a Bill that removes some of the obstacles to neighbourhood plans coming forward where there are obstructive local planning authorities—principal authorities—by strengthening the legal duty on them to support neighbourhood planning and by putting more time limits and appeal mechanisms in place to navigate the process accordingly.
We would like to see the neighbourhood priorities statements being given more weight where they are to be taken forwards, so they cannot just be ignored, and to see them piloted. We would like to see the Bill come forward with a package of support that would scale up what has been learned from the experiences of the last 10 years, and a programme of support, with an emphasis on more funding but also better use of the existing funding, that was designed to enable those communities to come together to produce plans and tap into the expertise that they need at certain key stages. Above all, the support should enable them to learn from each other and build the neighbourhood planning movement, so that that becomes the norm across the country.
Jonathan Owen: I agree very much with what Tony has said. I would offer a couple of additional points. First, recipients must be able to use the infrastructure levy flexibly for a range of uses. Linked to that, I would like to see in the Bill the extension of the general power of competence, which is proposed for the county combined authorities, to parish and town councils too, so that they can use some of that to support a range of things that they might not otherwise be able to support. That should make it easier for local councils to deliver for their communities and to ensure that they are spending money wisely on the right things locally.
The Chair
If there are no further questions from Members, I thank the witnesses for their evidence. The Committee will meet again at 2 pm in this room to hear further evidence on the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Miss Dines.)
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Fourth sitting)
Thursday 23rd June 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 View all Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 23 June 2022 - (23 Jun 2022)
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. Members may remove their jackets if they want to because of the temperature in the room. Good afternoon, everyone—I am not filibustering for any particular reason, other than we do not seem to have our guests at the moment. Andy Street, the West Midlands Mayor, will be our first witness.
I should remind Members to limit their questions to something vaguely to do with what the Committee is considering. This is of course the only time the Ministers have fun during the whole of the proceedings, because they get to ask questions and do not have to answer them. Next week, it is their turn to be scrutinised.
With that, someone should press a button and Andy Street should appear—[Interruption.] I tell you what we will do: we will go into private session and talk about the questions. We skipped it this morning, but we now have some time to do that. We will sit in private until somebody tells me the technology is working.
The Chair
We are now in public session. Good afternoon. I can see Andy Street, Mayor of the West Midlands. Welcome to you. For the record, will you say who you are?
Andy Street: With pleasure, Chair. I am Andy Street, Mayor of the West Midlands, as you said.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
I will start with a simple question: with the experience you now have of being Mayor of a huge part of the country, and of the powers you have been exercising, what do you see next for the powers of the West Midlands Mayor?
Andy Street: Thank you for the question. I think there are two ways of answering it. In some of the areas where we have been exercising powers already, we are looking for them to be deepened—so housing, transport and skills. Then, of course, in some policy areas, we have not had any powers and are looking for them, and we might talk about inward investment as an example of that.
The other way of answering the question is to talk about the fiscal deal. At the moment, we have really been applying to Government for funding and then allocating it using all our knowledge—the whole idea that decisions taken next to people are better—but we have not had our own fundraising power. There is a real moment as to whether this next trailblazer devolution deal is going to begin a process of fiscal devolution.
Alex Norris
Q
Andy Street: Yes, you are right—interesting question. The remarkable thing about this area of the country —I think what I am about to say is true, and it is in contrast to every other combined authority—is that we are completely balanced politically: 14 Conservative MPs, 14 Labour MPs, four Labour councils, three Conservative councils and a Tory Mayor. That means that there has to be a model of working across party and consensually.
The way the decision making works is that our board takes the decisions. That is the seven local authorities, obviously balanced. The executive will be responsible for all the preparation of all the policy areas, all the proposals, but it will be that board that formally takes the decisions. One thing that I often talk about and am very proud of is that every single major financial decision that we have taken over the past five years has been taken unanimously by that board, across party. So, actually, an enormous amount of work has to be done to find what we might call regional interest and that consensual point, rather than—dare I say it on this call—the more conventional Westminster approach, the partisan approach.
Alex Norris
Q
Andy Street: To be very honest, you are taking me beyond my level of knowledge with that last clause. I do not see it as a critical part of this Bill. I am quite comfortable with the CPO powers that we have at the moment. We use them infrequently, but when we have needed to use them, they have been powerful. We have also used them almost as a deterrent. I am not sitting here thinking that that is the thing that I must get out of this legislation. That is not a dodge of the question; it is my honest view. But I am not equipped to give you a detailed answer on that bit in your question.
Alex Norris
Q
Andy Street: I think the reason you have had a lot of interest in this is that we are in a different position to the other very large combined authorities. It is interesting why that has come about. You thanked me for my candour earlier on; I will give you my candour again on this. The situation here, unlike in Manchester, London and Leeds, is that the Mayor does not have the police and crime commissioner responsibilities. It was obviously imposed—I shall use that word—on those three areas through their deals. When our deal was struck, it was subject to local agreement. Despite a public consultation that came out overwhelmingly in favour of a merger of the two roles, the board decided that that was not what was going to happen. I regret the fact that that board decision was split on party lines. I said earlier that we always try to find consensus, but this is the one issue where we did not find it. That is, I think, why you have had input, because it remains a contentious issue. My personal view is, as it has always been, that there is enormous advantage to the model of one single accountable person. There is clear evidence that that has worked in other areas, and where we have not yet achieved that, we are slightly weaker for it.
Having said that, we have done two things here. Both the police and crime commissioner and myself, although from different parties, have committed that we will work as effectively as we can together. The second thing is that I have always committed that, so long as the rules were the same, we would not reopen this issue. Of course, the Bill changes the rules, and therefore it will, potentially, give an opportunity for this issue to be reopened. Hence the correspondence you have received.
The Minister for Housing (Stuart Andrew)
Q
Good afternoon, Andy. It is good to see you and thank you for giving up your time.
Andy Street: You, too.
Stuart Andrew
Q
Andy Street: I will give you a straight answer to the question in one moment if I may, Mr Andrew, but let me give a bit of general context. This, I think, is a very good example of where the combined authority has been able to demonstrate the fundamental principle that each can achieve things that individual local authorities working on their own probably would not have done. Of course, the critical point is that we achieve it by working with our local authorities, but we can clearly demonstrate that we have brought additional firepower.
The stats are very clear: we have hit our housing target in this region over the last four or five years, and we had, pre pandemic, doubled the number of homes being built every year in this region. One way that we were able to do that is, of course, working with central Government by deploying the brownfield land funding that the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities had allocated to us in various tranches. We have made the existing system work, and very clearly we probably would not have had a negotiation—for example, Walsall or Wolverhampton separately—with DLUHC had we not existed.
Coming to your question, we are doing this against a good backdrop. We hope we will win further funding in due course to advance this even further, but on the reforms in the paper—it is a general question—essentially I would be supportive of them because they do bring simplicity to the operation. I do think that one of the challenges we constantly face is the time difficulty in drawing these items to a conclusion.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Neil O’Brien)
Q
Andy Street: The answer to the first question, in one word, is yes. Let me explain why, and this is something that Minister O’Brien and I have talked about for probably a decade, since we were both in previous roles. If you look at the economic history of this country and compare it with other, similar countries, we definitely have a weakness in the out of London areas. There is nothing original there; we know that. Of course, part of the answer is to try to address that in what you might call areas of sufficient scale. I think the thing that the combined authorities have done, as you could argue that the more successful and bigger LEPs did as the precursor to it, is begin to think about economic policy at an appropriate spatial level, or what the books would probably call a natural economic area—a travel-to-work area or whatever. That, I honestly think, has been one of our great successes. Transport policies do not stop at the end of Birmingham when it moves into Solihull, as Gill’s market does not stop at the end of Wolverhampton when it moves into Dudley. We have been able to think about these determinants of economic success across the appropriate geographical area. In our case, that is not yet fully complete, and if you look around the country, you see that other combined authorities are more clearly incomplete in that sense. I would argue that they should be encouraged to expand to fill their natural economic areas.
In terms of the advice, I think there is one simple word: you have to make sure that everybody is up for it. I do not believe this should be imposed. I do not think this should be about unwillingness. I do believe there needs to be a sort of buy-in to the core principle that the very first question is that everybody has got to be prepared to compromise and make this work for it to be a success.
Neil O’Brien
Q
Andy Street: Brilliant. I actually think this is probably one of the single most important parts of this Bill, and I am not sure it has had—what is the word?—the celebration it probably deserves. If you look at the long-term determinants of inequality, the intensity of R&D in an area is absolutely critical. You only have to look at the states of the Union and at an area such as Massachusetts and its leadership in R&D in medtech to see how Boston has become the most successful city in that sector by a country mile.
We have had a lopsided country in terms of public R&D—not just a little lopsided, but hugely lopsided. If you look at the West Midlands, we are very successful at drawing in private R&D, and we are very weak at drawing in public R&D. Our ratio here is four to one. It is definitely the worst in the whole country. It is ironic, isn’t it, because the private sector sees the opportunity and the public sector has not seen it in the same way? So for the Government to commit to tilting that and leveraging in even more private sector cash on the back of that is very important.
What has got to happen to do it? Frankly, we have got to change our approach to some extent. There is a whole piece here about cluster theory. Our public R&D has been incredibly focused in a very small number of research councils and research universities, which are basically around our automotive sector. We need to continue to play to that strength, but then to balance that by looking at the medtech sector, the fintech sector and clean growth. That is where we will be putting our focus in the innovator accelerator, so that it is a catalyst for us to improve our performance in new, adjacent sectors. So that diversification approach is a very important sprat to catch a mackerel—that’s what I call it.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
Andy Street: It is a really interesting question. I think the trade-off you are implying comes most acutely in the dispersal of public land and indeed any land where the public sector has to offer a subsidy. So what we have just done recently is launch what we call our “public land charter”. It is looking at some of the principles that will apply to how that is disposed. I am pleased to say that the Cabinet Office was very involved with us, as were some of the big private sector landlords and our local authorities. What we have come down very firmly on is this whole notion of an economic assessment that addresses what we might call the “greater good”—just as you have described, long-term value to the regional economy, not just the short-term transactional value. So we are trying, in terms of the principles by which we will guide the use of the funding we have to make this happen, to address exactly the point that you are drawing out.
Rachael Maskell
Q
Andy Street: I do not know the answer to this. I was honest enough to say earlier that I was not sure, but I am genuinely not on this one, because the huge advantage of the current variable system is that it can be waived where it is going to make a difference. I do worry, if I have understood the proposal correctly, about the absence of that ability. I know that that is not transparent and it does not pass some tests, but I think there is clear evidence that it can be used judiciously, for and against, when there is a marginal development. So my straight answer is that I do worry about that, but I can see, on the other side, the simplicity argument, which, as I said earlier, was valuable. I think that that is what has to be weighed.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
Q
Andy Street: Thank you for that question, because this process is pretty bust; it is lovely that the Housing Minister is in the room for this debate. The answer to the question of where is that I have no difficulty with it being assessed by the upper tier planning authority—so, in our case, the met authorities. But I do not think that that is really the problem. The problem is that something systemic is incredibly wrong. We followed up the detail of this using Coventry as the case study, where the system of assessment through the Office for National Statistics has churned a number that is clearly nonsense. It shows that the growth of housing needs in Coventry will be more than 30% over 10 years. In the rest of the West Midlands, the average is about 11%, so you think, “This isn’t right” and you follow the story through. We have had a number of incredibly helpful and very honest conversations with the ONS, which has acknowledged in a letter to me that the number is wrong and is getting more wrong, as the assumptions that it made are not playing out over time. But when the wrongness—if that is not poor English—of the number is revealed, there is nothing in the current system that forces the local authority to review its plan, so there is a huge misstep in the process between that calculation and the actions that are then taken.
I have not raised this issue with the current Housing Minister, but I had lengthy correspondence with the previous Housing Minister. I believe it is an area of huge potential improvement, but the system is clearly broken, and I would be very happy to furnish members of the Committee with all the detail on Coventry, which was such an obvious outlier. Let us be clear that the consequence is that the city council is pursuing a policy that it has to pursue because of the numbers—I do not doubt the council’s internal working—and it is digging up the green belt around Coventry on the basis of spurious calculations.
Greg Smith
Q
Andy Street: I have no difficulty with the ONS, which is clearly the most objective, calculating the numbers—there is no question about that. I have no difficulty with the city council then being guided by that number, but the point in the middle is that there has to be a way that that can be challenged. There has to be a way to know whether it is on target and then it has to be reviewed, and the council has to have an obligation to review its plan if the numbers are wrong. It is not about who does the calculation; it is about the consequences of that calculation and feeding it through the next stages.
Greg Smith
Q
Andy Street: I still do not think that hits the point. The point is: whether it is fixed or a target, if the number can be challenged and proven to be wrong, what is going to happen? I can see where your logic is going—if it is only advisory, a council has more room for manoeuvre—but I think there is something even more fundamental, which is that there has to be a way of testing that number and then making sure that, if it is acknowledged by the ONS not to be accurate, it can be reviewed.
The Chair
We have unfortunately almost run out of time. I was tempted to see whether the Housing Minister wanted to come back and chat to our witness, but he seems to be pointing to the fact that time is up. Or does he want to use the remaining minute?
The Chair
The time is up, I am told. Thank you so much for coming, Mr Street. Your evidence was extremely clear and very helpful to the Committee.
Andy Street: Thank you very much.
Examination of Witnesses
Nicholas Boys Smith, Lizzie Glithero-West and Adrian Dobson gave evidence.
The Chair
Thank you, Nicholas, for waiting so patiently. You are here and alive.
Nicholas Boys Smith: I am certainly alive.
The Chair
We now move on to the fourth panel. I will not list everyone’s names, because I am going to ask them to introduce themselves. I will first ask the witness who is with us in the room to introduce himself.
Nicholas Boys Smith: My name is Nicholas Boys Smith. I am the founding director of the social enterprise Create Streets. I think it is probably also relevant to say that I was previously the co-chair of the Government’s Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission.
The Chair
I ask the lady on the Zoom call to introduce herself.
Lizzie Glithero-West: I am Lizzie Glithero-West, chief executive of the Heritage Alliance, which is the umbrella body for the independent heritage sector, with over 180 organisational members.
The Chair
And the gentleman on screen.
Adrian Dobson: Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Adrian Dobson. I am the executive director of professional services at the Royal Institute of British Architects.
The Chair
For the benefit of the Committee, I am told that we have until 3.10 pm with this panel. Who would like to start? The Housing Minister seems most keen.
Stuart Andrew
Q
Nicholas Boys Smith: I assume that question is for me. Thank you, Minister. That is a very profound question, and I do not mean that in a sycophantic way. The current percentage of British people who trust planners to make their local neighbourhood better is in medium single figures, and for those who trust developers, it is in low single figures—between 4% and 7%. Despite the widely accepted desperate need for new housing, the instinctive assumption of most neighbourhoods, most of the time—sorry, this is a bit of a coda, but we have the lowest houses to households ratio in the western world—is that new development will make places worse. That informs the politics of all large developments and most small ones.
That is new, and it used not to be the case 50, 70, 100 or 200 years ago. It is something that is particularly prevalent in this country. Until we fundamentally fix the instinctive assumption that people have—before they learn more—that new development will worsen your bit of the world, the caught-between-the-horns nature of the politics of housing will never go away. As elected Members of Parliament, you do not need me to tell you that. This is not a criticism of the Bill, but it will not fix that—no one bit of legislation or set of actions can—although some elements of it are relevant.
I will say one final thing before I shush so other people can come in. This is not just about support for new housing, important though that is. Provably, where we live has very measurable and, in some large degree, quantifiable and predictable consequences for the lives we lead, our personal health, our mental health, how many of our neighbours we know and how much we walk in our daily existence, rather than just jumping in a car to go to the shops. It has very profound consequences, not just for spatial development patterns, but for the depth with which we tread upon the planet.
The Chair
Q
Lizzie Glithero-West: Very briefly, because I am sure that Adrian will have some points on this. From the perspective of heritage and the environment, the Bill and the things around it—I support the point that this is not just about the Bill, but about the policies around it—should support sustainable reuse of buildings. Some of the best new homes are not necessarily new built; they can be renovated. Something that would be on our list for the Government to think about alongside the Bill would be the incentives to encourage reuse rather than demolition and new build.
We welcome the possible introduction of design codes, which would allow for developments that could recognise the local vernacular. Design codes should offer sustainability, safety and quality. There is a big point about the protection of designated heritage assets, as well as non-designated heritage assets, which are not necessarily included in the Bill. Some provisions could be made, either within the Bill or around it, to incentivise repair and saving buildings, and using them as a way to keep the character of a place rather than just resorting to new homes and new buildings.
There are two things that we could look at in particular. The first is removing the permitted development right for demolition, which is a problematic loophole at the moment; it incentivises flattening beautiful buildings that may not be listed. Secondly—I can presumably talk about this in more depth later—we could look at the VAT on the maintenance of current buildings. That is normally 20%, which is completely contrary to the 0% rate for new build and incentivises the wrong solutions for the environment as well as for local communities.
Adrian Dobson: The Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission highlighted the value of good design, presumably in part because communities are more likely to accept well designed buildings. It also highlighted a lack of resource within the planning system, particularly in design expertise. The Bill itself places a lot of emphasis on local design codes. I am sure the Committee will want to talk about that; it is something that excites quite strong opinions both ways. Some people see local design codes as a way of establishing good basic principles, greater certainty around development and the ability to reflect local needs, but some people see them as potentially stifling innovation. That would be one way of addressing the issue.
I think it is important for us to think about design as not just being skin deep, although it is about appearance. Good quality design needs to address issues around sustainability, quality of build and the health and welfare of the people who use the buildings. When we talk about the Bill, there are perhaps some contradictions at the moment. There is possibly a contradiction between emphasis on local design codes, but growth in permitted developments. They seem to contradict each other slightly, and that might be one thing to think about. Also, there is a tension in the Bill between national development management policy and its relative weight against local development plans. Again, that might be part of the area of debate on the issue.
To follow up on something Lizzie said about the sustainability and embodied carbon aspects, we probably ought to be making more presumptions on reuse, retrofitting and alteration of existing building stock, and not just looking to new build as the solution to those issues.
Stuart Andrew
Q
Lizzie Glithero-West: We believe that heritage is at the heart of the levelling-up and place agenda. We are really pleased that heritage is in the Bill and has its own chapter—chapter 3. There is a lot to welcome in the Bill. Given that heritage has not recently had any distinct legislation of its own, as we had hoped to have with the draft Heritage Protection Bill of 2008, nor is it likely to, it is important for us to take any opportunity to address some of the legislative aims of the sector and policy makers. Many of those aims had cross-party support. This Bill is one of those significant opportunities. There is always more to be done around heritage protection, but several elements of the Bill, and some further measures we have sent in a briefing to the Committee—I can unpack that, if it would be helpful—address some of those long-awaited calls from the sector.
We strongly support clause 185, which would make historic environment records statutory. That has been a long-term ask from the sector, and it features in our heritage manifestos. The sector is delighted that this has made it into the Bill, and I congratulate those working on that behind the scenes. We strongly support clause 92, which extends the protection of heritage assets. We suggested a limited number of key additions to the heritage assets list that would ensure that protection was clearer and more comprehensive, and those are outlined in our briefing.
Given the presidency of COP26 last year and the recognition of the climate emergency, we hope to see more action from Government in parallel with the Bill, or possibly within it—for example, the mention of permitted development that I made earlier for demolition —to encourage the use of current building stock over a presumption to new build. We hope that will be picked up in tandem.
Clauses 93 and 94 are also welcomed by the sector. Clause 93 makes stop notices, which have long been available within the wider planning system, applicable to heritage consent regimes. There is strong support from some in the sector for clause 94, which says that urgent works can be required in certain cases where listed buildings are occupied.
I think clause 95 is the one that you are probably referring to. There is general agreement from the sector that there needs to be a better system for the protection of buildings that are being considered for listing. The whole sector recognises that interim protection of heritage during the listing process is important. There are different views in the heritage sector on the proposals in the Bill to address that. Many in the sector welcome the removal of compensation in clause 95 and would go further by asking for a duty on local planning authorities to serve a building preservation notice where they believe criteria for listing can be met.
A significant minority, however, have concerns about the removal of compensation from those wrongly served a BPN, which could result in delays and losses. There is a concern that that would set a precedent for other compensation clauses. The organisations that I mentioned would rather have a system of interim protection akin to that in Wales. It is important for the whole sector that there is clarity on the approach taken in any transition period until the Act is fully effective. There are other bits I would like to mention, but they are not necessarily directly on the heritage angle and are particularly in relation to the replacement of environmental impact assessments and strategic environmental assessments. We can come on to those if the Committee would like to touch on them later.
The Chair
Q
Nicholas Boys Smith: I will make a quick point linking to the wider discussion on levelling up. The danger in the years to come is that as public sector money rightly supports the regeneration and investment in left-behind towns and places, in areas with low land value, that could actually lead to the reduction in quality of the urban realm and thus the reduced liveability of lots of historic but low-value places—the Grimsbys, the Hulls and the Stoke-on-Trents of this world. It is very important that the Bill focuses on the protection of heritage.
I think it will be very important in the years to come to think hard about how we protect, as we do not do quite so well at the moment, late Victorian and early 20th century heritage. At the moment, the ability to list gets much tougher for the late 19th century. This is not something that needs to be done through the Bill; it could be done through secondary legislation or guidance. We should make sure that as lots of money and focus goes on to levelling up places, we do not, as we have too often in the past, erringly do great harm to areas with unlisted and perhaps not very fashionable early 20th century-style places.
The quality of the urban infrastructure and realm of many of our left-behind towns is fantastic. They are often post-industrial towns with much lower levels of listing than the Salisburys and the Winchesters of this world; that is no disrespect to Salisbury or Winchester. There is a quite urgent need to face into that. Doing so would have the added advantage that more of our housing requirement could hopefully come in a more sustainable pattern from these rather under-utilised, under-invested-in and under-lived-in towns in the midlands and the north.
The Chair
Q
Adrian Dobson: I return to capacity and expertise, because the Bill puts more and more pressure on stretched planning departments. We know that they struggle to compete for resources with other frontline services, and yet the care of these heritage assets requires more expertise both within planning departments and among the professionals who carry out the work. To pick up on the last point about the huge volume of pre-1945 housing stock that we have, all of that will have to be improved and have its insulation improved. There are risks that if that is not handled sensitively and with the right expertise, we could damage the very environment we are trying to protect. It is just that issue of how we lever that, whether or not from the private sector, and how we get that sensitivity and expertise from the conservation architects and conservation specialists.
The Chair
I should have said to the witnesses at the beginning that you might be surprised that you are getting questioned by the Minister, but the advantage of these evidence sessions is that we can have a wider debate and get more information, which feeds into the process later on, so Ministers are taking the chance to get your evidence for that purpose. We are now going to go to the shadow Minister.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
Lizzie Glithero-West: We are very pleased to see the list of assets. While this table does cover many of the key asset groups we would expect to see—it has been pointed out that the inclusion of registered battlefields could be a little clearer—it would be good to address a couple of gaps at this stage. To be clear, they are not major gaps, and we really welcome this clause being in the Bill.
One such gap would be around the setting of conservation areas. A number of my members are supportive of the idea of inserting a clause to allow the protection of a small number of nationally important archaeological sites that cannot now be designated because they lack structures. These are things that would have gone into other Bills. It is a very small number of sites, but they are very important. They cannot currently be designated but they could be designated, so there is a great opportunity to address that.
The point about setting is around conservation areas and the impacts of, for instance, tall buildings nearby and so on. Our briefing refers to that not currently being in the Bill. The other thing we would like to probe a bit for parliamentarians is how these designations will interact with other natural environment designations—for example, ancient trees, ancient woodlands, veteran trees and ancient hedgerows. There is such a symbiotic relationship between the natural and historic environment. Often, a few different designations will be in the same area, and it is important that there is clarity around that. It has also been noted that there should be consideration of maritime archaeology—perhaps looking at the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 in addition to what is already in this list.
One other point I want to make is about the clarification of some of the wording. If the wording has been chosen to align the Bill with the national planning policy framework, it should be noted that the NPPF talks about preserving and enhancing significance, which is subtly but importantly different from preserving and enhancing assets. A related amendment should replicate the intent of the NPPF, which would ensure that the process of undertaking archaeology, which, by its nature, can be destructive but enhance knowledge and significance, is covered by the duty and not inadvertently excluded. The concern from some in the sector is that unless enhancement of significance is properly defined, it could lead to unintended consequences. Those were the main points on my list. I hope that is helpful.
Alex Norris
That is very helpful. Do the other panellists have anything to add?
Nicholas Boys Smith: I will make a point very quickly; I will not comment on those detailed points. This does not actually need to come through primary legislation, but, building on what I was saying earlier, there is an important opportunity and need in the criteria for listing, as set out by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and Historic England, to put more focus on issues such as townscape quality, pride in place and local popularity as well as—not instead of—issues of architectural importance.
An architectural historian might say about a building, “Oh, there are 50 of those around the country” or “Well, that is the 15th of those, and there are earlier ones over there.” Actually, if that were a town hall, it would be very significant to the people living in that town. It comes back to the wider debate about levelling up and pride in place. There is an important need to gently weave those things more clearly into the guidance for listing, but as I say, that does not actually have to come through the Bill. I do not get invited to this kind of thing every day of the week, so I have taken the opportunity mention this today.
Adrian Dobson: I do not think I have anything to add on this particular point.
Alex Norris
Q
Lizzie Glithero-West: It is a very short answer from me. Clause 93 is supported by our membership. Private owners of heritage will want to be sure that it is very clear, but the clause is welcome. My only point would be that in any transitional system between Bills, you want to ensure clarity and that there is no confusion.
Adrian Dobson: I have just a general point. One of the challenges for the planning system is that, inevitably, things get concentrated on development management and that can be, initially, at the expense of what you might call proactive planning and also enforcement activity. There is just a concern that the proactive planning and enforcement activity can become the Cinderella element of the planning system if you are not careful.
Rachael Maskell
Q
Lizzie Glithero-West: Excellent—yes, of course. I have mentioned a list, particularly in relation to clause 92. There is always more that we can do. It is not an omission but an opportunity—that was the point about sites without structure and the list that is in our briefing.
What I would like to turn to, which is very much related to this—and which is less an omission and more an area that we think needs scrutiny—is the environmental outcomes reports. We are pleased that the relevant clause recognises that “environmental protection” should include protection of the cultural environment and landscape, as well as the natural environment. The historic environment often forms part of the habitat for nature, and it is vital that that symbiotic relationship is recognised. It is important to archaeology, which I know is your area, too.
However, we have some questions about how the proposed EORs will differ from the current environmental impact assessments. It is good that cultural heritage is included, but we need a bit more information on how they will work, and it is important to ensure that the definition of cultural heritage in the Environment Bill is not used in this legislation. We were not happy with the Environment Act, because it excluded built heritage. If that were translated across to this Bill, that would become problematic for heritage and archaeology.
There are particular concerns about an inadvertent drop in the protection currently offered by EIAs and SEAs—strategic environmental assessments. The sector seeks reassurance that that will not be the case. Those concerns arise, as it is difficult to see the detail. We are concerned that the delivery through regulations might mean that there is not the same opportunity to scrutinise the details as would be the case through primary legislation. We want to ensure that the new EORs have the same scope as the current EIAs, which include protection of cultural heritage and landscape. We want those aspects to be given the same weight as the natural environment.
Also, there is a question about clarity. It would be useful and helpful to have clear confirmation that cultural heritage includes underwater cultural heritage—that is particularly important for archaeology as well—and clarification of what “relevant offshore area” will mean in the context of the Bill.
Rachael, I hope that that is a couple of points in addition to the points about clause 92.
The Chair
Nicholas, do you have anything to add?
Nicholas Boys Smith: Again, I could add something on wider things, but not on that particular point.
The Chair
Adrian?
Adrian Dobson: Interestingly, Lizzie has made the connection between the new, so-called EORs and their impact on the heritage environment, and she has made the point that there is a lot of detail still to be developed. I think you could apply that to the Bill generally, so I just make a plea for the various sectors—the heritage sector and the architectural sector—to continue to be engaged, because there is a whole level of detail that we cannot really comment on today, because the ambitions and powers are there, but quite how they will be evolved and enacted is not so clear.
Greg Smith
Q
Nicholas Boys Smith: Many years ago.
Greg Smith
It was many moons ago, but I thought I should put that on the record for transparency.
We have been looking at what the Bill is seeking to do in terms of protecting heritage and identifying that which makes a place within the planning system. For rural communities, one of the defining characteristics, certainly of every village that I represent, is the farmland and the food production that goes on in that village. It is the farmers who maintain the hedgerows, the beauty of the place, and so on. Therefore, can I explore with you, in the spirit of protections for heritage, place, and identity for a locality, how much, in a rural setting food, production and agriculture should equally be protected or at least considered as part of the planning process? Perhaps we could start with Lizzie.
Lizzie Glithero-West: I am just pondering that for a moment. Your question is on the balance of the production of food versus land being taken out of production—is that the nature of the question?
Greg Smith
Q
Lizzie Glithero-West: I feel I am perhaps leaning into a discussion about the Environment Act, but it is absolutely a part of levelling up. As archaeologists, we do not see a dichotomy between the natural environment and the historic environment. In fact, none of our landscape is purely natural in that sense. Hedgerows and features in the landscape—often scheduled ancient monuments—can provide homes for biodiversity. The two need to be thought about together. It is actually really fundamental in the roll-outs of the Agriculture Act and the Environment Act. Heritage is a pillar at the heart of the 25-year strategy and it is so important that it remains so, hence some of our concerns around the Environment Act.
We absolutely believe in public value for public goods. As some of those public goods would be around the preservation of heritage, which then goes on to support rural communities and biodiversity, it is all part of character of place to be able to use those assets; they are at the heart of place both in the town and in the rural landscape. A lot of the measures we are talking about today contribute to that.
We would like to have seen more in the Environment Act. We were concerned about some of the definitions, and that heritage was removed from some of those protections. The future farming regime and how farmers are paid for public goods will be fundamental to the point you raised—that although those features in the landscape and these places often might not be seen as valuable for food production, they are incredibly important for rural tourism, local communities, biodiversity and heritage.
Greg Smith
Q
Nicholas Boys Smith: Yes. I can come in with passion and, perhaps, too much aplomb. One of the most consistent, heartfelt and distressing pleas that I have heard, that the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission has heard and that is shown in evidence more widely is that people feel that new housing is done at them, not with them, and that it is of everywhere, not of “here”. That theme emerges in every piece of research I have done or read, even if it is expressed differently.
At one of the very first co-design workshops I ran, a marvellous lady from the West Indies—I forget which island—said that she wanted places with a heart and places that could not just be anywhere. You hear the same thing in the Cotswolds, Buckinghamshire or York. It comes up time and again. We know from neuroscience that people need and want that sense of place—a place that is their home in the world. It is unquestionably the fact that we are not currently providing that. That is something that is particularly heartfelt in your type of community, Mr Smith.
Why is that? There are several reasons. One is that although our policy on design quality and on the nature of developments we create is often quite aspirational and sounds nice, it is not cutting through in reality. If you look at the houses and the types of place we create, they are pretty similar from Cumbria to the Cotswolds—to take two random places beginning with c—or from Berkshire to Buckinghamshire, or wherever. They are very standard typologies, done with very similar highways rules.
We were doing a design code for a housing association that wanted to do houses that fitted in with rural communities. The highways rules and expectations for parking and for splay circles—things that sound technical and boring—meant that they could not. We desperately need to empower people’s preferences—it is right to do this; the NPPF has already made some good moves—for the types of places that they pay a premium to live in, so they must value them. The best way to achieve that is to stop banning the types of village centre that we have essentially banned. That does not quite answer your agriculture question directly, but it does indirectly.
If we are able to stop villages growing carcinogenically, by which I mean you have a village centre and then sprawl being—rude word—into fields around, we could perhaps allow a secondary village centre, which is perhaps more nature-similar and linked, and accept that perhaps some of the houses or flats in the village or town centre have fewer cars and are a little bit tighter together. Lots of the types of traditional village or small town street, you just could not build, although it is getting easier now. Until recently you could not build at all, but thanks to recent changes, it is getting easier.
We need to allow a visualised expression of local character to more axiomatically set local standards and expectations, as defined by local people—not by me or you or the council, although it might have a role. That becomes absolutely essential and it will allow us—again, you can see the premium in the numbers—to develop at slightly higher densities. I call it gentle density, which, again, people will pay a premium for. It does not need to be spewing out into field after field. If we can, we should create a type of walkable, attractive, gentle density, and the focus on design codes linked to the NPPF and the new national model design code in the Bill makes that more possible. It will not solve all the challenges, because they will be existential and go on forever, but it is the best and most credible route.
Greg Smith
Thank you. Adrian, do you have a view on this?
Adrian Dobson: Just to reiterate the point about density. Higher densities can be acceptable. If they are designed in the right way, that is very valuable. The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 has served us quite well in many ways, although criticisms of it could be made. We have some slight concerns about over-centralisation. The concept of local plans and local design codes, where good designers can respond to that local context, is one of the traditional strengths of the UK planning system.
Nicholas Boys Smith: Can I constructively, in a good and friendly fashion, disagree with that point? Is that allowed? I don’t want to be out of order.
The Chair
We encourage you!
Nicholas Boys Smith: It is constructive and friendly, Adrian; it is not meant to be unfriendly. I agree with the principle of what you say, but I think the reality is different. If you do a comparative analysis of the power and strength of our local plans compared with equivalent documents in other countries, our local plans are incredibly weak. They are policy documents that are verbalised and in practice allow you to do almost anything most of the time. Let me paint a picture. In Sweden, in much of America and in parts of France, and in different ways in Holland or Denmark, it is much easier for someone almost to pick a house out of a catalogue provided by a much wider range of providers, rather than being reliant on a small number of house builders who produce far too high a proportion of our homes.
We are living in a—am I under parliamentary privilege? I don’t know. I am not sure whether I am allowed to say “cartel”. We are certainly living under a massively overly concentrated market, because the local plan has not managed to set regulatory clarity. A lack of regulatory clarity, although associated with nationalised development rights, is a major barrier to entry, and it is exactly how it is operated. I agree with what you say in principle, Adrian, but sadly not in practice. I hope that was okay, Mr Bone—sorry.
The Chair
Q
Adrian Dobson: Thank you, Chair. I disagree and agree at the same time. I think all the witnesses agree that design is highly important. I have tried to say please let us not think of it as just skin deep. We need to create buildings and public spaces that address sustainability, build quality, safety and welfare, and that are responsive to local need. I would still make the point that it is at that local authority level that you can get the best response to local context. At the micro level—neighbourhood plans and, although we have not talked about them, street plans and so on—we have not had a good record of really making that work in the UK, so it is at that local authority level that we can be most effective.
Really though, the Bill’s ambitions can be met only if we have proper resources. Design expertise in particular is just not there in local authorities. That is not a criticism; it is just a reflection of the facts. In fact, we do a monthly economic survey of our members, and although at the moment the biggest barrier to projects proceeding is probably inflationary costs in construction products, in every survey we do the time it takes to navigate the development control process is always a halt on development.
Finally, we have not really talked about it but the Bill has lots of ambitions on climate change and sustainability, and there is obviously a lot of movement in the right direction generally from Government, but this is another one of those areas where there is not much detail about how that will actually be realised. I just make that point as my third one.
The Chair
Thank you. Lizzie, as I said to Adrian, what would be the one point you would want to make? [Laughter.]
Lizzie Glithero-West: I suppose it would be that this Bill is part of a wider jigsaw of the Government’s levelling-up agenda. Building on “Building better, building beautiful” and other reports, what does the Bill not do that the Government also need to think about in tandem? I have touched on it already, but this Bill is one component of thinking about a fiscal and legal framework to incentivise heritage and reuse at the heart of place.
I touched on them briefly, but there are two key things, one of which could be picked up in the Bill, and I encourage the Committee to be thinking about it. The removal of permitted development for demolition is truly damaging to really valuable recyclable stock. Associated with that we really welcomed in the “Building better, building beautiful” report the strong recommendation that the fiscal regime for repair and maintenance needed looking at. That is a really significant change that the Government could now effect that would incentivise repair. It would also boost productivity, and there is some great research behind that. The Federation of Master Builders and Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors looked at a temporary five-year cut and estimated a £51 billion economic stimulus from construction and repair around that. Of course, it would also help the Government to meet their net zero targets as well.
In the context of the Bill, I would strongly encourage policy makers to consider those two points.
The Chair
Briefly, Nicholas.
Nicholas Boys Smith: Briefly, did you say? I will make one point, into which I will weave three themes, quickly. [Laughter.]
The Chair
In 90 seconds.
Nicholas Boys Smith: One of my favourite quotes from the “Book of Common Prayer” is that we should be “godly and quietly governed”. That is probably an old-fashioned quote these days, but Mr Kruger may like it. The way we currently run planning is not quiet. We put a disproportionate amount of the process and the political difficulty—and my golly it is difficult—on the development control system or process, and not on politically acceptable local plans. My ultimate plea to Ministers, shadow Ministers and Members on both sides of the House is to work together to try and bring the democracy forward into the plan-making process and to rely less on the hard-to-avoid, personal, difficult and emotional debates that will then happen around individual development decisions.
That is not necessarily politically easy, because the whole process around it and around civic society is to worry about the individual planning applications. We actually have to allow more power and more popular process on the local plan, to express that visually and typographically, and to think about sustainability not just in terms of the energy and use, but the lifestyles that we live and the longevity of buildings. More beautiful buildings get reused and last longer, and their embodied carbon is recycled. I think, “Pull the democracy forward,” is my plea to you all.
The Chair
Thank you all very much. I very much appreciate your evidence. That ends this session, and we will now move on to our fifth panel.
Examination of Witnesses
Dr Richard Benwell, Carolyn McKenzie and Paul Miner gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Dr Benwell: Good afternoon, and thanks for having me. My name is Richard Benwell, and I am the chief executive of Wildlife and Countryside Link, a coalition of 65 environmental charities.
Paul Miner: Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Paul Miner, and I am the head of policy and planning at CPRE, the countryside charity. I am a chartered town planner.
Carolyn McKenzie: I am Carolyn McKenzie, director of environment at Surrey County Council. I chair the energy and clean growth working group at the Association of Directors of Environment, Economy, Planning and Transport.
The Chair
Thank you. The witnesses can expect questions from Ministers because the object of this Committee is to gather evidence to influence our detailed consideration of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
Q
Dr Benwell: It is definitely not a missed opportunity yet, because we are only at the start of the process. I would say it is a huge opportunity to tackle two important environmental problems associated with planning and levelling up.
The first of these is environmental inequality. We think of the levelling-up agenda as being about economic inequality, but we live in a country of really deep environmental inequality. We have probably all heard the statistic that there are 40,000 premature deaths a year from air pollution, but it can vary street by street, let alone town by town. It goes deeper than that, because there is environmental inequality in things like access to natural green space, which has been brought to the fore over the past couple of years when so many people have depended on it. Those inequalities are, again, really deep. People from the lowest socioeconomic backgrounds are nine times less likely to have access to high-quality natural green spaces, which is hugely important for our physical and mental health. People from ethnic minority backgrounds are twice as likely to live in places that are bereft of access to natural green space.
At a wider level, there are deeper environmental inequalities still. Think, for example, of folk living in areas where degraded uplands mean that water flows more quickly over surfaces, flooding homes and businesses. Think of the same in urban areas, where densification and the use of impermeable surfaces is increasing flood risk and other environmental risks. There are huge levelling-up aspects to environmental inequality, which this Bill is an opportunity to fix.
Secondly, the planning system can help us environmentally through its impact on nature. We know that more than 40% of species are in long-term decline, and 15% of species here in Great Britain are at risk of extinction. The last “State of Nature” report made it clear that planning and unsustainable development play a big role in that. The Bill is a chance to make sure that, in future, the planning system is not imbalanced as it so often has been in the past when it focused on things like housing numbers alone. We need to balance that with the need for spatial planning and careful development that contributes to nature’s recovery. At the moment though, those opportunities have not been realised. On the contrary, some provisions in the Bill will do quite the opposite and bring in new environmental risks.
I will quickly address how to grasp those opportunities. It would be excellent if, among the levelling-up missions set in clause 1, you included access to a healthy natural environment. I was really surprised to see that the levelling-up White Paper’s list of capitals included human capital, financial capital, intellectual capital and social capital but not natural capital. Not to list environmental capital as one of those fundamental assets reflects a 1980s philosophy, really. So we should have access to a good-quality natural environment as a levelling-up mission, and a duty on public bodies to help people achieve that with access to natural green space.
On improving the planning system, there are some obvious missed wins there, such as making sure that planning and development decisions are in line with section 1 of the Environment Act 2021 and section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008, to meet our carbon budgets and halt nature’s decline by 2030. You could go further, with things like implementing the findings of the Glover review to improve the contribution of national parks to restoring nature here in the UK. So there are some really missed opportunities for positive planning.
On the negative side, I do not know whether we will touch on this later, but although the environmental outcome reports proposed in the Bill sound positive in principle for the natural environment, the way they are framed risks undermining some of our most important conservation laws. Those clauses and that part of the Bill need some attention to make sure they do what I think they are intended to do, which is to add a new layer of protection, not to weaken our long-standing, important environmental protections in this country.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Carolyn McKenzie: The earlier speaker made some really good points; I back up all those points, but I will not reiterate them. At the local level, it is very much about integration across different policies. There is some really good stuff in the Bill, but integration across all the different policies will be key. This is not just about the big infrastructure, such as wind farms or EV charging; it is about making sure that environmental considerations are integrated across all projects in infrastructure and all levelling-up projects, because a pound spent on levelling up can deliver on your outcomes for net zero or biodiversity, and investment in net zero and biodiversity can deliver on your levelling-up ambitions as well.
In addition, although there is a real need for some of the big infrastructure projects, if I take a look at Surrey as a whole and our net zero emissions, the biggest proportion of those emissions, 41%, is down to private sector transport, and 31% to 33% is down to domestic housing. Those local actions—local public transport and active travel to get people out of their cars, and remote working, as well as tackling retrofit—have the potential to not only reduce emissions, but to drive jobs and growth and tackle inequalities, because inequality is hugely linked to the environment: a lot of our poorer communities have the poorest environments. The one thing I will repeat from Richard’s comments is that there is a lack of recognition that a healthy environment for all is really important when it comes to having a healthy economy and a healthy social area as well.
The last point I would like to make is about taking a place-based approach. Funding is often fragmented, competitive, and focused on specific things like EV cars or renewable energy. At the county level, we are very much looking at a place-based approach where we can link things together and look at a community as a whole. If we could link all that funding together and have a pot that delivers on an evidence-based approach that says what is needed in the area and links up all of our ambitions around health, economy, social and environment, that would be a lot easier, and we could make funding deliver more than the separate, individual pots could. Having place-based funding that is based on local evidence of need would be really helpful.
Paul Miner: I should say at the beginning that I am speaking today on behalf of CPRE, the countryside charity, and point out that CPRE is leading the Better Planning Coalition, which includes a wide variety of environmental, social and community organisations that have come together to put forward a shared view on how we can improve the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill and make it stronger for people and nature more generally. We are working in a number of key areas. Climate change is one of them.
In CPRE’s view, at the moment the planning system has an institutional weakness in dealing with climate change. There is a duty on local authorities in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 for their development plan document—so local plans essentially—to contribute towards the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change. However, that duty is not strong enough. It does not consistently influence local authorities or planning inspectors examining plans or appeals. The Bill merely reiterates this existing and insufficient duty. We have seen, for example, recent planning stats reports for 24 recently adopted local plans that show only one mention of climate change for 24 of boosting housing supply. The priorities of the planning system have become massively skewed and unbalanced.
We want to see in the final version of the Bill some additional clauses that apply the climate change duty both more meaningfully, so that it clearly reiterates the national commitments made in the Climate Change Act 2008, but also applies the climate change duty to national planning policy as well as just local plans. It should also apply to decision making on specific planning applications, as well as just in the making of local plans. We also need to see more detail about what the duty means both in terms of mitigation, achieving Climate Change Act targets on budget and climate budgets, and in terms of adaptation, relating it to relevant statutory risk assessments and compliance. The coalition is coming forward with some further ideas on this, which we are very keen to discuss further with the Committee in due course.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Dr Benwell: We cannot give a complete view, because so much is proposed to be done in regulations and that itself is a problem. The idea of taking a more outcome-based approach to environmental impact assessments is a good one and there are definitely areas where environmental impact assessment and strategic environmental assessment can be improved. So things like making sure that you get the thresholds right to include all potentially environmentally damaging plans; that could be improved. Things like making scoping decisions mandatory; that could be improved. The problem as we see it with the environmental outcomes proposed in the Bill is that the outcomes set can simply be spliced in in place of existing environmental requirements. We do not know that those will be robust enough.
For example, in the environmental impact assessment process, if anything proposed in a plan or a project is likely to cause significant harm to the environment, there is a duty to avoid, mitigate or compensate for that potential harm. In the new system, if an environmental outcome is set that, for example, talks about a general outcome of improving the abundance of species at the national level, any sort of project that claims to be doing that nationally could ignore local impacts. It could ignore the impacts on particularly important sites and species at the local level. That could be extremely damaging for things like sites of special scientific interest and UNESCO sites, which are afforded their main protection through the planning system and through the EIA and SEA.
I should point out that these clauses will affect not just the EIA and SEA; it is really important to note that the habitats regulations and the habitats regulations assessments are also affected. If you look at clause 127, you will find an extraordinary provision that says that anything done in an environmental outcomes report can be treated as satisfying any existing duties under the habitats regulations assessment process. That process, which is what protects our most internationally important wildlife sites from harm, is even stronger than the EIA and SEA, because under the habitats regulations process, before a site can be affected by a project that causes significant harm on site or by contiguous activities, the developer must prove that mitigation is in place to avoid that significant harm, or that there are imperative overriding public interest reasons to proceed and compensatory measures are in place.
That is a really high legal bar to protect our most important sites and species of international significance. Under the Bill, the Government could put in its place a more parochial and limited environmental outcome, such as saying that the best available technology has been used to reduce water pollution, or that overall national trends will be going in the right direction. That would weaken and undermine the extremely important protection provided by the habitats regulations. You do not often see a clause in a Bill that says that anything in regulations can be treated as satisfying existing legal duties, or indeed that anything in them can amend, replace or repeal any of the most fundamental parts of the habitats regulations that we have come to rely on for decades. The concept is quite good, but the way in which it is being applied brings serious risks of undermining long-standing environmental rules that would potentially create huge uncertainty in the planning system, because developers and conservationists alike have become used to operating under this system.
Paul Miner: I agree with Richard about the environmental dimension of the environmental outcomes reports. It is also worth the Committee considering that under the current system, local authorities have to do a sustainability appraisal, looking not only at environmental factors but at social and economic factors.
To pick up on what Richard and Carolyn pointed out, there is quite an important issue about the effect of the planning system on human health. It seems particularly strange that in a Bill about levelling up we are not using the outcomes reports as a means of embedding the Government’s levelling-up objectives in the planning system. For example, the levelling-up White Paper calls for measures on increasing healthy life expectancy and regenerating town centres, but those will not be assessed at all through the planning system under environmental outcomes reports, whereas they would have been under the current system of sustainability appraisals.
Carolyn McKenzie: I agree that taking an outcome-based approach allows us to be more flexible and achieve more, but it depends on how narrow the outcomes are, which is Richard’s point. It would be really good to ensure that the outcomes in the Bill match the performance targets and indicators that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is currently consulting on under the Environment Act 2021. They need to link up so that we have one set of environmental indicators that all sectors and all areas are delivering on.
To pick out one example, there is no mention of natural capital in the Bill, as Richard pointed out. How can we put in an outcome relating to natural capital, which could be really important for health, attracting businesses to areas or carbon sequestration? That is a key element of levelling up, so I urge caution in ensuring that any new outcomes link directly to the Environment Act and the 25-year environment plan.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Dr Benwell: I should have brought my copy of the Bill. There are actually some very good bits in clause 117. The Government have done quite a good job of writing in the mitigation hierarchy, which is welcome to see. The problem is linked through to clause 127, which allows everything in preceding parts simply to replace existing environmental law. It would be much better if the Government came forward with fully worked-up proposals for how to strengthen the existing system of the EIA and SEA, rather than taking the approach of giving themselves the powers to take out layers of environmental law and put in something different.
You mentioned clause 120, the so-called non-regression clause. It is obviously a good thing to have a commitment not to weaken environmental protection, but I am afraid that the efficacy of such a clause is really in doubt, for a number of reasons. First, it is the Secretary of State in whose opinion environmental law has to be maintained at an equal level. That is a highly subjective opinion left in the hands of Ministers—and, just to emphasise, not a court in the land would challenge that on the basis of ultra vires without it being patently absurd. Courts are really deferential to decision makers, so if a Minister were to say, “Yes, this is equivalent,” that statement would have to be really, really daft for a court to challenge it. So we think that that kind of non-regression provision is unlikely to be robust.
Secondly, the other noteworthy part of the non-regression provision is that it talks about overall levels of protection. That is where we come back to the idea of talking about the environment in aggregate and those big broad trends of species-level data, which is really important—like Carolyn, I think that we should be linking back to the Environment Act targets—but it is not sufficient. We must keep in place the rules that protect the particular, the peculiar and the exciting at the local level that matter to important people, and those local populations of species and habitats that are so important. Otherwise, we get into a runaway offsetting mentality where the assurance that things will be better overall can be taken to obscure a lot of harm to the natural environment at the local level.
So there are some good things in clause 117 and some nice sentiments in clause 120, but overall they do not give the reassurance that would be provided by simply taking time to work up provisions in full and bring them forward in primary legislation rather than giving Ministers the power to swip and swap through regulations.
Paul Miner: I have nothing further to add on this question.
Carolyn McKenzie: I have nothing further to add other than to reiterate the local element. You do get lots of peculiarities in different areas, and they can be lost, so we must make sure that they are not.
Neil O’Brien
Q
Paul Miner: We think that a brownfield-first approach to new housing and commercial building development can have a number of benefits. We have seen constantly over the years that there is enough brownfield land available for over 1 million new homes in any given year, and this supply of brownfield is constantly replenishing as more sites come forward, and it is possible to build at higher densities.
We think there are a number of clauses in the Bill that could help with brownfield regeneration, such as those relating to changing compulsory purchase order powers, as you have mentioned, and the infrastructure levy. Getting local plans in place more quickly will also help to bring brownfield sites forward. So we see a lot of benefits to a brownfield-first approach.
However, the problem we have consistently had over the past 15 years, under both Conservative and Labour Governments, is that it has been easier for large housebuilders to bring forward speculative developments through the planning system, often not contained within local plans, than to be able to get these schemes through at appeal. We think there are a number of measures the Government need to look at.
Some of these may involve legislation but more involve changes to policy to give councils more power to set targets for the amount of housing needed in their area, to make sure that housing targets reflect what is likely to be built in the area, as opposed to what house builders say when they claim to be meeting housing targets that they then do not build, and to identify local needs for affordable homes. In many areas of the country they are crying out for affordable homes, but the kind of housing that is being built is not meeting those identified needs.
We recognise that there is a lot in the Bill that is helping to bring forward the benefits of a brownfield-first approach, in terms of, as you say, embodied carbon, saving precious agricultural land and regenerating communities in of need levelling up. At the same time, we think there is scope to do much more.
Neil O’Brien
Q
Carolyn McKenzie: To build on what Paul has said, I think the circular economy is missing from the Bill. There is not much that is looking at what can be reused, recycled or reclaimed. It is about the new, and sometimes that is not the best way to go. Specifically around things like housing retrofits, it is about repair and regenerate rather than new housing. There is not that look at retrofitting that there should be, bearing in mind that the majority of housing we have is already in existence.
Neil O’Brien
Q
Carolyn McKenzie: The first thing would be to actually have a mission in the Bill that relates to environmental outcomes, as the Bill does not have such a mission in there. Even though there has been some commitment to sustainable and non-competitive funding, if there is no mission then you cannot link that back. When you have funds such as the shared prosperity fund, which will take regard of the environment, if there is no mission you cannot just say, “Well, this is a priority.” So having a mission on the environment would definitely push this along.
There is a need within devolution to be clear about people’s roles. At the minute, everything that is done around climate change is done by local authorities, both at county and district level, because they have been driven to do so by the public through climate emergencies. It is not because we are being asked to do it. That drives action, absolutely, but it drives different types of action—inconsistent action—and the data is different so you cannot compare.
Also, when you get things like covid coming along, or Ukraine, or inflation, the risk of dropping down the agenda is really high, so that sustainable approach to funding is needed, rather than there being small pots of funding and grant-based funding, which can change and is short-run and competitive. That approach is not great for really putting down the foundations and encouraging local authorities to work with partners and to partner up. We are looking at working with the private sector, residents and other public sector bodies to really partner up their funding with our funding, to get more bang for our bucks and to achieve more through things like volunteering to plant trees, which involves health and social, and tackling fuel poverty, which keeps people out of hospital as well as reducing carbon emissions. As I keep saying, that integration is really key.
Again, when we look at things to spend money on, we really need to look at what is needed at the local level. There are lots of things that will be consistent that people need to spend money on, but there will be lots of differences and nuances at the local level that will make it better spent. I reiterate again that 41% of Surrey’s emissions—we are not unusual among other authorities—are down to the private car. With little or no funding for public transport, it is a really difficult target to hit to get people out of the car. You can get people to change to electric vehicles, but that has an equalities aspect to it: not everybody drives and not everybody can afford it. Public transport and good safe routes for walking and cycling are really crucial, as is the housing side, again.
Neil O’Brien
Q
Paul Miner: Yes, we have done plenty of work on that, which we can send to the Committee. In particular, we produced a report a few years ago on public transport-oriented development, which showed that you could get much higher densities in urban areas that were already served by an intensive public transport network. In turn, that mutually reinforced and made sustainable public transport improvements within that area. There is certainly more on that that we could send to the Committee, which we would be very happy to do.
In addition to Carolyn’s point, I also want to say something very quickly on the rural aspect as well. Cornwall in particular is a possible trailblazer on rural devolution, in terms of what it has been able to do to integrate its transport network—that is in trains, ticketing and single points of information. It has also done some great work in terms of setting housing policies and on retrofitting rural housing stock. It does seem to be an exciting model that others could look at.
The Chair
Richard, we have not forgotten you; we will ask you to comment in a second.
Carolyn McKenzie: The key point on that is that there are so many different actors and so many different funds in respect of devolution. It is about looking at how we co-ordinate that. I am proposing to my authority to look at taking a lead climate change authority approach, similar to the lead local flood authority approach, so that we can actually co-ordinate, get the data down, look at what is relevant for the local level and deliver on that. We can then use that data to influence the funding that we bring in or to influence Government funding pots, so it is appropriate. That co-ordination element among all the different sectors is really key. At the minute, it is not there around environment. There are lots of different people and lots of different areas to come from.
The Chair
Richard, you have been very patient.
Dr Benwell: Thank you, Chair. I have been expansive on other questions, so it is no problem.
I will make two points very quickly. First, it would be great if we could always preface “brownfield” with “low-biodiversity value”. My friends at Buglife would send a plague of spiders my way if I did not point out that sometimes brownfield can be really important for nature. That has a really important link through to localism, because it is often local communities—our brilliant heritage of amateur ecologists—who know about these things. It is really important for the planning system to keep being able to investigate and interrogate what is on individual sites.
It was welcome, in this version of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, to see the move away from the previous proposals in the planning White Paper, which would have taken a broadbrush zoning approach, taking away some of the granularity of local information. It is really important that we keep doing those site-based surveys and that, as we move to digitisation, for example, we do not do everything from a laptop computer and assume that there is nothing important there.
Quickly, on another aspect of devolution, on the environmental outcome reports, it is noteworthy that the outcomes can be set for the devolved nations as well, after consultation. I do not know anything about devolution politics, but it would be great if it can be clear that whatever is set by Westminster is a base, not a cap. If other countries wanted to move further and set bolder outcomes, it would be unfortunate if a new power that enables those things to be set from Westminster prevented Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland from being able to go further if they wanted to.
Rachael Maskell
Q
Dr Benwell: It would be wonderful if climate and nature were at the forefront of the Bill. A modern planning system ought to have environmental recovery embedded in its very purpose. Some of the things in the Environment Act 2021 moved us forward in thinking about compensating for environmental harm, and indeed things like biodiversity gain set a precedent, but actually some of those big sectors have a role not just in offsetting the harm that they do, but in contributing to improvement.
I know that there is some suspicion about purpose clauses in Bills, and that those are not something we do in UK law, but what you could do is to set a requirement that plans and individual decisions are compatible with nature’s recovery under section 1 of the Environment Act and with climate change mitigation under section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008.
More locally, you could take a real step forward by bringing into statute some of the things that the Government have already promised. For example, we have this excellent commitment to protect 30% of land and sea for nature. Would it not be great if the Bill were to bring that into statutory form by setting an aspiration, or a requirement on Ministers, to ensure that all sites of significant importance for nature are properly designated by 2030; and to bring in some of the exciting new proposals for things like a wild belt, a new planning designation not just to protect what we already have for nature, but to provide areas where nature could recover?
On your question about the growing environmental risks that come from climate change and nature degradation, that comes back to the question of natural capital. Really, we ought to be thinking about levelling up not just geographically, but temporally: we ought to be thinking about the concerns of future generations. This is about making sure that geography does not define destiny. If you are more likely to be flooded, less likely to breathe clean air, or going to be in a place where you cannot access clean rivers or access a positive natural environment, there ought to be something of the past; that the length, quality and happiness of your life are defined by the physical environment around you. Surely that gap, having natural capital and a healthy natural environment as one of the missions that came in the White Paper, should be filled by a clear duty in the Bill—to set that as one of the missions, when they are formally set in statute.
My final point is that with some of the questions about, for example, flood risk mitigation versus housing development and space for agricultural land, there are inevitably trade-offs. It is really difficult. We know that if we are to meet net zero, a third of that effort has to be delivered by nature-based solutions—so, finding space for land to sequester more carbon through better agricultural soils, and through more trees and wetlands.
If we are going to do that at the same time as ensuring that we have space for business and development, and space to grow enough food, we have to improve how we do spatial planning and we have to make those trade-offs explicit, and a planning system that is still weighted towards housing numbers over those other considerations is one that will never make those choices properly. A spatially explicit planning system that has nature’s recovery and climate change mitigation at its heart is one that would make a real boon of this Bill.
The Chair
I am afraid that we are going to be caught by the clock, because I now have another Member who wants to come in. Paul and Carolyn might want to come in too. We could have gone on with this session for ages. Quickly.
Rachael Maskell
Q
Dr Benwell: It is hugely important, and we need to make sure that those existing green spaces are not just little patches of grass that are full of litter and dog mess. They need to be thriving natural abundant places that people can go and enjoy and find solace in nature. You are absolutely right; we need a system that can identify those spaces that really matter to local communities, whether they be notionally brownfield or not. We have seen an 11% loss in urban green space over the past 15 years. Were that trend to continue, you would find more people left bereft of nature. You would find productivity falling and ill health growing, so these things are hugely important. Things like—
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
Q
Dr Benwell: This situation that we have got to, where I think 70 local authorities are facing moratoria on development because of nutrient loading, is a real problem, but it is a problem because in some ways the system is working. We have allowed ourselves to reach a threshold where our rivers are facing ecological destruction because we failed to halt diffuse pollution from agriculture and to halt run-off from urban areas. We need to find a way through it, absolutely, and there are a couple of ways to do that.
In the short term, we should make sure that developers have options to mitigate and compensate for any additional load that they would put on those water bodies—that is absolutely crucial. We have seen some brilliant examples around Poole harbour, where developers have been allowed to invest in treatment wetlands or to work with farmers to reduce artificial inputs of fertiliser—nitrate and phosphate—to reduce that load on the system so that you can go forward and provide that infrastructure and development that you need, but not in such a way that we leave our rivers and streams ecologically dead.
In the long term, we need to move to a more systematic approach, where we take these problems into account in advance and we permit plans and projects only when they are within a nutrient budget in the system. It is about having a catchment-level nutrient budgeting plan that says, “This is what is currently in the system and what it is adding to our waters; this is what we can bring forward; and this is what we have to take out of the system.” Other countries have done that really successfully, and it has enabled development to take place in a way that does not take them over those critical environmental thresholds.
So we should not knee-jerk and get rid of the rules that are in place, because they are serving a vital ecological function, but we should help developers to do their bit by taking away aspects of the problem. In the long term, we need to use things such as environmental land management to help pay farmers to shift towards more agroecological systems. We need to help developers to come forward with permeable membranes and reduce the load on the sewerage system so that they are not contributing to the problem.
The Chair
Paul, did you want to add anything—in 60 seconds?
Paul Miner: Just to go back to Rachael’s initial question, one area of the Bill that gives us real cause for concern, in terms of local authorities’ ability to adapt to climate change, is the proposal on national development management policies. We think that, as the clauses are currently drafted, it will make it more difficult for local councils to have what is known as Merton rule-style policies, requiring a higher amount of renewable energy generation in new developments compared with the national building regulations. Similarly, on biodiversity net gain, the national policy is to ensure 10%, but some local authorities want to go beyond that. They would not do so if we had a national development management policy that told them to keep to what is nationally mandated.
We therefore think that clause 83 needs to be changed so that it just says that local authorities should be able to decide applications in line with both local and national policies, but not always have to give supremacy to national policies. We hope the Committee will look further at that in due course. We know that, for many members of the Committee, it is a major cause of concern, which they have raised already.
The Chair
I am really sorry to our witnesses. We could have gone on for much longer, but time has beaten us. We must move on now to our sixth panel. I very much thank the witnesses for their evidence.
Examination of Witness
Dr Hugh Ellis gave evidence.
The Chair
As there is only one gentleman on this panel, it is easy for me to ask him to introduce himself.
Dr Ellis: Good afternoon. My name is Dr Hugh Ellis and I am director of policy at the Town and Country Planning Association.
The Chair
For your benefit, Sir, the purpose of this Committee is to gather evidence to help us when we consider the Bill as we go through it line by line next week. One advantage of this Committee is that the Minister gets to ask questions. That is the only fun that he will have in this Committee, so I think we will start with him.
Stuart Andrew
Q
Dr Ellis, thank you very much for your time this afternoon. Could you perhaps tell us what your organisation and its members think about many of the reforming aspects of the planning system that are contained in the Bill?
Dr Ellis: I think they regard it, and we regard it, as a mixed picture. We welcome the issues on hope value and on development corporations, and strengthening the development plan is certainly welcome. But then there are a series of issues on which we need some serious reassurance. There are just three. First, how can we drive delivery and does the Bill do enough on that. Secondly, democracy and public trust are absolutely critical to everyone because, as we have already heard, there is a lack of public trust in the system. Finally, there are the really positive measures that could be taken on climate change.
Briefly, I will throw one more in. When we write legislation on planning and when planners think about the future, we often have a tendency to think about it through our lens. I think it would have been great to see more creative, local community solutions in the Bill, particularly on the cost of living. The planning system has enormous potential to be a solution for things such as local food growing and local flood defence. It would have been great to see some concrete measures enabling that kind of activity from the bottom up.
Stuart Andrew
Q
Dr Ellis: The primacy of the local plan is really important. We are very worried about the relationship with national development policies and whether that masks a centralising tendency. Local and neighbourhood plans are so important in giving certainty to communities. As is often the case, we are making some changes to the process of planning reform—that is nothing new—but the fundamental issue is about resources. Most people who talk to us about planning and the delivery of local plans would say, “Well, if we had more resources we could deliver them more quickly, and if we had more certainty we could also do that.” So we should not get too hung up about changing the law.
We have divided the local plan into several pieces now through this Bill: we have said there is a local plan, then a supplementary plan, and then a strategic plan, and two of those are voluntary and one is not. In that sense, we have created that framework. The answer is that it all depends: it depends on resources and on how much power the Secretary of State wants to take to the centre on the content of local plans. We have an honest concern that if you want to rebuild public trust, you need to handle those powers with extreme caution.
Stuart Andrew
Q
Dr Ellis: I think we do. We are obviously desperate to preserve the rights to be heard. That is an important point. We are losing some rights to be heard and communities really need them. The TCPA fought for them from the 1960s onwards so that people had a right to be in the inquiry of a plan. Our planning system is very asymmetrical; the development sector is very dominant in that process.
A lot of people are sceptical about the idea of neighbourhood planning. I admit my own scepticism about it, because plans are often happening in places with more social and economic capital than others and we absolutely have to address that, but they are proving powerful—I speak as an ex-parish councillor, so I have served my time on this. Whether the statements get us over the line in creating something simple and meaningful is the challenge we want to see explored through this Bill’s progress. Will those statements actually have weight? Yes, you have to have regard to them, but what exactly will that mean in detail? Local and parish councils are denigrated, but they do have a powerful and meaningful role in the planning process.
Stuart Andrew
Q
Dr Ellis: There are two sides to that reaction. First, what is not to like about digitisation? There are some very archaic practices in the planning process and it would be great if we could catch up and have the resources to digitise. That will make information more accessible. It is also really important that we are able to integrate environmental data, because there are competing datasets out there. One of the most important recommendations is that we sort of need a national laboratory for that spatial data, as that would simplify the process no end.
But digital data goes so far. There is an issue about digital exclusion that worries us for communities. We can have as much digital information as we like, but we also need access to the arenas where decisions are made, so there is a twin relationship between understanding what is going on and being able to do something about it. That is where rights to be heard, which we are so exercised about in the planning process, are so important.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Dr Ellis: There are two issues. One is about rights to be heard. We have decided now in the Bill to call several documents “development plan documents,” which has a specific legal meaning and a specific legal way. So the strategic plan, the supplementary plan and the local plan are now all development plan documents. If a development plan document is being prepared, it has legal weight in planning, and the quick answer is there therefore must be a right to be heard. On the strategic plans, the Bill currently says that it positively excludes the right to be heard at an examination. That seems to us wholly wrong and unnecessary. If people want to, we should give them the opportunity turn up at an inquiry and test the evidence.
To be clear, even if the criteria are set nationally, green belt allocations will probably be set in those strategic plans. In other words, the issues that people really care about have to be debated in an arena where there is a right to be heard. That would be an easy modification to make, and I so hope that Ministers will seriously give it consideration.
The other issue is centralisation. That worries us even more, because nationally described development management policy has a new legal status. There has been some debate about that, and we are absolutely convinced that it does have a new and special legal status as national policy described in law. The clauses elevate that policy so that where there is a dispute, it is resolved in favour of the national policy.
There are no limitations on what the Secretary of State can include in that national development management policy; nor is there a robust process of parliamentary scrutiny, which there is for national policy statements in major infrastructure. That has to change. If the Government are determined to have such a policy, parliamentary scrutiny and public participation in setting it are crucial.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Dr Ellis: Simply, there will not be any. The duty to co-operate was a problematic measure—a stop-gap measure—inserted after the abolition of regional planning. You would expect me to say this, and it may not be popular, but regional planning in this country was critically important to our future. I understand and have to accept that there was insufficient public support for it. Again, it simply did not have the right kind of governance, but it was important.
Put simply, for the reasons you have heard, which I will not repeat, it is absolutely essential that we have bigger-than-local decision making. That enables communities to make decisions; it does not trump them. If you want to preserve the east coast from a sea level rise of 1.5 metres by the beginning of the next century, which is predicted by the Environment Agency, you cannot expect 33 district councils between the Humber and the Thames to do that on their own, so it is very important that we get that right.
Removing the duty to co-operate and replacing it with a policy imperative just makes a situation even worse. Devolution could help, but of course, that is an ad hoc process; we do not yet know who wants to do devolution. I am sat in Derbyshire, and I have no idea whether Derbyshire wants to be a combined authority or not. It is vital that we have that strategic tier.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Dr Ellis: Development corporations are really welcome, but it is worth remembering that when you have effective planning, which links planning to delivery—that is what a development corporation does; you can really drive change—the most important thing is that their governance needs to be modernised so that they are genuinely accountable and participative. The purpose of a development corporation is to draw on what Oliver Letwin recognised in his review: the critical role of the public sector as master developer in de-risking development.
Much of the challenge in why we are not delivering the homes that we consent in the planning process is because the private sector has limited incentive to deliver beyond certain levels, based on absorption rates. Development corporations can do that. It is worth reflecting on the fact that, within 20 years of the war, we consented 33 new towns, which housed 2.8 million people and paid for themselves. That record is largely forgotten but still very powerful.
The answer is that the challenge in giving the powers solely to local authorities is that they work only when Government stand behind them. I think it is the Government’s role in housing that we need to draw out. They need to be more muscular in supporting local authorities. The experience from the locally led development corporation in north Essex illustrates that point.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Dr Ellis: I think there is a huge opportunity to do that. It is essential that the Bill contains a purpose for planning if you want to recreate public trust by making it clear in statute what the system is for. It is interesting that there are currently four outcome duties in law on planning, but there is nothing in the Bill equivalent to what we see in Bills on social care or in national parks, where there is a clear sense of what planning is meant for.
If you want this new journey—we all do—to benefit the future of England, you need to need to set down that purpose around sustainable development. That is an inclusive goal; we are already internationally signed up to it, and for me, it is the only development goal that is credible for the future of this nation. Underneath that, I would quickly say that it is heartbreaking to see the potential that planning has to deal with climate change mitigation and adaptation and the dysfunction that we are currently presented with.
I have just seen an inspector remove a net zero policy from an area action plan for a new development in West Oxfordshire. That tells you that Government policy urgently needs to be reviewed. The whole sector has been calling for an urgent ministerial statement to clarify how net zero is delivered. We really cannot wait for the NPPF review at the end of 2024 for that; it must happen now. On adaptation, the issue is even more serious, in terms of having to begin to think about shifting population off the east coast, the challenges of surface water flooding, the endless flooding in Calder valley and how plans need to grasp the allocation of land for natural flood defence.
I know that I cannot go on, but all I can see is huge potential. We need to bind the planning and climate Bills together. The climate Bill must have specific requirements on the sixth carbon budget, and stronger requirements on adaptation, specifically around water and flooding.
Neil O’Brien
Q
As we negotiate devolution deals with areas such as Derbyshire, where we are in talks at present, how do we best bring together the new instruments and new combined authorities to achieve everything we potentially can through spatial planning to drive the kind of join-up you have been arguing for in this session?
Dr Ellis: That is a complex question, but time is short. The single biggest issue is with trust and public consent—whether the people of Derbyshire understand the benefits of the combined authority. I am tempted to say, at the moment, that they do not. People have talked in the past about double devolution, and I think that is still important. You have two problems going on; you have the fantastic opportunity that devolution presents to empower local authorities and collections of local authorities, but then you have an important issue about the citizen and trust within communities, and how they relate to that.
In thinking about the devolution agenda, it is important to show regard and care to things such as parish and town councils—that lower tier—and what powers they might get. Otherwise, all that happens is that you shift the trust problem down a notch. The opportunity is there when resources and powers are provided for places to begin to set a new course that tells a story about that place. That is desperately needed in this country.
My only fear is that we need coverage across most of England—we do need that—and the ad hoc nature of this is giving different powers to different areas. The status of the strategic plan in Liverpool, legally, is different to the one in Manchester, which is different again to the London plan. That might be fine, but it also creates levels of legal uncertainty. There is a tension between those things, but I would continually emphasise the point on community trust and what communities can do, as well as what local authorities can do.
The Chair
Thank you, Mr Ellis, for your clear and concise evidence. We very much appreciate it. We must now move on to our seventh session of the day.
Examination of Witnesses
Gavin Smart and Kate Henderson gave evidence.
The Chair
I have in front of me a gentleman and a lady. Would the lady like to introduce herself for the record?
Kate Henderson: I am Kate Henderson, chief executive of the National Housing Federation. We are the voice of housing associations in England.
Gavin Smart: My name is Gavin Smart. I am the chief executive of the Chartered Institute of Housing, which is the professional body for people working in housing in the UK.
The Chair
Thank you. We are going to take questions from members of the Committee, starting with the shadow Minister.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Gavin Smart: The levy is certainly similar to CIL, but I believe it is managed in a way that CIL is not. I share some of your concerns about the impact of the levy on lower-value sites. One of our concerns is that we are currently struggling to deliver the housing that we need, particularly affordable housing and social rented housing. Whether a levy on a lower-value site will be able to deliver the resources needed to support the delivery of new homes for social rent is a significant concern.
The other issue that I would raise with respect to the levy is that we are very aware of the role that, historically, section 106 planning gain has played in the delivery of affordable housing and social rented housing. About half of affordable housing is delivered in that way. Although there are commitments from the Government that affordable housing delivery will be maintained, we are anxious to understand the detail of that, because section 106 has been such an important part of the delivery mechanism.
Kate Henderson: Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the Committee today. We really support the Government’s ambition to address regional inequalities in our towns and cities’ economies through levelling up. It is also very good to see housing and planning as part of the Bill, but we share have concerns around the impact of planning reforms on the ability to deliver much-needed affordable housing.
When it comes to the infrastructure levy, we are really looking at four areas where we would like to have a bit more detail and some assurances. The first is the issue of protections for the delivery of affordable housing. The second is around the importance of on-site delivery of affordable housing. The third is around the risk to viability, and the fourth is that we would like to see an exemption from the levy for sites that are 100% affordable.
The Chair
We are going to carry on, but we are having a slight problem with your sound and picture, Kate. If it breaks down, we might turn the video off and just have your audio, but we will see.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
“to ensure affordable housing levels will be maintained, with current levels as a minimum.”
Correct me if I am wrong, but I assume that you were referring to proposed new section 204G of the Planning Act 2008, which is discussed in schedule 11. I wanted to probe why you think the language in that clause, or anything else the Government have said in relation to the Bill, is anywhere near robust enough to guarantee the maintenance of current affordable housing levels. I read the language, which is
“must have regard…to the desirability of ensuring”
as quite weak in terms of ensuring that we see that affordable supply of housing come forward.
Kate Henderson: My starting point is that we really welcome the Government’s commitment to ensuring that as much affordable housing will be delivered. As Gavin Smart mentioned, at the moment section 106 planning obligations deliver around 50% of all affordable housing in England. It is vital that what replaces it delivers, ideally more, but at least as much. We are pleased that there is that reference in schedule 11, in proposed new section 204G, around having a mechanism to ensure that affordable housing levels will be maintained at current levels, but what we would like is a greater commitment and assurances from the Committee and ideally in the legislation about what we mean by current levels of affordable housing delivery.
There is a risk that in some areas minimum affordable housing requirements, which should be based on objectively assessed need, are actually being delivered by what is coming through the planning system now, and that is not enough in some areas and we do not want that under-delivery to be baked in. We would really like clarity from Ministers that, to protect affordable housing delivery, current levels will be based on current targets for affordable housing, which should be based on objectively assessed need.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Kate Henderson: I think the Bill suggests that section 106 agreements will be retained for larger sites. I do not think we have necessarily determined the size of those sites yet and potentially that will come through in secondary legislation.
What we are learning from section 106 is that there are some really important considerations. We have been having positive conversations with the Government about this, particularly around the delivery of on-site affordable housing. The Government are bringing forward a new infrastructure levy. That levy has got to ensure that we get inclusive, mixed communities—that we get the integration of different housing types and different tenures, and that they are built to good, high standards. We know that mixed communities are far more successful than exclusively, for example, poor ones. We want to have the affordable housing integrated in.
That is one of the really important lessons from section 106—when it works well, you get an integration of your housing all on site and you get other good on-site infrastructure delivered at the right time as well. That helps with public acceptance of development, particularly at scale.
I think we would want to see in the design of the new levy that early engagement with housing associations is there absolutely at the outset and that on-site delivery is considered the default position when it comes to significant sites. We would really like to ensure that local authority use of contributions for purposes other than affordable housing would have to come after the agreed level of delivery of affordable housing on site.
Gavin Smart: I strongly agree with Kate, particularly around needing to be sure that we are not baking in low levels of performance on the delivery of affordable housing. We need to be sure that the expectation of the continuation of delivery of affordable housing is at a sensible level, supported by some sort of assessment of need. Like Kate and anybody involved in the delivery of affordable and social housing, we are acutely aware that the key benefit of section 106 has been the delivery of on-site in-kind provision that delivers the mixed communities that we all know work. It actually helps a scheme’s viability, because it means that developers know a proportion of the scheme they are developing will be sold immediately on completion to a landlord who will immediately fill it with tenants. That helps with speed of completion at the site.
The most important point is that levies do many things, but what they do not do is give you actual physical buildings; they give you an amount of money. If you are struggling to find a site to deploy that money, they do not perform in the same way as section 106 reforms. So we have concerns about the levy and that is why we welcome the fact that, although what we mean by larger sites is not yet defined, the Government are signalling that they want to retain section 106 for larger sites. That is important. I think it will help delivery and help to build mixed communities.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Gavin Smart: First of all, there is more flexibility in setting the levy than we previously expected. That is welcome because we want local authorities to be able to respond to the facts on the ground. However, like many public policy problems this is a matter of trade-offs. You do not want such complexity in the system that we are down to negotiating levies on individual sites, so it is about getting the balance right.
More important, something that I think is a bugbear of every attempt at planning reform is that, although we all believe that no planning system is perfect so it is always worth looking at how you can improve it, the other issue with planning policies is whether they are properly resourced enough to enable the local authorities that are operating them from London. Certainly, we have a concern that it might prove challenging for local authorities to be able to manage the complexity of negotiating a large number of different levies in different places. We know that elsewhere in the planning system local authorities can be outgunned by the development industry in terms of capacity. That remains a concern, because we think that overall capacity in local authority planning is stretched.
Kate Henderson: We think the test and learn approach is really to be welcomed. Alongside that, obviously we would want to see a transitional approach. Test and learn is particularly important when we are looking at viability and the delivery of much-needed affordable housing. It is really important, given that development and land values vary greatly from site to site and place to place, that we get the levy set at the right level to ensure viability, to ensure delivery, and to ensure we are creating great communities that include much-needed affordable housing. We have advocated a test and learn approach and it is really positive that the Government are looking at that. We would want to be a part of that approach to make sure we are able to get affordable housing, and that we have the good working relationships between local authorities, developers and housing associations on-site working with the community—
The Chair
We are having slight problems with the sound. We will just give it a second. Do you want to carry on?
Kate Henderson: I was just saying that we are very, very keen that, as test and learn is rolled out, housing associations, working with councils and developers, are part of that programme, so we ensure we set the levies at a level that enables the delivery of great places with high-quality affordable housing on site in mixed communities. Doing that in a phased way to make sure it is working, while retaining parts of the old system as this is transitioned out, sounds like a sensible, pragmatic way forward.
Stuart Andrew
Q
Kate Henderson: Taking the second part first, transparency on land ownership is hugely welcome, as are the clauses in part 7 on compulsory purchase. I know this is not the same thing, but they are interlinked. Being able to access land at the right price to capture that land value is a really important mechanism for ensuring that we are able to deliver affordable housing. The best section 106 agreements do that because they understand the infrastructure need in a local area and those policies are in the local plan, so that when you go in for your planning application it is all costed in. I think the main principle of the infrastructure levy is that the cost of the levy is costed in so it can be factored into the price, which factors into what you are willing to pay for the land.
Land transparency is welcome, as is part 7 on compulsory purchase, regeneration and the enhanced role of Homes England, not just as a housing agency but as an agency involved in regeneration and place making.
Gavin Smart: I support much of what Kate says. I do not want to repeat her, but I have a couple of observations. Some of this is about the creation of a new planning system and some of it is about the resourcing of local authorities. Some of what characterises good section 106 negotiations is the ability to negotiate effectively. It is quite hard to design either a section 106 or a levy system in which developers may not come back, either legitimately or less legitimately, to argue that the situation has changed and needs to be looked at again. We have to accept that as a fact of life in these negotiations. It is not done until it is done.
I agree with Kate that land transparency is very helpful. Considering whether compensation needs to be paid in quite the same way as it has until now, and addressing hope value, is a very sensible proposition that we would support.
Rachael Maskell
Q
Gavin Smart: I do not know about adding measures to the Bill, but it is about the quality of local plans and the quality of local decision making. Going back to Kate’s point, it is about making sure we are operating on an objective assessment of need. We need to be sure that in our plans we are delivering the housing that is required for the whole community, rather than simply housing that can make the best return. In that sense, the planning system is something of an intervention to prevent what one might describe as a kind of market failure, which is that the housing market will not deliver the housing we need without being provided with a degree of direction. It is as much about what happens in implementation as what is actually in the Bill and the quality and strength of local plan-making behaviour.
Kate Henderson: There are already tools in the planning toolbox that enable local authorities to deliver different types of development that are right for their area. One example is rural exemption sites. I know your constituency is in York, so you are not necessarily rural, but our rural areas often have high land values and pressing affordability issues. The rural exemption policy enables affordable housing to be developed in perpetuity. A local landowner might be more likely to put forward a piece of land for affordable housing if they know it is going to stay in the community, for the community, so there are policies such as those that can be used. I agree with Gavin: it is really important that the local authority has a good evidence base of what is actually needed, so that when it is making decisions on schemes coming forward, there is an opportunity to argue for the social mix that it wants to see, including affordable housing.
I also think there is a role for different actors in the housing market: who is actually coming forward with proposals? What is the role of Homes England in terms of its land assembly role and its partnership role with local authorities, and how do we get HE more in the mix in its place-making role, as well?
Rachael Maskell
Q
Kate Henderson: That is a great point: the point about how we define current levels is vitally important. The commitment to deliver and protect housing delivery at current levels should reflect objectively assessed housing need for affordable housing, so having that in the Bill would be hugely welcome, ensuring that we enshrine that protection for the delivery of affordable housing.
On the practicalities of viability, this is not about legislation; there is a really important resource point. Local authorities need to have the skills around the table that put them on an equal footing with the private sector when they come in and negotiate on viability, which has been a real challenge for overstretched, under-resourced local authorities in some parts of the country. They have not been able to have an equal footing in those negotiations on viability. That is not about the legislation piece, but about how we upskill and empower local government to make sure they are getting the best possible deal for the community.
Gavin Smart: Without wishing to repeat myself, I support what Kate said. When working up an objective assessment, need is a very important place to start from, because it gives robustness to local planning. I have made the point about local authority capacity already, but Kate is right that they need to be able to compete on an equal footing with the developers they are negotiating with. That is where the really hard discussions about scheme viability take place, and you want local authorities to be approaching that with the same skillset, the same ability and the same resource, because if they are not, it is not an even playing field. Many developers are very socially responsible, but those who choose not to be can use the viability assessment process to drive affordable housing out of new housing schemes, which is not something that we would want to see.
The Chair
Q
Kate Henderson: The thing that would be fantastic would be to have real protection for affordable housing delivery on the face of the Bill, defining what current levels are. If I am allowed, rather than saying something that they should not do, I am going to ask for a second, which would be exemption from the levy for 100% affordable housing schemes.
The Chair
Thanks. Gavin?
Gavin Smart: I am going to copy Kate: it would be invaluable if we very specifically defined the affordable housing levels that we expected to see. At the moment, we do not have a definition of what we mean by affordable housing, so it would be extremely helpful to have that in the Bill. I would back Kate on exempting affordable housing from the levy, because that would enable us to deliver more of it. That would be useful, because we are running well short of the levels of social and affordable housing that we currently need. In fact, we are losing homes at a rate.
The Chair
Thank you very much. You have been excellent witnesses. We will move on to our eighth panel, who will appear not on screen but in front of us.
Examination of Witnesses
Will Tanner and Alex Morton gave evidence.
The Chair
Gentlemen, thank you so much for coming today. We should be able to hear you, and you will not freeze mid-frame, which is welcome. For the record, could you state your name and who you represent?
Alex Morton: I am Alex Morton, the head of policy at the Centre for Policy Studies think-tank. Slightly related to this, a few years ago I worked in No. 10 doing housing and planning issues.
Will Tanner: My name is Will Tanner. I am the director of Onward, another centre-right think-tank, which was established four years ago, in 2018. Similarly to my fellow witness, I was in the No. 10 policy unit until 2017.
Neil O'Brien
Q
Alex and Will, thank you for joining us in person. The Bill takes forward the devolution agenda by making it easier and quicker to set up new combined authorities, particularly in two-tier areas. It also contains a number of powers to speed up and improve regeneration, from the infrastructure levy to compulsory purchase order powers, high street rental auctions, street votes, heritage protections and land market transparency. How can we use both the devolution agenda and these new tools best to drive urban regeneration and more brownfield development—the kind of development that a lot of people want to see? How can we build on what we are doing in the Bill and make the powers that we are creating work most effectively? I will pick first on Will and then go to Alex.
Will Tanner: First, thank you for having me. It is a very important question, and the Bill goes some way towards answering it. The Bill tries—if I may infer Ministers’ intentions from it—to establish a much greater level of strategic authority in the planning system to bring together different elements that are important for regeneration and economic development in local areas. That includes building some of the institutional framework in the form of both more and stronger mayoral combined authorities or equivalents in counties and giving them clearer incentives to intervene and bring land together with other forms of intervention—I point to the infrastructure levy in particular in that regard, not just at mayoral level but below—as well as creating much greater transparency in information to allow the system to work more effectively and generate more community buy-in. That is both at a national level through the levelling-up mission framework that the Bill sets out, setting a clear direction on where the levelling-up agenda is due to go, and more information for consumers of the planning system through the digital planning framework and, indeed, through greater powers to require information on behalf of local authorities such as owners of high street shops and other parties locally.
Alex Morton: I am a little more sceptical on parts of the devolution agenda. It has worked very well in some places, such as Manchester, but less so in others. London has probably one of the biggest housing backlogs, and obviously it has had a Mayor for a very long time.
For me, the most interesting and best thing about the Bill is the focus or push around trying to make local plans more delivery-oriented, moving towards a system of local plans as delivery mechanisms and not huge, long lists of policies by moving some of that policy up to a national level. It would be good to discuss that further. I think that is the right aim, but there are some difficulties in how that is planned to be done. The shift away from a five-year land supply is also welcome.
Listening to people earlier, what often came up is planning issues x, y and z. Really, planning is just to deliver enough land, so that enough homes are built, we meet housing delivery targets and we do not have a housing crisis. Almost everyone else has a strong interest in planning doing mixed communities, planning doing sustainability, planning doing an ageing society and planning doing obesity. Planning is not really meant to do all those things; it is not some kind of titan that can hold the world on its shoulders. The whole point of planning is that there are sufficient land released to a different mix of developers who will build enough homes so that we do not have a housing crisis. If the Minister is inclined to put in place some kind of definition of what planning is, I would say that planning is designed to make sure that we build sufficient homes of sufficient quality in the right places—full stop. If the planning system could just focus on doing that, we might have less of a housing crisis, with everyone shoehorning everything else under the sun—important and noble though those other things are—into the planning system.
Neil O'Brien
Q
Alex Morton: I think street votes are a very good idea. They are a way to try and encourage communities. They are not a solution to everything—I think we have to be honest about what street votes are. Street votes are in areas where there is high demand in housing and you have relatively low density—particularly Metroland, for example, in London—where you might be able to persuade people to replace a certain amount of terraced housing with four or five-storey terrace streetscapes, which would be quite attractive. That could be a good way in lots of high-demand areas, without building on green belts and green fields, to get a recycling of space. That used to happen. For most of our city’s history, that densification process was natural. You had a single landowner usually—sometimes aristocratic, sometimes merchants, sometimes commercial holdings—who would buy blocks, demolish them and build them up. You have to do that now in a way that is consensual and fit for the 21st century.
Street votes are a way to try to get people together and say, “Look, we can all, on our street, agree that we can build up another few storeys. We will all benefit from this. This will mean that we do not have to build on greenfield sites on the edge of London.” I do not think we should be too optimistic about it in the next, say, five years solving the south-east’s housing crisis. However, it has to be something that the Government moves at great speed on, to try and put pilots in place to get this going, so that if it can work—I think it should—we can then roll it out on a wider scale. That said, I do not think, sadly, that it will alleviate the pressure on green fields in the next five or 10 years, but it is a thing we need to do now if we are to stop building on more and more of our land surface.
Neil O'Brien
Q
Will Tanner: I thoroughly welcome the commitment to maintain the neighbourhood share within the new consolidated infrastructure levy. As you say, the infrastructure levy is compulsory rather than optional and it will apply everywhere, so it represents an opportunity to share a considerable amount of revenue directly with communities where the right governance exists. Parish and town councils only cover about 37% of the English population at current levels—about a third of local authorities are fully parished—so only a relatively small number of places will be able to take advantage of this at first. The inclusion of the neighbourhood share will create a very strong incentive for local areas to put in place strong, hyperlocal governance to control local decision making and some local services within a general power of competence that exists for parish and town councils.
We know from our research that there are strong benefits from that. If you look at rates of volunteering, rates of group membership or rates of local philanthropy, all those things are higher in areas where parish and town councils exist. So I am very supportive of the Government’s efforts to try and create a stronger incentive for places to put in that local governance and to benefit from the gain from development. I would also suggest that it should create a stronger incentive for places to become more welcoming of development as a whole and therefore embrace new housing.
Neil O'Brien
Q
Will Tanner: As the Minister will know, Onward’s first ever paper looked at this issue in some detail. As the Committee will know, at the stroke of a planner’s pen, the value of a piece of land can go up 100-fold. There is an opportunity for the UK to do much more to capture the gains from development in a way that other countries, such as the Netherlands, do more systematically. The Bill goes some way towards doing that through the simplification and clarification of when local authorities can use CPO powers, which will hopefully make CPO more widespread.
I think the greatest opportunity lies in the clarification of what constitutes fair market value. That is a relatively contested area of policy; there are lots of different views from different areas. I thoroughly welcome the proposed Law Commission review into this area of legislation more generally, because I think legislation has spread over a number of years. However, there is an opportunity for the UK to more systematically capture those gains for development, and allow local authorities to buy and assemble land—especially with regard to ransom strips and small plots that hold up development—to capture those gains for public benefit. So I am supportive in principle but keen to see a bit more detail.
Alex Morton: I support the idea of streamlining CPO. I would be quite nervous, as a small “c” conservative and a small “l” liberal, about the measure to have a direction from the Secretary of State setting out the value of land. As Will has just suggested, there is a potential area in terms of ransom strips or other areas. If that was narrowly defined in legislation, so that, for example, on brownfield sites where there is multiple land ownership, there may, in exceptional circumstances, be a direction by the Secretary of State, that would be quite different from the current powers, which look like they could be abused by a future Government that was not sympathetic to property rights.
There is a case, with some ransom strip owners and some landowners who hold out and are unreasonable, for there to be some kind of change to get those people. But that is a big shift in property rights, which should probably be set out in primary legislation and very tightly circumscribed to small areas of brownfield land where there are multiple landowners, or be more tightly defined than the current situation, which I think could be abused—probably not under this Government, but under a future, more radical Government that did not support property rights.
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)
Q
Will Tanner: I support the measures in the Bill to extend the mayoral devolved model to county areas. Up until now, the mayoral model has, as you know, been largely ascribed to urban areas. I think that is a missed opportunity for historic counties in England. I particularly welcome the removal of the requirement for constituent authorities to consent to combined county authorities, so that counties cannot be held to ransom by districts within their area. I also recognise that the Bill goes some way to introducing stronger accountability for those combined county authorities.
However, in our recent paper, “Give Back Control”, we argued for a significant extension of the mayoral model. I see the provisions in the Bill as a starting point to extend the breadth of coverage of mayoral combined authorities, but I think there is a further step to deepen the powers and responsibilities of those authorities, both in cities and county areas. I would argue that that should be done in a number of ways. First, by giving much greater financial control to Mayors through a single mayoral settlement, rather than a panoply of different funding pots. That is not necessarily something for legislation, but it is a matter for Government, and the Treasury in particular. There should be the extension of further powers—this would be a matter for legislation—over local transport, local energy systems and other matters to give Mayors more ability to join up local services on behalf of their constituents.
Alongside that, we should have strengthened mayoral scrutiny panels, on which MPs as well as local councillors could sit, to join up the scrutiny of Mayors around the country—or indeed governors, as they may be called—so that they are held to account for those additional powers. I think Mayors have been successful to date, but there is much more they can do. Looking at international models, the mayoral model in this country has quite a long way to go to replicate the success of other countries.
Darren Henry
Q
Will Tanner: I would point to the United States as a good example of where you have much greater levels of local and regional state-led control. The UK is almost uniquely centralised as a country, compared to other countries in the OECD. Just 5% of taxation is raised locally in this country, which is a third of the rate in France and a sixth of the rate in Germany. Just a quarter of that revenue raised is spent locally, compared to about 75% in Canada, for example. This country has a very long way to go on devolution, despite some of the advances made under this Government and indeed previous Governments.
Alex Morton: I would argue that devolution, or any kind of power structure, tends to work best when there is clear accountability. One of the problems that is beginning to emerge in this country is that you have Mayors, local enterprise partnerships, parish and town councils, district councils, county councils and combined authorities—and on top of that, you have PCCs. The problem comes when people do not know who is responsible for what, and I think that is increasingly becoming a problem for lots of local voters. They cannot see how this quite works.
I am sympathetic to some of the arguments that Will and others are putting forward around trying to get more powers lined up, but I think the thing that is pushing back increasingly is that it is harder for me as a voter, getting on with my daily life, to know exactly who is responsible for what if something is broken. Is it my parish, my district or the Mayor? Then there are unaccountable bits such as LEPs. I spoke to a businessman who said, “I was thinking of investing in the north-east, and my people gave me a whole long list of people I should meet—elected officials—but they couldn’t quite tell me who did what, because it wasn’t very clear. For me, as someone who is thinking about making an investment in the north-east, I would rather have one or two people who have very clearly defined responsibilities for those purposes.”
Part of this is the depressing politics of, “It’s always easier to add an extra layer of politicians than it is to remove another one.” There is sometimes an argument to get rid of some powers and move them up, but it is often the case that what happens is that some powers get shifted up and that layer has to be left in place. Then you end up with a very confused accountability line for voters, businesses, the Highways Agency—the list goes on and on. Everyone who has to interact with them is not sure who they should be talking to, on what and why.
The Chair
I am going to call Greg Smith, but I will put the witnesses on notice that, at the end, I will give you the opportunity to change the course of history by telling the Committee what it should be doing.
Greg Smith
Q
As we are looking at a Bill that essentially enables greater house building in our neighbourhood planning, can you offer a view on whether factors such as stamp duty, particularly at the punitively high rate that George Osborne imposed as Chancellor on the top end of the market, have had a disproportionate effect on movement within the housing stock we already have in this country? If people are not moving up to the very top tier of housing—the very large family homes and so on—there is a domino effect all the way down to the bottom of the market for people who are trying to get into starter homes and one or two-bedroom flats. Do you know of any assessment, either by your own think-tanks or across the think-tank world, that could answer that question? Just how big, in reality, is the gap between supply and demand? What other factors within the state’s control could we look at to take those barriers away?
Alex Morton: We are doing a paper called “The case for house building”, which may not be to your taste; it will argue that, unfortunately, supply is an unavoidable part of any solution. It is frustrating that many other factors, such as interest rates, immigration and stamp duty, are contributing to the housing crisis, but the unavoidable reality is that supply affects price—there is no market in which supply does not have an impact on price. Throughout most of human history, the average cost of a house has been close to the build cost. If you really want to be technical, it is the capitalised future stream of rental income—house prices sometimes get out of line because there are asset price bubbles—but if you work out the rental stream of the average property over 30 years, it should be close to the build cost. Anything above that is fundamentally caused by an imbalance between supply and demand.
Ian Mulheirn has very eloquently made the case that we should not focus only on supply. I totally agree, but I think there is sometimes a desire to wish away the problem. Having said that, I empathise quite a lot with politicians, because it is annoying that other issues are contributing. I would argue that immigration is probably the quickest and shortest lever you could pull; I am thinking of the Chesham and Amersham by-election, for example, in which a party that strongly supports more immigration and more refugees was somehow arguing that there could be no building in any kind of southern constituency.
However, that does not get us away from the fact that for a long time we have not built enough houses for the people who are already here. We can see that in levels of homelessness and overcrowding, particularly for people at the bottom of the market who are really suffering and cannot have families. It is just unconscionable not to do something about that. So yes, cut stamp duty; yes, reduce immigration; but unfortunately there is just a big backlog. We will have a report out soon on this.
Greg Smith
Q
Alex Morton: We have done a couple of papers on this. There is a clear link between the number of transactions and the speed at which house builders can build out, as I think you have been hearing from other witnesses. The number of people who are prepared to buy new build is relatively constant; Help to Buy has shifted that, but absent Help to Buy, it is a relatively constant number. If transactions increase, so will the number of houses built. I can send you our paper “Stamping Down”, in which we talked about how reducing stamp duty would boost transaction levels. For me, part of the problem is that even if we get housing up to 300,000 for some years, we should be doing that along with other measures—we might then be able to start taking our foot off the pedal in about 10 years’ time. The backlog is so large that we should do all these things. Worrying too much about the exact mix is almost dancing on the head of a pin. We need to reduce demand and increase supply now, and then in five or 10 years, having done those things, we can review where we have got to.
Will Tanner: I agree with quite a lot of what Alex has just said; I think it is about both supply and demand. I take a lot of Ian Mulheirn’s arguments, particularly about the role of interest rates, but I agree with Alex that we have not built enough homes for a very, very long time. We did a report called “Stamping out a bad tax”—another variation on the word “stamp”—that looked at abolishing stamp duty because, as a transaction tax, it has distorted effects within the market, in exactly the way you describe. There are ways of paying for that through second-home taxes and taxes on enveloped dwellings and the like. It is possible to do that in a fiscally neutral way, but it would be wrong for me to suggest that that will solve the housing crisis in one fell swoop. Ultimately, we need to do a number of different things. Over the last 10 years or so it has been easier for politicians to do demand-side changes to the housing market than to do supply-side changes, and that has led to some of the backlog that Alex talks of.
I would argue that some of the things in this Bill, particularly around compulsory purchase, land assembly, spatial planning and the role of development corporations, potentially unlock considerable amounts of supply. That is why this Bill is an important addition to the housing and planning system—it potentially fixes some of the roadblocks to supply over a number of years.
The Chair
Q
Alex Morton: I think we have covered most things that I had down. The one element that we have not touched on is the goal of streamlining planning and local plans. Perhaps more should be being pushed down than up. By that I mean I would that rather local plans were a series of site allocation policies and strategic policies around transport, and then local people should have a greater say on what happens on those sites, whether through neighbourhood plans or the neighbourhood priority statements that the Government are already trying to do. There is an argument that if development is happening in your community, and you can shape how it looks and what infrastructure and other benefits come with it, you are more likely to be in favour of it, or at least not hostile.
Therefore, rather than trying to have a system that says, “Let’s strip out all the local plan policies”—which I think is absolutely necessary, and the Government are absolutely right to proceed, because local plans take far too long and are out of touch by the time they are finished—you could create processes around how we get on sites, particularly larger sites, where they have been allocated, and how we engage with the community as part of that local planning process, so that, at the end of it, you have a local plan with a list of sites and some overlapping strategic policies, and then local people get to choose things like design or what benefits come with it. That would be a good way to square the circle around streamlining, without running to this argument that you are centralising and taking powers away. I don’t think the Government is trying to do that; I think they are genuinely trying to fix the housing crisis, but I understand why MPs are saying that, and I think that could be an alternative way, as the Bill develops, to get there.
Will Tanner: The area where I think the Committee could make a real difference is around the levelling-up missions and the overarching framework around the Bill. I am not sure the Minister will necessarily thank me for saying this, but I think the reporting requirements and the architecture around the levelling-up missions could be strengthened considerably in two primary ways.
First, we have seen through the Office for Budget Responsibility and the Climate Change Committee the importance and strength of an independent body to hold the Government to account for delivering against its own targets, and I think the levelling-up missions would benefit from that level of scrutiny and accountability. At the moment there is a bit of a risk of the Government setting out its own interpretation of progress rather than us having an independent view. Bluntly, the Government should welcome that as a way of ensuring that the whole of Government is driving towards the same end. There is a bit of a risk at the moment that the Department for Levelling Up becomes the sole vehicle for driving levelling-up policy.
In a second but similar way, I think there is a missed opportunity in terms of not aligning that reporting framework against a Treasury set of fiscal events. Ultimately, levelling up is so interdependent with tax and spend policy that if the Treasury is reporting at different times, particularly around changing tax measures or making large public spending decisions through the spending review, there is the risk that levelling up falls through the cracks of the way the Government makes major decisions, rather than being completely aligned as a whole of Government mission, as I understand both the Prime Minister and the entirety of Government believe it to be. That would be my systemic change.
The Chair
Thank you for your excellent evidence today.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Miss Dines.)
5.9 pm
Adjourned till Tuesday 28 June at twenty-five minutes past Nine o’clock.
Written Evidence Reported to the House
LRB01 Community Rights Action
LRB02 West Midlands Police and Crime Commissioner
LRB03 Historic Houses
Online Safety Bill (Fifteenth sitting)
Thursday 23rd June 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Online Safety Act 2023 View all Online Safety Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 23 June 2022 - (23 Jun 2022)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Please ensure your phones are switched to silent.
Clause 168
Publication by OFCOM
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Chris Philp)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. Clause 168 is a very short and straightforward clause. Ofcom will be required to publish a variety of documents under the Online Safety Bill. The clause simply requires that this be done in a way that is appropriate and likely to bring it to the attention of any audience who are going to be affected by it. Ofcom is already familiar with this type of statutory obligation through existing legislation, such as the Digital Economy Act 2017, which places similar obligations on Ofcom. Ofcom is well versed in publishing documents in a way that is publicly accessible. Clause 168 puts the obligation on to a clear statutory footing.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
As the Minister said, clause 168 rightly sets out that the raw material the Bill requires of Ofcom is published in a way that will bring it to the attention of any audience likely to be affected by it. It will be important that all the guidance is published in a way that is easily available and accessible, including for people who are not neurotypical, or experience digital exclusion. I think we would all agree, after the work we have done on the Bill, that the subjects are complex and the landscape is difficult to understand. I hope Ofcom will make its documents as accessible as possible.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 168 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 169
Service of notices
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Chris Philp
Clause 169 sets out the process for the service of any notice under the Bill, including notices to deal with child sexual exploitation and abuse or terrorism content, information notices, enforcement notices, penalty notices and public statement notices to providers of regulated services both within and outside the United Kingdom. The clause sets out that Ofcom may give a notice to a person by handing it to them, leaving it at the person’s last known address, sending it by post to that address or sending it by email to the person’s email address. It provides clarity regarding who Ofcom must give notice to in respect of different structures. For example, notice may be given to an officer of a body corporate.
Barbara Keeley
As the Minister said, clause 169 sets out the process of issuing notices or decisions by Ofcom. It mostly includes provisions about how Ofcom is to contact the company, which seem reasonable. The Opposition do not oppose clause 169.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 169 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 170
Repeal of Part 4B of the Communications Act
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Chris Philp
Clause 170 repeals the video-sharing platform regime. While the VSP and online safety regimes have similar objectives, the new framework in the Bill will be broader and will apply to a wider range of online platforms. It is for this reason that we will repeal the VSP regime and transition those entities regulated as VSPs across to the online safety regime, which is broader and more effective in its provisions. The clause simply sets out the intention to repeal the VSP.
Clause 171 repeals part 3 of the Digital Economy Act 2017. As we have discussed previously, the Online Safety Bill now captures all online sites that display pornography, including commercial pornography sites, social media sites, video sharing platforms, forums and search engines. It will provide much greater protection to children than the Digital Economy Act. The Digital Economy Act was criticised for not covering social media platforms, which this Bill does cover. By removing that section from the Digital Economy Act, we are laying the path to regulate properly and more comprehensively.
Finally, in this group, clause 172 amends section 1B of the Protection of Children Act 1978 and creates a defence to the offence of making an indecent photograph of a child for Ofcom, its staff and those assisting Ofcom in exercising its online safety duties. Clearly, we do not want to criminalise Ofcom staff while they are discharging their duties under the Bill that we are imposing on them, so it is reasonable to set out that such a defence exists. I hope that provides clarity to the Committee on the three clauses.
Barbara Keeley
The provisions in clauses 170 to 172, as the Minister has said, repeal or amend existing laws for the purposes of the Bill. As Labour supports the need to legislate on the issue of online safety, we will not oppose the clauses. However, I want to note that the entire process, up until the final abandonment of part 3 of the Digital Economy Act under clause 171 appears shambolic. It has been five years now since that part of the Act could have been implemented, which means five years during which children could have been better protected from the harms of pornographic content.
When the Government eventually admitted that part 3 was being ditched, the Minister at the time, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman), said that the Government would seek to take action on pornography more quickly than on other parts of the online harms regime. Stakeholders and charities have expressed concerns that we could now see a delay to the implementation of the duties on pornographic content providers, which is similar to the postponement and eventual abandonment of part 3 of the Digital Economy Act. I appreciate that the Minister gave some reassurance of his
“desire to get this done as quickly as possible”—[Official Report, Online Safety Bill Committee, 9 June 2022; c. 308.]
in our debate on clauses 31 to 33, but would it not be better to set out timeframes in the Bill?
Under clause 193, it appears that the only clauses in part 5 to be enacted once the Bill receives Royal Assent will be the definitions—clause 66 and clause 67(4)—and not the duties. That is because Ofcom is expected to issue a call for evidence, after which draft proposals for consultation are published, which then need to be agreed by the Secretary of State and laid before Parliament. There are opportunities there for delays and objections at any stage and, typically, enforcement will be implemented only in a staged fashion, from monitoring to supervision. The consultations and safeguarding processes are necessary to make the guidance robust; we understand that. However, children cannot wait another three years for protections, having been promised protection under part 3 of the Digital Economy Act five years ago, which, as I have said, was never implemented.
The provisions on pornography in part 5 of the Bill require no secondary legislation so they should be implemented as quickly as possible to minimise the amount of time children continue to be exposed to harmful content. It would be irresponsible to wait any longer than absolutely necessary, given the harms already caused by this drawn-out process.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Thank you, Sir Roger, for chairing this meeting this morning. I want to agree with the Opposition’s points about the timing issue. If an Act will repeal another one, it needs to make sure that there is no gap in the middle and, if the repeal takes place on one day, that the Bill’s provisions that relate to that are in force and working on the same day, rather than leaving a potential set-up time gap.
On clause 170 and repealing the part of the Communications Act 2003 on video-sharing platform services, some concerns have been raised that the requirements in the Online Safety Bill do not exactly mirror the same provisions in the video-sharing platform rules. I am not saying necessarily or categorically that the Online Safety Bill is less strong than the video-sharing platform rules currently in place. However, if the legislation on video-sharing platform services is repealed, the Online Safety Act, as it will be, will become the main way of regulating video-sharing platforms and there will be a degradation in the protections provided on those platforms and an increase in some of the issues and concerns we have seen raised. Will the Minister keep that under review and consider how that could be improved? We do not want to see this getting worse simply because one regime has been switched for another that, as the Minister said, is broader and has stronger protections. Will he keep under review whether that turns out to be the case when the Act has bedded in, when Ofcom has the ability to take action and properly regulate—particularly, in this case, video-sharing platforms?
Chris Philp
I agree with the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South, that we want to see these provisions brought into force as quickly as possible, for the reasons that she set out. We are actively thinking about ways of ensuring that these provisions are brought into force as fast as possible. It is something that we have been actively discussing with Ofcom, and that, I hope, will be reflected in the road map that it intends to publish before the summer. That will of course remain an area of close working between the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and Ofcom, ensuring that these provisions come into force as quickly as possible. Of course, the illegal duties will be brought into force more quickly. That includes the CSEA offences set out in schedule 6.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North raised questions in relation to the repeal of part 3 of the Digital Economy Act. Although that is on the statute book, it was never commenced. When it is repealed, we will not be removing from force something that is applied at the moment, because the statutory instrument to commence it was never laid. So the point she raised about whether the Bill would come into force the day after the Digital Economy Act is repealed does not apply; but the point she raised about bringing this legislation into force quickly is reasonable and right, and we will work on that.
The hon. Lady asked about the differences in scope between the video-sharing platform and the online safety regime. As I said, the online safety regime does have an increased scope compared with the VSP regime, but I think it is reasonable to keep an eye on that as she suggested, and keep it under review. There is of course a formal review mechanism in clause 149, but I think that more informally, it is reasonable that as the transition is made we keep an eye on it, as a Government and as parliamentarians, to ensure that nothing gets missed out.
I would add that, separately from the Bill, the online advertising programme is taking a holistic look at online advertising in general, and that will also be looking at matters that may also touch on the VSPs and what they regulate.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 170 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 171 and 172 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 173
Powers to amend section 36
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Chris Philp
The clause gives the Secretary of State the power to amend the list of fraudulent offences in section 36 in relation to the duties in relation to fraudulent advertising. These are the new duties that were introduced following feedback from Parliament, the Joint Committee, Martin Lewis and many other people. That is to ensure that we can keep the list of fraudulent offences up to date. The power to make those changes is subject to some constraints, as we would expect. The clause lists the criteria that any new offences must meet before the Secretary of State can include them in the section 36 list, which relates to the prevalence of the paid-for advertisements that amount to the new offence on category 1 services and the risk and severity of harm that that content poses to individuals in the UK.
The clause further limits the Secretary of State’s power to include new fraud offences, listing types of offence that may not be added. Offences from the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations would be one instance. As I mentioned, the power to update section 36 is necessary to ensure that the legislation is future-proofed against new legislation and changes in criminal behaviour. Hon. Members have often said that it is important to ensure that the Bill is future-proof, and here is an example of exactly that future-proofing.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
Good morning, Sir Roger. As the Minister has outlined, clause 173 gives the Secretary of State the power to amend the list of fraud offences in what will be section 36 in relation to the duties about fraudulent advertising. Although we recognise that this power is subject to some constraints, Labour has concerns about what we consider to be an unnecessary power given to the Secretary of State to amend duties about fraudulent advertising on category 1 services.
We welcome the provisions outlined in clause 173(2), which lists the criteria that any new offences must meet before the Secretary of State may include them in the list of fraud offences in section 36. The Minister outlined some of those. Along the same lines, the provision in clause 173(3) to further limit the Secretary of State’s power to include new fraud offences—it lists types of offences that may not be added to section 36—is a positive step.
However, we firmly believe that delegated law making of this nature, even when there are these minor constraints in place, is a worrying course for the Government to pursue when we have already strongly verbalised our concerns about Ofcom’s independence. Can the Minister alleviate our concerns by clarifying exactly how this process will work in practice? He must agree with the points that colleagues from across the House have made about the importance of Ofcom being truly independent and free from any political persuasion, influence or control. We all want to see the Bill change things for the better so I am keen to hear from the Minister the specific reasoning behind giving the Secretary of State the power to amend this important legislation through what will seemingly be a simple process.
As we all know, clause 174 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations to amend or repeal provisions relating to exempt content or services. Regulations made under this clause can be used to exempt certain content or services from the scope of the regulatory regime, or to bring them into scope. It will come as no surprise to the Minister that we have genuine concerns about the clause, given that it gives the Secretary of State of the day the power to amend the substantive scope of the regulatory regime. In layman’s terms, we see this clause as essentially giving the Secretary of State the power to, through regulations, exempt certain content and services from the scope of the Bill, or bring them into scope. Although we agree with the Minister that a degree of flexibility is crucial to the Bill’s success and we have indeed raised concerns throughout the Bill’s proceedings about the need to future-proof the Bill, it is a fine balance, and we feel that these powers in this clause are in excess of what is required. I will therefore be grateful to the Minister if he confirms exactly why this legislation has been drafted in a way that will essentially give the Secretary of State free rein on these important regulations.
Clauses 175 and 176 seek to give the Secretary of State additional powers, and again Labour has concerns. Clause 175 gives the Secretary of State the power to amend the list in part 2 of schedule 1, specifically paragraph 10. That list sets out descriptions of education and childcare relating to England; it is for the relevant devolved Ministers to amend the list in their respective areas. Although we welcome the fact that certain criteria must be met before the amendments can be made, this measure once again gives the Secretary of State of the day the ability substantively to amend the scope of the regime more broadly.
Those concerns are felt even more strongly when we consider clause 176, which gives the Secretary of State the power to amend three key areas in the Bill—schedules 5, 6 and 7, which relate to terrorism offences, to child sexual exploitation and abuse content offences—except those extending to Scotland—and to priority offences in some circumstances. Alongside stakeholders, including Carnegie, we strongly feel that the Secretary of State should not be able to amend the substantive scope of the regime at this level, unless moves have been initiated by Ofcom and followed by effective parliamentary oversight and scrutiny. Parliament should have a say in this. There should be no room for this level of interference in a regulatory regime, and the Minister knows that these powers are at risk of being abused by a bad actor, whoever the Secretary of State of the day may be. I must, once again, press the Minister to specifically address the concerns that Labour colleagues and I have repeatedly raised, both during these debates and on Second Reading.
Kirsty Blackman
I have a couple of questions, particularly on clause 176 and the powers to amend schedules 6 and 7. I understand the logic for schedule 5 being different—in that terrorism offences are a wholly reserved matter—and therefore why only the Secretary of State would be making any changes.
My question is on the difference in the ways to amend schedules 6 and 7—I am assuming that Government amendment 126, which asks the Secretary of State to consult Scottish Ministers and the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland, and which we have already discussed, will be voted on and approved before we come to clause 176. I do not understand the logic for having different procedures to amend the child sexual exploitation and abuse offences and the priority offences. Why have the Government chosen two different procedures for amending the two schedules?
I understand why that might not be a terribly easy question to answer today, and I would be happy for the Minister to get in touch afterwards with the rationale. It seems to me that both areas are very important, and I do not quite understand why the difference is there.
Chris Philp
Let me start by addressing the questions the shadow Minister raised about these powers. She used the phrase “free rein” in her speech, but I would not exactly describe it as free rein. If we turn to clause 179, which we will come to in a moment or two, and subsection (1)(d), (e), (f) and (g), we see that all the regulations made under clauses 173 to 176, which we are debating, require an SI under the affirmative procedure. Parliament will therefore get a chance to have its say, to object and indeed to vote down a provision if it wishes to. It is not that the Secretary of State can act alone; changes are subject to the affirmative SI procedure.
It is reasonable to have a mechanism to change the lists of priority offences and so on by affirmative SI, because the landscape will change and new offences will emerge, and it is important that we keep up to date. The only alternative is primary legislation, and a slot for a new Act of Parliament does not come along all that often—perhaps once every few years for any given topic. I think that would lead to long delays—potentially years—before the various exemptions, lists of priority offences and so on could be updated. I doubt that it is Parliament’s intention, and it would not be good for the public if we had to wait for primary legislation to change the lists. The proposed mechanism is the only sensible and proportionate way to do it, and it is subject to a parliamentary vote.
A comment was made about Ofcom’s independence. The way the offences are defined has no impact on Ofcom’s operational independence. That is about how Ofcom applies the rules; this is about what the rules themselves are. It is right that we are able to update them relatively nimbly by affirmative SI.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North asked about the differences in the way schedules 6 and 7 can be updated. I will happily drop her a line with further thoughts if she wants me to, but in essence we are happy to get the Scottish child sexual exploitation and abuse offences, set out in part 2 of schedule 6, adopted as soon as Scottish Ministers want. We do not want to delay any measures on child exploitation and abuse, and that is why it is done automatically. Schedule 7, which sets out the other priority offences, could cover any topic at all—any criminal offence could fall under that schedule—whereas schedule 6 is only about child sexual exploitation and abuse. Given that the scope of schedule 7 takes in any criminal offence, it is important to consult Scottish Ministers if it is a Scottish offence but then use the statutory instrument procedure, which applies it to the entire UK internet. Does the hon. Lady want me to write to her, or does that answer her question?
Kirsty Blackman
That is actually incredibly helpful. I do not need a further letter, thanks.
Chris Philp
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for saving DCMS officials a little ink, and electricity for an email.
I hope I have addressed the points raised in the debate, and I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 173 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 174 and 175 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 176
Powers to amend Schedules 5, 6 and 7
Amendment made: 126, in clause 176, page 145, line 4, at end insert—
“(5A) The Secretary of State must consult the Scottish Ministers before making regulations under subsection (3) which—
(a) add an offence that extends only to Scotland, or
(b) amend or remove an entry specifying an offence that extends only to Scotland.
(5B) The Secretary of State must consult the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland before making regulations under subsection (3) which—
(a) add an offence that extends only to Northern Ireland, or
(b) amend or remove an entry specifying an offence that extends only to Northern Ireland.”—(Chris Philp.)
This amendment ensures that the Secretary of State must consult the Scottish Ministers or the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland before making regulations which amend Schedule 7 in connection with an offence which extends to Scotland or Northern Ireland only.
Clause 176, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 177
Power to make consequential provision
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 178 stand part.
Government amendment 160.
Clause 179 stand part.
Chris Philp
As new services and functions emerge and evolve, and platforms and users develop new ways to interact online, the regime will need to adapt. Harms online will also continue to change, and the framework will not function effectively if it cannot respond to these changes. These clauses provide the basis for the exercise of the Secretary of State’s powers under the Bill to make secondary legislation. The Committee has already debated the clauses that confer the relevant powers.
Clause 177 gives the Secretary of State the power to make consequential changes to this legislation or regulations made under it. It further provides that the regulations may amend or repeal relevant provisions made under the Communications Act 2003 or by secondary legislation made under that Act. The power is necessary to give effect to the various regulation-making powers in the Bill, which we have mostly already debated, and to ensure that the provisions of the 2003 Act and regulations that relate to online safety can continue to be updated as appropriate. That is consistent with the principle that the Bill must be flexible and future-proof. The circumstances in which these regulation-making powers may be exercised are specified and constrained by the clauses we have previously debated. Clause 178 ensures that the regulation-making powers in the Bill may make different provisions for different purposes, in particular ensuring that regulations make appropriate provisions for different types of service.
Amendment 160 forms part of a group of amendments that will allow Ofcom to recover costs from the regulated services for work that Ofcom carries out before part 6 of the Bill is commenced. As I said previously, the costs may be recouped over a period of three to five years. Currently, the costs of preparations for the exercise of safety functions include only costs incurred after commencement. The amendment makes sure that initial costs incurred before commencement can be recouped as well.
Alex Davies-Jones
Again, Labour has concerns about clause 177, which gives the Secretary of State a power to make consequential provisions relating to the Bill or regulations under the Bill. As we know, the power is exercised by regulation and includes the ability to amend the Communications Act 2003. I will spare the Committee a repetition of my sentiments, but we do feel that the clause is part of an extremely worrying package of clauses related to the Secretary of State’s powers, which we feel are broadly unnecessary.
We have the same concerns about clause 178, which sets out how the powers to make regulations conferred on the Secretary of State may be used. Although we recognise that it is important in terms of flexibility and future-proofing that regulations made under the Bill can make different provisions for different purposes, in particular relating to different types of service, we are concerned about the precedent that this sets for future legislation that relies on an independent regulatory system.
Labour supports amendment 160, which will ensure that the regulations made under new schedule 2, which we will debate shortly, are subject to the affirmative procedure. That is vital if the Bill is to succeed. We have already expressed our concerns about the lack of scrutiny of other provisions in the Bill, so we see no issue with amendment 160.
The Minister has outlined clause 179, and he knows that we welcome parliamentary oversight and scrutiny of the Bill more widely. We regard this as a procedural clause and have therefore not sought to amend it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 177 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 178 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 179
Parliamentary procedure for regulations
Amendment made: 160, in clause 179, page 146, line 13, at end insert “, or
(k) regulations under paragraph 7 of Schedule (Recovery of OFCOM’s initial costs),—(Chris Philp.)
This amendment provides that regulations under NS2 are subject to the affirmative procedure.
Clause 179, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 180
“Provider” of internet service
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
Clauses 181 to 188 stand part.
Amendment 76, in clause 189, page 154, line 34, after “including” insert “but not limited to”.
This amendment clarifies the definition of “content” in the bill in order that anything communicated by means of an internet service is considered content, not only those examples listed.
Alex Davies-Jones
I will address clauses 180 to 182 together, before moving on to discuss our concerns about the remaining clauses in this group.
As we know, clause 180 determines who is the provider of an internet service and therefore who is subject to the duties imposed on providers. Labour has already raised concerns about the Bill’s lack of future-proofing and its inability to incorporate internet services that may include user-to-user models. The most obvious of those are user-to-user chat functions in gaming, which the hon. Member for Aberdeen North has raised on a number of occasions; we share her concerns.
Broadly, we think the Bill as it stands fails to capture the rapidity of technological advances, and the gaming industry is a key example of this. The Bill targets the providers that have control over who may use the user-to-user functions of a game, but in our view the clarity just is not there for emerging tech in the AI space in particular, so we would welcome the Minister’s comments on where he believes this is defined or specified in the Bill.
Clause 181 defines “user”, “United Kingdom user” and “interested person” in relation to regulated services. We welcome the clarification outlined in subsections (3) and (4) of the role of an employee at a service provider and their position when uploading content. We support the clarity on the term “internet service” in clause 182, and we welcome the provisions to capture services that are accessed via an app specifically, rather than just via an internet browser.
We welcome clause 183, which sets out the meaning of “search engine”. It is important to highlight the difference between search engines and user-to-user services, which has been attempted throughout the Bill. We heard from Google about its definition of “search”, and Labour agrees that, at their root, search services exist as an index of the web, and are therefore different from user-to-user services. We also fully appreciate the rapid nature of the internet—hundreds of web pages are created every single second—meaning that search services have a fundamental role to play in assisting users to find authoritative information that is most relevant to what they are seeking. Although search engines do not directly host content, they have an important role to play in ensuring that a delicate balance is maintained between online safety and access to lawful information. We are therefore pleased to support clause 183, which we feel broadly outlines the responsibilities placed on search services more widely.
On clause 184, Labour supports the need for a proactive technology to be used by regulated service providers to comply with their duties on illegal content, content that is harmful to children, and fraudulent advertising. In our consideration of proactive technology elsewhere in the Bill, Labour has made it clear that we support measures to keep us all safe. When speaking to new clause 20, which we debated with clause 37, I made it clear that we disagree with the Bill’s stance on proactive technology. As it is, the Bill will leave Ofcom unable to proactively require companies to use technology that can detect child abuse. Sadly, I was not particularly reassured by the Minister’s response, but it is important to place on the record again our feeling that proactive technology has an important role to play in improving online safety more widely.
Clause 185 provides information to assist Ofcom in its decision making on whether, in exercising its powers under the Bill, content is communicated publicly or privately. We see no issues with the process that the clause outlines. It is fundamentally right that, in the event of making an assessment of public or private content, Ofcom has a list of factors to consider and a subsequent process to follow. We will therefore support clause 185, which we have not sought to amend.
Clause 186 sets out the meaning of the term “functionality”. Labour supports the clause, particularly the provisions in subsection (2), which include the detailed ways in which platforms’ functionality can affect subsequent online behaviours. Despite our support, I put on the record our concern that the definitions in the clause do little to imagine or capture the broad nature of platforms or, indeed, the potential for them to expand into the AI space in future.
The Minister knows that Labour has advocated a systems-based approach to tackling online safety that would put functionality at the heart of the regulatory system. It is a frustrating reality that those matters are not outlined until clause 186. That said, we welcome the content of the clause, which we have not sought to amend.
Clause 187 aims to define “harm” as “physical or psychological harm”. Again, we feel that that definition could go further. My hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen spoke movingly about her constituent Zach in an earlier debate, and made a compelling case for clarity on the interplay between the physical and psychological harm that can occur online. The Minister said that the Government consider the Bill to cover a range of physical and psychological harms, but many charities disagree. What does he say to them?
We will shortly be considering new clause 23, and I will outline exactly how Labour feels that the Bill fails to capture the specific harms that women and girls face online. It is another frustrating reality that the Government have not taken the advice of so many stakeholders, and of so many women and girls, to ensure that those harms are on the face of the Bill.
Labour agrees with the provisions in clause 188, which sets out the meaning of “online safety functions” and “online safety matters”, so we have not sought to amend the clause.
Would it be appropriate for me to speak to the SNP amendment as well, Sir Roger?
The Chair
Not really. If the hon. Lady has finished with her own amendments, we should, as a courtesy, allow the SNP spokesperson to speak to her amendment first.
Kirsty Blackman
Thank you, Sir Roger. I thank the shadow Minister for running through some of our shared concerns about the clauses. Similarly, I will talk first about some of the issues and questions that I have about the clauses, and then I will speak to amendment 76. Confusingly, amendment 76 was tabled to clause 189, which we are not discussing right now. I should have raised that when I saw the provisional selection of amendments. I will do my best not to stray too far into clause 189 while discussing the amendment.
I have raised before with the Minister some of the questions and issues that I have. Looking specifically at clause 181, I very much appreciate the clarification that he has given us about users, what the clause actually means, and how the definition of “user” works. To be fair, I agree with the way the definition of “user” is written. My slight concern is that, in measuring the number of users, platforms might find it difficult to measure the number of unregistered users and the number of users who are accessing the content through another means.
Let us say, for example, that someone is sent a WhatsApp message with a TikTok link and they click on that. I do not know whether TikTok has the ability to work out who is watching the content, or how many people are watching it. Therefore, I think that TikTok might have a difficulty when it comes to the child safety duties and working out the percentage or number of children who are accessing the service, because it will not know who is accessing it through a secondary means.
I am not trying to give anyone a get-out clause. I am trying to ensure that Ofcom can properly ensure that platforms that have a significant number of children accessing them through secondary means are still subject to the child safety duties even though there may not be a high number of children accessing the platform or the provider directly. My major concern is assessing whether they are subject to the child safety duties laid out in the Bill.
I will move straight on to our amendment 76, which would amend the definition of “content” in clause 189. I have raised this issue with the Minister already. The clause, as amended, would state that
“‘content’ means anything communicated by means of an internet service, whether publicly or privately, including but not limited to”—
and then a list. The reason I suggest that we should add those words “but not limited to” is that if we are to have a list, we should either make an exhaustive list or have clarity that there are other things that may not be on the list.
I understand that it could be argued that the word “including” suggests that the provision actually goes much wider than what is in the list. I understand that that is the argument that the Minister may make, but can we have some more clarity from him? If he is not willing to accept the amendment but he is willing to be very clear that, actually, the provision does include things that we have not thought of and that do not currently exist and that it genuinely includes anything communicated by means of an internet service, that will be very helpful.
I think that the amendment would add something positive to the Bill. It is potentially the most important amendment that I have tabled in relation to future-proofing the Bill, because it does feel as though the definition of “content”, even though it says “including”, is unnecessarily restrictive and could be open to challenge should someone invent something that is not on the list and say, “Well, it’s not mentioned, so I am not going to have to regulate this in the way we have to regulate other types of content.”
I have other questions about the same provision in clause 189, but I will hold on to those until we come to the next grouping.
Alex Davies-Jones
I rise briefly to support amendment 76, in the name of the hon. Member for Aberdeen North. Labour supports broadening the definition of “content” in this way. I refer the Minister to our earlier contributions about the importance of including newspaper comments, for example, in the scope of the Bill. This is a clear example of a key loophole in the Bill. We believe that a broadened definition of “content” would be a positive step forward to ensure that there is future-proofing, to prevent any unnecessary harm from any future content.
Chris Philp
The shadow Minister, in her first contribution to the debate, introduced the broad purpose of the various clauses in this group, so I do not propose to repeat those points.
I would like to touch on one or two issues that came up. One is that clause 187 defines the meaning of “harm” throughout the Bill, although clause 150, as we have discussed, has its own internal definition of harm that is different. The more general definition of harm is made very clear in clause 187(2), which states:
“‘Harm’ means physical or psychological harm.”
That means that harm has a very broad construction in the Bill, as it should, to make sure that people are being protected as they ought to be.
The Chair
Amendment 111 is not claimed; it has been tabled by the hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie), who is not a member of the Committee. I am assuming that nobody wishes to take ownership of it and we will not debate it.
If the hon. Member for Aberdeen North wishes to move amendment 76, she will be able to do so at the end of the stand part debate.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Davies-Jones
As we know, the clause sets out the meanings of various terms used in the Bill. Throughout our Committee debates, Labour has raised fundamental concerns on a number of points where we feel the interpretation of the Bill requires clarification. We raised concerns as early as clause 8, when we considered the Bill’s ability to capture harm in relation to newly produced CSEA content and livestreaming. The Minister may feel he has sufficiently reassured us, but I am afraid that simply is not the case. Labour has no specific issues with the interpretations listed in clause 189, but we will likely seek to table further amendments on Report in the areas that we feel require clarification.
Kirsty Blackman
In one of our earlier debates, I asked the Minister about the difference between “oral” and “aural”, and I did not get a very satisfactory answer. I know the difference in their dictionary definition—I understand that they are different, although the words sound the same. I am confused that clause 189 uses “oral” as part of the definition of content, but clause 49 refers to
“one-to-one live aural communications”
in defining things that are excluded.
I do not understand why the Government have chosen to use those two different words in different places in the Bill. It strikes me that, potentially, we mean one or the other. If they do mean two different things, why has one thing been chosen for clause 49 and another thing for clause 189? Why has the choice been made that clause 49 relates to communications that are heard, but clause 189 relates to communications that are said? I do not quite get the Government’s logic in using those two different words.
I know this is a picky point, but in order to have good legislation, we want it to make sense, for there to be a good rationale for everything that is in it and for people to be able to understand it. At the moment, I do not properly understand why the choice has been made to use two different words.
More generally, the definitions in clause 189 seem pretty sensible, notwithstanding what I said in the previous debate in respect of amendment 76, which, with your permission, Sir Roger, I intend to move when we reach the appropriate point.
Chris Philp
As the hon. Member for Pontypridd said, clause 189 sets out various points of definition and interpretation necessary for the Bill to be understood and applied.
I turn to the question raised by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North. First, I strongly commend and congratulate her on having noticed the use of the two words. Anyone who thinks that legislation does not get properly scrutinised by Parliament has only to look to the fact that she spotted this difference, 110 pages apart, in two different clauses—clauses 49 and 189. That shows that these things do get properly looked at. I strongly congratulate her on that.
I think the best way of addressing her question is probably to follow up with her after the sitting. Clause 49 relates to regulated user-to-user content. We are in clause 49(2)—is that right?
Chris Philp
It is cross-referenced in subsection (5). The use of the term “aural” in that subsection refers to sound only—what might typically be considered telephony services. “Oral” is taken to cover livestreaming, which includes pictures and voice. That is the intention behind the use of the two different words. If that is not sufficient to explain the point—it may not be—I would be happy to expand in writing.
Kirsty Blackman
That would be helpful, in the light of the concerns I raised and what the hon. Member for Pontypridd mentioned about gaming, and how those communications work on a one-to-one basis. Having clarity in writing on whether clause 49 relates specifically to telephony-type services would be helpful, because that is not exactly how I read it.
Chris Philp
Given that the hon. Lady has raised the point, it is reasonable that she requires more detail. I will follow up in writing on that point.
Amendment proposed: 76, in clause 189, page 154, line 34, after “including” insert “but not limited to”.—(Kirsty Blackman.)
This amendment clarifies the definition of “content” in the bill in order that anything communicated by means of an internet service is considered content, not only those examples listed.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Alex Davies-Jones
Labour has not tabled any amendments to clause 190, which lists the provisions that define or explain terms used in the Bill. However, it will come as no surprise that we dispute the Bill’s definition of harm, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen for raising those important points in our lively debate about amendment 112 to clause 150. We maintain that the Minister has missed the point, in that the Bill’s definition of harm fails to truly capture physical harm caused as a consequence of being online. I know that the Minister has promised to closely consider that as we head to Report stage, but I urge him to bear in mind the points raised by Labour, as well as his own Back Benchers.
The Minister knows, because we have repeatedly raised them, that we have concerns about the scope of the Bill’s provisions relating to priority content. I will not repeat myself, but he will be unsurprised to learn that this is an area in which we will continue to prod as the Bill progresses through Parliament.
Chris Philp
I have made points on those issues previously. I do not propose to repeat now what I have said before.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 190 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 191 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 192
Extent
Chris Philp
I beg to move amendment 141, in clause 192, page 160, line 9, at end insert—
“(aa) section (Offence under the Obscene Publications Act 1959: OFCOM defence);”.
This amendment provides for NC35 to extend only to England and Wales.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 35—Offence under the Obscene Publications Act 1959: OFCOM defence—
“(1) Section 2 of the Obscene Publications Act 1959 (prohibition of publication of obscene matter) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).
(2) After subsection (5) insert—
“(5A) A person shall not be convicted of an offence against this section of the publication of an obscene article if the person proves that—
(a) at the time of the offence charged, the person was a member of OFCOM, employed or engaged by OFCOM, or assisting OFCOM in the exercise of any of their online safety functions (within the meaning of section188 of the Online Safety Act 2022), and
(b) the person published the article for the purposes of OFCOM’s exercise of any of those functions.”
(3) In subsection (7)—
(a) the words after “In this section” become paragraph (a), and
(b) at the end of that paragraph, insert “;
(b) “OFCOM” means the Office of Communications.””
This new clause (to be inserted after clause 171) amends section 2 of the Obscene Publications Act 1959 to create a defence for OFCOM and their employees etc to the offence of the publication of an obscene article.
Chris Philp
New clause 35 amends section 2 of the Obscene Publications Act 1959 to create a defence for Ofcom to the offence of publishing an obscene article where Ofcom is exercising its online safety duties. Ofcom has a range of functions that may result in its staff handling such content, so we want to ensure that that is covered properly. We have debated that already.
Clause 192 covers territorial extent. The regulation of the internet, as a reserved matter, covers all of the United Kingdom, but particular parts of the Bill extend to particular areas of the UK. In repealing that point in the Obscene Publications Act, we are ensuring that the Bill applies to the relevant parts of the United Kingdom, because that area of legislation has different areas of applicability. The clause and our amendments are important in ensuring that that is done in the right way.
Alex Davies-Jones
The clause provides that the Bill extends to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, subject to the exceptions set out in subsections (2) to (7). We welcome clarification of how the devolved nations may be affected by the provisions of the Bill—that is of particular importance to me as a Welsh MP. It is important to clarify how amendments or appeals, as outlined in subsection (7), may work in the context of devolution more widely.
Labour also supports new clause 35 and Government amendment 141. Clearly, those working for Ofcom should have a defence to the offence of publishing obscene articles as, sadly, we see that as a core part of establishing the online safety regime in full. We know that having such a defence available is likely to be an important part of the regulator’s role and that of its employees. Labour is therefore happy to support this sensible new clause and amendment.
Kirsty Blackman
The Opposition spokesperson has said it all.
Amendment 141 agreed to.
Clause 192, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 193
Commencement and transitional provision
The Chair
Amendment 139 was tabled by a Member who is not a member of the Committee, and nobody has claimed it, so we come to amendment 49.
Alex Davies-Jones
I beg to move amendment 49, in clause 193, page 161, line 1, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
“(2) Subject to subsection (2A) below, the other provisions of this Act come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint.
(2A) The provisions of Part 5 shall come into force at the end of the period of three months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”
This amendment would bring Part 5 into force three months after the Act is passed.
We all understand the need for the Bill, which is why we have been generally supportive in Committee. I hope we can also agree that the measures that the Bill introduces must come into force as soon as is reasonably possible. That is particularly important for the clauses introducing protections for children, who have been subject to the harms of the online world for far too long already. I was glad to hear the Minister say in our discussions of clauses 31 to 33 that the Government share the desire to get such protections in place quickly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South also spoke about our concerns about the commencement and transitional provisions when speaking to clauses 170 to 172. We fundamentally believe that the provisions on pornography in part 5 cannot, and should not, be susceptible to further delay, because they require no secondary legislation. I will come to that point in my comments on the amendment. More broadly, I will touch briefly on the reasons why we cannot wait for the legislation and make reference to a specific case that I know colleagues across the House are aware of.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) has been a powerful voice on behalf of his constituents Amanda and Stuart Stephens, whose beloved son Olly was tragically murdered in a field outside his home. A BBC “Panorama” investigation, shown only a few days ago, investigated the role that social media played in Olly’s death. It specifically highlighted disturbing evidence that some social media algorithms may still promote violent content to vulnerable young people. That is another example highlighting the urgent need for the Bill, along with a regulatory process to keep people safe online.
We also recognise, however, the important balance between the need for effective development of guidance by Ofcom, informed by consultation, and the need to get the duties up and going. In some cases, that will mean having to stipulate deadlines in the Bill, which we feel is a serious omission and oversight at present.
The amendment would bring part 5 of the Bill into force three months after it is enacted. The Minister knows how important part 5 is, so I do not need to repeat myself. The provisions of the amendment, including subsequent amendments that Labour and others will likely table down the line, are central to keeping people safe online. We have heard compelling evidence from experts and speeches from colleagues across the House that have highlighted how vital it is that the Bill goes further on pornographic content. The amendment is simple. It seeks to make real, meaningful change as soon as is practically possible. The Bill is long delayed, and providers and users are desperate for clarity and positive change, which is what led us to tabling the amendment.
Kirsty Blackman
In the interests of not having to make a speech in this debate, I want to let the hon. Member know that I absolutely support the amendment. It is well balanced, brings the most important provisions into force as soon as possible, and allows the Secretary of State to appoint dates for the others.
Alex Davies-Jones
I welcome the hon. Member’s intervention, and I am grateful for her and her party’s support for this important amendment.
It is also worth drawing colleagues’ attention to the history of issues, which have been brought forward in this place before. We know there was reluctance on the part of Ministers when the Digital Economy Act 2017 was on the parliamentary agenda to commence the all-important part 3, which covered many of the provisions now in part 5. Ultimately, the empty promises made by the Minister’s former colleagues have led to huge, record failures, even though the industry is ready, having had years to prepare to implement the policy. I want to place on record my thanks to campaigning groups such as the Age Verification Providers Association and others, which have shown fierce commitment in getting us this far.
It might help if I cast colleagues’ minds back to the Digital Economy Act 2017, which received Royal Assent in April of that year. Following that, in November 2018, the then Minister of State for Digital and Creative Industries told the Science and Technology Committee that part 3 of the DEA would be in force “by Easter next year”. Then, in December 2018, both Houses of Parliament approved the necessary secondary legislation, the Online Pornography (Commercial Basis) Regulations 2018, and the required statutory guidance.
But shortly after, in April 2018, the first delay arose when the Government published an online press release stating that part 3 of the DEA would not come into force until 15 July 2019. However, June 2019 came around and still there was nothing. On 20 June, five days after it should have come into force, the then Under-Secretary of State told the House of Lords that the defendant had failed to notify the European Commission of the statutory guidance, which would need to be done, and that that would result in a delay to the commencement of part 3
“in the region of six months”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 June 2019; Vol. 798, c. 883.]
However, on 16 October 2019, the then Secretary of State announced via a written statement to Parliament that the Government
“will not be commencing part 3 of the Digital Economy Act 2017 concerning age verification for online pornography.”—[Official Report, 16 October 2019; Vol. 666, c. 17WS.]
A mere 13 days later, the Government called a snap general election. I am sure those are pretty staggering realities for the Minister to hear—and defend—but I am willing to listen to his defence. It really is not good enough. The industry is ready, the technology has been there for quite some time, and, given this Government’s fondness for a U-turn, there are concerns that part 5 of the Bill, which we have spent weeks deliberating, could be abandoned in a similar way as part 3 of the DEA was.
The Minister has failed to concede on any of the issues we have raised in Committee. It seems we are dealing with a Government who are ignoring the wide-ranging gaps and issues in the Bill. He has a relatively last-ditch opportunity to at least bring about some positive change, and to signify that he is willing to admit that the legislation as it stands is far from perfect. The provisions in part 5 are critical—they are probably the most important in the entire Bill—so I urge him to work with Labour to make sure they are put to good use in a more than reasonable timeframe.
Chris Philp
On the implementation of part 3 of the Digital Economy Act 2017, all the events that the shadow Minister outlined predated my time in the Department. In fact, apart from the last few weeks of the period she talked about, the events predated my time as a Minister in different Departments, and I cannot speak for the actions and words of Ministers prior to my arrival in DCMS. What I can say, and I have said in Committee, is that we are determined to get the Bill through Parliament and implemented as quickly as we can, particularly the bits to do with child safety and the priority illegal content duties.
The shadow Minister commented at the end of her speech that she thought the Government had been ignoring parliamentary opinion. I take slight issue with that, given that we published a draft Bill in May 2021 and went through a huge process of scrutiny, including by the Joint Committee of the Commons and the Lords. We accepted 66 of the Joint Committee’s recommendations, and made other very important changes to the Bill. We have made changes such as addressing fraudulent advertising, which was previously omitted, and including commercial pornography—meaning protecting children—which is critical in this area.
The Government have made a huge number of changes to the Bill since it was first drafted. Indeed, we have made further changes while the Bill has been before the Committee, including amending clause 35 to strengthen the fraudulent advertising duties on large search companies. Members of Parliament, such as the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), raised that issue on Second Reading. We listened to what was said at that stage and we made the changes.
There have also been quite a few occasions during these Committee proceedings when I have signalled—sometimes subtly, sometimes less so—that there are areas where further changes might be forthcoming as the Bill proceeds through both Houses of Parliament. I do not think the hon. Member for Pontypridd, or any member of the Committee, should be in any doubt that the Government are very open to making changes to the Bill where we are able to and where they are right. We have done so already and we might do so again in the future.
On the specifics of the amendment, we share the intention to protect children from accessing pornography online as quickly as possible. The amendment seeks to set a three-month timeframe within which part 5 must come into force. However, an important consideration for the commencement of part 5 will be the need to ensure that all kinds of providers of online pornography are treated the same, including those hosting user-generated content, which are subject to the duties of part 3. If we take a piecemeal approach, bringing into force part 5, on commercial pornography, before part 3, on user-to-user pornography, that may enable some of the services, which are quite devious, to simply reconfigure their services to circumvent regulation or cease to be categorised as part 5 services and try to be categorised as part 3 services. We want to do this in a comprehensive way to ensure that no one will be able to wriggle out of the provisions in the Bill.
Parliament has also placed a requirement on Ofcom to produce, consult on and publish guidance for in-scope providers on meeting the duties in part 5. The three-month timescale set out in the amendment would be too quick to enable Ofcom to properly consult on that guidance. It is important that the guidance is right; if it is not, it may be legally challenged or turn out to be ineffective.
I understand the need to get this legislation implemented quickly. I understand the scepticism that flows from the long delays and eventual cancellation of part 3 of the Digital Economy Act 2017. I acknowledge that, and I understand where the sentiment comes from. However, I think we are in a different place today. The provisions in the Bill have been crafted to address some of the concerns that Members had about the previous DEA measures—not least the fact that they are more comprehensive, as they cover user-to-user, which the DEA did not. There is therefore a clear commitment to getting this done, and getting it done fast. However, we also have to get it done right, and I think the process we have set out does that.
The Ofcom road map is expected before the summer. I hope that will give further reassurance to the Committee and to Parliament about the speed with which these things can get implemented. I share Members’ sentiments about needing to get this done quickly, but I do not think it is practical or right to do it in the way set out in amendment 49.
Alex Davies-Jones
I am grateful for the Minister’s comments. However, I respectfully disagree, given the delays already since 2017. The industry is ready for this. The providers of the age verification services are ready for this. We believe that three months is an adequate timeframe, and it is vital that we get this done as quickly as possible. With that in mind, I will be pushing amendment 49 to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Chris Philp
This very important and concise clause sets out that the Bill, when passed, will be cited as the Online Safety Act 2022, which I hope is prophetic when it comes the lightning speed of passage through the House of Lords.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 194 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 35
Offence under the Obscene Publications Act 1959: OFCOM defence
“(1) Section 2 of the Obscene Publications Act 1959 (prohibition of publication of obscene matter) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).
(2) After subsection (5) insert—
‘(5A) A person shall not be convicted of an offence against this section of the publication of an obscene article if the person proves that—
(a) at the time of the offence charged, the person was a member of OFCOM, employed or engaged by OFCOM, or assisting OFCOM in the exercise of any of their online safety functions (within the meaning of section188 of the Online Safety Act 2022), and
(b) the person published the article for the purposes of OFCOM’s exercise of any of those functions.’
(3) In subsection (7)—
(a) the words after ‘In this section’ become paragraph (a), and
(b) at the end of that paragraph, insert ‘;
(b) “OFCOM” means the Office of Communications.’”—(Chris Philp.)
This new clause (to be inserted after clause 171) amends section 2 of the Obscene Publications Act 1959 to create a defence for OFCOM and their employees etc to the offence of the publication of an obscene article.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 42
Recovery of OFCOM’s initial costs
“Schedule (Recovery of OFCOM’s initial costs) makes provision about fees chargeable to providers of regulated services in connection with OFCOM’s recovery of costs incurred on preparations for the exercise of their online safety functions.”—(Chris Philp.)
This new clause introduces NS2.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 43 and Government new schedule 2.
Chris Philp
New clause 42 introduces new schedule 2. New clause 43 provides that the additional fees charged to providers under new schedule 2 must be paid into the consolidated fund. We discussed that a few days ago. That is where the fees are currently destined and I owe my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke some commentary on this topic in due course. The Bill already provided that monetary penalties must be paid into the Consolidated Fund; the provisions are now placed into that clause.
New schedule 2, which is quite detailed, makes provisions in connection with Ofcom’s ability to recover its initial costs, which we have previously debated. As discussed, it is important that the taxpayer not only is protected from the ongoing costs but that the set-up costs are recovered. The taxpayer should not have to pay for the regulatory framework; the people who are being regulated should pay, whether the costs are incurred before or after commencement, in line with the “polluter pays” principle. Deep in new schedule 2 is the answer to the question that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North asked a day or two ago about the period over which set-up costs can be recovered, with that period specified as between three and five years. I hope that provides an introduction to the new clauses and new schedules.
Alex Davies-Jones
We welcome this grouping, which includes two new clauses and a new schedule. Labour has raised concerns about the future funding of Ofcom more widely, specifically when we discussed groupings on clause 42. The Minister’s response did little to alleviate our concerns about the future of Ofcom’s ability to raise funds to maintain its position as the regulator. Despite that, we welcome the grouping, particularly the provisions in the new schedule, which will require Ofcom to seek to recover the costs it has incurred when preparing to take on functions as the regulator of services under the Bill by charging fees to providers of services. This is an important step, which we see as being broadly in line with the kind of mechanisms already in place for other, similar regulatory regimes.
Ultimately, it is right that fees charged to providers under new schedule 2 must be paid into the Consolidated Fund and important that Ofcom can recover its costs before a full fee structure and governance process is established. However, I have some questions for the Minister. How many people has Ofcom hired into roles, and can any of those costs count towards the calculation of fees? We want to ensure that other areas of regulation do not lose out as a consequence. Broadly speaking, though, we are happy to support the grouping and have not sought to table amendment at this stage.
Chris Philp
So far as I am aware, all the costs incurred by Ofcom in relation to the duties in the Bill can be recouped by way of fees. If that is not correct, I will write to the hon. Lady saying so, but my understanding is that any relevant Ofcom cost will be in the scope of the fees.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 42 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 43
Payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund
“(1) Section 400 of the Communications Act (destination of penalties etc) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), after paragraph (i) insert—
‘(j) an amount paid to OFCOM in respect of a penalty imposed by them under Chapter 6 of Part 7 of the Online Safety Act 2022;
(k) an amount paid to OFCOM in respect of an additional fee charged under Schedule (Recovery of OFCOM’s initial costs) to the Online Safety Act 2022.’
(3) In subsection (2), after ‘applies’ insert ‘(except an amount mentioned in subsection (1)(j) or (k))’.
(4) After subsection (3) insert—
‘(3A) Where OFCOM receive an amount mentioned in subsection (1)(j) or (k), it must be paid into the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.’
(5) In the heading, omit ‘licence’.”—(Chris Philp.)
This new clause provides that additional fees charged to providers under NS2 must be paid into the Consolidated Fund. The Bill already provided that monetary penalties must be paid into the Consolidated Fund, and those provisions are now placed in this clause.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 3
Establishment of Advocacy Body
“(1) There is to be a body corporate (‘the Advocacy Body’) to represent interests of child users of regulated services.
(2) A ‘child user’—
(a) means any person aged 17 years or under who uses or is likely to use regulated internet services; and
(b) includes both any existing child user and any future child user.
(3) The work of the Advocacy Body may include—
(a) representing the interests of child users;
(b) the protection and promotion of these interests;
(c) any other matter connected with those interests.
(4) The ‘interests of child users’ means the interest of children in relation to the discharge by any regulated company of its duties under this Act, including—
(a) safety duties about illegal content, in particular CSEA content;
(b) safety duties protecting children;
(c) ‘enforceable requirements’ relating to children.
(5) The Advocacy Body must have particular regard to the interests of child users that display one or more protected characteristics within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010.
(6) The Advocacy Body will be defined as a statutory consultee for OFCOM’s regulatory decisions which impact upon the interests of children.
(7) The Secretary of State may appoint an organisation known to represent children to be designated the functions under this Act, or may create an organisation to carry out the designated functions.”—(Barbara Keeley.)
This new clause creates a new advocacy body for child users of regulated internet services.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Barbara Keeley
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 3 would make provision for a statutory user advocacy body representing the interests of children. It would also allow the Secretary of State to appoint a new or existing body as the statutory user advocate. A strong, authoritative and well-resourced voice that can speak for children in regulatory debates would ensure that complex safeguarding issues are well understood, and would also actively inform the regulator’s decisions.
Charities have highlighted that the complaints and reporting mechanisms in the Bill may not always be appropriate for children. Ofcom’s own evidence shows that only 14% to 12 to 15-year-old children have ever reported content. Children who are most at risk of online harms may find it incredibly challenging to complete a multi-stage reporting and complaints process. Dame Rachel de Souza told the Committee:
“I worry that the Bill does not do enough to respond to individual cases of abuse and that it needs to do more to understand issues and concerns directly from children. Children should not have to exhaust the platforms’ ineffective complaints routes, which can take days, weeks or even months. I have just conducted a survey of 2,000 children and asked them about their experiences in the past month. Of those 2,000 children, 50% had seen harmful content and 40% had tried to get content about themselves removed and had not succeeded. For me, there is something really important about listening to children and taking their complaints into account.”––[Official Report, Online Safety Public Bill Committee, 24 May 2022; c. 16, Q22.]
A children’s advocacy body would be able to support children with redress mechanisms that are fundamentally targeted at adults. Given how many children now use the internet, that is an essential element that is missing from the Bill. That is why the super-complaints mechanism needs to be strengthened with specific arrangements for children, as advocated by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and other children’s organisations. A statutory user advocacy body could support the regulator, as well as supporting child users. It would actively promote the interests of children in regulatory decision making and offer support by ensuring that an understanding of children’s behaviour and safeguarding is front and centre in its approach.
Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a really valid point. As I look around the room—I mean this with no disrespect to anybody—I see that we are all of an age at which we do not understand the internet in the same way that children and young people do. Surely, one of the key purposes of the Bill is to make sure that children and young people are protected from harms online, and as the Children’s Commissioner said in her evidence, their voices have to be heard. I am sure that, like me, many Members present attend schools as part of their weekly constituency visits, and the conversations we have with young people are some of the most empowering and important parts of this job. We have to make sure that the voices of the young people who we all represent are heard in this important piece of legislation, and it is really important that we have an advocacy body to ensure that.
Barbara Keeley
I very much agree with my hon. Friend. She is quite right: we have to remember that we do not see these things as children and young people do.
The user advocacy body that my hon. Friend has just spoken in support of could also shine a light on the practices that are most harmful to children by using data, evidence and specialist expertise to point to new and emerging areas of harm. That would enable the regulator to ensure its risk profiles and regulatory approach remain valid and up to date. In his evidence, Andy Burrows of the NSPCC highlighted the importance of an advocacy body acting as an early warning system:
“Given the very welcome systemic approach of the regime, that early warning function is particularly important, because there is the potential that if harms cannot be identified quickly, we will see a lag where whole regulatory cycles are missed. User advocacy can help to plug that gap, meaning that harms are identified at an earlier stage, and then the positive design of the process, with the risk profiles and company risk assessments, means that those harms can be built into that particular cycle.”––[Official Report, Online Safety Public Bill Committee, 24 May 2022; c. 16, Q22.]
The provision in the new clause is comparable to those that already exist in many other sectors. For example, Citizens Advice is the statutory user advocate for consumers of energy and the postal services, and there are similar arrangements representing users of public transport. Establishing a children’s user advocacy body would ensure that the most vulnerable online users of all—children at risk of online sexual abuse—receive equivalent protections to customers of post offices or passengers on a bus.
Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
The hon. Lady will recall the issue that I raised earlier in the Committee’s deliberations, regarding the importance of victim support that gives people somewhere to go other than the platforms. I think that is what she is now alluding to. Does she not believe that the organisations that are already in place, with the right funding—perhaps from the fines coming from the platforms themselves—would be in a position to do this almost immediately, and that we should not have to set up yet another body, or have I misunderstood what she has said?
Barbara Keeley
I do not think that the right hon. Lady has misunderstood what I said. I said that the new clause would allow the Secretary of State to appoint a new or existing body as the statutory user advocate, so it could very much be either.
New clause 3 would also rebalance the interests of children against the vocal and well-resourced regulated companies. I think that is a key argument for having an advocacy body. Without such a counterbalance, large tech companies could attempt to capture independent expert voices, fund highly selective research with the intent to skew the evidence base, and then challenge regulatory decisions with the evidence base they have created.
Those tactics are not new; similar tactics are used in other regulated sectors, such as the tobacco industry. In line with other sectors, the user advocacy body should be funded by a levy on regulated companies. That would be in line with the “polluter pays” principle in part 6 and would be neutral to the Exchequer—another reason to accept it. Compared with the significant benefits and improved outcomes it would create, the levy would represent only a minimal additional burden on companies.
There is strong support for the creation of a user advocate. Research by the NSPCC shows that 88% of UK adults who responded to a YouGov survey think that it is necessary for the Bill to introduce a requirement for an independent body that can protect the interests of children at risk of online harms, including grooming and child sexual abuse.
It is also a popular option among children. YoungMinds has said that young people do not feel they are being included enough in the drafting of the Bill. It evidenced that with research it undertook that found that almost 80% of young people aged 11 to 25 surveyed had never even heard of the Bill.
A young woman told the NSPCC why she felt a children’s advocacy body is needed. She is a survivor of online grooming, and it is worth sharing what she said in full, because it is powerful and we have not shared the voices of young people enough. She said:
“When I was 13, a man in his 30s contacted me on Facebook. I added him because you just used to add anyone on Facebook. He started messaging me and I liked the attention. We’d speak every day, usually late at night for hours at a time…He started asking for photos, so I sent some. Then he asked for some explicit photos, so I did that too, and he reciprocated…In my eyes, telling anyone in my life about this man was not an option. We need to stop putting the responsibility on a vulnerable child to prevent crime and start living in a world which puts keeping children safe first. That means putting child safety at the heart of policy. I want a statutory child user advocacy body funded by the industry levy. This would play a vital role in advocating for children’s rights in regulatory debates. Being groomed made me feel incredibly vulnerable, isolated, and weak. I felt I had no one who was on my side. Having a body stand up for the rights of children in such a vulnerable position is invaluable…it is so rare that voices like mine have a chance to be heard by policy makers. Watching pre legislative debates I’ve been struck by how detached from my lived experience they can be”—
that is very much the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen made—
“and indeed the lived experiences of thousands of others. If we want to protect children, we need to understand and represent what they need.”
I hope that the Committee will recognise the bravery of that young woman in speaking about her experiences as a survivor of online grooming. I hope that the Minister will respect the insights she offers and consider the merits of having a user advocacy body to support children and young people experiencing harms online.
Kirsty Blackman
I read new clause 3 in conjunction with the starred new clause 44, because it makes sense to consider the funding of the advocacy body, and the benefits of that funding, when discussing the merits of such a body. Part of that is because the funding of the advocacy body, and the fact that it needs to be funded, is key to its operation, and a key reason why we need it.
Kim Leadbeater
The hon. Lady is making some excellent points. I wholeheartedly agree with her about funding for bodies that might be able to support the advocacy body or act as part of it. She makes a really important point, which we have not focused on enough during the debate, about the positive aspects of the internet. It is very easy to get bogged down in all the negative stuff, which a lot of the Bill focuses on, but she is right that the internet provides a safe space, particularly for young people, to seek out their own identity. Does she agree that the new clause is important because it specifically refers to protected characteristics and to the Equality Act 2010? I am not sure where else that appears in the Bill, but it is important that it should be there. We are thinking not just about age, but about gender, disability and sexual orientation, which is why this new clause could be really important.
Kirsty Blackman
I absolutely agree. I had not thought about it in those terms, but the hon. Member is right that the new clause gives greater importance to those protected characteristics and lays that out in the Bill.
I appreciate that, under the risk assessment duties set out in the Bill, organisations have to look at protected characteristics in groups and at individuals with those protected characteristics, which I welcome, but I also welcome the inclusion of protected characteristics in the new clause in relation to the duties of the advocacy body. I think that is really important, especially, as the hon. Member for Batley and Spen just said, in relation to the positive aspects of the internet. It is about protecting free speech for children and young people and enabling them to find community and enjoy life online and offline.
Will the Minister give serious consideration to the possibility of a user advocacy body? Third sector organisations are calling for that, and I do not think Ofcom could possibly have the expertise to match such a body.
Dame Maria Miller
I want briefly to interject to underline the point I made in my intervention on the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South. I welcome the discussion about victims’ support, which picks up on what we discussed on clause 110. At that point I mentioned the NSPCC evidence that talked about the importance of third party advocacy services, due to the lack of trust in the platforms, as well as for some of the other reasons that the hon. Members for Worsley and Eccles South, for Batley and Spen, and for Aberdeen North have raised.
When we discussed clause 110, the Minister undertook to think about the issue seriously and to talk to the Treasury about whether funding could be taken directly from fines rather than those all going into the Treasury coffers. I hope the debate on new clause 3 will serve to strengthen his resolve, given the strength of support for such a measure, whether that is through a formal user advocacy service or by using existing organisations. I hope he uses the debate to strengthen his arguments about such a measure with the Treasury.
I will not support the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South, because I think the Minister has already undertaken to look at this issue. As I say, I hope this discussion strengthens his resolve to do so.
Chris Philp
Let me start by stating the fact that this Bill, as drafted, rightly has incredibly strong protections for children. The children’s safety duties that we have already debated are extremely strong. They apply to any platform with significant numbers of children using it and they impose a duty on such companies to protect children from harm. The priority illegal safety duties are listed in schedule 6, on child sexual exploitation and abuse offences—they have their very own schedule because we attach such importance to them. Committee members should be in no doubt that protecting children is at the very heart of the Bill. I hope that has been obvious from the debates we have had.
On children’s ability to raise complaints and seek redress under the Bill, it is worth reminding ourselves of a couple of clauses that we have debated previously, through which we are trying to make sure it is as easy as possible for children to report problematic content or to raise complaints. Members will recall that we debated clause 17. Clause 17(6)(c) allows for
“a parent of, or other adult with responsibility for, a child”
to raise content-reporting claims with users, so that children are not left on their own. We have also been clear under the complaints procedures set out in clause 18(2)(c) that those procedures must be
“easy to access, easy to use (including by children)”.
That is an explicit reference to accessibility for children.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North has also already referred to the fact that in both the children’s risk assessment duties and the adult’s risk assessment duties people’s characteristics, including whether they are a member of a particular group, have to be taken into account. The children’s risk assessment duties are set out in clause 10(6)(d). Children with particular characteristics —orientation, race and so on—have to be particularly considered. The fact that a clause on the children’s risk assessment duties even exists in the first place shows that specific and special consideration has to be given to children and the risks they face. That is hardwired right into the architecture of the Bill.
All the provisions that I have just mentioned—starting with clause 10 on children’s risk assessment duties, right through to the end of the Bill and the priority offences in schedule 6, on child sexual exploitation and abuse offences—show that, right throughout the whole Bill, the protection of children is integral to what we are trying to do with the Bill.
On the consultation that happened in forming and framing the Bill, really extensive engagement and consultation took place throughout the preparation of this piece of legislation, including direct consultation with children themselves, their parents and the many advocacy groups for children. There should be no doubt at all that children have been thoroughly consulted as the Bill has been prepared.
On the specifics of new clause 3, which relate to advocacy for children, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen North referred to in passing a moment ago, there is a mechanism in clause 140 for organisations that represent particular groups, such as children, to raise super-complaints with Ofcom when there is a problem. In fact, when we debated that clause, I used children as an example when I spoke about the “eligible entities” that can raise super-complaints—I used the NSPCC speaking for children as a specific example of the organisations I would expect the term “eligible entity” to include. Clause 140 explicitly empowers organisations such as the NSPCC and others to speak for children.
Kim Leadbeater
I agree wholeheartedly about the importance of the role of the Children’s Commissioner and she does a fantastic job, but is it not testament to the fact that there is a need for this advocacy body that she is advocating for it and thinks it is a really good idea? The Children Act 2004 is a fantastic Act, but that was nearly 20 years ago and the world has changed significantly since then. The Bill shows that. The fact that she is advocating for it may suggest that she sees the need for a separate entity.
Chris Philp
There is a danger if we over-create statutory bodies with overlapping responsibilities. I just read out the current statutory functions of the Children’s Commissioner under the 2004 Act. If we were to agree to the new clause, we would basically be creating a second statutory advocate or body with duties that are the same as some of those that the Children’s Commissioner already exercises. I read from section 2 of the Act, where those duties are set out. I do not think that having two people with conflicting or competing duties would be particularly helpful.
Alex Davies-Jones
I am grateful to the Minister for his support for Labour legislation. Does he acknowledge that we have different Children’s Commissioners across the nations of the UK? Each would have the same rights to advocate for children, so we would have four, rather than one focusing on one specific issue, which is what the Children’s Commissioners across the UK are advocating for.
Chris Philp
I do not have in front of me the relevant devolved legislation—I have only the Children Act 2004 directly in front of me—but I assume it is broadly similar. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North can correct me if I am wrong, but I assume it is probably broadly similar in the way—[Interruption.] She is not sure, so I do not feel too bad about not being sure either. I imagine it is similar. I am not sure that having similar statutory bodies with the same function—we would create another with the new clause—is necessarily helpful.
The Bill sets out formal processes that allow other organisations, such as the NSPCC, to raise complaints that have to be dealt with. That ensures that the voices of groups—including children, but not just children—will be heard. I suspect that if we have a children’s advocacy body, other groups will want them and might feel that they have been overlooked by omission.
The good thing about the way the super-complaint structure in clause 140 works is that it does not prescribe what the groups are. Although I am sure that children will be top of the list, there will be other groups that want to advocate and to be able to bring super-complaints. I imagine that women’s groups will be on that list, along with groups advocating for minorities and people with various sexual orientations. Clause 140 is not exclusive; it allows all these groups to have a voice that must be heard. That is why it is so effective.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke and the hon. Member for Batley and Spen asked whether the groups have enough resources to advocate on issues under the super-complaint process. That is a fair question. The allocation of funding to different groups tends to be done via the spending review process. Colleagues in other Departments—the Department for Education or, in the case of victims, the Ministry of Justice—allocate quite a lot of money to third-sector groups. The victims budget was approximately £200 million a year or two ago, and I am told it has risen to £300 million for the current financial year. That is the sort of funding that can find its way into the hands of the organisations that advocate for particular groups of victims. My right hon. Friend asked whether the proceeds of fines could be applied to fund such work, and I have undertaken to raise that with the Treasury.
We already have a statutory advocate for children: the four Children’s Commissioners for the four parts of the United Kingdom. We have the super-complaints process, which covers more than children’s groups, crucial though they are. We have given Ofcom statutory duties to consult when developing its codes of practice, and we have money flowing via the Ministry of Justice, the DFE and others, into advocate groups. Although we agree with the intention behind new clause 3, we believe its objectives are very well covered via the mechanisms that I have just set out at some length.
Kirsty Blackman
There have not been all that many times during the debate on the Bill when the Minister has so spectacularly missed the point as he has on this section. I understand everything he said about provisions already being in place to protect to children and the provisions regarding the super-complaints, but the new clause is not intended to be a replacement for the super-complaints procedure, which we all support—in fact, we have tried to strengthen that procedure. The new clause is intended to be an addition—another, very important layer.
Unfortunately, I do not have at the front of my mind the legislation that set up the Children’s Commissioner for Scotland, or the one for England. The Minister talked through some of the provisions and phrasing in the Children Act 2004. He said that the role of the Children’s Commissioner for England is to encourage bodies to act positively on behalf of children—to encourage. There is no requirement for the body to act in the way the Children’s Commissioner says it should act. Changes have been made in Wales establishing the Future Generations Commissioner, who has far more power.
Chris Philp
As far as I can tell, the user advocacy body proposed in new clause 3 would not have the ability to compel Ofcom either.
Kirsty Blackman
But it would be a statutory consultee that is specifically mentioned in this provision. I cannot find in the Bill a provision giving Ofcom a statutory duty to consult the four Children’s Commissioners. The new clause would make the children’s advocacy body a statutory consultee in decisions that affect children.
Chris Philp
The Bill will require Ofcom to consult people who represent the interests of children. Although not named, it would be astonishing if the first people on that list were not the four Children’s Commissioners when developing the relevant codes of practice. The statutory obligation to consult those groups when developing codes of practice and, indeed, guidance is set out in clauses 37(6)(d) and 69(3)(d).
Kirsty Blackman
That is very helpful, but there are still shortcomings in what the Minister says. The Bill, as drafted, requires Ofcom to require things of other organisations. Some of the detail is in the Bill, some of the detail will come in secondary legislation and some of the detail will come in the codes of practice published by Ofcom. We broadly agree that the Bill will ensure people are safer on the internet than they currently are, but we do not have all the detail on the Government’s intent. We would like more detail on some things, but we are not saying, “We need every little bit of detail.” If we did, the Bill would not be future-proof. We would not be able to change and update the Bill if we required everything to be in the Bill.
The Bill is not a one-off; it will continually change and grow. Having a user advocacy body would mean that emerging threats can quickly be brought to Ofcom’s attention. Unlike the Children’s Commissioners, who have a hundred other things to do, the entire purpose of this body would be to advocate on behalf of children online. The Children’s Commissioners do an amazing job, but this is not their No. 1 priority. If the Minister wants this to be a world-leading Bill, its No. 1 priority should be to protect the human rights of children.
Chris Philp
I think the hon. Lady is being a little unfair to the Children’s Commissioners. Dame Rachel de Souza is doing a fantastic job of advocating specifically in the digital sphere. She really is doing a fantastic job, and I say that as a Minister. I would not say she is leaving any gaps.
These digital children’s safety issues link to wider children’s safety issues that exist offline, such as sexual exploitation, grooming and so on, so it is useful that the same person advocates for children in both the offline and online worlds.
Kirsty Blackman
The new clause asks for an additional body. It is not saying the Children’s Commissioners should be done away with. The Children’s Commissioners do an amazing job, as we have recognised, but the No. 1 priority, certainly for the Children’s Commissioner in Scotland, is to protect the human rights of children; it is not to protect children online, which is what the user advocacy body would do. The body would specifically give the benefit of its experience and specifically use its resources, time and energy to advocate between Ofcom, children and children’s organisations and groups.
The Minister is right that the Bill takes massive steps forward in protecting children online, and he is right that the Children’s Commissioners do a very good job. The work done by the Children’s Commissioners in giving us evidence on behalf of children and children’s organisations has been incredibly powerful and incredibly helpful, but there is still a layer missing. If this Bill is to be future-proof, if it is to work and if it is not to put an undue burden on charitable organisations, we need a user advocacy body. The Minister needs to consider that.
I appreciate that the Government provide money to victim support organisations, which is great, but I am also making a case about potential victims. If the money only goes to those who support people who have already been harmed, it will not allow them to advocate to ensure that more people are not harmed. It will allow them to advocate on the behalf of those who have been harmed—absolutely—but it will not effectively tackle potential and emerging harms. It is a key place where the Bill misses out. I am quite disappointed that the Minister has not recognised that something may be lacking and is so keen to defend his position, because it seems to me that the position of the Opposition is so obviously the right one.
Barbara Keeley
I wholeheartedly agree with what the hon. Member for Aberdeen North just said, but I wish to emphasise some elements because it seems to me that the Minister was not listening, although he has listened to much that has been said. I made some specific points, used quotes and brought forward some evidence. He feels that children have been consulted in the drafting of the Bill; I cited a YoungMinds survey that showed that that was very much not what young people feel. YoungMinds surveyed a large group of young people and a very large proportion of them had not even heard of the Bill.
The evidence of the young survivor of online grooming was very powerful. She very much wanted a user-advocacy body and spoke strongly about that. The Minister is getting it wrong if he thinks that somebody in that situation, who has been groomed, would go to a parent. The quote that I cited earlier was:
“Being groomed made me feel incredibly vulnerable, isolated, and weak. I felt I had no one who was on my side.”
There were clearly adults in her life she could have gone to, but she did not because she was in that vulnerable position—a position of weakness. That is why some kind of independent advocacy body for children is so important.
I do not think children and young people do feel consulted about the Bill because the organisations and charities are telling us that. I join all Opposition Members in supporting and paying tribute to the remarkable job that the Children’s Commissioner does. I quoted her setting out her worries about the Bill. I quoted her saying that
“the Bill does not do enough to respond to individual cases of abuse and that it needs to do more to understand issues and concerns directly from children.”––[Official Report, Online Safety Public Bill Committee, 24 May 2022; c. 16, Q22.]
That is what she said. She did not say, “I’m the person charged with doing this. I’m the person who has the resource and my office has the resource.”
Dame Maria Miller
I hope that I did not in any way confuse the debate earlier, because these two things are very separate. The idea of a user-advocacy service and individual victim support are two separate issues. The Minister has already taken up the issue of victim support, which is what the Children’s Commissioner was talking about, but that is separate from advocacy, which is much broader and not necessarily related to an individual problem.
Barbara Keeley
Indeed, but the Children’s Commissioner was very clear about certain elements being missing in the Bill, as is the NSPCC and other organisations. It is just not right for the Minister to land it back with the Children’s Commissioner as part of her role, because she has to do so many other things. The provisions in the Bill in respect of a parent or adult assisting a young people in a grooming situation are a very big concern. The Children’s Commissioner cited her own survey of 2,000 children, a large proportion of whom had not succeeded in getting content about themselves removed. From that, we see that she understands that the problem exists. We will push the new clause to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Written Statements
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Main Supply Estimates 2022-23
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Frazer)
I have today laid “Central Government Supply Estimates 2022-23: Main Supply Estimates”, HC 396. This is a replacement for HC 53 laid on 12 May which has today been withdrawn. This replacement includes updates as a result of the Government’s cost of living announcement made to the House on 26 May, ensuring Parliament has the most recent information available. Updates have been made to the estimates of the Department for Work and Pensions, the Ministry of Defence, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.
[HCWS134]
Cost of Living Payments and Welfare Cap
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)
In accordance with HM Treasury’s obligations to operate the welfare cap, set out in the charter for budget responsibility, the Treasury is required to determine items of welfare expenditure within scope of the welfare cap. Today, I would like to inform the House that the cost of living payments, which I announced to this House on 26 May 2022, are outside the scope of the welfare cap.
The welfare cap plays a key role in the fiscal framework, underpinning the Government’s commitment to sustainable public finances over the medium term by setting a predetermined cap for welfare expenditure in a target year, together with a pathway and margin for welfare spending to reach that point. The cap, margin and pathway were last set out by the Government at autumn Budget 2021.
The cap will be breached if spending in scope exceeds the cap plus margin at the point of formal assessment, which will next occur in 2024-25.
The welfare cap is designed to support the management of the more predictable elements of benefit expenditure. It already categorises benefits most directly linked to the economic cycle, such as universal credit payments to jobseekers, as outside the scope of the cap.
The cost of living payments are one-off payments, designed to support millions of the most vulnerable households facing cost of living challenges as a consequence of acute global economic pressures. Given their temporary and exceptional nature, we have therefore taken the decision to categorise these payments as outside the scope of the welfare cap. As the cost of living payments are outside the scope of the cap, they will not form part of the expenditure that will be formally assessed by the OBR against the cap and pathway.
[HCWS136]
Financial Services Update
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
I can today inform the House that the Government have announced an extension to our existing trading plan to sell part of the Government’s shareholding in NatWest Group (NWG, formerly Royal Bank of Scotland, RBS) for a further 12 months from 12 August 2022. This is a further step forward in the Government’s plan to return NWG to the private sector.
Rationale
It is Government policy that where a Government asset no longer serves a public policy purpose, the Government may choose to sell that asset, subject to being able to achieve value for money. This frees up public resource which can be deployed to achieve other public policy objectives.
The Government are committed to returning NWG to full private ownership, given that the original policy objective for the intervention in NWG—to preserve financial and economic stability at a time of crisis—has long been achieved. At Budget 2021, the Chancellor set out the Government intention to fully dispose of our NWG shareholding by 2025-26
The Government only conduct sales of NWG shares when it represents value for money to do so and market conditions allow. This extension represents continued progress in exiting the assets acquired as a result of the 2007-08 financial crisis and returning NWG to private ownership.
Trading plan
A trading plan involves selling shares in the market through an appointed broker in an orderly way at market value over the duration of the plan. Trading plans are an established method of returning Government-owned shares to private ownership, while protecting value for the taxpayer. This method was used in the sell-down of the Government’s stake in Lloyds Banking Group, in that case, from a lower starting point in terms of the Government’s percentage ownership.
The trading plan for the Government’s NWG share- holding will be extended for 12 months, terminating no later than 11 August 2023. Shares will only be sold at a price that represents fair value and delivers value for money for the taxpayer. The final number of shares sold will depend on, amongst other factors, the share price and market conditions throughout the duration of the trading plan.
Since the trading plan was established, it has successfully sold approximately 703.5 million ordinary shares for total proceeds of approximately £1.6 billion as of 22 June 2022. The Government currently has a c. 48.5% shareholding in NWG.
UK Government Investments and HM Treasury will keep other disposal options open, including by way of further directed buybacks and/or accelerated bookbuilds. The decision to extend the trading plan does not preclude the Government from using other disposal options to execute future transactions that achieve value for money for taxpayers, including during the term of the trading plan.
I will update Parliament with a further statement at the end of the trading plan.
[HCWS133]
Safeguarding Vulnerable People: Inspection of the National Crime Agency
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
The National Crime Agency (NCA) leads the fight against serious and organised crime. It has the power to task other law enforcement partners and a capability, with local to international reach, to disrupt the impact of serious and organised crime on the UK.
This is the tenth HMICFRS inspection of the NCA and examines the effectiveness of the agency’s existing safeguarding policies, structures and processes, the training provided and the safeguarding leadership and culture within the agency.
I have asked HMICFRS to publish the report; it will be published today and will be available online at: www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk. I will arrange for a copy to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
The inspection found that the NCA has policies for both child and adult safeguarding and that officer guidance is comprehensive and easily accessible, though the understanding of these varies by directorate. The inspectors were encouraged by the work of the child protection and safeguarding team, particularly its child protection advisers, finding that those who used their services valued their work. However, inspectors found that the primacy of the investigations directorate in delivering safeguarding had led some officers to view it solely as the duty of investigators or other specialists, with a small team relied upon to take forward this work. The Inspectorate has recommended that the NCA should develop a safeguarding plan by no later than 30 September 2022, to make clear how it intends to put safeguarding at the heart of its work.
[HCWS132]
Local Government Update
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Local Government, Faith and Communities (Kemi Badenoch)
All hon. Members will recognise the critical role local councils play in providing essential statutory services to their residents and being accountable to the communities they serve. That is why the situation at Nottingham City Council is of such concern.
Despite significant support, Nottingham City Council has struggled to resolve serious governance and financial issues. In November 2020, following a number of issues raised in a public interest report published in August 2020 by the council’s external auditors Grant Thornton, a rapid non-statutory review was conducted into the council to review the serious governance and risk management issues associated with its energy company Robin Hood Energy. The report presented by Max Caller CBE highlighted serious governance failings, poor risk management and the pursuit of commercial ventures which had resulted in a significant budget gap and low levels of reserves.
The former Secretary of State appointed an independent improvement and assurance board in January 2021, chaired by Sir Tony Redmond and made up of independent experts, to offer the council advice, expertise and challenge as it sought to address these failings. The board have provided regular assurance reports to the Secretary of State on the council’s progress throughout this time.
In December 2021, the council discovered unlawful accounting practices associated with its ring-fenced housing revenue account (HRA), covering the period 2014-15 to 2020-21 and totalling £15.86 million. In response, the council issued section 114 and section 5 notices and commissioned independent reports from an LGA associate (Richard Penn) and the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) to understand the scale of the unlawful expenditure and decision-making processes that ultimately led to this situation. These comprehensive reports (“the Reports”) can be found at:
https://committee.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/documents/s133381/Kev%20Findings%20Report%20 for%20Nottinaham%20Citv%20Council.pdf
https://committee.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/documents/s133382/NCC%20HRA%20Phase%202%20Final %20Report%20260422%20002%20-%20FINAL.pdf
The reports paint a deeply concerning picture of serious historic financial and governance failings. This includes the failure of the council and its wholly-owned company Nottingham City Homes (NCH) to maintain the integrity of its HRA ringfence, and NCH operating without strategic oversight given poor client management and governance by the council. The Penn report does not conclude that unlawful accounting practice was a deliberate mechanism to divert funds from the HRA to support the general fund, but provides evidence of cultural failings and a reluctance to escalate issues appropriately, which led to the situation remaining unchallenged over several years. The scale of the unlawful expenditure may also be more substantial than originally thought, with CIPFA now estimating that it could be up to £40 million.
In the light of this evidence, the Secretary of State is satisfied that Nottingham City Council is failing to comply with its best value duty, and is minded to implement the intervention package set out below to secure compliance with that duty. To that end, and in line with procedures laid down in the Local Government Act 1999, officials in my Department have today written to the council seeking representations on the reports and on the proposed intervention package.
I want to place on record that the Secretary of State recognises the actions taken by the current chief executive to address the unlawful HRA expenditure since it was first identified in December last year. He has worked closely and constructively with the improvement and assurance board since January 2021 in addressing the many challenges the authority faces. However, whilst the building blocks of recovery have been put in place, there are many difficult decisions ahead and the scale of the challenge cannot be underestimated. The Secretary of State agrees with the board’s assessment that the HRA issue represents a “serious setback” and is concerned that further serious issues may yet be uncovered which could have a severe impact on the authority's ability to maintain and increase the momentum of the required improvements. This lack of assurance, along with the risk of progress stalling or slowing, is significant and the proposed intervention is therefore both necessary and expedient to secure compliance with the best value duty.
The proposed package is centred on the appointment of commissioners to exercise certain and limited functions as required, for two years. It is envisaged this will be a shorter and narrower intervention than has been seen previously due to the council being subject to a non-statutory intervention since January 2021. The proposal is for the council, under the oversight of the commissioners, to re-appraise its improvement plan within the first three months of the intervention and report on the delivery of that plan to the Secretary of State every six months.
It is important that the council leads its recovery but that it does not lose momentum in making the necessary improvements. Sir Tony Redmond has forged constructive working relationships with the council leadership and has an intrinsic understanding of the scale and nature of the challenges facing the city. The Secretary of State is therefore minded to appoint Sir Tony Redmond as lead commissioner, subject to representations received on the proposed intervention package.
Given the gravity of the reports’ findings, the Secretary of State is, consequently, proposing to direct the transfer to commissioners all functions associated with:
the governance and scrutiny of strategic decision making by the authority;
the strategic financial management of the authority under section 151 of the Local Government Act 1972; and
the appointment and dismissal of persons to positions the holders of which are to be designated as statutory officers, and the designation of those persons as statutory officers under section 112 of the Local Government Act 1972.
I hope it will not be necessary for the commissioners to use these powers, but they must be empowered to do so if they consider that required improvement and reforms are not being delivered.
I am inviting representations from the council on the reports and the Secretary of State’s proposals by 7 July 2022. We want to provide the opportunity for members and officers of the council, and any other interested parties, especially the residents of Nottingham, to make their views on the Secretary of State’s proposals known. Should the Secretary of State decide to intervene along the lines described here, he will make the necessary statutory directions under the 1999 Act and appoint commissioners. I will update the House in due course.
The Government do not take these steps lightly and recognise and respect the role of local councils in our communities and our democracy. The Government also recognise the importance of councils having an effective relationship with their local auditor. I urge all councils to consider whether they could be doing more to ensure they are delivering the good governance that residents deserve, including considering the governance risk and resilience toolkit developed by the centre for governance and scrutiny.
Despite rare cases like Nottingham, as a whole, local authorities in England have a good record of service delivery, transparency, probity, scrutiny, and accountability. It is a reputation worth protecting. Local councils must continue to act to benefit the communities they serve.
[HCWS135]
House of Lords
Diabetic Prevention Programme
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what was the business case for not recording the percentage of patients who joined the Diabetic Prevention Programme between 2018 and 2019 but failed to complete the course; and whether this information is now recorded.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
Data on completion rates is collected for specific reference periods. Rather than looking just at a yearly comparison, completion is analysed to understand the impact of changes to the programme, such as providing a digital option for consumers. Data collected at specific reference points, such as from January 2017 to March 2019, shows a completion rate of 53%.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that. He may not know it, but I have been on the diabetes prevention courses, as I am on the cusp of diabetes. I was amazed by the rate of drop-out on the course that I was on. It ran for nine months. I wondered about the cost and so asked a Written Question on the details, which the Minister has now given me. With a nearly 50% drop-out rate, surely there is something wrong with the course. I want to see more courses but they should be run properly. Can we get the NAO to look at this to see if we can have some improvements and get better returns?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for the question and pay tribute to him for his work in this area over many years. He is absolutely right. One of the challenges of this programme is that it is a nine-month course. Clearly, like many things, it was impacted by Covid, with a lack of in-person consultations and appointments. However, the silver lining to the cloud was the digital service. The course was able to move some patients on to digital services and to self-referring. One impact of that has been more people signing up to this programme.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, is it possible that it is not the course that is at fault but the people who go on it? Has the department not considered charging people a refundable attendance fee to ensure that they roll up?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his question but what is more important is that we get people who have diabetes on to the programme in the first place. As we adjust the programme to take account of the pandemic, for example, and digital offers, we are also looking at different ways to work with different communities. For example, I was talking to a young girl of Bengali origin in my department the other day. I said, “What do we do about getting to the heart of the communities, given that we are in Westminster and Whitehall?” She said that one of the problems in her community is that, “We love ghee—we love clarified butter, in our curries and our rotis.” We are looking at alternative recipes and menus so that people can still have the same food but it can be healthier.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is contributing remotely.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, the observational study by academics of the 2018-19 wave of the NHS diabetes prevention programme, published by BMC Health Services Research, observed disengagement within sessions when patients reported that information was difficult to understand, and when there were very large group sizes and problems with session scheduling. This is all before Covid. Problems with the course will inevitably make patients more likely to drop out but 50% is shocking. Now that this diabetes prevention programme has been rolled out across England, have these specific problems been addressed?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The noble Baroness makes an important point about what we have to learn from these programmes. In many of these programmes we are in a process of discovery. You try things—some will work and some will not. Those which do not work, we want to learn the lessons from. Clearly, the length of the programme, nine months, has put some people off and led to the dropout rate. We are looking at shorter programmes, digital access and self-assessment, and at community-led initiatives rather than top-down government initiatives. To give another example, I met someone at a meeting yesterday who told me that his mosque in Accrington was running healthier-diet programmes for worshippers. We need to see a lot more of those programmes as well.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, the national paediatric diabetes audit shows that the impact of type 2 diabetes and the cost-of-living crisis is disproportionately felt by children living in the most deprived areas. What preventive measures specifically geared towards children are in place so that they may avoid type 2 diabetes? What are the Government doing for the almost 4 million children, and their households, who are struggling to access and afford enough fruit, vegetables and other healthy foods to meet official and basic nutrition guidelines?
Lord Kamall (Con)
One of the NHS programmes that will be repeated by integrated care boards when we have them is the eight annual diabetes checks for people of all ages. Certain factors—HbA1c, which is your average blood glucose level, or your glycated haemoglobin; blood pressure; cholesterol; serum creatinine; urine albumin; foot surveillance; BMI; and smoking—are checked for patients of all ages to identify early onset of diabetes.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, further to my noble friend Lord Brooke’s Question about the drop-out rate and his suggestion of an independent review, what mechanism is there for assessing courses that clearly are not as successful as they might be if there is such a high drop-out rate?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The point is about what we learn. For example, some noble Lords will have seen stories about the impact of minimum alcohol pricing in Scotland. Clearly, it did not turn out as intended because the review found that people from poor communities were spending more on alcohol, rather than the alcoholism rate being affected. In this case, we have learned that the nine-month programme and some of the other processes behind it clearly lead to a drop-out rate. We are looking at other programmes. One of the great stories we have seen is the use of digital and other forms of access. If we can roll that out as well with community programmes, it might be a better way of doing things.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, following my noble friend Lady Merron’s question regarding children, could the Minister say a little more about schools and what work the Government are doing to raise these issues there? We all know that the earlier we can prevent onset the better. Schools are a great place for this to be done.
Lord Kamall (Con)
The noble Lord makes an important point. When I speak to experts, policy officials and people working on diabetes, one of the things they say is that the Government cannot reduce obesity alone; efforts also have to include businesses, health professionals, schools, local authorities, families, individuals, community groups and civil society. We all have to come together collectively. There clearly are programmes in schools to encourage people to eat more healthily, but I am sure the noble Lord would recognise that, when we were children, we had programmes about not smoking, sex education and people not drinking alcohol. We would come out of them and say, “I’m never going to drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes again.” Two years later, we were all at parties and what were we doing? We have to make sure that it is impactful all the way through life, not just at that time.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree with the recently published scientific evidence that fasting is actually good for you and that missing an occasional meal would be a good thing, especially for preventing diabetes?
Lord Kamall (Con)
As my noble friend will be aware, there are always debates in scientific circles on this. There are different types of fasting regime as well. For example, during Ramadan lots of mosques expounded it as a great example of something that is not only spiritual but good for your physical health. It does depend. Other studies show that it depends on who is doing it and their other circumstances.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, could the Minister say what is being done regarding the latest statistics, which showed that just 34% of people in the north of England who have diabetes have access to the eight health checks that they should have?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The noble Lord makes an important point. The Office for Health Improvement and Disparities is looking at a number of these areas and where the health service or the ICS locally has to target more resources. Clearly, one of the big concerns is disparities. The noble Lord has given the example of the north-east; as he rightly said, there will be parts of the country where those checks are not happening. It is vital that we tackle those disparities.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
I am sorry to be so persistent, but we are spending millions on these programmes. Since some work is being done to try to improve them, could the Minister give the House a report in six months’ time to tell us what progress is being made and give us some targets that are being delivered?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I am not entirely sure that I can give the noble Lord what he asks for, but I suggest that he asks me a Question about progress in six months’ time. Given that the noble Lord asked this Question, I will go back to the department and see what answers we can give.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, is there any link between patients with diabetes and other ailments and the drop-out rate? Can the Minister give any evidence for that?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I apologise, I did not hear what the link was: between diabetes and what, sorry?
Lord Hain (Lab)
Patients with other ailments or conditions and the drop-out rate.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I am not entirely sure of the answer to that. I will check and write to the noble Lord.
Disabled Children: Support Services
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Touhig
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the barriers preventing families with disabled children from adequately receiving support services.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, we recognise the challenges that families of disabled children face in getting the right support. In the past three months we have published the special educational needs and disabilities and alternative provision Green Paper, and the independent review of children’s social care published its final report. We will publish proposals to improve support for young people with disabilities and their families. Investments in family hubs and local health join-up will all improve support services for families of disabled children.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, many of the ambitions in the SEND Green Paper are welcome and offer real hope to those of us who want reform. However, the proposal to allow parents of disabled children to pick a school only from a pre-defined list, rather than allowing them to specify one that meets their child’s needs, is plain wrong. I know many carers who have had to fight tooth and nail to get the right school for their child and this change will make it harder. I will ask the Minister one specific question: have the Government made an assessment of whether this policy, if adopted, could create even more barriers for families with disabled children than exist already?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I understand the spirit in which the noble Lord asked this Question. It is an extremely important one that families with disabled children all around the country are asking. He also hinted at the very confrontational system that we have at the moment. The point of our consultation is to understand and listen to families with disabled children. We have a big hill to climb to build trust and confidence with our families but we are absolutely committed to doing that.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, by key stage 2, at the age of only 11, only 22% of children with special educational needs or disabilities achieve the requisite levels of literacy and numeracy. What is the Government’s plan to address this iniquitous situation and close the SEN and disability attainment gap?
Baroness Barran (Con)
My noble friend rightly points to the gap in outcomes for children with special educational needs and disabilities. He will be aware of the proposals we set out in the schools White Paper, with the aim that 90% of children should leave primary school with the required standard in reading, writing and maths. That can happen only if children with special educational needs see much better outcomes. That is behind the commitment that we set out in the Green Paper, but also the financial commitments we have made in terms of capital and revenue for those children.
Lord Addington (LD)
Does the Minister agree—I think she has—that the current system is overly legally confrontational and has primarily benefited lawyers? Having said that, what is the Minister going to do to make sure that those with low frequency problems or high needs—by definition there are few places that can support them—can travel in the new regime or have their needs met by people coming to them? That is a real problem for a very few and one that the Government must deal with if they are to get this right.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I absolutely agree that the system is overly confrontational. I cannot comment on the benefits to lawyers, being surrounded by so many of them. Parents tell us that it is overly confrontational. The noble Lord makes a good point. It will be important, and I invite the noble Lord to hold us to account on how we address those issues when we report back on the Green Paper.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
Short and long-term care services are broken according to organisations led by the Disabled Children’s Partnership, which is reporting families suffering a litany of physical and mental health issues as a result of the adversarial system we have talked about. Can the Minister assure the House that parents will not be forced to supplement health authorities and local authorities with funding of the advocacy services during the SEND process?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am not able to reassure the noble Baroness at the Dispatch Box because her question covers such a multitude of different potential situations, but the spirit of our reforms is that we have heard loud and clear from parents about the stress and pressure that this causes them, sometimes including financial pressure, and we are absolutely committed to addressing it.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
The Minister will be aware that in April the Down Syndrome Bill, promoted in another place by the right honourable Dr Liam Fox MP and promoted here by my noble friend Lady Hollins, completed all its stages. What progress is being made on implementing the terms of that legislation, and will there be an opportunity for the House to be properly advised about that progress?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I will have to write to the noble Lord setting that out, together with my colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on the respite innovation fund, which is an excellent example of the right way of tackling the challenges faced by families with disabilities. Can she reassure me that it will be evaluated to high standards, that families will not be allowed on to the scheme unless they understand that evaluation is an important part of it, and that a comprehensive survey will be conducted by a reputable organisation at the beginning, at the end of the intervention and six months later, so that we can learn from this and build on it?
Baroness Barran (Con)
As my noble friend knows, my right honourable friend is a great fan of data and transparency. We have commissioned an independent process and an early outcome evaluation of the first year of delivery to assess the impact of the scheme. It will obviously seek the views of parents and children who are in receipt of the support, as well as those of local authorities and other delivery partners. The evaluation will assess the feasibility of conducting a robust impact assessment of the type my noble friend outlined, for years two and three of delivery.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I must press the Minister in respect of the answer she gave to my noble friend Lady Uddin a few moments ago. Surveys by the Disabled Children’s Partnership found that three-quarters of parent carers had suffered a deterioration in mental health due to the fight they were required to undertake to get the right services for their children. In the light of that, can the Minister say how the Government intend to use the SEND Green Paper to reduce the burden of admin and advocacy that currently rests on the shoulders of parents with disabled children?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I think I mentioned our starting point in response to the original Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, which is that part of our challenge is building up trust with parents who have children with a disability. We believe that by having much clearer bandings around provision, so that we reduce some of the regional inconsistencies in the system, and by requiring mediation as part of this, we will reduce confrontation. That is absolutely our intention, but we do not have a closed mind on this. We have held more than 153 consultation events and they are growing all the time. We are very keen to hear from parents on what they think will work.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, the Disabled Children’s Partnership, to which many noble Lords have referred, points out that the Green Paper does not answer what may be the biggest question for many families: how will councils, schools, the health service and others be held to account if they do not meet their legal duties to provide appropriate support for disabled children and their families?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Baroness is right, and she will be aware that just over 50% of councils inspected by Ofsted got written statements of action, which means they have significant weaknesses in their arrangements for children with special educational needs and disabilities. Obviously, we are planning to improve the system, but we are also planning to improve accountability through new inclusion dashboards for 0 to 25 year-old provision. We hope that that will give us a timely picture of performance that can be used to create a self-improving system.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, the Government’s national strategy for disabled people was described by them as a strategy to remove barriers and increase participation, but it was judged to be unlawful by the High Court earlier this year because of the dire state of the consultation. Does the Minister agree that overcoming barriers to access is best achieved alongside disabled people, with their full involvement? What is she going to do to make sure we never get into that situation again?
Baroness Barran (Con)
Many disabled people’s groups welcomed the strategy at the time, and we are deeply disappointed and strongly disagree with the finding of the court. The Secretary of State concerned has sought permission to appeal the High Court’s decision. In relation to the Department for Education, the actions that we had in the national strategy are not impacted by the High Court’s decision and we are continuing at pace with all of them.
European Convention on Human Rights
Baroness Chakrabarti
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to encourage compliance with the Convention on Human Rights (1) in the United Kingdom, and (2) across Europe.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are fully committed to abiding by their obligations under the convention, in line with the Brighton declaration of 2012, agreed under the UK’s chairmanship of the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers. We will continue to lead efforts to ensure the effective implementation of the convention by all state parties, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity and the margin of appreciation afforded to them under that declaration.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I welcome the Minister to his very well-deserved new role.
Baroness Chakrabarti
I thank him for his Answer, but I am afraid what Amnesty International has called the “rights removal Bill”, which was published yesterday, tells a rather different story. Its provisions drastically dilute the positive obligations on the police to protect the public from sexual and violent crimes, and it attempts to break the vital link between our domestic courts and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. How can Ministers get on aeroplanes to talk about human rights elsewhere in the world while promoting such a hatchet job at home?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I thank the House for its welcome. As the House knows, this afternoon we have an Oral Statement during which we can go into some of these questions in more detail. If I may at this stage confine myself to general terms, the Government’s view is that this Bill will strengthen our human rights framework in this country, in particular—and these are the key words I would like to introduce—by introducing a better balance in the human rights framework, a better balance between the judiciary and the legislature, a better balance between UK judges and Strasbourg, and a better balance between rights and obligations. We stay in the convention; the rights in the convention are still there in UK statute; but we seek to rebalance and clarify, in the words of the Act, and thereby restore public confidence in our human rights framework.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I also welcome my noble and learned friend to his present place; he is very welcome. Would he agree that in a parliamentary democracy there is a great deal to be said for leaving to the Supreme Court of this country the ultimate interpretation of the meanings of rights and their applications? If Parliament happens to disagree with that interpretation, Parliament can reverse or modify it, whereas if the ultimate arbiter is the European court, that is not possible. Is that not a serious democratic deficit?
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, Article 46 of the European Convention on Human Rights is very clear:
“The High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the final judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties”.
This is more fundamental than subsidiarity or a margin of appreciation, because now the Government plan to make our own courts the final court of appeal. How do the Government reconcile this with the clear obligations under Article 46 of the convention?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, the United Kingdom remains bound by Article 46 of the convention. In the unlikely and relatively rare event, let it be hoped, that the United Kingdom is found in breach of the convention, it will be a matter of political discussion and settlement in the context of the Committee of Ministers, as has happened from time to time in the past—for example in relation to prisoner voting. That situation remains unchanged. It is the Government’s view that, within this framework, we are achieving a better balance in the mechanics of the convention rather than the fundamental principles.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, would the Minister agree that, by definition, there can be no hierarchy of human rights and they should be exactly the same whether for those in Europe or Britain, or for those seeking refuge and asylum in small, leaky boats?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, the convention recognises a margin of appreciation and the principle of subsidiarity as to how each of the member states implements their duties under the convention. There is no hierarchy as such, but there are going to be variations in the way those rights are secured. In particular, this Bill redefines and promotes the right to freedom of speech, which lies at the heart of our democracy.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the European Convention on Human Rights will for ever be linked to David Maxwell Fyfe who, supported by Winston Churchill, was one of its principal authors. It is implicit in the Question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, that, over the years since its passage, we have been both a leader by example and an influencer in Europe. Is the Minister really satisfied—I am sorry to say this in welcoming him—to continue to be a member of a Government who are quite clearly using civil liberties, human rights and the convention itself as what is described as a wedge issue to inflame and enthuse the right wing of the Tory party, instead of giving the moral leadership that all parties have taken pride in since its inception?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, respectfully, I do not accept the characterisation put forward by the noble Lord. The approach in this Bill is balanced, as I have just explained, and is described in this morning’s Times as a “constructive and sound” approach—a phrase that I would readily adopt. I fully accept that the great tradition of this country by great lawyers such as David Maxwell Fyfe should, and does, continue. The UK is one of the most active members of the Council of Europe. We have not only promoted the Brighton declaration I referred to a moment ago, which finally came into force last October, but we have recently been party to a further recommendation on better dissemination of human rights information across the Council of Europe and to a declaration to revitalise Articles 5 and 6 on liberty and the right to a fair trial. We have taken a lead in dealing with the situation regarding Russia and on generally improving the mechanics of the court. That leading role will continue.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the noble and learned Lord to the Dispatch Box. When the Human Rights Act was incorporated into the ECHR in 1998, I was a delegate to the Council of Europe. I remember many speeches in this Chamber and in the Strasbourg assembly about the importance of that incorporation process. Many of the speeches were directed to our new eastern European friends about the importance of the ECHR. My noble friend’s Question is about the impact of this proposed legislation in Europe. Does the Minister believe that the Bill of Rights Bill introduced yesterday will enhance or detract from compliance with the convention in Europe?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his welcome. The Government believe that, when we have cleared away the fog surrounding this Bill, and fully understood it and together analysed it in detail, it will be seen to be a reinforcement of human rights. It will not detract from the framework of human rights or have any adverse effect on our friends and allies in eastern Europe and other members of the Council of Europe.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, it is a convention right that one should have a vote for the legislature that makes one’s laws. Can my noble and learned friend say whether he considers that that right is being vindicated in Northern Ireland at the moment, which is subject to laws made by a foreign power with no democratic say, or is democracy simply a matter of a margin of appreciation?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I anticipate that that question is somewhat outside the ambit of the present debate. I can add that, in relation to Northern Ireland, the Government are satisfied that this Bill complies with the Good Friday agreement, the withdrawal agreement and other relevant enactments affecting Northern Ireland. I think that is as far as I can go today.
Transport for London: Funding
Lord Davies of Brixton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they expect to announce the details of any further Extraordinary Funding and Financing Agreement for Transport for London (TfL) for the period after 24 June; and when they expect that there will be a long-term solution to funding TfL.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, the Government have repeatedly shown their commitment to supporting London’s transport network since the start of the pandemic, providing almost £5 billion in emergency funding to Transport for London. The Government have committed to consider a longer-term settlement, and we continue to discuss further funding requirements with TfL. However, any future support provided will focus on getting TfL back on to a sustainable financial footing in a way that is fair to taxpayers across the country.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I regret to say that I cannot honestly thank the noble Viscount for his reply. I was hoping that the Government would take the opportunity to end the uncertainty facing Londoners, both passengers and staff. Of course, it is not just Londoners; people across the country depend on work from TfL and on London as a key powerhouse of the UK economy. What we face is managed decline, making a mockery of the Government’s purported policy of levelling up. Will the Minister give a specific commitment to support the necessary capital expenditure that the Transport Secretary has acknowledged will be required in London as well as in the rest of the country?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
To the extent that the noble Lord is right, he makes a very important point: the London Underground transport system in particular is one of the best in the world, and is recognised as such. It is important that we continue to fund it wherever and however we can. But this extraordinary funding, so defined, was meant for a specific purpose, as a result of the revenue shortfall due to the Covid-19 pandemic. I am well aware that tomorrow is 24 June, although I regret that I am not able to tell the House what extension, if any, can be announced today.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, the Minister knows that clouding this process is the absolutely appalling relationship between the Prime Minister and his successor as mayor. As a result, the absence of long-term funding is hitting not just passengers but business, as we have heard, because TfL is not able to enter into the proper procurement processes with companies all around the United Kingdom. Without that, they are losing business. Will the Minister join me in calling for the Prime Minister to step back from this feud and enable a long-term deal to be done for TfL?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The noble Lord knows full well that this is a matter for the mayor and Transport for London. The department works closely with TfL on a range of operational and policy issues, but negotiations with trade unions and averting further industrial action on the London Underground are a matter for the mayor and TfL. But the noble Lord makes a good point; we are keeping a close eye on this because it is important that Transport for London is funded properly.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, many of us who have a close and long association with Transport for London would be deeply keen to see a long-term settlement that covered both operating costs post Covid and the necessary capital investment. But will my noble friend agree that the games that have constantly been played by the Mayor of London since this began, his failure to engage seriously with any responsibilities, and his refusal to take difficult decisions are at the heart of the failure of trust between him and Ministers? Does my noble friend agree that TfL and its fine workforce are suffering as a consequence?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My noble friend makes a good point; supporting TfL and the staff that work so hard for it is important. I say again that we remain committed to supporting London’s transport system, but only on the basis that TfL is returned to a position of financial sustainability in the interests of the UK taxpayer. We are giving some help, but it is important that outdated methods of working are closely looked at. My noble friend is right that trust is the main mantra.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, is it not a fact that it is the Government who have been playing political games with TfL’s budget, as they do in so many other areas? They are playing games by drip-feeding resources and not engaging in good faith in the negotiations that they say they want. When will the Government stop that and instead provide the necessary funding to deliver the transformation that the mayor, this House and all the passengers in London look for?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I totally take issue with the noble Lord; what he said is simply not true. As I said earlier, this is a matter for the mayor and Transport for London, and we have been helping where we can. I say again that the matter is linked to financial sustainability and TfL moving towards updating outdated issues—driverless trains and other matters are being looked at.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, what, if anything, is happening that might lead to the reopening of Hammersmith Bridge in due course?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I can give my noble friend—I think I can call him that—an update. The Government remain committed to supporting both the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham and TfL in the repair of Hammersmith Bridge. A first business case was approved, but there is another stage whereby a further business case that is compliant with Treasury rules has to be presented. It is important that we remain committed to the reopening of Hammersmith Bridge.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, the situation we face is extremely serious. This is not just some transport issue; it is about London. London’s integrated public transport system is absolutely crucial. We are talking not just about domestic use but about London’s international reputation: it is why firms are willing to locate here in the financial district. I was involved in recovering London transport from the managed decline of the 1970s—it took three decades. This is not just about whether the mayor and Prime Minister can agree with each other; it is about recognising that we cannot be allowed to slip into that syndrome again. Can the Minister assure me that this is the central objective of government?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I regret that I am not able to give an announcement on funding beyond tomorrow, but the noble Lord is right that investment in London benefits the economy and supply chain outside London. The Government recognise the need for certainty and stability in Transport for London’s capital investment programme, and remain committed to supporting London. But TfL’s income for 2021-22, including revenue from fares, road user charging, business rates and council tax—and our emergency support—is about the same as it was in the last year before the pandemic.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
Will my noble friend join me in congratulating the staff of, and those working in, Transport for London on keeping the service going so brilliantly during the pandemic, and on the way on which it has been recovering?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Most certainly. My noble friend is absolutely right: about 26,000 staff work for TfL, and they work extremely hard on our behalf. As she pointed out, the difficulties that have arisen over the pandemic have been quite extraordinary, and I pay tribute to the staff on behalf of the Government.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, we will now move on—oh, I am sorry, the noble Lord, Lord West, wants to ask a question.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, one of the areas that has not received sufficient investment is transport on the river, which I used during the Tube strike the other day. It worked brilliantly, but there are not enough boats—
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
Those are boats; ships are rather different. I will have to give a seminar on that. But will there be any more investment in river transport? In particular, will the Government not pass legislation, given that rules implemented by the MCA are making it impossible for some older and most marvellous heritage craft to use the river?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I also wish the river were used more; I am the beneficiary of it, in that I use what I would call a ferry from Battersea Power Station up to the London Eye. My understanding is that this service is privately owned and not funded by the Government. The noble Lord makes an extremely good point; it is a valuable service, particularly during the strikes, when more people have needed to use it. I hope that more people will look at the river as a permanent means of transport.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I apologise that we have fallen behind the time, but I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, asked his question.
Polio
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Merron
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they have taken in response to the national incident declared due to the polio virus being found in London sewerage systems.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
The established UKHSA public health response mechanism has been stood up in line with national polio guidelines. This national incident means that a national team has been set up to manage and co-ordinate these actions across areas, which is standard procedure for many of the health threats that the UKHSA foresees and manages. Although samples have been detected in London, the UKHSA is working to ensure that other areas are aware and are taking actions necessary to protect populations, including encouraging people to take the vaccine.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, while the risk to the public is considered low, the declaration of a national incident will of course give cause for concern, so the Government need to communicate swiftly and clearly about the situation and to ensure that children in particular are vaccinated against polio, especially as there is lower vaccine coverage in London among younger children. What is being done to address this situation and how will the Government roll out their messaging, working with local authorities, schools, the NHS and GPs, who already have added pressure from being contacted in greater numbers by the public who are concerned about vaccinations? Can the Minister reassure your Lordships’ House that he is working closely with the Treasury to ensure a properly funded communications and vaccination campaign?
Lord Kamall (Con)
We should start by being clear about what has been found. As part of routine surveillance, the MHRA analyses sewage from a number of treatment works and looks at what may be identified—it is world-leading in this. We should pay tribute to the UKHSA for its world-leading work and for being ahead of the game in spotting potential health risks early. It is normal for one to three vaccine-like polio viruses to be detected each year in UK sewage samples, but those are usually one-off findings. In this case, a vaccine has been detected; it is probably related to someone having had the polio vaccine and having shed it as part of their faeces. A couple of things will now happen. First, the MHRA will go further down the system to see whether it can isolate where that came from. Secondly, the messaging is quite clear: you must get your vaccine. Most people get their vaccines as part of a routine. They get it twice in preschool and then at school at 14 as their final booster. However, there are some areas of low vaccination, and we are making sure that we are rolling out that message along all the channels mentioned by the noble Baroness.
Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)
My Lords, the World Health Organization pronounced Europe free of polio 20 years ago, but that was clearly not the case globally. Its emergence here is surely a reminder that a highly infectious disease anywhere can become a highly infectious disease everywhere. Is it not also a reminder of the need therefore for vigilance against such infectious diseases, which are not beaten until they are fully beaten globally? There are other diseases such as TB where there is not even a vaccine. Will my noble friend consider the importance therefore of renewing the UK’s commitment to the Global Polio Eradication Initiative to ensure that, once and for all, this beatable disease is beaten?
Lord Kamall (Con)
My noble friend makes a very important point. Even though a number of countries have been declared polio-free, including the UK because of our high level of polio vaccination, we should be clear that it has been detected and it has derived from someone having had a polio vaccine, probably an oral vaccine—the sugar cube that many of us will remember from our youth, rather than the injection that a person receives now as part of their 6-in-1. That has the potential to spread, and it is why the UKHSA is monitoring it. The important message is to remind everyone: check your red book, check your medical records, check your vaccination record. If you have not been vaccinated against polio or have not had the booster, go to your GP and get it as quickly as possible.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, what is unusual about these detections is that several positive ones have come from the same sewage facility over a few months. It is worth noting that this kind of polio virus community transmission in London has not been detected since the 1980s. Genomic testing has subsequently revealed that these positive samples are all related, suggesting the virus has been spreading through one or more individuals in London over recent months. Can the Minister give us more detail and tell us what action is being taken by local public health scientists and local authorities? Does the department consider it may be part of a trend? Many noble Lords can remember polio vaccinations—I had a vaccination and then my younger brother had a sugar lump, which I thought was distinctly unfair. Is there a plan to start vaccinations in the area?
Lord Kamall (Con)
Vaccination is already part of a national plan. People should be vaccinated at certain ages—I think it is in the first few months, and then in preschool and then at about the age of 14, when they get their booster at school. A couple of things could have happened. Someone may have travelled overseas, had the oral polio vaccine and then excreted it into the system—and it has happened on more than one occasion. On top of that, the important message is: check your records and make sure that you are vaccinated. It is not a matter of trying to get a new vaccine; it is already part of NHS routine. We encourage more people to come forward.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
Can the Minister clarify further what we will do to encourage vaccinations, while schools are still open, for 14 year-olds and for the 11% of under-twos in Greater London who are not vaccinated at the moment?
Lord Kamall (Con)
Part of the public health message has been focused on making sure that people come forward, even before this was detected in the sewage works. One thing we saw as a result of lockdown was that some parents in some areas had not taken their young children to their doctor to have the vaccine. Let me be clear: at eight, 12 and 16 weeks, a child gets a 6-in-1 vaccine; at three years and four months, as part of the 4-in-1 preschool booster, they get it; and at 14 years they get one at school as a teenage booster. Some of those are pre school. We are encouraging people to check their red book, check their vaccination record and make sure they take their child in for their vaccine.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, one of the paradoxes of ministerial Statements on issues such as this is that the more transparent Ministers are, the more the risk that it will create a sense of concern in the public. The history of public health problems over the past 50 years gives us the knowledge that the best way to deal with these issues is the maximum transparency at the most regular and immediate opportunities. That is the way ultimately to relieve concern and I recommend it to the Minister. On a specific issue, can the Minister give a little more detail on the decline in vaccinations throughout the country, particularly in London, during the Covid pandemic? I assume that the natural concern with vaccination for Covid led to a fairly substantial decline in vaccinations for other diseases. Can he give us a little more information on that?
Lord Kamall (Con)
First, I thank the noble Lord for his recognition of one of the challenges of ministerial office, as he will know from his own experience. It is important that we recognise that vaccine-derived polio has the potential to spread, but it is rare and the risk to the public overall is limited. The majority of Londoners are fully protected against polio and will not need to take any more action, but the NHS will begin reaching out to parents of children under five in London who are not up to date. But we are asking for it both ways and for parents to check their records. Let us be clear that the UK is considered to be free from polio, but we recognise a potential risk given our world-leading surveillance of sewage.
On the noble Lord’s specific question, we are quite clear that people must come forward for all vaccines. Sometimes during lockdown people were unable to see a doctor or nurse in person, and the NHS is catching up with that anyway, but the NHS will keep sending the message to try to identify people who have not been vaccinated. At the same time, we are encouraging people to check their records. Let us be clear: we detected this very early in the chain, and it has perhaps come from someone who took an oral vaccine overseas and has excreted it into the system.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I congratulate the UKHSA and the Environment Agency on the investment they have made. When was the polio first detected—there are reports that it was detected as early as February—and when might they be able to narrow down the area in which it has been found?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that question. There is routine surveillance that happens anyway. However, in this case they have detected it in more than one surveillance. Quite often, it is seen as a one-off and then not seen again for some time; in this case, it has been detected at each interval of the surveillance. We know it is from the Beckton Sewage Treatment Works—in that part of London. I must be careful about the words I use here: clearly, it is mixed up with a lot of other stuff, and we must now work out how we go along the pipe, as it were, and investigate individual pipes to see whether we can locate the source. In theory, it might be possible to find individual households or streets but it is too early to do so. What we are doing here is really world-beating: it is a first and shows that we are ahead. However, one issue in being ahead is that we detect things that would not have been detected earlier, and people are worried about them.
Lord Walney (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister recognise the stark difference at the moment in the quality of vaccine records’ availability? I declare an interest in that a consultancy of which I am a director works with Palantir, which has been part of the extraordinary change in the Covid vaccine records. Does he recognise the need to update the rest of the NHS so that the information on hand to patients, which has been so valuable in the system here, is more widely available for polio and other vaccines?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The noble Lord makes a really important about the future of the NHS and our health services. Last week, the Government published the Data Saves Lives strategy, which is what it says on the cover. One of the first issues we must tackle is digitising the NHS as much as possible. Digitisation is one of my three priorities, alongside sharing data. First, this will ensure that we can identify population health issues and patterns in conjunction with AI; secondly, giving appropriate access to researchers allows us to continue to be world-beating in identifying such issues. In future, it may well be that we can get a sample, use a bit of AI—thanks to other data sets—and locate more accurately. At the moment, we are really at the cutting edge of this. What will be vital to it is the digitisation, sharing of and access to data across the system.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)
My Lords, is it known how many countries are using the live vaccine, which is different from the vaccine we are using?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I am aware that there are still some countries that use the oral polio vaccine, as opposed to the IPV we use in this country. I do not have the exact numbers with me. If the noble Baroness with allow me, I will go back to the department, see if that information is available and then write to her.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, water quality in east London is appalling enough without this scare. I spoke with three of my neighbours yesterday, all with very young children, and not one was aware of this campaign. What steps are being taken to ensure sufficient and urgent awareness is created among East End multilingual communities, who are already struggling with a daunting array of health and well=being information?
Lord Kamall (Con)
As it happens, I was at an event yesterday at which a GP from east London was present; we were talking about the whole range of issues, not just this specific issue. Let us be clear: no one has got polio and no cases have been identified. We have found it in the sewage, and it probably came from someone who had the oral vaccine overseas, came to the UK and excreted it into the system. there are no cases of polio at the moment—we should be absolutely clear about that—but we are saying that this is a warning that people should ensure that they get vaccinated and check their records.
The noble Baroness makes a really important point about health disparities and there are lots of issues we must tackle. I have said many times that we must see how we can work on a community-led solution, rather than having someone in Westminster or Whitehall who thinks they have all the answers. To be honest, we have to show due humility and say that people sitting in this House can sometimes be out of touch with those communities.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)
My Lords, as my noble friend has said, the polio disease still exists in other parts of the world. When immigrants come from different parts of the world—not just from Europe—are they examined, checked and given polio injections immediately, or does it take time?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that question. I am not sure of the exact details on when they are informed but let me go back to the department and ask. What I do know is that, when immigrants come to this country and register with their local GP, there is a health check and, quite often, a questionnaire to raise awareness about what vaccines or treatments they may have had and to ensure that they are as up to date with their vaccinations as the existing populations.
Business of the House
Lord Ashton of Hyde
That, in the event of the Social Security (Additional Payments) Bill having been brought from the House of Commons, Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Monday 27 June to allow the Bill to be taken through its remaining stages that day.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Standards of Behaviour and Honesty in Political Life
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Morse
That this House takes note of the impact on the democratic process of any reduction in the standards of behaviour and honesty in political life.
Lord Morse (CB)
My Lords, first, I thank the Cross-Bench Peers who voted for this Motion. I am very much indebted to them for doing so.
I begin by looking back to the early phase of the pandemic. A lot of people were getting sick and dying. Health professionals were not well protected and a lot of them were getting sick also; they showed great courage in sticking to providing care for those who were suffering. Do noble Lords remember that we were applauding the NHS on our doorsteps every Thursday night? Out there, I was making use of a saucepan to amplify my praise. The country showed that it could come together, help protect the NHS and accept—and largely comply with—tough and long-enduring restrictions. People were losing loved ones, to whom they were not able to say goodbye, while still obeying the rules and remaining a cohesive community.
This is why, when we heard that 126 fixed penalty police notices had been issued to 83 individuals, including the Prime Minister, for holding parties in Downing Street it feels, notwithstanding the successes of the vaccine programme, more than a simple misdemeanour. It feels like a breach of trust. This is reflected in the very low current approval and trust ratings for the Government and the Prime Minister.
Levels of trust in politicians have been at a low level for more than a decade, roughly since the time when the Iraq war inquiry report was published. They represent a serious threat to our democracy. During the pandemic, trust in politicians started low and fell sharply lower as it continued. However, the pandemic was a public health crisis and much of the communication and detail came from scientists and doctors. Both groups came into the pandemic highly trusted and largely maintained that trust, while trust in politicians fell. That may be explained by contrasting styles of communication: the evidence-led scientists admitted to uncertainties, shared risks and assumed that the public were capable of drawing sensible conclusions from evidence; the politicians had a communication style reflecting the legacy of being on message, using news management designed for the political battlefield rather than for informing and involving the listener.
We are likely to face future national emergencies where we need to come together and they may well not be of the public health kind, but rather the threat of war or economic crisis, which both look possible at the moment. So we cannot rely on Professor Chris Whitty, Patrick Vallance or even Professor Van-Tam to inject, if your Lordships will pardon me, credibility into the Government’s leadership. We need that credibility to be rebuilt, if we are to face a future crisis with the strength of national unity and not slide towards the deeply divided state we observe in the US, which relies on post-truth and very deep divisions of opinion.
Since distrust has a long half-life, we need a programme that is pursued over the long term but to start by setting very high standards of behaviour and delivering them. A good start would be a truly independent regulation of conduct at the top of government, a sweeping change in communications strategy and a firm rejection of the smug attitude that says, “Do what I say, not what I do”, without expecting to be challenged for it. I beg to move.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morse, for introducing this debate about standards of behaviour and honesty in political life. It is a pleasure to follow someone who has worked so hard to maintain those standards in public life. However, I note that, in the terms of the Motion, we are talking about political life and not public life. That seems to me correct. We do not, and cannot reasonably, expect from our politicians the standards of behaviour we would expect from, for example, our faith leaders. I am not a faith leader, nor do I really consider myself a politician. I am a lawyer, and it is from that vantage point that I approach this important topic.
One of the fundamental principles that underpins standards of behaviour and honesty in political life is that of the rule of law. Noble Lords may be aware of a letter I sent to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister earlier this year on this topic, which gained, let me say, some degree of publicity. In that letter, I noted that the rule of law means that everyone in the state, and the state itself, is subject to the rule of law. This is an ancient principle; it appears not only in the work of Dicey in the 19th century and Locke in the 17th century, but even as far back as the writings of Aristotle, who wrote:
“It is more proper that law should govern, than any one of the citizens”.
Although the rule of law is therefore a central feature of our constitution and plays an essential role in maintaining the highest standards of behaviour and honesty in political life, noble Lords may be surprised to learn that the judicial oath does not refer to the rule of law at all. Judges swear
“to do right by all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will”,
but there is no reference to the rule of law itself. In fact, that is not really surprising, because the rule of law is not a law but a constitutional principle. I suggest, given the terms of this debate, that it is a principle that underpins high standards of behaviour and honesty in political life.
While judges do not take an oath which refers to the rule of law, there is someone who does, and that is the Lord Chancellor. I should state clearly that what I am about to say is said from a position of principle, and is not directed at any individual Lord Chancellor, let alone the current officeholder. I worked closely with Sir Robert Buckland, the previous Lord Chancellor, and the Deputy Prime Minister, who now holds the office. Both are lawyers for whom I have a great deal of respect. My focus is on the position of Lord Chancellor and our current constitutional settlement.
The Lord Chancellor takes an oath with three distinct parts. The first references respect for the rule of law; the second underpins the independence of the judiciary; and the third deals with the provision of resources for the efficient and effective support of the courts. Those three parts are of course interlinked. The rule of law becomes fragile to the point of invisibility if the independence of the judiciary is not respected and, when necessary, defended—and that may mean defended in public and in unambiguous terms. The rule of law will become mere words without any content if the resources made available are inadequate to enable the courts to fulfil their function.
A lot changed with the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, which declared in Section 1 that nothing in the Act adversely affected the existing constitutional principle of the rule of law. So far as constitutional theory is concerned, I am prepared to accept that. But I regret that the same Act, which denuded the position of Lord Chancellor of significant parts of its historic and political authority, did adversely affect the practical and day-to-day implementation of the principle of the rule of law. I do not want to tread on the toes of the Constitution Committee, which is looking at the position of the Lord Chancellor and the law officers. Suffice it to say, as the committee puts it on its own website, the 2005 Act “fundamentally altered” the role of the Lord Chancellor—and, I would suggest, not for the better.
Historically, the Lord Chancellor wore three hats: he was the head of the judiciary and presided over the appellate committee of this House, which was the Supreme Court until it crossed Parliament Square. He was a member of the Cabinet, and headed a department dealing with the courts, legal aid and constitutional affairs. He was also a Member of this House, and sat, if I may put this somewhat anachronistically, as the Speaker. I am prepared to accept that reform was needed. In this day and age, I do not think you can really have a member of the Cabinet as a sitting judge. But it is undeniable that the reforms in the 2005 Act led to a diminution in the role of Lord Chancellor. The creation of the role of Justice Secretary two years later, in 2007, while understandable, further undermined that office. This is compounded by the statutory requirements for the person who holds the position of Lord Chancellor, who need not be a lawyer at all, never mind a senior lawyer.
The undeniable consequence, it seems, is that the role of Lord Chancellor has changed from being an office which would conclude a career—a destination job, if I may put it that way, or a grand terminus—to being little more than an intermediate station stop, a resting point before the political journey continues on to greater things. I do not suggest that we can return to the status quo ante. That metaphorical train, unlike many real trains today, has left the station. But I do not think that we have gained from a system in which you can be Lord Chancellor on Monday, but then be promoted—and it will be seen by many as a promotion—to be Secretary of State at Defra or DCMS on Wednesday. I have nothing against Defra or DCMS, but the fact is that the Secretary of State at neither department takes an oath to respect the rule of law, and it is the rule of law which underpins standards of honesty and behaviour in public life.
I would like us to consider returning to a system in which the Lord Chancellor is again one of the great things in our constitutional settlement. The role could encompass responsibility for the rule of law, the judiciary, our constitutional settlement, devolution, human right and international law—all things, in other words, which are part of the rule of law in its broadest sense and underpin our constitution. An enhanced and reinvigorated role for the Lord Chancellor would for those reasons be a helpful and important step in maintaining what we all want: the very highest standards of behaviour and honesty in political life.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, I follow the noble Lord in his paean of praise for the rule of law and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Morse, on his speech, which was more in sorrow than in anger. The debate is very timely, because of increasing concern in our country about standards in public life at a time when the second of the Prime Minister’s ethics advisers has resigned when asked to advise on a proposed breach of international law.
Such is the concern about moral standards that I felt the need for a text, as a rather lapsed lay preacher, and I have chosen a well-known passage from the fourth letter of St Paul to the Philippians:
“Finally, beloved, whatever is true, whatever is honourable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is pleasing, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.”
We have all, of course, heard that before, and fairly recently. That is the gold standard of honesty and, even if it is an impossible ideal, it is highly relevant at a time when there is an increasing disconnect between principle and practice and questions are asked about the quality of our democratic practice and leadership. We need a lively and informed Opposition, and the leadership should be examined critically and often. We have come a long way since Plato’s concept of leadership—the aristocracy, the best in the pure sense of the word. That is no longer possible in our populous societies, where the ordinary citizen has no real and direct means of assessing the quality of leadership. All is influenced by social media and the press as intermediaries.
Historically, heavens on Earth have not lasted very long—the Parliament of Saints barely merits a footnote. The worm of corruption, alas, intervenes in our democratic societies. We should be protected against corruption and totalitarian temptations, both by a free press and institutional checks and balances.
Enough about the principles, the values and the safeguards—what about the practice? We must recognise it in the real world. As Carlyle wrote, we cannot
“measure by a scale of perfection the meagre product of reality”,
but we can aspire, nevertheless, to the best.
On the whole, we in the UK have been most fortunate in the quality of our leadership. I have been in Parliament since 1960 and have been in government in that time. I have had contact with many Prime Ministers, all of whom I have admired as people of principle, even if I disagreed with their policies. Among the leaders over the past century, Lloyd George, though a great war leader, had big faults. On a personal level, though unfaithful to his wife, he was not a serial philanderer, and money given from the sale of honours through Maundy Gregory did not enrich him personally. I like the slogan of US President McKinley, who campaigned on
“The man without an angle or a tangle”,
which is not a bad slogan for any politician.
Alas, I cannot follow in that same praise for our current Prime Minister, who often shows himself to be a total stranger to the truth, from partygate and pledges on international law which have been broken to his cavalier attitude to a number of other matters. He has shown some of the same trends as Maundy Gregory—indeed, he could teach Maundy Gregory a lesson or two by his ennobling of friends and party donors. I still await with interest the contribution in the many debates on Ukraine in your Lordships’ Chamber of the Russian Member who was appointed—and who has been rather reticent about these matters.
The Philippians extract is, in my judgment, highly relevant. Noble Lords will recall that this was the passage read by the Prime Minister during the wonderful service at St Paul’s to mark Her Majesty the Queen’s jubilee. The cleric who chose that passage for the Prime Minister to read clearly has a very profound sense of humour. As was said of Lloyd George,
“Count not his broken promises as a crime. He meant them, oh he meant them at the time.”
If one looks at the Prime Minister’s record on Northern Ireland and other matters, one wonders whether he even meant what he said at the time—certainly, it has been ignored since. I asked a Conservative colleague in the House why, given that history and the untrustworthiness, the Prime Minister was still supported. The answer was, “We factored that in.” I remind your Lordships that almost 60% of the Conservative Members of the other place endorsed the Prime Minister recently, and I remind them of the tar-baby: if you touch the tar-baby you will be tainted in the same way.
The principles in this Motion are clear. They have a very contemporary relevance but, today, the practice is very different. To return to the Good Book,
“the good that I would I do not”.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morse, for this debate because it gives us the opportunity to speak here about what the country is talking about: a general concern about behaviour and honesty in political life, and I trust, therefore, about the institution of Parliament and democracy. It raises the key question: are there standards and values that govern and guide our way of life and our dealing with one another? If so, what are they are where do they come from? Or is there a vacuum in which everyone decides what is right in their own eyes? I would argue that, without a moral framework, we are bound and dictated to by those who shout the loudest and make their voices heard. That is a dangerous path to go down.
This week, there was big, cross-party support for the amendment of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, to include in the Schools Bill a reference in the curriculum to teaching on the values of being a British citizen. Five were outlined: democracy; the rule of law; freedom; equal respect for every person; and respect for the environment. Children and the next generation need to learn to operate within this framework for the common good and for the future, but I would argue that so too do adults—and that applies now. If children and young people do not see these values modelled and lived out by those who are older and by those in public life, they will not see them at work or see the good difference that they make and the wisdom they impart, and they will not see a path which they themselves can follow. I believe that it is incumbent on all in positions of authority and influence, whether as royalty, celebrity, faith leader, parent or politician, to consider what impact they are having by their attitudes and behaviour on the next generation.
Our culture so promotes the rights of the individual that the consequences of our actions for others are often forgotten or ignored. In many minds, “my truth” has taken prior place over any sense of absolute or objective truth; I decide, rather than allow someone, some group or some institution to rule on what is true. Truth is a category that is being sidelined more and more in our generation—a casualty. Generation Z is said to trust what social influencers say more than what politicians say in terms of what is true. Lying and fake news are increasingly not challenged, and it is increasingly more difficult to do so. How can we trust when we are unsure about the reliability of the information that we are given? Trust is something that builds as confidence grows; it is something earned, and cannot be assumed because of a position or a role.
We face an opportunity in our nation to fill the vacuum caused by the growing absence of a moral compass. As a result, we find ourselves drifting according to the prevailing current of the day. One consequence is that our hard-won liberalism is becoming illiberal, where it is unacceptable to hold certain opinions, and cancel culture and no-platforming have taken over. The values of our liberal society arose out of Christian convictions, but now those underpinning attributes are no longer adhered to as they were in the past. As a recent article in the New Statesman declared, liberalism will decline as it has lost its foundation.
We are in a fascinating period of change, all of which argues the case for stronger adherence to a moral framework to steer us through the complexities of modern life. How easy it is to be tossed to and fro by the waves, and blown here and there by the wind. This diagnosis of our current plight needs to be challenged. While there will always be resistance to guidelines, directives and values, because they place the authority to decide what is true outside the individual, we must maintain that we are truly free when we know and live within certain boundaries and frameworks. To that end, I support any move to raise and uphold standards of behaviour and integrity in political life.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, this is the second successive Thursday on which the House has called on the noble Lord, Lord True, to demonstrate his skill at the Dispatch Box in batting on a sticky wicket. Without dissenting from anything that has been said in the debate, I may surprise him by offering the Government some support about the mechanics of upholding ministerial standards, albeit with a major qualification.
I do not think any of us would challenge the proposition in the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Morse, that a
“reduction in the standards of … honesty in political life”
has an
“impact on the democratic process”.
Various studies, including one reported by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, indicate the public view that Ministers and MPs have poor ethical standards in comparison with others who deliver public services, such as doctors, teachers, judges and local government officials. Such a loss of confidence between the Government and the governed is very serious.
However, here is my support for the Government. The Government’s response, published on 27 May, to the Committee on Standards in Public Life’s recommendations on the Ministerial Code, seems to me largely right, despite criticisms in the media. The Government have taken a measure to introduce gradations in the penalties for breaches of the Ministerial Code. I have long felt that the view that any breach of the code, however trivial, requires a Minister’s resignation, is wrong. The Government have now said that minor breaches can be dealt with by lesser sanctions such as loss of salary or even an apology. I welcome this. The Prime Minister mishandled Sir Alex Allan’s report into alleged bullying by Priti Patel. Instead of rejecting his conclusion that there was a degree of bullying for which there was ample evidence, the Prime Minister could have accepted that but not required such a severe sanction as her resignation. If he had, the complainants could have had a remedy and the Prime Minister could have retained the services of Sir Alex Allan.
The second recommendation in the committee’s recent report on ministerial interests, which the Government have partially accepted, is that the adviser on ministerial interests should be able to initiate investigations. The Government have accepted this, subject to the adviser consulting the Prime Minister. Many have criticised the requirement for the Prime Minister’s approval, but it seems realistic. The adviser’s investigations are unlikely to make progress in government if the Prime Minister has not authorised them.
The Government rejected the recommendation that the various regulators of ethics—the independent adviser on ministerial interests, the Commissioner for Public Appointments, and the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments—should all be put on a statutory basis and their powers backed by legislation. The Government do not like that recommendation because they want these matters to be governed in the political sphere. Legislation would bring the courts and judges in on the act. Again, I have sympathy with the Government’s view, but this is where I have an important proviso. The public will accept that allegations of ministerial misconduct should be dealt with in the political sphere only if they have confidence they will be dealt with fairly and rigorously. I am afraid that the Prime Minister has lost the public’s confidence over this, through his handling of the cases of Priti Patel and Owen Paterson, and through his own behaviour.
Since the Government’s Statement of 27 May, we have had the resignation of the noble Lord, Lord Geidt, and the Prime Minister is reported to be considering whether and how the post needs to be replaced. I am sure that a replacement is needed because, if a Minister’s conduct has to be investigated, the Prime Minister cannot convincingly do it himself. There is a need for an independent person or body to carry out the investigation if its results are to carry confidence. I speak with some experience when I say that it should not be the Cabinet Secretary, or any other civil servant, who carries out that investigation. Sue Gray was put in a very difficult position when she was asked to investigate whether the Covid rules had been broken by the Prime Minister or her own Civil Service boss. It has become apparent from the Geidt episode that if the Prime Minister’s own conduct is under scrutiny, judgment on it cannot be made by his own adviser. The outcome is bound to be unhappy: either the Prime Minister goes, or the adviser does. The Prime Minister’s conduct has to be dealt with by his own party, by the Cabinet or, ultimately, by the electorate.
In terms of the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Morse, I have no doubt that recent events had an impact on our democratic life, and it is a damaging impact. I also believe that no system of regulation will be adequate unless our leaders themselves demonstrate high standards. There is an old saying that a fish rots from the head; that is why we need to be concerned about the matters we are discussing today.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I applaud my noble friend Lord Morse for enabling this House to have a debate on this important issue, which affects our democratic process. These standards affect the reputation of this country across the world, which is why this debate is so important.
I will focus on two aspects of the Government’s behaviour, and I declare my interest as a member of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. My first issue is to do with its work. It is the relentless growth in the ways by which Ministers avoid parliamentary scrutiny of their policies, and an increasing use of these parliamentary “avoidance mechanisms”, as I would call them. Of course I am talking about secondary legislation.
The House has just considered the Schools Bill, and I must apologise to those directly involved in it because they will be familiar with what I am going to say initially. The Bill is the most extreme power grab by Ministers in recent memory. As a member of the Delegated Powers Committee, I ought to say that the Bill is an outlier, but an increasing number of Bills use these mechanisms and indeed other new mechanisms created by Ministers—and maybe their civil servants—to avoid parliamentary scrutiny. One basic mechanism is the skeletal nature of Part 1 of the Bill, bolstered or compounded by Clause 3 with its incredible list of Henry VIII clauses, which gives Ministers carte blanche to change Acts of Parliament on pretty well any aspect of the school system. Part 1 is the core part of the Bill, albeit that there are other important issues in later parts.
Due to a drop in government Ministers’ recognition of the importance of the supremacy of Parliament, our very democracy is at stake and under threat. As noble Lords know, the House of Commons pays no attention to regulations, and this House is not permitted to amend them so these regulations are outside our powers. We do have the power to reject a regulation, as I know to my cost when I put forward an amendment to the £4.4 billion cut in tax credits, which this House wonderfully passed. But it led to threats to close down this House; I was lined up and threatened that the House would lose all its powers if I were to pursue that amendment—so we do not really have the power to reject a regulation.
If we cannot reject regulations and cannot amend them, Ministers are left with inordinate power. As we know, power corrupts—and absolute power corrupts absolutely. So, in my view, this is a very worrying situation. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee recently undertook a 30-year review of delegated legislation, the report of which was published last November. I have touched on just two issues in that report; there are many more, and it does not make for happy reading.
For me, even more concerning than the drop in public standards domestically has been the willingness of our Foreign Secretary to consider breaching international treaties. Her readiness to breach international law by taking unilateral action, for example, on the Northern Ireland protocol not only undermines Parliament but brings the entire country into disrepute internationally and, in my view, is going to cause untold problems with the European Union. It was clear when we signed the protocol that it involved a border between Northern Ireland and the rest of Britain, but the difficulties were deferred. They should have been much more clearly sorted out at the time of negotiations. The Irish Taoiseach made it clear that the protocol is in fact working pretty well for many industries, and that for those where there are problems, these could be sorted out by negotiation. Sinn Féin argues that the protocol is working fine. I find that a little difficult to believe, but the middle way certainly sounds sensible. The Foreign Secretary’s rush to make it clear that she would be taking unilateral action is just another example of the contempt for the maintenance of standards in public life.
We have had a drop in standards at both the domestic and international level, and the people responsible for standards are acutely conscious of it. This is where I part company a little with my noble friend Lord Butler, with whom I normally agree. We have had at least four significant reports from independent bodies and individuals on the need for public standards reform, three of them in 2021. In particular, I want to mention the landmark report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, published in November 2021. As my noble friend Lord Butler said, the Government did indeed respond on 27 May, but I have a slightly different view about their response.
In my view, the Government avoided any reform of key issues. I have just a couple of examples. The report recommends that the Government should pass primary legislation to place the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests, the Commissioner for Public Appointments and the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments on a statutory basis, as my noble friend Lord Butler said. Sadly, the Government have rejected this recommendation, which could have resulted in real improvements in standards. In my view, that is why the Government rejected it: they do not want to be challenged. As my noble friend Lord Butler said, the Government agreed to another important recommendation: that the independent adviser should be able to initiate investigations into breaches of the Ministerial Code, but only if the Prime Minister is basically in agreement—which, of course, immediately undermines the power of that provision.
We have a major issue, both domestically and internationally. If it is not dealt with, we parliamentarians will continue to lose respect, and this country will continue to lose the respect of countries across the world.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, it is a very great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. We are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Morse, for giving us this opportunity.
I begin by referring to a character mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Swansea, because it helps to put this all into context. The problems we are facing at the moment—I shall come on to these in more detail—are very real, but to have rogue politicians is not new. Most of your Lordships will know the famous story of Maundy Gregory. Sentenced to a prison term, he was sewing his mail bags when he was visited by one of his former colleagues, who asked, “Sewing, Gregory?” “No—reaping”, he replied.
Of course, there have been rogue politicians through the ages, but we are in a different context now, because until relatively recently, we all accepted the basic ground rules. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn also referred to this. Whether believers or not, we had a fundamental Christian structure to our society, where almost everybody accepted that certain things were right and certain things were wrong—certain things were done, and certain things should not be done—although there were those who transgressed. We think perhaps of John Profumo, but what an extraordinary comeback he had by devoting his life to Toynbee Hall and being properly recognised—I think here of the Christian doctrine of redemption—by being given a CBE.
But we are in a different context today. Again, the right reverend Prelate referred to this when he talked about my truth and your truth, rather than the truth which we all held to and accepted. Almost every politician now seems to think that as long he thinks what he is doing is all right, it does not really matter— whether it is telling a fib on the Floor of the House of Commons or watching questionable material on an iPhone. But it does matter, and it is important that we recognise that. We must have a machinery, a structure, for supervising and, to a degree, policing that. I was taken by the very thoughtful speech and suggestion of my noble friend Lord Wolfson, whose dignified letter of resignation is, I hope, framed on the walls of 10 Downing Street.
Lord Cormack (Con)
I live in hope. My noble friend talked about the Lord Chancellor, and about having a Lord Chancellor who is in a destination office. He used the analogy of the station. We are shortly going to be saying goodbye to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, one of the most distinguished and distinctive Lord Chancellors we have had. He was always in residence in King’s Cross or St Pancras, but his successors have all got off at Adlestrop. It is very important to recognise that a Lord Chancellor, in a high and exalted position, having taken the oaths to which my noble friend Lord Wolfson referred, can be in a position, to a degree, of moral guardian of the ethics of the Cabinet. Although he would never put it that way, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, fulfilled that role to a degree. It is very important that we try to restore public confidence in those who hold high office. If we do not, our very democratic structures are at risk.
There has been a great change in the other place since I entered it 52 years ago last Saturday. There were not enough women then, but there were a number of colleagues who had fought in the last war with great distinction and had MCs, and almost everybody in the House had had a successful career somewhere. Even I, entering at the age of 31, had done 10 years in the real world as a schoolmaster, a deputy head and so on. There are far too many these days who come in without having had any experience at all of the real world. They come in very often at the first time of asking—their first election—and many have done nothing outside the party-political arena. They have been spads or assistants to MPs, but they do not properly understand the real world. Because of that, what was a vocation to public service has become a job and a career in itself.
That is really what is behind much of what we are talking of today, but it is not only that. They have dispensed—as I hope we will not in your Lordships’ House—with the hours that enabled the House of Commons to have a collegiate structure. I was sitting in my office last night and at five-something the House was up and they were gone. That did not use to happen and because of that, we were together, collegiately, talking and mixing, as we do in your Lordships’ House at the Long Table. A fortnight in advance of a very important debate, I urge your Lordships to remember what happened in the House of Commons when it lost its collegiate structure and gave up the scrutiny of legislation because of timetabling. All these things are enmeshed, but above all, we have to have standards in public life which enable the electorate to respect those whom they elect.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, whom I congratulate on his 52 years last Saturday. He made many good points with which I agree. The basic ground rules to which he referred remind me that we miss in this debate the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield. I much regret that he is not here, because a debate such as this is one in which he would play a very constructive part.
It is also a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Anderson, who has served with such distinction here and in another place. It was also a pleasure to hear the first Back-Bench speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, because, in the short time I have been here, I have seen him only at the Dispatch Box. There is someone who, in my view, speaks with great authority, because he gave up office, rather than continuing to represent the Government in the capacity he had, on principle. It made me think that resignations are a sort of miner’s lamp, warning of the health of the democracy at any one time.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Morse, on securing this debate and those Cross-Bench Peers who apparently voted for it. It is of course extremely timely. I shall make a brief contribution from these Benches. When the noble Lord, in reference to the Covid pandemic, referred to the distinction between political figures and other figures, such as the Chief Scientific Adviser, it reminded me of something that took place at the height of the Covid lockdown when a gas engineer had to come to my home. In the course of him undertaking the work, I happened to ask him what he thought of the government press conferences that were being held daily. He said, “I don’t believe a word of what they say. Not a word of it.” I pressed him further and he said, “The Prime Minister? I wouldn’t believe him.” I did not want to get into a discussion about that, but I said, “So what about Sir Patrick Vallance, the Chief Scientific Adviser?” His view suddenly changed: “Oh, I believe him.” There is a problem here. This debate is about political life; the public support figures such as Sir Patrick Vallance, Sir Chris Whitty and Sir Jonathan Van-Tam—I am very glad to see that they do—but we have a problem in the political sphere.
We know what the standards should be because they are set out in the Nolan principles: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. However, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that things are falling short. The British Social Attitudes survey reported that, in the space of about 35 years, between 1986 and 2020, the proportion of people who trust the Government had fallen by half. Understandably, at the time of the expenses scandal in 2009, the greatest number of people ever was recorded as distrusting the Government. I cannot say I am surprised.
These circumstances and this lack of trust degrade a healthy parliamentary democracy and have the following effects. They corrode public trust in political processes and encourage public cynicism—the idea that they are all the same, which is in the interests of some powerful people. This plays into the hands of those—I include elements of the mainstream media, as well as key social media platforms—who want to sow confusion and are content to weaken public participation in the democratic process. The House discussed the Elections Bill. A lot of concern was expressed that the effect of the measures in that Bill might depress the public’s enthusiasm for voting. We will have to wait and see, but I hope the Minister will at least acknowledge that those concerns were deeply felt. It would be more than a shame if declining trust in the political process, plus the provisions of that Bill, lead to an even lower turnout. Of course, this also weakens the UK’s position in the world at large.
It is not my job to stand here and do the work of the Standards Committee in another place, but the House knows the seriousness of the issue with which it is dealing: whether or not the Prime Minister misled the House. I will not prejudge the outcome, but I notice that the vote of confidence carried out by the MPs in the Prime Minister’s own party and its outcome show a degree of great unease about the position of trust at the top. In relation to that, I found the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, including his reference to fish, of great interest. As I said earlier, it made me think about some of the resignations in political life. I shall take a couple.
As the House will know, Hugh Dalton resigned in 1947 because a throwaway remark made to a journalist in the Lobby before he went in to give his Chancellor’s speech was enough to have him instantly dismissed, with alacrity. It is unthinkable that that would happen today. I am sorry to say this, but the only person at risk of being sacked in a similar situation today would be the Chancellor’s spin doctor, who the Chancellor might feel had not sufficiently briefed the press in advance about what was in the Budget—the idea that nobody knows what is in the Budget until the Chancellor gets up at the Dispatch Box is a fiction. Hugh Dalton returned to public life; he was Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and served in one other capacity, but I choose him as an example because that really would not happen today, which is a pity in some ways.
Mention was made of the resignation of John Profumo. Whatever one may think about the personal circumstances, we must remember that he resigned because he misled Parliament. That was the key touchstone on which he was judged. Then you have other resignations on principle, such as that of Peter Carington. Again, I do not think that type of resignation happens any more. We all know the circumstances, but he took responsibility for things which some may say he knew nothing about at the time. Nevertheless, he took the decisions that he did.
Time prevents me going on to talk about a range of other resignations of Labour Members of Parliament and others, but I will mention just two more. One is the resignation of the noble Lord, Lord Agnew. I was sitting here as a relatively new Member, listening to him answer a Question at the Dispatch Box, when it became clear to me and others that there was something in the way he was answering it that made it clear that he did not agree with the argument he was putting forward officially on behalf of the Government. Then, before you knew it, he expressed his own dissatisfaction with the Government and resigned on the spot. He took out an envelope and gave it to the Whip on his right, then proceeded to walk out of the Chamber. It was a very dramatic episode.
In a way, I find that a resignation like that rather helps restore trust that not everyone’s removal from office is as a result of a dragged-out process, which we have seen in many cases. Then there is the resignation of the noble Lord, Lord Geidt, which brings me, very quickly, to the final point I want to make.
The committee proposed that the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests should be on a statutory basis, as should COBRA, but I am afraid that we are a very long way away from that ever happening in the case of the present Government. I notice that the Government dismissed the idea that it should be legislated for because it would “undermine the constitutional settlement”. I hope that when the Minister comes to reply he might explain a bit more about what it is thought that means.
In conclusion, I feel that, looking back, many Members on all sides of the House, and maybe especially on the Benches opposite, will look back and later on express their unease about what they know has been happening recently. We must not wait too long, because the democratic process—to use the words of the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Morse—is fragile, and in every generation democracy has to be fought for. It is our turn now.
Baroness D’Souza (CB)
My Lords, our thanks go to the noble Lord, Lord Morse, for his prescience in addressing this issue.
Democracy is the best protection we have for liberty, but as we know, democracy is not a given state but a process. In order for it to fulfil its task of upholding the rule of law and implementing mechanisms for collective self-government, it requires the institutions of democracy to be in good working order; these include a freely elected Parliament strong enough to hold the Executive to account, an independent judiciary, freedom of expression and of the media, trade unions and a host of other traditional means of tolerating dissent and maintaining order. In turn, democratic institutions also require trust—in the institutions themselves and in the people who run them.
It is also a truism that ultimately all democracies fail. John Adams wrote in 1814:
“There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide”,
and that that failure comes from within. Although Adams was referring mainly to democracies of the ancient world, his view that people simply lost interest in democratic government in favour of authoritarian leaders who promised safety at home and triumphs abroad in return for their acceptance of autocracy is interesting in our present context.
The point I wish to emphasise is that, unless we are vigilant, democracy can fade away silently, by incremental evasions of uncomfortable freedoms and truths. Democracy is not exactly abolished but redefined to become a set of values rather than a method of government. This is where standards of behaviour come to the fore. A freely elected Government have responsibility for what is in the public interest and the public good, not simply for what is in the immediate interest of the relevant political party. Yet in the last few years we have countless examples of government actions and statements that confuse, contradict and often mislead the public in order to accrue power and reduce public and parliamentary accountability. For example, despite recent criticisms of the two cases brought by Gina Miller, far from being undemocratic, they succeeded in returning to Parliament the right to be consulted on major issues of the day.
A 2019 Hansard Society survey concluded that 54% of people in the UK believed there to be a need for a strong leader and less attention to parliamentary debate and votes. But this was in the context of “getting Brexit done”, and today might show a widespread concern about the undermining of our democratic processes while holding a kind of defeatist view that nothing can be done. There is a great deal that can be done and, in particular, that can be done by your Lordships’ House. We must turn our democratic values to confront those currently in power.
Recent actions that question the public trust in government are many. On the one hand, there is the seemingly blithe acceptance by the Government that they can freely override obligations under international treaties, and at the other end government spokesmen happily broadcasting entirely incorrect information, as did the Attorney-General this week in asserting that the so-called Northern Ireland protocol was causing Northern Ireland to lag behind—the truth being that, apart from London, Northern Ireland is the best-performing region in the UK. Or there was the Prime Minister announcing that a new and friendly relationship with Europe had been achieved at the same time as the EU began legal action against the UK. Of course, there were also the embarrassing 24-hour U-turns on categorical decisions made during the pandemic; the overriding of due process in awarding contracts to personal contacts; and the proclamations of excellence of the test and trace system, proved to be an abject failure by the evidence. Let us remember that once executive orders of these kinds are used, it is that much easier to repeat and extend them in the future.
More egregious still is the Executive’s increasing tendency to introduce Christmas tree Bills adding significant new policy clauses on Report in this House, as was the case during the passage of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act, or the much-discussed use of secondary legislation, so eloquently condemned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, in a previous debate. These actions do not foster trust, and nor do the actions of senior Ministers and their advisers in flouting emergency regulations.
Your Lordships’ House comes under severe scrutiny for its efforts to amend some of this legislation—more often than not, unsuccessfully. That said, the Lords succeeded in passing 129 amendments in the last parliamentary Session. This is impressive, and yet if trust in the Government to be acting in the best interests of people is waning, the chances are that people will simply opt out.
Research indicates that trust, once lost, is very difficult to regain. Trust is essential for a Government’s ability to govern effectively, and this vital component is undermined by the perception of a lack of competence, corruption—however minor—misleading information and reluctance to be fully accountable. The absence of wider deliberation and scrutiny and the concentration of decision-making in the hands of a small elite encourages loyalty at the expense of wisdom, flattery at the expense of objective advice, and self-interest at the expense of the public good.
So, in answer to the question implicit in this debate, a reduction in standards and honesty has a profound, lasting and utterly destructive impact on the democratic process and it is the duty of Parliament, including this House, to do everything in its power to reverse it.
Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (CB)
My Lords, gratitude goes to the noble Lord, Lord Morse, for allowing us to have this debate. We all hope that in the end, the Minister will be truer to his instincts than to his brief. So, we wait.
A week ago, the former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave an interview to the Financial Times, where the banner headline read:
“We are standing on the precipice of losing our democracy.”
She went on to say that
“everything that everybody else cares about then goes out the window.”
We know what she is referring to: the hearings on Capitol Hill for the next few months will reveal the extent to which the events of 6 January 2021 were not the response to a wind-up speech from the former President wanting to get his supporters to go and upset the balance but were pre-planned. The evidence now revealed shows that those who are supporters of QAnon and the Proud Boys had planned their insurrection many months in advance. We are told on the latest evidence I looked at this morning that somewhere between 20 and 30 million Americans are still active supporters of QAnon and believe that its views about the Democrats are to be held as a truth worthy of re-electing the former President on. These are frightening realities, not just because they will affect America but because they affect us. The tone of all democracy is fragile.
I came across the assessment of the journalist, HL Mencken, rated as one of America’s leading political analysts, writing in the Baltimore Evening Sun 100 years ago, on 26 July 1920. He said:
“As democracy is perfected, the office of the President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people … On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright fool and a complete narcissistic moron.”
You have to wonder: how did he know? It lies in the phrase
“the inner soul of the people”.
What had been allowed 100 years ago to begin this erosion of understanding, this wiping away of principles, that would lead us to this moment?
We all wish that the noble Lord, Lord Geidt, was here in the Chamber so that he could explain what was especially “odious” about the dealings he was having in Downing Street. It leads one to one obvious conclusion. There is no point having an ethics adviser if the key person either seeking or receiving the advice has no proven core of ethical conduct. We do not need purity and perfection, but we need what is captured in the Nolan principles: honesty, truth-telling and integrity of purpose.
I noted that in a number of the briefings sent, at least to me, in preparation for this debate was the inevitable series of demands for more regulation, more accountability, more committees and more assessment bodies—all with good intent. The answer is not to add to the weight of those objectively assessing the behaviour of individuals: that just adds cost; it does not bring clarity. Simply to rely on regulations, structures and even laws is to miss the point.
I uncovered an article written by one of the great former Members of this House, who sadly passed some years ago, Lord Sacks, on 8 September 2011, 10 years on from the events in New York City. The article was headed:
“Bin Laden saw that the West was in decline”.
The subheading reads:
“The attacks are linked to a wider moral malaise, including the loss of authority, integrity and family unity”.
If our great friend Lord Sacks was here, I am sure that what he wrote then is what he would say today. To bring his words back to life, I shall quote them. We all had profound respect for him as an individual and for his wisdom. He wrote:
“all great civilisations eventually decline, and when they begin to do so they are vulnerable. That is what Osama bin Laden believed about the West and so did some of the West’s own greatest minds … If so, then 9/11 belongs to a wider series of phenomena affecting the West: the disintegration of the family, the demise of authority, the build-up of personal debt, the collapse of financial institutions, the downgrading of the American economy, the continuing failure of some European economies, the loss of a sense of honour, loyalty and integrity that has brought once esteemed groups into disrepute, the waning throughout the West of a sense of national identity … These are … signs of the arteriosclerosis of a culture, a civilisation grown old. Whenever Me takes precedence over We, and pleasure today over viability tomorrow, a society is in trouble … The West has expended much energy and courage fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq abroad and defeating terror at home. It has spent far less, if any, in renewing its own morality and the institutions—families, communities, ethical codes, standards in public life—where it is created and sustained. But if I am right”,
says Lord Sacks,
“this is the West’s greatest weakness in the eyes of its enemies as well as its friends … Our burden is to renew the moral disciplines of freedom.”
That is why we have debates of this nature: we want those disciplines renewed—who would not? I must ask members of the governing party, when many said, as they did to me as friends, as I am sure they did too many of us, that they stood aside from what they knew to get Brexit done: are they still content that that win was worth it all?
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I join many others in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Morse, for initiating this debate, which is certainly timely, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, for his enlightening quotes, which are very interesting.
We have to follow standards in public life which are out there and can be seen by other people and tested. I have always thought that the standards called on for politicians are, rightly, somewhat higher than you might find in the general public. We are nearer the right reverend Prelate, who has just left his place, in that we have to abide by a set of standards that people expect, which are higher than many follow in their day-to-day life.
During the Second World War, when Britain was under great strain and the House of Commons had been bombed, there was a survey that asked people, “Do you trust MPs?” Something like half the people surveyed said no. That was at the height of the war, when everyone was fighting for their life. The significant thing was that when the question was, “Do you trust Mr Jones, your MP?”, the results were quite different. Most people said, “Yes, well, he’s a bit different, you know.”
The conclusion to draw is: if you actually know the person and they are doing a good job in your locality, you are likely to think more highly of them than if they are abstract figure who appears from time to time in the papers. I have always argued that, to an extent, we have created our own problems—not so much in this House, but certainly down the Corridor, where MPs have failed to face up to the fact of being public representatives.
Whenever there is a pay increase, there is always an MP who will get up to say, “I’m not taking it. We shouldn’t be paid this much and we want to give it back.” But my MP is paid two-thirds of what my GP is paid. That does not seem quite right to me. Part of our problem, which translates to this debate, is that, instead of paying MPs, we let them go out on the dinner circuit and earn a lot of extra money. We should be paying them properly and stopping them earning anything other than a token amount on top of their pay. Then we would have accountable MPs.
We have heard a bit about resignations, including from the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, but there is a bit of difference. Now, we seem to have got to a position where you need a report to get a resignation. When I look back over my political life, which has been quite long—not as distinguished as that of my noble friend Lord Cormack, although it has been as long, in that I was first elected to the Greater London Council in 1973, a bit after him—I see the names of resignations as they came up. Dalton has been mentioned. Thomas Dugdale resigned over Crichel Down. John Profumo resigned over lying to the House of Commons. Lord Carrington resigned over the Falklands. Cecil Parkinson had a not very distinguished resignation, but it was one none the less. Then there was David Mellor, and the various resignations in the Blair Government and afterwards.
Most of them resigned because they felt that they should. They did not resign because they had waited for a report or an ethics adviser had come up with a report. They resigned because, in the light of the feelings of the day, they had gone too far and should surrender their seals of office. That is quite right. I have a lot of sympathy with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Butler. There should be a gradation between resignation and holding on and refusing to say anything at all. A minor infraction of the rules should get a minor slap on the wrist, but it should not need a committee to do that. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Geidt, or someone else in his place is reappointed but I do not acknowledge that they have the job that should be done because people should have enough honour to police the system themselves.
I have said this privately; I say it now publicly. I am afraid that our present Prime Minister was well known before he got the job. No one ever pretended that our present Prime Minister knew much about truth, veracity or anything else. Let us not hide this. This is not something that we discovered last week. It has been present ever since he was working on the Times many years ago, when his first career came to a somewhat juddering halt.
I want to disabuse both my party and the Opposition of another thing: the Prime Minister won the election because, first, people were fed up to the back teeth with the Brexit debate and wanted to get Brexit done; and, secondly, the leader of the Opposition was widely perceived as not being wanted on voyage. It is as simple as that. You cannot heap all the honours on the Prime Minister without looking at who he beat and how he beat them. The truth of the matter is that the biggest asset the Conservative Party had was the market gardener from Islington, also known as the then leader of the Opposition.
The fact is that—having been a member of both parties, I know them reasonably well—Labour is perceived as having abandoned that essentially conservative, working-class base. That has been Labour’s difficulty for many years. Its base is essentially conservative. The people I grew up with in Methodist Sheffield, who went out and voted Labour because they thought that Hugh Gaitskell would be the best person to run Britain, were not revolutionaries. I would argue that they were not even socialists. They were good people who wanted change and thought that the Labour Party would bring it. When Labour has excited people—I have seen them excited twice, by Harold Wilson and Tony Blair—the people vote it in. People were not excited at the time of the last election. I am sorry but, if they were excited, it was probably in the wrong way.
I finish with this: I welcome this debate but we need to look at our own area first.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morse, for giving us the opportunity to debate this important issue. I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, and grateful to him for reminding us about the characteristics of the current incumbent of No. 10.
I must begin by declaring an interest. I am proud to be a Member of this House, and proud of the vital work it does in our constitution. I am devastated by what this Government are doing to trash the reputation of this Parliament. I spent most of my career as a journalist. In the eyes of the general public, there are few who come lower than journalists but here I am, and it is even worse.
I begin by talking about the trickle-down effect—but not in relation to wealth, where the idea is that if the people at the top make lots more money, everybody will be better off; this does not work. When it comes to corruption, the trickle-down effect is dramatically successful. Take the example of Putin’s Russia. According to the Ukrainian Research Institute’s intelligence, 90% of the tanks that the Russians are currently trying to get out of mothballs are unusable because vital parts have been taken away and sold; the circuit boards are worth something on Alibaba. The generals have decided that, if it is right for Putin and Co. to make their millions, they too deserve a cut. That is one reason why things are going more slowly than the Russians would like in Ukraine.
The tone comes from the top. As others have said, the fish rots from the head. We know where the rot started with this Government. Franklin D Roosevelt said:
“The Presidency is not merely an administrative office … It is pre-eminently a place of moral leadership.”
In his private life, he may not have been a perfect moral character, but, in his leadership of the States, he was. Whatever personal failings there may be in our Prime Minister, sadly, they also translate into his leadership of the country. That reflects badly on all of us, damages the way this country operates and trashes its reputation abroad.
Others have referred to the Nolan principles. I cannot resist going through them again, slowly, and thinking about them in the context of the No. 10 we have today. They are: selflessness; integrity; objectivity; accountability; openness; honesty; and leadership. If it were not so sad, it would be laughable. All those characteristics are discernibly missing from what goes on at No. 10 at the moment.
The effect of that on our democracy—the subject of this debate—is already being felt. Our Civil Service has been badly damaged by the way it has been treated by Ministers who will not take responsibility but expect civil servants to carry the load for them—Ministers who bully their civil servants but do not resign, even when they are told that they should. Of course, nobody now wants to take on the senior Civil Service roles. Why would they? Who can blame them?
Equally, voters are looking at what is going on and being turned off democracy. Earlier this year, an IPPR report found that 53% of adults believe that donors, big business and lobbyists are more powerful in influencing government policy than voters. Only one in 20 people believed that voters had the most influence on government policy. The democratic process is undoubtedly being damaged badly by what is going on at the moment.
That disillusionment is particularly pronounced among young people. The Bennett Institute for Public Policy in Cambridge published research, 18 months ago, that led it to the conclusion that those in their 20s and 30s are the first generation in living memory to have a majority who are dissatisfied with the way democracy works. It is a global phenomenon but in the UK, it is far more pronounced.
Is it surprising, though, when only today in the Times, the Conservative former Solicitor-General, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, writes that the proposed Bill of Rights will further bolster the concerns of those who believe, with some justification, that this Government have a reckless disregard for domestic and international law? That is the verdict of a Conservative former Solicitor-General. No wonder people are disillusioned.
What is to be done about it? I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and his reluctance to legislate, but things have reached a stage where legislation is the only way. Perhaps I have become far too disillusioned. The noble Lord says that he would like to see the gradation of penalties being proposed, but surely this Government would see everything as just a minor infringement rather than one that deserved a significant penalty. Would we feel confident that this Government would do the decent thing? Of course, there may be those in the future who would, but we are dealing with a very difficult state of affairs.
We have the Boardman recommendations, which would certainly be distinct improvements. There are 19 recommendations and five suggestions, and the Government have yet to respond in full to them. Can the Minister tell us when we will hear a full response to the Boardman suggested regulations and when they might be implemented? That would at least be a start towards improving what is currently looking like a very sorry state of affairs.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, I join in the tributes to my noble friend Lord Morse.
Plainly, the standards of behaviour and honesty in political life bear on the democratic process and a reduction in those standards weakens democracy, because reduced standards lessen public trust and confidence in our rulers and our governing institutions. As a result, people are less willing to participate in the political process, less willing to turn out to vote and then less inclined to accept and comply with the laws Parliament enacts. We surely have a perfect recent illustration of that: as a result of partygate, if there was some future pandemic and Parliament was to enact further hugely restrictive laws, it may be doubted that the public would so readily obey them. All that is pretty obvious.
I want to focus on the position arrived at here and my essential point may not be popular. While I hold absolutely no brief for our Prime Minister, I contend that his flaws, his deficiencies, are a quantum leap away from those not only of murderous autocrats such as Putin but of purported democrats such as Trump.
It is pure nonsense and an illustration of the fallacy of false equivalence to suggest that any useful comparison can be made between Trump and Johnson. Johnson is not Trump-lite, as he is sometimes described. He is not in the same league. Trump is plain wicked. It is almost impossible to exaggerate his monstrous conduct, which in numerous respects is plainly criminal. Not so Johnson’s: his fixed penalty notice was not, of course, for criminal conduct any more than a speeding fine is. His misbehaviour, which I do not understate, is political, not criminal. Those political sins were indeed catalogued by Clare Foges in her characteristically admirable piece in Monday’s Times. She demonstrated truly that our Prime Minister has belied the “good chap theory” of government from the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy: our unwritten constitution’s historical reliance on our rulers recognising where the boundaries of acceptable political conduct properly lie and, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, pointed out, knowing when they ought to resign.
I agree with almost all the points that Clare Foges made, but I make one important exception: the Prime Minister’s unlawful Prorogation of Parliament in 2019. There are some who go so far as to suggest that that act puts the Prime Minister on a par with Trump as an unlawful attempt to remain in power by escaping parliamentary control. I, for my part, regard that as nonsensical. Although I accept the Supreme Court’s judgment as correct on the narrow facts of the case—this is no occasion to go into all that—it is surely absurd to treat it as comparable to Trump’s attempt to force his Vice-President to refuse to recognise the United States election result. Trump, one recalls, and one sees it now in the congressional report, was advised forcefully and repeatedly that Pence had no lawful option but to certify Biden’s election victory. By contrast, Boris Johnson was not merely advised, as clearly he was, by his law officers that Prorogation in the context that it was enacted was lawful; that too was a view fully shared by a strong and unanimous Divisional Court.
In short, therefore, while recognising as I do the Prime Minister’s character flaws and his intrinsic tendency towards dishonesty, he really cannot usefully be compared with Trump. True, his principles can be regarded as somewhat fluid, flexible, elastic and perhaps rather Marxian, in the sense of Groucho rather than Karl—“These are my principles, but if you don’t like them I have others”—but the threat he poses to democracy is in no way comparable to the actual damage now being so obviously inflicted by Trump on democracy and the democratic process in the United States. One has only to watch the nightly reports on, for example, the 6 January insurrection, the storming of Capitol Hill and, before that, Trump’s attempt to suborn the returning officers in the various individual states that he narrowly lost to find him the missing votes to recognise the catastrophic impact of his stolen election lie on America’s faith in democracy. The point has already been made as to the extraordinary numbers who subscribe to the Trump approach.
I end with this: I suggest it is a mistake to say, as a recent letter to the Times did, that the United Kingdom is no longer a functioning democracy. Of course I look forward to the day when, once again, our political leaders can be seen to occupy the moral high ground that is now all too often vacated, but in the meantime it is most unwise to run ourselves down to the point where our international reputation as a sound democracy could indeed be put at risk.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I fear we live in an age of visceral prejudice. Many of us wake up every morning, tune into the radio or television and read the news websites in the hope of having those prejudices polished, and, when they are not, of being outraged. In our hyperpartisan age, any questioning of our own political position is seen as “having a go,” so we attack the messenger when these prejudices are not reinforced and are infuriated when they are questioned or criticised. In fact, I suggest that many politicians hope every day to be infuriated by several items that they come across on their trawl through the media.
In the digital era, we are all constantly reassured by likeminded digital friends or in the echo chambers of social media. In these places, our views are bolstered and those we oppose denigrated. The resulting fractures in our society are deeper than ever and make the democratic process more scratchy and less open to compromise. I fear that the arenas for a proper discussion of policy, in which people actually listen to others’ points of view and engage with their concerns to build a national conversation, are diminishing. This conversation cannot take place if not enough people are prepared to listen to each other. Part of the problem is that many of our party politicians are rarely prepared to engage in an open discussion of policy questions and generate a true conversation in which the nation can engage.
The solution needs to come from the top of our society. We need true engagement on policies which affect us all—our own version of the ancient Greek agora. In the past, our leaders were prepared to subject themselves to lengthy questioning and explanation of policy. The audiences would agree or disagree, but at least they were part of the conversation that must be the foundation for consent in a successful democracy. Mrs Thatcher was a divisive politician, but she was a politician of the highest quality. She was on top of the details of her brief and unafraid to answer questions. She saw it as her democratic duty to subject herself to long interviews on policy with the great interviewers of her day, such as Robin Day of the BBC and Brian Walden of ITV’s “Weekend World”.
I contrast her with the paucity of true policy discussion in the public arena by our leading decision-makers today. There are some honourable exceptions: Michael Gove gave helpful and engaged answers to Tom Newton Dunn on TalkTV the other day, and Jacob Rees-Mogg was prepared to go on the new Andrew Neil show on Channel 4. Andrew Neil is no enemy of the present Government, yet I notice that no other top-level Cabinet Ministers are being booked for the show. Surely, when there is so much at stake in our national life, it would benefit democracy if the Prime Minister or the Home Secretary were to open themselves to a considered discussion about where this Government are going. Instead, we get the “Minister of the day” put up by Downing Street and condemned to tour the media outlets in the morning. Much of the audience is infuriated that the Minister will come on to talk about one specific policy area in which they are expert, and then find themselves bombarded by a range of questions outside their purview. The required omniscience demeans both them and the show on which they are appearing. Of course, they cannot know everything. Instead, they are equipped with a brief of answers which they are told to repeat, whatever the question. This is partly the fault of the broadcasters in expecting too much and being so eclectic in their questioning, but it is also a result of a lack of a true engagement with the media by the political classes.
However, it is important to continue the national discussion, even if many politicians will not engage. One of the very few places where independent thought and discussion can take place is through our public service broadcasters—television, radio and online. These are arenas for the nation to hold a mirror up to itself. We in this country, through the foresight of political predecessors and the hard work of journalists, are fortunate enough to have institutions that are the envy of the world. In the words of my noble friend the great Lord Hennessy, they are “pearls beyond price”, yet a typical trait of our country is to want to nag away at these great British institutions, despite the global admiration they attract.
Across the political spectrum, there are warm words for public service broadcasters: we hear their war reporters lauded, their jubilee coverage described as unifying, and the local public service information outlets described as crucial conduits for information during Covid. Yet these words are not met by actions; the latest BBC licence fee settlement is frozen for two years, at a time when inflation is projected to reach double digits by the end of the year. This will lead to a financial loss of £250 million for the corporation, on top of the 30% cut over the last 10 years.
Just as important is the threat to alter and shrink the programme remit of PSBs. Their universality makes them a valuable forum for the nation in a world of digital cubbyholes in which we listen only to ourselves. For all its benefits for public service broadcasting, the media Bill is an attack on Channel 4’s ability to be a British voice to discuss British values. Its present remit is to make British content that is innovative and edgy and that reflects underrepresented audiences, and its news has to be transmitted for an hour at prime time. There is a danger that the new remit required for privatisation will dilute the British and regional content and allow the news and other areas of genuine discussion about our nation to be hived off to a little-watched digital channel. How can this be allowed to happen at a time when we need open discussion across the country more than ever before?
To compound this attack on the PSBs, a drum-beat of complaints about a lack of impartiality echoes though the corridors of this place and beyond. There has been an orthodoxy of liberal metropolitan bias in the past, but public service broadcasters are increasingly recruiting individuals from a wider background of the population, both geographically and socioeconomically. The diverse background of production staff will contribute to a change in culture.
Ofcom and the BBC have made extensive reports on the problem of a lack of impartiality. The former said that audiences had complained about the lack of impartiality that they saw in the corporation, but it admitted that its research
“illustrates the complexity of the issue”.
Ofcom found that
“different audiences reach diametrically opposing conclusions when judging the due impartiality of the same news content”.
The new Dilnot review will further assess impartiality and accuracy at the BBC, and it will ensure that a breadth of viewpoints is heard.
I fear that, in this hyper-partisan political environment, it will be impossible for any political organisation to satisfy demands for impartiality. Contrast the situation in our country with what is happening in America, where it seems that all media outlets are editorialised. There is nowhere for genuine national political discussion in the American media; in this partisan media ecosystem, there is only alternative truth and alternative facts. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, said, it is not surprising that a large proportion of the American population still believes that the election was stolen, despite repeated denials by Republican officials and even President Trump’s own daughter, Ivanka. It does not take much to realise that, in a post-truth world, the foundations of a democracy and civilization quake.
America must be a warning for all people who believe in the democratic process. Unless we have national fora for discussion and debate that can be trusted and believed, we will descend into a world of multiple truths and alternative facts that leave audiences unable to make the basic decisions that are needed for civic society. At this time of turmoil, both across the world and in this country, it has never been more important that we bolster the institutions that allow all citizens to engage in the great process of deciding in which direction to take our country and who should lead that mission.
Lord Desai (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is a great honour and pleasure to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. I learned a lot from his father when he was here, so I am grateful for the sober and informative statement that he has made—I shall come back to this later. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Morse, not just for choosing a brilliant subject but for perhaps the shortest speech that I have heard the mover of a Motion make. Like Morse code, he was very succinct and short.
I have sat here and felt like a complete foreigner after a very long period of time. I was born in India, and then I went to America before arriving here. The idea that politicians are honest is completely alien to me. There is some sort of miasma here that, once upon a time, politicians were good and honest. When my friend the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, talks about the “decent chap” theory, he is being slightly ironic, because remember that they were all chaps; they all wore bowler hats and suits, and they were all gentlemen. There was a time when, even if gentlemen told lies to each other, the Times never had to publish it. The press was very obedient and guarded secrets.
The idea that Prime Ministers or politicians do not tell lies is a very great surprise to me because, in the 56 years I have lived here, I have frequently seen politicians not tell the truth. Sir Edward Heath lied on television about the stocks of coal in this country, and drove the country into a three-day week. It was a totally false number, and was shown to be so by Tony Benn—who some people may remember. Within 24 hours, Tony Benn was able to show that the coal stocks numbers quoted by Edward Heath were totally wrong. Anthony Eden lied about Suez, and they all hid the stroke that Churchill had when Prime Minister so that he could continue as Prime Minister. Harold Wilson went on television and said that the pound in your pocket was safe, after having devalued it by several percentage points. Tony Blair lied about the 45-minute gap in which Saddam’s missiles could launch and land—they would have landed in Cyprus, but he implied that it would be an attack on the British homeland.
We have been here before. Having a drink in No. 10 Downing Street is not as great a crime as people seem to think, and we have no need to take the moral high ground. Politics has not been honest. If you do not believe that, talk to anybody who was part of the empire and they will tell you what British politicians did abroad. I will not go into that—it would take me eight days, not just eight minutes.
We must understand that the idea that we had a moral code that everybody obeyed was an in-class conspiracy of a certain class. Everybody knew each other; they were all chaps, as there were no women in those days; and they all agreed with each other. Now, as the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, implied, we no longer have that world. We now have open media, which has become more democratic; the world may or may not be democratic, but the media has become much more democratic. Given the way that news travels, anything that any politician does is no longer a secret.
It is very interesting that Maundy Gregory was mentioned, but he is not the only one. We have had the selling of honours in the House of Lords for I do not know how long. As we sit here, we know that political parties sell honours and that that is how they are financed. Sometimes you have to take the money away when people turn out to be oligarchs but, until they are found to be oligarchs, they are alright—they are good chaps.
What we need to be clear about is not whether or not Boris Johnson took a drink—he did. As the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, said, who expected him to tell the truth? At least he is not a hypocrite. What I like about the Prime Minister is that he is not a hypocrite; he lies and lies openly, smiles and thinks he will get away with it. He has got away with it for a long time.
What I would focus much more on is not that he broke his own law but the other things that this Government have done. For example, they reneged on the triple lock and left pensioners suffering last year; they took away universal credit, which made a lot of people suffer; and in the middle of the most serious stagflation, they are still talking about tax cuts—and, let us face it, mean tax cuts for the rich and not for the poor. That they are about to break the Northern Ireland protocol and get out of the European Court of Human Rights are serious things to criticise—not having a drink after work in No. 10 Downing Street.
Let us get our perspective clear: let us criticise the Government for the things they do that actually harm the majority of people. A lot of those things are going on. Yes, there is a breach of standards, but getting out of the European Court of Human Rights—a court that we established to begin with—and to claim that it is to do with Europe and not us, is a serious thing. It is not like discussing whether various people had drinks in the afternoon in No. 10 Downing Street.
Democracy has changed—it is much more open and the world is much more democratic. After all, until 1928 we did not have universal franchise. Democracy is still young in this country; it did not start with the Magna Carta. Let us get it into perspective and criticise real policy damage and not trivial political misbehaviour.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
I rise simply to ask who determines truth. I read the resolution and look at the House of Lords, and know that lots of voices out there will say that the House of Lords once voted to give them a referendum on the European Union, and then repeatedly voted to try to undermine the decision that was made when people were given that power. When we look at why people are increasingly cynical about politicians and use the language of truth, we see that there are many aspects of it, but surely part of our duty here is to look at and examine our role and ability to improve our democracy.
We have a mishmash of rules, regulations and laws that are available to us to use. Let me give an example: the Phil Woolas election court case in 2011. A sitting MP stands in an election and is taken to an election court over issuing a false statement. It is one line in a leaflet and an election court deems that it is a false statement and a breach of law—a law that is over 100 years old, created in a time when precisely that discussion was going on. He is debarred from Parliament—thrown out with no jury and no right of appeal. That is one level of law, and we could bring in identical laws for sitting politicians, be they Ministers or otherwise, if we chose. We have that power; we have the powers to do what we choose, and we have the power to pontificate generally. But the cynicism of the people is increasing.
One of my predecessors as the MP for Bassetlaw in Nottinghamshire was a gentleman called Sir Fred Bellenger. He was the MP for 35 years. Sir Fred was a barrister, practising in London. He had a home—I believe a rather nice one—in Chichester. He visited the constituency of Bassetlaw once a year for his annual dinner at the Olde Bell Hotel. Sir Fred may have been a great MP; he may have been a scoundrel. On balance, it would appear that he was a good MP—not great, but reasonable—but the voters of that constituency had no idea. How could they make a judgment? Where was the information available to them? There was none. They knew he came once a year, but the Olde Bell is not big enough to accommodate that many people, and that was it. But at least he turned up for his elections; his predecessor, Malcolm MacDonald, son of Ramsay, sent his sister to fight one election.
The idea that there was some golden era of integrity, honesty and decency is mythology. What there is today is information: people can find out more. Our big weakness is not grasping that what we therefore need is not more information but transparency. They will find out what people do one way or another—not everyone or everything, but far more than ever before—so we should grasp transparency as an asset for us.
It is not just No. 10. There are MPs in jail or just getting out of jail; there are MPs on trial who might or might not go to jail, depending on the courts. That is current, and it is cross-party. MPs being barred from the Commons is cross-party. There are so many transgressions going on that people hardly even notice them. If we want this place to survive, and if we are, as we claim, this great authority of wisdom and should through our collective wisdom be able to influence the laws of the country on behalf of the people, we should ensure that we set the standards ourselves. We have the power to set standards on behaviour and standards on transparency. It is not just for each and every one of us. The honour-based system is precisely the system of MPs’ expenses that led to quite a number going to jail, plenty more who were lucky, and a large number who resigned their seats and had their careers ended. It was a system based on honour, and it did not work.
This is an opportunity for us to collectively create systems of transparency here, recognising that we are in the information age, and to open ourselves up to criticisms. Let us set standards in the House of Lords. It would refresh our democracy. If we wish to survive, before the tempest arrives that blows us away—because it certainly will do, one unexpected day when we are not looking—we might give ourselves a future in that democracy. That is my hope for the conclusion of this debate today.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I am reminded listening to this debate of the opening words of Francis Bacon’s essay on truth:
“‘What is truth?’ said jesting Pilate, and would not stay for an answer.”
We know that democracy depends on an open debate about what truth is, and respect for reasoned argument and for evidence. It is partly the move away from that recognition of and respect for reasoned debate, and the search for the appropriate and correct outcome—and I say to the noble Lord, Lord Mann, that one has to admit that the whole debate over Brexit has fed a lot of that movement—that has taken us to where we are now.
It is highly appropriate that this debate should be led by a Cross-Bencher and dominated by Cross-Benchers. They have a role in being non-party and in asking questions about evidence and the quality of the argument which the Government are putting forward. It is part of the deterioration even in this House over the last few years that I have heard senior Conservatives saying, “Well, you know that all the Cross-Benchers are systematically left wing”. I will not name the senior Conservatives who have said that, but some Cross-Benchers know them well.
Of course, that is a general label used to close down political debate. The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill, which has its Second Reading next Tuesday, is based on Policy Exchange papers which at one point state that 80% of the academic teaching in British universities is left wing. This would puzzle the nearly 35% of scientists who work in universities and many others, but that is what Policy Exchange and the Telegraph have stated on a number of occasions. When judges disagree with the Government, they are dismissed in the Daily Mail and elsewhere as “lefty lawyers”. BBC and Channel 4 public service broadcasters are regularly attacked; I am bored by the number of occasions every week that the Times runs anti-BBC stories. This also happens when the Bishops say anything which is deemed to be political. It seems to have escaped the new right-wing consensus, as it were, that the gospel is systemically left wing in a number of ways, particularly in its clear bias towards the poor and against the rich—but the Bishops are told that they should not mention that.
Dismissal of reasoned argument damages democracy. We have skirted around the issue of written constitutions versus unwritten constitutions. I recall that, when I used to teach the American constitution as a graduate student in an American university, we talked about the importance of having a Government of laws and not of men. However, what we are seeing in the United States at the moment is a Government of laws being tested to the extreme by the politicisation of the courts, by bending the rules and by challenging what the rules have promoted. Good and honest Conservatives in Britain, and there are many, should look across the Atlantic and be as concerned about what is happening there—the damage to democracy and to the idea of a national community—as they are about developments in Poland and Hungary.
A democratic Government depends, ultimately, on the self-constraint of those who lead it. Laws and institutions strengthen these constraints and add transparency and external pressure. Where the self-constraint of political leaders weakens, the case for strengthening and institutionalising external constraints becomes stronger. That is why I support the recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life to institutionalise some of these constraints further.
We all recognise that some politicians are rogues—in all parties. My party has suffered, as well as others. Lloyd George has been mentioned; I had severe problems with Jeremy Thorpe when he was our leader; I did not know enough about Cyril Smith. The importance in every political party is that there are enough people who are concerned about the maintenance of standards, and enough influential people in public life to resist the rogues when they appear.
Since we are talking about public life, this also applies to the role of the media, which in Britain has contributed to the decline in our standards. The Daily Mail has become the Fox News of British life in its denunciation of anyone who disagrees with whatever the government line may be at the present time. The Telegraph is a pinnacle of English nationalism, owned by people who escape British tax by living in the Channel Islands. Culture wars, the dismissal of experts and the constant attacks on the BBC are all damaging the quality of the idea of democracy as a process in which we argue and disagree with each other while also respecting each other’s opinions. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn mentioned the importance of civic education and ensuring that we encourage our public to take an informed approach to politics and public life, not treat them as spectators of a game that is simply played in Westminster.
There has been mention of the role of the House of Commons, the decline of the independent Back-Bencher and the rise of the political professional parachuted into safe seats by central office. Part of what we see has gone wrong is that the Government now have 20% of the membership of the House of Commons on their payroll—140 people. The majority of Conservative MPs who are not on the government payroll voted to dismiss the Prime Minister but, when the King’s friends—to use the 18th-century phrase—are as large a group as that, the Commons ceases to be an effective check on the Government.
Then we come to the role of Ministers and Cabinet government, in which each Cabinet Minister has his sense of responsibility—shared responsibility—from the Government. Ministers should recognise that governing is different from campaigning. Part of what is wrong with this Government is that they seem to think campaigning is all that matters—“Promise them what they like, and forget about it next year.” Patronage is to be used responsibly, not simply to reward friends or donors. Political leadership requires putting hard choices to the public from time to time, not simply relying on easy promises. Responsibility is held to the country and the national interest as much as to the party and the Prime Minister. The acceptance of advice and evidence, even when unwelcome, is a necessary part of a Minister’s role.
The noble Lord, Lord True, is himself a Minister and shares that responsibility, collective and individual. I have listened to him defending each constitutional twist and turn of this Government. I have watched him pushing through the Elections Act, and I am sure that he is aware that the chairman of the Electoral Commission has just stated that the Act makes the Electoral Commission no longer an independent regulator. It is a real weakening of our democratic constraints on an unscrupulous Government in power, and the noble Lord was complicit in that. I have heard him sweeping aside concerns about PPE and test and trace—I have read his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, on that subject—and defending inappropriate public appointments. I am sure that the Minister recognises that his responsibility as a Minister is not to be too complicit in allowing standards of public life to decline. I hope that he examines his conscience from time to time on that very point and asks himself what contribution he is making towards restoring higher standards of behaviour and honesty in public life—because, I repeat that, in the last resort, democracy is sustained only by the leadership of those who hold responsibility at the top and their willingness to open and maintain dialogue with their public.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Morse, for initiating this debate. Trust and confidence are, as we have heard, built and sustained by adherence to rules—rules that are applicable to all, without exception. As the right reverend Prelate correctly stated, they have a moral foundation but, like our constitution, they have developed over time. They have developed because of circumstances and issues—sometimes bad apples, but sometimes something more systematic. That is what this debate is really about.
My noble friend Lord Stansgate referenced the Nolan principles, which are themselves relatively new in the development of our constitution. At the time, I felt, “Why should the obvious need to be stated?”, but those principles were important not only because of the odd bad apple but because there was a problem with the system. We developed proper structures arising from that.
My noble friend also talked of resignations. One of my abiding memories from doing my A-level in British government is my teacher constantly banging on about Crichel Down. The underlying case appeared trivial but the subsequent public inquiry exposed a catalogue of ineptitude and maladministration. My teacher said that its significance was that it was taken as a precedent on ministerial responsibility. As we heard in the debate, the case resulted in the resignation of the then Minister of Agriculture, Sir Thomas Dugdale. As the noble Lord, Lord Butler, reminded us, it became a convention. We do not need rules and regulations: we have conventions that we can adhere to and support.
Of course, when Sue Gray’s final report exposed industrial rule-breaking at the heart of government, the person who said he took full responsibility suffered no consequence. That is something that really hits you in the face. Her report should have been a catalyst for change—an opportunity to introduce reforms to strengthen integrity and ethics in our politics, as proposed by the Committee on Standards in Public Life in its November 2021 report. The committee is absolutely right to suggest placing more of the ethics regulators on a statutory footing, covering ministerial interests, public appointments and business appointments for former officeholders, thus giving them clearer accountability and greater independence from the Executive they regulate.
I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Butler, on his assessment of the Government’s response to that report. I think that it required a much more positive response then the Government were prepared to give. The Prime Minister’s response was to cherry pick the recommendations, weakening the Ministerial Code and concentrating power in his own hands. He ended the long-standing principle that breaking the Ministerial Code should be an automatic resigning offence and failed to introduce the committee’s recommendation that resignation should be the outcome of the “most serious breaches”, setting a dangerous precedent in which Ministers who commit offences such as bullying, sexual assault or bribery would not automatically have to resign.
This week, in the other place, Labour proposed an Opposition day Motion backing the full package of recommendations from the CSPL’s 2021 report. Sadly, that Motion was defeated by government MPs. Labour’s proposal is to restore standards in public life by introducing an ethics and integrity commission: a single, independent body, removed from politicians. It would have powers to launch investigations without ministerial approval, collect evidence and decide sanctions.
Although we support the introduction of graduated sanctions for minor breaches of the Ministerial Code, as the committee recommended, they will be meaningful only if full independence is granted to the adviser to open investigations. Without that, it is left to the whim of the Prime Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Evans, described these two changes as “inextricably linked”. He said:
“Graduated sanctions and greater independence for the Adviser were … part of a mutually dependent package of reforms, designed to be taken together.”
More graduated sanctions are meaningless without an independent adviser.
Boris Johnson also confirmed that the noble Lord, Lord Geidt, before his resignation as the independent adviser, would still require approval by the Prime Minister to launch investigations. The Prime Minister will also retain a power to veto investigations—in contravention of the recommendations of the committee. One has only to look at the difference between the previous foreword and Boris Johnson’s diluted version: integrity, objectivity, accountability, transparency and honesty have all disappeared, as has the reference to the public interest. The Ministerial Code is not supposed to be a reference guide; it is supposed to be a rulebook to protect the highest standards.
The noble Lords, Lord Geidt and Lord Evans, have both warned of the Prime Minister’s “low level of ambition” in his handling of the Ministerial Code and his failure to grant more independence to investigations. I hope the Minister will be very clear about why the Prime Minister went against the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Evans. It would be good to have a clear response on that. We have also seen that the PM’s own anti-corruption tsar John Penrose walked out on him, accusing him of breaking the code of which he is both author and protector.
What we have seen from the Prime Minister in recent times is a pattern of degrading the principles of our democracy, a pattern of dodging accountability and a pattern of demeaning his office. He has now driven both of his own hand-picked ethics advisers to resign in despair—twice in two years. The noble Lord, Lord Geidt, described resignation as a “last resort” to send
“a critical signal into the public domain”.
He said that the Prime Minister had made a “mockery” of the Ministerial Code and that he would play no further part in that.
It was not about steel. I was on a BBC political programme the day the resignation letter came out, and I could hear the spin from the Prime Minister’s office: “Oh well, this is about a trade agreement; it’s about steel.” It was not. When I read the letter, particularly the last paragraph, it was clear to me that the Prime Minister is prepared to break the rules. What I am concerned about is that I have no doubt that he will do it again, and that is why the noble Lord, Lord Geidt, resigned. That is a very powerful message that people should take account of.
The truth is that this Prime Minister behaves as though there is one rule for him and another for the rest of us. During the Lords debate on the Urgent Question repeat, the Minister said it would be ensured that
“any work being undertaken by the independent adviser continues and is completed.”
Is that still the case? Can the Minister give us that answer? In response to my noble friend Lady Smith’s question about what will happen now, the Minister said that
“the noble Lord, Lord Geidt, raised a number of issues about the role of the independent adviser, as indeed did PACAC in its session earlier this week. As was said this morning, it is right to consider those carefully and take time to reflect on them before moving forward. However, this role has been important in public life.”—[Official Report, 16/6/22; cols. 1747-48.]
How long will it take the Government to reflect, and does the Minister still think that this role is important in public life?
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the opportunity to hear this important debate. At one point in what I thought was a very interesting and wide-ranging speech from the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, he referred to politicians being infuriated by things that they hear and by each other. I am never infuriated by your Lordships—certainly never at the Dispatch Box. One is always improved by hearing debates in your Lordships’ House, and I thank noble Lords for their contributions. They will not be surprised that I have not agreed wholeheartedly with all of them, but I thank all those who have spoken. Indeed, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Morse, for moving the Motion on this important topic, which I believe should be a topic of universal agreement. Who does not want to see the highest standards of behaviour and honesty in public life?
It would not be unreasonable to note that it was one minute and 15 seconds into the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Morse, when he moved from the general to the particular and launched an attack on my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. This remained a theme in his speech, and it seemed to be a theme that is quite congenial to many noble Lords who spoke. Noble Lords will not, with all respect, expect me to agree with that. I understand some of the criticisms, which the Prime Minister has acknowledged, which allude to faults and mistakes. Some ventured into hyperbole. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, and the noble Lord, Lord Desai, in a characteristically fresh and interesting contribution, added some useful correctives.
I feel there was a sense behind some of the speeches that if one could somehow remove, without election, an elected Prime Minister with the confidence of the House of Commons, then we would all emerge as chevaliers sans peur et sans reproche, and public life would be wonderful. The noble Lord, Lord Mann, in the opening of a powerful speech, had a strong response on this: issues of trust are very wide, and I think the House was silent when he made what some might have felt was a shocking reference to this House’s performance in regard to the referendum result.
The standards for public servants in the United Kingdom, including those who serve in public life, are expected to be high, and I agree with my noble friend Lord Balfe and others, that we bear a particular responsibility, and that is the focus of today’s debate. Although we beat each other up, those standards are rightly regarded as among the world’s strongest still.
In relation to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, there is, as noble Lords know, an upcoming Procedure Committee inquiry into subjects which some have alluded to, and I am not going to pre-empt the conclusions of another place. I acknowledge that the Government asked the country to make extraordinary sacrifices in the Covid pandemic, into which there will be a full and, I hope, searching inquiry which will reflect the principle of transparency—which, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mann, is very important. The Prime Minister has acknowledged, in the other place, people’s anger and hurt, and offered a full and unreserved apology for the mistakes made. I do not propose to repeat the Prime Minister’s words, but I reiterate that he has been clear he is committed to making changes to address the issues raised, and learn from those mistakes, which is one of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, raised.
The Government have already been taking steps since the Second Permanent Secretary’s interim update to address some of the specific shortcomings identified in the report and ensure that there is stronger and more professional leadership. This includes appointing a new Permanent Secretary to lead the new leadership team in No. 10, charged with applying the highest standards of governance, as well as ensuring that every government department has a clear policy on the consumption of alcohol in the workplace.
I acknowledge your Lordships’ impatience to hear a response to all the very important reports that have been put to the Government. My erstwhile noble friend Lady Wheatcroft asked about the Boardman review. The Government are carefully considering both the Boardman review report and the other reports that have been referred to, such as the CSPL report on upholding public standards. They are wide-ranging reports.
Some of the recommendations from the CSPL report have already been responded to, as has been alluded to, in terms of the Ministerial Code. On the Boardman report, some changes have been implemented and made public. For example, the Treasury has issued revised guidance on the use of supply chain finance and the Government have recently made changes to the independent adviser role and the Ministerial Code, which are also alluded to in that report, in response. The Government will respond to those reports. Again, I have to disappoint your Lordships by saying that this will be in due course, but these are important matters. Your Lordships have rightly underlined their importance, and I will take that message back.
The seven principles of public life are woven into the codes of conduct for Members of this House and those of another place. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, complains that the seven principles are not in the foreword. They were put in the foreword of the previous version by the current Prime Minister, and I believe they are in section 1 of the Ministerial Code. The principles are central to the code, which sets the standards of behaviour expected of those of us who have served, do serve and will serve in Her Majesty’s Government, which I hope Her Majesty will oversee for many more years to come. The seven principles of course apply much more widely too. They apply to all civil servants, to those in local government and across public life.
There were some interesting references and thoughts in the debate on honour and a moral framework. The noble Lord, Lord Mann, said with a touch of regret that the time when honour was enough has passed. The right reverend Prelate spoke of the need for a moral framework, as did my noble friend Lord Cormack. It is certainly true that, long before the seven principles, there was a good and simple principle that reigned in your Lordships’ House which did not, in those days, have an army of institutions to police: that every Peer should stand on his or her honour. That may not be the whole answer, but I believe it is for each of us. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, talked about conscience. Each of us must stand on what we believe is our honour and I will certainly always try to be truthful at this Dispatch Box.
I reject the assertion that standards of behaviour and honesty across public life or in other areas have declined to the degree that some of your Lordships have asserted. I would argue that there are some areas of public life where standards are higher and enforced more firmly, by both colleagues and opponents, than they ever were. All of us have the overriding duty not to betray the trust of the people, returning to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mann. There are big issues. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, reminded us that policies and politics are also things we are all judged on. We are not complacent about matters of ethics and conduct, or about upholding the principles of public life. We should all remain vigilant about the need to hold ourselves to the high standards the public expect of us, and to account for our behaviour.
There is another side to that. I have been guilty in the past and doubtless will be again of lashing out with criticism of people in other political parties who strive in all honour to do their best for the public and the public polity. I challenge the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, when he perhaps impishly said that the Church could not be Conservative because of a concern for the poor. Does he not believe that Conservatives strive to elevate the condition of the people and have ever done so since the days when Disraeli spoke of the two nations in our country? We should not throw so many stones at each other so furiously that perceptions, which many noble Lords have alluded to, that standards of behaviour have deteriorated become self-fulfilling prophecies.
We must be held to account. The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, made some interesting remarks on that, saying that we perhaps place ourselves at the mercy of powerful interests outside the House if we criticise each other when it is not justified. I do not challenge justified criticism. He also made some interesting remarks about resignation, which is of course the ultimate weapon—the ultimate resort—and he gave some very good examples.
Turning to some of the specifics in the debate before I run out of time, many noble Lords addressed the role of the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests and the Ministerial Code. The noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, in a thoughtful and in some places challenging speech, said that there is a balance here. There are difficult issues which must be reflected on. The reforms recently made represent the most substantial strengthening of the role of the independent adviser since its creation in 2006. I will not go through all the changes that were made but I will touch on a couple of the most important, which some of your Lordships alluded to. The independent adviser’s role has been expanded to include a new ability to initiate investigations in relation to allegations where there has been a breach of the code. That is a significant change. Some say that the long-stop demur of the Prime Minister is unacceptable. I have given instances where that might be necessary. The noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, added his own insights on that. However, it is a move forward.
The Ministerial Code now also includes new detail on proportionate sanctions for a breach of the code. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, said on that. That was a recommendation, which we supported, of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. The Government have agreed that the independent adviser will also be consulted about revisions to the code, again as recommended by the Committee on Standards in Public Life. It was the opinion of the former independent adviser that this new regime was workable but now, in light of the recent resignation of the noble Lord, Lord Geidt, the Government have further committed to considering the adviser’s role and to reviewing how best this important function can be delivered.
Last week, the noble Lord, Lord Geidt, raised a number of issues in relation to the role of the independent adviser, as did the PACAC, to which he gave evidence just prior to his resignation. It is right that these comments be carefully considered, which means that time will be taken to reflect on them before a decision is taken on how best to fulfil the Prime Minister’s commitment to ensuring rigorous oversight and scrutiny of ministerial interests. I know that some concern has been expressed about the timing and potential outcome of this review. Let me echo the commitment made by my right honourable friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office earlier this week in the other place. The Government will undertake this work in good time. The independent adviser’s role is an important one and our commitment is that it should continue.
Be in no doubt that we remain fully committed to making sure that all Ministers maintain high standards of behaviour and behave in a way that upholds the highest standards of propriety, as the public rightly expects—and, frankly, carefully watches. Woe betide those whom the public conclude are irredeemable. We want to ensure that whatever arrangements are made, they are workable and can be trusted by Parliament and Ministers alike.
I reassure noble Lords that during this period of review, the process of managing ministerial interests will continue, in line with the Ministerial Code. I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, said about Permanent Secretaries. In the interim, the code sets out that Permanent Secretaries in each department and in the Cabinet Office can provide advice to Ministers and play a role. We published transparency information just two weeks ago, in the form of the latest list of ministerial interests. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Mann, that transparency information is a key part of accountability. Accountability is one of the issues that one must reflect on in talking about creating statutory bodies which have oversight of elected officials or Ministers. To whom are such bodies ultimately accountable, in the way that the Prime Minister is accountable for the conduct of matters?
I agreed with what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn said about the need to adhere to a moral framework and with his remarks about a growing illiberalism in our society. That is not a comment about the Liberal party but about how a sense that one has to think one way appears to be emerging—he referred to the so-called cancel culture. That is a form of intolerance which is unattractive.
I was asked about the Northern Ireland protocol, and some noble Lords referred to breaking international law. We will have opportunity to debate the Northern Ireland protocol and indeed, shortly, matters relating to retained European law and the Bill of Rights proposals. The Government’s position as to the Northern Ireland protocol legislation is that it is lawful under international law, and the Government’s legal position is set out in the policy paper that the Foreign Office published online on the Government’s website on 13 June.
On secondary legislation, I accept that there is a widespread feeling in your Lordships’ House that this is a thorny topic. It is the position constitutionally that delegated powers are granted only by Acts of Parliament, each one of which will have been thoroughly scrutinised in both Houses of Parliament. Your Lordships’ Delegated Powers Committee rightly challenges the Government, and the Government will seek to make sure that there is an appropriate balance between measures that are put in a Bill and those which, for various reasons, will need to be delegated. Ultimately, however, it is for Parliament and your Lordships’ House in the passage of legislation to consider these matters. For example, the Schools Bill was referred to as being currently scrutinised in Committee in the Lords; the Government are listening carefully and engaging closely with Peers on these important debates.
My noble friend Lord Wolfson, in an opening speech which one could not forget although it was quite early in the debate, made a powerful contribution on the rule of law. He recalled the events of 2005, which I think were a great sadness to many of us who were either working here or Members of the House at that time, when, I believe, ill-considered reform led to the changes in the office of Lord Chancellor which have taken place. He made no criticism of successor Lord Chancellors, and I endorse what he said about my right honourable friends Sir Robert Buckland and Mr Raab—I assure the House that their intent and desire to uphold the rule of law is absolutely clear. I will reflect carefully on my noble friend’s speech, but it is not a current priority for the Government to assess whether further legislative changes to the office might be necessary. The Ministry of Justice submitted evidence to this effect to your Lordships’ Constitution Committee inquiry into the role of the Lord Chancellor, which is published on the committee website.
I finish by saying that the Government continue to regard standards in public life as of paramount importance and the seven principles of public life as the bedrock of ethical conduct and integrity. The whole Government, from the Prime Minister down, are committed to making sure that all Ministers are held to account for maintaining high standards of behaviour and behaving in a way that upholds the highest standards of propriety, as the public rightly expect. As part of that commitment, we continue to consider carefully the recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life and the other committees that have been referred to, and will update your Lordships’ House on this work in due course.
Lord Morse (CB)
My Lords, briefly, I thank your Lordships very much for this debate and the fantastic quality of all the speeches. I do not see how I can pick out any particular ones to praise, because there were so many very impressive contributions that, as a relatively new Member of the House, I took note of. I will mention only the comments of the noble Lord, Lord True, for two reasons. He showed imperturbable resolve at the Dispatch Box, and it came as a bit of a surprise to me to find that repeating facts was regarded as an attack on the Prime Minister. But with that, I thank your Lordships very much for participating in this debate.
Social Security (Additional Payments) Bill
Thursday 23rd June 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Social Security (Additional Payments) Act 2022 View all Social Security (Additional Payments) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 22 June 2022 - (22 Jun 2022)
Bill of Rights
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
At Oral Questions earlier today the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, described the Bill of Rights as a better balance between the judiciary and the legislators, between UK judges and Strasbourg and between rights and obligations. We will have ample time to test that aspiration when the Bill comes before this House, probably in September, but this is more than a rebalancing of the scales; it is potentially a practical reduction in the ability of victims to get a remedy through the ECHR framework.
I shall start with one practical example, which is the Worboys case. Over six years, the black cab rapist John Worboys raped and sexually assaulted more than 100 women. Relying on the positive obligations under Article 3—the right not to be treated in an inhumane and degrading way—two of his victims challenged the Metropolitan Police’s failures to bring Worboys to justice and stop his attacks. A UK court held that, thanks to the Human Rights Act, the police are under a legal duty to take reasonable steps to investigate credible allegations of serious crime. The question for the Minister is: why does the Lord Chancellor want to remove these positive obligations that have been used by victims of crime to seek justice?
There are other examples, but it is right to focus on the victims of this proposed legislative change. The other examples that are very much in the public domain are the Hillsborough disaster, Deepcut Barracks and the issues raised about “Do not resuscitate” notices. There is real fear that this so-called rebalancing of the scales will lead to a diminution of the remedies practically available to victims.
There are other serious implications of this legislation. The situation in Northern Ireland was alluded to earlier today. This is an in-depth and complicated question, but is the Minister willing to go further and reflect on the potential implications of the Bill for the Good Friday agreement?
The chairs of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee and the Justice Committee in the other place, the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Constitution Committee have all written to the Lord Chancellor asking that he submit the Bill of Rights for pre-legislative scrutiny. Can the Minister explain why the Lord Chancellor is refusing to use this legislative opportunity?
The Lord Chancellor claims that these proposals will put the Supreme Court in the driving seat, but, if the UK remains a signatory to the ECHR, it will follow the Strasbourg court’s rulings, within the margin of appreciation afforded to all national courts. Given that we will still ultimately have to follow the ECHR within the margin of appreciation, what do the Government’s proposals actually change?
There are a lot of questions about this legislation. There is huge expertise in this House, and I am sure that the noble and learned Lord himself has considerable expertise in this matter. But there are profound questions about the practical impact on victims and their ability to access the human rights framework.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I hope the House will forgive me, but I am neither a lawyer nor a historian—I gave up studying history at 1066—so I would be grateful if the Minister could correct me if any of my observations are erroneous.
In his 1859 book On Liberty, John Stuart Mill talked about the tyranny of the majority—an inherent weakness in majority rule, in which the majority of an electorate pursues exclusively its own objectives at the expense of those of the minority factions. As I understand it, the origins of the European Convention on Human Rights are from when the democratically elected German Parliament passed the 1933 enabling Act, which enabled the Chancellor to bypass the system of checks and balances in the Government and the laws created under them, allowing actions that could explicitly violate individual rights prescribed in the Weimar constitution. Perhaps more accurately, it could be said that the Chancellor decreed that certain people were no longer citizens and therefore did not have the rights given to them under that constitution. After the war, this led Winston Churchill to ask predominantly British lawyers to draft the European Convention on Human Rights, not least because the sovereign will of a democratically elected parliament needs a backstop of universal human rights to protect the individual from the state and the tyranny of the majority. Churchill reportedly said that
“it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time”—
this was presumably before he knew about proportional representation.
I also welcome the Minister’s appointment to the Front Bench. He will no doubt say that the UK will not leave the European Convention on Human Rights but will just ensure that it is interpreted in accordance with what Parliament says it means and how British courts interpret it. This is where I get somewhat confused. My understanding is that the Government propose to allow British courts to ignore European Court of Human Rights case law, if they disagree with it, but that individuals will still have the right to take their case to the European Court of Human Rights, which will take account of its own case law. Other than wasting thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money on fighting cases in Strasbourg that could have been settled in UK courts, what is the point of UK courts ignoring the European Court of Human Rights, if the next stop in the appeal process is the European Court of Human Rights?
The whole purpose of international conventions, and of sovereign countries signing up to them, is to ensure that the rights that they confer are universally applied. The UN refugee convention is slightly different, in that there is no court of arbitration or international court to adjudicate where different sovereign countries interpret the convention in different ways. But, in the Nationality and Borders Act, the Government effectively said, “This is the British Parliament’s interpretation of the UN refugee convention, and British courts must abide by what Parliament says the convention means.” The Government have said that rights conferred by the UN refugee convention do not apply to class 2 refugees—that is, to those whom Parliament, through the Act, has said are excluded from those rights.
In the absence of the equivalent of the European Court of Human Rights for the UN refugee convention, it will be for British courts to decide on the legality of the Nationality and Borders Act. However, that approach will not work—or that is my understanding—with the European Convention on Human Rights, because there is an international court that arbitrates on ECHR cases. How does the approach work—that the UK Parliament is sovereign and British courts will interpret the European Convention on Human Rights in accordance with what we say—if the UK remains a signatory to the European convention and subject to the rulings of the European Convention on Human Rights? Can the Minister also say whether the UK Parliament being sovereign means the Westminster Parliament or the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments? What happens if those Parliaments refuse to pass legislative consent Motions?
One of my favourite expressions is that of the late Magnus Magnusson, the former host of “Mastermind”, who described a difficult question as one you do not know the answer to. Perhaps we should now add that the European Court of Human Rights going beyond reasonable interpretation of the convention is a case where the British Government disagree with that court. In other words, is this Bill of Rights without any real substance, or the end of universally applicable human rights in the UK? This Government have tried to end universally applicable human rights for refugees. Is this the Government’s attempt to extend that ban to every citizen?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
I thank noble Lords for those remarks, which are very sincerely put forward and entitled to deep respect on this side of the House. In due course, if and when the Bill reaches this House, we need to grapple with all those points. If I may, I should like to deal quickly with the points made and then see whether I can expand a little on what I was saying this morning about the constructive balance that this legislation seeks to achieve. In response to the noble Lord who asked whether this was the end of human rights as we know it or whether the Bill did not do anything, I think the answer from the Government’s side is that we are trying to strike that constructive balance in the middle.
Forgive me if I omit some points, but I shall take them very quickly. On the Worboys and Hillsborough points, and those related matters, the Government take Articles 2 and 3 extremely seriously and it is not the intention to weaken them. In relation to positive obligations, the focus of those provisions is what one can call the extended jurisprudence, which extends into what one can call socioeconomic rights—social benefits, clean air and all those related matters, which in the Government’s view are primarily a matter for Parliament and not the judiciary or to be addressed under this human rights legislation.
I am sure that we will come to Northern Ireland in more detail in due course. The Government are quite satisfied that the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the Good Friday agreement and other relevant Northern Irish considerations. As for pre-legislative scrutiny, the Government have consulted fully on the Bill; the consultation included draft clauses, and it seemed appropriate for the Government to proceed as they are now proceeding. A main emphasis of the Bill is to underline, and encourage UK courts to take advantage of, this margin of appreciation. As a result of the initiative taken by the UK in establishing the Brighton declaration, which took effect only in August last year, the principle of a margin of appreciation and subsidiarity are written into the convention.
It should be appreciated that, in 1950, Winston Churchill and the others who were engaged in this matter did not think that they were abandoning parliamentary sovereignty; they just did not. They thought that they were conferring on a court the ability to interpret a convention but they did not by any means reach the point that this Parliament was surrendering its sovereign right to legislate as it saw fit. We can get into detail with John Stuart Mill, what happened in the 1930s and all that sort of thing, but we are now in 2022 and faced with the present legal situation.
Having made those brief comments on the points already made, I would like to see whether I can make good my earlier point on constructive balance. First, let us take the things in this Bill that do not change. We remain in the convention. The convention rights are still protected in domestic law. Public authorities continue to be obliged to act in accordance with the convention unless there is superior primary legislation to the contrary. People will still be able to rely on their rights in any court or tribunal; if there is a question later about the so-called permission stage, I will deal with it then. UK domestic higher courts are still able to give a declaration of incompatibility with the convention; it will then be for Parliament to resolve what will happen next. Claimants who have exhausted all their local remedies in the domestic jurisdiction are still able to go to Strasbourg. It may not happen very frequently— personally, I suspect that it will not happen—but that opportunity is still there. Article 46, which was mentioned this morning, is still there.
In the occasional case where there is a finding that the UK is in breach of the convention, there is necessarily a political settlement through the Committee of Ministers procedure to find ways of ensuring compliance with the convention. In this context, I do not use the word “enforcement” because one does not really talk about enforcement of the convention; ways of compliance are traditionally found through political action in the Committee of Ministers.
All that remains as it has been. So what is changing? That is the second part of my explanation. In the Bill, it is clarified that the domestic courts are not bound to follow the jurisprudence of the Strasbourg court. As far as I know—I am happy to be corrected—it has never been the case that the decisions of Strasbourg are considered binding in a general sense. They may be binding in an individual case against an individual state but the general jurisprudence is not binding and the ability of domestic courts, whether in the UK or another member state, to diverge from the jurisprudence is recognised and established under the convention.
That was certainly the position of Sir Peter Gross in his independent review. That distinguished review and the panel who assisted Sir Peter, to whom I take this opportunity to pay tribute, recommended that UK law, including common-law legislation and Scots law, should take centre stage—that was the phrase used—and that it should be recognised that UK courts have the right to diverge from the generality of Strasbourg jurisprudence. That is something that the Government are acting on; it is what is currently in Clause 3 of this Bill and is in Section 2 of the Human Rights Act. So that is the first thing.
Secondly, the courts will not be required to rewrite legislation as they are required to under Section 3 of the existing Act to make it compatible with convention rights. Thirdly, and of great importance, particular weight is attached to freedom of speech under this Bill and there is greater protection for journalistic sources. Courts will not, however, be able to impose new positive obligations on public authorities and will have to consider carefully the impact on such public authorities by applying existing ones. We can come back to that. There are other protections but I am already beginning to run out of time. It will be more difficult for foreign criminals to invoke Article 8 on the right to private and family life. There will be a permission stage and there will be various other procedural changes.
The final thing to mention in this list—I am sorry it is a long list—is that the Bill is excluding extraterritorial jurisdiction or military operations abroad, subject to there being in place comparable legislation to give effect to all our obligations under the laws of war and related points. This Bill is not abolishing human rights. It is preserving, strengthening and increasing democratic oversight. That is the Government’s case and I look forward to further detailed debate.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy for the general position articulated by my noble and learned friend, and I expressed my reasons earlier. If we transfer to the Supreme Court the role of the ultimate arbiter of the convention rights, what impact does that have on obligations overseas and international obligations we have already undertaken? Would he give this House, either today or more fully later, a fairly comprehensive statement on the impact on our international obligations so that noble Lords can take a considered view on where the balance of advantage lies?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I thank the noble Viscount and gratefully accept his invitation to give such a considered and more detailed view at a later stage.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I welcome the Minister once more. He spoke at some length, rightly, on the interpretation provisions, which are obviously incredibly important given the relationship between our continuing commitment—as I understand it—to the Convention on Human Rights and the need to enforce these at home. Clause 3, which he referred to, quite rightly says:
“The Supreme Court is the ultimate judicial authority”,
as the noble and learned Lord agreed is the current provision. Yet, the Supreme Court is told in Clause 3(3)(a) that it
“may not adopt an interpretation of the right that expands the protection”
beyond the Strasbourg court. In other words, the Strasbourg court may not expand human rights and nor may the Supreme Court, which looks a little bit like the Government telling courts over there and over here what their limits should be in protecting people’s human rights.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for that question, which will require further and detailed thought as we go along. The essential purpose of this part of the Bill and the provisions to which the noble Baroness refers is to incorporate into legislation the test recently enunciated in the Supreme Court by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reed. He said essentially that the UK courts should not go further than the Strasbourg court under human rights legislation unless they are satisfied that the Strasbourg court would. This is not intended to do any more than incorporate in statutory form what the Supreme Court has already said.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I welcome the noble and learned Lord to his place and congratulate him on his appointment. I declare an interest as having been one of the members of the Commission on a Bill of Rights, which the coalition Government set up. The majority, which included the late Lord Lester, concluded that there should be a British Bill of Rights. It has now been nearly 25 years since the Human Rights Act. I do not think there was any pre-legislative scrutiny of that Act, nor was there a Green Paper or a White Paper. I respectfully agree with the Government that it is time to look again at how the Human Rights Act has worked in practice, so I welcome this opportunity. We will no doubt scrutinise carefully what is in the Bill and whether it makes an improvement.
I welcome the emphasis on freedom of speech—I declare an interest as the chair of the Independent Press Standards Organisation—in particular the protection of the disclosure of journalists’ sources, which I ask the noble and learned Lord to comment on. Could he help me at all in what way they will be further and better protected, or may be, by this Bill, while entirely applauding what lies behind those clauses?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his comments, with which I respectfully and very largely agree. Freedom of speech is, of course, a keystone of our constitution. That is what the Act is intended to reinforce. On journalistic sources, the Bill’s wording is intended to make it plain that when a balance has to be struck, as it occasionally does, on revealing journalistic sources, then “great”—I think that is the word— but predominant weight is given to the protection of journalism, which is so essential to free speech in our society.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister, whom I too welcome to his position, can unpack a sentence in yesterday’s press release, issued at the time of the Bill’s publication. It says:
“The Bill will ensure courts cannot interpret laws in ways that were never intended by Parliament”.
That seems to be about something different from compatibility. It is not about ambiguity in legislation, where there might be a Pepper v Hart issue. Is this a suggestion that the courts should be reading parliamentarians’ minds if they have not managed to express themselves properly?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
It is always difficult to read parliamentarians’ minds; that is absolutely true. I think the noble Baroness is referring to Section 3 of the present Act, which specifically asks the court to rewrite legislation—to change what Parliament intended. That power is being repealed.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I join others in welcoming my noble and learned friend to this House and to his new responsibilities as a Minister. With all due respect, I ask him to persuade his colleagues in government when advancing the cause of this particular legislation not to rely, when seeking to knock down Article 8 points, on factually inaccurate case law, such as that somebody was allowed to remain in this country because they had a relationship with a cat. Far too many of these silly examples are often used by Ministers to denigrate the European convention. It does not add to the advance of any discussion.
Can my noble and learned friend please tell me the policy reason behind why the provision in Clause 8(5)(c) describes a “qualifying child” of a person who is under threat of deportation to be someone who
“has lived in the United Kingdom for a continuous period of seven years or more”?
That suggests that a child under the age of seven who, although not a British citizen, has lived all their life in this country does not qualify as a qualifying child. That does not sound very civilised to me.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
If I may respectfully agree, this legislation should not be based on the kind of fairy tales which the noble and learned Lord just mentioned. As for this House, we will progress on the basis of the forensic and evidence-based analysis of the situation. I confess that, on the hoof, I am not immediately able to help him with Clause 8(5). If I may, I shall take that away and, if I am able and it is appropriate, come back to the House on the point he makes.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My question concerns the precedent set by allowing our national courts to trump the European Court of Human Rights. The Minister will be aware that one of the great problems of the Council of Europe is the number of serial defaulters: countries that refuse to accept the judgment of the court. I speak as someone who was once a Foreign Office adviser to our delegation and served on the legal affairs committee of the Council of Europe for 10 years. In the past, we have spoken from a position of strength, even when we disagreed with the judgment or reached a compromise, as we did over the Hirst case on prisoners’ rights. Will we not in future, because of this position, give support to those countries who wish to default and lose our high status as a country which honours its obligations?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
The noble Lord makes a fair point. My reply is that we have no reason to suppose that the UK’s exemplary record in Strasbourg will in any way weaken as a result of this legislation. As the noble Lord knows, we have far and away the best record of compliance—certainly in recent years. In 2020, of the 268 cases brought against the United Kingdom, in only two were breaches found. Our record, plus our very active and continuing involvement in the Council of Europe, in which the noble Lord was previously involved, continues, and will continue. That is why I use the word “constructive” together with the word “balance”.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn
I support the provisions in the Bill that strengthen the right to free speech and the freedom to believe, and the expression of that belief. I have a concern over Clause 20 and the Secretary of State’s ability to make a decision which limits the right to appeal, regardless of the will or good processes of the court. What assurances can the Minister give that interventions will happen only where the will of Parliament can be reasonably understood on a matter? Without such assurances, I fear we will find ourselves hostages of the political will and aspirations of the particular Secretary of State that we have at the time, and cannot be sure that decisions are made for the good of the law over the good of politics.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I thank the right reverend Prelate. Perhaps I may take that question under advisement and place a response in the Library in due course, or whatever is the proper mechanism, to reassure the right reverend Prelate on that point. I take this opportunity to mention that the freedom of practice of religion is also specifically mentioned in the Bill, as he just pointed out.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
First, I warmly welcome my noble and learned friend to the Front Bench. Although he has achieved the giddy heights of the Front Bench, I have not yet seen him on legal Twitter—which, of course, is a wonderful place. Some lawyers on Twitter were able to pass comment on the Bill before it was even published, which is indeed a remarkable feat. The response so far seems to be that some people regard the Bill as doing nothing very much and just tinkering on the margins, while others see it as the death of human rights in this jurisdiction. I am sure that the Minister will agree on one point: that they cannot both be right. Against that background, does the Minister agree that what we really need in this country, especially in this House, is a proper debate about human rights? Public law is too important to be left only to public lawyers. Therefore, does he look forward, as I do, to proper debate on this very important Bill, which I warmly welcome?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
Indeed, my Lords, I warmly welcome the prospect of the full, frank and very free debate we shall have in this House—an informed and instructive debate. The Government will be listening very carefully to the points made.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, is the ability to appeal to the Strasbourg court for very many people more theoretical than real? The court is understaffed; it takes a great deal of time to get there and a great deal of money to process a case. In reality, are many people not being denied their human rights, in all practical purposes, because the right of appeal is only theoretical for them?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My friend—the noble Lord—is quite right that the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg is grappling with enormous problems. That is why the Government take the view that the vast majority of cases are better dealt with in our own jurisdiction, which is familiar to the general public and in which the public and the Government have confidence. The orientation towards cases being dealt with here in the UK is both pragmatic and right in principle.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
Will the Minister momentarily set aside his ministerial responsibilities and address us in his capacity as a very distinguished lawyer? On the subject of the potential of the Bill to fall into the hands of those not of good will, I think it could be damaging in future to the human rights which he clearly supports personally and wishes to see protected. I think that he will agree that it is a constant worry to anyone watching the progress of any legislation that it might be capable of being misused by those who come after. Does he see any danger of that happening with this legislation?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, it is a danger to which we need to be alert. As I am presently advised, I do not see that danger. The convention rights are in the Bill; we are still in the convention and those protections have not changed. It is very difficult to imagine a situation in which a future Government might take us out of the convention—they might, but that is not the position of the present Government. So far as I can, I give the noble Baroness the assurance she seeks.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, when the European convention was promulgated in 1950 and enshrined in 1953, this country already had strong and trusted laws in place that guaranteed free speech, religious pluralism, habeas corpus and so on. Will my noble and learned friend the Minister confirm that charters of this kind are not so much about the creation of new rights as about appointing a different set of people to arbitrate rights or to come and interpret between competing claims? Can he identify any specific advantages that have come to this country as a result of our adherence to the European convention?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My noble friend is quite right that the rights in this country go back many years. I will not, as a cliché, invoke Magna Carta, but it is perfectly plain that this country has a long and proud history of freedoms—they were not called human rights then—over very many years. When the Human Rights Act 1998 was introduced, the Government of the day described it as bringing rights home. I agree with my noble friend that they never actually left in the first place.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, freedom of speech is to be a central pillar of the UK Bill of Rights. Article 8 has been referred to on multiple occasions this afternoon. Is it anticipated by the Government, in light of this statement on the protection of sources, that the case of Mr Assange could indeed centre around that right under a future UK Bill of Rights?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I will resist the temptation to refer to a pending case. I hope noble Lords can forgive me.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
By reference to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, does the Minister remember a time when, for example, prison staff read all prisoners’ correspondence to stop them petitioning? There were a number of practices with regard to prisoners, but it was only under orders of the Strasbourg court—orders which the Home Office was happy to lose; I was arguing them—that our prison regime was brought into an acceptable state and prisoners were allowed any rights at all.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
Historically, of course, the noble and learned Lord is completely right, as one would assume. At this point, I take my ministerial hat off and put my personal hat on and take this opportunity to pay tribute to the European Court of Human Rights over the years, and indeed to the Council of Europe. In answer to my noble friend Lord Hannan, I say that the very fact of our membership and the dissemination of rights through the Council of Europe that it has enabled is a very positive element for Europe in general, in my humble, respectful and personal view. That does not mean that everything is necessarily fine, and the Government’s view is that it is time, after over 20 years of the Human Rights Act, to look at it again and do some rebalancing.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, is it not right, in fact, that we will gain a great deal by still looking at decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in the future, but that we should also look at other courts in other jurisdictions? There has perhaps been a danger of the common law developing since the Human Rights Act based almost exclusively on Strasbourg jurisprudence, while there is wisdom elsewhere in the world as well.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I respectfully and fully agree with my noble friend; there are many other sources. The Canadian charter of rights is a prime example of what he says. Having worked personally in both the civil system and a common-law system in other lives, no one is more convinced than I am of the strengths of the common law on which we should draw for our freedoms.
United Kingdom: The Union
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lisvane
To move that this House takes note of the stresses upon the Union of the United Kingdom.
Relevant document: 10th Report, Session 2021-22, from the Constitution Committee
Lord Lisvane (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to raise once again the issue of the integrity of the union of the United Kingdom and its resilience against increasing stresses. I am afraid I cannot emulate the wonderful brevity of my noble friend Lord Morse in introducing the first debate this morning, but I do not intend to take up the whole of the very generous allocation of time I have been given. I am very sorry that this is to be the valedictory speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn, and I look forward very much to hearing what he has to say during the debate.
I was fortunate to secure a debate on the same subject in January 2019. The union was then faced with a number of uncertainties—principally, perhaps, the effects of Brexit. As your Lordships’ European Union Committee said at the time,
“the European Union has been, in effect, part of the glue holding the United Kingdom together”.
More than three years later, those uncertainties remain, and in some respects they have become more threatening. Brexit is done, we are told. I have no wish at all to return to those damaging and divisive times in our history. We have to make the best of things but the present situation is, to say the least, untidy.
A brief survey will suffice. There is the extraordinary behaviour of the Government over the Northern Ireland protocol, which they negotiated and which the Prime Minister trumpeted with such enthusiasm. Now the Government wish to take powers to renounce significant parts of the protocol. This is against the background of Sinn Féin becoming for the first time the largest party in the Northern Ireland Assembly, and the movement towards a border poll that might, in due course, thereby come closer. In the meantime, there is no functioning Executive, and the clock is ticking on the 24-week deadline for the Secretary of State to appoint a date for new Assembly elections.
In Scotland, the devolved Administration’s Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution has said that a second independence referendum is planned for October 2023. Whether that is possible in any form which would be legally binding without a Section 30 order is yet to be determined. That seems unlikely, but the prospect of an advisory referendum is one which Mrs Sturgeon will want to keep constantly in the public eye, if only as a distraction from her Administration’s less than perfect delivery of public services. The UK Government have set their face against a second referendum, which is a conflict that Holyrood will try to use to its advantage. The opinion polls seem to be a little less favourable to independence than they were, but the hazard remains.
In Wales, the Welsh Government have established the Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales to consider and develop durable options for fundamental reform of the constitutional structures of the UK and to strengthen Welsh democracy. The co-chair of the commission, Laura McAllister, has said that the commission
“has a licence to be radical”
and that it will
“explore options for governing Wales as a distinct nation within the UK”,
and also, significantly,
“the options for a future for Wales outside the Union.”
The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, who is unable to be in his place this afternoon, asked a Question for Short Debate in Grand Committee on 9 June on the possibility of a new constitutional relationship for the four parts of the United Kingdom. He listed reasons why Wales was becoming less in sympathy with the current constitutional settlement, including the ignoring of recommendations such as those of the Silk commission for devolved police powers and those of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, for changes in the legal framework; he also alluded to a perceived unfairness in the deployment of structural and social funds. Of course, the noble Lord spoke from his Plaid Cymru point of view, but as a Welshman by birth and title, I can appreciate the force of those points and their unhelpful bearing on the cohesion of the United Kingdom.
In that debate Lord Wigley proposed a confederal approach in which the three nations and the Province agree to pool their sovereignty for certain purposes. This has something in common with the approach of the Constitution Reform Group, convened and chaired by the Marquess of Salisbury, a former distinguished Member and Leader of your Lordships’ House. The group produced the Act of Union Bill, an earlier version of which I introduced in the previous Parliament, and an updated version of which was published last year. This seeks to replace the present top-down method of devolution with an approach in which the constituent parts of the United Kingdom would decide which powers they wished to pool for greater solidarity and effectiveness. This is to suggest not a new written constitution but a way of dealing with what I describe as the imperial condescension of Whitehall towards the constituent parts of the United Kingdom.
For as long as the concept has existed, doing devolution has been difficult, requiring as it does the accommodation of ancient national pride and aspiration within structures of robust and effective co-operation. Some of the problems were set out with great clarity by your Lordships’ Constitution Committee in its excellent report Respect and Co-operation: Building a Stronger Union for the 21st Century, which is tagged on the Order Paper for this debate.
Incidentally, if I may digress just for a moment, I noted that the committee depended for its definition of parliamentary sovereignty—strictly, legislative sovereignty—upon the words of AV Dicey, even though his definition was almost the same as that of my learned predecessor Thomas Erskine May in the first edition of his Parliamentary Practice in 1844, when Professor Dicey, although no doubt precocious, was only nine years old.
The inherent difficulties of devolution have been exacerbated by the way in which devolution has been done, and this reflects our approach to constitutional change. Administrations of both colours have adopted a short-term, patchwork approach, in which changes are made with inadequate forethought and preparation, and, more especially, without consideration of wider effects and often, later, with buyer’s remorse. So it is with relationships between the different parts of the United Kingdom. A theme of the Constitution Committee’s report might be summarised as “mutual respect”; in other words, an end to the imperial condescension in which Whitehall knows best and decides how any cake is to be cut.
As to the future, there are a few—a very few—reasons for restrained optimism. It is possible that improved intergovernmental relations, drawing on the excellent work of the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, might be a factor, but that depends crucially on political will, and, as the Constitution Committee says,
“achieving shared objectives, rather than simply managing—or taking opportunities to accentuate … differences.”
Interparliamentary co-operation, in which our own Lord Speaker has taken a leading role, has a part to play. It may not have executive power, but it can bring powerful influences to bear on those who do, and if it can improve mutual understanding and make differing approaches compatible, it will be very well worthwhile.
However, what is needed above all from the Government is steadfast, clear direction and genuinely co-operative working in a constitutionally stable environment. That is exactly what we do not have, and it seems that we have precious little hope of it. The last two and a half years have been desperately difficult in so many ways, and the economic and cost of living crisis seems likely to be with us for some time. But it is precisely in such circumstances that we look to government for calm proportionality and fixity of purpose.
Instead, we have government by announcement; frequent policy U-turns, sometimes within the span of a single day; constant shoot-from-the-hip legislation, with sweeping powers given to Ministers for often unspecified purposes; shredded standards of conduct, as was clear from the earlier debate; an unlawful Prorogation; the taking of powers to override international law and solemnly concluded international agreements; and wild and ignorant suggestions, such as your Lordships deploying to York, which was roundly and rightly condemned by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, and others who spoke in his debate last week.
At the same time, our fears are meant to be assuaged by news such as the return of imperial measures—perhaps to go with the imperial condescension I mentioned a moment ago. Incidentally, I should tell noble Lords that I have been drinking excellent Herefordshire cider in imperial pints for very many years, EU or no EU.
If any theme can be made out in this maelstrom, it is one of greater centralisation and indeed presidentialism—although the fact that the Prime Minister is also Minister for the Union may strike your Lordships as one of those things which are beyond parody.
Thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, we may have had a sneak preview of the Minister’s reply to this debate, as he spoke on this subject on 9 June. I hope that it will not be exactly the same, tempting as that may be, because in its centenary year and in its present form, much more has to be done to preserve the union and all that it can deliver for the citizens of this United Kingdom. That is a task of which the Government have to show themselves not only worthy but capable. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, in this debate. It is an important debate, and one that takes place from time to time because it is right we should look at the stresses and strains that exist within our constitution and within the different parts of the United Kingdom.
I join the noble Lord in looking forward to the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn, and his valedictory few words; no doubt that will entertain all of us, and I am very keen to hear it.
We have had nearly 25 years of devolution—enough time for us to get used to it and for it bed down with our constitutional arrangements. But as the noble Lord has just pointed out, we have not done so. The stresses and strains are only too visible and too complicated, and it is clear that it will take considerably more time for them to bed down into a workable proposition.
The noble Lord mentioned his Act of Union Bill, which I regard as a good draft that we can all spend a great deal of time discussing. It is something that Governments should take seriously, because it points to a different intellectual approach to the governance of the country, rather than the one we have now. However, it is extremely hard to pursue that kind of debate politically when, in Scotland at any rate, we have a political party in power which is trying to tear up the United Kingdom as we speak and has so recently pledged itself to having a referendum in the next 12 months.
I will concentrate on Scotland, because I know and understand Scotland better than other parts of the United Kingdom, but some of what I will say has a read-across to the other parts. I will start with the need for co-operation, flagged up very much in the title of the Select Committee’s report. Co-operation seems to me fundamental to the workings of the British constitution, more so than mutual self-respect, which it goes without saying is important.
On co-operation—talking to each other and not doing things deliberately to undermine each other—I will give a very simple and personal example. As we overcame Covid through the use of vaccines, I went to my local GP and received two vaccines, several months apart. I received a certificate in the shape of a letter and then, miraculously, an app appeared on my phone. That was all very well and is an experience shared by most Peers. When it came to the third vaccination, the booster, I was spending a bit more time in London. I walked past a walk-in centre and, seeing no queue, I had it done quickly here. I explained that I was from Scotland and had a Scottish app, and they said, “That shouldn’t be a problem. I’m sure they’re all talking to each other.” No, they were not. There was no hint of co-operation at all and it took another two and a half months to get my Scottish app to recognise that I had already been boosted in England.
Translated many thousands of times, this all undermines the union we are talking about in very practical ways that are very visible to people in Scotland. The census was done differently in Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom—how utterly daft. The whole point of a census is that it is all done together, yet in Scotland we decided to do it rather differently and have been unable to achieve the kind of results achieved in the rest of the United Kingdom. The price of non-cooperation is unnecessary, expensive and bureaucratic processes, letting down people and affecting how they live. People are crying out for co-operation and that is what we should champion as much as possible.
People such as me who opposed devolution did so because we feared that there would be centralisation in Scotland. I am afraid to say that that is exactly what has happened. Local authorities have had their powers taken away to Edinburgh and the central belt dominates. None of this has done much good for the people of Scotland. Other parts of the United Kingdom can perhaps recognise what has happened.
I should say something about the SNP at this point. The noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, mentioned the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. I have said in the past and say so again today that it would be good for us to have a member of the SNP here. I know the SNP generally have a view that they should not send people here, but I wonder if it is not time for our Prime Minister to seek to do that. It is a voice that we do not hear in the House, but one that we really should have.
I therefore very much welcome the steps taken by the office of the Secretary of State for Scotland to try to fund local authority projects directly, looking at special instances where central money can be spent more wisely, so that devolution would mean real devolution down to local institutions.
There is another outstanding issue, that of tertiary education. If you are a Scottish student, it is very hard to be educated anywhere but in a Scottish university because of the way the funding works. In other words, Scottish students are excluded from the rest of the United Kingdom. This is not a sensible way of going forward. I do not offer a solution to that today, but central government should look at ways for students throughout the United Kingdom to be dealt with fairly.
My time is up. I very much hope that this debate will be taken seriously by the Government and that they will look at ways to strengthen the union.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the debate and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, on securing it. It is very timely, because it enables us to step back from the day-to-day business of Parliament and government and take a view on what may be happening and what may be going wrong. I agree with him, and it was said also by the previous speaker, that the stresses and strains are, if anything, getting worse. I congratulate the noble Lord on the way in which he introduced the debate. I know that there are many distinguished speakers still to come. I wish the right reverend Prelate all the very best in his valedictory speech and I hope he has enjoyed the time that he has had in this House.
About 30 years ago, a historian called Francis Fukuyama wrote a book called The End of History and the Last Man, in which he argued, as Members will know, that the progression of human history as a struggle between ideologies was largely at an end and the world was settling on liberal democracy after the end of the Cold War and the fall of the Berlin Wall. However, like reports of Mark Twain’s death, this was very premature, and the debate today takes place against a backdrop of global tensions between democratic and autocratic states, and it is by no means certain how things will play out. I mention that because I have the same feeling about the future of the United Kingdom. I am not at all clear yet how it will turn out.
I welcome the report by the Select Committee and congratulate its chair, members and staff on producing it, because it is a very important source as background for this debate.
Nations are capable of self-harm. I do not want to be too provocative, but it may be that in the future people will come to look back on the referendum of 2016 in that light. In the context of today’s debate, it strikes me as interesting that this is a Government and a Prime Minister who say that they got Brexit done, but I am not at all clear that that is the case. It is somewhat ironic that the party whose official name is the Conservative and Unionist Party should be presiding over the stresses and strains already identified by the two previous speakers and which, as I have said, are getting worse.
There are other aspects too. I want to mention just one. Every day, I submit a Question in the hope that I will be selected, and each day I fail. I will never be selected for the England cricket team on the basis of my batting average. The Question that I have been submitting is about the future of Horizon Europe and the extent to which our scientific community can co-operate internationally, which is at risk at the moment, as Members may know. I worry that if we are excluded, the shared scientific venture that helps bind the union together will also be at risk and may disappear—that is just one element of what I might call the collateral damage of current government policy. Of course, we know that the Government’s proposed Northern Ireland legislation to deal with the Northern Ireland protocol, which to some extent is unsolvable, contributes to these tensions.
To take Northern Ireland for a moment, the stresses on the union caused by the unresolved Northern Ireland protocol are plain to see. Only this week in this House, we had a debate about access to medical services for women in Northern Ireland. What was interesting about that debate was that a lot of Members—including those who supported the amendment to the Motion—argued that devolution was not being allowed to work properly and that the Government were imposing their view. That was the tension. I also looked into the Grand Committee yesterday to catch a glimpse of the Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Bill being discussed. I heard more than one noble Lord regret the fact that it was not the Northern Ireland Executive who were discussing the Bill.
I can understand that point of view, but we all know why, despite the recent elections, the Northern Ireland Assembly has not yet even been able to elect a Speaker and get itself established as a working Assembly. The apparently intractable issues of the Northern Ireland protocol—which, in fairness, were foreseen when John Major and Tony Blair went together to Northern Ireland in 2016 to warn against the possible difficulties of a certain outcome—are still with us. I do not yet claim to know how things will turn out, but the House will be aware of the possibility that, over time, the views of the people in Northern Ireland might change so that, one day, unification with the Republic may seem preferable to a problematic life within the UK. We will have to see.
To take Scotland, which has already been mentioned, the stresses put on the union by the outcome of the referendum are very clear. We know that Scotland voted to remain in the EU, and the Scottish National Party has been able to use that result ever since as the single biggest reason why Scotland should have another independence referendum and vote to secede from the UK. We know that the current Government have stated that they have no intention of allowing indyref2 but I do not know how much longer their position can be sustained, and it may go ahead anyway in one form or another. If there is another referendum, it would be good to have a really honest debate about the realities of the choice.
As for Wales, the history is different. I have often been to the Senedd myself and I think it has established its own method of devolution, which was emphasised by the Covid experience that we all lived through. The leader of the Welsh Assembly emerged as a figure who had perhaps not previously been appreciated. References have been made to the Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales, and we will wait to see what the outcome of that is.
In the short time I have left, I am not sure that I can suggest any long-term solutions, although I find myself agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, that imperial condescension by the centre is unlikely ever to be the solution to anything. Our constitution has of course grown in a very different way from that of other countries—such as when a politically motivated group of people gathered together in Philadelphia in 1787 to create a new constitution. Ours is strengthened by its flexibility, but one problem—I must finish now—is that the form of devolution that we have is what you might call asymmetric.
I end by saying that my fear for the long-term future of the UK is partly about the UK’s standing in the world. If we ever did break apart, our position would be for ever and fatally weakened, as indeed would our self-esteem. In those circumstances, if we were to break up as a country, could we imagine retaining a seat on the Security Council of the United Nations? I do not think so.
I do not think that history has ended. We still have our future in our hands, but this Government have to take the future of the union a lot more seriously than they are doing now. The Prime Minister in particular needs to live up to the responsibilities that he has.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, with the evolution of the three devolved Governments, the United Kingdom has become a very unbalanced and insecure centralised country. I mention in passing that the question of whether the UK includes the Crown dependencies is left deliberately ambiguous. The Council of the Isles was set up with representation from the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey. The Procurement Bill with which we are currently dealing contains a clause that says that UK suppliers include suppliers from the Crown dependencies. However, I recall very well that the last commission on the constitution, in the 1970s, made it clear that the Crown dependencies are not part of the United Kingdom. I will leave that aside for this debate, although we will no doubt continue to address this, with all of the intricacies of tax avoidance that are involved.
The stresses upon the union are clearly growing, but I will talk mainly about the stresses being caused within England. In passing, I say that I am conscious that not all Conservatives below the leadership are still unionists: some English nationalists—the Ukippers of the Conservative Party—would be quite happy to see Scotland and Northern Ireland go, although they have not really thought about Wales. They think that it would save on tax transfers, but it would leave a very discontented north of England dominated by southern England and suffering as a result. That is not an impossible prospect, and we need to be very carefully aware of it.
Mention has been made of the Whitehall mindset, but it is also the ministerial mindset and what one has to call the Diceyan mindset—namely, that Parliament only temporarily devolves powers and may take them back whenever it feels like it. That is clearly not compatible with the continuation of the union. I keep reminding Ministers that Dicey wrote his doctrine on the constitution at the same time that he was writing violent pamphlets against any devolution to Ireland, and this clearly biased and influenced the way he wrote about UK sovereignty.
England has the most centralised democracy in the developed world. What is more, successive Governments muck about with local and regional structures. The Constitution Committee’s report on a stronger union says:
“we believe continued and frequent restructuring will risk undermining Whitehall’s capacity to manage a fundamental part of the United Kingdom’s governance arrangements.”
The latest example that I am aware of is the enforced dislocation of the governance of North Yorkshire by the abolition of district councils and the imposition of a single council, which means that some councillors will have to spend over two hours driving from the ward that they represent to the basic unit of local government to which they will now belong. I note that district councils still exist in Surrey, and I hope that they are about to be abolished in the same way; if the Government believe in single-tier local government, they have to impose it everywhere.
This change was made in the face of all but one of the 19 councils in Yorkshire saying clearly that they preferred an overall Yorkshire structure which would represent the clear identity of the region and its 5 million people—twice as many as in two of the three devolved Assemblies. This was overruled by the Government, with the imposition of metro mayors—some even wish to impose a metro mayor on North Yorkshire somehow. This is not a competent way to restructure local government or rebuild public trust in democracy as a whole, particularly when Governments mistrust metro mayors and very infrequently consult them on arrangements.
What do we need to do? We need to think hard about how we devolve powers within the dominant country of the United Kingdom. We need to think about how we make the necessary fiscal transfers much more transparent, and about how we build that into our union structures. I increasingly believe that the second Chamber should be based on representation of the nations and regions of the United Kingdom, which is part of what would build in the checks and balances of the United Kingdom as a whole. For the clearly neglected regions of England—they feel even more neglected now—it would also symbolise that they are represented and seen in this disunited country.
We must worry about Scotland and we have to worry about Northern Ireland, but we must not forget that there are many parts of England which are now fundamentally discontented with our current Government. No doubt the voters of Wakefield will demonstrate that today, but I read in the Financial Times yesterday a very good interview on the sense of betrayal at the abandonment of most of Northern Powerhouse Rail; at the refusal to build an underground station in Manchester even though they are building one at Old Oak Common; and at the abandonment on the grounds of cost of putting a new tunnel through the Pennines even though they are putting a large and much longer tunnel under the Chilterns for HS2. All those things build distrust and discontent at the local and regional level. This very southern-based Government need to be aware of that, and as we look at the problems of maintaining co-operation with the Scots, the Welsh and the Northern Irish, it should not be forgotten.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn (Valedictory Speech)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, for this opportunity to make a brief contribution to this debate on our union, although I have learned a new meaning of the word “brief” while I have been in your Lordships’ House: it does not always mean “short”. I am sorry if I disappoint the hopes of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, about my valedictory speech.
My time in your Lordships’ House has been limited—just over two years—partly because it has been right for my female colleagues to take precedence in joining your Lordships’ House and partly because it has been constrained by the pandemic. There has been a lot to learn as well as to admire in a place of such expertise and wisdom, but I regret that I have not been able to become more involved in the serious business of your Lordships’ House.
My nearly nine years as the Bishop of Blackburn are drawing to a close and I shall be moving from the special red rose county of Lancashire, where it has been a joy to live and serve and where we celebrate Her Majesty the Queen as the Duke of Lancaster in our singing of the national anthem. The north has been more than welcoming to a complete southerner, and, as with all places where clergy serve, a bit of my heart will remain there.
In our diocesan vision for 2026, the 100th anniversary of the creation of the diocese, we have set out to make the church community a healthy influence in every situation, not cutting back but planting new gatherings in places where Christian witness and worship have been absent, most notably on urban estates. We have been blessed by generous grants from the national Church and it has felt like a time of God’s favour, as God has given us a great team and we have sought unashamedly to make the person of Jesus Christ more widely known and believed.
It has been an honour when on duty here to lead the reading of scripture and the praying of the Prayers at the beginning of each Sitting here in your Lordships’ House, which signal something of our accountability and dependence on another: the one who is the source of all life and who sets the boundaries of how we should relate to one another, those standards and values that we were discussing a little earlier this afternoon—that Christian heritage that underpins so much of our national life.
I was intrigued to read in this report about the union the strains currently experienced in governance, accountability and finance between the four nations of the union, largely because of Brexit and devolution. I wonder, if a referendum is pressed for, whether so major a decision with consequences for the whole union should be decided by only one part and not take into account the view of the whole. But I know that is controversial.
It was especially good to see reference to the importance of the levelling-up agenda, reducing the gaps in our society in terms of wealth and aspiration, something we in the north-west are desperate to see taken forward. Government support for the Eden Project North in Morecambe Bay is one example of what will bring massive transformation in terms of jobs and the growth of the local economy in Lancashire.
However, I found two things missing from the report. First, there was very little about the monarchy as one of the key strengths and bonds across the union. The recent services of celebration for Her Majesty’s Platinum Jubilee and the thousands of street parties that gathered whole communities together in positive ways, across all kinds of social and ethnic divides, spoke volumes about something and someone who holds us together. In Blackburn Cathedral, we handed out 900 copies of a booklet, The Faithful Queen, telling the story of her humble service as a Christian to the union and the Commonwealth. She is a worthy recipient of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury’s gift of the Canterbury Cross for unstinting service to the Church of England, as well as to the union.
Secondly—noble Lords would expect me to say this—I could not find any reference to the role of the faith and charity sectors in strengthening life and co-operation across the United Kingdom. Obviously, in the past, the established Church has played a key role in this nation, with Lords spiritual present in this House. However, over time, the churches in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have become independent; new churches have also emerged. What is more, the presence of strong other-faith communities in the United Kingdom now challenges that Christian heritage as we make this country a place in which all faiths can practise without fear or favour.
In spite of all that change, I do not want us to lose a formal and recognised place for faith in our national life. It provides a crucial underpinning of who we are in being fully human—body, mind and soul—as this House carries out its vital roles of scrutinising legislation and commenting on the complex issues of the day. The Prayers at the start of each Sitting for wisdom and right judgment will continue to be my prayer for your Lordships’ House, although I will no longer have the privilege of being present. I am grateful to you all for your good wishes.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, it is a real honour and privilege to follow the right reverend Prelate’s short but moving speech. This is a bittersweet moment for us all because, as he said, he has been with us for only two years. It is less than two years since he made his maiden speech, which I read again this morning. It was referred to then by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who followed the right reverend Prelate, as
“a thoughtful and exemplary maiden speech”.—[Official Report, 8/9/20; col. 687.]
It clearly was.
This afternoon, we have heard an exemplary valedictory speech from a man who is both genuinely humble and totally determined. He really does live his faith, both in his diocese and here. He has led us in Prayers every day this week. He will be much missed because, although he has been with us for such a short time, he has made it plain that he is a campaigning bishop who is passionate about Christians and those of other faiths who are being persecuted around the world. We will long remember him. I wish him every possible happiness and success; I know that I speak for the whole House in saying that. He will now have more time for gardening, reading, cycling, DIY and the other things he lists as his recreations in Who’s Who and Dod’s. Godspeed—come back and see us often.
It is a privilege to speak in this debate. I thank and congratulate my long-time friend and noble friend Lord Lisvane, who was such a wonderful clerk of the other place and who has made this one of his subjects. I want to concentrate on two aspects. I was one of those who fought against devolution, with George Thomas in Wales in the early 1970s and the late, great Tam Dalyell, my great friend; I had the privilege of giving an address at his memorial service. Both of them strongly and passionately believed that devolution would weaken the unity of the United Kingdom.
We lost that battle and devolution has happened. We must, of course, do all we can to make it work, but we have to recognise that there is one fundamental problem. One of the nations of the United Kingdom, Scotland, has had a Government for many years now who are utterly determined on independence. They are not really interested in working together to make the United Kingdom a success because they are passionately keen to have an independent Scotland—they have every right to their views. What can we do about that?
I want to put one idea to your Lordships’ House. We have had a lead recently from our Lord Speaker, who has been liaising with the Presiding Officers in Edinburgh and Cardiff, and the Speaker in Belfast. I believe we should build on that as a United Kingdom Parliament. I agree with everything my noble friend Lord Strathclyde said about the desirability of having a Scottish equivalent of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, in this House, but I hope we can try to have a working group of Peers and Members of the other place, and elected Members of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Senedd and the Northern Ireland Assembly. What is of absolute importance, whatever the ultimate future, is the united prosperity of the United Kingdom. I believe that the elected representatives and your Lordships’ House can make a contribution.
One of the things I have valued about this place in my nearly 12 years here has been the way in which, in spite of all the tensions of Brexit, which have been unpleasant on occasions, we in your Lordships’ House disagree agreeably rather more effectively than in other places. I hope we can perhaps, with that accumulated wisdom for which we are supposed to be renowned, try to take a lead in bringing together parliamentarians from around the United Kingdom to see whether we can find a way forward in this very difficult time. After all, we could face a European or a world war within the next two years. We face terrible economic strains and difficulties, partly as a consequence of that war. We have a duty to those on whose behalf we seek to work to try to preserve prosperity, unity and peace. That is the prime duty of us all, whether we sit in Edinburgh, Cardiff, Belfast or Westminster.
I hope that, following this debate, we can try to bring together a group of parliamentarians who will work for this prosperity. My noble friend Lord Lisvane, as a former clerk of the other place, would be well placed to do so. Then, if in due course a referendum comes, as it might well, I will fight with my son in Scotland—we are a united family—to keep the United Kingdom, but at least I would hope to do so against a background of prosperity, not of fractious division. I hope that is how we can work.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
The noble Lord has made an excellent suggestion which is worthy of note, and we should consider it further.
I can identify with many of the remarks already articulated, but had anticipated building on the theme and questioning whether the UK is, or even can be, governed effectively with the complex structure to which we adhere. That has been touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. We set out from a single premise —the break-up of the union as we know it is not unthinkable. We do not need to go far back in time to find an example: Yugoslavia comes to mind. Preparing remarks for today has presented a quandary as to whether drawing attention to the challenges, complexities and inadequacies goes counter to the future of unionism. I am of the camp that recognises the positive contribution of today’s debate, but with it the responsibility and indeed necessity of listening and understanding by government.
Keeping the union relevant by changing the attitude towards the state of the union is essential and should be asked with greater urgency. Care should be taken that malaise, with the many competing priority policy areas requiring attention, does not place consideration of this on the back-burner. The union has proved durable and flexible over the centuries, evolving to meet the needs and aspirations of the people with its significant strengths and benefits. Devolution in the United Kingdom has been much more oriented towards the idea of self-rule by the devolved Governments and much less focused on the importance and practice of shared rule by the four Governments across the United Kingdom.
Over recent years, Brexit and the pandemic have exposed the inadequacy of the established ad hoc and reactive approach to handling relations with the devolved Governments. The practical and existential question as to whom in the 21st century the United Kingdom serves requires a definitional and careful response. Brexit was an assertion made up mostly by the English, and for the most part this Government are considered to be an English one, and only occasionally a British one. In understanding that it was the English community living in Wales that tilted that country to leave the European Union, should we be reflecting on why the devolved nations voted therefore to remain in the European Union, and in varying degrees to exit the union of the United Kingdom? What is it about one state of a union that does not apply to the other?
An effect of Brexit has been to loosen the social contract binding Britain’s union of nations together, revealing the union as of the English, by the English, for the English. Taken as a whole, there is no example of a federal state anywhere else where one of the components of the federation is so large. Northern Ireland is on the Brexit front line, and the only part of the UK with a land border with another EU state. Brexit affects Northern Ireland more directly than any other part of the UK, so too affecting the Republic of Ireland more directly than any other member state of the European Union.
The UK exhibits one of the world’s most centralised governance systems, at the same time exhibiting among the highest inter-regional productivity and income inequalities of any industrialised country. Relations are overly informal, ad hoc, hierarchical, statist and ill equipped for dealing with contemporary policy challenges. It is this overly centralised governance that places the union in greatest jeopardy—and so the ultimate break-up of the union. The urgent rise of the levelling-up agenda is, I trust, more than simply a badging exercise. If we are serious about levelling up, we need to deliver by fundamentally recalibrating the lines by which our governance is drawn, making better and more creative use of the powers and potential of the constitutional settlement we have. This requires delivery through a world-leading Civil Service, as has already been touched on. Whitehall must take a leadership role with civil servants in each Government, spending time learning about how the other Governments work by developing and extending practices such as joint training events, shadowing schemes and secondments, all of which would help to promote mutual understanding of the different contexts across the UK.
It is not just leadership that must change but also the mentality that the Civil Service must bring to its work. A good understanding of UK governance and devolution should be a prerequisite for promotion within the senior Civil Service by direct experience of governance outside Whitehall, either in devolved or local government. Some say that further constitutional change is the only way to address the problems confronting the union of the United Kingdom. This is not the solution. The supporters of devolution in 1998 said the measure would not only strengthen the union but also kill support for Scottish independence. The argument essentially was that Scotland would have the best of both worlds—self-government and unionism—and so never feel the need for formal secession.
I end with this single conclusion. The more you give heed to devolved structures, the more you stoke the embers of eventual independence and, with it, profound constitutional change.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, on securing this important debate. Stresses now exist in all four nations of the United Kingdom. My purpose is not to examine the specific stresses, but rather to focus on what needs to be done in response. There are four points I wish to make. In so doing, I will be reinforcing conclusions drawn by the Constitution Committee and the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, in his excellent opening speech.
First, the challenges created in each nation require bespoke responses that are considered and evidence-based. There is a danger of rushing in with a policy that does not meet people’s needs or expectations. A clear example of this was seen during the 2014 referendum on Scottish independence. When an opinion poll showed a slight lead for independence, all three main party leaders rushed to Scotland to promise more devolution if Scotland voted to remain in the union. That was clearly premised on the assumption that that was what those who may vote to stay in the union wanted. Survey evidence suggests several different reasons for voting against independence, but that of favouring more devolution hardly figured. The biggest influence was the economic consequence of leaving the union.
Secondly, a reactive approach to the challenges in each nation must be complemented by a proactive UK-wide approach stressing the value of the union. As the Constitution Committee noted in its 2016 report, The Union and Devolution, the Government’s ad hoc approach to devolution had not been matched by any counterbalancing steps to protect the union. The four nations are stronger together. Each one benefits from being part of the kingdom. As the committee emphasised:
“The Union has brought stability, peace and prosperity to the United Kingdom”.
It is vital that the Government stop being on the back foot in dealing with stresses on the union. It must address them but, most importantly of all, if the union is to hold together, the Government must make the case for the union and the benefits it brings to all within it.
Thirdly, picking up on a point that has been stressed already, there needs to be complementarity, or rather comity, in relations between Whitehall and the Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. There is a tendency for Whitehall to act in what has been termed a “grace and favour” way, rather than in one of mutual esteem and participation. As Sir Jeffrey Donaldson told the Constitution Committee, Whitehall tends to see UK issues from an English perspective. There has always been a problem in communicating and in resolving any differences.
When I chaired the Constitution Committee in 2003, we produced a report on inter-institutional relations in the United Kingdom. We argued the case for ensuring that the mechanisms for resolving disputes, not least through the Joint Ministerial Council, remained in working order. Unfortunately, our recommendations were not acted on.
Fortunately, following the Dunlop report, there has now been progress in the form of the review of intergovernmental relations. Reform, though, must extend beyond structures to attitudes. What is needed is encapsulated in the Constitution Committee’s report of this January—to which we have already had reference—appropriately titled Respect and Co-operation: Building a Stronger Union for the 21st Century. As the report says at paragraph 279:
“To deal effectively with and respond to the challenges of governing the United Kingdom in the 21st century, significant culture change is required in Whitehall, including the end of its top-down mindset.”
There needs to be much earlier and more constructive engagement. There needs to be comity.
Fourthly, although the stresses in the four nations require bespoke responses, those responses need to be co-ordinated by a Cabinet Minister with responsibility for the union. As it is, having a Secretary of State for each of the three nations lends itself to seeing their departments as occupying silos—the Constitution Committee has expressed concern at the Government’s tendency to “devolve and forget”—and at times it may not always be clear what the purpose of each department is. I appreciate that there is now a Cabinet committee, the Union Strategy Committee, chaired by the Prime Minister. The fact that he chairs it signifies its importance, but the Prime Minister has many other responsibilities, including chairing eight other Cabinet committees. I appreciate that the Union Policy Implementation Committee is chaired by the Levelling Up Secretary, but he too has other responsibilities. The Dunlop review recommended a Secretary of State for intergovernmental and constitutional affairs. Such a Secretary of State would ensure that a holistic approach was taken to the union and that the needs of the union were heard in Cabinet. The more senior the Minister in the pecking order, the clearer it would be that the Prime Minister is committed to the union.
The stresses facing the union are considerable. By tackling some, there is the danger of creating others. As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, emphasised, we have now to address the English question as much as the Scottish one. To tackle the stresses, we need to be on the front foot to take the lead in making the case for the union. We need to be proactive and confident, not reactive and defensive. These are all points made in various reports of the Constitution Committee. The Government should act on them. I trust that my noble friend the Minister will explain in more than broad aspirational terms the Government’s plan to make the case for the union and how leadership will be provided in government, ideally by a Secretary of State for the constitution.
There are obviously other challenges facing the Government, but they cannot afford to take their eye off ensuring that the union of the United Kingdom remains exactly that.
Lord Desai (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Lisvane for suggesting this topic. Going back to what I said earlier this afternoon and, again, talking about where I come from, India was supposed to have been acquired in a fit of absent-mindedness by the British. I think we have devolved in a fit of absent-mindedness. We have not devolved systematically; we have devolved by bits and pieces. That is the way we do things.
Let me start at the beginning: we are a union, not a federation. The problem is, can we become a federation while maintaining the unity of a union that is now coming apart? Because we do not do things formally, because we do things by bits and pieces and because our constitution is not unwritten but scattered all over the place—as the noble Lord, Lord Norton, has often reminded us—we have a very unsystematic way of doing things, but that is the way we do them. I think the time has now come to say that our unique pattern of doing things no longer works. The world has changed; people are very conscious of their rights across all classes. Therefore, it will not be possible for a few good chaps to come together and settle the problem.
At some stage, something formal will have to be done, if possible. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and other noble Lords have made suggestions. The Government will not do anything formal and systematic in this. They have absolutely no interest in starting all sorts of controversies that they cannot control. The only agency which can do anything about this is your Lordships’ House. The suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, is one that we should follow very seriously: to construct a meeting of the Parliaments of all the devolved Administrations, and your Lordships’ House, though not the other place, which has its own problems to deal with. Let us try to emulate what Scotland did: it had a convention which was informally and socially created, and which was discussing the problem of Scottish devolution ages before Scottish devolution was legislated. We need something like that.
Obviously, it would not have government authority or government sanction, but we ought to find ways of doing it informally, privately or whatever, meeting regularly to say, “This is a problem that we can all settle only jointly.” We must have serious lawmakers, lawyers and constitutional experts in our gathering, chosen from the already elected Members of the various legislative assemblies. A document of some sort could then be put forward that would prod any Government in power by then to do something systematic and thorough about preserving the union, and going from a union to a healthy federation of some sort. A union is too centralised a concept. India has become a union rather than a federation. I could bore all your Lordships on the difference between the Government of India Act 1935 and the Indian constitution, but that is for another day. It should be a federation, not a union.
I end by saying one small thing. When there was a proposal to reform your Lordships’ House during the coalition Government, we had a consultation by a Joint Committee chaired by Lord Richard. I submitted a note to that Committee, which is in print, suggesting that we should have a new version of your Lordships’ House, elected by single transferrable vote, from 10 regions of England and the three devolved Assemblies, with 30 Members each. If we had the House of Lords made up of people who were representing all the devolved nations and England, then we would have a federal Chamber.
We need the composition of a body as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, to reflect that kind of balance. It should have people from each of the devolved agencies and from your Lordships’ House. It should work in its own time to propose a solution to the problem of the union. If we can do that, this alone will prod the Government of whichever party is in power to do something about it. Otherwise, Governments at the other end have no incentive to do anything about the union, because they have all the power and they are not going to give any of it up.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Desai, sits down, I apologise for breaking in at the end of his remarks but if we were to agree and able to implement the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, this grouping should contain members of Sinn Féin and the SNP, so that we deal with all this in the fullest manner possible.
Lord Desai (Non-Afl)
I must confess that I am deaf, and the acoustics are absolutely terrible in here. I ask the noble Viscount if I can answer his question later on.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, this has been an excellent debate and we should all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, not only for initiating the debate but for the work he has done in bringing forward practical suggestions as to how we might carry out reform. He has also triggered clear enthusiasm in this House for it to take initiatives which might propel thoughtful measures of reform to secure the future workings of the United Kingdom. I think we would all commend that, but I hope that we can find some way of organising a committee that will take it forward. I speak as someone who was a member of the Scottish Constitutional Convention for quite a few years, and I honestly believe that the Scotland Act—imperfect as it was—was infinitely better because of the convention than the previous example of the Labour Government’s attempt to do it without such background work. I believe that it was an extremely good initiative.
We are all grateful for the contributions of the right reverend Prelate during his two years here and in his valedictory address, which was short and sweet, but very much to the point. We wish him well in his future.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, made one particular point of detail which I need to take him up on: it is not true that Scottish students cannot study outside Scotland. In fact, it is worse than that: many Scottish students must study outside Scotland, because, although tuition fees are free, the number of places have been capped by the Scottish Government so that the vast majority of Scottish students cannot get into Scottish universities and, indeed, have to move. My own son has chosen to move; he is matriculating at a London university this coming year, having been disappointed about his participation in the Scottish system—
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for making my point considerably better than I did earlier on.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
It was a valid point, nevertheless.
It is also important that the dimension of England is addressed. We recognise that England is very much the largest component of the union, but it is also very diverse. The shortcomings of governance in England are real, and part of the tensions we are talking about, but a federalism based on English regions is not something that anyone really believes is the way forward.
I am sorry to say this, but it is clear that the union is in no way safe in the hands of this Government under their dysfunctional, incoherent and—frankly—careless leadership—or rather lack of it. As I have said, we all know that a tidy federal solution to the governance of the United Kingdom is not easy to achieve, even if there were a will for it, which there is not. However, that does not excuse us for not striving for a relationship among the component parts of the UK based on consensus, mutual respect, fair shares and, as has been said repeatedly, co-operation—all ultimately reinforced by a legal constitutional settlement and dispute resolution mechanism.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Norton, that it is not about more power; it is about attitude and engagement. However, there must be a backstop with some kind of recourse and dispute resolution mechanism, because we have seen how the UK Government behave without one in relation to the devolved Administrations. I for one, privately, did not think that the vow at the end of the referendum in 2016 was necessary or helpful. I agree that lots of people were voting to stay in the United Kingdom as it was, without necessarily requiring change.
It is also an inescapable fact that the glue—the word used, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane—provided by the EU helped in regard to agreed rules and to secure the Good Friday agreement; after all, the EU is one of its guarantors. It also gave the devolved Administrations and the UK Government a degree of clarity and security. That has all been swept away by the return of EU powers to the UK. I am not trying to reverse that, but it has been aggravated by a ham-handed application, for example, of the internal market Act and, to a lesser extent, the Subsidy Control Act.
I am also a member of the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee, which is about to agree its final report. When first set out, it appeared that common frameworks offered the way to achieve the kind of partnership within the UK that would build confidence, and they still could. However, it is clear that they are in danger of being downgraded into a simple process rather than being rather more substantial policy agreements allowing for divergence.
Thanks to the excellent report by the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, we have new inter-government agreement, set out this year, which appears to offer a positive way forward, but, again, it depends on the will of the UK Government to apply it in spirit as well as in letter. It depends on that, and the UK Government, as always, have the upper hand. Frankly, the qualities needed are sadly lacking, and when they are not applied, there is no redress. But—and it is a big but—the strains on the union are not all one-way. The agreement signed by the Prime Minister to give appearance to his claim to get Brexit done was flawed at the outset, in terms of Northern Ireland in particular.
The Government’s own website made that clear. On the day during the election campaign when the Prime Minister was categorically denying that there would be extra bureaucracy between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the website showed exactly how much bureaucracy there would be. That was the price for no border on the island of Ireland, and the Government and the Prime Minister knew that. The intransigence of the DUP and the belligerence of the UK Government have aggravated a situation which could be substantially alleviated by an agreement, so the governance of Northern Ireland is stalled and the Good Friday agreement is at risk. I may be biased, but there is one glimmer of hope in this situation, which is the stagnation of support for the two more extreme parties and the strengthening of the middle ground in the form of Alliance—I must point out that it is the Liberal Democrats’ sister party.
It is true that in Wales we have an Administration who clearly want devolution to work—it is important that we acknowledge that—but are frustrated by the attitude of the UK Government to the extent of taking legal action. They have set up their own constitutional committee, and I hope it will come forward with positive proposals designed to secure devolution, not independence. However, if the Government cannot carry opinion in Wales, what hope do they have elsewhere?
Respect needs to be a two-way process. The DUP’s refusal to go back into government lets down the majority of people in Northern Ireland, who require a Government to take decisions. In Scotland, the SNP has shown scant regard for public opinion. Twice in a democratic vote, the people of Scotland have, in effect, supported the devolution settlement which has evolved, yet the SNP has shown no interest in making devolution work. Of course, as has been said, the nationalists campaign for independence, and that is their right, but Scotland has not voted for independence, and by undermining and trashing devolution and United Kingdom co-operation, the SNP is betraying the people of Scotland and letting them down.
The SNP claims it has a mandate for independence, but that is not the case. When the question was asked, independence was rejected, and opinion appears to be settled at about the same level. The coalition with the Greens has a majority and both parties support independence, but it is questionable whether that is really a mandate. The SNP appears to be a champion of first past the post at the moment and has questioned the legitimacy of pro-UK MSPs who are elected from the list, seemingly missing the irony that the Greens are entirely elected from the list. Is the Scottish Green Party a surrogate nationalist party or an environmental campaign party? Either way, its mandate is very unclear.
This raises another strain on the United Kingdom in the shape of an outdated, flawed and less than representative voting system. The SNP secured 3.88% of the UK vote in 2019 and 9% of the seats. The Conservatives secured 43.63% of the vote and 56% of the seats. Labour fell only six seats short of that vote share, and, yes, the Liberal Democrats, with 11% of the vote, secured less than 2% of the seats. This is important because it means that, with its sister party the Alliance, a UK-wide political grouping with three times as many votes as the SNP is severely squeezed in its participation in UK parliamentary business in the House of Commons, and that distorts the balance of the House of Commons, in which SNP MPs, on 45% of the Scottish vote, secured 81% of the Scottish seats. That is neither proportionate nor healthy.
In conclusion, I want to ask the SNP and its followers: “Do you speak Belgian?” I know noble Lords will appreciate the subtlety of that question. The SNP is suggesting to the people of Scotland that they have more in common with a country that has three languages, none of which is English or Belgian, than they do with their fellow citizens elsewhere in the UK. To reinforce this to nationalists, all things British are demeaned and vilified. That is easy when talking about the current Prime Minister, but when applied to values across our culture, it is insidious, nasty, divisive and unjustified.
The by-election today could well demonstrate that the character of the government of the United Kingdom is heading for a change. Destroying a centuries-old arrangement that has served us well, for all its strains, should not depend on the short-term vicissitudes of changing political colours. Politics should be more than demonising your opponents. The SNP has denied the obvious benefits of being part of the UK, and however compromised those are currently, it needs to recognise that a majority still wants the United Kingdom to thrive.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, for bringing this excellent debate to the House. It has been extremely interesting and was very much enhanced by the valedictory speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn, and we wish him good luck for the future.
I draw the House’s attention to the Conservative manifesto for the 2019 general election, where it said that
“strengthening the great Union between the United Kingdom’s four nations”
was one of the ways the Conservatives intended to
“unleash our country’s full potential.”
In a recent QSD, the Minister repeated the Government’s commitment to strengthening the union, by
“protecting and promoting its combined strengths and the values that we all share, and ensuring that the institutions of the United Kingdom are used to benefit people in every part of the country”.
I am sure, having heard this debate, that we would all agree with those sentiments. He said also that the Government were “great believers in devolution”, and that the new IGR arrangements would
“herald a new era for collaboration across the United Kingdom”.—[ Official Report, 9/6/22; col. GC 122.]
I am sure we would all like to see more collaboration, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, said, devolution is not always that easy.
I thank the Select Committee for its excellent report, which helped us understand many of the issues.
I turn to some of the issues raised in the debate. A common theme was that the stresses and strains are getting worse. The departure from the European Union has clearly affected relationships within the union of the United Kingdom, as well as with the EU. I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, for going into quite considerable detail about this. As the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, said, the present situation remains untidy; there is much to be done. We know that the common frameworks process was set up following Brexit, but that led to disagreements between the devolved Administrations and the UK Government. The House of Lords Constitution Committee concluded, in a report earlier this year, that implementing Brexit had placed the Sewel convention “under great strain”.
Disagreements have also arisen between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations over post-Brexit funding arrangements, so no wonder there are stresses and strains, and it seems that the situation is getting worse.
A number of noble Lords talked about the particular issues around Northern Ireland. We know that the DUP’s response to the protocol has had an impact on the functioning of the devolved Administration in Northern Ireland in recent months. I will not go into detail about this as it was covered excellently by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. But the issues around the protocol are clearly very serious, and the Government, as the noble Lord said, have to take this much more seriously, and not make quick decisions based on politics rather than the likely outcomes of those decisions.
We know that non-unionist parties in Northern Ireland have expressed their strong objection to the Government’s approach to the protocol, and wrote a joint letter—which is very unusual for those parties—to the Prime Minister sharing their concerns. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, explained the situation further, referring to the Government’s inability to sort out the problems we now have in Stormont. We will never move forward until we can resolve these issues.
One thing that has come through strongly in this debate is the importance of co-operation, collaboration and engagement, which has been mentioned on a number of occasions, and the fact that this Government have seemed incapable of doing that in a constructive way, particularly regarding the problems with Northern Ireland. If we are going to resolve these issues, surely that is what we need to do with all our devolved Administrations and with the EU, where appropriate.
Scotland has also been mentioned by a number of noble Lords. The current point of tension regarding the Scottish Government’s intention to hold a second referendum is clearly very difficult as we look at how the union is going to survive going forward. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, in particular talked about the stresses this policy of independence is placing on the Scottish Government. Nicola Sturgeon is arguing that Brexit represents
“a significant and material change”
to the circumstances in which independence was voted on back in 2014. She will push very hard for this, and the Government need to think about how they will manage and handle this going forward.
There was also discussion about Wales. The noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, mentioned that Wales is becoming more and more unhappy with the current constitutional arrangements. The Government really need to tackle this early on. They need to talk to the Welsh Government, councils in Wales and so on about how they want to see the constitution going forward, so that we can move forward together.
Interestingly, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, talked about England, particularly Yorkshire. We must not forget that the rest of the UK is a critical part of strengthening our union. Right across our country, there are local communities who feel they are being denied a voice in the decision-making which affects their day-to-day lives. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, said, absolutely rightly, that many areas of the UK are very different. There is a widespread feeling that the UK is not working for everyone at the moment. The Government’s lack of enthusiasm for delivering power to nations and regions could also put the union under threat.
We feel that Ministers must properly examine our democracy, constitution, future direction and future purpose as a country as a basis for any new constitutional arrangements. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, talked about the fact that we are the most centralised democracy. That is not healthy for the union. However, any new devolution must be delivered by working with communities—with the metro mayors, mayors, local leaders and councillors—so decisions are made together.
We also feel that the stresses on the union have been exacerbated by the economic policies we have seen recently, which have levied disproportionate public service cuts and amounted to a sense that we have not all been in this together. For this reason, the UK also needs a new and transformational economic settlement to properly level up the country and show that the union can exist to reduce regional inequalities. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn talked about the importance of levelling up. This must be central to any constitutional work going forward.
From this debate we have seen that there are concerns right across the UK as to the genuine desire, ability and political will of this Government to live up to the manifesto commitment I referred to at the start, to truly strengthen our union and unleash our country’s great potential. It does not seem to be happening at the moment. As we have discussed, co-operative working is really what is needed, along with—as the noble Lord, Lord Norton, said—calmness and purpose. We need a sense of the importance of making thought-out, considered decisions regarding the union and any devolution and, above all, to have respect for each other.
I am really looking forward to the Minister’s response. This has been an excellent debate, and I would particularly like to hear his thoughts on the proposed committee idea. It is good to have a debate in which there has been real, constructive thought on how we can move forward.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, for securing this debate on such an important topic. I also enjoyed the valedictory speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn. He raised two important issues in a succinct contribution: the role of the monarchy in holding the union together, which is fundamental—we saw this with the Platinum Jubilee—and the role that faith communities, communities of all faiths, play in our lives. For a time, until the first reshuffle, I was the Communities Minister and had responsibility for faith. I was able in my last few days to launch the Faith New Deal, which was a way to put money into projects to work with faith communities to improve the lives of everybody in this United Kingdom.
The United Kingdom is a family of nations and a nation of families, standing up for and embodying in its institutions liberty under the law, respect for all, fair play, free trade, parliamentary democracy and progress. In response to the points made by my noble friend Lord Norton, the union is very much a living political, cultural and economic success story. As he pointed out, there is so much to gain from the union. When we act together as one United Kingdom, we are safer, stronger and more prosperous.
The union also provides safety and security, allowing all parts of the UK to benefit from the economies of scale offered by our shared resources and our ability to influence on the international stage. It enables us to protect the values we hold in common across our United Kingdom. I think a noble Lord called into question whether we would retain a seat on the Security Council. Clearly, that is somewhere where we gain great stature as a United Kingdom.
I also reaffirm that we are absolutely committed to devolution. Devolution offers citizens the best of both worlds. It allows decisions to be taken closer to the communities they affect, while still benefiting from the broad shoulders the union provides. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, mentioned the English question, but we recognise that it is important to celebrate devolution. That is why we launched the levelling up White Paper with a commitment that, by 2030, every part of England that wants a devolution deal will have one. Devolution is critical to delivering levelling up, supporting local leaders so they can more flexibly and innovatively respond to local needs, whether on transport, skills or regeneration.
We are also committed to working collaboratively with the devolved Governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Many noble Lords mentioned that in January 2022, we marked a new chapter in intergovernmental relations with new principles and structures for working together, agreed after a joint review. Each Government have agreed to operate under the improved arrangements and to move forward together with implementation of this new system. I point out to my noble friend Lord Norton, who called for comity, which, I believe, is an association of nations for mutual benefit, that we are absolutely committed to translating both the spirit and the content of the new arrangements into consistent approaches and actions. Already, more than 10 portfolio-level inter-ministerial groups are fully up and running, and the two middle-tier inter-ministerial standing committees have each met at least once. We have a Minister for Intergovernmental Relations; I am in his department, and that is why I am at this Dispatch Box. The Minister has had 80 meetings, I think, in the past year on aspects of the union, and there have been 440 inter-ministerial meetings with Governments. We show a real commitment to working collaboratively with the devolved Administrations.
It is hard to characterise the working relationship as one of imperial condescension when the facts are that we are providing 20% more funding per person as part of the spending review. That is 26% more per person for the Scottish Government, 20% more per person for the Welsh Government and 21% more per person for the Northern Ireland Executive. These are substantial sums of investment into the other nations.
I return to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, about taking forward my noble friend Lord Cormack’s idea. We believe that interparliamentary relations were strengthened by structures such as the Interparliamentary Forum on Brexit, and the Government will consider further developments in this area. Should the Speakers of each House whish to explore setting up such a forum, we will consider supporting it. We will take that away from this debate and consider it in due course.
One of the comments of the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, was on Civil Service capability. We have implemented the vast majority of the recommendations of the Dunlop review, and we have a programme to enhance the devolution knowledge and intergovernmental working of civil servants, enabling them to deliver more effectively when designing and implementing policies—it is important to have that underpinning.
Further to getting devolution to work, we started the process of city and growth deals, which began in 2014, with a joint agreement between the UK Government and the relevant devolved Governments, local authorities and partners from the public, private and education sectors. The UK Government have so far committed almost £2.9 billion in funding across 20 such deals in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, including almost £1.49 billion in Scotland, £791 million in Wales and £617 million in Northern Ireland. We continued this good work by reaching a landmark agreement with the Scottish and Welsh Governments to work together to deliver two new freeports in Scotland and one in Wales.
Comment was made on the common frameworks that have been developed. The common framework programme is an integral part of our consensual approach to the union. Throughout its development, the programme has embodied the spirit of openness and transparency with the devolved Governments. It has enabled us to manage regulatory divergence covered by the programme in a way that works for consumers and businesses in the union. We are working closely with colleagues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to publish the six remaining frameworks for scrutiny by Members of this House and the devolved legislatures. Ministers within the UK Government and the devolved Administrations play an important role in scrutinising and approving those frameworks.
I turn to Northern Ireland. It is vital that the parties form an Executive as soon as possible—that continues to be this Government’s central message. Northern Ireland has the best of both worlds when it has a stable Northern Ireland Executive backed up by the support and strength of the UK Government. The New Decade, New Approach agreement previously restored the devolved institutions after a three-year impasse. As set out in legislation, this agreement provided for a period of up to 24 weeks for Northern Ireland’s political representatives to restore functioning devolved institutions. The Government expect the parties to make full use of this time to engage with one another in earnest to restore fully functioning devolved institutions at an early stage. The people of Northern Ireland need a stable and accountable Government who deliver on the issues that are important to them, which is why we continue to urge the parties to come together and form an Executive as soon as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, all mentioned the proposed legislation introduced last week, which aims to fix the practical problems that the Northern Ireland protocol has created. We believe that the legislation avoids a hard border, protects the integrity of the United Kingdom and safeguards the EU single market. However, it is our preference to resolve this through talks; our door remains open, but the EU has so far not been willing to change the protocol, which is necessary to deliver the solutions needed for Northern Ireland.
The union’s strength and its value have been displayed time and again over recent years, from providing up to £400 billion in Covid support to individuals, businesses and public services, including 1.7 million jobs in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, to having regular meetings with devolved government Ministers to discuss the illegal and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine and agreeing the UK-wide approach for settling Ukrainian refugees.
Now more than ever, we should pool our collective efforts in addressing the most pressing problems of the day. That is why our citizens expect our focus not to be on divisive activities that threaten our union. As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, said, Scotland has not voted for independence. I am pleased that my noble friends Lord Strathclyde and Lord Cormack stand firm in preserving the union and, in the case of my noble friend Lord Cormack, campaigning through his son against Scottish independence. As the Government have said many times, this is not the time to be talking about referenda. The people of Scotland rightly expect both their Governments to work together and place their full focus on the issues that really matter. That is what is important at this time.
Last year’s Autumn Budget provided the largest annual block grants in real terms of any spending review settlement since devolution in 1998—that is real commitment—and included the first allocation of the UK-wide funds, including the levelling-up fund and the community ownership fund. The Spring Statement set out measures to support citizens across the United Kingdom with shared challenges, not least the cost of living. Since then, families and businesses across the UK have benefited from a 12-month cut in fuel duty, and millions of UK households are eligible for access to a £15 billion package of targeted support.
We are taking specific action in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England, including putting local voices at the heart of decision-making through the UK shared prosperity fund, launching an innovation accelerator in Glasgow City Region and establishing a UK national academy to provide a first-class education to all children in the United Kingdom.
Levelling up is a national effort that will require all levels of government to use the levers at their disposal. We look forward to ongoing collaboration with the devolved Governments on this crucial work and will support our citizens to take advantage of opportunities wherever they may live, for that is in the best interests of our union.
I hope that I have made it clear that this Government are doing what we believe to be in the best interests of the union and the citizens who live in every part of it. We will continue the mission to deliver a strong, prosperous and united kingdom, one which stands strong on the world’s stage.
Lord Lisvane (CB)
My Lords, I shall not attempt a retrospective of this afternoon’s debate—given the scope of opinion and experience involved, that would be an entirely impractical idea—but I am very happy to thank the Minister for his detailed reply. Like other noble Lords, perhaps I may single out the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn. I entirely endorse the eloquent words earlier of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. When the right reverend Prelate leaves us, perhaps to embark on a new career as stellar as his present one, he will know that he takes with him the warmest good wishes of every Member of this House.
I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, and to my Cross-Bench colleagues who voted for this as one of the topics to be debated. I hope that your Lordships will see fit to approve the Motion.
EU Retained Law
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for being here to answer questions on this Statement. We wonder about the Government’s priorities in the light of it. After all, yesterday was the day on which the Office for National Statistics announced that inflation had reached 9.1%—the highest level in over 40 years. We think that is of far greater concern for the country than anything in the Statement.
However, perhaps with today being the sixth anniversary of the EU referendum and the Conservative Party desperate not to lose its safe seat in Tiverton and Honiton, we can see why Jacob Rees-Mogg was deployed. The Government have long stated their intention to review retained EU law, and we await further details about the so-called Brexit freedoms Bill, which I am sure many across your Lordships’ House will take an active interest in. It was suggested that this was to be done via a default sunset clause that would delete laws unless Ministers prevented it. Has this madcap plan now been dropped?
Although there will be areas where it will make sense to amend or repeal retained EU law, we should remember that the framework in the 2018 withdrawal Act fed into negotiations on the withdrawal agreement and the TCA. We should have flexibility, yes, but we should also act in good faith.
In another place, the Minister failed to answer questions about the cost of this project, so could the Minister confirm what the costs are? Was the build of the dashboard put out to tender, for example? If so, have details of the contract been published in the usual manner?
In recent years, we have passed the Agriculture Act, the Fisheries Act, the Environment Act, the Subsidy Control Act and many other post-Brexit pieces of legislation. Each of these Acts presented the ideal opportunity to strip away retained law, but Ministers repeatedly chose not to do so. Is that not a sign that much of that body of law is actually highly technical and therefore not as contentious as the Government would like to make us believe?
The Statement speaks of identifying “supply-side reforms” to combat inflation. Have the Government calculated the likely economic benefit to be derived from this programme? If so, perhaps the Minister could share that figure with us. How does it compare to other measures the Government could take to support the economy?
Finally, could the Minister explain how the Government will balance economic and other considerations, such as animal welfare, consumer and environmental benefits? What principles would be applied? The Government lack direction, so how will Ministers know how to approach this task? This whole exercise looks like a gimmick. There is no detail about the Government’s intentions. All we have is a list—calling it a dashboard is stretching it. The best advice we can give Ministers is to focus their energy on interventions that would make a tangible difference to people who are struggling every day to make ends meet.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I was not sure whether to laugh or cry when I read the Statement. It takes us into a surreal world of fantastical Government, in which, as the Minister for Brexit Opportunities declares,
“our country will achieve great things.”—[Official Report, Commons, 22/6/22; col. 866.]
That is like Donald Trump promising he will make America great again—just as windy and as empty of content.
There is no evidence behind this Statement. I challenge the Minister to find any. A great deal of evidence was gathered and analysed on exactly this issue between 2012 and 2015 in what was labelled the balance of competences exercise. Eurosceptic Conservatives in the coalition Government believed that an extensive survey of business, sector by sector, would produce a long list of unnecessary Euro regulations that the UK Government could then demand to be renegotiated.
Three Ministers oversaw this exercise: David Lidington, Greg Clark and myself—two Conservatives and a Liberal Democrat. Sector by sector the responses came in, saying that companies were happy with the current balance between domestic and European regulation. Several transport companies argued for greater emphasis on common European regulation rather than less of it. The Scotch Whisky Association, whose then chief executive was David Frost, now the noble Lord, Lord Frost, was particularly enthusiastic about the advantages of common regulation with the European single market. Of course, that was before the noble Lord’s damascene conversion from evidence-based argument to embittered opposition to everything European.
Can the Minister tell us what consultations the Government have conducted in the past year with large and small companies before committing themselves to diverge from EU regulations in the way Mr Rees-Mogg plans? My understanding is that UK exporters, both large and small companies, would much prefer the Government to maintain close alignment between UK regulations and those in our largest overseas market. Does the Minister have any recent evidence to the contrary? Does he understand that the Government have any recent evidence to the contrary?
The chimera of making a bonfire of regulations has appealed to the ideological right ever since Friedrich von Hayek and Milton Friedman. Belief in the superiority of unregulated markets has survived through stark evidence to the contrary, as in the loose regulations that led to the Grenfell fire. Margaret Thatcher understood that a well-regulated market is fundamental to a thriving economy, which is why she pushed for the common regulatory structures of the European single market. British Ministers and officials played a major role in creating that common single market. Many of the regulations that Mr Rees-Mogg is now denouncing were shaped by UK efforts, not imposed by foreign Governments on a powerless UK, as he is now suggesting—but Mr Rees-Mogg’s career has been entirely in finance rather than the real economy of production, marketing and exporting, and much of it offshore in Hong Kong, Singapore and other low-tax financial jurisdictions.
Mr Rees-Mogg is also the Minister for Government Efficiency. He notes in his Statement the extra work that Whitehall officials have undertaken to grasp these “Brexit freedoms”, as he puts it. He does not note that leaving the EU and setting up a range of national regulatory agencies to replace those we shared with our European partners has required a substantial increase in both the number of officials and the costs involved. Part of our contribution to the EU budget went towards funding those common agencies; some of them, such as Europol, were led by British officials. Yet at the same time as being Minister for Efficiency—that wonderfully odd phrase—Mr Rees-Mogg is pushing for a sharp reduction in Civil Service numbers, without regard to the additional tasks that it is taking on. Can the Minister explain how the Government propose to manage this additional effort while slashing the number of staff?
There are more windy comments in the Statement about restoring the sovereignty of Parliament, followed by the declaration that most of this will be pushed through under secondary, even tertiary, legislation, without effective parliamentary scrutiny. The illusion that we now stand imperially sovereign in the world, freed of the European yoke, is punctured by the letter that the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, circulated yesterday, announcing that we are opening trade negotiations with the Gulf Cooperation Council—in which we will not mention civil or political rights so as to avoid offence. This Government are willing to negotiate and compromise with the GCC but not with our democratic neighbours. Can the Minister explain how giving concessions to the Gulf autocracies avoids limiting UK sovereignty while Mr Rees-Mogg insists that any compromise with the EU infringes on UK sovereignty?
Last night, I wondered whether the Minister might revolt as he attempted to justify this irrational ideological waffle and follow the example of the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, by walking out of the Chamber and the Government mid-Statement. However, I fear that he has not yet reached that point, despite the nonsensical Statement that he is forced to defend.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, there has been a rather obsessive theme from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, today, who seems excited at the prospect that I might walk out of the Government. I can absolutely disabuse him of his expectation of that prospect. Unless the Prime Minister decides otherwise, I shall be extremely content to remain here and take the Brexit freedoms Bill through your Lordships’ House.
Having listened to the noble Lord, on the sixth anniversary of the Brexit referendum, I am inclined to say that the Liberal Democrat Party does not know whether to laugh or cry. His sneering response tells me that the Liberal Democrats, like the Bourbons of Naples, have learned nothing and forgotten nothing in their desperation to keep the United Kingdom in line with the European Union’s orders.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I talked about what companies are saying to the Government, and that is about evidence. We are six years down the line from the Brexit referendum; by now we ought to be talking about what sort of relationship we have with the European Union.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord has had one go, and I think I characterised his party’s position perfectly accurately. The party opposite gave a much more measured response and asked me some specific questions. He asked me one which I shall answer. Again, I am disappointed that, on this sixth anniversary, the Labour Party is still saying that it is not important, in effect, to examine these 2,400 elements of retained EU law, which have a status equal to United Kingdom Acts of Parliament. It is perfectly reasonable that those matters should be examined. My right honourable friend Mr Rees-Mogg made it very clear that it is not necessarily the expectation that all these will be swept away, as the noble Lord said. These matters will be looked at on their merits. Frankly, one of the examples that my right honourable friend gave in the other place was the power of vacuum cleaners. Perhaps if we had more powerful vacuum cleaners in this place, we would not have mice running around the place, gorging themselves on all the bits and pieces of crumbs that are left.
There is a serious issue here, despite what was said opposite. It is perfectly reasonable that departments examine the case for the continuation of this mass of regulations. This is the expectation of departments, in concert with interested parties. The noble Lord asked whether we had done consultation. We have engaged with a range of organisations with interest in retained EU law. We have worked closely with all departments, and their stakeholder groups through them across Whitehall. That engagement has included lawyers, academics, universities and other non-governmental organisations. More recently, it is well known that the Minister for Brexit Opportunities also issued a call to the British public, not I think through an organ widely read on the Benches opposite, on the regulations that they might wish to abolish—particularly focusing, as I think we should, on those that make life harder for small businesses, which shut out competition or simply increase the cost of operating. Through a large number of small changes, we can enact real economic change.
The noble Baroness asked about sunsetting, as she called it, and reports on that matter. The issue to which she referred is still subject to consideration of how the reforms will be carried forward in that respect. So far as the cost is concerned, I assure her that the dashboard was built by Cabinet Office officials using the Tableau software, and was created with no additional cost to Her Majesty’s Government.
As for the benefits, I give an undertaking to the noble Baroness on her perfectly reasonable and proper question that there will be an impact assessment published with the Brexit freedoms Bill when we bring it forward, and that will obviously be laid before your Lordships’ House.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for taking questions on the Statement. Of the 2,400 items of retained EU legislation, 570 come from the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I imagine that most of those of relate to phytosanitary, plant health, animal health, hygiene and welfare. If that is the case, does he not agree that most of those will in fact be retained as UK law after this exercise is completed?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am not anticipating either way but as I said in my opening response, in reviewing retained EU law, Defra will obviously, as my noble friend asks, ensure that environmental law is fit for purpose and able to drive improved environmental outcomes while ensuring that regulators can deliver efficiently. It is an important piece of work that will make sure that the UK regulatory framework is appropriate and tailored to the United Kingdom. We have been very clear about our environmental goals and we do not resile from them. They are set out in the 25-year environment plan, the Environment Act 2021 and the net-zero commitment in the recently published Nature Recovery Green Paper. Any changes to environmental regulation in this context or any other will need to support those goals.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, is it the intention of HMG to reform the EU Solvency II rules, which restrict investment by insurance companies to fixed-interest instruments, such as bonds? If we really do want to unlock further wealth and job creation, surely we need to allow insurance companies to invest in, for example, projects such as social housing and wind farms.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, my colleagues in another department will have to answer on the specifics, but my noble friend is absolutely right to highlight that the area of financial services broadly is something of fundamental importance to the national economy, and indeed the Scottish economy. I assure him that my colleagues will continue to examine the areas of regulation to which he has referred, with a view to keeping our financial services sector dynamic and effective and a place where people from all over the world would wish to come and work.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement. In the light of the remarks he has just made about consultation, and in advance of the Bill, can he tell the House what proportion of the measures that the Government hope to introduce will be promulgated by secondary, or indeed tertiary, legislation?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, we are at the stage now where the dashboard has been published; submissions and comments will be made on it, and it will be refreshed quarterly. We will then have to consider the mechanisms. If it is decided that the regulation needs to be either repealed or substantially altered, we will have to consider the legislative mechanism, which would have to be case by case. When we publish the Brexit freedoms Bill, it will include elements that allow for the Government to implement their policies. At that stage, noble Lords will obviously be able to debate the appropriateness of the proposals that we put before them.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
It is agreed by everyone that we have a productivity problem in the UK. As we have seen from history, one way of dealing with that is to sweep away anti-competitive legislation, including some that has been referred to in the debate. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that some operators benefit preferentially from their very existence and that it is essential to have the toughness needed to face them down? That can help small businesses, as my noble friend has said, and growth, and can, I hope, reduce bureaucracy. I am in danger of speaking for too long, but I mention that I have worked for most of my career in business and particularly welcome the promise to the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, of an impact assessment on the Bill.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend. It seems quite a long time ago that we were working in Downing Street on the aspiration of reducing regulation. She makes interesting points which one does have to bear in mind in consulting on and considering the way forward.
It is important that we make it easier for small businesses, and it is also true—I am not criticising anybody or any organisation in particular—that familiar regulatory environments, particularly complex ones, are not necessarily as perturbing to very large organisations which have large departments to deal with them as they are to small businesses and would-be innovators and entrants. That is a balance one has to consider across the regulatory environment, including in this exercise before us today.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, I recall that when I went to Brussels as a Treasury Minister or as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my brief to discuss forthcoming legislation and regulations invariably said, “Minister, we don’t really want this, but we can’t stop it. Could you try to seek at least one or two of the following half dozen amendments to it?” If we did achieve one or two, that was counted as a great triumph. Will my noble friend insist that departments go back to the briefs that were given to Ministers at the time the regulations went through and look for the changes that we wanted to secure but did not at the time? Will he also reflect on the irony of the Liberal Democrats complaining that secondary legislation will be used to change some of the regulations we inherited, given that they were all introduced under secondary legislation, which gave no option for Parliament to reject them at all?
Finally, since there is time for me to go on, will my noble friend reflect on the fact that the one thing we could do in the past was to gold-plate regulations, which we did? I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Hailsham, on the privy counsellors’ Bench, who introduced a system to try to limit gold-plating of regulations when we implemented those of the EU. Will my noble friend the Minister make sure that when we modify these regulations, we do not succumb again to the temptation to gold-plate them and that we go back to the Hailsham dashboard—it was called something like that—to make sure that we do not make them more regulatory, rather than less?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, a lot was wrapped up in there. I agree with what my noble friend said at the end and with his tribute to my noble friend Lord Hailsham. There is an eternal tendency, partly because of some of the factors I referred to in my previous answer, to gold-plate and overregulate, and it constantly has to be held in check. Perhaps one of the many benefits of this exercise is that it is departments that will have to make the responses, take the work forward under the supervision of the Brexit Opportunities Unit and consider the kind of points that my noble friend makes.
Finding the papers from the past is an interesting challenge. I am sure that most of those have now been publicly released. I read today that the papers of the Blair Government were being released by the National Archives, so I am sure that the briefs to my noble friend are available to all and sundry. Perhaps we should all go and have a look at them.