House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
I beg to move, That the House sit in private.
Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 163) and negatived.
Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Bill
Friday 15th July 2022
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act 2023 View all Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
After such a smooth start, it is good to see you in your place, Madam Deputy Speaker. It provides me with an opportunity to thank you for and congratulate you on your flawless oversight and running of the private Members’ Bill ballot. Indeed, you showed impeccable taste even when picking numbers out of the hat. Seriously, however, you can be very pleased with the range of Bills before Parliament today.
I also welcome the new Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt), to her place and wish her well. I was grateful to meet her predecessor and his officials to discuss the Bill and work together on it, and I appreciate the new Minister having ensured that that work can continue in the week since her appointment. I hope that she is as enthusiastic about this Bill as both her predecessor and I am—I am sure she will be and, from our first discussions, I know that she definitely is.
We should all be enthusiastic about this brilliant Bill, which I know will make such a huge difference to tens of thousands of families each and every year. That is because it paves the way for the introduction of neonatal care leave and pay. I am grateful to all the hon. Members in the Chamber for being here to consider this proposal and, I very much hope, to support it. We will never be able to get rid of the stress, anxiety, doubts, questions and trauma that so many families experience when their baby is in neonatal care, but what we can and must do is help to relieve some of the practical and financial challenges that accompany that experience.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
I am delighted to see the Bill come to the Floor of the House, and I know that other hon. Members have sought to bring it previously and have done a huge amount of work in this area. I hope that the Government put their full weight behind it. My constituent Coady Dorman does a lot of work with Bliss, as my hon. Friend will know. She had a premature son, Matthew. He is now thriving, but she spoke about the months she spent going to see him in neonatal care and how different the experience was, and how different maternity leave was after that. She told of the stress and strain of having to worry about money all during that time. My hon. Friend’s Bill will, we hope, take away some of that stress.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. Hearing about those experiences is precisely what has prompted my bringing this Bill forward today. Campaigns groups such as Bliss and The Smallest Things, which I will come to in a moment, have really driven this forward. As she alluded to, there are Members in the Chamber today with personal experience of having a baby in neonatal care, which makes them the best advocates for this cause so I am grateful for their participation. Many of them, such as my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow East (David Linden) and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), and the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall), have been passionate and articulate campaigners for reform for a considerable time.
I am pleased to say that we are joined in the Gallery today by people from Bliss and The Smallest Things, representing families who have direct experience of the challenges around neonatal care; I am immensely grateful to them and so many other organisations and individuals for their help and support in taking this Bill forward and for the campaign they have been driving since long before I was elected to this place. I hope that the families with lived experience of neonatal care who are watching today will be satisfied that we have represented the issues they have faced, and are facing now, with the careful consideration and compassion they deserve.
The Office for National Statistics reports that an estimated 100,000 babies every year across the UK are admitted to neonatal care following their birth. Many of those babies spend prolonged periods of time on a neonatal care unit in a hospital as a result of being born prematurely or with other health conditions. That is, of course, an incredibly worrying and stressful time for parents, and their extended families. All our hearts go out to everyone who has found themselves in that position. Parents will naturally want to be able to focus their attention simply on getting through that period, supporting each other and their newborn. There is an emotional imperative to be with their babies, but there is also a practical one: those vulnerable, little children need their parents, and those parents need to be with their wee ones. As the charity Bliss has highlighted,
“parental presence on a neonatal unit is essential. Babies have the best developmental outcomes when their parents can deliver hands-on care.”
However, some families struggle to do that while keeping in employment and earning a living. Fathers get two weeks of statutory paternity leave. That is good, but when those two weeks run out, they must be called back to work while their baby is still in hospital. How can any parent be expected to focus at work while their sick baby is undergoing life-saving, life-changing neonatal care?
When babies have an extended stay in hospital at the start of their life, mothers report that 39 weeks of paid maternity leave does not give them enough time. That gets used up during the neonatal care and they do not feel that they have enough time at home with their baby before they need to go back to work. Some mothers may choose to leave work as a result. Indeed, research by The Smallest Things shows that one in 10 mothers were not able to return to work due to the ongoing needs of their babies who had required neonatal care.
That research also highlights two incredibly concerning statistics, which are perhaps unsurprising given the emotional trauma of a baby being born premature or sick. The charity reports that 77% of parents said they experienced anxiety after neonatal care, and that nearly a quarter had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder after neonatal intensive care. In short, The Smallest Things concludes that we need to strengthen the statutory rights and support offered to these parents because that
“would give parents the emotional and financial support needed at a time of great stress and trauma – in turn leading to better postnatal health, a more positive return to work and better outcomes for children born prematurely.”
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
I commend my hon. Friend for bringing forward this really important Bill. I got in a taxi the other day that was driven by one of his constituents who said that his baby had spent nearly three months in hospital having been born prematurely. His employer was not at all helpful, so he had to go back to work after his two weeks’ paternity leave. It was incredibly stressful—everything my hon. Friend is talking about rings really true—and he ended up having to leave that employment because being with his wife and baby was far more important. That is why the Bill is so important for families.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There are employers out there who already provide this support for their employees, and they are to be commended. Unfortunately, though, as we have heard, there are too many who do not. Sometimes fathers are forced to use sick pay for extended periods, which is far from ideal, and on other occasions, as we have just heard, people are forced back to work.
At an incredibly distressing time when these families need each other the most, we should be doing what we can to support them and allow them to spend that precious and vital time with their babies. As Bliss has highlighted, the main reason why parents on maternity leave return to work before they are ready, and why parents taking paternity leave return to work while their baby is still in neonatal care, is financial pressure.
Bliss estimates that the additional cost of a neonatal stay is around £250 per week by the time we factor in travel costs, buying food and drink at the hospital, extra childcare, and even accommodation costs if the hospital is far from home. That is obviously a significant financial burden, and I am very glad that it was recognised by the Scottish Government when they established the neonatal expenses fund—now the young patients family fund—in 2018.
The Bill will create a new statutory leave and pay entitlement for the parents of babies receiving neonatal care. Employed parents who find themselves in this immensely challenging situation in the future will know that, as a minimum, they are entitled to time off work to care for their babies, and that they will not suffer any repercussions as a result. Crucially, the Bill will allow parents to have protected time off work to care for their children at such a difficult time.
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing the Bill forward. I want to express how I much I support what he is trying to do. As somebody who was employed when my wife, who is also a constituent of Broxtowe, had our twin children, who were six weeks premature and one of whom spent three weeks in neonatal care, I strongly support the hon. Gentleman’s Bill.
Stuart C. McDonald
As I said, the best arguments come from those with direct experience—they are the most powerful advocates—so I am really grateful to the hon. Gentleman for staying behind this morning and lending his support.
As I said in response to the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan), there are some brilliant, supportive and flexible employers out there, such as those who are signed up to The Smallest Things’ “Employer with Heart” charter. I take this opportunity to commend them and ask them to continue to support their employees when these circumstances occur. However, we all know that there are employers who are not as forward thinking—some cannot afford to be—and it is those employers, and the parents who work for them, that we will need particularly to consider when introducing the provisions of the Bill. In short, that is why neonatal care, leave and pay entitlement is not just desirable, but essential to protect and support parents at this very difficult time.
Let me explain to the House in a bit more detail what the Bill and the powers it sets up are designed to achieve. Much of the framework and terminology borrows from other related statutory rights ensuring consistency, compatibility and, hopefully, ease of implementation. I am grateful to parliamentary counsel for their work in drafting the Bill to reflect the important policy goals. Neonatal care, leave and pay will apply to parents of babies who are admitted into hospital at the age of up to 28 days and who have a continuous stay in hospital or in other agreed care settings of seven full days or more. It is intended that eligible parents will be able to take up to 12 weeks of paid leave on top of their other parental entitlements, such as maternity or paternity leave. Neonatal care leave will be a day one right—available to an employee from their first day in a new job. Statutory neonatal care pay, like other family-related pay rights, would be available to those employees who meet continuity of service and a minimum earning test.
Parents will have an entitlement to up to 12 weeks of neonatal care leave—one week for every week that the child spends in neonatal care. That leave will be protected, and a person should not suffer any form of detriment due to taking that leave. As I have said, statutory neonatal care pay will be available to employees who meet continuity of service and minimum earnings tests, and it will be paid at the statutory rate, which is currently £156.66 or 90% of the employee’s average wages, whichever is lower, and that should be uprated in line with increases to statutory payments. That mirrors the existing family leave in pay provisions such as paternity, shared parental, adoption and maternity pay after the first six weeks. Employers will be able to reclaim spending on neonatal pay in a manner similar to other statutory payments.
It is expected that some parents, such as fathers who have only two weeks of paternity leave, may want to take their neonatal leave while their child is still in neonatal care. However, once maternity leave commences, a mother cannot stop it to take neonatal care leave, or she will lose her remaining maternity leave rights. Neonatal care leave will therefore be flexible so that mothers can add it to the end of their maternity leave and other forms of parental leave that they may be entitled to. That flexibility allows an employee to take the leave at a time that best suits them when their child is receiving or has received neonatal care. With that in mind, the Bill provides for the window of time within which neonatal care leave can be taken to be set out in regulations. That will be a minimum of 68 weeks following the child’s birth, ensuring that mothers and fathers have sufficient time to take their neonatal care leave alongside other leave rights that they may be entitled to, rather than having to lose out on any such entitlements.
I do not aim to persuade Members that every single aspect of the design of the scheme is perfect—of course there are arguments that it might not be. There are debates to be had about statutory rights and entitlements and support for the self-employed or workers who are not technically employees. We can debate whether neonatal pay, like leave, should be a day one right. Some might ask whether we should raise levels of statutory entitlements. While 12 weeks of leave and pay will cover the overwhelming majority of cases, others might ask if we can go further.
First, it is important to remember that the Bill and the regulations will set out minimum standards for neonatal leave and pay. Employers can and do already go beyond them, and we encourage them to continue to do that. In any event, while those are all fair questions and issues, they are for another day and relate to statutory rights more generally, not the principle behind introducing this new right.
Today, I hope we will take a significant step forward in expanding the range of statutory family rights to leave and pay—a step that will make a big difference to tens of thousands of families every year for generations to come. There is overwhelming support for this change from families, trade unions, health professionals and employers, and Members of Parliament from all corners of the House support it, too. Indeed, it is a rare and remarkable Bill that will at one and the same time deliver on a specific manifesto commitment of the Conservative party and the SNP.
No more should we be leaving parents to use up maternity and paternity leave travelling great distances to a neonatal ward. There should be no more forcing fathers back to work after two weeks with their newborn still on a ventilator, separating families at a crucial time, no more leaving mum to cope on a neonatal ward facing significant decisions alone and no more depriving babies in neonatal units of the support of both their parents. There should be no more making parents choose unnecessarily between being with their newborn baby in hospital and being able to secure an income through work. This Bill will help thousands of parents each year to spend more precious time with their premature and sick babies, so we need this Bill to succeed for them.
To conclude, I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House share my desire to ensure that the Bill succeeds. Collectively, we have an opportunity to effect real change. It is our duty to ensure that those who will have to rely on such provision are fully able to do so.
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)
I am genuinely delighted to rise to support the Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Bill. For me, as for other hon. Members and many families around the country, this is much more consequential than any political debate happening this week that might be receiving more attention. I could not be happier that we are here at Second Reading.
I sincerely thank the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) for bringing forward the Bill and for introducing it in the way that he did. He spoke eloquently about some of the challenges facing parents, he outlined why the Bill is important, and he took us through some of its important elements. I know that he understands how important it is to many people. I also thank the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) for championing the Bill as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on premature and sick babies, and for helping us ensure that it got to Second Reading today.
Every year in the UK, tens of thousands of babies receive neonatal care. For the families of those babies, as we have heard, that can be life-changing. Neonatal care is the type of care that a child receives in hospital if they are born premature, at full term but with a condition or illness that needs medical attention, or with a particularly low birth weight. Rather than the families bringing their child home shortly after birth, the child is admitted to a specialist neonatal intensive care unit to receive the support that ensures that they have the best possible chance of survival—in some cases—and of quality of life.
There is a huge wealth of evidence that suggests that the more time that a parent spends with their child in NICU from as early as possible, the better their chances and outcomes. Crucially, this Bill will allow parents to take additional time off work when their child is in neonatal intensive care to ensure that they are no longer in the ridiculous and impossible position of having to choose between keeping their job or spending time with their child.
Once the Bill is enacted, neonatal leave and pay will be available to employees whose child spends more than one week on a NICU. It will provide up to 12 weeks’ paid leave for qualifying parents. Currently, parents of a child in neonatal care rely on the existing statutory requirements that we have already heard about so they can be off work with their child in hospital, which means that parents spend a proportion of their maternity or paternity leave with their child in hospital.
Babies who have spent a long time in hospital after birth are, of course, at an earlier stage in their development when their parent has to go back to work compared with their peers. That is particularly challenging for lots of mothers who want to spend that extra time at home with their child and for fathers and non-child-bearing parents who often go back to work when their child is still in hospital, sometimes still on ventilation and being fed through a tube. It is completely unacceptable. All that has only ever led in one direction: reduced parental involvement, huge pressure on families and a reduced opportunity for bonding at an early stage.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) for bringing this important Bill to the House. It has such great support. My hon. Friend touches on an important point. My constituent got in touch about her experience when her child was in neonatal care. Her husband forwent his parental leave until after the baby came out of hospital, so that he could spend time with the baby at home. Those missing weeks really make a difference to the bonding and matter to the parents and the child, so I welcome the Bill.
Luke Hall
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, because it only leads in one direction—parents being with their children less in hospital—and the main reason for that is simply that parents cannot afford to take the time off work. That is happening to the families of premature children every single day up and down the country.
For me, as for many other families and hon. Members present, this is personal. In my family’s case, I remember my wife being admitted to hospital 22 weeks into her pregnancy. She was told that she could give birth at any time and that she would have to stay in hospital for the duration of her pregnancy. We had to wait day by day hoping that she would stay in hospital and the pregnancy would continue.
I remember hoping that the late-night phone calls from the hospital at 2 o’clock in the morning were bringing good news rather than bad. I remember the incredible day that he was born at just 28 weeks. He weighed 2.4 lb—he was absolutely tiny—and stayed in NICU for 72 of the longest days I could possibly describe before coming home. It is important to say this, because, for so many families of premature children, this is a very, very long journey. It does not start the day the child is born. It does not start the first day or the eighth day; it starts often months beforehand. There is a huge mental toll, as we have heard already, on parents when they are in NICU with their child. We know that the mental health of the majority of parents suffers. Of course it does.
Parents, whatever the circumstances, want to be with their children when they are born. That is completely natural, but when your child is so small and so vulnerable, it is painful to be apart from them. You just want to be there. Too many parents have to sit with their children while they are in incubation worrying about whether they can afford to pay the bus fare home. We cannot allow that to continue and this Bill will play an important part in stopping that happening.
People were delighted when numerous parties made the manifesto commitment to introduce neonatal leave and pay. I would have loved this to be delivered two years ago through a Government Bill, but—I have to be honest—that does not matter to me today. All that matters is that the Government embrace this as the opportunity to deliver this important commitment that we have made with open arms.
On the Bill itself, I want to thank the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East and the Government for the way they have worked with us so far on this. I also thank the previous Minister, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), who gave so much time to talk to us about finding a vehicle to introduce this. I know that the new Minister will take up the cause with equal vigour.
I want to raise a couple of points. The first is the timing of the introduction of the Bill. The normal practice would be for it to be introduced at the start of a new financial year. Back in March 2020 in the Budget, the Government committed to introduce the measure in the 2023-24 financial year and set the funding aside for it. To meet that, in what is now an incredibly challenging timescale, the Bill needs to pass through Parliament quickly. Will the Minister talk in her wind-up about the proposed introduction date and whether we can still meet the 2023 target? I believe that there is precedent for Bills getting done quickly. It is important because, if we introduce the measure in 2024 rather than 2023, we will needlessly leave thousands more parents in the situation for a year longer than is necessary.
We had conversations with the previous Minister for quite a long time about making sure that the background work continued while we tried to find a vehicle to deliver the measure. In December last year, the Minister assured me that the Department was working with HMRC and drafting the guidance for businesses, making sure that HMRC’s IT systems were ready and everything else. Will the Minister update us on how that work is progressing and whether the guidance will be ready on time?
My second point is perhaps more technical and more for Committee. I saw that the qualifying period was seven days, which was completely expected, but that the seven days start the day after birth. That is a point that we can discuss later during the passage of the Bill; it seems a tiny bit at odds with some of the ways in which the neonatal care days are recorded, certainly in England—I am not sure about other parts of the UK.
Delivering neonatal leave and pay will help thousands of babies born needing neonatal care to benefit from their parents being where they should be—by their side providing the hands-on care that is so vital. It will deliver support for thousands of parents who need it during the most difficult days of their lives. I am hugely grateful to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East for choosing this Bill and delivering it the way that he did and to the Government for backing it. The Bill is uncontroversial and has cross-party support. We have waited for it for a long time. I am hugely proud to be here to support its passage. It will help to deliver on our promise to so many families.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald). When I told him that he had come top of the private Member’s Bills ballot, he thought that I was just someone who was interested, notwithstanding what happened earlier. It was actually because I was so keen to see this Bill come forward. This is a Bill that I sought to introduce in 2018 via the ten-minute rule. It is a testament to how generous and warm my hon. Friend is that he has been presented with this opportunity by winning the parliamentary lottery. Many of us would like to see the private Member’s Bill process reformed, but I am incredibly grateful to him and will be forever in his debt that he has taken the Bill on.
Like my hon. Friend, I pay tribute to the former Minister, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully). He and I have been discussing and meeting about this issue. I have questioned him on the Floor of the House for a very long time about it. It became clear that, in the absence of an employment Bill, the most sensible way of dealing with it, particularly given the cross-party support we have, was to decouple it and take this as a stand-alone Bill. I am glad we are going down that route.
I would like to pay tribute to and recognise a few other people, particularly Catriona Ogilvy from The Smallest Things, and Josie Anderson and Beth McCleverty from Bliss. I have been working with them for years on this, and the fact that we are finally seeing the Bill go through the House is a point of enormous pride. It is the culmination of many years of work by not just MPs, which I will come to in a moment, but, most importantly, parents whose children are born premature or sick.
This is actually politics at its best. It is no secret that I am not a fan of this place, and I do everything every single day to try to get out of here, but if the House will indulge me for one moment, this is probably one of the best moments we have had here, because we are seeing politicians coming together, putting party politics aside and using their personal experience.
One of the reasons the all-party parliamentary group on premature and sick babies works so well is that the officers of that group all have one thing in common. It is not the fact that they are Members of Parliament; it is that they are the parents of premature and sick-born babies. I want to thank the hon. Members for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall) and for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), and the hon. Members for Broxtowe (Darren Henry) and for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), who have come together to put party politics and indeed constitutional politics aside to ensure that we do deliver for those families.
This Bill is not particularly controversial. It is a relatively short Bill and the budget line only commits to about £15 million, as the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate said, in the 2023 Budget, but it will have a massive impact on the families of those 90,000 to 100,000 babies who every year are born in the UK and spend time in neonatal care.
As the House will recall, both of my children—Isaac and Jessica—were born premature. In Isaac’s case, we only had about 14 weeks from finding out that he was going to arrive to his coming into the world. I still remember that moment when it moved to an emergency caesarean and being whipped away to a neonatal intensive care unit, and the real worry going through that time. In both cases—for both my children—my parental leave was well up by the time we got out of hospital. In the case of my daughter Jessica, who is now three years old, she spent roughly the first year of her life on oxygen and many weeks and months in the neonatal intensive care unit.
The hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate hit the nail on the head when he talked about the mental health impact that this has on parents. I still remember vividly, and will until my dying day, watching my daughter turn blue in the incubator, with noises, alarms and lights all going off and neonatal nurses rushing in to resuscitate her. The idea that we as legislators would expect our constituents to be at work when that is happening or, worse still, to do a shift after that is something we are putting right today, because that is a historical wrong.
There is also the point that employers will not get the best out of their employees when they are sitting at work and staring into space, worrying whether or not their child is going to make it through the day. They are also not going to be in a good space when they realise that mum is back in the neonatal intensive care ward and doctors are coming round to talk about the massive consequential decisions that families have to take, while the dad, or another parent perhaps, is sitting in front of a computer in the office. That is why this is so important.
There are, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East has said, good employers out there already: Sony Music, Waltham Forest Council, South Ayrshire Council all have innovative policies in place. Interestingly, we have a big debate in this House about proxy voting. As far as I understand it, proxy voting still does not have provision for neonatal care leave. Although there will be a period before we can get Royal Assent, this House could get its own house in order by ensuring that we have some form of neonatal leave immediately with proxy voting.
Hannah Bardell
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the excellent work he has done over many years on this issue. My own chief of staff, Stephanie, had her twin girls—Abi and Jessica—during the deepest, darkest lockdown of the winter of 2020. She had the pressure of having two premature babies, being quite ill and having to go in and out of the neonatal unit. So much of what he says rings true, and I hope I did what I could as an employer, but I felt that my hands were tied by the rules of this place. I remember trying to give her all the support I could, but her partner worked offshore and had to go back offshore; he could not even be in the same place as her after that. Does my hon. Friend agree that everything he says and everything this Bill brings forward will be so important to our constituents, our staff and staff the length and breadth of the country? It should not be left up to individual businesses to make policies; this needs to be in legislation.
David Linden
My hon. Friend makes a good point. As well as reforming some of the issues around proxy voting in this place, which I accept impacts only a small amount of us, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, which is responsible for setting many of the policies and conditions on how Members of the House employ staff, could do a lot more not just on guidance but to reform the rules.
There are a number of good employers out there—I have mentioned them already—but one thing we saw as a result of the P&O scandal is that, sadly, far too many employers are too tempted to gild the lily, cut corners and undercut their staff. I am conscious that there is cross-party consensus this morning, but I will not depart from the belief that the sooner we have an employment Bill before the House, the better so we could try to deal with some of the other issues, such as the excellent proposition on miscarriage leave made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley). It is important that the Minister considers how we could bring forward an employment Bill. However, ultimately, this Bill will end the lottery that far too many employees across these islands have to deal with. I agree with the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate about the need to expedite the Bill. I still have a concern that, although the Bill will be read a Second time today, we should get it into Committee as soon as possible, and to the Lords. My preference would be to do all stages on the Floor of the House. There is precedent for that. Given the immense cross-party agreement on this, we could get the Bill through in a couple of hours.
I put a direct challenge to whoever the two final candidates are for Prime Minister. I understand that whoever becomes Prime Minister will be enormously tempted to call a snap election. The danger with doing that is that the House would prorogue and the Bill would not receive Royal Assent. I would like a commitment from both candidates that they will not play fast and loose with that.
There are many more things that we can do to try to support families who have had premature or sick babies. We need to look at the neonatal workforce. That is a ticking time bomb that will go off in about 10 years’ time. We need to look at the school admissions code, certainly in England, and look across the UK at the poor hospital accommodation for parents. Far too many parents have to stay in hotels well off site. That is particularly challenging for mothers who are breastfeeding and there are all sorts of other issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East referred to the neonatal expenses fund that we have in Scotland. We are incredibly lucky to have that, but it is not available to our friends in other parts of these islands.
Finally, we will have to look at the postcode lottery and the desert of counselling that exists across health boards and NHS trusts. It has been well rehearsed this morning that having a baby who is born premature or sick can have a serious detrimental impact on the mental health of parents and frankly it is just luck whether they get that support at that time. I very much look forward to the Bill going to Committee, ensuring that it passes through the House speedily and can receive Royal Assent. I commend it to the House.
Jill Mortimer (Hartlepool) (Con)
I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) on this important Bill. As chair of the all-party group on maternity, I know all too well that more support is needed for parents and babies in neonatal care, including statutory pay and leave. I am proud that the UK already has a range of policies in place to support parents to balance work and family life, including family-related leave and pay entitlements, the right to request flexible working, and protections from detriment for parents seeking or taking time off work to care for their families. However, it has become increasingly clear through national consultations and my work chairing the all-party group that we should be offering even more support to parents whose babies are in neonatal care. That was a key pledge in our 2019 manifesto and I am delighted to support the Bill.
Although I do not have a neonatal care unit in my constituency, our midwives at the Rowan suite in Hartlepool are superb. They are some of the most caring and loving people I know. Still, no care, however brilliant, can truly beat that provided by parents themselves. Parents whose babies are in neonatal care should be able to spend as much time as possible by their baby’s side. Holding them in their arms, feeling that tiny heartbeat, stroking the first hairs on their head should not be overshadowed by worries about work and pay. We all know that this skin-to-skin contact in the first weeks following birth is essential to ensuring better outcomes for babies and their parents. Long periods of direct care by parents can improve breastfeeding rates, increase weight gain, improve infant reflexes, lead to better motor development, and reduce pain during invasive procedures.
However, too many parents are excluded from that direct care. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall) and the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East said—I thank them for sharing their emotional stories—it is a particular problem for fathers. With only two weeks of paternity leave available, 66% of fathers have to return to work long before their babies are well enough to come home. In fact, in around 70% of families with a significant neonatal stay, one parent had to return to work while their baby was still being cared for in hospital—often in another city many miles away.
Although mothers are entitled to longer leave than fathers, many mothers also have to return to work before they should. This is because mothers whose babies are in neonatal care use weeks or months of their maternity leave while they are still in the hospital. When their baby comes home, mothers may only have a few weeks with their baby before their statutory maternity pay comes to an end. It is simply not right that mothers must return to the workplace when their baby has only just left neonatal care.
However, this is about more than parents’ financial worries; it is about addressing the emotional trauma a parent goes through when their baby is seriously unwell and in neonatal care. As many as 80% of parents report that their mental health deteriorated after their neonatal experience. They deserve our full support, which I believe this Bill will offer. No parent should be forced back into the workplace when their baby is in neonatal care. The financial and emotional stresses caused by the current system cannot go on. I join colleagues across the House in supporting this Bill, and I hope that mothers and fathers across the country will be reassured by the contributions in today’s debate.
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) on securing this private Member’s Bill and on deciding to use the opportunity to introduce legislation on such an important subject.
The Bill makes provision for dedicated leave and pay for employees with responsibility for children receiving neonatal care. I hope it will receive cross-party support as the policy is long overdue. I am sure Members from all parties will be familiar with the situation, either through personal circumstances, as outlined by some hon. Members this morning, or family, and many constituents will also be affected by the current lack of financial support and security.
Parents in this situation currently have to spend a proportion of their maternity or paternity leave with the baby in hospital. Compared with their peers, babies who have to spend a long time in hospital after birth are usually at an earlier stage in their development when their mother or parents go back to work. That can be particularly upsetting for mothers, many of whom would like additional time with their child but cannot afford to take any more time off work. This initiative therefore has my strongest support.
Leave and pay for those with responsibility for children in neonatal care represent one crucial element in a wider response to the needs of these children and their parents. Before I consider the benefits of implementing such a policy, let me say a few words about the other essential element. Getting the best results depends largely on parents’ ability to take time to be with their baby when it is most vulnerable, in hospital-based neonatal units and services. In February 2019, the then Scottish Health Secretary, Jeane Freeman MSP, visited Crosshouse Hospital in East Ayrshire, only a few miles from my constituency. She was there to announce the launch of a Scottish Government initiative, backed by £12 million of dedicated funding, to testing a new model for neonatal careful. The scheme offers all expectant mums care from a primary midwife, alongside a small team, for their entire maternity journey. Support will be on hand to help parents with babies in neonatal units to provide as much day-to-day care for their newborn babies as possible. In March 2019, the scheme was welcomed by this House in an early-day motion tabled by SNP MPs. The Bill will build on that good work in Scotland and provide benefits for mothers, fathers, siblings and extended families across the United Kingdom.
After decades of falling neonatal mortality rates among all socioeconomic groups, we are now seeing a deeply worrying rising trend among the more deprived groups, which began two or more years after the UK Government’s austerity policies were first implemented. SNP MPs at Westminster have long been aware of the even greater impact of austerity policies in England, where the lack of mitigating actions of the kind implemented by the Scottish Government has resulted in even greater levels of poverty, particularly child poverty.
The scale of demand for neonatal care is considerable. According to Bliss—the leading charity whose vision is for every baby born prematurely or sick in the United Kingdom to have the best chance of survival and quality of life—more than 90,000 babies are cared for in neonatal units in the United Kingdom every year. Neonatal units and the services they offer are fundamental to the care of vulnerable children, but parents cannot always fully utilise them unless they are supported by a dedicated leave and pay entitlement that enables them to afford to do so.
My hon. Friend’s proposal recognises that a critical element of making a success of neonatal care is parents’ ability to take advantage of existing highly skilled and professional neonatal units. However, there are wider benefits. Research in 2018 showed that 80% of parents who have had a child admitted to neonatal intensive care feel that their mental health suffered, while 35% of parents report that there was a significant impact on their mental health. The inability to afford to be with their child in the neonatal unit for the full time is a major factor in those outcomes. The costs for those individuals personally and the impact on employment and family can be immense. Many thousands of families are affected.
The Bill is of considerable importance to the most vulnerable in our society. It will help families at one of the most difficult times in their lives and will demonstrate that as a country we recognise the value of providing support to parents and families who need it at the most emotionally difficult time for them. It has my strongest support and I hope that it will receive the full support of the House.
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) on introducing this hugely important Bill. It has been about four and a half years since I last spoke from the Back Benches; it feels a little unfamiliar, but it is right that I am doing it on a sitting Friday for private Members’ Bills. One of the great benefits of having recently become an ex-Minister is that I have the opportunity to speak in debates like this one and put my support behind such excellent private Members’ Bills.
It is perhaps somewhat surprising, but I welcome the fact that the Scottish National party is helping to implement a Conservative manifesto commitment for us. I do not think that that would happen very often, but it is a testament to this House’s ability to come together around issues that really matter. When people watch proceedings of this House such as Prime Minister’s questions, they often see the combative nature of politics. I encourage many more people to watch sitting Fridays, when the House comes together to deliver outcomes and legislation that genuinely make a difference to people’s lives. That is one reason why I am very pleased to be here today.
Another reason is the persuasive skills of my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), who does an amazing job of encouraging all Members who are able to come in on a Friday to contribute to important debates such as this one. I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt) to her place on the Front Bench; I very much hope that she will be there for many years to come.
The context of the Bill was ably set out by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East. One in seven babies requires neonatal care of some sort, and 50,000 babies a year require neonatal care in hospital for more than a week, so the need is stark. The hon. Gentleman mentioned a number of other factors—for example, the need to look at the support and accommodation available to families in hospital settings, including simple things such as catering facilities. I encourage my successor in the Department of Health and Social Care to bear that in mind as we look to build new hospitals and upgrade others.
The Bill goes to the heart of what is hugely important to these families, too many of whom are asked to choose between their livelihoods, work and obligations, and their time with their child. This debate reminds me of the debates we had on what is now the Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Act 2018, which those who were Members of the House back in 2017 and 2018 will remember. In those debates, we talked about the fact that many businesses do the right thing and make support available, even though they are not compelled by statute to go as far as we will hopefully move towards today, but some do not, which is why it is right that we legislate through this Bill to put that right and fill the gap.
The Bill reminds me not only of those debates, but of our debates on the children’s funeral fund, for which the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) campaigned. I was the Minister who put that in place. Again, that provision is hugely important. The two measures that I have outlined are in place for when the worst happens. Thankfully, today we are talking not about the worst happening, but about babies who need more neonatal care in hospital. However, there is a common theme that runs through the pieces of legislation that are already in place and this Bill: giving parents the time and space to be parents, to be with their children and to process what is going on, without at the same time having to worry constantly about what is happening to their job or their family finances.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Member for all the help he gave me when he was a Minister; I am really grateful. I pledge my support to the Bill, because during lockdown I was blessed with two grandsons, and the provisions in the Bill would have made a huge difference to my daughter Angharad and her husband Ciaran—who we call “Shaky”, but that is another story!
Edward Argar
It was a pleasure and a privilege to work with the hon. Lady on a number of issues during my stint in the Department of Health. That goes to the heart of what I said about how much we can achieve in the House—how much is often not seen outside the House—by working across the Chamber, making changes that are often small but that genuinely make a huge difference to people’s lives.
We have heard that there is already a degree of statutory support available, such as the ability to request flexible working, which is welcome, but it does not go far enough and it does not address the challenge of businesses that choose not to do the right thing, not to be flexible and not to support such families.
I hugely welcome what the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East has brought before the House. Of course there are details to be worked out, and I hope that can be done speedily and efficiently in Committee. I am happy to volunteer to the hon. Gentleman that if I am still on the Back Benches when the time comes—in anticipation of a possible longer stint on the Back Benches—I would be happy to serve on the Committee for this important piece of legislation. It is hugely important: no family or parent should be forced to choose, or feel forced to choose, between having the space to be with their child in neonatal care, and their livelihood and job, yet there are currently parents who have to make that choice every day. That cannot be right, which is why I hugely welcome the hon. Gentleman’s Bill. I look forward to supporting the Bill today and, should he so wish, to serving on the Bill Committee to help ensure that we get the legislation on to the statute book as quickly as possible.
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
I am delighted to be considering this important private Member’s Bill this morning and I thank the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald)— [Interruption.] I am sorry; I have honestly practised saying “Kirkintilloch East”—for bringing it forward. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar). While the Conservative party occupies the Treasury Bench, I think it is time for him to be back on the Front Bench, because we cannot do without his talent. He is a massively respected Member and it would be good to see him back where he belongs.
I will not keep the House long, but I want to put my support on the record. A friend of mine gave birth to a very premature little girl some years ago, and I know she stayed with that little girl in hospital day in and day out until she was ready to leave hospital. I know that that time was truly precious, but I also know that it was terrifying. Thankfully, Esme is now doing really well: she is a tiny little dot with the hugest smile and so much energy and life. She just has a zest for life that is a joy to behold. She is thoroughly engaging and she is doing so very well at school, despite being the youngest and, I am sure, the tiniest in her class.
However, if Esme’s mum had not been able to stay there day in and day out, I am not sure the prognosis would have been as positive as it has been. I want to make sure that all families get to be there for their little ones when their little ones need them most. As we have heard, every year tens of thousands of babies are born prematurely or sick and need to remain in hospital. Of course their parents want to stay with them and have a say in their care. They just want to be with them, but right now we know that there are parents who want to stay with their baby but cannot, because their employer simply does not get it or because they cannot afford to take time off work and lose essential income.
As we have heard, according to the charity Bliss, for every week their baby is in hospital, parents end up having to spend an extra £282 on average. We all know that for many people that is simply not possible without incurring a huge and debilitating debt. It is not right that parents have to take sick leave instead of neonatal leave, because taking sick leave when they are not sick comes with a certain stigma. Frankly, employers do not like it, because they cannot reclaim statutory sick pay, so it costs them money.
Taking sick leave also disincentivises employers from doing the right thing and offering paid neonatal care. We need to keep in mind that these mums, dads, other carers and relatives are going through hell. I really hope that today we will do all we can to ease some of the terrible pressure they are under and support their right to paid leave. Across this House we often talk about giving children the best start in life, equal opportunities and levelling up. If we mean what we say and we truly want to give newborn babies the best start in life, we need to make sure that their parents can be there in the hospital with them to develop that early bond. We need to make sure that parents, including dads, can maintain skin-to-skin contact with their babies, which is so important for development and bonding. We all know how damaging and traumatic it can be to separate a child from its parents at such an early age, and we know that a major way of looking after children is by helping out their parents in these crucial times. For those who have to cope with the additional strain of a child in hospital and the terror, the trauma, that goes with having a sick or premature baby, additional support is so desperately needed. If we want them to have the best chance of keeping their family together, of supporting each other and of enabling their child’s healthy emotional education and social development, we have to give them time with their baby.
A law to allow paid leave for neonatal care has been a long time coming, so I hope the Government will honour their commitment to introducing paid leave for neonatal care by ensuring the smooth and quick passage of this Bill.
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member on his Bill. I will not attempt to say the name of his constituency, but I would love to visit one day.
I will not speak for too long, but I will address some of the points that have been raised. First, I endorse this Bill and will do all I can to support its passage. This is such an important issue. We heard earlier about personal experience, and the personal experiences of my friends who have had to use neonatal care, including my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall) and the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), really touch one’s heart. Those precious moments, from our child’s first seconds, are embedded in our souls, our minds and our memories.
Thankfully, my daughter did not need neonatal care, but those moments—the nine months leading up to her birth, and the seconds after she was born—are seared into me. They create tears, memories and hopes for the future. I cannot imagine what it must be like, in those first few weeks, for a parent to be stuck at work when they want to be with their child at their most precious, most vulnerable and most fragile. All a parent would want is just to be there to support them and, even if they cannot hug them, to know that they are close enough to do so.
For me, this Bill is much more than just legislation. It is about doing the right thing and it is about compassion. I came into politics because I believe in people and because I believe in a compassionate society. We sometimes disagree in this House on how we get there, but this is one issue on which we can come together.
My daughter was born in my constituency at Watford General Hospital, which has a neonatal unit, and during the pandemic I did voluntary work in the maternity unit’s filing area. I had not realised how much work the staff do behind the scenes before a child is born, and in the following weeks, to make sure they are safe. The neonatal period is intense. There is so much happening, and so many moments that require a rapid reaction. Again, I cannot imagine how difficult it must be for a parent to be away from their baby as they wait, listen and hang on for a phone call or message to find out if everything is going to be okay.
I absolutely endorse this Bill, and I wish the hon. Member the best of luck today. The Minister is doing a fantastic job in her first week, and I urge her to support the Bill’s passage to leave a legacy. Generations to come will talk about this day for many years.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
As a member of the all-party parliamentary group on premature and sick babies, and as someone whose family has had experience of these matters, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) on choosing paid neonatal care leave as the subject of his Bill, and on putting the case so well and so fully. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), the chair of the all-party group, for all his campaigning on an issue which, as we have heard, is also very personal to him.
Given that the Government are supportive and are also keen to get through a number of Bills today, I will not seek to repeat the arguments that have been made so forcefully by the hon. Members for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall), for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer), my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Allan Dorans), the hon. Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar)—he nearly put the kibosh on the Bill by claiming that it was fulfilling a Conservative manifesto commitment, but we will gloss over that for now—the hon. Member for West Ham (Ms Brown) who has my sympathy; the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East is indeed a mouthful, the hon. Member for Watford (Dean Russell), and, obviously, none more so than my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East. Instead, I will talk briefly about my family’s experience, and about the good luck that we had on so many levels.
My wife Lynn had pre-eclampsia during both her pregnancies. It was particularly acute during her first pregnancy, with our daughter Emma. The care that she received when she was eventually admitted was exemplary. I could not fault it; it was fantastic from start to finish. However, when my wife was first sent to hospital by her GP, having presented feeling nauseous and light-headed and with various other symptoms, she was not taken entirely seriously when she got there. Her blood pressure was up and down, and at one point her condition was diagnosed as “white coat syndrome” and she was sent home. But she knows her own body, and she did not feel right at all, so she made a phone call, went back to the hospital, and was eventually admitted.
Emma was born six and a half weeks early, in an emergency caesarean. Thankfully, she seemed healthy for a baby born so early, in comparison with many even smaller babies whose care was more critical and more urgent. She was certainly loud enough, although our youngest, Eilidh, has since managed to beat her quite convincingly on the decibel front. My ears can attest to the fact that that has not changed throughout the last nearly 16 years and 12 years respectively. They will be grateful for that!
Once Emma was born, my wife sent me straight back to work. My hon. Friend spoke of the choices that we are forced to face in these circumstances. My wife wanted my paternity leave to coincide with her arriving home from hospital with Emma, so that I could help around the house following her caesarean. As other Members have mentioned, it does not feel natural in the slightest to go back to work when a small, fragile baby girl is in an incubator and an exhausted wife is recovering from surgery, but back to work I went, because we do as we are told—sometimes.
Darren Henry
I am a former member of the all-party group, because the subject is important to me as well, but may I make a point about work and productivity? Does the hon. Gentleman believe that people who have been through this experience and have been afforded the necessary space will then go back to work and be more productive? Does he believe that other employees, seeing that happening, will feel that they need not make a choice between work and family, will see this as a compassionate society, and will do better work as a result?
Gavin Newlands
I could not agree more, but my productivity probably could not be measured in that way, because I had gone back to work. Having done so, I spoke with colleagues, receiving their congratulations and so on. Not long after my return, I was called into the office by my boss Thomas, who sent me straight back to the hospital, saying that my place was by Lynn’s side, supporting her. Moreover, he said that I was not to worry about leave or money, and I was given additional paid leave for as long as I required it. My wife’s boss similarly ensured that her maternity leave started at the originally planned date.
This was not policy, in either case; the additional leave was given at those bosses’ discretion. I want to thank Thomas Kelly and Steve Tomlin for their empathy and for their support. We were extremely lucky to have such empathetic bosses, but as others have said, it should not be down to luck.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I am here to support this Bill because of the experiences of my sister with my niece Erin, who was born three years ago. I looked after my nephew and other niece throughout that week.
The importance of this Bill, as my hon. Friend knows from his own experiences, is that it would alleviate somewhat the stress that people go through, because they would not have to worry about their leave or pay. Does he agree that that is one reason why the Bill needs to go through the House today?
Gavin Newlands
I certainly do, and I am pleased that my hon. Friend managed to get in just before my final sentence, not least because his sister went to the same school as me.
I hope that, despite the mayhem all around the Minister at the moment, she will see this paid leave rolled out as quickly as possible so that all parents are as lucky as we were.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
It is a real privilege to speak in this debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) on introducing the Bill—I hope I have got his constituency right. I am Scottish born and bred, so I should.
It has been very moving to hear the experiences of many Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall) and the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden). I do not have children myself, but we all empathise with them in the traumatic experiences they have had. I speak on behalf of my constituents in saying that we think this Bill is simply the right thing to do.
On a personal basis, it is pleasing for me to speak in this debate because, until last week, I was a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, so I was part of some of the discussions on the Bill. It is good to see it come to the Floor of the House. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), who is going on to bigger and greater things. He was an exceptional Minister in BEIS, and he is compassionate and focused and has done great work on this topic. I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt), to her place, and I know she will do an exceptional job of carrying on that work.
I also pay tribute to the many charities that have been advocating for the Bill. Bliss has been mentioned on a number of occasions, but others such as The Smallest Things and Tommy’s have also been involved. I thank all the parents who have shared their individuals stories, because that has the most impact.
My hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar) put it so well: people should not be asked to choose between their livelihood and being with a very ill newborn child. The scale of this issue is large: I was surprised to read that one in seven children needs neonatal care, and more than 50,000 a year spend considerable time in neonatal care units. This is an ongoing problem, because 80% of those children need ongoing medical assistance and almost half end up back in neonatal care. This is not simply a one-off event.
There is no question that when a child is born prematurely or with major healthcare issues, the only place for the parents should be by their side. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer) put it very well when she said that those first few days and weeks of close physical contact are so important for the development of a child. Also, critical decisions may have to be made while a baby is in neonatal care. Those can literally be life and death decisions, and the parents need to be there when they are being made. They should not be at work. They need to be there in real time, seeing the development of the child’s care. While all the medical staff do the most amazing job, there is nothing better than the focus of relatives and parents. I have seen that in other situations when I have visited family and friends in hospital. It is the care of the immediate relatives that can sometimes be so, so powerful.
I have talked about the scale of the problem, but I also want to talk about the intensity of the problem. These are some of the most traumatic moments that any parent will go through. My hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate talked very powerfully about the mental health issues that parents may suffer. I was also quite surprised to read that 66% of fathers end up having to go back to work while their child is in neonatal care. That may have been okay 30 or 40 years ago, but I think we all now live in a world where we realise it is vital that both parents, whatever sex they may be, are very, very involved at the earliest stages of the care. That is very important.
What is also very important is that once the child comes out of neonatal care both mothers and fathers can spend time with the child. I heard a few weeks ago that a lot of parents end up using their maternity and paternity leave in the intensive care unit, and then, when the child goes home from the ICU, they immediately have to go back to work at that point and do not have the few weeks or months of bonding once the child is home. If your child has been in neonatal care—either because they have been incredibly premature or had serious health issues—you need that bonding time even more than if it were a normal healthy child.
Some people have asked, “Does this put too much of the burden on employers?” I argue that that is not the case. I started off by saying that as a society we need to do the right thing, and this is clearly the right thing, but employers also need to do the right thing. I argue that it is in the interests of employers to do the right thing. We are in an employment environment where it is incredibly difficult to hire good-quality talent, with the lowest unemployment rates since 1974, so it is in the economic interest of employers to provide good packages for employees, because they are in a war for talent and they can only secure the best talent if they are a humane, compassionate employer. Most employers will use discretion and do the right thing, but we should not be subject to an employer’s whims and their discretion. This needs to be in statute, so I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) for introducing this important Bill. This is a Conservative manifesto pledge and we also had it in our March 2020 Budget, so it is good that it is coming to fruition in such a cross-party and co-operative manner.
I will conclude my remarks by saying that I very much welcome this legislation. It is the right thing to do and my constituents think it is the right thing to do. There is no question but that when someone has a child in neonatal care, the parents should be there too and not in work. They should be doing everything they can to support their baby at that time, and they should have the support of society.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Having observed that this Bill has total unanimity of support in the House, I do not think it compromises my usual impartiality if I seek to add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East—it is quite easy to say that when you know how—on bringing forward such an excellent Bill. Having given birth to a premature baby one week after a general election, and in the middle of a Conservative leadership election, I can understand some of the stresses and strains that have been expressed this morning. Let us proceed, with Ruth Jones.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
Thank you for calling me and for indulging me this morning, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was not going to speak in this debate but I have been so inspired by hearing everybody else that I feel that I must add my personal support, and that of my party, to the Bill. I thank the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) for bringing it forward, as it is so important. I also thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your eloquent words highlighting exactly why we are doing this.
As a former physiotherapist—I worked as a paediatric physio for many years—I am proud to say that I set up the physio service at what was the special care baby unit at the Royal Gwent Hospital in my constituency; obviously, it is now known as the neonatal intensive care unit. It was set up because the evidence was clear that parents need to be with their children at that stage when their babies are born. We are talking about babies born as young as 24 weeks, which gives them 16 weeks to get to the normal gestational age, so it is really important that parents are there from the very beginning. The scientific research, which I am proud to say I was partly involved with, shows just how important bonding with parents is at that age. We have heard eloquent speeches from others about the importance of breastfeeding, the weight gain and the calming ability of what physios would call “handling”, what we here would call “cuddles” and, obviously, what we in Wales we would call “cwtshys”. It is very important that these cwtshys are there, from mums and dads—we must not forget dads, as it is so important that they are able to be included.
We also need to remember what happens during the transition home. After perhaps 10 weeks having been spent in a very scientific and clinical area, taking that little precious baby home is very scary for parents. It is so important that dad is there with mum to support with that transition back. I endorse all the points made by other eloquent speakers in this debate, but I urge the Minister to do all she can to make sure that the Bill progresses, despite any turbulence we might be having because of leadership elections. It is really important that we get this Bill on the statute book to benefit parents and babies across the UK.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to be responding to this debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) for bringing the Bill forward—[Interruption.] I think the trick is to say it quite fast. I also thank all my hon. Friends who are here to support it. I was glad to see the Bill top the ballot and the hon. Member take up the work, building on that of the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), who, as he outlined, has been pressing for this for a long time and who talked about his own experience with Isaac and Jessica. He spoke powerfully, as a number of Members have today, based on his own experience.
Parents should not have to be at work or worrying about work when their child is in this situation. We heard from the hon. Members for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall), for Glasgow East, and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), as well as from my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Ms Brown) who spoke about Esme, who sounds delightful, about just what parents have to go through.
When I visited the neonatal intensive care unit at Southmead Hospital in Bristol, it was just heartbreaking to see those tiny little babies in the incubators. Sadly in quite a few cases those children will not ever be going home with their parents, and I cannot think of anything worse than having to sit there watching a child with a very short life, almost waiting for it to die. In many cases, the kids do get to go home and it is brilliant to hear how they are thriving. Madam Deputy Speaker, I was very glad to hear you talk about your own experience. I think you are excused for speaking from the Chair on this occasion.
In a civilised society, we have a duty of care to people who are at an incredibly traumatic time in their lives. As I said, it must be heart-wrenching to be in that situation. We have heard from Bliss, and we all pay tribute to the charities involved in campaigning for this Bill. They are there to support the parents of babies who are born prematurely or ill. As we have heard, one in seven babies born in the UK receives some level of neonatal care shortly after birth. Thankfully, many do return home with their families after just a few days of care, but around 50,000 spend more than a week in neonatal care every year.
The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East said that some employers are very understanding, but others are not. In some cases, it is not that they do not want to be, it is just that as a small employer it can be difficult to financially support parents in that situation, but this Bill will put everybody on an even footing. The hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate talked about the ridiculous and impossible position that parents are put in when forced to choose between work and being with a child in hospital. He talked about his tiny son. When he said, “You just want to be there”, that is all it comes down to, and it is where parents should be. They should be able to put work completely out of their minds when in such a situation.
We have heard that some parents are put in an agonising position where they are forced back to work to cover their bills. That is particularly true for fathers and non-birthing partners who are entitled to just two weeks of paternity leave. It also affects mothers who run out of maternity leave if their babies end up having to have longer stays in hospital. Another issue is the after-care needed when families are at long last able to take their baby home—all these follow-up appointments and the checks on the babies’ health. It is worth mentioning that sometimes they will not be the first child or only child in the family. When my niece was diagnosed with cystic fibrosis at a few weeks old, my sister had to balance trying to make sure that she was absolutely their priority, with the two older children who were only toddlers and needed help and support, too. Trying to juggle all that is just so difficult. In some cases it can be a lifelong commitment if the child has disabilities or continuing conditions. Even without those logistics of having to be in hospital or attend appointments, it is about emotionally wanting to just focus on that one thing.
We have heard a spirit of cross-party consensus today. When we were in government, I was the Friday Whip, and I have been here on many Fridays when there has been endless tedious filibustering. That is such an utter waste of time, and it is very difficult to explain to constituents who really want us to support Bills. When I found myself on Bench duty today, I was quite surprised that the Whip told me that we were hoping to get through quite a few Bills, and that we would be supporting them and hoping to get them into Committee. That is exactly how we ought to be working together.
I do not want to get too party political, but I will say that it is disappointing, given that neonatal leave and pay was a manifesto commitment, that we are having to rely on a private Member’s Bill to get to this stage. [Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), says, “It’s faster; that’s why we’re doing it,” but the Government consulted on this issue in the previous Parliament, and they said in their official response that Ministers remained committed to a new entitlement. They committed to it again in the “Good Work Plan”, they committed to legislation in the 2019 manifesto, and they were due to address it in the employment Bill, which has twice been trailed and then dropped from the legislative programme. The shadow Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), said when it was dropped that that was an extraordinary move.
We are where we are. I hope that we can get the Bill through very quickly. Labour very much supports it. As we set out in our new deal for working people, we will give families the right to flexible working and to paid family and carers leave, and provide workers with greater ability to enforce those rights. As I said, I am pleased to see the spirit of co-operation today. I urge the House to give the Bill its Second Reading, and I hope that we can get it through Committee and see it become law as quickly as possible.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Jane Hunt)
I thank the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) for bringing forward this important Bill, and I thank all hon. Members who have spoken on this important matter today. I am pleased to confirm that the Government will support the Bill.
As a mother myself, I know exactly how incredible that moment is when your baby is born. It is a time that should be full of joy and excitement. It must be devastating to see your baby whisked away and in need of urgent medical care, yet feel unable to do anything about it except be there. I can only offer my full support to all those who have experienced that.
That is why I am pleased to be here today and pleased to have taken on this important portfolio. I am deeply committed to ensuring that the UK is the best place in the world to work and grow a business. We need a strong and flexible labour market that supports participation and economic growth. I take this opportunity to thank my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully)—
Jane Hunt
Absolutely, and he is now a Minister of State at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. I think hon. Members will agree that he is a committed and compassionate Minister, and I am pleased to be following him and moving this agenda forward—I will have to work very hard indeed to do so. I also thank the all-party parliamentary group on premature and sick babies, and in particular its chair, the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden).
Neonatal care leave and pay will enable thousands of parents to care for and be with their children in neonatal care without worrying about whether their job is at risk. I am pleased to see that the Bill has support across the House, as has been reflected in the debate—I thank everybody very much. I will take time to address some of the points raised by hon. Members, but first let me put on the record why the Government support the Bill.
As the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East explained, every year in the UK, an estimated 100,000 babies are admitted to neonatal care following their birth, for a range of medical reasons. The United Kingdom has a range of generous entitlements and protections designed to support parents to balance their family and work commitments and maintain their place in the labour market while raising their children. However, for parents in the worrying position of having their newborn admitted to neonatal care, it is clear that the current leave and pay entitlements do not provide adequate support.
In an Adjournment debate on 9 February, my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall) said:
“The current system is also a massive barrier for fathers and non-childbearing parents in particular. Earlier this week, 75% of parents who responded to a survey from Bliss, the incredible charity, said that they or their partner went back to work before their baby was home from hospital. Some of those children will still have been on ventilation and receiving critical care. Previous research suggests that the most common reason for that is they simply cannot afford to take more time off work. That is happening every single day, right around the country, to families of premature and sick children.”—[Official Report, 9 February 2022; Vol. 708, c. 1054.]
That is why we are here today and have been able to come to an agreement. The Government have previously consulted on the issue. In March 2020, we committed to introducing a new entitlement to neonatal leave and pay. We are pleased to support the Bill, which will bring that policy into effect.
I will address some of the specific points that hon. Members have made. First, I thank the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East for bringing forward the Bill, and my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate for bringing his personal experience so emotionally and compassionately to the Chamber. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer) talked particularly about fathers. I absolutely support what she said about giving extra time to both parents to be there for their child. I will refer to some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Allan Dorans) later.
The hon. Member for Glasgow East also talked movingly about his personal experience. The hon. Member for West Ham (Ms Brown) mentioned a specific case. My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell) volunteered in his own Watford hospital—a legacy for all here today, hopefully, we will provide. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) referred to his personal experience and his children, who are clearly taking after their father. On his behalf, I also thank Thomas and Steve, the employers who helped him and his wife and did all they could to support them as members of staff.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan) said that the Bill is the right thing to do and talked about bonding time; we must agree that that is a vital relationship for parents at that time. She also said that good employers are already doing the right thing and helping with newborn children. This Bill is a floor, not a ceiling. I want to ensure that everybody gets a good level of care, and other businesses may be able to put something on top of that, as she said.
I will refer to the point made by the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) later. Madam Deputy Speaker, who is no longer in her place, talked about what happened to her and the stressful time that she had in more ways than one. The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) pointed out that the child is often not the only child in the family, which must be considered. There were also many helpful and supportive interventions from hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate raised concerns about the length of time that it would take for the Bill to be implemented. There is clearly cross-party support for the Bill and we hope that it will complete its parliamentary passage and receive Royal Assent as swiftly as possible. Setting up a new leave and pay entitlement takes time. It requires secondary legislation and changes to Government systems that administer statutory payments, and businesses need good notice in order to prepare. HMRC and commercial payroll providers require at least 18 months’ lead time to implement such changes following Royal Assent. I spoke with my officials this week, however, and we are looking at what we can do to speed that up. I note that the hon. Member for Glasgow East, my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), the hon. Member for Newport West all requested that.
David Linden
I am grateful to the Minister for her discussions with officials in her Department, but will she undertake to have a conversation with the Leader of the House and business managers to see whether it might be possible to expedite the Bill as we try to get it through the House?
Jane Hunt
That is a good idea, and I will take that up.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate also raised concerns about why seven full days of neonatal are required before the entitlement is triggered. In response, I flag that the policy is primarily intended to support parents of babies facing longer stays in hospital and that the needs of parents in that position must be balanced against those of their employer. When developing the approach, the responses from parents, parent representative groups and business representatives to the 2019 consultation on neonatal leave and pay were considered.
Luke Hall
I thank the Minister for the tone of her response so far, especially her points about being prepared to look at speeding up the implementation of the Bill following Royal Assent.
I have a small, technical point. I completely accept the seven-day trigger, which is largely in line with what everyone was expecting, but I was not expecting that the first day appears to be the day after birth, so it is actually eight days. We do not need to deal with that today—we could look at it in Committee—but will the Minister commit to taking that away and talking to officials in BEIS? That conversation can continue throughout the Bill’s passage.
Jane Hunt
I absolutely will take that away.
The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock referred to other family leave and pay entitlements. Parents have access to a range of pay and leave entitlements in their child’s first year, giving working families more choice and flexibility about who cares for their child and when. Our maternity leave entitlement is generous. To qualifying employed women, we offer 52 weeks of maternity leave, of which 39 are paid. That is more than three times the EU minimum requirement. For self-employed women, and those who are not eligible for statutory maternity pay, maternity allowance may be available. Both maternity payments are designed to provide a measure of financial security to help women to stop working towards the end of their pregnancy and in the months after childbirth in the interests of their and their baby’s health and wellbeing.
We also recognise that fathers and partners play a crucial role in the first year of their child’s life, both through supporting the mother and by developing a relationship with the child. Paternity leave arrangements enable employed fathers and partners who meet the qualifying conditions to take up to two weeks of paid leave within the first eight weeks following the birth of their child or placement for adoption. We recognise, however, that paternity leave can be improved, so we made a manifesto commitment to make it easier for fathers and partners to take it. We will announce how we will be doing that in due course.
Shared parental leave and pay provides parents with flexibility over their child’s care in the first year. It challenges the assumption that the mother will always be the primary carer and enables working parents to share up to 50 weeks of leave and up to 37 weeks of pay in the first year of their child’s life. That enables mothers who want to return to work early to do so and enables fathers and partners to be their child’s primary carer if the parents wish. To help make shared parental leave more accessible, we launched an online tool last year that allows parents to check their eligibility and plan their leave. We are evaluating the shared parental leave scheme and will publish further findings in due course.
The hon. Member for Bristol East queried the length of time it has taken to legislate and deliver this entitlement. In 2019, the Conservative party manifesto committed to introducing neonatal leave care and pay. We consulted on the details and published a response in 2020. During covid, the Government rightly prioritised our response to the pandemic. We are pleased that the neonatal care leave and pay entitlement is now being taken forward in legislation and fully support this Bill.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
I did not intend to speak today, as this is a particularly fresh issue for me and it has been a challenging few weeks. I thank my SNP colleagues for the support that they have given to me and my family in that regard. Before the Minister concludes, will she place on record her thanks and support for all the staff who work tirelessly in neonatal units across these isles, and the miraculous work they do to keep young people alive and give them the futures that they deserve?
Jane Hunt
Absolutely, and I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for that intervention. That is absolutely spot-on and correct, and I fully support everything he said.
In conclusion, these measures would provide invaluable support and protection for parents during some of the most stressful days of their lives when their children are in neonatal care. That entitlement is also backed by Government evidence and analysis, showing a clear need for further support for those parents. Therefore, the Government are pleased to support the Bill. Supporting the Bill is in line with our ongoing commitment to support workers and build a high-skilled, high-productivity, high-wage economy. It is good to see support from across the political spectrum for this important measure, as is clear from the debate. I look forward to continuing to work with the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East to support the passage of the Bill.
Stuart C. McDonald
May I say how grateful, and indeed humbled, I am with the way Members have spoken so passionately, coming together unanimously to support the Bill? I was optimistic about support for the Bill, but it has taken my breath away. Indeed, the hon. Member for Watford (Dean Russell) has suggested a visit to my constituency, and the talented former Minister, the hon. Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar) requested to serve on the Bill Committee. The answer, of course, is yes, particularly if he can bring a friend. There was even a welcome and powerful intervention from you, Madam Deputy Speaker, which we all appreciated.
Many Members raised similar points, which is testimony to the work of charities such as Bliss and others, how they have advocated for this case, and how we have all become familiar with the arguments in favour of the Bill. Many other sensible points have been added, which it was remiss of me to miss out in my opening speech. One of those was about the benefit to employers. Employers are overwhelmingly in support of these measures. They appreciate that having folk at work who have kids in neonatal care is of no use to them, and they end up managing it through sick pay and other means, rather than through proper statutory leave.
Finally, it is so important to welcome and highlight the fantastic work of staff in neonatal units up and down the country, and I look forward to visiting the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) to see that at first hand. As I said at the outset of the debate, the best advocates for this cause are those who speak from personal experience. I am particularly grateful to MPs who have spoken from that point of view today, and I look forward to working with them all in the weeks ahead to as the Bill continues its passage through the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63).
Employment (Allocation of Tips) Bill
Friday 15th July 2022
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Employment (Allocation of Tips) Act 2023 View all Employment (Allocation of Tips) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am incredibly pleased that we have time today to debate this important issue and Bill. I am the Member of Parliament for Watford, which has a thriving hospitality and service sector. That means that many of my constituents, and those from surrounding areas, work in roles where tips, gratuities and service charges are given to them—for the simplicity of my speech I will refer to those things as tips from now on, rather than give the full list.
For individuals who work in those roles, tips are an important part of receiving a thank you, and in many cases they are a token gesture from customers. Across Watford, not only do many people working in hospitality receive tips, but probably everyone—we are a very generous constituency—will have given a tip over the past few years. I was shocked when I found out, especially during the summer period after lockdown when we could reopen restaurants and were able to go back out and give tips, that hospitality workers could not necessarily guarantee that they could keep them. I think most people would be shocked to know that if they gave a tip through the business—via a credit card, say, as is increasingly more prominent and popular—there is no guarantee that the person or team they gave it to would receive it.
Of course, in most instances businesses are fair and kind and ensure that those tips get to the staff who were given them. Sadly, however, we know that there are always those who are unscrupulous and unfair and will choose to exploit their staff and keep the tips for themselves, sometimes in part, sometimes in full.
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing forward this Bill. It is certainly one I support, and hopefully a final victory for the long-running fair tips campaign run by Unite the Union. As he says, however, we know that some employers can be extraordinarily devious in exploiting loopholes in employment law at the expense of either the public purse or workers. What consideration is he giving to future-proofing this Bill to make it really difficult for operators, including those using digital platforms such as Deliveroo, for example, to avoid the spirit of such important legislation?
Dean Russell
I thank the hon. Member—I would like to say friend—for her question. I will come to that later, but it sits within the code of practice and ensuring that at the heart of this Bill is a word she will hear me repeat many times: fairness. That is baked into the approach that will be taken. As I will say later, I am looking forward to meeting businesses, sector representatives and unions to chat about how we make that code of practice work well and ensure it is fair for everyone involved.
As hon. Members will know, over the past few months media reports have highlighted that the taking of tips, especially via credit cards, and businesses taking more than their fair share—indeed, taking a share of something they should not even be getting—is increasing. One of the reasons that concerns me, and why this Bill is so important not just in principle but right now and should be enacted as soon as possible, is that we are seeing a rise in the cost of living.
People who work in hospitality should not need to rely on tips as part of their salary. I am absolutely clear in the Bill that it is not about topping up salaries; it is about a gratuity, tip or service charge in addition. However, employees should be able to keep them. That should be at the heart of what we do, and that is what this Bill will do. That is why I say that fairness is key, because we all have a sense of fairness. We know what is right and wrong, and we know that if we give somebody some money to say thank you, they should be able to keep that money or choose to share it with others. That is key. A great deal of work has been done over the past few weeks to try to get this proposed legislation right, and I hope that people will see that in the Bill and that the code of practice will cover that.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing this important and overdue Bill to the House. We are all thinking of the people in hospitality who will benefit from it. I have been contacted by constituents who have had up to 15% of tips removed from their pay packet. Obviously, this Bill will address that. However, this measure will also matter to members of the public too. How many of us ask when we go to pay our bill, “Will the tips go directly to the person who has given us such great service tonight?” yet do not know whether the answer we get will be correct? This Bill will ensure that we have that security and that people paying their bill can trust that that tip will go to the person who has given them that service. I hope that my hon. Friend will have every success with this Bill, and that it will be backed up with a media campaign to let people know that their tips will go to the person who actually deserves them.
Dean Russell
My hon. Friend makes a brilliant point. I thank her so much for her endorsement and support, and for representing her constituents. I have heard the same stories from so many Members. In fact, a lot of Members—I will not name them—tell me that they worked in hospitality when they were students, and have experienced this issue; it really cuts through. On my hon. Friend’s point about a media campaign, I invite colleagues from across the House to help me promote this legislation as widely as possible. I hope that in a year’s time—hopefully sooner, but it might be a bit later—we get to the day when a customer never again has to ask, “Will you definitely be able to keep this tip?” That is one of the ambitions of the Bill.
The Bill is not about bashing business. Most businesses comprise good people, good entrepreneurs and good CEOs, and most pass on tips fairly. The businesses that I have spoken to—especially in my constituency and through fantastic Members of Parliament across the House—support the legislation, and hospitality businesses definitely do so.
Let me turn to fairness for workers, which is covered in several aspects of the Bill.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the hon. Member on bringing this excellent Bill to the House. Fairness is the key word. He has mentioned that he is working with businesses and trade unions. I am a Labour and Co-operative party MP. May I ask whether he has reached out to the Co-operative party? Many businesses are co-operatives, and I am sure the Co-operative party would be grateful if he reached out to it.
Dean Russell
The hon. Member makes a brilliant point. The idea of the code of practice is to ensure that we do that engagement, and I am hopeful that when we reach out to such organisations, they will help with the media campaign. We need to ensure that everybody knows about the legislation and to highlight that there are businesses that do not pass on tips. In the meantime, I hope that people challenge businesses on that when they speak to them.
The Bill will provide greater transparency for employers and workers in teams regarding how tips should be treated; that will be clear to everyone. It will create a level playing field for the majority of businesses that already pass on tips to workers fairly and transparently, ensuring that they know that other businesses will do the same as they have always done. As we have already mentioned, through the Bill consumers will have the confidence that the full value of their tips will go to workers, and the premise of the Bill is that 100% of tips will go to the workers. The code of practice will agree how that will be shared, and we can turn to that point later.
Jill Mortimer (Hartlepool) (Con)
May I speak on behalf of all the backroom staff in hospitality venues? As a teenager, my son worked for many years as a pot washer for very little money, but he always felt really appreciated when he got the little top-up that was his share of the tips. We should remember all those people and how important it is to them to know that they are valued.
Dean Russell
Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution. May I also mention the fabulous staff in this place? I know that on occasion, some very kind Members of Parliament do give tips, even though it might not be reported.
I have covered some points around fairness for workers, but I will go into a little more detail. The Bill will create a legal obligation for employers that receive tips directly from customers, or that have control or significant influence over the distribution of tips that workers receive directly, to distribute tips to workers fairly and transparently. The obligation will be attached to the total amount of the qualifying tips paid at, or otherwise attributable to, an employer’s place of business, and the tips must be allocated fairly between workers at that place of business. For example, in the case of a big chain, the tip will go into a pot to be distributed to everyone who works not in the chain, but at that particular venue.
Importantly, the situation will remain the same in cases where employers do not receive, or have control or significant influence over, tips. For example, the Bill will not cover me giving a tenner directly to a waiter or waitress at the end of a meal, as it is clear that it is for them. However, the Bill would come into force if they put the money through the business, perhaps via a credit card payment. Similarly, the Bill will not cover situations where employees already have their own tip jar that they look after, because those tips will not be touched by the business.
Fairness is key to ensuring that businesses and employees know exactly where they stand, but we also need to ensure that there is some flexibility. Every business is different—that is the nature of it. Someone working in hairdressing is going to have a different approach to the way they receive or manage tips from someone who works in a restaurant, bar or hotel. What we are trying to do with the code of conduct is to make sure that that is covered, and I hope that is going to come after this Bill today—
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend in mid flow. As someone who has had many an argument with restaurant managers about removing service charges in London, in order to be able to give cash directly to staff, and nearly been thrown out of restaurants for it, may I put on record my congratulations to him on bringing this Bill to the House today? Let me also add my thanks on behalf of all the hospitality industry workers in my constituency and across the wider Cumbrian area who will benefit from this.
Dean Russell
I thank my hon. Friend for that. He stands up so strongly for workers and for the rights of people across this whole country, but particularly in his constituency. I am very conscious that there is a thing called the tronc system, although I will not go into too much detail on it now because of the time available. Tronc is an arrangement commonly used in the hospitality sector, where an employer delegates the collection, allocation and distribution of tips to a person or persons known as a “troncmaster” or tronc operator. The Bill does not seek to regulate the operators of independent tronc systems, which are commonly used by many businesses already. However, I raised this matter when I was talking through how to make this Bill the best it can be and I found that some stakeholders have been concerned about whether a business could then put pressure on a troncmaster to do something that is unfair. So, to mitigate that risk, under this Bill workers can bring an employment tribunal claim if an employer’s use of an independent tronc is not fair. I hope that that will capture any concerns on that front.
As we have just discussed briefly, another aspect of fairness is ensuring that there are no deductions from tips. So at the core of the Bill is the creation of a legal obligation for employers to distribute all tips, gratuities and service charges to workers, without any deductions. When customers pay service charges, they expect that money to go in full to the staff and to the individuals they have asked it to go to. Sadly, some employers retain part or the whole service charge without passing it on to their workers, so this Bill will deal with that. Some hon. Members have asked me whether this legislation will also cover credit card deductions and administrative costs, and some businesses have raised that issue with me too. Since 2018, payment processing fees cannot be passed on to consumers. In line with that, employers will not be able to deduct payment processing fees from tips––that also includes mandatory and discretionary service charges which are added automatically on to customers’ bills by some hospitality venues. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mark Jenkinson) will be relieved that that will no longer be the case, as he has probably had arguments on that front in the past. Administering tips should not impose significantly on a business’s operating costs, but that credit card admin charge might be significant for an individual. Two or three payments can be significant for an individual when we are talking about tips. So, again, this is about fairness; businesses do not incur a significant cost in respect of this money from tips, but if it were taken off the staff, it would be significant for them. It is important to include that provision in the Bill and to put what I have just set out on the record.
Ensuring that tips are passed on to workers in full, with no deductions by employers, will make a real difference to workers’ lives, while not creating a burden on businesses. As I noted earlier, an important practical aspect of the Bill will be the code of practice, which I will expand upon now for a few moments. The Bill includes provisions for the Secretary of State to issue a statutory code of practice, which will promote fairness and transparency in relation to the distribution of qualifying tips, and help tribunals determine whether it is fair for an employer to make certain tronc arrangements. Employment tribunals must have regard to relevant provisions of the code when determining whether an allocation of tips or making of certain tronc arrangements is fair. The code will consider some of the factors that may be relevant to fairness and will provide a number of examples and real-life scenarios that exemplify fair tipping practices, to help reflect the myriad circumstances in which employers can handle tips in an acceptable fashion. The hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees) mentioned engagement, so let me say that the code will be published in draft and consulted on before the relevant sections of this legislation come into force. The code will also require approval from both Houses of Parliament. I hope that that reassures colleagues across the House that there will be scrutiny and that we will ensure that it is covered fully. The defining principles of the Bill will need to capture the nuances of fairness. As I have mentioned, I want to engage widely to ensure that the code of practice really works. I welcome anyone reaching out to me after Second Reading. If the Government and the Minister support the Bill going through to the next stage, and the House joins us in that approach, I will be really keen to engage and hear hon. Members’ points.
One of the core issues is remedies and enforcement. Crucially, the Bill will be enforced by workers through the employment tribunal system and will provide employment tribunals with remedies where an employer has made deductions from tips or has not allocated tips in a fair and transparent way. If an employer does not allocate tips fairly among workers, the employment tribunal can make an order that does one of three things: require the employer to revise any allocation of tips that they have made, recommend that the employer deals with tips in a certain way, or require the employer to make a payment to one or more workers so that they receive the tips that they should have received.
The employment tribunal may additionally compensate workers by up to £5,000 for related financial loss attributable to a breach of the provisions. Workers will also be able to make a complaint to an employment tribunal if their employer does not keep sufficient records relating to tipping practices; the tribunal can order the employer to compensate workers by up to £5,000. It is worth noting that workers must consult ACAS before bringing forward a claim. The majority of employment disputes are settled before they reach an employment tribunal.
I would like it to be absolutely clear that nothing in the Bill will make changes to taxation for employers or employees. It is purely about employees’ rights and workers’ rights.
I will conclude my remarks because I want to hear the fantastic speeches that are no doubt coming up. I thank the Minister and her predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), for their incredible support with the Bill; I hope that I can convince colleagues to get it over the line today. I thank everyone who has helped me to introduce it to the House: hon. Members past and present, constituents and my fabulous Watford businesses and residents, who have repeatedly raised the importance of the issue. As we are all aware, the private Members’ Bill process is fragile, so I am keen to work with all hon. Members, all organisations and everyone I can to make sure that the Bill works. I urge the Minister to support it.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We have all learned a new word today: “tronc”, which I will try in Wordle later.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
I apologise if I sound repetitive, but I said I supported the previous Bill today because it was the right thing to do, and I support this Bill because it is the right thing to do. I think my constituents, who probably spend quite a lot of their take-home pay in restaurants and bars, would be very shocked if they learned that their tips, whether or not made by credit card, are actually the legal property of the restaurant owner. That would really surprise people.
The timing of the Bill is important because hospitality clearly faces major challenges, particularly in recruiting staff. The more we can professionalise the hospitality sector and its employment practices, the better: it will make it more likely that restaurants and bars can be fully staffed. That is very important to me, because I represent a central London constituency. My constituency of Kensington and that of my neighbours in Westminster probably has the greatest density of restaurants, bars and other leisure facilities so the Bill is very important to residents.
I was shocked to hear that my local gastropub is no longer able to open on a Monday or Tuesday, not because it does not have the clientele—it is always overbooked, with people waiting for tables—but simply because it cannot get the staff. We cannot have a situation in which businesses, which are so important for livelihoods and for the general economy, cannot operate because they cannot hire staff. The Bill will go a small way towards making the hospitality sector more attractive to staff because they will have a legal entitlement to tips and will not simply have to wait for their employer to do the right thing.
Staffing in this sector is going to be so important going forward. We need to ensure that we have workers who can keep the economy going. In London the tourist season is beginning to start again. I am delighted to see in my constituency that not only domestic tourists but lots of international tourists are returning. So it is important that restaurants, bars and other leisure units can continue to function.
Doing the right thing is critical, and professionalising the industry is also very important. This is good timing, because as we are all aware, workers are suffering from the effects of global inflation—it is global; it is not a UK issue. So it is very important that employees are getting the proper pay package. I was shocked to hear that in the past some employers even used tips to make up the minimum wage. Clearly, that is no longer happening. It has been ruled out, but it is important that the intention of consumers is fulfilled. The intention of consumers is important. When I eat out, I give an extra 12.5%, not because I think that my burger should have cost 12.5% more but because I think that the waiter and the other staff deserve that extra remuneration.
The statutory code of conduct will be critical; we should not diminish its significance. How tips are allocated among staff will be important. Lots of staff work in these establishments, not simply the waiter who comes to the table. So getting the fair balance between the frontline and backline staff is going to be important. We should not diminish the significance of that. I am well aware that the Bill is just one step, and getting the details right is going to be critical.
My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell) spoke about the consultation that he has already done, but I encourage him to ensure that the detailed consultation carries forward. I am well aware that lots of restaurants are hierarchical institutions and perhaps the person who cleans the dishes in the back of the kitchen is not recognised to the same extent. However, clearly that person is integral to the restaurant. We, as consumers, may not see them, but they are critical and it is important that they are recognised.
I very much welcome the Bill, and it is shocking that the provision is not already the law. I appreciate the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell), who introduced this Bill in 2021 but dropped it in anticipation of the employment Bill. Although I am sure the employment Bill will happen at some point, it was not in the Queen’s Speech, so it is good that my hon. Friend has introduced this private Member’s Bill.
This Bill is a great first step in getting things right for employees, but it is also an important step in ensuring employers are on a level footing and trading on an equal basis. Restaurants that do the wrong thing by their staff should not be in a better competitive situation because they are able to offer cheaper prices to consumers. This Bill is good not only for employees but for employers, because it puts everyone on the same footing and ensures that employers do right not only by their employees but by their consumers, who give tips in the full expectation that they are paid to employees.
I am fully supportive of this Bill. There is no question but that it is the right thing to do. It is important for my constituency, where so much of the economy is made up of restaurants and bars in the night-time economy. I am very grateful for the Bill on behalf of my constituents.
The Bill is also important because it further professionalises the sector, and we will find that many employment practices have to be professionalised in the post-coronavirus world, because only then will employers be able to recruit staff. In every regard, this is an important Bill that formalises what we all think is right, that employees should be able to retain their tips. The Bill fulfils the expectation of every consumer when they go out to eat and drink, and long may that continue.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Met Office has issued its first ever red warning for the heatwave that the country is likely to experience on Monday and Tuesday next week. Has the Department of Health and Social Care given you any notice of its intention to make a statement to this House about the health consequences for the public, not least given that this red warning means there is likely to be a risk to life?
Of course, our newspapers, television screens and airwaves are full of reports of overwhelmed ambulance services and accident and emergency departments. Given that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care failed to answer my urgent question on Wednesday, I would have thought that invisible man might make an appearance today to advise and reassure the public that our public services and emergency services will be able to cope in the light of this emergency.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and for giving me forward notice. I have been given no notification that there will be a statement from the Department of Health and Social Care, or any other Department, today. Should that change, the House will be informed in the usual manner via the annunciators.
It is timely that the hon. Gentleman makes this point of order, as people should take advice in these unusual circumstances. People should take water with them when they travel, they should make sure there is plenty of ventilation and they should seek attention if they are feeling unwell. I thank him again for his point of order.
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell) for presenting the Bill, and for allowing me to contribute to the debate.
I often tip, whether it is the barber or someone in a restaurant or pub, and I enjoy tipping, because I want to reward the people who have worked so hard to give me good service. It is always my hope and intention that the tip will go to the worker who has provided the service that day. Conversely, I would rather not tip someone who had provided a surly or otherwise poor service. In a restaurant in Broxtowe, for instance, I want my tip to go to the waiters and chefs in recognition of, and gratitude for, their great service. I am therefore delighted that the Bill seeks to create a legal obligation on employers to allocate “tips, gratuities and service charges” to workers, without any deductions.
This situation—the unfair distribution of tips—has been going on for a while now. It was in 2015 that the then Business Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), launched an investigation of the abuse of tipping practices. I know that many employers rightly give the tips to their workers, but my hon. Friend seeks to create a level playing field through legislation, which will not only make competition fairer for businesses, but ensure fairness for the employees who work so hard.
I am pleased that the Bill draws attention to this issue, especially given the immense suffering that the hospitality sector had to endure as a result of covid-19. It will ensure that we maintain the incentives for people to work in the sector, and aid its continued recovery following covid, and I congratulate my hon. Friend again on presenting it.
Jill Mortimer (Hartlepool) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell) on this important and necessary Bill. Let me echo his sentiments in saying how great it is that after more than two years of lockdowns and restrictions, we are once again talking about visiting our fantastic local restaurants, pubs and other hospitality venues. We have no shortage of those in Hartlepool: Portofino, The Pier Restaurant, Sambuca, The Owl, No 8 and Juniper Lounge—all of them just a short step away from my office—along with LilyAnne’s and the fabulous Railway Café, run by Lesley. I urge anyone who is able to do so to take advantage of this wonderful weather and visit our marina In Hartlepool, because it will be like the Riviera there this weekend.
The employees in all these venues always provide an excellent service and work extremely hard. They deserve every penny of their tips, and I know that their employers—and, indeed, most small businesses—agree with me. Unfortunately, some businesses, usually the larger high-street chains, do not pass on gratuities to their staff. No one wants to see that extra service charge on their Bill and have to wonder whether the money will go to the person who has provided the service. I have done the same as my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mark Jenkinson): I have said quietly to the server, “Will this come to you?” and if I see a nervous shrug, I ask for the charge to be removed and I give the person cash. These are often young people, including students who are topping up their incomes by working their way through university or college. We need to ensure that they receive the money that they deserve.
The Bill will ensure that tips are always passed on to employees and divided fairly, and I am proud to be supporting it. As inflation and the cost of living increase, it is more important than ever for hospitality staff in Hartlepool and elsewhere to keep their tips. I realise that some businesses fear that these changes may have a negative impact on their finances—that is why it is so important that we continue to support them through the aftermath of the pandemic, as indeed we are—but I am also aware that businesses which ensure that their staff are properly rewarded for hard work and providing service with a smile will, in the long term, increase their customer base, their revenue and their income. I know I go back to places where I like the staff and get to know them. The bar where everybody knows your name is the one you always want to go to.
Rewarding hard work and good customer service would also ensure a welcoming and friendly atmosphere in our hospitality venues, encouraging more people to come together in our pubs, restaurants and cafés, and thereby strengthening our communities and social fabric. For too long, people have stayed at home watching Netflix, and they need to go out and talk to one another again. It is so important, especially after covid restrictions and being confined to our homes, that we promote measures that enhance our sense of community, which has always been strong in Hartlepool, and I am sure this Bill will do exactly that. This Bill is certainly overdue, and I am glad to be supporting it today.
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)
I very much welcome the Bill from my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell). As you will know, Mr Deputy Speaker, he is nothing if not persistent once he has a cause to pursue. I recall that he introduced this Bill in 2021, and as it did not proceed into law at that stage, he is back again and determined to get it through the House on this occasion. I am very happy to be here today to support him in that endeavour.
A lot of the speeches have focused on the hospitality industry—restaurants, bars and similar—but of course, as has been mentioned, this issue is drawn more widely than that and goes across the broader service industry of hairdressing, barbers and so on. A whole range of services are impacted by the issue that my hon. Friend is highlighting today.
Many of our constituents will be unaware, and would be surprised were they made aware, that there is no law—no statute—that directly addresses this issue, and that tips or service charges paid through the business are legally the property of that business. Therefore, it is down to the good will of that business or the approach of that business to ensure that tips get to the staff for whom they are intended. There is no statutory protection of that currently.
Yet as my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan) have said, when any of us or any of our constituents go to a restaurant or the barber and pay a tip, we do it because we want to reflect to the members of staff who have provided exceptional service or courteous and friendly service to us that we recognise that service and want to reward them directly for it.
I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, which is absolutely right, that this is not just about those who are front of house with whom we interact, but about the people in the kitchen, those doing the washing up, and a whole range of others who play a key part in the experience we have enjoyed. It is right that tips are distributed fairly among those who have played a role in our experience. None the less, we expect those tips or service charges to go to those people who have done the work for us, so I very much welcome the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Watford was absolutely right to highlight throughout his speech the word “fairness”, and the Bill goes to the heart of that. It is about fairness to those who are providing the exceptional service and fairness to consumers who believe that the tips and service charges they are paying will go to those individuals. At this point, I should of course pay tribute to the campaigners and to the staff who do the amazing job. I also pay tribute—as the hon. Member for West Ham (Ms Brown), who is not in her place at the moment, highlighted—to Unite the union and others who have been pressing this issue.
When I first entered the House in 2015, this was one of the issues running hot in the news. At that stage, the evidence suggested that about two thirds of employers took some form of deduction from tips or service charges, and sometimes as much as 10%. Of course, there has been progress since then, which is very welcome. However, during the pandemic, people developed behaviours—I do not think they have changed subsequently —of paying for things less with cash and more with cards, therefore putting any tips or additional money through the business in that way. I think the Bill is very timely, and it is the right thing to do.
As has been set out, the Bill creates a legal obligation essentially to allocate tips fairly. Rightly, it does that through a statutory code of practice. That is the right mechanism because it allows for a degree of flexibility and the code to be developed in slightly slower time. There will be complexities, which hon. Members have highlighted, relating to businesses and how to define particular elements, so that is the right approach in such a complex landscape.
The other point highlighted is about people—staff and consumers—being aware. Transparency is vital in this space, so I welcome the inclusion, in the opening remarks from my hon. Friend the Member for Watford, of a written policy that gives people transparency and an understanding of what they can expect, but also—
Jill Mortimer
Does my hon. Friend agree that that is one of the greatest problems with this? Relatively recently, we have always had on bills an optional service charge that is anything but optional. Many people pay it without even really looking at it or considering it, and no one knows if the money goes where it is intended to go and should go. The Bill will make the very important change that we need.
Edward Argar
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That goes to the heart of transparency and openness to the consumer but also to those working in this context. My hon. Friend the Member for Watford, in drafting and presenting the Bill, has, as ever, been diligent. He has set out the route to an employment tribunal, which will be an option, and given those tribunals the remedies they need to make redress, should they find a particular employer has not complied with both the spirit and the letter of the Bill and the code of practice.
From my understanding of the Bill, this is hugely important. The Bill has only 15 clauses, but they are important and tightly drafted. It addresses not just the passing on of tips and service charges without their being top-sliced and deducted, but the vital need for fairness in how they are distributed between staff.
I am absolutely delighted to support my hon. Friend’s Bill. It is about fairness to consumers, but most importantly fairness to the staff who day in, day out provide all of us with exceptional service. They have been through a challenging time. It is important that we recognise this in statute. I suspect many businesses do the right thing and it is always a shame when one has to legislate, but it is right, just as with the previous Bill we debated, to do the right thing by those who provide exceptional and courteous service to us. It is about the kind of society we wish to see and the approach we wish to see within that society. I welcome my hon. Friend’s Bill. He has my complete support and I very much hope that it will have a smooth and swift passage on to the statute book.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
I pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt). This is the first time I have had the chance to speak with her at the Dispatch Box. I worked closely with her while chairing the all-party parliamentary group for small and micro businesses. She was the vice-chair and was always a great source of support and an advocate for small and micro businesses. I wish her all the best and long may it continue.
I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell) for doggedly pursuing this agenda and pushing the Bill. The west midlands has been known for its great exports over many centuries. You may not know this, Mr Deputy Speaker, but my hon. Friend was born in my constituency, so I am glad to count him as one of the exports that is continuing to do great things in Parliament and for the people of Watford. I thank him for bringing the Bill forward. As my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar) said, it is about equity and fairness. My hon. Friend the Member for Watford has pursued this agenda and made sure that the Government recognise the importance of tips in the lives of hospitality workers. I must say, I am a bit surprised that we are even having to have this debate. So many times when I have experienced the great hospitality in my constituency, I have wondered whether my tips actually reach workers’ pockets, and whether a service charge goes to the employees or is for the services that the business—the employer—is providing.
I am pleased that there will be a code of practice to try to address the imbalance in equity and fairness. My hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood said that the majority of businesses do the right thing, and we should recognise that. The majority of hospitality businesses make sure that their staff are taken care of and instil equity and fairness, but clearly that is not the case right across the sector, which is why we need the Bill.
It may well be that we are not a tipping society. Across the pond in the United States, tipping is an integral part of the hospitality sector. When I or my friends have been there, we have always been told, “Please make sure that you tip, because it is part of the income of hospitality sector workers”. It would be remiss of me not to recognise the Government’s great work in getting the national living wage to where it is, but tips are a necessary add-on. Given where inflation is, the Bill is a timely way of addressing issues of equity and fairness.
I have a number of points to raise with the Minister, and I am sure she will address them. On service charges and the code of practice, when I speak to hospitality businesses, they tell me they have not had an easy time over the past few years. It has been incredibly challenging, for obvious reasons—lockdowns are not a friend to many parts of the economy, but specifically to businesses in the hospitality sector. They have had to try to survive, and many have been grateful for the support that the Government have given them, whether business rates relief, bounce back loans or the furlough scheme. Those have all been great assets. I was intrigued to learn that where businesses in the hospitality sector were able to take advantage of the furlough scheme, many of their workers ended up getting second jobs and then did not return to the original employer because they were being paid much more. That has contributed to a significant shortage of workers in the sector—a shortage that was already there pre covid. The issues with skills are of long standing, but they have been made more acute by the decisions that people have had to make during covid.
In that context, a tipping system that is in statute, supported by a code of practice, and embodies elements of fairness, equity and justice—those quintessential British values—will certainly go some way to addressing the acute skills shortage, so it could be an asset to the hospitality sector’s ability to start recruiting again. It is not the only way we need to address the issue, and I am sure the Minister will be working hard to look at that, but it will provide great support. I hope she can provide some clarity on that.
The other aspect of the Bill is service charges. I am less confrontational than my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mark Jenkinson), and I sometimes do pay the service charge, not knowing whether I can or should challenge it. Perhaps I should channel my inner Workington man—
Saqib Bhatti
Indeed. However, the question still stands: if a business deems a service charge necessary for the service that it provides, how will that be addressed? What I do not want to see is an additional line with a new name, adding a new cost that consumers have to pay. That may well undermine the notion that we should tip, because we will already be subjected to another percentage fee. Perhaps that is something that the code of practice will look at.
While I have the Minister’s ear, let me reflect on a roundtable I attended in the past two to three weeks at Nailcote Hall, which is a great hospitality venue. Meriden, bordering Birmingham and Coventry in a beautiful setting in the west midlands, and with the airport and great connections, is a great place for hospitality businesses to flourish. When things are great, it is fantastic to see the hospitality sector thriving, but in the post-covid world, a lot of my inbox has been taken up trying to address the issues that those businesses face. In the early days of covid, that meant trying to get liquidity and loans to help them survive and then thrive, and now it means helping them through the issues that they currently face.
The hospitality sector wanted me to send a clear message to the Government that while they have had a reasonably good period of post-covid recovery, during which people have returned, a lot of work still needs to be done. We should not underestimate the damage that covid has done to the hospitality sector. I return to the point about having clarity in the code of practice. I think hospitality businesses would welcome that guidance.
On that note, I pay tribute again not just to hospitality workers but to the majority of businesses that recognise how important their workers are, how important retention is and how important it is to create an environment in which they are able to recruit. The staff, of course, make up and define a business, and for the businesses that do not have a good environment, their reputation gets out there. I wish we did not need this Bill. Businesses should be doing the right thing. The majority of businesses do; I understand why they do that. I would welcome a meeting with the Minister to discuss some of the issues around the hospitality sector and what more we can do.
Finally, let me reflect on something that my father always said—I say “said”; he still runs the business and adheres to this. He always says, “If you take care of your staff for even one day, they’ll take care of you for a lifetime.” That is certainly the approach that I took in business, and I hope that I can take it forward in whatever roles I have throughout my life.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Watford (Dean Russell) on bringing the Bill forward and on securing a place in the ballot so that it stands a chance of becoming law. I also thank the hon. Members for Kensington (Felicity Buchan), for Broxtowe (Darren Henry), for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer), for Charnwood (Edward Argar) and for Meriden (Saqib Bhatti) for their contributions. They all have very simple, one-word constituency names, which is quite a relief after the previous debate.
There was a common theme in all those speeches: customers want to do the right thing by the serving staff and other people who deserve tips—hairdressers, people in nail bars or whatever—but it is sometimes difficult to be sure that the money we give because we want to reward the person who served us will go to that person. This is very much a question of fairness and wanting to treat people right.
In the previous debate, we talked about how all employers would probably want to do the right thing by a member of staff whose child was born prematurely or was sick, but that they might not be in a position financially to do so. I think this is a slightly different situation, because there is not really an excuse for not passing tips on to staff, even if a hospitality business is struggling. We know there are pressures on them from business rates, the impact of covid closures and staff shortages. Speaking to people in the restaurant trade, another pressure is the cost of some of the basic ingredients and such things as fuel bills. We know that they are under pressure, but no matter what, that is not an excuse for holding on to tips that deserve to go to the people who are being tipped.
The issue affects so many people. About 2.5 million people work in the hospitality sector, representing more than 7% of the workforce. As we have heard, often they are younger people, and it tends to be an ethnically diverse workforce. Because of the turnover in the sector—in some ways it is a casual job, often on zero-hours contracts, and there is often illegal working as well, and there is a job to be done in trying to stamp that out—the workforce are particularly vulnerable to exploitation and not being able to assert their rights.
I pay tribute to Unite the union in particular. It is a difficult sector to organise in, because it is not like one big factory with a workforce who tend to be there long term, who all identify with each other and who are in the same place. It can be difficult to fight for people’s rights in this sector, but Unite has done a good job. There was a case recently where Pizza Express was found to be deducting 50% of card tips from its staff who were on minimum wage. That was reducing their incomes by about £2,000 a year. Thanks to Unite taking action, the policy was scrapped and the company has now returned to a more equitable system where front of house staff keep 70% of the tips they make. Anyone going to Pizza Express would not have been expecting that sort of practice to be going on, and it is good that that changed. It was reported that some workers cried in relief when the change was made, because having those tips makes the difference between them being able to get by and not.
I think it was the hon. Member for Kensington who talked about the national minimum wage, which was introduced by the Labour Government, and in 2009 we had to make it illegal for tips to contribute to the national minimum wage. That was the right thing to do, and I am proud that we did that when we were in government, just as I am proud that we introduced the national minimum wage to begin with. As we are all being consensual and working cross-party today, I will not dwell on how difficult it was to get the national minimum wage through. You were probably here at the time, Mr Deputy Speaker, but it was before I was elected. I gather that the debates went all through the night, people had to sleep in their offices and it was difficult, but I am glad that we have converted those on the Government Benches and they now accept it. I genuinely mean that. The fact that Conservatives are now boasting about support for the living wage shows that we won the argument, and I welcome their support for Labour policies. I hope that after the next election, they will be on this side of the House supporting everything that we do.
As I have said, so many people work in the hospitality and tourism sectors, and many of them are vulnerable to being exploited. The Resolution Foundation reported that in 2019, 52% of workers in the hospitality sector were low paid compared with 15% of all workers. The sectors are hard-hit by the pandemic, and tips can make a huge difference. It is disappointing, as with the previous Bill we considered today, that this issue has not been addressed as part of the employment Bill we were expecting from the Government, but that was shelved ahead of the Queen’s Speech. The hon. Member for Watford shelved his previous attempt to get a Bill on this issue through because he was expecting it to be covered in the employment Bill. There is so much that we could legislate for. The Government promised action in 2016, and again in 2018, and it was in the 2019 manifesto.
I remember that after my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), who cannot be here today, was first elected in 2017, he had a Westminster Hall debate on this subject. It was he who first introduced me to the word “tronc”. Every time we were in the Tea Room, he seemed to want to talk to me about troncs. This debate has brought back memories. He did very well in coming near the top of the private Member’s Bills ballot a few years ago and wanted to introduce a Bill on tips, but he also wanted to introduce a Bill that would become law, because that does not happen often: I have been here 17 years and I have never managed to get a place in the ballot. When he spoke to the Department, it would not support his Bill, so he introduced something else that was very worthy but would not get much attention, because he wanted to do something the Government would support.
I think it was 2020 when my hon. Friend introduced his other Bill, so it is excellent that something has moved since then, and I am glad the Government have now managed to find a working arrangement with the hon. Member for Watford. He detailed some of the concerns that will have to be addressed in Committee, as did other hon. Members. There are some things still to be thrashed out, but I hope that Labour members of that Committee will be able to be part of a constructive working relationship and that we will get this Bill into law as soon as possible, so that the people on the receiving end of the tips can start to see the benefit.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I should have said this during the last debate, but I will say it now: I welcome the Minister to her new role.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Jane Hunt)
Thank you very much indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell) for bringing this important Bill forward. He is well known for his hard work both for his Watford constituents and in supporting his colleagues, but now he will possibly be able to transform the whole country, based on this work.
I am pleased to confirm that the Government will support this Bill. Bringing these new rules into force will give new protections to millions of workers in industries where tipping is common, such as hospitality. This is especially crucial now as we continue to recover from the pandemic.
Hon. Members were given quite detailed information about their own constituencies to help them during the pandemic, and I was surprised to find that there are 3,000 people employed in the hospitality sector in Loughborough alone. That equates to exactly the same number as my biggest employer, so that was quite a surprise and very interesting.
It is good to hear support for the Bill in this House. I will take some time to address some of the points hon. Members have raised today, but first I will speak a bit more about why the Government are supporting it. Many were appalled to hear the stories a few years ago of bosses wrongfully pocketing tips intended for their workers—money left by customers who wanted to recognise the hard work and excellent service they had received from the staff.
That is why my Department took action to understand the scale of the problem. We launched a consultation to determine whether previous voluntary guidance in this area was sufficient. We have continued to develop policy positions based on evidence and conversations with stakeholders. The Government believe that tips should go to the workers who earn them and that businesses that withhold tips from staff are wrongfully benefiting from money intended for hard-working staff. While many businesses already pass tips on to staff in full, our evidence shows that nefarious practices persist, with businesses deducting up to 10% in some cases.
Some people have raised concerns with us that bad practice has increased since the pandemic. The Government are therefore pleased to support the changes in the Bill, and I will reiterate some of the key details about what the new rules will and will not do. As my hon. Friend mentioned, upon passage of the Bill the rules will prevent employers from making any deductions when distributing tips, apart from those required or permitted by existing legislation such as tax law.
We are not making any changes to tax law under the new rules. How tips are treated for purposes of taxes and national insurance contributions depends on whether they are made in cash or by card and whether they are made directly to the worker or processed by the business or by independent tronc. That will remain the case.
Under this Bill, anyone who is a worker will benefit from new rights, but it does not cover those who are self-employed. The rules will apply across all sectors, and that is the right thing to do. However, to be clear, businesses that do not normally deal with tips will not be significantly affected by the Bill. This is also a good opportunity to remind the House that tips already cannot be used to count towards national minimum wage pay. That has been the case since 2009.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I am grateful to the Minister for re-emphasising that point. Will she confirm that it is still the Government’s intention to pursue rigorously employers who are still trying to make tips part of the national minimum wage and that those companies should be named and shamed, as is currently the case?
Jane Hunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, and I can tell him that, yes, that is absolutely the case.
I will now talk about the proposed code. A voluntary code of practice on this topic was published in 2009. Our evidence shows that voluntary guidance alone has not been enough to stamp out bad practice. This Bill will therefore require employers to have regard to a statutory code of practice. The code will continue to be developed in partnership with key stakeholders, and will be subject to a full consultation period before the final version is brought to the House for approval. The code will outline a fair and transparent allocation of tips, as set out in different example scenarios. It is very important that the code continues to be developed with stakeholder input, so that we do not inadvertently disallow certain arrangements that are considered fair in some workplaces for the benefit of both businesses and workers. It is important that the code can be updated in the future with the approval of Parliament but without any primary legislation, in order to keep up with changing practices.
I will now address some of the specific points made by colleagues in the debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Watford again for all he has done. He raised a matter where I almost have to declare an interest, in that my husband interrogates the waiters whenever we go out to make sure that they are going to get the tip—it is surprising how many say that they will not get it. My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan) clearly showed a good understanding of her local businesses and her constituency. She talked about burgers, and I quite agree that it is the service we pay for in the tip, not the burger itself. As she said, each establishment will create its own fair system available to everyone working there, so that the kitchen staff and cleaners can be included. They can decide what they want to do and that will then be followed. She also referred to consumers, and the Bill is fair to them as well. They are within my brief too, so I would like to be fair to them. I commend her for what she did while working in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy until recently.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Darren Henry) talked about his experience and examples from restaurants in Broxtowe, and I can speak from experience when I say that the restaurants there are very good indeed. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer) talked about the great variety of restaurants on the Hartlepool riviera, which provide such great service to the people of Hartlepool—again, she is to be commended. My hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar) talked about statutory protections that are currently lacking in the system and about rewarding the service given. He referred to the need to be timely and fair, and the word “fair” comes through again and again in this Bill. He is absolutely spot on.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Saqib Bhatti) for his kind words and I thoroughly enjoyed working with him on the all-party group for small and micro businesses. He talked about a shortage of workers because of the pandemic, and indeed previous to that. I hope that this Bill will attract workers to the sector and help it to become one where people can form a career and get on in life. I am happy to meet him to discuss the hospitality sector, as he requested.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), referred to her surprise about some of the well-known businesses that have been taking tips. I absolutely agreed with her on that, as I was surprised as well. Conservatives always support hard work, and I think that is the vein in which we have been talking more than anything else.
The hon. Member for West Ham (Ms Brown), and my hon. Friends the Members for Watford, for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) and for Meriden raised concerns about employers using tips to top up low-paid workers. The law is clear: tips, gratuities and service charges cannot count towards the minimum wage. The Bill does not alter that position, and under these proposals employers cannot use tips to make up national minimum wage pay. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden rightly said that we need more workers to get the pay and tips they have earned, to help promote employment in the sector, as I mentioned. Actually, there is no need to wait for this Bill to be passed; the sector should put its plans in place well in advance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Watford referred to deductions from tips for card payments and admin fees. To be clear, under this policy, employers must pass on all tips to workers without any deductions, other than those required or permitted by existing legislation—for example, normal tax rules will apply. They cannot make any deductions to cover the costs of running a business, including the cost of processing card transactions or other administrative costs.
My hon. Friends the Members for Watford and for Meriden referred to clarity around the code of practice. As I mentioned, the statutory code of practice will be published and consulted on before being laid before both Houses of Parliament for approval. The code will be developed through consultation in partnership with stakeholders. We hope to start informal discussions on the draft code later this year. There will be more formal consultation on a draft after the Bill has received Royal Assent. The code will provide details on when the Bill applies, how many employers should distribute tips fairly, tronc arrangements, employers’ tipping policies and record keeping. It will also include illustrative scenarios, such as sharing out tips between front of house staff and kitchen staff.
In conclusion, bringing forward these new rules will protect more than 2 million workers from bosses who do not currently do the right thing, and give them an avenue for seeking remedies. Businesses will be assured that they are not being undercut by companies where bosses are keeping tips for themselves, and consumers will have increased confidence that their tips are going to the workers they intended them for. The new rules are backed by previous Government evidence and analysis. The Government are therefore pleased to support this private Member’s Bill.
Chris Stephens
I thank the Minister and I congratulate the hon. Member for Watford (Dean Russell) on bringing forward this important Bill. I make a similar plea to hon. Members about the previous Bill: will she discuss with the Leader of the House how we can get the legislation through quickly? I would like to take part in Committee if possible.
Jane Hunt
Yes, of course I will ask about that. There are reasons, related to HMRC and that kind of thing, why it might still be delayed, but I will do exactly as the hon. Gentleman requests.
It is good to see the support for the Bill in the House today. If we take away—takeaway is the operative word, given what we are talking about—one thing, it is fairness. I look forward to continuing to work with the Member in charge of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Watford, who is a dear friend and works tirelessly for the people of Watford, and with stakeholders to support the passage of the measures.
Dean Russell
With the leave of the House, I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan), an intervention from the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees), and from my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Saqib Bhatti)—I did not realise I was one of the great west midlands exports, but that is wonderful to know. We also heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Broxtowe (Darren Henry) and for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer)—I will endeavour to attend the Riviera as soon as I can.
I particularly liked the speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar). In his previous role, in which he was always fantastic, I would normally be lobbying him about my hospital, so it is wonderful to hear him talking about hospitality instead—slightly different. We also heard from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), and the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens). I give my heartfelt thanks to the Minister, at the end of her incredibly successful first week in the role, for signalling the Government’s support for the Bill. To know that we will hopefully change the lives of many millions of people across the UK is incredible.
I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that this is an important piece of legislation to ensure fairness and transparency for workers and employers. I am hugely grateful to everyone who has campaigned and fought for tips to be fairly given to workers for such a long time; it is wonderful to know that I am standing on the shoulders of giants. The Bill represents a great opportunity to tackle the rising cost of living, to increase consumer confidence and to help ensure that hard-working individuals get the money they have been given and deserve. I hope this Bill will go through the House with full support, and when giving a tip as a thank you at the end of meal I look forward to not having to say, “Will you get all of this?” Hopefully that day will come in the next few months. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63).
Shark Fins Bill
Friday 15th July 2022
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Shark Fins Act 2023 View all Shark Fins Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I welcome the new Minister, the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), to his place. Having recently spent about six weeks with him in Committee, where he was absolutely superb, I am sure he will be just as successful in his new role as he was in his old role. I thank all Members across the House for their support. I thank the Clerks, civil servants, officials, parliamentary counsel, the Whips—nobody ever thanks the Whips—and my staff. I am delighted to promote this Bill.
I will start by explaining why a ban on the import and export of detached shark fins is crucial to sharks’ long-term conservation. Sharks are truly incredible animals. They have been around for over 400 million years—long before the dinosaurs. As top predators, they tell us a huge amount about the health of our ocean and play a vital role in marine ecosystems. Many species of sharks live in UK waters, from basking sharks to blue sharks and even Greenland sharks. The basking shark is the UK’s largest fish, growing up to 11 metres long and weighing up to 7 tonnes—about the size of a double-decker bus.
These fascinating species face many threats, the greatest of which is overfishing. Out of 500 shark species, more than a quarter are listed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature, ranging from “vulnerable” to “critically endangered”. The international fin trade is a significant driving force behind shark overfishing. Shark finning is an extraordinarily wasteful and harmful practice in which only 2% to 5% of the shark is even used. Once a shark’s fins are cut off at sea, the shark is tossed back into the water to slowly drown. Researchers have found that at least 73 million sharks would have to be killed every year to match the volume of shark fins that are traded in the global market, which is a whopping 1 million to 2 million tonnes a year. While not all of these sharks would have been killed through the shark finning practices, it is likely the fin trade is a significant driving force behind those numbers.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing forward such an amazing Bill; I would love to be in her position. When reading up in advance of this debate I discovered that I had not realised the extent to which European countries are involved in facilitating this trade. The market is in Asia, but Portugal, Netherlands, France, Italy and, in particular, Spain are significant players in supplying that market. Does she agree that we should absolutely not countenance that?
Christina Rees
My hon. Friend has always been a doughty champion for animal welfare. I will come to her point later in my speech, but I agree wholeheartedly. If we can get the Bill into law, we in the UK will be the leaders in Europe in banning shark finning.
Sharks desperately need our help and protection. I am an animal lover; I have been privileged to open Westminster Hall debates about animal welfare as a member of the Petitions Committee, and it is a privilege to introduce the Bill today. I grew up near the sea. I spent most of my childhood with my granny, who lived in Porthcawl, a beautiful seaside resort in south Wales. When I was 10, I joined the junior lifeguards and became a surfer. My love and respect for the sea and the marine creatures that live in it has stayed with me throughout my life.
My close encounter with a shark about 10 years ago is typical of the many stories that I could tell about my crazy, unpredictable, funny life. One day, my wonderful daughter Angharad said, “Mum, we haven’t had a holiday since I was 10”; she was 26 at the time. I said, “Oh dear, time flies—go ahead and book one,” so Angharad booked 10 days in Australia followed by 10 days in New Zealand. It completely cleaned out my bank account; I was a poorly paid squash coach at the time and had foolishly thought that she would book a weekend in north Wales.
On the Australian leg, we stayed a couple of nights on Green Island, an absolutely beautiful and remote island off Cairns. One day, I was snorkelling in the shadows off the deserted shoreline. Angharad was standing on the rocks and keeping a lookout for stingrays, because we had been warned that they were prevalent in the waters. When I came up for air, she shouted, “Mum! Shark!” I thought, “Yeah, very funny, Angharad.” She was pointing out to sea, so I turned around—and I absolutely froze.
Swimming towards me was one of the most beautiful creatures that I have ever seen: a shark about 2 metres long, looking like a small, sleek submarine. By now, Angharad was shouting her head off, so I came out of my brain fog and ran out of the sea as fast as my little legs would carry me. We stood on the rocks and watched. We were mesmerised, absolutely gobsmacked and many, many other adjectives by how lucky we were to see that wonderful wild creature up close before it majestically swam out into the sunset. That was my encounter with a shark.
Shark finning has rightly been banned in the UK since 2003 and is illegal in many other parts of the world, but it still happens, so we must now ensure that shark fins are not being imported from places where finning practices still occur. This important and timely Bill will make it illegal to import and export detached shark fins. That will help to end practices that are forcing sharks closer to the brink of extinction. The Bill will be a significant step in helping to restore the balance of our ocean.
Clause 1 will ban the import and export of shark fins or items containing shark fins into or from the United Kingdom as a result of their entry into or removal from Great Britain. The ban applies only to fins that have been removed from the body of a shark. Clause 1 also contains a provision for exemption certificates and clarifies some key definitions. More information about the provision for exemption certificates is set out in the schedule. A very strict application process is followed whereby the appropriate authority can issue an exemption certificate only if the shark fins concerned will be used for conservation purposes. This will allow important conservation and educational activities such as improving shark identification skills to continue where needed.
The appropriate authorities for imports and exports of shark fins are the Secretary of State in England, the Scottish Ministers in Scotland and the Welsh Ministers in Wales. Where someone has deliberately provided inaccurate or incomplete information for an exemption, the appropriate authority can impose a monetary penalty of up to £3,000, which will ensure that the exemptions process is not abused. The Bill contains a power for the appropriate authority to amend the upper limit of the penalty by regulations.
It is important to note that the Bill does not ban the sale or consumption of shark fins. If a shark fin is removed from a shark after it is dead, and the shark was caught legally and sustainably, I do not see why the fin should not be used. In fact, it would be wasteful not to use the whole carcase. Banning the sale or consumption of shark fins that have been obtained ethically would disproportionately impact communities where shark fin soup is considered a traditional delicacy, and that is not what I seek to do.
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend. After reading the Bill’s explanatory notes, I am aware that there is a separate exemption for individuals to import up to 20 kg of dried shark fin to the UK for personal consumption. Is that because it is about using the whole shark? I wonder whether something more could be done through the passage of the Bill to ensure that the 20 kg comes from the use of the whole shark, rather than from a shark killed only for its fins.
Christina Rees
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that valid point. I am sure that the issue can be thrashed out in Committee, should we reach that stage. I have looked into the research and there are gaps in the data regarding how much personal usage is being allowed, but I know that Border Force does look at that.
Kerry McCarthy
I am a little concerned about what has just been said about allowing importation for use—for example, in the restaurant trade—provided that it can be shown that the shark was killed for other reasons. To what extent would people be able to check that that was the case, or would they see it as a loophole, and pretend that the shark had died by other means and that they were using the whole carcase? It is odd to me that someone would kill a huge shark just for its fins, but we know that that is mostly what happens. What safeguards will there be to ensure that people do not exploit that rule?
Christina Rees
I thank my hon. Friend for her important intervention. We are both lifelong vegans, so I have thought about the issue greatly. I have never bought a tin of shark fin soup—I wouldn’t—or any other tins of soup with bits of animals in, but I am sure that where the content had come from and how it was farmed would be written on the label.
Kerry McCarthy
When I raised the issue a long time ago—I think in my early years in Parliament—I received some pushback from the restaurant trade, but I also learnt that a lot of the shark fin soup sold in restaurants is not real shark fin, but because it is seen as prestigious and luxurious, restaurants did not want to admit that it was not the real thing. It was bizarre that people were consuming something that was far more ethical than they thought it was. I am therefore not quite sure whether labelling would work, because a lot of the product being sold turns out not to be shark fin. That is probably another issue to be thrashed out in Committee.
Christina Rees
I am grateful for another superb intervention from my hon. Friend, and I bow to her wisdom. Sometimes we do not get what is written on the tin.
Clause 2 amends article 1 of the shark finning regulation 1185/2003, which forms part of retained EU law, to make sure that shark finning cannot take place by any vessel fishing in UK waters, or by any UK vessel fishing in non-UK waters. That ensures that our domestic protections are of the highest standard. Clause 3 sets out the territorial extent of the Bill and when or how each provision comes into force. As the Bill relates to devolved matters, legislative consent will be sought from the devolved Administrations during the passage of the Bill, but I understand that they are supportive of taking action against the cruel and unsustainable shark fin trade.
I would like to thank stakeholders and colleagues who have contacted me on this important matter, particularly members of Shark Guardian and Bite-Back Shark & Marine Conservation, who have been instrumental in throwing a spotlight on the issue of shark finning for many years—some of them are watching from the Gallery today. Since 2004, Bite-Back Shark & Marine Conservation has been at the forefront of successful campaigns to end the sale and consumption of shark fins and shark products in Britain. In recent years it launched its “No Fin To Declare” campaign—I love the name—exposing Britain’s contributions to the global shark fin trade. The charity argues that a decision to ban all import and exports of detached shark fins will establish Britain as a global leader in the conservation of sharks and, ultimately, inspire other countries to introduce their own bans and join the UK in the protection of this keystone marine species.
In 2021, Shark Guardian, a charity based in Nottingham, launched a petition on Parliament’s website to ban the British shark fin trade, which secured more than 115,000 signatures, showing the depth of support for my Bill among a passionate and caring British public. Shark Guardian believes that if my Bill is passed into law, that will have a huge and positive knock-on effect on the continent, because the European Union will have to take note of our legislation, and take steps to pass a similar EU law to ban the import and export of shark fin through its borders too, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East mentioned. That is important because Spain is by far the single biggest exporter of frozen shark fins to Hong Kong, a city that has, for many years, been the epicentre of this cruel and unsustainable trade. If the supply chain to Hong Kong, and, by extension to China, can be cut, global shark populations that are threatened with extinction today can be offered a new lease of hope tomorrow.
This Bill is crucial to ensuring the long-term survival and recovery of vital shark populations. It is an important step for the UK to demonstrate its leadership and commitment to shark conservation. I therefore urge all Members to support the smooth passage of the Bill through this House and onto the statute book.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I was expecting Darren Henry to stand up. He has now done so, so I call Darren Henry.
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees) for introducing this Bill. As a Nottinghamshire MP, I am glad she was able to mention Shark Guardian, as that organisation in Nottinghamshire has done so well. Out of more than 500 species of shark that we have worldwide, 143 are listed as under threat by the International Union for Conservation of Nature, with the different species ranging from those that are considered “vulnerable” to those that are “critically endangered”. As she alluded to, sharks are on top of the natural marine food chain because of their limited number of natural predators. Their importance to marine ecosystems cannot be overestimated, so I am very happy to see this Bill today.
Sharks are often characterised in film and media as aggressive. The films we show our kids, such as “Finding Nemo” and “Shark Tale,” add to this characterisation but, by nature, sharks are not natural predators of humans. They are far more likely to ensure that they do not come into contact with us, rather than to attack, so education is key.
Education about sharks is crucial to ensuring a more universal effort to protect them and to prevent a further threat of extinction. As with most industries, the supply of shark fins is driven by demand. By banning the importation and exportation of detached shark fins, we will ensure that demand is lowered and that more species of endangered sharks are protected. The Government published their action plan for animal welfare in May 2021, but we must go further. Protecting animals from extinction is vital, and this Bill is a fantastic first step towards ensuring that animal welfare and animal protection are made a priority.
Jill Mortimer (Hartlepool) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees) on her Bill.
Hartlepool is a coastal community, and we take seriously our role as custodians of the sea. We know all too well the importance of marine conservation. The crustacean deaths along our coastline in recent months have destabilised our ecosystem and broken livelihoods. I continue to work with Stan Rennie and other members of my fishing community, which has fished ethically for generations to conserve the fish populations in our waters. They are true custodians of the stocks and caring farmers of the sea.
We know that ecosystems are very finely balanced and fragile. Driving entire species into extinction has dire consequences for biodiversity and the health of our planet. Sharks, in particular, are a key indicator of ocean health, and they play a vital role in marine ecosystems by helping to maintain healthy levels of fish in the food chain. This delicate balance has been disrupted by the shark fin trade and unsustainable fishing levels.
Regrettably, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Darren Henry), the International Union for Conservation of Nature now considers 143 species of shark to be under threat, ranging from vulnerable to critically endangered. Banning detached shark fins from being brought into the UK will help to protect wild shark populations, which is why I support this Bill.
Shark finning is a uniquely cruel practice, whereby a shark’s fin is sliced off while the shark is still alive—the rest of the body is discarded. The UK does not support this cruel trade, and it is rightly banned in our waters. By supporting this Bill, the Government will send out a clear message to those countries that do support it, and again I thank the hon. Member for Neath for pointing out that our European neighbour, Spain, is one of the main perpetrators of this practice. We have a proud record on animal welfare and environmental sustainability, often well in advance of EU regulations, and this Bill will strengthen that record further. I share her hope that, where we lead, Europe follows.
We are a global leader in maritime protection, and our Blue Belt programme protects an area of ocean the size of India around our British overseas territories. We also lead a global campaign, supported by more than 80 countries, for at least 30% of the world’s land and oceans to be protected by 2030. We also continue to champion shark conservation measures, the regional fisheries management organisations and the convention on international trade in endangered species, which requires such trade to be carefully regulated or prohibited altogether.
I hope this Bill will be the first of many measures to protect shark populations worldwide, and I have no doubt that we will continue to work with our partners abroad to eradicate this cruel practice and all trades that show blatant disregard for animal welfare and the protection of fragile ecosystems.
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees) on introducing the Bill. I have to say I do not profess to know an awful lot about sharks, but I was interested to hear about her holiday experience and encounter with a shark. I hope not to have the same encounter in the future.
Obviously, this is an important Bill. To learn some of the background to the shark fin debate, I did some research. As the hon. Lady said, sharks are older than dinosaurs, which means they are also older than Members who reside in the other House. Sharks grow up to 50,000 teeth in their lifetime. Let us hope they do not need access to an NHS dentist, because we know how problematic that can be. Sharks have the thickest skin of any animal species, and it feels like sandpaper. As an ex-sales person and someone who has probably had a bit too much time in the sun, I can appreciate how sharks feel.
Sharks can be found in all oceans and they can only swim forwards. I am bringing out some interesting facts, although I do not have the expert knowledge of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Darren Henry) on this subject. Shark’s teeth are not used for chewing—they are for snapping, crushing and maiming prey, which makes them sound like ideal candidates for Chief Whip in this House.
I have come across a number of shark facts. Shark attacks are extremely rare. It is more likely that we will kill sharks—100 million sharks are killed a year, but only four people are killed by a shark each year. That means that we kill 25 million more sharks than sharks kill us, and it is not acceptable.
I was hoping to talk about prehistoric shark fossils in today’s debate, but I’m afraid I struggled to find any ancient sharkefacts—[Interruption.] I appreciate the groans on that one. I was hoping to tell a long line of dad jokes today. Sharks can be dangerous. I know that they are gentle, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe suggested. They can attack, but it is a rare occurrence. Reports of attacks are more frequent in the Atlantic than the Pacific. That is because people who reside in the Atlantic areas tend to have greater access to the internet. It does not mean to say that there are more attacks; it is just that there are more reported attacks. In 2018, the United States led the world, with the highest number of reported shark attacks, according to ISAF, the international shark attack file. Within the continental United States, more shark-human incidents occurred in the Atlantic ocean. Only four attacks were reported in the Pacific, compared with 27 in the Atlantic. That is because people have the technology.
The distribution of the 108 authenticated unprovoked shark attacks among victim groups is: divers 50, surfers 41, swimmers 12 and kayakers five. It is a rare thing to happen. However, Madam Deputy Speaker, if you think that the shark-infested waters of the Atlantic are bad, try being in this place when there is a Tory leadership contest on.
On a serious note, I am here to support the Bill rather than crack some very poor dad jokes.
Jill Mortimer
My hon. Friend has explained how rare shark attacks are. Does he agree that not all species of shark carry out attacks? The most likely sharks to attack are the tiger shark and the all too well known great white.
I too have had a shark encounter. I was snorkelling with a friend one day when I saw a small reef shark wedged under some coral below me. I did not know whether this was true at that point—although it had always been one of those pub facts that we all know—but I believed that, if sharks did not swim, they could not breathe, because they have to drive water through their gills to do that. So I looked up and said to my friend that there was a shark and that it was going to die, at which point he turned and swam very quickly to shore. I went down, pulled the shark from the reef and swam with it a little while. It was almost dead—it was very flaccid—but then it suddenly clicked to life and swam away. It was one of the most remarkable events of my life to spend that moment with that amazing creature. I did not feel in any danger and I was not in any at all.
Mark Eastwood
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. Again, my knowledge of sharks is not the greatest. The only great white shark I have ever seen was in the film “Jaws”, and that was mechanical. But I take on board what my hon. Friend says.
This is an important and serious debate. Some 250 sharks are killed every day. Between 2000 and 2008, the net combined shark tonnage reported by four EU member states—the hon. Member for Neath touched on this—was higher than that reported by the world’s No. 1 shark fishing country, Indonesia. Spain, Portugal, France and the UK made up 13.4% of the tonnage figures, which is way too much. Obviously, that was when we were a member of the EU—thankfully, we have come out of it now. A Greenpeace Unearthed report published in 2019 showed that, between January 2017 and July 2019, the UK exported 50 tonnes of shark fin to Spain. Again, that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Neath. That figure included 29.7 tonnes in 2018 and 12 tonnes in the first months of 2019.
To outlaw the cruelty of finning at sea, it was decreed that sharks must be landed with their fins naturally attached, as has been mentioned. The buzzword is “retention”—returning the whole shark is a practical way to limit total shark catch.
We have also mentioned the consumption of shark for food, including shark fin soup. People actually see this wonderful animal almost as a delicacy. That means that more sharks will be killed in the future. I have not actually tried any shark dish. I am not a vegan like the hon. Member for Neath, but shark is not something that would appeal to me—I would prefer to go to my local Spinners Fisheries in Earlsheaton for haddock and chips. But I appreciate that this is going to be a problem in the near future.
In summary, I am fully supportive of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer) mentioned that we have a proud record of animal welfare in the UK—in fact, we are in the top four countries globally in that respect. I appreciate the Bill, I fully support it and I thank all Members for listening.
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees). I have had the pleasure of working with her on a number of issues since I have been in the House, and it is a genuine pleasure today to have the opportunity—now that I have returned to the Back Benches—to contribute to such an important debate and to express my wholehearted support for the Bill.
It is also a real pleasure to speak in a debate to which the newly appointed Minister will respond. Until recently, my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) was my Whip, and he managed to discharge those duties firmly but very charmingly. I am sure he will bring the same balance of charm, firmness and indeed determination to his new role, and I hope he will continue to be a Minister for many years to come. Let me add that his is an extremely good appointment in respect of this particular brief.
The hon. Lady and others have already set out the context of the Bill and the challenges with which it is intended to deal. It is a very short Bill, with only three clauses and one schedule, but it does not need to be long, because it contains in those three clauses and one schedule everything that is needed to move things forward and close this loophole.
The scale, globally, of the trade in fins has been estimated at between 16,000 and 17,000 tonnes per annum, with an estimated 97 million sharks killed annually. We know that since 2003 the landing of detached shark fins has been banned in the EU, but, as we have heard from the hon. Lady and others, that does not appear to be doing the job. As we have also heard, 143 species are under threat, and 46 species and ray are listed in CITES, the convention on international trade in endangered species.
As the hon. Lady said, these creatures are integral to the ecosystems of our oceans. They play a hugely important role in what are fragile and complex ecosystems—and our oceans’ ecosystems are crucial to the health of our planet as a whole. In January 2021, an article in Nature suggested that there had been a 71% decline in the global abundance of sharks since 1970. That is a terrifying decline in the numbers of a creature which plays such a central role in our oceans’ ecosystems. We are talking here about sharks in the context of marine ecosystems, but we should bear in mind the fact that the ecosystems of all our waters, be they oceans, seas, chalk streams or rivers, are vital to the overall health of our planet. That is why it is right that we are considering this issue today.
I am pleased that such leadership has been shown on both sides of the House in respect of animal welfare and protecting our planet. The animal welfare action plan that was published recently is hugely important, and in 2020 there was a petition debate about this very issue. I pay tribute to Shark Guardian for promoting awareness of the issue, and securing the engagement that has, I know, helped the hon. Lady’s cause.
As we have already heard, the Bill closes a loophole in banning the import and export of detached shark fins, and the fins of other cartilaginous fish such as ray, with the exception of the
“pectoral fins of a ray”.
It is well and tightly drafted, and it will do what it seeks to do. As others have said, the practice of finning, the catching of a shark, the removal of the fin and the discarding of the rest of the shark—sometimes still alive—is not only wasteful but cruel and unnecessary.
The Government have said that they do not oppose the landing of a whole shark with its fins naturally attached. I know that some would wish us to go further while others would not, but I think that the hon. Lady, with typical sense, has struck an appropriate and proportionate balance in tackling a wasteful and cruel practice while still allowing a whole shark to be landed sustainably appropriately.It strikes, as we so often need to do in this place, a difficult but necessary balance, with the various specific scientific exemptions that have been highlighted and which we would expect to see for conservation purposes.
I do not propose to detain the House longer, so I will conclude by congratulating the hon. Member for Neath on bringing forward this important Bill. She has my wholehearted support, and I wish her every success in seeing it swiftly translated on to the statue book.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees) on this excellent Bill, which I wholeheartedly support. Indeed, it is another example of our Government’s policy being implemented through a private Member’s Bill from the Opposition Benches, and it shows that we truly can work on a cross-party basis.
I will talk about the specifics of the Bill, but first I want to say that animal welfare and conservation is one of the most important issues for my constituents. I asked my office to check this morning how many emails we received on it over the last year, and it was more than 1,500. I have a politically active constituency, but that is a lot of emails. They were on a broad spectrum of issues, ranging from pet smuggling to the oceans, and animal welfare is a priority of mine. I do not wish to make this overly political, but I think that we can see this as an opportunity of Brexit, as we can go a step further than the EU has gone. We can make this country the best for animal welfare standards. This is an important opportunity for us.
The hon. Member for Neath was powerful in her description of what happens when sharks are finned. They are taken out of the ocean, their fins are cut off, and they are then chucked back in alive. They essentially die from suffocation, and float to the bottom of the ocean. It is a pretty grim business. We have heard from a number of Members about the importance of sharks to our marine ecosystem, and I understand that of the 500 species of shark, 143 are currently under threat. That is pretty remarkable, and those species range all the way from “vulnerable” to “critically endangered”. There is no question but that one of the leading predators in the ocean must be important to that ecosystem. We are collectively doing the right thing, and my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar) was correct to say that while there may be people who want us to go even further, this is the right balance.
I keep returning to what the general public think would be right, and there is no doubt in my mind that the Bill will have the support of many of my constituents. That was shown by the fact that the petition that came before Parliament in the previous year attracted 115,000 signatures. This is a major issue. The Bill has my full support, and I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing it forward. As we go forward over the last few years of this Parliament, I would love the House to focus on more issues such as this. There is no doubt that animal conservation is important to Members of the House, and it certainly is to me.
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
I wanted to speak in this debate to show my support for the Bill. It is such an important Bill to get through, and I hope it will proceed rapidly.
I will not speak for too long, but I noticed this morning, when I was double-checking the speeches for today, that this week I have been listening to “Jaws” on Audible as I drive in to Parliament every day. That is probably because of my huge respect for the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees), who is such an incredible campaigner and constituency MP; clearly she must have had an effect when we talked about the subject previously. I raise that not so much for humour, but because when we look at people’s assumptions about sharks, they are usually very wrong and often come from a perspective of what is in the mainstream media. Books such as “Jaws” are phenomenal, and the film was brilliant too, but they had an impact on popular culture and, rightly or wrongly, on how we view sharks.
Sharks play some incredible roles within the sea. The idea of cutting off the fin of such a beautiful creature as a way to make money, allowing it to effectively drown or die from not being able to move, is abhorrent. Never in a million years would we think it would be okay to do that to any other animal. We would not cut the legs off a sheep or cow so that we could eat just those parts, and then leave it to die in incredible pain.
These are majestic creatures who serve a role within the sea and the ecosystem. I understand that culturally there are those who eat shark fins, but this Bill will solve the issue by ensuring that that abhorrent act comes to an end. I know my colleagues have given some incredible statistics, but I will mention one that I found. I hope I am not repeating this, but it staggered me, and I had to read it a few times to check I was not wrong. If hon. Members do not mind, I will read it out so that it goes into Hansard:
“It is not known exactly how many sharks are killed or wounded each year by the practice of finning. The most recent, reliable estimate of the number of sharks killed worldwide by finning was around 97 million in 2010, within a broad range of between 63 million and 273 million. An earlier estimate put the figure at 73 million in 2006.”
If I have understood that correctly, it is an incredible number, especially if we remember that every one of those sharks is a majestic creature that has had its fins cut off and been left to drown and drop to the ocean floor, no doubt for others to come in and have a feeding frenzy.
The Bill says clearly that it will be prohibited
“to import shark fins, or things containing shark fins, into the United Kingdom as a result of their entry into Great Britain”,
or,
“to export shark fins, or things containing shark fins, from the United Kingdom as a result of their removal from Great Britain.”
Effectively, it aims to stop the import of fins on their own and prevent this abhorrent act.
I will leave it there, but I wanted to stand for a moment and say that this is an incredibly important and humane Bill, and I know that is in line with the way the hon. Member for Neath acts and works within this place.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
I start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend—my very good friend—the Member for Neath (Christina Rees), for bringing this Bill to the House and for its reaching Second Reading. This is an important issue and I congratulate her on her speech and all the work she is doing on this issue. I know that our hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) wishes he was able to be here to stand in my place and contribute to the debate today.
I also welcome the new Minister to his place, although I must admit that after three days of sitting opposite him, he does not feel that new any more; in fact, he is a seasoned member of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs team, but I welcome him. I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate today, even the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mark Eastwood), with his terrible dad jokes. Sadly, he is no longer in his place. The tales of shark encounters have been particularly fascinating, and I thank everyone for recounting them.
I should say at the outset that the Bill has our full support, so I will not detain the House any longer than necessary. I want the Bill to become law as soon as possible. In many ways, we should not be here today. A ban was announced by Ministers almost a year ago; we are relying on a private Member’s Bill to deliver a policy set out in the Conservative party manifesto. It appears that the caretaker Government have adopted a policy of government by private Member’s Bill.
Putting that aside, let us take a moment to reflect on why we need to end our part in this barbaric practice and to remind ourselves of its impact, not only on sharks but on our planet and increasingly fragile ecosystems. I accept that human beings have an uneasy relationship with sharks. These magnificent creatures are often reduced to the much maligned mythical monsters of “Jaws”, “Deep Blue Sea” and “Sharknado”. On a lighter note, I am sure that every Member can perform the “Baby Shark” dance. I will be checking later that they know how to do it.
However, sharks are apex predators. They are ancient creatures who play a vital role in our oceans, where they balance and maintain fragile marine ecosystems. The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer) highlighted that clearly. Sharks have low reproductive rates, and overfishing has seen the number found in the open oceans plunge by 71% in half a century. Shamefully, 60% of shark species are now threatened with extinction.
We have heard that the practice of shark finning is the epitome of cruelty. Many Members have highlighted that it entails cutting off the fin while the shark is still alive and then just tossing the shark back into the sea, leaving it to die a slow and painful death from suffocation and blood loss.
Fins are used worldwide for shark fin soup, a dish often associated with wealth and celebration. The fins are used not for taste—I am reliably informed that they have no taste—but for their texture. Of the 100 million sharks killed annually at the hands of humans, 72 million are killed through finning for shark fin soup. The practice, just like rhino dehorning, is one of the most shameful and wasteful acts of animal cruelty in the name of trade still in existence in the 21st century.
The UK’s involvement in the practice goes beyond the clandestine sale of shark fins in restaurants. According to the 2019 HMRC and Traffic report, the UK imported 300 tonnes of shark fins between 2013 and 2017. According to a report of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries, between 2015 and 2018 the United Kingdom reported between 2,000 and 3,000 tonnes of “marketable fin” shark species landings per year. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) highlighted that we are ranked fourth among EU coastal states for shark landings, behind Spain, Portugal and France.
Those import figures do not take into account the personal allowance, which allows anyone to import up to 20 kg of dried shark fins for personal consumption, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Ms Brown), who has temporarily left her place, highlighted. That can equate to 500 individual fins from up to 60 individual sharks, which can make in excess of 700 bowls of shark fin soup. Under current legislation, all that is exempt from any border control declaration, so I ask the Minister to tighten that loophole as part of the Bill.
Just under a year ago, the outgoing Prime Minister announced a “world-leading” ban on what he correctly described as a “barbaric practice”. That was in line with the 2019 Conservative manifesto and the Government response to a 2020 petition to Parliament, in which they said:
“Following the end of the Transition period we will explore options consistent with World Trade Organisation rules to address the importation of shark fins from other areas, to support efforts to end illegal shark finning practices globally.”
Yet that commitment by the Prime Minister, which was widely welcomed by conservationists, campaigners, activists and people across the country, was quietly ditched, reportedly after backlash from senior Ministers worried that, as the legislation was tied up with foie gras and fur coats, the ban would be un-Conservative. I hope that the Minister will be stamping his authority on his new role and ensuring swift action in all those areas.
Today, thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Neath, we have the opportunity to be leaders once again. We have now left the European Union. That limits our ability directly to influence a continent-wide ban, but a UK ban on the import and export of shark fins would set an example for our European partners to follow.
My hon. Friend’s Bill follows Canada’s lead. Canada introduced a ban on all imports and exports of shark fins not attached to a carcase, meaning both a reduction in finning overall and the easier identification of the shark species being traded. Canada is a global leader on this issue, but it is not the only one legislating and making a difference. Hawaii banned finning in 2013. Its example caused 13 other US states to follow, culminating in Florida banning the import and export of fins in September 2020. Countries such as Ecuador, Egypt and Honduras have adopted fins naturally attached policies, and Thailand has had great success with its Fin Free Thailand programme, where an extensive list of companies have banned shark fin soup, including 111 hotels, four supermarket chains and nine restaurants. India has established a ban on imports and exports, and the United Arab Emirates has become the first nation to ban all shark products. International companies such as Amazon, Fairmont Hotels and Carrefour are banning the sale of shark fin soup, and the transport of shark fins has been banned by airlines such as Virgin Atlantic, Emirates, BA and Qatar Airways, and shipping companies such as Maersk, MSC and Evergreen.
It is now time to put an end to this unsustainable, unnecessary and barbaric practice. There is little economic cost associated with it, but the Bill allows us to lead the world on this issue—after all, we are global Britain now, aren’t we? The time for the Bill is now and the time for action is now. I am delighted to be here to support the Bill and to support my hon. Friend the Member for Neath.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Double)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees) and thank her for introducing this very important Bill. I also thank her for her very kind words at the start. I thank all hon. Members who have spoken in support of the Bill.
The Government continue to be a leading voice for the protection of sharks. Much work has been done and continues to be done in the UK and globally to ensure that we do not lose these important marine animals from the ocean. The Bill shows that positive change is happening, signifying another step in the right direction to taking meaningful action on the conservation of sharks. Yesterday marked International Shark Awareness Day, which celebrates these amazing animals. What better way to raise awareness than by introducing this Bill here today? As my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mark Eastwood) pointed out, for many years sharks have been misunderstood and vilified—I hold Steven Spielberg personally responsible—but I am sure we have all noticed that that outdated view is fading fast and opinions are shifting.
Let us be clear: shark finning is a vile and cruel act. Shark fins are recklessly removed from living sharks at sea and their finless bodies are wastefully returned to the water. Without their fins, sharks are unable to swim through the water, which means they cannot pass oxygen through their gills and they are left to slowly drown. Shark finning is a practice that has been banned in the UK for almost 20 years. We also have a fins naturally attached policy, which means that sharks must be landed with all their fins on their bodies. We can now go even further and ban the trade in detached fins in shark fin products. This underlines our determination that shark finning must stop, wherever it takes place. The Bill has the full support of the Government and we will do all we can to assist its swift passage through both Houses and on to the statute book.
As has been said, the effects of shark finning are devastating, with impacts seen across many species, from the sleek and elegant blue sharks to the majestic gentle giants we know as basking sharks. A number of Members referred to their encounters with sharks. Thankfully, my only encounters with sharks have been in Cornish waters with basking sharks, which are wonderful creatures to behold.
We also need to make absolutely clear that we are only able to take this step through the Bill because we have left the European Union. Exercising our independent trade policy enables us to take this step and ban these products from the UK. This Bill will ban the import and export of detached shark fins into and out of Great Britain. That includes parts of fins and products made of fins. The only exception is where imports or exports will facilitate the greater conservation of sharks—for example, through education and training. There are strict processes in place to assess applications for exemption certificates to ensure that they do not undermine the overall ban.
I will clarify one point that has been raised a few times in the debate. To be absolutely clear: this Bill bans the import and export of all detached shark fins. There is no exemption in the Bill for a personal allowance of 20 kg. That was allowed previously, but it is being removed through the Bill. The only exemption, as I have referred to, is for conservation or research.
I briefly highlight that, like my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer), I represent a coastal community—in fact, I have the pleasure of representing two coasts. We take incredibly seriously our responsibility to protect our seas and coastline. I pay tribute to the many organisations in my constituency and across Cornwall that play a vital part in keeping our beaches clean, tidying up our seas and protecting them. They include the Newquay Marine Group, Newquay Beach Care, the Three Bays Wildlife Group, the St Austell Tidy Up Team, Friends of Par Beach and Final Straw Cornwall, among many others. They do an incredible job of raising awareness and mobilising volunteers to keep our beaches and seas clean and protected.
There are also organisations that work across Cornwall and further afield, such as Fathoms Free, the amazing Beach Guardians led by Emily Stevenson, and of course Surfers Against Sewage, which I have had the pleasure of working with over many years. They all play an absolutely vital part and we should pay tribute to them and to the many others across the whole country who take such matters seriously.
Shark finning is a cruel and wasteful practice. This Bill will be a significant step in demonstrating the UK’s global leadership in shark conservation, animal welfare and protecting our natural environment. I thank the hon. Member for Neath again for introducing the Bill and I look forward to doing all I can to see it on to the statute book as swiftly as possible.
Christina Rees
With the leave of the House, I am grateful and privileged to have cross-party support for the Bill. All hon. Members made important points. The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Darren Henry) said that we must protect animals from extinction—definitely. I loved the story of how the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer) rescued the shark, which tops mine. It is wonderful that she saved it. The ex-salesperson, the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mark Eastwood), brought so much humour to the debate. If the Bill gets to Committee, he ought to be a member, so he can entertain us all the way through.
The hon. Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), who is my friend in many ways, highlighted that this is a small and perfectly formed Bill. He said that it does not need any more and that it strikes a balance. I am grateful for his comments. The hon. Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan) highlighted that we work together. She said that many of her emails were about animal welfare, so she makes it a priority. She said that her constituents would support the Bill, for which I am grateful. How could I ever forget the hon. Member for Watford (Dean Russell), who now has the nickname “Jaws”? It is true that sharks drown or bleed out, which is absolutely tragic.
There were superb interventions from my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and for West Ham (Ms Brown), for which I am grateful. I am also grateful for the support from my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) on the Labour Front Bench. I thank the Minister again for his support. He said that he has two coasts to look after—I could not think of anyone better to do that. I also thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63).
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees) on achieving the Second Reading of her Bill.
Pensions Dashboards (Prohibition of Indemnification) Bill
Friday 15th July 2022
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Pensions Dashboards (Prohibition of Indemnification) Act 2023 View all Pensions Dashboards (Prohibition of Indemnification) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a simple yet important measure designed to safeguard the interests of pension savers, but before going into the detail about precisely what my Bill would achieve, it may be worth while to provide some context about what pensions dashboards are and the work that the Government are doing to make them a reality. Pensions dashboards are an electronic communications service that will revolutionise the way people interact with their pensions by allowing individuals to see their pensions information, including the state pension, in one place online—at the touch of their laptop, smartphone or tablet. Dashboards will help individuals be reunited with their lost or forgotten pensions, and support people in better planning for their retirement.
An important point to mention is that while users will be able to view their pensions, they will not be able to make transactions, so they would not be able to combine or move pension pots within the dashboard. That is because, in order to introduce dashboards as soon as possible, they will start with a basic level of information, but they will include more detail as our understanding of consumer needs develops. The Government believe that to develop a digital service that is safe, useful and relevant to consumers, future enhancements to dashboards’ functionality should not be decided before the initial offer has been tested with users and any behavioural effects are understood.
Delivering pensions dashboards was a manifesto commitment of this Government, but the idea of a pensions dashboard has received widespread support from Members across the House, and it is not hard to see why. With the success of automatic enrolment, millions more are saving for their retirement and may have multiple pension pots, with no easy way of keeping track of them. Dashboards will bring pensions into the 21st century, and make it as easy for people to review their pensions savings as it is to view their bank accounts on their phones.
The Government are keen to see dashboards available as soon as possible to help consumers plan for their retirement. However, it is important to get the design of the service right to ensure that it is accurate, secure and consumer-focused. Developing a comprehensive service that can cater for the potential 52 million UK adults who could use dashboards, involving data from thousands of pension schemes, is complex and should not be rushed. The Government have, however, made excellent progress to make pensions dashboards a reality. The Money and Pensions Service has established the pensions dashboards programme team to design and implement the digital infrastructure that will make pensions dashboards work. The programme is on track and continues to move forward at pace, with work ongoing on the build of the central digital architecture, and research and testing to feed into the design and development of the service.
Hon. Members may recall our voting at the beginning of this Parliament to pass what is now the Pension Schemes Act 2021, which provided the primary legislative framework to make pensions dashboards possible. The Department for Work and Pensions has since consulted on the draft Pensions Dashboards Regulations 2022, which will apply to relevant occupational pension schemes, and the Government have this week published their response to that consultation. The Financial Conduct Authority has also consulted on equivalent rules for personal and stakeholder pensions to ensure that the information provided on dashboards will be comprehensive.
There will be a dashboard service provided by the Money and Pensions Service, which will launch first. That is because the Government believe very strongly in the importance of a Government-backed, impartial dashboard, and are committed to having the MaPS dashboard available from the start. In addition, it will then be possible for others to enter the market and provide dashboards, which will be bound by requirements set out in regulations and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. That will provide scope for innovation, helping to engage a broad range of users and meet the varied needs of the millions of people with pensions savings. Importantly, individuals will see the same information regardless of which dashboard service they use, and robust rules will be in place to ensure consumers’ interests are at the forefront of all dashboards.
Ensuring that user data is properly secured on the dashboards will be a significant consideration. The Government have taken care to ensure that pensions dashboards and the technology behind them are designed to maximise data security. For example, individuals will always have control over who has access to their data and will be able to revoke access at any time. Only the Money and Pension Service and any qualifying pensions dashboard providers that meet the agreed standards and regulatory requirements will be able to connect to the dashboard infrastructure. The draft regulations will require occupational pension schemes to connect to a central digital architecture that is being developed by the pensions dashboard programme.
Once connected, schemes will be expected to respond to requests by members of the public to find and view their pensions information. To ensure these requirements are adhered to, the regulations will enable the Pensions Regulator to take enforcement action through penalty notices against trustees or managers who fail to comply. That could result in penalties for each breach of £5,000 for individuals or £50,000 if the person is a body corporate, including corporate trustees. This is where my Bill comes in.
Although pensions scheme members may be able to take civil action, nothing currently in legislation prohibits rogue trustees or managers from using a pension scheme’s assets to reimburse themselves to repay fines they incur for breaches of pensions dashboard legislation, which is backed by criminal sanction. This Bill makes changes to pensions legislation to increase protection for savers against the actions of such unscrupulous persons. In particular, it provides additional powers for criminal proceedings to be brought against trustees or managers of occupational pension schemes if they reimburse themselves from pension pots to pay penalties imposed for compliance breaches under the future pensions dashboard regulations. If a trustee or manager is found guilty of this offence, the provisions would allow for a maximum sentence of up to two years in prison or a fine or both.
I should make it clear to the House that this Bill does not impose any new costs or requirements on occupational pension schemes or their sponsoring employers. The intent is simply to deter rogue actors who have already received a financial penalty from the Pensions Regulator under the dashboards regulations from plundering savers’ pension pots to pay the penalty. It is also not something that anyone in the pensions industry should be unfamiliar with. The Bill amends existing legislation that provides for a similar prohibition in several other areas of pensions legislation, including automatic enrolment.
I am delighted that the Bill has the Government’s support, and I look forward to continuing to work with them to secure its passage. As I said at the start, this is an important measure that will safeguard the interests of pension savers from any would-be unscrupulous trustees. I hope we all agree that this Bill would provide worthwhile protection to all of our constituents with pension savings, and I hope that it will be supported on both sides of the House today.
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) for bringing forward the Bill, and for allowing me to participate in the debate.
On Third Reading of the Pension Schemes (Conversion of Guaranteed Minimum Pensions) Bill, I stressed the importance of pensions and how they provide a sense of security that individuals can enjoy later in their lifetime. The hope is that a pension will allow us to have economic freedom in our old age. My understanding is that paying into a pension pot, which many see as a long-term savings plan, is becoming more frequent as the years go by. In addition, it seems as if changing jobs has become more frequent in recent times. Those two increases have resulted in an issue: it has become more common for individuals to get the end of their career and not be able to locate all their pension pots with the ease they would have before, and that they would like. Individuals may struggle to find that figure, because they will have moved jobs and therefore paid into lots of different pension pots over their lifetime. That is not to mention the hassle of having to remember which companies they have paid into and having to find their most recent pension statement.
Pensions dashboards will allow people to see online what they have in various pension pots, including their state pension. A dashboard is a great tool because it is convenient to have the relevant information in one place, and it will ensure that pension pots do not get lost. Some people will even be able to track how much money they will have in their pension and realise sooner rather than later the changes they will need to make. That will ensure that they will be able to achieve the desired outcome for their retirement.
Under the current provisions, there will be an issue when dashboards come into force, so we need to make the changes to avoid these brilliant tools being abused by trustees or managers of occupational pension schemes. An occupational pension scheme is set up by an employer to provide retirement benefits to its employees. There is currently nothing to prevent a trustee or manager of an occupational pension scheme from reimbursing themselves from members’ pension pots if they are issued with a financial penalty by the Pensions Regulator for a compliance breach. The Bill seeks to make that exact practice a criminal offence, and that is why I support it.
The bottom line is that we need to protect people’s retirement funds. The maximum penalty for a failure or contravention of the pensions dashboards regulations will be £5,000 for an individual or £50,000 for a body corporate, including corporate trustees. As I have said before, pensions are so important to planning for the future, and I want to make sure that the pensions of the constituents of Broxtowe are safe from the abuse of others. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle on introducing the Bill.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) on bringing forward the Bill. The Opposition agree with the principle that pension scheme trustees must be responsible for any failure to meet their legal requirements. The Pensions Regulator has recently warned that many trustees are at risk of failing to meet their legal pensions dashboard responsibilities, and research shows that the majority of trustees have yet to prepare.
Last month, the regulator said:
“Trustees will have legal duties they must be ready for. We will take a dim view of trustees who carelessly fail to prioritise their dashboard responsibilities.”
There is indeed a very real risk that fines could be issued. Without the provisions of the Bill, those fines could fall on scheme members. It should never be the case that mistakes, failures or a lack of action to meet legal requirements on the part of trustees should land with scheme members. People who pay into pensions their whole lives should not be left with less because of the action or inaction of fund managers and trustees. We therefore support this important Bill. In fact, we would have liked to see these provisions in the original pensions dashboard legislation; so although I wish the hon. Member for Cheadle every success with her Bill and commend her for her work, it would be helpful if the Minister told us whether the omission was deliberate on the part of the Government or simply an oversight.
Pensions policy is a long-term policy area. The legislation brought forward in this Parliament and the last Parliament will have implications for many years to come. The Bill is therefore a timely reminder of the need for ongoing work on the pensions dashboard and ongoing work to ensure that people are saving enough for retirement generally and, as the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Darren Henry) says, that they can track and monitor their pension savings and repair problems in their savings history if necessary. We have to ensure financial security for all those who are over state pension age.
I will raise one final point. The dashboard is an important attempt to make information more easily accessible to pension scheme members. We welcome it and think it a helpful way to ensure that people save for retirement, but the Government cannot rely on the programme as a solution for all their pension woes. As a country, we must go further to ensure that more people are saving enough for retirement. If we do not, we will potentially be storing up a future cost of living crisis that will last for decades.
It has been good to hear hon. Members speaking about pension schemes today. I hope that the Bill is a reminder of the importance of well-run, good pension schemes that give people financial security and the confidence to plan for their retirement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
What an honour it is to speak today. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) for having the foresight to move the Second Reading of her Bill and for her excellent contribution to the debate. I can confirm that the Government fully intend to support the Bill today.
As you will be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, this is my seventh day in the job as Minister for pensions; I hope to be better than my predecessor. The bottom line is that it is an honour to do this job and try to address the genuine issue that the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) raises, which is that we need to get this country saving more. With great respect, we are doing that. The state pension has almost doubled since 2010, thanks to the triple lock and the work of the coalition Government and the Conservative Government: it was worth less than £100 shortly before the 2010 election and is now worth up to £185-plus. As taxpayers, we are paying out well over £100 billion to our pensioners. We are providing huge amounts of support.
Automatic enrolment has been a massive success story under successive Governments. The simple truth is that automatic enrolment has meant constituents up and down the country saving in a way that never happened before. The proportion of young people saving with a workplace pension was less than 30% prior to 2012; it is now above 80%. For women with pension savings in a workplace context, the figure was less than 42%; it is now above 80% as well. These are transformational things. For example, in your constituency of Epping Forest, Madam Deputy Speaker, 13,000 people are now saving for a workplace pension. The Bill will genuinely help them to navigate things an awful lot better, so I am very pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle has introduced it.
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
The pensions dashboard is incredibly important and my constituents will probably be asking what it means for them. I am also very conscious that we have a digital divide; I have been campaigning for online accessibility for probably 20 years. I would be interested to know, first, how we can ensure that we do not put people in a position where they cannot get the information, and secondly what the roll-out means for Watford.
Guy Opperman
It matters tremendously to Watford, and I will tell my hon. Friend why: in Watford, 45,000 constituents are benefiting from a workplace pension under automatic enrolment. That is a transformational thing that was genuinely not there barely 10 years ago.
We all support the pensions industry, but it has basically been existing in the 19th century. With the pensions dashboard, we have jumped over the entire 20th century and into the 21st by bringing things online. The pensions dashboard will take pensions—all 40,000 schemes up and down the country in the private and public sector and the state pension—and make them all accessible via iPads, mobile phones and computers. That is transformational.
I am old enough to have met my bank manager—a person whom I used to go and see and have a conversation with. That never happens any more, yet, with the banking and savings apps that many of us now have, the way we engage with our bank is transformational compared with days gone by. We hope that people will have a pensions app so that, as they take the bus or train to work, they can look at their bank account, their savings account and their pensions at the same time and move money between them.
This process started under the Pension Schemes Act 2021, which genuinely transformed the digital divide. The 20-year campaign of my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell), both outside and inside Parliament, is seeing the fruits of his labours. This will make our lives easier, putting it bluntly, because we will have accessible information on an ongoing basis. It will make things simpler by enabling us to make decisions as consumers in a way we never have before, and it will make things better by providing a greater understanding of how to control our money. Surely that is something for which we all strive.
The Government support this Bill, and it is an honour to be here on a day when the House has taken forward four Bills, including the Shark Fins Bill, the Employment (Allocation of Tips) Bill and the Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Bill, which is particularly relevant to my good self as I have suffered loss. I listened to those debates with great interest, and I totally support the Bills.
This Bill is of great importance as we seek to make pensions safer, better and greener. As the hon. Member for Cheadle indicated, with record numbers of people saving for retirement it is more important than ever that people understand their pensions information and prepare for financial security in later life. Dashboards will unquestionably make people do that.
The Department for Work and Pensions published a consultation on the draft pensions dashboard regulations earlier this year, and only yesterday we published the response to that consultation, setting out in detail that we are fully committed to driving forward pensions dashboards and making them happen at the earliest opportunity.
The Bill will increase protections for pension savers by prohibiting trustees and managers of occupational and personal pension schemes from being reimbursed out of scheme assets in respect of penalties imposed on them by any future dashboard regulations. The Bill will achieve this by amending section 256 of the Pensions Act 2004, under which, if a trustee or manager were to be reimbursed and knew or had reasonable grounds to believe that they had been so reimbursed, they would be guilty of a criminal offence unless they had taken all reasonable steps to prevent it. For those found guilty, the provisions allow for a maximum sentence of up to two years in prison or a fine, or both.
Additionally, were any amount to be paid out of a scheme’s assets in such a way, the Pensions Regulator would have the power to issue civil penalties to any trustee or manager who failed to take all reasonable steps to secure compliance. Section 256 of the 2004 Act already prohibits reimbursement of penalties issued under a number of other pieces of pensions legislation, including automatic enrolment. We therefore consider the proposed amendment to that Act to be a very logical and welcome change.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Darren Henry) is a fantastic champion for his constituency, for which I thank him. He has spoken repeatedly in this House of the importance of pensions to his constituents, and I can tell him that 29,000 of his constituents have been automatically enrolled into a workplace pension. This is of massive importance to his constituents.
My hon. Friend raised two points that I will briefly address. First, we are talking about a significant number of pensions, because the average person will have several pots as they continue to work. They might have a job at the age of 18, 21, 24 or 26 before moving to another job. The dashboard starts out as a tracing service, as we have discussed. We already have the Pension Tracing Service, which allows people to seek and identify any lost pensions, but the dashboard will take that so much further. Individuals will be able to access in a safe way all their pensions, make decisions on consolidation and consider their options and possible outcomes in a way that they never could before. This is proper, modern, Conservative, consumer-focused politics that is genuinely transformational for the British people. I am so pleased that my hon. Friend supports that. It is important for his constituents that we support them, not just with workplace pensions.
As I outlined earlier, the support through the state pension has doubled effectively over the past 12 years. The Government are also bringing forward other support, whether it is the specific cost of living support that landed in a million of our constituents’ accounts—£326, and there will be £324 later this year—or whether it is the extra £300 in winter fuel payments for all our pensioner constituents, or the £400 that will go to households that are registered as recipients of energy, along with the energy support grant that will land in October and November. All those packages will be there to support constituents as they cope with the difficulties that have been caused fundamentally by the war in Ukraine and the energy war that we are effectively engaged in with Putin.
Dean Russell
I appreciate my hon. Friend sharing the updates on the pension and how it is helping my constituents. Whenever I speak to pensioners, they always mention the triple lock. Will he commit to the triple lock please?
Guy Opperman
I assure my hon. Friend that the triple lock will return this autumn, when legislation is brought back, as it has been every year, in the pensions uprating process. That is something that not just I but my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions have said, and it remains Government policy. My hon. Friend raises support for pensioners. I pray in aid and urge all colleagues on both sides of the House to get behind spreading awareness of pension credit. Most pensioner support is automatically provided. In other words, once someone is registered, upratings and the inclusion of greater sums such as the £300 winter fuel payment and the £400 energy support grant happen automatically. The key thing with pension credit is that you have to apply. So the message is, “Please don’t be shy, please apply.”
I was lucky enough to spend some time with Mr Len Goodman, to whom I am deeply grateful for his contributions. Fortunately there was no dancing by me, but the video that has been seen by more than 1 million people makes the case for pension credit. It is worth on average £3,300 to all our constituents who are vulnerable and have not claimed. That is something of great importance. We know that up and down the country, in every single constituency, there are hundreds of pensioners who have failed to claim pension credit. I urge them to contact their local citizens advice bureau, Christians Against Poverty, or other assistance organisation such as Age UK or others, for help to claim. They can also go to gov.uk or dial freephone 0800 991234. It applies across all communities. Yesterday I visited Punjabi Radio; we particularly want to reach BME communities.
In respect of the Bill, the Government are committed to making pensions safer, better and greener. We genuinely believe that the Bill makes pensions better through the pensions dashboard. The safety element is assisted by this small, discrete but very important Bill. We also have the capability to make pensions greener. We are the first country to bring in TCFD—the taskforce on climate-related financial disclosures. We are driving forward environmental, social and governance standards. Only today we issued our response to the call for evidence on the social element of ESG. Again, it is a world first for a country to look at this particular reform. Without a shadow of a doubt, the Bill will improve our ability to provide a proper deterrent which will prevent rogue trustees or managers from exploiting the pension assets for which they are responsible. The Government will therefore support the Bill’s passage through Parliament, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle—who is a doughty campaigner for her constituents —on ensuring that pensions are safer for the future.
Mary Robinson
With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank all Members for their contributions and for being present for this important debate. Let me begin my thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Darren Henry), who rightly described the pensions dashboards as brilliant, and acknowledged their potential to enable people to find the various pension pots that they may have acquired during their working lives. So many people who have lost or forgotten pensions and simply do not know where to go will be helped by this groundbreaking legislation.
I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) for her support: she was right to recognise the importance of good, well-run pension schemes. I thank the Minister for his support, and I thank the DWP officials for their assistance in preparing the Bill and for helping me to present it to the House today.
As we move forward with the pensions dashboard, I am glad that we can also put in place the provisions that we will need to protect hard-working people and their savings. The Bill is intended to safeguard people’s pension savings, and I hope it will be able to progress with the support of the whole House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63).
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) on achieving a Second Reading for her excellent Bill.
Public Advocate (No. 2) Bill
Friday 15th July 2022
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Public Advocate (No. 2) Bill 2022-23 View all Public Advocate (No. 2) Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
It is now more than 33 years since the Hillsborough disaster, when 97 wholly innocent children, women and men, who were supporters of Liverpool football club, were unlawfully killed by the gross negligence of South Yorkshire police at the semi-final of the FA cup in Sheffield. Many thousands of survivors of that catastrophic event were traumatised by their experiences, and many of them suffer its terrible impact on their lives to this day. The families of those killed have also had to face unimaginable heartache, made worse by the behaviour of those responsible for the disaster in, even now, seeking to blame the victims and survivors for what happened. This 33-year long attempt by those responsible for the killings to evade their responsibility, and the lies and smears that they have repeatedly perpetrated and are still peddling, form the backdrop to this Bill. They still have an impact today: we need only refer to what was said at the Champions League final by those seeking to cover up the disaster of the organisation of that match.
The South Yorkshire police cover-up and smear campaign, begun on the day of the disaster, succeeded for many years in convincing public opinion that the Hillsborough disaster was caused by hooliganism, and that somehow those who died and the supporters who survived were responsible for what had happened, when they were all wholly innocent. Were it not for the fortitude, togetherness and determination of the families and survivors of Hillsborough, who fought a three-decades-long campaign for truth and justice, the truth would never have been set out or accepted, and the rightful inquest verdicts would never have been returned. The apology that families received from the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, in 2012, on the publication of the Hillsborough Independent Panel report, for what had happened to them and for the cover-up would never have been forthcoming, and some of those responsible would never have been put on trial.
It was not until just over a year ago, in May 2021, that all the remaining criminal trials of those responsible who had been charged collapsed without anyone being held to account. Our criminal justice system can be said to have failed catastrophically when it takes more than three decades to fail to convict those responsible for 97 unlawful killings. After all, the events were filmed, with much shown live on television, yet those responsible for the catastrophe and the cover-up that followed have got away without being held to account.
It took 27 years for the families of those who died to have correct inquest verdicts of unlawful killing handed down, after the accidental death verdicts were quashed in 2012. It took 23 years, and the publication of the work of the Hillsborough Independent Panel, for the full truth to be told and accepted fully by the legal and political establishment: the fans were not to blame; the police in charge on that day were.
We must learn the lessons, and ensure that never again will families bereaved by public disasters have to endure their lost loved ones being smeared and traduced; and never again will families have to spend more than three decades campaigning to get truth and justice for their wholly innocent loved ones. There will be more public disasters. There already have been in the intervening time. Hillsborough is an exceptionally bad case, but we can see in other public disasters some of the same problems arising for bereaved families who, through no fault of their own, are caught up in these tragedies—the Grenfell fire and the Manchester arena bombing to name but two. We have already started to see some of the same problems.
So more is needed. The law must be changed. Public authorities must be made to tell the truth. They must be prevented from using all the public money at their disposal to prevent the truth from coming out. Families must be at the heart of subsequent investigations. They must have a collective voice. They must have agency and the capacity to act to get to the truth much sooner than the Hillsborough families were able to.
Hillsborough shows that attempted cover-ups must be torpedoed at an early stage to prevent what happened to the Hillsborough families from happening to others caught up in public disasters. It was not a legal process. It was the Hillsborough Independent Panel, and the publication of documents using freedom of information principles, that finally succeeded in establishing the truth about Hillsborough for all to see, when many legal proceeding for years previously had failed. But it took 23 years.
If we facilitate the capacity for families to get such a process going much sooner, that can help to stop things going so wrong for so long. That is what the Bill intends to achieve. It would establish an independent, adequately resourced public advocate for those bereaved in public disasters, and injured survivors. It would locate the public advocate’s office in a Government Department, able to call on its resources but—crucially—totally independent of Government control and direction. It would require the public advocate to act if 50% plus one or more of the representatives of the deceased and injured survivors ask the advocate to act.
Lord Michael Wills and I have been introducing a Public Advocate Bill into the Commons and the Lords since 2016. That is why this is one is called the Public Advocate (No.2) Bill. It has already been introduced into the Lords this Session by my noble Friend. It would give families agency by putting them at the heart of the response to public disasters through the establishment of the independent public advocate, who, if the bereaved families wish it, and only then, will act as a representative of their interests, advocate and guide. As a data controller, the advocate would be able to establish a panel to review all documentation and produce a report at a much earlier stage than the 23 years it took for Hillsborough. So it would be cheaper and the process would be shorter. That enforced transparency would quickly put a stop to any venal attempts to deflect blame, such as that conducted by South Yorkshire police. Who could successfully conduct such a campaign in the forced glare of transparency, openness and the production of documentation directed by the public advocate at the behest of the families? Cover-ups and the spreading of lies and propaganda could be stopped at an early stage.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
The hon. Lady is bringing an important matter to the House. On the issues around Hillsborough and other major incidents that have gone on for so long, obviously, there are issues about the cover-up, but also about ignoring whistleblowers. Does she agree that we need to look at listening to people who raise these issues in these important matters?
Maria Eagle
That is an important point, but not important in this context, I think.
The role of the independent advocate would not replace any of the usual legal advocates and would be an addition to prevent things from going wrong over such an extended time. The advocate would get involved only if the families wanted them to be involved. Too often, bereaved families and survivors feel like outsiders, mere adjuncts to proceedings to which others—often those who were at fault—are parties. Those most affected have least agency. These measures could make a real difference and stop what happened to the Hillsborough families ever happening again to other families.
The measures, along with the recommendations of Bishop James Jones’s 2017 report into the lessons to be learned from Hillsborough, are urgently needed. Together they form the Hillsborough Law Now campaign, of which I am a part. In addition to the independent public advocate put forward in the legislation, the recommendations consist of a statutory duty of candour for all public authorities, equality of arms at inquests and a charter for families bereaved through public tragedy.
The report was produced and the recommendations made in 2017. The Conservative party had a manifesto commitment in 2017 to establish an independent public advocate and conducted a consultation, though to date there has been no publication of its outcome and no Government response—there really should be.
The survivors and families of Hillsborough have already had to wait for 33 years. To make them wait five years for a response to a Government-commissioned report into the lessons to be learned is too long. It is more than a year now since the last of the criminal trials collapsed. Getting this Bill into Committee to start making the legal changes we need will enable us to show the families and the survivors that we are starting to take the relevant steps. I hope the Minister can allow us today to give this Bill a Second Reading and get it into Committee.
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)
I will be very brief, but I do want to speak in this debate, because I was the Minister for victims in the Ministry of Justice in 2018 who pushed that consultation that the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) mentions. I want to highlight her consistent advocacy for an independent public advocate, certainly since my time in the Ministry of Justice.
I am afraid I moved on relatively swiftly to the Department of Health and Social Care, so I was not there to publish the response, or indeed to see it, but I want to put on record that the hon. Lady makes some important points. It is right to remind this House and this country at every opportunity of what happened at Hillsborough and what needs to be done to minimise the risk of that ever happening anywhere again.
Transparency is hugely important. We recently saw very concerning scenes at the champions league final in Paris, with an attempt to push particular and unacceptable narratives around that to blame the fans yet again. That will have stirred some horrific memories, particularly for Liverpool fans and people in the hon. Lady’s constituency and elsewhere.
I support the concept of an independent public advocate and I support what the hon. Lady is seeking to do. I think there is more to be done to work through some of the detail of how it would interact with other investigatory bodies and specific powers; it is important that avoiding duplication in interacting with other bodies is handled appropriately. She may well suggest that Committee is the best place to tidy that up, but it is important that those issues are bottomed out before this Bill passes into legislation.
I put on record my support for what the hon. Lady is seeking to do and the underpinning principles behind that, and recognise how important this is to her constituents, to Liverpool fans and more broadly to anyone who could, through no fault of their own, find themselves or their relatives caught in a horrendous tragedy, and would want to know the truth and learn lessons from it. I do not propose to speak for any longer, because I am keen to hear the debate, but I wanted to put that on record.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) for her persistence in bringing forward such an important Bill. I share her view, as I am sure we all do, that the treatment of the Hillsborough families is a stain upon this country. Action must be taken to ensure that we never again see families and survivors having to fight for decades to get to the truth.
This Bill would provide a better way of responding to large-scale public disasters on behalf of bereaved relatives and survivors. It would facilitate transparency about what has happened at an early stage, which would not only give answers for those involved, but allow learning to be implemented to prevent further victims from being created. The Bill would be a lasting legacy for the 97 lost in the Hillsborough disaster and would give real protections to victims and families of future public disasters. I look forward to seeing it progress through the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I will call the Minister now. We are pressed for time, but we will see how far he gets in his speech.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Tom Pursglove)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) for introducing the Bill? I pay tribute to her for her steadfast commitment to the creation of a public advocate, which we have discussed previously, and for all the work that she continues to do in supporting the Hillsborough families and other families who have sadly experienced such unimaginable tragedy. I have had the privilege of working with the hon. Member in my capacity as the victims Minister on another matter affecting bereaved families, and her dedication to those families is clear for all to see.
I thank all hon. Members for their interest in this issue. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar) for his contribution and for the work that he did in ministerial office that is relevant to this debate. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) for her commitment to this issue, and to the wider pursuit of justice for the Hillsborough families, during her time as Home Secretary and Prime Minister and, of course, more recently too.
It is clear to me—as if it were ever in doubt—that there is as much cross-party support for the right to a public advocate today as there ever was. It is humbling and a privilege to respond to the debate on behalf of the Government.
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)
Can the Minister clear something up? Have the Government made proposals to introduce an independent public advocate?
Tom Pursglove
What I can tell my hon. Friend—the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood knows this, because we have had meetings and conversations about it—is that this is something that Ministers in the Ministry of Justice are actively considering. I hope that we will be able to say more about that in due course. I recognise that the House and the Hillsborough families feel very strongly about this proposal. We want to make sure that the detail of any proposal linked to this is got right and worked through.
Maria Eagle
Can the Minister tell me when the response to the consultation, and the Government’s plans, might come forward? We were told during the Backbench Business debate last September that it would be by last Christmas, but that did not happen.
Tom Pursglove
Unfortunately, I cannot give the hon. Lady a firm commitment on timescales, but I repeat that this is something that we as Ministers are actively considering. We want to get it right, and we will of course then be in a position to say more about it as soon as possible.
Darren Henry
May I suggest that, when we get to that point, the Government are clear that there are some details that need to be considered? Typical questions include how an independent public advocate should interact with investigative bodies, how we should avoid duplication, and when an independent public advocate should get involved—when a fatality has occurred, or not? Those are the sorts of things that I hope the Minister and the Government will consider.
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestions, which are all valid in the context of considering policy around introducing a public advocate function. I certainly take those suggestions on board.
Jill Mortimer (Hartlepool) (Con)
I, too, pay tribute to the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) for her fierce advocacy on behalf of the bereaved families of Hillsborough. Does the Minister agree that, as demonstrated by the questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Darren Henry), this is just too complex to get through on the timeline of a private Member’s Bill and needs longer consideration?
Tom Pursglove
It is fair to say that it is, of course, important that any independent public advocate function is delivered properly and robustly, that it is thorough and takes proper account of all the circumstances and eventualities that we would want it to, and that it is delivered through the appropriate legislative vehicle. That is a key consideration for Ministers as we work to look at this issue. It is something that we will continue to consider. I place on record that the Government support the overriding objective of the Bill and are sympathetic to its aims. We believe that it is a welcome addition to the debate, but I am afraid that we do not consider the specific proposals in the Bill to be the best way to provide the support of an independent advocate. That said—I reiterate this point—I am looking carefully at the issue, and the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood knows how seriously I take such matters and the points that she has raised—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
The Minister may resume his speech when we return to the debate.
Mole Valley Local Plan
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
I am delighted to see the Minister on the Front Bench, who is nearly a neighbour and knows the area that I am talking about, even though he cannot specifically mention it. I realise that he cannot discuss the actual Mole Valley local plan, because he is in a quasi-judicial position as long as it is under assessment by the planning inspector, but I am sure that he can cover in broad terms the issues that I hope the inspector will focus on.
As an ex-council leader, I clearly see the full potential of a local plan as a chance to develop an imaginative approach to the protection and the enhancement of, in my case, Mole Valley. It is a chance to recommit to the vital principles of green belt protection and to begin the much-needed revival of our towns, particularly Dorking and Leatherhead. These are important objectives, and I am sorry but unsurprised to note that the Liberal Democrats at Mole Valley District Council dismally failed to meet them.
Even the procedures used to get the plan through the council were a mess. The plan was put to the whole council; the vote was not for or against, but to “note the plan”. In other words, as far as I can tell, there was no full council vote on the actual plan. The draft plan apparently passed through the council executive, which is entirely Liberal Democrat controlled. I am unsure whether there was a vote there or—more likely—a small clique rammed it through with another mere “note” of the plan.
At the full council meeting earlier this year, every single Conservative councillor was opposed to noting the plan and spoke up about the damage it would do. All independent councillors were also opposed. Subsequently, many Liberal Democrat councillors have been frantically distancing themselves from the same plan that they voted to note. Any hon. Member who has dealt with the Lib Dems at a local level will not be particularly surprised to hear that.
I understand that the final draft plan has not been discussed with Surrey County Council, which is the body that should be discussing roads, social services, schools and other infrastructure, all of which goes unmentioned but is relevant to the plan. I believe it has also not been discussed with the relevant health organisations; no consideration has been given to medical centres, GP practices and so on.
Similarly, I understand that there has been no discussion with Thames Water, which is responsible for sewage, or SES Water, which, as its name implies, would supply water to any new houses. As I believe the inspector has already pointed out, there is confusion as to the status of discussion between Highways England and the council about M25 junction 9 at the northern edge of Mole Valley. Many of my constituents have the impression that the Liberal Democrat councillors see themselves, on their local plan island, as isolated and cut off from external opinion and input. In fact, it is not an island but an iceberg, melting around the edges and slowly sinking.
I came here from a high country farm in Otago, New Zealand. It was the sort of country that is green from horizon to horizon. In Mole Valley, if one stands on the viewing point at Box Hill, one can see the beautiful green landscape wrapped around our two towns and assorted villages. I came to Mole Valley safe in the knowledge that virtually all our precious natural surroundings were protected. They were either green belt, areas of outstanding natural beauty, ancient forests or had some other form of protection. Admittedly, that makes it hard to draft a local plan with adequate numbers of new houses. Under those circumstances, the housing target for Mole Valley is high, but it is only a target.
As I mentioned earlier, I am a former leader of Wandsworth Council. I am not—I emphasise the word not—suggesting that Mole Valley could or should mimic Wandsworth’s approach, but it is worth noting that that council, when it was Conservative, managed to build or have in plan more dwellings than the rest of inner London combined. It did so with creative thinking and by embracing innovation—it can be done.
The main towns of Mole Valley need reviving. Dorking and Leatherhead need shops. Shops need shoppers, and shoppers need homes. Years ago, I ran a brief investigation on the extensive files held by Boots the Chemists on Mole Valley shoppers based on data taken from their loyalty cards. It was apparent that the vast majority of youngsters left Mole Valley for university and beyond, and they did not return until at least their mid-30s. We need to draw these younger people back, but three, four or five-bedroom houses on the outer reaches of Mole Valley’s green belt will simply not do that. We need modern flats close to commuter hubs such as Dorking or Leatherhead stations. There is land, including car parks, near and even directly adjacent to Leatherhead station and on the so-called Aviva site, that would be ideal for development.
The local plan contains development, but it is inadequate, insufficient and will not provide enough dwellings. Seizing the opportunities now will maximise the amount of brownfield land available for development. We can even work with National Rail to develop on its land—I have done it. We must take any chance to prevent the Lib Dems from grabbing our precious green belt and forever ruining our irreplaceable natural surroundings.
Early on, in the run-up to developing the plan, many villages and parish councils were asked for input and put in hours of community work developing neighbourhood plans. These plans were carefully thought out and provided for many units that would fit in with the villages without eroding the green belt. This was what I would call “modest and acceptable expansion”. To the best of my knowledge, the plans have been ignored or discounted by this out-of-touch Lib Dem council.
My hon Friend the Minister is not able to respond directly to Mole Valley’s plan, but he might be able to set some broad parameters or guidelines that may be helpful for the inspector in looking at this disgraceful plan. Moreover, I hope he will feel able to put a record of his thoughts, and perhaps mine, into the inspector’s hands as evidence to be considered. Mole Valley needs a plan that saves its green belt and revives its towns.
The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Paul Scully)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) on securing a debate on a topic that is important not just to him and his area—I know he has campaigned vociferously on it—but to the country as a whole. I can think of few better things to do on a Friday afternoon than to talk specifically about Mole Valley’s local plan. As he says, I am a near neighbour and know Dorking and Leatherhead well. Obviously, however, he rightly says that I am unable to go into the specifics, but I will try to deal with some of the general points, which may shed some light on the matter and complement his campaign.
The whole House will share a mutual appreciation of the parks and green spaces that add vibrancy to our communities and lift the spirits of the people within them. My hon. Friend was right to talk about the circular nature of shops needing shoppers and shoppers needing homes. The whole point of a local plan is to have a holistic view of the local area, rather than just chasing targets.
I mentioned green spaces and, after the NHS, they were what people turned to most during the pandemic, as a source of solace and space. It is that kind of holistic view that allows communities to breathe and expand. As we get past the covid pandemic, it is right that we reflect on what will keep our green spaces looking beautiful and brilliant in the months and years ahead.
My main message is that the Government share my hon. Friend’s determination to ensure that there are adequate green spaces for communities to enjoy right across the country. As he said, I cannot comment on the specific case, because the Secretary of State and my Department have a quasi-judicial role in the planning system, but I can speak to our unwavering commitment to keeping the country green and beautiful, and to what exactly we are doing as a Government to protect green spaces while encouraging development in the places it is needed most.
My ministerial role in the planning system means that I cannot drill down into the specifics of local plans, including the evidence base, the handling of the planning process, or any proposal for a new policy, but I can share some facts about the plan and how it is submitted. Mole Valley put forward its emerging local plan for the Secretary of State to consider in February. As is normally the case, the then Secretary of State appointed an independent planning inspector to assess the emerging plan, and hearing sessions at the examination in public started in June. The independent inspector’s role is to look at whether the plan is legally compliant before considering whether it is sound.
For a plan to be found legally compliant, the local planning authority must demonstrate that all the procedural checks and balances have been followed. Effective co-operation early in the plan making process is essential to ensure that the homes and infrastructure needed are planned for. It is expected that authorities collaborate with stakeholders to identify the relevant strategic matters to be addressed. For a plan to be considered sound, it should be positively prepared, justified, effective, and consistent with national policy. Ultimately, the inspector may report that the plan is unsound and cannot be adopted by the local council, but that is not for me to decide.
For the plan then to be adopted, it will require a full council vote, where all elected councillors are able to have their say. Mole Valley’s last local plan was adopted in 2009, and it stands to reason that having an effective, up-to-date plan in place is essential to identify the very latest development needed in any given area, deciding where it should go and dealing with planning applications. In this case, we would expect the local plan to set out the vision for Mole Valley and a framework for addressing housing needs and any other economic, social and environmental priorities, many of which my hon. Friend mentioned.
I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate that due to my role, I cannot comment on specific planning applications, but he will know that local planning authorities are required to undertake a formal period of public consultation prior to deciding any application. Relevant concerns or considerations raised by local residents may be taken into account by the local authority. Applications are determined in accordance with the development plan for the area, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Each application is judged on its own individual merit, and the weight given to those considerations is a matter for the local planning authority as the decision taker in the first instance.
Let me touch on what we are doing not only to protect but to enhance our green belt. I am proud to say that our national planning policy delivers on the promises we made in the 2019 manifesto, with strong protections that safeguard this important land for future generations—promises that I hope will remain in place, irrespective of the outcome of the leadership competition. The national planning policy framework sets two tests to protect the green belt and the openness of land within it: first, that a local authority should not propose to alter a green belt boundary unless there are truly exceptional circumstances; and secondly, that it can show during the examination of a local plan that it has explored every other reasonable option, such as using brownfield land, optimising the density of development, and discussing whether neighbouring authorities could take some of the development required. The long and short of it is that our current framework is clear that inappropriate development—a designation that includes most forms of new building—should not be approved on a green belt except in very special circumstances, as determined by the local authority.
Sir Paul Beresford
My memory, having been in the Minister’s position, is that “exceptional circumstances” does not mean housing merely to fill the statistical numbers required or requested.
Paul Scully
Indeed. My hon. Friend is right. Exceptional circumstances means exactly that. It does not mean just jumping into targets because of a lack of preparation elsewhere. That is key to understanding the issue. He talks about the local plan and the robust steps that any local authority has to engage in to get a sound judgment by the inspector and get a local plan adopted in the first place. It is about not just chasing targets, but the holistic view that I was talking about earlier.
The logical counterweight to building on green belt is to make far, far better use of suitable brownfield land, especially to meet housing needs and to regenerate our high streets and town centres. It is a principle at the heart of our levelling up agenda and our mission to drive forward bold, Kings Cross-inspired regeneration projects in cities and towns across the country. My hon. Friend was very modest, as a former leader of Wandsworth Council, when he talked about that progressive council and the inspiration we can draw from it. For years, derelict sites across the country have been not only unloved but underutilised. In many cases, they happen to be the most sustainable locations for the kind of new homes and new developments we need, but too often that potential goes unrealised.
To help councils and support the re-use of suitable brownfield land, we have done a number of things, including updating the national planning policy framework so it sets out that planning policies and decisions must give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield sites; increasing housing need by 35% in our 20 most populated urban areas in the UK, so we can make the best use of existing infrastructure, including schools, shops, GP practices, train stations and bus stations, as my hon. Friend alluded to; and requiring that every local authority collates and publishes a register of local brownfield land suitable for housing in their area. We have already seen the dividends of those kinds of forward-thinking policies. For example, the registers tell us that nationally we have more than 28,000 hectares of developable land, which is enough land for 1 million homes.
We are, of course, committed to building the homes the country needs and to ensuring they are built in the places they are needed most. Over recent years, housebuilding has defied all expectations. Thanks to the steps the Government took with the industry at the height of the pandemic, we kept the conveyor belt of house building going, with over 216,00 new homes built in 2020-21—just a small dip on the previous year. There is every indication that in 2022, even with the challenging economic backdrop, the numbers will climb back up in the coming months and years.
Thanks to measures such as the one we introduced in 2018 to assess local housing need—a measure that makes less opaque and more efficient the process of identifying how many homes any place needs—local areas are in a much better position. To help us reach our housing targets we changed the formula in December 2020 to grow the numbers of homes and meet demand in our 20 most populated urban areas. That will not just help us to deliver homes that help people get on to the housing ladder; it will also make sure we are developing in a way that makes the most use possible of existing infrastructure and helps us minimise the cost to the climate of long-distance commutes.
When we look to the future and what that future looks like for our planning process, the Government set out their vision through the reforms we proposed in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, which was introduced on 11 May and is going through its parliamentary process now. The Bill will place a duty on local authorities to engage with their communities on proposed plans, giving communities far more say in planning applications and empowering them to have their say in the first place. The increased weight given to plans and national policy by the Bill will give more assurance that areas of environmental importance, such as national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and areas at high risk of flooding, will be respected in decisions on planning applications and appeals. The same is true of the green belt, which will continue to be safeguarded.
Meanwhile, measures to digitise the planning system will help radically transform the way that information about plans, planning applications and the information underpinning them is made available. That transparency will make the process smoother for all parties while putting the power back where it belongs: in the hands of local communities.
I thank my hon. Friend once again for securing the debate. With so much focus on other events, it is more important than ever that we keep discussing and debating the issues that really make a difference to people’s day-to-day lives. Again, I can only apologise that we cannot go beyond generalities into the specifics of his constituency. What I will say, however, is that we have both faced Lib Dem councils, but it is so important that local councils of any colour engage with the residents they represent. Councillors are there to reflect the desires of the people who put them in power in the first place. They have an incredible power to shape their community for decades to come through local plans. It is incredibly important that all areas get it right, but they can only do so by bringing people with them and going through the correct process.
When I look at the lie of the land with levelling up and regeneration and think about the direction of travel, I am reminded of a quotation from the American poet Randall Jarrell:
“The people who live in a golden age usually go around complaining how yellow everything looks.”
Don’t get me wrong—I know how much further we have to go to get the balance right between protecting green land and ensuring that the homes the country needs get built—but the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill and the interest from parliamentarians on both sides of the House will help us to get there.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jeremy Corbyn
Has the Minister had a chance to look at the comments made yesterday by Emma Howard Boyd, the chair of the Environment Agency, concerning the behaviour of water companies and the pollution in rivers, and her recommendation that instead of fining the chairs of the water companies that grievously pollute our rivers, consideration ought to be given to putting those people in jail for the damage they are doing to our environment? Is he going to respond directly to the Environment Agency and wish it well in that endeavour?
Steve Double
I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for raising that very important point. I am, of course, absolutely aware of the Ofwat report and the comments of the Environment Agency.
[Official Report, 14 July 2022, Vol. 718, c. 581.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double).
An error has been identified in my response to the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn).
The correct information should have been:
Steve Double
I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for raising that very important point. I am, of course, absolutely aware of the Environment Agency report and the comments of the Environment Agency.
Written Statements
Government Transparency and Accountability
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Michael Ellis)
Since 2010, the Government have been at the forefront of opening up data to allow Parliament, the public and the media to hold public bodies to account.
Such online transparency is crucial to delivering value for money, cutting waste and inefficiency, and ensuring every pound of taxpayers’ money is spent in the best possible way.
The Government will continue to look at how the range of information published by the Government can be improved and made as useful as possible to the public, press and Parliament.
The following subject areas include documents and information on Government publications. Copies of associated documents can be found on gov.uk.
The Government have also undertaken a range of work in response to reports by the Committee on Standards in Public Life and Nigel Boardman, detailed below.
Ministerial transparency
Departments have published routine quarterly ministerial data on external meetings, gifts, hospitality and overseas travel.
Transparency on special advisers and senior officials
Special advisers are a critical part of the team supporting Ministers. They add a political dimension to the advice and assistance available to Ministers, while reinforcing the impartiality of the permanent civil service by distinguishing the source of political advice and support.
In line with legislation, each year the Cabinet Office lays in Parliament and publishes a list of special advisers and their costs. Today, the Cabinet Office will be laying in Parliament and publishing the list of special advisers in post as of 30 June, along with the annual cost of special advisers over the financial year 2021-22.
Departments have published quarterly data on gifts and hospitality received by special advisers, as well as information on special adviser meetings with senior media figures.
Routine quarterly data on hospitality, expenses and meetings of senior officials and on business appointment rules advice has also been published by Departments.
Ministerial guidance on commercial involvement
The Government commercial function will be publishing ministerial guidance on commercial involvement. A separate written ministerial statement on this will also be made. This sets out ministerial guidance through four stages of commercial activity, from before procurement starts to supplier and contract management post contract award. It also offers advice on how to maximise the value of ministerial involvement while maintaining the necessary safeguards.
Covid absence statistics
The Cabinet Office has been compiling cross-Government management information on absences due to covid-19 within the civil service since the start of the pandemic. The data includes sickness absences and special paid leave. In October 2021, we published the top level data on gov.uk. We have now completed the data collection and plan to add the final nine months of data to the existing publication. We will continue to collect sickness absence data related to covid-19 through our business as usual absence collection which we publish on an annual basis.
Government response to the Committee on Standards in Public Life and Nigel Boardman
The Government have been considering the “Standards Matter 2” report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, alongside Nigel Boardman's report on the use of supply chain finance in Government.
In relation to recommendations in both reports that the Government should improve their processes for ensuring compliance with conflicts of interest rules, on 24 June 2022 the Cabinet Office issued new guidance on the declaration and management of outside interests in the civil service.
Further work is underway to ensure senior officials within Government Departments are aware of their compliance responsibilities, and have access to relevant training and support on compliance issues.
The Government have also implemented Nigel Boardman’s recommendations on Government contracts and the use of supply chain finance in Government. The Government’s model services contact, reissued on 11 April 2022, includes new provisions covering suppliers’ potential conflicts of interest, while HM Treasury guidance on novel financing arrangements, issued on 18 March 2022, states that supply chain finance schemes require explicit approval and should rarely be used.
The “Statement of Government policy: Standards in public life”, published on 27 May 2022, detailed the Government’s reforms to the role and remit of the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests. In deciding on these reforms, the Government carefully considered the relevant recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life.
The Government are also taking action to improve the enforcement of the business appointment rules. Mechanisms are now in place for breaches of the rules to be taken into account in the award of honours. Agreement on a similar approach is being sought with the independent House of Lords Appointments Commission and the Government are now considering how to implement the same approach in relation to public appointments. Alongside this, the Government are considering consequences for prospective employers including through the procurement process.
Work on further reforms, including those proposed by the Committee on Standards in Public Life and Nigel Boardman, continues and will be informed by the new Prime Minister.
This statement responds to the motion passed by the House on 7 June 2022, Official Report, Vol. 715, col. 728, and Ministers will undertake to further update the House in due course.
[HCWS208]
Guidance to Ministers: Participation in Government Commercial Activity
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Brexit Opportunities and Government Efficiency (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
Representing around a third of public expenditure, contracts for goods and services with the external market are essential to the delivery of Government policy. The new Procurement Bill, introduced to Parliament on 12 May 2022, creates a simpler and more flexible commercial system that better meets our country’s needs while remaining compliant with our international obligations. Ministers have the opportunity to participate fully in this system with certain safeguards to protect them from the risk of legal challenge.
This guidance note stresses the benefits of ministerial involvement in commercial activity; early involvement in upcoming procurements so that Ministers can specify what they want, including choosing how opportunities are presented to the market, and shaping the market to optimise the response; engagement with bidders during the procurement process so that they can hear of ministerial priorities directly; and working with suppliers to ensure that they deliver to contract.
The guidance also covers:
how to interact safely with potential vendors, preserving the principle of equal treatment;
how to use declarations of interest to maintain necessary transparency; and
how Ministers can be involved with suppliers during the execution of contracts without prejudicing their Department’s contractual rights.
Experience during the covid-19 response showed the value of ministerial engagement in commercial activity but also some of the risks, with a number of legal challenges based on the alleged direct involvement of Ministers in selection decisions. Simple safeguards can reduce this risk while enabling Ministers to participate fully in commercial activity and maximise the value to Government of contracts and supplier relationships.
The note updates guidance circulated to Ministers by the former Minister for the Cabinet Office in 2014. This revised guidance has been shared for comment and approval with current and former Ministers, Sir Nigel Boardman (in the context of his reviews of covid-19 commercial activity), and a number of non-executive directors from across Government. It has also been signed off by the Cabinet Secretary and the propriety and ethics team. All were supportive of the need for clarity in this area, and the guidance has been through several iterations to ensure inclusion of cross-Government views and expertise.
The guidance will be published on gov.uk and complements measures contained in the new Procurement Bill, but sits outside the Bill and the ministerial code. I have requested that a copy of the guidance be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS209]
International Ministerial Conference on Freedom of Religion or Belief: London 2022
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Vicky Ford)
My noble Friend the Minister for South and Central Asia, North Africa, United Nations and the Commonwealth (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon), has made the following written ministerial statement:
On 5 and 6 July 2022, my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), the Prime Minister’s Special Envoy on Freedom of Religion or Belief, and I hosted the fourth international ministerial conference on freedom of religion or belief (FoRB) at the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre in London.
The conference and its associated fringe brought together Government delegations, faith and belief group leaders and civil society from over 100 countries for rich discussions to address challenges to the right to FoRB.
The conference explored the many facets of FoRB through 17 themed panel sessions and gave a platform to those persecuted for their religion or belief. Forty seven Governments, international organisations and other entities made pledges to take action in support of FoRB. Some 34 countries joined the UK in signing up to one or more of a set of statements protecting and promoting FoRB. We hope more countries will join these statements over the coming weeks.
The opening plenary session received contributions from: His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales: the Prime Minister; Secretary General of the Muslim World League, His Excellency Sheikh Al-Issa; Head of the Worldwide Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, His Holiness Hazrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad; the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby; Chief Rabbi, Ephraim Mirvis; President of Humanists International, Mr Andrew Copson; Spiritual Leader and Chairman of Guru Nanak Nishkam Sewak Jutha, Bhai Sahib Mohinder Singh, and President of the Hindu Forum of Britain, Mrs Trupti Patel.
In her opening speech, the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) outlined FCDO progress in implementing recommendations from the Bishop of Truro’s 2019 report and noted the breadth of religion and belief groups that suffer from persecution.
I announced new UK funding for support for defenders of FoRB, including those persecuted because of their activism, as well as funding and expertise for countries prepared to make legislative changes to protect FoRB.
The conference was an important human rights milestone which galvanised international efforts to do more to protect and promote the right to FoRB. The challenge now is to turn words into action. We will do this through building coalitions of Government and civil society actors focussed on key themes from the conference, drawing on the convening power of the international religious freedom or belief alliance working alongside the special envoy, the FCDO will continue to work on this important human rights issue and build on momentum from the conference to champion global efforts on FoRB.
[HCWS205]
Firearms Safety Consultation
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Home Department (Tom Pursglove)
The Government have today published their response to the consultation held on firearms safety, which sought views on a number of measures responding to issues raised during the passage of the Offensive Weapons Act 2019 through Parliament. The consultation contained proposals for how to mitigate the risks to public safety raised by these issues. The consultation closed on 16 February 2021 and more than 12,000 responses were received.
Our firearms laws are some of the toughest in the world and ensuring public safety through effective firearms control is a priority for the Government. Having carefully considered the responses received to the consultation, we have decided to introduce a range of measures to strengthen the controls.
The Government will:
Strengthen security requirements to mitigate the risk of theft of high muzzle energy rifles by requiring enhanced security for the secure storage and transportation of these particularly powerful firearms. This measure will be implemented by means of an order made under section 53 of the Firearms Act 1968;
Help safeguard young people against the misuse of air weapons by legislating to clarify the offence of failing to take “reasonable precautions” to prevent minors from having air weapons so that whenever under-18s are on the premises, “reasonable precautions” must include locking the air weapon out of sight when not in use and storing the ammunition separately. This change will be implemented by means of an order under section 53 of the Firearms Act 1968. We will also work with the airgun industry to ensure that home security devices are supplied with all new air weapons, and that retailers explain the importance of secure handling and storage to purchasers of new air weapons at the point of sale;
Tighten the control of miniature rifle ranges by requiring operators to obtain a firearm certificate and limiting such ranges to the use of .22 rimfire weapons. Primary legislation to implement these changes will be brought forward when parliamentary time allows; and
Tackle the unlawful manufacture of ammunition by introducing a new offence of possessing component parts with intent to assemble unauthorised quantities of complete ammunition. Primary legislation to implement this new offence will be brought forward when parliamentary time allows.
The Government also gave very careful consideration to the views put forward in relation to the proposal to remove the exception that permits unsupervised possession of air weapons by under 18s on private land with the occupier’s consent. This proposal was opposed by a majority of respondents and, on balance, the Government have decided not to proceed with it at this time. However, we will keep the matter under careful review with the possibility that further action could be taken in future.
On 20 June 2022, a Firearms Bill was put forward in the House of Commons as a presentation Bill. It was ordered that the Bill should be drafted and ready for Second Reading in March 2023.
A copy of the Government’s response to the firearms safety consultation has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and is available on the Government’s website at gov.uk.
[HCWS206]
Levelling-up Fund: Second Round of Applications
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Greg Clark)
I am today opening applications for the next round of the levelling-up fund. This second round of the £4.8 billion fund will allocate further funding to communities across the United Kingdom, including investments in town centres and high streets, local transport upgrades and investing in cultural and heritage assets.
Prospective applicants have been developing their bids since the publication of the prospectus on 23 March 2022. In order to allow time for submission of bids via the online portal, applications will be accepted until midday on Tuesday 2 August.
It is important that the Government understand which bids enjoy the support of their local Members of Parliament, who represent their constituents. In order to reflect that some parliamentary constituencies cover more than one council area, every Member of Parliament in Great Britain will have the option to provide priority support to up to two bids.
I am determined to ensure that important levelling-up measures such as the levelling-up fund will be implemented at pace, and I encourage everybody to submit their bids for the fund now.
[HCWS207]
House of Lords
Domestic Premises (Electrical Safety Certificate) Bill [HL]
Friday 15th July 2022
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Domestic Premises (Electrical Safety Certificate) Bill [HL] 2022-23 View all Domestic Premises (Electrical Safety Certificate) Bill [HL] 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, the Bill is a useful prelude to the following Healthy Homes Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, which I fully support. In recent months—not least through amendments to the then Building Safety Bill—I have sought to introduce measures to improve electrical safety in our homes. I am grateful for the support I have received from Electrical Safety First and, especially, Mr Ron Bailey.
The tragic Grenfell Tower fire was started by a faulty electrical appliance. Sadly, there are many other examples of fires started in this way, which lead to loss of life and damage to property and have significant financial consequences. As well as faulty appliances, numerous fires are caused by faulty electrical installations in our homes, with similar results. Electrical Safety First estimates, using Home Office data, that over the last five years approximately five fires a day in England and one fire a day in Wales have been caused by faulty electrical installations. In total, that is six fires a day and well over 2,000 fires every year caused by faulty electrical installations—some with severe, and at times fatal, consequences for the occupants.
I am pleased that action is already being taken. Dwellings in the private rented sector in England are already required to have their electrical installations checked every five years. During the passage of the Building Safety Bill, I proposed that the same should apply in the social rented sector. After a slight hesitation, the Government agreed and the requirement for five-yearly checks in socially rented properties forms part of the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill currently before Parliament. Action is being taken in Wales too; from December, similar electrical installation checks will be required for all rented homes.
This leaves the owner-occupied sector, where nothing is currently planned despite it being the largest form of tenure and the one in which the largest number of vulnerable people live—those aged 65 and over, who are most susceptible to electrical risk. Overall, 17 million households in England and Wales are living in properties whose electrical installations are subject to no existing or planned mandated periodic checks. That is where this Bill fits. It is intended to fill this regulatory gap. However, certainly at this stage, it appears unrealistic to introduce measures to require five-yearly checks. Unlike in the rented sectors, they would be very difficult to enforce. Instead, the Bill has an easily enforceable approach centred on the time when a property changes ownership.
As covered in Clause 1, the Bill requires the provision of an electrical installation condition report or an electrical installation certificate at the point of sale by the seller or, if deceased, someone acting on their behalf—rather like the seller currently has to provide an energy performance certificate at the point of sale. An agent selling the property would then have to ensure that there is an EICR just as they have to ensure that there is an EPC. Clause 2 specifies exemptions to that requirement: where properties are being sold for demolition or where they have been rewired in the last six months. Clause 3 defines the terms used in the Bill and Clause 4 enables the Secretary of State to make the necessary regulations applying to England and Wales, subject to the power of the Welsh Parliament to nullify those regulations regarding Wales.
The Bill’s provisions have widespread support from, among others, Electrical Safety First, organisations that oversee and regulate domestic electrical work, and the Electrical Safety Roundtable, whose numerous participants range from the Local Authority Building Council and the London Fire Brigade to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and estate agents such as Savills. Many owner-occupiers also want stronger measures in this area. A March 2022 survey by YouGov for Electrical Safety First found that over two-thirds of homeowners in England and Wales stated that they would strongly support being required to complete regular electrical safety checks on their electrical installations.
The Government should also welcome the Bill. As the Minister considers how he will respond, he may wish to reflect that, in the year ending September 2021, there were 954,000 house sales in England and 48,000 in Wales. If this legislation had already been enacted, we could have ensured that an extra million properties were electrically safe. Significantly, it would also help the Government honour a very clear commitment. Following the Grenfell Tower tragedy, Dame Judith Hackitt called for a complete overhaul of aspects of the building regulation regime. Lots has already happened or is in progress; the former Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, said that some of these measures were
“unapologetically ambitious, creating a world-class building safety regulatory regime that holds all to the same high standard.”—[Official Report, 2/2/22; col. 916.]
If all housing tenures—privately rented, socially rented and owner-occupied—are to be at the same high standard of electrical safety, this simple and widely supported Bill provides the missing bit of the jigsaw. I hope it will have the Minister’s and the Government’s support. I look forward to his response and beg to move.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Bill is greatly welcome, although I confess that it is not a subject that weighs heavily on my personal work agenda. It was with that in mind that I sought the view of my son, who is the electrical contracts manager for a company that operates throughout central London. He told me this:
“I welcome the objectives of the bill and following on from the earlier associated changes in the private residential sector believe this will be of huge benefit to the safety of electrical installations across the country. There is however one aspect of the bill which I think should be considered carefully: that is the home buyer’s expectation and understanding of the electrical safety report.
Unlike a private residential landlord who is simply looking for a report stating the installation is ‘safe’ or ‘satisfactory’, a property buyer is looking for information that will inform a financial transaction. Simply stating the installation is ‘satisfactory’ does not answer questions like: How long before the installation needs rewiring? Is it cost effective to renovate the property without rewiring? Should I consider the cost of a rewire in the offer price?
The sponsors of this Bill may say that these aren’t relevant and that the main objective is electrical safety. I would advise not to overlook these issues. These are real questions electrical contractors will be confronted with should the bill pass into legislation.
It is important that potential buyers don’t over-interpret the ‘satisfactory’ certificate to mean the installation will last for years to come where the report does not specifically say so.
During my time in the industry, I have advised clients how to avoid any ‘over-interpretation’ of the results, but on many occasions, I have still been contacted by new homeowners who had instructed other contractors and simply couldn’t understand why they had received a ‘satisfactory’ certificate for an installation they were later told should be rewired.
Am I right to worry, that under the proposed rules, where it is a vendor instructing a contractor to carry out an EICR, that the current ‘over-interpretation’ could then be perceived as the vendor intentionally misleading the buyer?
This confusion can be avoided, but this may need a change in the way an EICR is carried out. It will require additional guidance to consumers (both vendors and buyers) and additional guidance and training to contractors.
To highlight the dilemma, I will leave you with the simple analogy of a vehicle MOT.
The MOT confirms the vehicle is safe to be on the road. But it doesn’t tell you how long the engine will last; if the timing belt needs replacing; or if the clutch is shot. Most people buying a car know this and don’t overinterpret the MOT ‘pass’. However, the public are not as savvy when it comes to EICRs. Some additional support will be required.”
I hope the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Foster, will take my son’s comments into account as the Bill progresses through the House. He is on the tools, knows what he is talking about, and clearly understands the implications of all this.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as a vice-chair of the All-Party Group on Fire Safety and Rescue. I start by congratulating my noble friend Lord Foster on the Bill, but also on his long-standing campaign to achieve better electrical safety, whether in the recent Building Safety Bill or many questions about ensuring electrical safety, including appliances—not just about installations, which is what this Bill covers. I also thank the House of Lords Library for its helpful briefing.
The Bill looks at one very specific problem. As the noble Lord, Lord Foster, has outlined, at the moment in the sale of domestic properties there is an anomaly: any gas supply or gas fixtures will have been certified as having been safely installed and checked because of the five-year rule. This must be available to prospective purchasers and their conveyancers in the sale pack. The Bill remedies that, in a very neat way, for electrical installations.
One of the worrying aspects of modern fires in high-rise buildings is the number caused by faulty or defective installations. Home Office data shows that this number is growing, whether in the cables themselves or shoddy work. Electrical Safety First’s data—which the noble Lord, Lord Foster, cited—stated that there are five electrical fires a day in domestic properties, and that should be a wake-up call to us all. It should worry not just those interested in preventing fires, but also the insurance industry, our health service and the public, who have a right to know whether their properties are safe. Health services in particular have to pick up the pieces after people have been hurt in fires, whether receiving burns or—much more common—inhaling smoke, the long-term effects of which can affect people’s ability to work and they may be off sick for quite a long time. So the invisible cost to electrical installation fires has to be addressed too.
There is also a particular problem in flats and apartments, where electrical work may have been carried out by a contractor on behalf of a freeholder, and party walls—intended to give time to protect other parts of the building through compartmentation—have been breached, meaning that fire can spread much faster than it should. Grenfell Tower and many other fires in flats are now demonstrating that quite often compartmentation is breached. Many blocks are part privately owned, and part rented. The good thing about the Bill is that any work a freeholder carried out would presumably—I will perhaps check with my noble friend Lord Foster—also have to ensure that work in any private flats owned in that particular block would have to be similarly certified. That would give reassurance that compartmentation would not be breached because there would a checkpoint at the time that work happens.
The solution of my noble friend Lord Foster in the Bill is very neat. He is right that five-yearly certifications—currently required for gas installations, such as boilers—just would not work for electrical installations. But a certificate confirming that the original installation was safe—and recent enough to show that it is still safe—that was required to be shown at the time of the sale of the home to the new buyer and their conveyancer will provide the missing link that is needed.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, raises an interesting issue about the consequences of the Bill. I am less concerned about the over-expectation of home buyers because I think it will force buyers to seek advice as part of their fabric survey and be encouraged to consider work where necessary. Electrical wiring, for example, certainly lasts for up to 20 years and if you are buying something that was installed 15 years ago, then any survey should say that you should be considering ensuring that you renew or replace during your ownership of the property. I also think it will help the electrical industry too. Having the five-year certification has certainly transformed the gas industry, and it will help good and responsible electrical installers— such as the son of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours—to know that there will be less opportunity for people who might try to skimp on the safety aspects.
During the recent passage of the Building Safety Act, we heard that many of the fires in high-rise blocks were started by faulty or defective electrical goods or by faulty electrical installation. This Bill brings certification of electrical installations into line with gas installations. It is long overdue, and I really hope that the Government will give it their support so that we can reduce the number of fires in private homes—whether houses or flats—and give assurances to home buyers that the invisible electrical installations they are purchasing with their home are safe.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, on his excellent Bill, which I am delighted to be speaking in support of today. I also thank the charity Electrical Safety First and the other campaigners who have highlighted for many years the problems we have with electrical safety in this country and how important it is to get this right. There have been improvements in recent years, but this would be another step forward. I hope that we get a good response from the Government and can actually move this forward. I very much support the Bill. If your Lordships support it, I hope that we will see no amendments, because we need to ensure that it gets a speedy passage through this House and is sent to the other place quickly. The best way to do that is not to amend it and to let it move on; I hope that that happens.
I start my remarks with the experience of somebody I will call Sean. He was a first-time buyer who stepped on to the property ladder. A few months after moving into his property, his fuse box started to spark. Once he managed to switch it off, he got an electrician round. In the end, he had to fork out over £10,000 to repair the damage to his property and rewire the entire house. He cannot help thinking—and I agree with him—that this all could have been avoided if he had got an electrical installation condition report done before he bought his home. Of all the residential sales in recent years, particularly in 2017-18, only 37% of those who bought properties undertook an electrical safety check beforehand. One in five of those buyers believed that the checks would be in other survey reports that are done when you buy a home, and a further third of buyers soon found electrical safety problems that they were not aware of before purchasing their property.
Electrical safety checks on domestic properties are slipping through the cracks. This Bill, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, provides a sealing device for those gaping holes in our legislation. The National Inspection Council for Electrical Installation Contracting recommends inspections of all domestic wiring installations every 10 years or when there is a change of ownership, whichever is first. As it stands, those selling properties are under no legal obligation to carry out thorough electrical safety checks before putting their properties on the market. It is down to the buyer to ensure that the property they wish to purchase is electrically safe. But should we rely on the buyer to carry out these checks? We cannot be sure that the buyer knows that they should do this—from the example I gave, we can see that they do not. This surely cannot be right.
As the evidence makes apparent, the implementation of this Bill is already far too late. The achievement of stepping on to the property ladder can be ruined by poor electrical safety. Putting the onus on those who sell their property to provide electrical safety certificates would save buyers thousands of pounds. But, of course, this is not merely about money. According to the calculations of Electrical Safety First, over 19,000 accidental domestic fires in the UK are of electrical origin. What is more, there are around 70 fatalities and 350,000 serious injuries in the UK due to electricity each year. As this charity puts it,
“you could be saving more than just money by getting the electrics checked.”
This is not just a matter of saving money; it is a matter of saving lives. We should treat this Bill with the urgency it deserves.
The director-general of the Electrical Safety Council has given ample warning of the way in which electrical ignorance plagues our population. In his words,
“Even though we are using more electrical products than ever before, there is a worrying gap between the public’s perception of electrical danger and the reality, with people making simple yet potentially fatal errors that can be easily prevented”.
We cannot continue to rely on buyers to carry out electrical safety checks before buying a property. Let us not wait for another warning from electrical safety experts. Let us not wait for another Grenfell Tower tragedy. We should support this Bill in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster, today. I look forward to the Minister’s response, and I hope that it is a supportive one.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, just said, this Bill is a step forward, and I am pleased to support it. I think my noble friend Lord Foster of Bath and other speakers have made a very convincing case, which I hope the Government will support. I find the Bill timely, and it offers an effective and inexpensive solution to a serious problem. Since an energy efficiency rating is required when selling a property, it is hard to see why there should not also be evidence of the safety of the electrical installation itself.
I have previously spoken several times in debates on electrical safety matters, both of appliances and installations. It is good to see legislation in operation in the private rented sector with checks every five years, and I hope it will be followed in the social housing sector and that the regulations suggested in the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill will be triggered to include both the social housing sector generally and the owner-occupied leasehold properties in social housing blocks.
It is interesting that a fifth of those who have a survey done of a property they are planning to buy already assume that the survey includes the electrical installation and so do not get a separate one. There are too many examples of home buyers discovering problems with the electrical installations in their property after they move in. I find it very reasonable for those purchasing a property to be supplied automatically with a valid electrical installation condition report or an installation certificate. The costs would be low; it is estimated to be between £125 and £300 per property. It may result in our needing more electricians, but high-skilled jobs would then be generated.
To conclude, there is a regulatory gap affecting 17 million homes, to which this Bill is a simple and effective solution. The Government should welcome it, and I hope that they will.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, on introducing this Bill today and on his relentless and continuous campaigning on electrical safety. The Bill would require an electrical installation condition report, EICR, or electrical installation certificate, EIC, to be made available to prospective buyers of domestic properties in England and Wales. This has been brought forward following concerns, raised by the charity Electrical Safety First, at the levels of home fires resulting from home appliances. According to its data, 53.4% of all accidental domestic fires in England had an electrical origin in 2018-19.
At present, only 37% of residential sales include an EICR, while 20% of home buyers wrongly believed the electrics were checked during the process. This new legislation would reflect existing obligations on vendors to provide energy performance information, in addition to existing legislation which requires landlords to inspect electrical installations in properties. It is important to note that it would not even force the seller to undertake repair works; instead, it focuses on transparency by providing buyers with accurate information.
Labour supports the Bill because we want to see families given greater security at home, while also wanting first-time buyers to feel confident when joining the housing ladder. More broadly, Labour also wants to see the Government be far more ambitious in their attempts to improve building safety, including on combustibles. In the past four years, at least 70 schools and 25 hospitals and care homes have been built using potentially dangerous products.
There is clearly popular support for this move, with research by Electrical Safety First showing that nearly-two thirds of home owners want a requirement for regular electrical safety checks in their properties. Meanwhile, NICEIC, NAPIT and the Electrical Safety Roundtable have also spoken of their support for the Bill. As the noble Lords, Lord Foster and Lord Shipley, mentioned, 17 million households have no regulation of the safety of electrical installations. That is a horrifying figure.
In conclusion, I echo my noble friend Lord Kennedy’s comments about making sure that the Bill has a speedy passage. This has taken far too long, and it is about saving lives. Without this legislation, home owners will continue to be placed at risk every day. I look forward to the response from the Minister, and I hope it will be positive.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for drawing our attention to the important subject of electrical safety in the home, and I thank all noble Lords for their contributions.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Khan, that people deserve to feel safe in their homes, and government has played an important role in ensuring that this remains the case. However, we must make sure that when we legislate, it is proportionate, necessary and not overly burdensome. We must avoid adding further blockers to the already complex process of buying and selling a home.
We take this matter seriously and have already taken significant action to introduce regulation and guidance where it is practical and proportionate to do so. The provisions in the Building Safety Act 2022, in addition to our recently published consultation about electrical safety in social rented homes, show that we are taking action. I will set out the progress we have made and our plans to go further, so that we can see why the powers that the noble Lord proposes in his Bill are not necessary.
First, we have already put key regulations in place to secure tenants’ domestic electrical safety. Our building regulations set out robust safety standards that must be met when electrical installation work is carried out in the home, regardless of whether it is rented or owned by the occupier. Under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, all private and social landlords must make sure that electrical equipment and installations are in good working order. We have already taken this further. In 2020, we introduced a regulatory requirement for all electrical installations in private rented properties to be inspected every five years, with the electrical condition report provided.
Secondly, we are taking forward further measures for social rented properties, as the noble Lord, Lord Foster, mentioned. We are currently consulting on electrical safety in social housing and will use the information we gather to consider how best to introduce regulation in this area. This includes legislating for electrical safety checks and requiring landlords to provide residents with electrical installation condition reports to show that domestic electrical systems have been checked and are safe. At this point I thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, for his fascinating and informative speech on certification. At the same time, we are seeking evidence better to understand the case for mandating electrical safety checks in owner-occupied leasehold properties in social housing blocks.
Thirdly, we have stipulated in legislation that an assessment must be made of electrical testing in relevant buildings. Our Building Safety Act 2022 requires the new building safety regulator to carry out a cost-benefit analysis of testing, inspecting and reporting on the condition of electrical installations in relevant buildings. This assessment must be carried out within three years, and we would not want to pre-empt the outcome of that work.
Furthermore, we have concerns that mandating further electrical safety checks at the point of marketing homes may cause capacity problems in the industry, which in turn could delay the buying and selling of homes. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, raised the fact that we need more electricians. As he said, it will take time to build up a cadre of skilled electricians to carry out an increased volume of EICRs. This is discussed in the social housing consultation. As I said, qualified electricians are needed to issue electrical safety certificates and, as noble Lords mentioned, there are currently personnel issues in the industry caused by an ageing workforce and recruitment problems.
To require all homes to have electrical safety certificates before they can be sold would delay homes being listed for sale, preventing owners from moving and buyers from buying their dream home. It would prolong the home buying and selling process, which is frustrating and costly for everyone involved, not least at a time when the property industry is already experiencing a shortage of properties for sale.
We are already looking at where further regulation is required in the home buying and selling process, as mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Foster, Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy. In the Levelling Up White Paper we committed to working with industry to make sure that buyers have access to the critical material information they need to know to decide if a property is for them.
We are refreshing our home buying and selling strategy to support this work and to meet our objective of creating a fair housing system that works for everyone. This includes looking at potential legislation to bring forward in the fourth Session. As such, we think it is more appropriate to consider any fundamental procedural change to how homes are bought as part of the wider home buying and selling process.
The Government have a strong record in tackling safety in the home. We are providing £5.1 billion to address fire safety risks caused by unsafe cladding on high-rise residential buildings and have made great progress in tackling high-rise buildings with the most dangerous form of cladding, such as that on Grenfell, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. Some 94% of buildings with this type of cladding are now either remediated or have work under way, and industry will contribute an estimated £5 billion to resolve defects in high-rise buildings. This has been spurred on by continued government pressure, both direct and indirect, which has held building owners to account and compelled them to act. We will continue to make sure that building owners, who are the ones responsible for making sure their buildings are safe, act where necessary.
In a landmark step change, the Building Safety Act 2022 will establish a building safety regulator to improve both the safety and standards of buildings. The Act also paves the way for a new national regulator of construction products, strengthening the regulatory regime for these products. We have updated the fire safety building regulations to improve safety standards for new buildings and have extended our 2018 ban on the use of combustible materials in and on high-rise buildings.
I am sure that noble Lords will agree that we have moved quite some way in this area, and as I mentioned before, we are looking again at the home buying and selling process. However, we feel that the Bill is unnecessary due to the strides the Government have taken, and we will continue to deliver in the field of electrical safety in the home.
To conclude, the Government will therefore not be supporting the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Foster, at this time.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken and thank the vast majority of them for their support. I say to the son of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, that he has raised some very interesting issues which I hope we can at least look at in more detail in Committee, if we can get that far.
My noble friend Lady Brinton drew attention, as did I, to the problems caused by faulty electrical appliances. As I said, more work needs to be done on that, not least on electrical appliances bought online, to which the level of security that applies to appliances bought on our high streets does not apply. However, I am grateful for her support, as I am for that of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, my noble friend Lord Shipley and the noble Lord, Khan, on the Opposition Front Bench.
I am grateful that the Minister repeated a lot of what I said at the beginning of my speech, saying what the Government have done and what they plan to do. As he said, the Government have moved quite some way. I too said that, and I applaud the Government for the work they have done and the work being planned.
However, the Minister suggested that the Government would support this Bill only if it was “proportionate, necessary and not overburdensome.” I went out of my way to say that it is proportionate, because I do not propose to introduce five-yearly checks but to do it at the simple point of sale of an individual property. On whether it is necessary, I have already given the statistics, backed up by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, who drew attention to the way in which this will not only save a vast amount of money but, much more importantly, save lives. That is one of the key reasons why it is so important. It is certainly not overburdensome. If it is so overburdensome to require some form of certification for something or other at the point of sale of a property, why have the Government introduced that very approach by the requirement of an energy performance certificate at the point of sale? I have sought to mirror what the Government have already done in respect of energy efficiency of properties in relation to the security of energy installations.
The Minister suggested that some measures were taking place in respect of owner-occupied premises, and he is absolutely right. But I say gently to him that that applies only to those in high-rise premises, which is not the vast majority of the 17 million owner-occupied properties in this country. That remains a huge gap in the current regulatory regime. He talked about his concern about this being overburdensome. The cost of the checks I am proposing would be between £150 and £250. As a proportion of the cost of selling a property, that is a very small amount indeed.
Nevertheless, I hear what the Minister says. I hope that he will agree with at least some of the representative organisations which are supporting the Bill, including those that would be responsible for providing it, the fire services and homeowner organisations. I hope that the rest of the House will be prepared to support the Bill. I commend it to the House.
Healthy Homes Bill [HL]
Friday 15th July 2022
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Healthy Homes Bill [HL] 2022-23 View all Healthy Homes Bill [HL] 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords from all sides of the House who are supporting this Bill—and who, very nobly, I may say, have stayed in Westminster rather than starting their weekend early. I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist, who will, I know, be responding at very short notice.
I will speak briefly about the contents of the Bill and rather more about why I believe noble Lords and the Government should support it. In short, it is about improving the lives, life chances and opportunities of our fellow citizens—particularly those who are most in need and have the fewest opportunities in life—and it is immensely practical.
There are four key elements to the Bill. The first is a duty on the Secretary of State to secure the health, safety, well-being and convenience of persons in or around buildings, which means in practical terms that all new homes have to promote health, safety and well-being, and help people to live well. The second part is to have 11 healthy homes principles. These are the principles of what makes a healthy home, and they address issues from fire safety to space, security, access to green spaces and managing climate risk. They would form the basis of any policy. The third point I want to draw out is the appointment of a healthy homes commissioner, to ensure promotion and implementation of the policy. Finally, the Secretary of State would provide an annual report to Parliament on progress with the policy.
The underlying issue behind the Bill is the intimate relationship between housing and health. Other noble Lords will describe many examples of how poor and inadequate housing damages health; from damp, cold and heat, poor air quality and overcrowding to dangerous stairs and electrical circuits—the list goes on. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, on his Bill and his powerful speech earlier.
The Bill is also by implication about the health of communities, wider society and the planet. They are all intimately connected. Poor housing blights communities and contributes to loneliness, isolation, depression and all the many aspects of social exclusion and the damage done by inequalities. Poor housing in neighbourhoods without facilities blights lives and contributes to global warming. Tackling these issues is central to any levelling-up agenda.
But this Bill is not just about the negatives or limiting the damage; it is also about the positives: improving lives and enhancing health and well-being across the whole arc of peoples’ lives. Housing is one of the key needs for all of us. For all of us, shelter and food are the foundation of our lives.
The Bill has been prepared by the TCPA, formerly the Town and Country Planning Association, and I particularly thank Hugh Ellis, Dan Slade and colleagues for their work on it. I also thank the officials in the Public Bill Office who helped streamline this final version. The TCPA is an organisation with a proud history, dating back to the 19th century and the promotion of garden cities. In many ways, this Bill is not a new and radical departure. We have known of the links between health and housing for years—think of Dickens and Disraeli, and the 19th-century rookeries and slum housing. This is in many ways a return to a much older British tradition of designing places to transform people’s lives, an endeavour at which this country used to excel. It is not just about the garden cities. At the end of the First World War, the Government published new and comprehensive design standards for public housing in order that they could build homes fit for heroes, and millions of new, decent homes resulted from this policy. Incidentally, the Minister of Health was then also the Minister of Housing.
People often talk about welfare provision as a safety net, stopping people falling to the ground, but if we want to talk about it in physical acrobatic terms, we should also think of it as a springboard, enabling people to reach higher. It is about not just the negatives of tackling problems but the possibilities and positives of enhancing and enabling lives, creating opportunity, and enabling people and the country to thrive.
Recent history has shown us how inadequate current planning and regulations are even as a safety net, as shown by the acute failures represented in the Grenfell Tower tragedy, where the most basic measures to secure individuals’ physical safety were not implemented. Moreover, look at some of the worst examples of the permitted development regime, where flats have been created from converted offices and commercial buildings with no windows or play space, or on industrial estates which expose residents to noise and pollution.
Even more recently, Covid has exposed the inequalities in our society and, as far as housing was concerned, revealed the problems many face: people were trapped during lockdown in inadequate housing, or overcrowded and ill-ventilated spaces ideal for spreading disease; there were schoolchildren with no space to study and no easy access to outdoor spaces; and some people were, very sadly, trapped with abusive partners. This is housing not acting as a springboard but stunting lives.
Let me deal briefly with two objections to the Bill. Will the proposals slow down development when we have a desperate need for more homes? The answer is that we must not offset quantity with quality: we will live to regret it. Standards matter, and the healthy homes principles matter, and we will pay for the consequences in the long run. Just reflect for a moment on the 1.5 million zero-carbon homes which would have been built to the 2016 zero-carbon standard if the standard had not been abolished. Those homes would now be cheaper to heat and would not require an expensive retrofit to deliver on a net-zero future.
Will the Bill add to the regulatory burden? It could, if implemented properly, reduce it. In the five years since Grenfell, there has been little practical action to change our regulatory approach or the wider culture of public policy on the built environment. Local authorities do their best in an environment where policy is heavily centralised. There have been incremental changes to building regulations and the application of some national housing standards to some aspects of planning. But this incremental tinkering with the system does not reflect the creative ambition we require if people are to be given the opportunity to thrive in healthy places. This Bill seeks to unify our regulatory approach around the single positive objective of securing the health, safety and well-being of individuals and communities. Implemented well, it will remove some of the current contradictions in the system, speed up development and reduce the regulatory burden.
On the positive side, there will be positive impacts on other areas, including the NHS and education. Improving health through improved housing will save costs and reduce impacts on the health and care system. Indeed, the only way we will see pressure taken off the NHS will be by action in other areas, such as housing, education and the environment—but that is a debate for another time.
This Bill is being debated at a time of great frustration over housing. We have waited too long for improvement. It is five years since Grenfell. This Bill provides a coherent vision for the future and a framework for practical action. It is practical and direct. It must be central to any levelling-up agenda. It offers a springboard as well as a safety net, and people in the country will understand what it is all about. Indeed, there is already widespread support among many organisations for it.
Of all the arguments that commend this Bill, it is the simplest that remains the most powerful. Healthy homes are the foundation of hopeful lives, and that sense of hope is vital to the many communities struggling with health inequality, the cost of living and the climate crisis. I beg to move.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, on his choice of subject for this Bill, furthering a campaign that he has promoted in this House for some time. It is a pleasure to support its Second Reading. The Bill was launched at a well-attended reception here on 7 June, sponsored by the Town and Country Planning Association, where we heard compelling arguments from a wide range of speakers.
Although I am delighted that my noble friend Lady Bloomfield is replying to this debate, let me say how sorry I am that my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh has stepped down. He won the respect and affection of the House, and I know that he personally moved policy forward on subjects such as leasehold reform and compensation for cladding. He also understood the intricacies of local government finance, which is a mystery to most noble Lords.
The title of this Bill—the Healthy Homes Bill—summarises both its ambition and its challenge. The ambition was explained by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. The challenge is because health and homes are in different departments, and successive attempts to bring the two together have so far stalled. The Bill crystallises our silo approach to issues that cross departmental boundaries, as seen in such other areas as policy on the under-fives and social care.
Paradoxically, as the noble Lord mentioned, 100 years ago the Ministry of Health was responsible for both health and housing; between the two World Wars, that led to a more integrated approach. Indeed, my great-uncle, Sir Hilton Young—he started off as a Liberal but then saw the light and became a Conservative MP—was Minister for Health in the 1930s. He introduced the Housing Act 1935, which set down standards of accommodation—something that this Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, seeks to build on, of which I am sure the old boy would have approved.
Winding forward 40 years, the importance of bringing health and housing together was central to the Black report, published in 1980, about inequalities in health outcomes. This is what it said:
“The consequences, and importance, of housing policies for other areas of social policy, including health policies, have received increasing recognition in recent years—as have the problems of co-ordination deriving in part from the location of responsibilities for housing and personal social services … and Health services.”
It went on to say:
“The adequate housing of families with children must be a priority if class inequalities in health are to be eliminated”—
as in the Bill before us today. Just after that report was published, I moved from being a Health Minister to being a Housing Minister. I vividly recall being visited in my new office by the then Chief Medical Officer, who asked whether he could switch some of his health budget to housing as he believed this would be the best use of resources.
The Black report was followed up nearly 20 years later by the Independent Inquiry into Inequalities in Health—the Acheson report—which came up with recommendations that could be seen as predecessors of the Bill before us. It said:
“We recommend policies which improve the availability of social housing for the less well off within a framework of environmental improvement, planning and design which takes into account social networks, and access to goods and services”—
the very principles captured in Clause 3 of this Bill. I hope that the Bill makes progress to the statute book but my experience of Private Members’ Bills is that this does not always happen. So, my question to the Minister is whether some of the objectives in Clause 3 —for example, that
“all … living areas and bedrooms … should have access to natural light”
and that new homes should provide “year-round thermal comfort”—can be implemented using existing powers.
If it is the case that some of the Bill’s objectives can be achieved by secondary legislation or by amending existing guidance, the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, may feel that this is progress he can build on for a fresh assault later.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, on this initiative. I declare my interest as a poor vice-president of the TCPA; I say “poor” because of my lack of contribution over recent years, including being abroad for the reception referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, and I have to stop meeting like this, because it is bad for his political career—well, he does not have a future career, but it is bad for his image within whatever emerges on 5 September. I am pleased to endorse his words about the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh; I also thank him and the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, for covering some of the elements that I was going to cover and therefore sparing the House a lengthier speech by me.
It strikes me that, although we understand the responsibility of the individual for their lifestyle and the contribution that they make to their own health, it is the public health elements that are so important. Of course, income is a major driver here, as it is in terms of the kind of housing that all of us can enter into and enjoy. I spent my early years in a house that was built immediately after the war. The lino used to lift in the air when it was windy. It was like a sort of elevation; I could not do a party trick and make it rise up without being lifted, but it sometimes felt like that. The house also lacked double glazing—well, we had a form of glazing in the winter: the ice that formed on the inside of the windows—and the toilet was inside but in the porch opposite the coalhouse. I was lucky because other people were brought up in much worse conditions in the old back-to-back houses.
That is why I think this Bill is so important for our understanding of what we do to our fellow citizens and of how properly designed houses are healthy to live in throughout their lifespan and contribute both to people’s independence and to their contribution to their own well-being. If you live in a decent house that is healthy on a day-to-day basis, the chances of you having and holding down a job are obviously much greater because you will not be taking time off work. The drain on primary and secondary health services will be much less and young people’s chances of connecting to, and remaining connected to, education will increase dramatically.
We know from the conditions that exist at the moment, with pollution that is vastly impacting the climate around us, what a difference it makes when children do not have bronchial and asthmatic problems, which are often exacerbated severely by the conditions that they live in. We all pay attention to the issue of insulation. We now must match that with an understanding of ventilation and with overcoming the built-in tragedy of people living in houses that have water running down the walls and the choice of having the window open or having damp inflicted on them. When people live in good conditions, not just within the home but in the design of the house and the design of the community around them allowing them to enjoy amenities, their life chances are transformed.
We need to learn from the past, from the model villages in Scotland and West Yorkshire, the work of Rowntree’s and Cadbury, and the homes established by Wedgwood. It was one of the drivers, but nevertheless an important one, for Wedgwood, that if his employees lived in a decent house, the chance of them putting in a good shift was much greater and the chance of them dropping out of work was much less. The logic is one of economy as well as of public health. The logic is one of liberating people to be independent and self-reliant, as well as of communal duty and obligation to each other. You can see immediately that if you get it right from the beginning, you reduce public expenditure in the long term.
My final point is about ageing. The work described by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and which was referred to earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, about reports that have occurred over the generations, from the 1980 to the 2020 reports, is matched by work in relation to ageing, which was done by Professor Alan Walker at Sheffield University, whom I know very intimately. I am not directly associated with the voluntary body, ARCO, but I have dealings with it. If we get design of homes for different times in our lives right, we can liberate people in a way that, again, reduces the cost of social care. So often, people end up in residential care because the home that they live in is entirely unsuitable to maintaining their good health and well-being in the place that they loved and knew. That is true of mild dementia too, where people get even more confused when they are moved into unknown environments in which they are unfamiliar with their surroundings and with what is happening to them. The more that we can invest in homes fit for the future, not just fit for heroes, as they said after the First World War, we will turn our society around. I am really pleased to support this Bill.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord and to offer my support for this very important Bill. I cannot bring the same distinguished background and retrospective contributions of the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham, and Lord Blunkett, but I can claim to have worked for 13 years in the architects’ department of a new-town development corporation, and the principles which underline this Bill were very much in the minds of those of us who were designing and building that community.
Why do we need this Bill? It may seem odd to noble Lords that there is not already a statutory duty to secure the health, safety and well-being of people living and moving around in homes, but there is not. Consequently, there are thousands of families and millions of children and vulnerable elderly people who find themselves in unsafe, poorly heated, inadequately insulated homes, in neighbourhoods far from green spaces or public transport and all too close to life-threatening sources of pollution and toxic particulates.
We are still building those homes. As the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, pointed out, some recent changes to permitted development rules mean that too many homes are still being built which fail those basic principles. That will blight the occupants of those homes for generations. Housing is an investment made now which lasts for decades—for generations. The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, has pointed out that the decision to abandon the move to zero-carbon standards of building for homes in 2016 means that we have now deliberately built about a million substandard homes. They will have to be retrofitted—that is, changed and upgraded—before we get to 2050, at considerable expense either to the householder or the taxpayer in one form or another. It is that kind of short-sighted thinking, at national and sometimes local level, that I hope very much that the introduction of these principles as a statutory requirement will end completely.
The Bill applies only to new homes but I very much hope that the principles set out here will become a benchmark for existing homes. We have yet to hear the Minister’s response to this Bill, but I join others in saying that much as I will welcome her contribution, it is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, cannot deliver it in the ebullient style that we had become used to. I hope very much that the Government understand that this is an important and necessary step which ought to set the framework not just for new building but for how we think about upgrading—a better word than retrofitting—our existing homes so that they are suitable for the 21st century and its climate.
It is a framework Bill, not an answer-to-everything Bill. However, it establishes responsibilities and duties, nationally and locally; it sets out an overarching set of principles to apply, which I have just mentioned and which the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, enunciated in his introduction; and it sets out a reporting mechanism with an accountability to Parliament, meaning that it will not be possible for Governments or local authorities to slide away from their responsibility. To keep all that on track, it proposes a healthy homes commissioner, who will be independent of the Government and able to have oversight of this process. Crucially, it also empowers local planning authorities to plan for building safe and affordable homes for those on average and below-average incomes in their areas. There is a terrible shortage of such accommodation in practically every area of the country, and the press reports yesterday of record rental levels in London only underline the shortage of suitable accommodation, with many stories accompanying that news of people who are desperately seeking accommodation which is in any way suitable for habitation at all.
This Bill fills a surprising gap in our legislative armoury and can play a significant role in ending the damage and detriment caused to far too many children and citizens by the poverty of our current housing stock and the unhealthy surroundings that they have. I wish this Bill a speedy passage.
Baroness Prashar (CB)
My Lords, I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, persevered and succeeded in ensuring that his Private Member’s Bill is considered. His slogan:
“Health is made at home, hospitals are for repairs”
encapsulates his vision and his objectives admirably. I commend the Town and Country Planning Association, for its excellent work, for its tenacity, and for master-minding this campaign. I am also delighted that the Nationwide Foundation, an independent charity, supports the work of the TCPA. I declare my interest as a trustee of the Nationwide Foundation, whose main objective is to ensure that everyone has access to decent, healthy and affordable homes.
Lack of decent, healthy and affordable housing is one of the most pressing social problems that we face. It causes harm to individuals and families, as well as communities and society. There is, of course, a direct link between housing and poverty. There is compelling evidence about health problems caused by poor-quality housing, noise pollution, damp, cold, inefficient, poorly lit and cramped living conditions; you have only to read the White Paper of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Healthy Homes and Buildings, Building our Future, which was published in 2018. Covid highlighted very poignantly how those in poor and inappropriate accommodation suffered the most.
It is therefore an imperative that the homes in which people live positively contribute to physical and mental well-being, instead of diminishing it. The human cost and cost to the public purse of unhealthy homes is incalculable. The benefits, on the other hand, are enormous. The Bill’s provisions would help to ensure that we have healthy, happy individuals, a lower cost to the National Health Service, better educational attainment, better productivity, reduced emissions and a healthier environment, greater life chances and a reduced burden on social care.
Unfortunately, changes in housing over the years have often been piecemeal, with very little thought given to their wider implications. I will give just one example. Some houses built through permitted development even lack access to natural light, and thousands more have been built in office parks and industrial estates. They have been described as “slums of the future”.
This has resulted in an unbalanced system that is not fit for purpose and does not meet people’s essential needs, particularly those who are vulnerable and disadvantaged. We know that the most vulnerable are more likely to live in unhealthy homes that are damp, energy inefficient, noisy and poorly ventilated. Given rising energy prices and the cost of living crisis, it is even more important that the Government act now to ensure that homes and buildings do not cause or exacerbate poor health and well-being.
This Bill is a real opportunity for government action. As the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, said, it would create a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that all relevant policy secures healthy homes; provide a definition of a healthy home and legally binding principles that should underpin it, as developed by the TCPA; join up the housing and planning systems in pursuit of healthy homes and neighbourhoods; and simplify and strengthen the way that the built environment is regulated.
In short, the Bill would transform the regulation of the built environment to ensure that new homes and neighbourhoods support residents’ health and well-being. It would also provide significant scope for the Government to pursue those objectives, standards and policies that they deem to be most effective and would directly contribute to the levelling-up, climate change and affordable housing agendas. It is a real opportunity for a holistic and fundamental change at a time when there are opportunities through other legislation to adopt the Bill. I urge the Government to embrace the Bill, as the rationale for it is unassailable.
The Lord Bishop of Ely
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak in the Second Reading of this very important Bill. The lead Bishop on housing, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, is sadly unable to be with us. However, she has asked me also to pass on her gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, for his work in bringing the Healthy Homes Bill forward.
In his book Reimagining Britain, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury wrote that we need to reimagine housing. He said:
“Reimagined core values and practices in any housing development will be linked to health in many forms. Good communities build financial, physical, mental, spiritual and relational health.”
As the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, said, this is about linking not just housing and health but education. In my time as Bishop of Ely, when we have built church schools on crowded new housing estates I have always insisted on having space in front of the schools so that, rather than doubling the cramp that people feel, we have pram plazas rather than pram wars.
One mistake that has been made over and again is to reduce our housing crisis simply to the idea of an excess of demand over supply. The consequence is that we assume that, by building more houses faster, we will somehow sort out the other problems around housing. This excessive focus on the volume of houses to be built has caused us to overlook their quality. In the headlong rush to deliver the numbers, we are compromising on the basic standards for healthy homes. We have lost sight of the purpose, for if we go back to the question of why we are building all these houses, it is to create healthy homes where individuals can thrive and healthy neighbourhoods where social bonds can form, where decent housing provides for productive citizens.
Our nation has a history of slum clearance going back to the 19th century and campaigns after both world wars in the 20th century to build decent new homes. In the 1920s, a young priest called Basil Jellicoe, upon discovering the dire state of his parishioners’ housing in Camden, founded the St Pancras House Improvement Society. His obituary in the Times—he died when he was only 36—said that he
“resolved that he would not rest till his people had homes fit to live in, and the rehousing schemes started by his society have already provided many excellent flats with gardens, trees, ponds, swings for the children, and other amenities.”
It is concerning that, despite these works and many like them in the post-war developments, in many respects the quality of homes in this country has gone backwards in the last few decades. When I was a curate in Gateshead, high-quality social housing produced many fine athletes. It is terrible that the housing that is being provided now produces children who can barely breathe. That there are no legally enforceable standards across many aspects of our housing design and construction means that many have been forced to live in poor-quality, overcrowded housing. It is an ironic reflection on our current housing market that homes for sale with good-sized rooms and spacious gardens are not found on new developments but are often ex-council houses, such as the ones I knew back in the 1980s.
It is right and very welcome that the Bill seeks to introduce “healthy homes principles” to be committed to, implemented and monitored. I am sure noble Lords will agree that these principles are good and appropriate. They seek to reduce fire risk, provide liveable space, ensure access to natural light, accessibility, inclusivity and resilience to climate change in homes that are secure and reduce noise and light pollution.
Finally, in drawing my remarks to a close, I observe the affinity of the principles set out in the Healthy Homes Bill with those set out in the Church of England’s Coming Home report—those being the five “S” principles that good housing should be sustainable, safe, stable, sociable and satisfying. I and other Lords spiritual look forward to working with the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, to support this Bill’s passage.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, for this Private Member’s Bill. It is very important because it would improve public health. In defining the healthy homes principles that should underpin planning law and the built environment, it provides a missing link to ensure that the built environment is better regulated. It would establish a clearer link for housing with health and well-being, and give a public duty to the Secretary of State to secure the health, safety and well-being of people in buildings.
As the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and my noble friend Lord Stunell said, we have too many poorly constructed homes—too many homes that lack space and have poor access to green spaces and local services. The crucial point of the Bill and its great benefit is that the healthy homes principles would become legally binding. For example, new homes should not lead to unsafe levels of air pollution, yet poor indoor air quality can increase cardiovascular disease and asthma.
Like many, I have never been happy with the current permitted development rules that permit the conversion of commercial properties to housing with little regulation. They have resulted in some homes lacking access to natural light. Homes that cannot justify the name have been fitted out in premises in business parks and some in industrial estates. In the rush to build more homes to meet the Government’s commitment to 300,000 new homes a year, poor standards have been tolerated when they should not have been. This is the consequence of deregulation—an outcome that was forecast at the time.
As we have heard, the planning system has become fragmented. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, talked about the silo approach in planning and the poor-quality housing that derives from that. That tells me that the proposal for a healthy homes commissioner is key to the success of this Bill because it would provide the essential focus to ensure that standards of health and well-being improve. It is difficult when responsibilities for legislated-for standards are spread across Whitehall—we see it in many spheres. This is one, but we know that if we had a healthy homes commissioner, it would bring the disparity together to enable higher standards to be achieved. I therefore wish the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, every success with this Bill, which I think is an essential part of underpinning our planning system.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, for his service. I shall miss him.
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Crisp on progressing this excellent Private Member’s Bill and I thank the Town and Country Planning Association, of which I am honoured to be a vice-president, for its great work in promoting this legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, has become justly famous for his advocacy of health creation. This approach is not about healthcare after the event, or even about measures to prevent ill health, but about interventions that positively create good health and well-being. In creating health, the role of the home and its environs is critical.
My contribution to this debate is to highlight three high-level sources of support for this core message embodied in the Healthy Homes Bill. First, earlier this week we saw the launch of a report from an Oxford University commission, which I have had the privilege of chairing, on creating healthy cities. The commission was established by Kellogg College’s Global Centre for Healthcare and Urbanism, in partnership with the Prince’s Foundation. The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, chaired our international advisory board, with added insights from experts across the world.
The commission’s central contention is that built environment interventions that create improved health and well-being, of which housing is the most prominent, should be prioritised in public policies and the allocation of resources. The commission’s point is that this linkage of health with housing and place is key to resolving many of the wicked issues—the most difficult problems of our time. Getting the home and its environment right addresses the stark inequalities in society, fuel poverty, the prosperity and productivity of our cities, our ageing population, the escalating costs of the health service and key components of the climate emergency. The commission recommends that affordable housing output should be stepped up to around one-third of the Government’s overall target of 300,000 new homes each year, but the commission is clear that quality is as important as quantity. New homes are so often criticised for poor design, inadequate space standards, and a lack of green spaces and a decent public realm, as well as for making slow progress towards net-zero emissions. The commission advocates improvements through building regulations, design codes and planning requirements. I commend this new report which endorses the need for the Healthy Homes Bill. It can be found online by searching for “commission on creating healthy cities”.
My second source of backing for the intentions of the Bill comes from the report of your Lordships’ Select Committee on the Built Environment, Meeting Housing Demand. I am proud to be a member of that committee. This report points to the problems of quality standards in new-build homes from volume housebuilders. It makes the point that poor-quality housing has a significant impact on public health. The Built Environment Committee’s report gave special emphasis to the need for well-designed, manageable, accessible and companionable housing for older people, a desperate need illustrated today by the news of record delays in hospital admissions from ambulances, so often because beds are full of people who cannot return to unsuitable homes. In that context, I ask the Minister for advice on progress with the establishment of the Government’s housing for older people task force, which was announced last year.
My third reference for support for action on healthy homes is the Government’s own levelling up White Paper. This states
“Having a decent home is fundamental to our well-being”.
Despite all the hazards around us—Covid, war, inflation and political turmoil—the levelling-up agenda could and should mean substantial investment in place-based initiatives that promote healthy homes within a decent environment. Can the Minister confirm that the Government’s commitment to this levelling-up agenda remains unwavering in these volatile times?
The Healthy Homes Bill’s aim of ensuring that the nation’s housing contributes positively to health and well-being in every respect is reflected in growing recognition and support from many quarters. This important Bill definitely deserves to move to the next stage, and I wish it a safe passage.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I too am delighted to support the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, in his campaign to ensure that all our population can live in a safe, healthy home for life, as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, pointed out.
He has listed 11 principles which should apply to new homes to make them healthy homes. After the Grenfell disaster and the following revelation that many other homes in high-rise buildings are also susceptible to fire, he is wise to have put fire safety top of the list, death being the single biggest risk to health. Whatever else we expect from our homes, we certainly should not expect them to kill us.
Despite the progress of the Building Safety Act 2022, there are still many outstanding issues which require clarity or action. Leaseholders are still having to pay for fire safety measures, other than cladding, up to the cap, but some freeholders are increasing service charges to cover costs over and above the cap. This cannot be right. It is still not mandatory for a resident with a disability in a high-rise building to have a personal evacuation plan. There are many blocks of flats with only a single staircase for evacuation in the case of fire. At the very least, it should be illegal to build new blocks with only a single staircase. Then there is the issue of electrical safety, referred to by my noble friend Lord Forster in his Private Member’s Bill that has just been debated. Many fires have been caused by electrical faults, yet still no electrical safety inspection is mandated unless you are trying to let your flat—a certificate is not required if you are selling.
Looking at the other principles, I regret that they apply to new homes only, but I understand why the Bill has been written that way. New homes are a minority of homes, but I wonder whether the healthy homes commissioner’s functions, as outlined in Clause 8, could be amended in Committee to include action on existing homes too. I agree with my noble friends Lord Shipley and Lord Stunell on that point.
I was interested to note that some of the principles in Clause 3 are linked to each other. If they were put in place, they would make a major contribution to certain government ambitions. I refer to paragraph (f) on a reduction in carbon emissions, paragraph (g) on resilience to climate change, and paragraph (k) on year-round thermal comfort. If all new homes were well insulated and double or triple glazed, we would make some progress towards net zero.
Unfortunately, there is no proper inspection that the energy efficiency as built is equivalent to the energy efficiency a home was designed to have. This does not happen, because developers can appoint their own building inspectors. I think it is shocking that local authority building inspectors are not allowed on site to ensure that buyers are getting what they paid for in respect of insultation. Developers are marking their own homework, which is one of the reasons why the advisory Committee on Climate Change has given a red rating on progress on reducing emissions from buildings. The policies are not there and neither are the support schemes.
The principles in the Bill are about new homes but, as I said, the majority of homes are not new. Government funding to support home insulation has been drastically reduced since 2015, and there is now no support at all for owner-occupiers who want to retrofit their homes. It can and should be done, though, especially now in the light of the threats to energy security and the eye-watering increase in the price of gas and electricity—another job for the healthy homes commissioner that could be added in Committee.
The Government’s welcome help with paying energy bills is like pushing £5 notes straight through the walls of homes into the atmosphere. It is money wasted unless we insulate both new homes and existing ones. Indeed, we must do so before we remove gas boilers and install heat pumps. Interestingly, better insulation would also achieve the principle in Clause 3(i), which requires homes to be free from unacceptable levels of
“intrusive noise and light pollution”.
On noise pollution, I can confirm from my own experience in a passive house that a well-insulated house is a quiet house—unless of course you fill it with a lot of noisy people.
Insulation is also important for the Government’s ambition of giving us an extra five years of healthy life. Older people in particular are susceptible to cold and hypothermia, so the principle in Clause 3(k)—year-round thermal comfort—is vital for that government ambition too.
Clause 9 deals with “affordable housing”, but defines it as
“affordable to those on average and below-average household incomes”.
The Government’s definition is 80% of market price, either to rent or buy, or 50% for social rents. If the Bill goes to Committee, which I hope it does, we will have to iron out that potential anomaly. Affordable should mean affordable.
All round, though, the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, if passed into law, would not only benefit the health, well-being and pockets of residents of new homes but help to achieve many of the Government’s key ambitions for us and future generations. It must be done.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I am the final Back-Bench speaker and I join every other speaker in wishing this Bill a fast and successful passage into law, and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, on it.
I entirely sympathise with the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, that some elements of the Bill could be implemented immediately, but really the great value of it is that it is the new systems-thinking approach that the Government so desperately need. Dare I say it—I doubt they will listen to me—but a Tory leadership candidate could adopt the whole Bill as a new policy to present in the debate tonight. It brings the kind of systems thinking that we so urgently need. In passing, I offer Green support for the Domestic Premises (Electrical Safety Certificate) Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, which is so clearly related to this one; I am sorry I was not able to take part in that debate.
I congratulate the usual channels, which is not something I say very often, who have perfectly timed the arrival of Second Reading of this Bill in the light of the amber extreme heat warning across most of England and Wales from Sunday to Tuesday, with temperatures expected to exceed 35 degrees in southern, eastern and central areas and with COBRA meeting to look at tackling the dangers this presents, particularly to the health service.
In the light of that, I am going to concentrate on Clause 3, which defines the healthy home principles, particularly Clause 3(f), (g) and (k), referring respectively to slashing carbon emissions, being resilient to climate change and thermal comfort. I must also make reference to the importance of Clause 3(j), which deals with indoor air pollution. My noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb has a Bill dealing with the urgent need for clean air in the environment, but indoor air pollution is an issue that is even less adequately considered and is related to novel entities, the planetary boundary that we have most recently exceeded. Far too many products on our supermarket shelves being pushed by blanket advertising contain volatile organic chemicals that make our homes far less healthy by polluting them, and the ventilation of those homes is inadequate to remove them.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, among others, commented on the relationship between this issue and poverty. A recent report by Centre for Cities—here, we come back to the Government’s levelling-up agenda—noted that Burnley and Blackpool are among the areas of the country worst-hit by inflation, in large part because of poor-quality housing stock. The reality is that northern workers are facing extra costs for essentials of £133 per month, compared to an average in the south of £103. A significant part of such extra costs, £360 a year, is associated with poor housing—which, of course, is before the further increase in energy prices that we are expecting.
I imagine that one of the responses we may hear from the Government, if we are not going to hear the widespread embrace of the Bill that we should, is, “But what about the extra costs?” I do not have much time now to go into detail, but I refer noble Lords to the report entitled The Costs and Benefits of Tighter Standards for New Buildings, prepared for the Committee on Climate Change. The noble Lord, Lord Best, referred to its scathing assessment of the Government’s climate adaptation policies. The report sets out the detail very clearly. Ultra-high energy-efficiency standards—which would meet many of the demands set out in the noble Lord’s Bill—combined with air-source heat pumps, represent a 1% to 4% uplift on build costs compared to a home built to current regulations. So, for a 1% to 4% higher build cost, we would get a long way down the road towards the healthy homes that the noble Lord is outlining. It also notes that costs are highest in the least efficient building forms, such as detached houses, which is where, bringing in the systems thinking, we come to the land-use strategy that we are to see very soon from the Government.
I want to broaden this issue and come back to Clause 1, which lays a duty on the Secretary of State to look at all buildings, not just homes. Let us consider the disastrous position we are in now. The head teacher of Clapton Girls’ Academy has told parents that the school plans to send pupils home at 12.30 pm on Monday and Tuesday:
“Already, many classrooms are very hot, even with fans, and students are struggling to keep cool, drink enough water and maintain concentration in lessons.”
We should apologise to our young people, who have been hit by so many shocks and difficulties. Again, their education is being disrupted because we have failed to provide them with buildings of a decent standard.
Lastly, I want to bring us very close to home and point out to noble Lords that on Monday and Tuesday, the Home Office service office in Portcullis House will be closed because it is expected to be so hot that it will not be safe for people to work there. If we want a metaphor for the unfitness of our current politics and of everything we have delivered for our society, there, in a nutshell—or in a glass-shelled office—is that metaphor.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the House for allowing me to speak in the gap. The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, will know how important and timely I think the Bill is because we have worked for many years on related issues. Looking back at the report that we in the Select Committee produced in 2016, Building Better Places, it is that emphasis on places that comes through in his very important Bill today. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, said, unless we emphasise the building of places in their context, unless we get buildings and homes right, we will not be able to get the whole environment right.
We have wasted more than a decade. I hope the House will forgive me if I refer to the policy that the last Labour Government introduced in 2009 of lifetime homes and lifetime neighbourhoods, from which there is a direct trajectory to all the things we have discussed today, including lifetime homes standards, which we wanted to be mandatory within a matter of years. We were looking at regulation by 2013, but of course, that was wiped out by the coalition Government. We are now nowhere nearer mandatory standards for lifetime homes, yet in order to make the noble Lord’s Bill a reality we absolutely have to have mandatory standards to drive permanent, sustainable changes in the quality and design of buildings, which would make it possible for older people to live and age in place. That is what we have all been aiming at for the past decade.
We are slightly nearer it because the social care White Paper, for example, brings for the first time a proper, explicit emphasis on integrating housing and commits money to it in relation to social care. Of course, it is also in relation to discharge and the crisis we are having, which we see every day now. We absolutely need to do that as quickly as we can.
The second point I want to make—I hope I will take only three minutes—is that not only have we gone backwards because we have failed to address the reality of what is required to enforce standards and get developers to deliver them, but we have also gone backwards on the adaptability of buildings. The loss of Care & Repair England, for example, with the wonderful work that Sue Adams did there over so many decades, is a terrible one. We no longer have the momentum and discipline to ensure that we have those sorts of provisions at a local level, which can make all the difference to providing adaptable homes—not just new homes but homes that people can live in and cope with.
This is particularly important for older people and if we are to get any movement into encouraging older people to downsize, so that we can free up homes as a whole-systems approach to providing affordable and accessible homes for younger people. This is all part of the system and the Bill fits in so clearly and so importantly with that. I hope that the Government see the opportunity—as well as the set-up—here to support the Bill and, when we begin Committee I hope we will have a raft of amendments to strengthen the Bill and make it more enforceable, deliverable and workable.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as vice-chair of the All-Party Group on Fire Safety and Rescue. I am also disabled. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, on securing the Second Reading of this important Bill and on his long-term work to achieve improvement in the standards of homes. I thank Habinteg, the TPCA and the Library for their helpful briefings. I also echo the thanks of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, to the usual channels for this Bill immediately following my noble friend Lord Foster’s Bill on the safety of electrical installations, as there is absolutely an overlap. It was a pleasure to hear the informed contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Young, on this Bill, given his expertise over many years, while the noble Lord, Lord Best, reminded us of the work of the Lords Select Committee examining quality standards in housing, and said that poor standards affect health.
The Bill places a duty on the Secretary of State to secure the health, safety, well-being and convenience of people in their homes. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, spoke of the overarching strategic importance of getting this right. I particularly like the definition in the Bill of the healthy homes principles, which must be adhered to and which begin with fire safety and lifetime standards. My noble friend Lady Walmsley outlined their importance and the difficulties that leaseholders currently face. I support her call for these standards for existing homes and for affordability. I agree with my noble friend Lord Shipley that the role of the healthy homes commissioner would ensure that the issue of building healthy homes became part of the vital cycle of the long overdue improvement of building and safety standards.
The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, was right to say that there is an intimate relationship between housing and health, and that there are wider benefits to communities and society where homes are built with the foundation stones of health, safety and well-being. The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, reminded us that healthy homes should be an imperative.
My noble friend Lord Shipley mentioned homes being built on industrial estates with no light. In my home town, Watford, in 2019, a light industrial unit—well, not much more than a shed—was given consent on appeal for conversion into 15 flats, of which seven would have had no windows at all. After the public outcry, not least by the council, which had refused it, the Secretary of State overruled the planning inspector. The right reverend Prelate was right to say that the current focus on the volume of building has overtaken size needs and having basic, healthy homes. We must continue to build new homes, but they must be safe and healthy. It can be done affordably but requires building companies to change their model of building fast and building small.
My noble friend Lord Stunell reminded us that reforms in building regulations are long overdue. The Grenfell inquiry, and especially Dame Judith Hackitt’s review, have said that this reform is urgent. She talked about the need for streamlining; this Bill could reduce the nightmare complexity and bureaucracy of the maze of our current, separate, planning and building regulations systems.
Healthy homes need to be suitable for those of us who are disabled—there is very little disabled accommodation available—and for those with less mobility, as is increasingly common as we all get older. We know that the Government are currently consulting on changes to Part M of the building regulations to raise accessibility standards for new homes in England. These proposals to raise the standard for category 2, often referred to as the accessible and adaptable standard in the lifetime homes standard, are vital. The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, reminded us of the need for this and of the loss of Care & Repair, which was so short-sighted. The Bill tries to make that link between the broader, strategic principles of healthy living and the practical ones relating to planning regulations.
Accessible housing means homes and neighbourhoods that are designed and built for everyone but are especially beneficial to disabled and older people. In practice, this means simple and cheap things such as not having steps up to a front door, making doorways very slightly wider and having more room to move around in a bathroom. New houses could easily be built with bathrooms that can be converted into wet rooms when necessary in later life, if people cannot get into baths. It also means homes that are future-proofed and sustainable, and can be adapted to suit people’s needs as they age, with things from installing grab rails to the potential for a level-access shower, as I have mentioned. This is vital at a time when social care is under real stress. As demographics change, this will only increase.
While there is a very practical point about not having more and more care homes, most people receiving social care would actually prefer it in their own homes and not to have to move into a care home. Surely it makes sense to require new homes to be built to that accessible and adaptable standard, which would ensure that people across their life-course can live more healthy and independent lives. Raising the minimum standard will provide a level policy playing field and the certainty that developers want, enabling them to build homes that meet the future needs of disabled and older people.
This Government have repeatedly said that their aims for reform of building and safety regulations are a priority but, at a time when progress seems to have stalled yet again, this Bill provides a real opportunity for fundamental change. There is no reason why any new homes should undermine the health of their residents. I hope that the Government will look favourably on the Bill.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, for bringing his Bill before us today and for his extremely thorough and excellent instruction, which was helpful to all noble Lords. As others have done, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, for his work in this area. It has been a pleasure to shadow him and I wish him well on the Back Benches.
We support the Bill because we believe it is important for the Government to build a new wave of affordable, healthy homes where families can settle with a real sense of security. As we have heard, healthy homes are beneficial not just for those who live in them but for the country as a whole. The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, talked in his introduction about the intimate relationship between housing and health. According to the Good Homes Alliance, old and inefficient housing causes an estimated £1.4 billion to £2 billion in additional annual NHS costs.
It is thus disappointing that there seems to be a reluctance by the Government to improve the quality of homes. They have also failed to give councils the powers to deliver landlord licensing and ensure that all homes are up to a sufficient quality. The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, expressed surprise that there is not already a statutory duty for this. It is not just surprising but quite shocking that developers can continue to get away with building substandard housing.
The English Housing Survey estimates that 23% of private rented homes in 2019 did not meet the decent homes standard—that is over 1 million homes. This compares with only 18% of owner-occupied homes and 12% of social rented homes, so there is a particular problem in the private rented sector. I wonder whether the Minister has had the opportunity to familiarise herself with the report published yesterday by the Centre for Cities think tank, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. The report concluded that the cost of living crisis has widened the north/south divide in England and Wales by 30%, which is a shocking figure.
One area of particular concern was the fact that older, less well-insulated housing stock contributes to much higher energy costs for people who live in those homes. One example in the report was that the annual energy bills in Burnley, where 70% of homes have an energy-efficiency rating below band C, averaged £1,272. This can be compared with Milton Keynes, where 50% of homes have high energy-efficiency ratings and annual bills were £889 on average. Therefore, the worse a home is insulated, the more it costs to heat it. Clearly, energy efficiency needs to be an urgent government priority.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, mentioned the importance of insulation, and she is absolutely right. The noble Lord, Lord Best, brought us his huge experience from the Select Committee and the Affordable Housing Commission, and shared many of his findings, one of which was fuel poverty and its impact. I ask the Minister: how do the Government plan to tackle this increasing equality divide and level up, as they keep promising us? More broadly, the Government’s housing and planning policy still seems pretty disorganised, to say the least. A report in January from the House of Lords Built Environment Committee on meeting housing demand found that the Government’s delays over planning reforms and uncertainty over the future of the planning system had created
“a chilling effect on house-building”.
The noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Young of Cookham, both talked about planning and brought their experience of this to the debate. My noble friend Lord Blunkett spoke about the importance of getting this right. There are nearly 1 million more people now in private rented homes than when the Conservatives came to power in 2010. Too many are stuck in a system with no power to challenge rogue landlords, with no savings to get on the housing ladder and in housing that falls well below acceptable standards.
The proposals in the levelling-up Bill do not do anything to ensure that affordable and healthy housing is built to the high standards that we have heard in this debate and which need to be the norm. We also need people to live in mixed developments. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ely talked about the importance of quality and not just quantity; this is one area where we have got it wrong over the last few decades. We need to build more homes, but, as we have heard in the debate, standards really matter. This debate has brought a huge amount of experience and expertise that your Lordships’ House can offer the Government in order to develop this Bill. I urge the Minister to put her full support behind the Bill and to work with the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. We strongly support this Bill and urge the Government to do the same.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, for sponsoring this Private Member’s Bill. We have had a very interesting, wide-ranging and meaty debate. I too am sorry that my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh is not here on this occasion to answer; his knowledge in this area far surpasses mine, but I will do my best to respond to noble Lords. I acknowledge that the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and many other noble Lords are quite right to emphasise the link between health, healthy living, homes and places; the inequalities in this sector have been highlighted in his and other noble Lords’ contributions.
The Government oppose this Bill, not because they take issue with the premise of noble Lords’ arguments, but rather because they believe that the problems highlighted in the Bill are already being dealt with via alternative policy routes. Delivering homes in places that support healthy and safe lifestyles is a key element of the planning system. Many of the proposed healthy homes principles are already covered by the National Planning Policy Framework, which sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these should be applied. The NPPF must be taken into account by local authorities in the preparation of their development plans, and it is a material consideration in planning decisions. The purpose of the planning system is clear: to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development.
Our National Planning Policy Framework sets out three overarching objectives to achieve sustainable development: economic and, in particular, social and environmental. The social objective focuses on supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities by fostering well-designed, beautiful and safe places with accessible services and open spaces. More specifically, the framework is clear that planning policies and decisions should aim to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places. This should support healthy lifestyles, especially where this would address identified local health and well-being needs. We are intending to review the NPPF to support the programme of changes to the planning system. This will provide an opportunity to ensure that the NPPF contributes to sustainable development as fully as possible.
To ensure that sustainable development is pursued positively, the presumption in favour of sustainable development is at the heart of the framework. This means that all plans should promote sustainable patterns of growth to meet local need, align growth and infrastructure, improve the environment, mitigate climate change and adapt to its effects. It also means that planning applications which accord with an up-to-date plan should be approved.
Transport should also be considered from the earliest stages of plan-making and development proposals, so that opportunities to promote walking, cycling and public transport use are identified and pursued. Significant development should be focused on locations which are, or can be made, sustainable through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes.
In addition, open spaces can provide health, well-being and recreational benefits to people living and working nearby; they have an ecological value and make an important contribution to green infrastructure. Planning policies should be based on robust and up-to-date assessments of the need for open space and opportunities for new provision. Local plans should seek to accommodate this.
I will speak only briefly on building safety because it did not form a major part of today’s debate and noble Lords will already be aware, from the Building Safety Act and other statutory instruments, of the amount of work the Government are doing in this area. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, focused particularly on this issue. The Government are clear that there must be a strong regulatory regime in place to ensure that buildings are built and maintained safely. As the noble Baroness knows, and other noble Lords will agree, the Government are implementing the majority of the recommendations in the 2018 Hackitt review through the Building Safety Act. In particular, the Act sets out a clear pathway on how high-rise buildings should be designed, constructed, maintained and managed, while ensuring that residents have a stronger voice in the system. The Act also establishes two new regulators: the building safety regulator and the national regulator for construction products.
I turn to building standards. Health and safety in buildings is a founding principle of the Building Safety Act, which underpins building regulations. Building regulations in England set requirements for a range of matters relating to the health and well-being of people in their homes. The regulations also set requirements for issues raised in the Bill, such as security and energy efficiency. We have recently reviewed and updated building regulations standards for ventilation in homes and introduced a new requirement to reduce the risk of overheating. The highest fabric standards we set as part of the 2021 uplift will markedly increase the energy efficiency of new homes. This will help households to minimise their energy bills and to make homes warmer and more comfortable. The building regulations also contain requirements for ensuring that new buildings are made secure against unauthorised access.
We have clear plans for ensuring that new homes meet the highest levels of energy efficiency. From 2025, the future homes standard will ensure that new homes will be future-proofed for net zero, with low-carbon heat and high levels of energy efficiency. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, while the zero-carbon homes policy proposed changes to the energy performance standards of new homes, it also included a carbon offsetting scheme, allowable solutions, to enable homes to become zero carbon. Consumers would not have benefited from allowable solutions as this would not necessarily have increased the energy efficiency of their homes, or indeed reduced their energy bills.
The future homes standard is a major improvement on this policy because it will deliver homes that are genuinely zero-carbon ready. The future homes standard will deliver carbon reductions through the fabric and building services in a home, rather than relying on wider carbon offsetting. This footprint will continue to reduce over time as the electricity grid decarbonises. In the interim, we have tightened energy standards, including for insultation, for new homes by 30%. As well as improving the energy efficiency in the short term, these improvements will ensure that construction professionals and supply chains are working to higher specifications in readiness for the 2025 future homes standard.
In addition to the policies I have mentioned, the National Planning Policy Framework is also clear that a key aspect of sustainable development is good design and that the creation of high-quality, beautiful and sustainable buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve. In July 2021 we issued revisions to the framework which place greater emphasis on beauty, place-making and good design to create better places in which to live and work.
The framework also contains national policy relating to many of the aims of this Bill. In particular, it asks that planning policies and decisions should: ensure that developments will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development; accommodate green spaces; support local facilities and transport networks; create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible; and promote health and well-being for existing and future users.
My noble friend Lord Young stressed that two objectives of the Bill relate to natural light and year-round thermal comfort. The National Design Guide and National Model Design Code illustrate how well-designed places can achieve this in practice.
On liveable space in new homes, the Government believe that ensuring a good standard and quality of internal space is vital to achieving well-designed and healthy homes for all. National planning policy includes a nationally described space standard, which means that councils have the option to set minimum space standards for new homes in their area.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, touched on staircases, and I am sure that she knows the action the Government have been taking on staircase safety. They have now put in motion a review of Approved Document K, which is the statutory guidance for building regulations dealing with protection from falling, collision and impact. The review focuses primarily on Section 1, which considers the safety of stairs, ladders and ramps. This review will run in parallel with the review already under way of Approved Document M, which looks at accessibility. This review will consult on raising the safety level of staircases to that achieved by meeting British Standard 5395-1, on staircases.
The National Design Guide reminds local councils that the quality of internal space needs careful consideration in higher density developments, particularly for family accommodation. I was, like many noble Lords, appalled to hear of buildings being adapted into flats with no natural light. The guide also places importance on access, privacy, daylight and external amenity space. I hope this relates to some of the “S”s that the right reverend Prelate mentioned in his contribution.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, mentioned the housing for older people task force. Further details on panel membership and the scope of the task force will be confirmed in due course. The noble Lord also mentioned the Commission on Creating Healthy Cities. The Government welcome its report and we are going to look closely at its recommendations as we take forward our work on levelling up, including the reforms set out in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. A full review of the National Planning Policy Framework is also likely to be required in due course to reflect our wider changes to the planning system, subject to decisions on how they will be taken forward. Any changes to the NPPF will be subject to a full public consultation, which will provide an opportunity to submit comments on the proposals.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and Lady Hayman of Ullock, both mentioned the Centre for Cities think tank. I am afraid that I have not seen this report yet. I will make sure to bring it to the attention of the department and will definitely look at it myself as well.
To conclude, although the Government support the Bill’s objectives of ensuring that homes across the country are healthy—indeed, our Levelling Up White Paper has set out our mission to reduce the number of non-decent homes in the private rented sector—we believe that, because of our existing laws and measures, the Bill is unnecessary. We therefore oppose it, but this has very little to do with the costs that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, this has been a very impressive debate, showing the deep experience of people from all sides of this House. There is an overall message in all this about learning from the past and thinking about the future.
I will just pick up a few of the themes that people have mentioned before replying to the Minister. I cannot possibly do justice to what has been said but I will start, if I may, with the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and his deep experience. He made very practical points about how this covers more than one department and the difficulties that creates for effective policy and implementation, and the need to think about how we can get at least some of this adopted through existing powers. I will come back to that. I am grateful to him for his support and for the presumed support of his ancestor, Hilton Young, on this matter.
I am very grateful to everyone who has spoken and to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, for talking about his personal experience. One theme I took from what he said was liberating people; houses are the foundation for liberating people to be all that they can be. The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, gave me one quotation that I will remember this debate for. He said, I think, that we are building homes that are deliberately substandard. I did not know that there is a policy to that effect, but that is obviously what he has found in his wide experience in this field. The noble Lord also stressed the importance of having safe and affordable houses, which is a theme that others have picked up as well.
My noble friend Lady Prashar talked about how thoughtlessly we sometimes make changes in housing, without considering the wider implications. This is one of the points about systems and systems-thinking that so many others have raised. I was grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ely for drawing attention to the tension between the rush to build houses, and quality and standards. Rushing to build poor houses leads to major problems in the longer term. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, stressed the healthy homes principles and some of the outrageous results—only some—of permitted development rights and their implications throughout the country.
My noble friend Lord Best talked strongly about the welcome commission that he has chaired, and its wisdom. I think your Lordships’ House will be coming back to the links between health, housing and place, and the important issues that come together there. I was also struck by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, saying that we should not expect our homes to kill to us. That seems to me to be a pretty basic point. Another point that the noble Baroness made strongly was that we need to make the links between the healthy homes principles and other policies that are already in the Government’s agenda.
I very much welcomed the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, about system thinking and how we need to see this right the way through, understand the big picture and not just make marginal changes here that have knock-on effects elsewhere. I also welcomed her points about costs and benefits. While there are relatively low costs, in percentage terms, there are very substantial benefits in the longer term.
I was also very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for her comments about what it means for disabled people and about making sure we future-proof our homes. Finally, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, who drew out the points about additional costs and brought us back to the north-south divide, the importance of levelling up and how this fits together. This Bill is fundamentally about bringing together a whole lot of issues around the foundation of people having a decent life in our society.
I turn to the Minister’s response. I simply do not agree that these issues are all covered by current government policy. I was not necessarily surprised and therefore not necessarily disappointed by her remarks, and she will not be surprised or disappointed by mine. Before I try to take this argument much further, one of the fundamental points here is that quite a lot of what the Government have been doing has been proffering guidance and not making it mandatory. I noticed that a number of noble Lords around the Chamber talked about the importance of having some mandatory standards. The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, who I missed out in my run-around just then, made the point precisely that we need some mandatory things because, when they are in guidance, the good people do them and the bad people do not. We see the results of both the good—and there is some fantastic stuff happening in the country—and the bad.
I will take the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and look for opportunities for this in current legislation. I will look to follow up a conversation I have been having with the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, for whose time on this I am grateful, and look for opportunities to discuss the issues with the noble Baroness and the Government more generally. I will also look for opportunities for the levelling-up Bill to produce some of the aspects of this Bill. Indeed, it has been suggested to me that while this Bill has only four pages, the levelling-up Bill has 140, so perhaps we should have an amendment to include this as a schedule to that Bill.
Lord Crisp (CB)
I am delighted to know that many noble Lords think that is a good idea. We will not forget this Bill even if we do not achieve a Committee in the House of Lords on it. Once again, I am extremely grateful to everyone for their support.
Ballot Secrecy Bill [HL]
Friday 15th July 2022
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Ballot Secrecy Act 2023 View all Ballot Secrecy Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, on 18 July 1872, almost exactly 150 years ago to the day, what is now known as the Ballot Act received Royal Assent. On 15 August 1872, 150 years ago bar one month, a secret ballot was used for the first time in Pontefract in a by-election, which the Liberals won.
The Ballot Act presumed very clearly that people should have the right to vote in secret without being accompanied or intimidated in the way they vote. What we have now, unfortunately, is something called family voting. This has been a matter of discussion for a number of years and it sounds wonderfully friendly, but friendly it is not. It is a form of intimidation of people, usually females, when they are casting their vote, because somebody else is accompanying them to the polling booth. It is a very difficult situation for polling station officers and presiding officers to control, because on many occasions, as all noble Lords will recognise, the presiding officer is a female, and if they approach a male saying, “You should not be there”, they feel intimidated. I shall refer to that in a minute.
The issue of family voting has been a subject for discussion for about a decade. The Electoral Commission has looked at this and provided guidance in one form or another to polling station officers, the police and others in an effort to ensure that there is no accompanying family voting in any form whatever. But it is not a problem that is going away. This is an issue that the Electoral Commission has repeatedly addressed and attempted to resolve by giving more and more guidance. It has been around for a decade. Last autumn I wrote to the Electoral Commission and the Met and asked them what they were going to do in relation to family voting. In January I received the normal assurances: it is being tackled; there is training available; we will deal with it with presiding officers and the police. The Minister wrote to the Electoral Commission and the Metropolitan Police, and in early April received exactly the same response: it was all being dealt with. So it would be reasonable to presume that it was not a problem, but the Democracy Volunteers report, to which I will refer in a few moments, identified that it is still a very serious problem indeed.
As I have identified, this is essentially a problem of men standing alongside women and telling them how to vote, or female presiding officers not having the confidence to challenge the men. When I raised this on a television programme recently, a lady from Harrow wrote to me that she had complained because she had witnessed this family voting happening. When the presiding officer, a female, went to the male concerned and he refused to respond, the presiding officer had no other force of law on which she could act.
Democracy Volunteers, an excellent organisation, has produced its report on the most recent local elections. It did surveys right across the country, and I quote from its report:
“Our team of observers saw several challenges to the electoral process … focused around the challenge of family voting ... Our team saw family voting in 25% of all the polling stations we observed.”
That is not just polling stations in Tower Hamlets—one knows that that is where all the attention has been. In Newham, 36% of polling stations were observed to have this problem at some stage. Lewisham and Croydon had 35%. All these are worse than Tower Hamlets, which was more than 30%, but in Northern Ireland—showing that this is a national problem—family voting took place in an almost unbelievable 42% of polling stations observed.
So, what is the current state? Efforts have been made—I referred to the training that has been undertaken—but when you raise the subject, you tend to get three basic replies. One is that the law already covers this issue. This is the response I got from the officials. If it does cover the issue, why does the Electoral Commission guidance not identify that there is a specific offence in law? Secondly, it seems to be viewed as just a Tower Hamlets problem. Even if it were, that would be bad enough, but I have just cited cases across the country and it has been running for a decade. The decade for which people have been looking at it is crucial, because the other response one gets is, “We will aim for consistent and effective enforcement”. The only thing that is consistent is the ineffective enforcement, as shown by the figures from Democracy Volunteers.
I specifically asked the Electoral Commission on 20 April 2022 whether it is
“against the law, except in specific circumstances to be present, or attempt to be present, in a polling booth while another person is casting their vote”.
Shaun McNally, the new chief executive, responded with great clarity to my question on 22 April, saying that
“there is no offence in law … as you have described … it would represent a breach of polling procedure”.
We therefore have a direct conflict between what officials in the department and the Electoral Commission are saying. You cannot have effective action if the law is unclear. When there is clear law, the guidance and the actions available to the polling station staff and police will be clearer.
I have had very good conversations with the Electoral Commission in the last few weeks. I put on the record my thanks to Mr McNally and his staff for their assistance on this. They have now agreed to seek counsel’s opinion on their interpretation of the law. This is enormously helpful. Mr McNally has even offered that I should be involved in drafting the inquiry to counsel. If counsel’s opinion says that the Electoral Commission is correct, my Bill is necessary and the guidance could be changed to emphasise the breach of law. If counsel’s opinion says that the officials’ interpretation is correct, the guidance can be changed without any change to the law and be much more emphatic. We await counsel’s opinion, but in the meantime I beg to move.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, on securing his Private Member’s Bill and getting it so early in the ballot. I was not so successful but my Bill got out of the traps yesterday, so we are well away too. Many of us in this House have stood for elections, won them and lost them, and I am sure that we are all democrats. We need to ensure that all our elections are free from abuse, intimidation and fraud. It is just wrong that people can have their opinions stolen from them and that people act in an illegal manner.
This is a small Bill—only one clause—but it is really important, for the reasons the noble Lord has outlined. It is a small amendment to the Representation of the People Act 1983 to help deal with intimidation at polling stations. In many cases, we know it happens only in specific areas; it is not a problem everywhere in the country, generally speaking, but we can all pinpoint areas where there can be problems. Having said that, I hope that, when we get a new Prime Minister, they will look at the whole issue of our electoral law, which desperately needs some revamping and bringing up to date. I have been asking for this for many years; I am always told that it is coming soon, but it never arrives. I hope it will happen. The noble Lord, Lord Hayward, was absolutely right about the Ballot Act 1872. Before that, intimidation, abuse and all sorts of dreadful practices were commonplace.
Lutfur Rahman was elected mayor of Tower Hamlets in 2014 but then found guilty of corrupt practices and, quite rightly, disqualified. It is a matter of great regret that he was able to return and get elected this May. Most people found guilty of corrupt practices would disappear, never to be seen again. Sadly, at the end of his ban, he has reappeared and got himself elected again, which is very worrying.
I am also conscious of some of the reports of people being told, “You must vote for Lutfur Rahman” in that Tower Hamlets election in 2014. The BBC did a report into corrupt practices and found that there were issues at up to a third of polling stations. As the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, said, 85% of people affected were women, which is absolutely dreadful. It is appalling that this can be going on in our democracy today. One of the people the BBC interviewed was a guy called Azmal Hussain, who said that he had been intimidated and his vehicle damaged. That is absolutely appalling.
The noble Lord, Lord Hayward, also mentioned the Electoral Commission, of which I used to be a member. It is a great body that does lots of good work, but the noble Lord made that point about guidance—it is guidance; it is not actually written down in legislation. That is one of the problems we have here and why this Bill is so important. We cannot just leave it to the commission to issue guidance. We need actual Acts of Parliament where these things are outlawed, because at the moment it is ambiguous and unclear, and people can interpret the guidance in all sorts of different ways. That is the problem.
We need this Bill. I hope the Minister will give a positive response to it when he speaks, because I think it is important and necessary. I again congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, on his Bill, and I look forward to supporting it. As I said on an earlier Bill, I hope that we do not get any amendments to it, because we want to get it off to the House of Commons quickly with no useful amendments, no matter how good they are. The Bill itself deals with the problem, and we should let it get to the House of Commons as quickly as we can.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, the provisions in this Bill were debated during the passage of the Elections Act earlier this year, and the principles behind it have our strong support.
As the noble Lords, Lord Hayward and Lord Kennedy, both said, it was 150 years ago that the Ballot Act 1872 first required parliamentary and local government elections in the UK to be conducted by secret ballot. Prior to that legislation, tenants feared eviction if they did not vote as their landlord would have wished; small retailers feared that they could not vote against the wishes of their bigger customers and risk losing business; and with no spending limits yet in place, candidates could bribe voters and check that they had voted as they had agreed. The principle of the secret ballot had been a key aim of the Chartists, and it is an essential democratic principle—but it can be undermined, and this Bill addresses concerns about polling stations.
However, my major concern about ballot secrecy is not with polling stations but with postal votes. The system is too open to abuse. In the Rochdale constituency in the 2010 general election, several hundred postal votes were submitted on which the “X” next to the name of the Liberal Democrat candidate Paul Rowen, the Member since 2005, was either crossed out or tippexed out, and the ballot papers then showed crosses next to the name of the Labour candidate. I do not seek to make a party-political point but just to demonstrate how postal voting can breach principles of secrecy.
Too often, a family may fill in their ballots at the same time under the watchful eye of someone acting as the head of the household—if they do fill it in themselves. It was because of concerns such as these that I led the opposition to a move by the Labour Government in 2004 to abolish polling stations and make voting in four English regions in the local and European elections that year by postal ballot only. Some Members of the House may remember that we sent that proposal back to the Commons about five times before Conservative Peers eventually backed down and let the measure go through. The eventual outcry meant that the pilots were never rolled out. I hope that the Labour Front Bench will note that Conservative Peers at that point were not at all reticent when they were in opposition about blocking measures they considered to be an abuse of democratic principles.
The need for the measures in this Bill has been questioned by government Ministers, but there is an obvious lack of clarity on the issue because, as the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, said, advice from Ministers and the Electoral Commission has differed. It is not satisfactory to say that the practice of family voting is already illegal, because the practice is not uncommon and is not always prevented.
A visible police presence at polling stations is a critical part of preventing electoral fraud, but even where police are present, so-called family voting still occurs. As has been said, the Democracy Volunteers organisation witnessed this practice taking place in about a quarter of the polling stations it observed in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets in May this year. It says that it is a national problem, not just one confined to Tower Hamlets.
The question I hope the Minister will address is: if the practice is already illegal and the Bill unnecessary, why is it sometimes so prevalent? The Electoral Commission guidance for polling stations makes no reference to the practice being against the law. Perhaps the QC’s opinion will confirm the illegality of the practice and the Electoral Commission guidance will be changed to reflect this. Presiding officers and the police will then be more able to prevent it. Unless and until we have that clarity, the Bill is necessary.
I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, for his tenacity in pursuing this issue. I close by saying that it is 29 years to the month since I was overseeing my party’s campaign in the Christchurch parliamentary by-election, which prevented his return to the other place. He may not have thanked me at the time, but the result eventually enabled him to play a distinguished role in this Chamber and for us to become good friends on opposing Benches. On this measure, we agree.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, I apologise to the House for speaking—briefly—in the gap, but there is more to this Private Member’s Bill than immediately meets the eye. I speak in support of the essential need for the UK always to strive for gold standards, with clarity in guidance essential in these processes.
Also, what we do in this country is noted globally. If I may borrow the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, from her intervention on the previous Bill, standards really matter. There are messages for the Commonwealth and OSCE countries that we should be encouraging to adopt this very important measure.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I am also taking advantage of the gap to make a brief contribution. The Chartist demand for a secret ballot was one of the essential ingredients of today’s modern democracy and it is, as has been mentioned, 150 years since the Secret Ballot Act was passed, which is a bedrock of our system. I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, in his introduction to the Bill and, although I am cautious about changing the law in this area, I appreciate the point he makes about the need for clarity. Therefore, I give the Bill a cautious Second Reading welcome, but some issues need to be considered further in Committee, and I shall mention just one or two.
The phrase in subsection (1)(b), “intention of influencing” will need further probing. I, like many noble Lords, have been in polling stations over many years. At what stage might it be considered in the mind of a presiding officer that someone is positioning themselves too close with the intention of influencing someone’s casting of a ballot? We do not want our polling stations full of police. They routinely go round to check that everything is all right, but we want to make sure that polling stations are not changed in a way that would render the business of voting less straightforward.
I also welcome subsection (3) about the Bill not applying to people under the age of 18, for a very simple reason. I may not be the only person in this Chamber who has taken their children to vote when they were younger. It was 30 years ago this year that I took my daughter to vote. I think it must have influenced her, because no less than 15 years’ later, she was selected as the youngest parliamentary candidate of either party—I was amazed. It instils in every young person a respect for the ballot process, and that is an important safeguard. No one taking their children in to enable them to see them voting is doing anything wrong.
I will leave my remarks there. As I said, there are one or two things that are worth exploring in Committee, but on balance I am here to vote in favour of the Second Reading.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for enabling me to say something in the gap. I welcome the clarity sought by the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, in seeking to make sure that the law applies fully and that people understand their obligations in the process of casting their ballot.
I will make two points. Every time the issue of secret ballots or women being influenced to vote or being under duress comes up, Tower Hamlets is the very first borough that is mentioned. I always take deep offence at that, primarily on the basis that not all women are under duress to vote—not even 25%, in my experience. I have been knocking on doors on behalf of the Labour Party as a member of that party for more than four decades. I remember, even at the age of 18, trying to knock on doors where there were women to try to influence them on behalf of the Labour Party to say that if they were not going to come out to vote and they did not understand, I was sure that their husband, their fathers or their families would inform them of how to vote. The practice has occurred over a number of decades, as has been said by all noble Lords. However, I deeply object to the assumption that this is about some women—Bangladeshi or Muslim—who maybe do not have sufficient understanding of the electoral system. For me, these women, who are voting in vast numbers, are maybe in the second or third generation, and I do not believe that that is the case.
This time, I went around a number of voting stations in particular. It is a fact that Lutfur Rahman has returned with a democratic mandate, and we ought to remember that. Not all things reported in the media to groups that are looking for issues with an agenda may be truthful. We have to be very careful. I agree wholly with the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, that we have to be incredibly careful about suggesting that there is an intention to influence and what the rationales are.
My final point is that, as the mother of a son with disabilities, I have often gone into the booth with my son, and I have always been stopped by polling officers. I have never seen them being intimidated either by me or my husband when my husband has accompanied him. We ought to be very careful when the assumption is that a group of women is particularly prone to be influenced by a certain group of men because they have no voice. I state on record that the women of Tower Hamlets have an absolute right to vote in whoever they want and that not all of them are under duress. We ought to be very careful when we legislate on the assumption that some groups of women have no voice. The very fact we suggest this means that we assume that there is no voice and that they have no ability to make their own mind up on whom they wish to have as their representative.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, for introducing his Bill on this issue. We have had quite a lively discussion around it. Obviously, it creates new offences for individuals who accompany a voter to a polling booth or who position themselves nearby with the intention of influencing that voter. It was good that the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, picked up on this issue of how standards matter. Of course, they matter in so many areas, and in fact none is more important than in voting and ensuring that our voting systems in this country are absolutely of the highest quality.
Family voting was previously raised during the passage of the Elections Act, and the noble Lord made very serious points during that debate. It is good that he has picked them up again in this Bill. We have heard examples today from the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, himself, and from my noble friend Lord Kennedy, of abuse and corrupt practices in the current system. There has also been discussion about the importance of clarity from the Government on what exactly the current law is and the current guidance is. I have seen the information from the Electoral Commission and, as the noble Lord Hayward, said, it is a bit confusing and contradictory at times. It needs to be absolutely crystal clear, and that is where the importance of this Bill comes in; it creates absolute clarity as to what is acceptable and what is not.
Labour will not oppose the Bill; we will support it because we want to support steps to eliminate voter fraud. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, for the points that she made; it is very important to bring that perspective to the debate.
I would like to draw attention to consideration for those with accessibility issues and people who may need assistance to vote—the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, talked about her disabled son. We know that the Electoral Commission has been looking at how to improve the situation for disabled people, people who find it difficult to vote and people with sight problems—again, we discussed this during the then Elections Bill—so that they have full independence when they are voting. That is something we need to think about when we are looking at this Bill as well.
To conclude, we support the Bill. We need to make sure that we have good, strong laws and an understanding of exactly what is acceptable when people go to vote in a polling station. We give this Bill our support.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend for his passion and expertise in electoral matters, and for continuing to draw attention to this important topic. I hope to continue engaging with him and the Electoral Commission further on this area. The proposals in this Bill and the debate we have had so far today have been tremendously interesting, and I am grateful for the contributions of all noble Lords.
The Government are committed to safeguarding our democracy against those who would seek to harm it. The Elections Act 2022, as mentioned by noble Lords, which received Royal Assent recently, is a testament to that, and we are hard at work implementing the various measures contained within it.
I have noted the serious allegations made in the Democracy Volunteers report into the 2022 local elections, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Hayward. It will come as no surprise that I fully share my noble friend’s concerns on the issue of coercive behaviour—including that which is known as family voting—taking place in our elections. The Government take these matters extremely seriously and we welcome debate and discussion on proposals for changes that seek to prevent such offences taking place. Let me be clear: it is completely unacceptable for anyone’s vote to be influenced or pressured inside a polling station. Protecting the secrecy of the ballot is of the utmost importance to the health of our democracy.
I am pleased to note that a number of the measures in the Elections Act will strengthen our democratic processes in this very area. We will be expanding secrecy laws to provide the same protections to postal voters as they would have when completing their ballot in a polling station, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. In addition, the Government have updated the existing offence of undue influence. The offence, as provided in the Representation of the People Act 1983, protects electors and proxies from malicious interference when casting their vote. The Government have clarified “undue influence” to make the offence easier for the police, prosecutors and the courts to interpret and enforce. The revised offence also has a broader scope in relation to intimidation and covers any act intended to intimidate a person to vote in a particular way or refrain from voting, or to otherwise impede the free exercise of their right to vote. This will include acts of intimidation around a polling station.
More broadly, I am pleased to note the introduction of a number of other measures to strengthen electoral security, perhaps most noticeably the new requirement for photographic identification at the polling station, which will go a great way to securing our elections against fraud.
I turn to the Bill before us. The measures proposed are interesting and merit consideration. The Government are still assessing these proposals, including their impacts, ramifications and suitability in the light of the new provisions of the Elections Act and the secondary legislation that flows from it, and with regard to the strategy and policy statement for the Electoral Commission’s remit. We will confirm our position in due course as the Bill progresses to Committee—and of course I have noted the general support for this Bill from all corners of the House. Part of the consideration should be whether we need a new offence or whether the existing provisions in the Representation of the People Act should be enforced more rigorously, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Hayward and the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. We look forward to continuing discussions with my noble friend to that end.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, this has been a brief debate but the broad sense of support for this Bill has been striking. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said, it is a small Bill in terms of the number of clauses involved but covers such an important issue. I welcome the comments that have been made on all sides of the House; I wish that the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, had not reminded me of at least one summer past, but I thank him for the comments that ensued thereafter. I will not go through in detail what each person said. As far as I am concerned, the message was absolutely clear from all sides, as the Minister indicated, that there is a need for clarity, consistency and an effective approach in the polling station.
I note the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin. During my contribution, I specifically made the point that, although the concentration had been on Tower Hamlets, the highest level of offence in relation to family voting, as observed by Democracy Volunteers—if one takes it as an offence—was in Northern Ireland, and was also higher in other boroughs in London. It is a national problem that I am trying to address.
I see the noble Baroness wishes to intervene. I am not sure whether I am allowed to take interventions at this stage—I am seeking guidance—but I will keep my comments brief in the circumstances.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
I just want to say thank you. I did not want to mention that because of the time, but I am relieved to hear that it is a national issue.
Lord Hayward (Con)
That is the important matter. This has been regarded as a one-borough problem and there have been problems in Tower Hamlets during elections—I am not going to be drawn down that path at this stage—but I am trying to deal here with one specific, nationwide problem.
This appears to have the support of all sides of the House. I note the comments from the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, on clarity, and I particularly welcome my noble friend the Minister’s response that he wants to continue to engage and review the position as this Bill progresses. I commend the Bill to the House.
Heritage Railways and Tramways (Voluntary Work) Bill [HL]
Friday 15th July 2022
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Heritage Railways and Tramways (Voluntary Work) Bill [HL] 2022-23 View all Heritage Railways and Tramways (Voluntary Work) Bill [HL] 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, I remind the House of the unpaid interest I declare on the register as president of the Heritage Railway Association. I should say that I am the sponsor of the HRA’s young volunteer of the year award and co-chair of the Heritage Rail APPG.
Britain’s heritage railways generate more than £600 million a year for the UK economy and are critical to the tourism economy of many areas. They attract more than 30 million visitors a year, directly employ 4,000 people and are supported by more than 22,000 volunteers. The Bill is about those volunteers and its purpose is to correct an anomaly that was created by an Act of Parliament passed in 1920. That Act was full of good intentions and reflected the mood of idealism that pervaded the immediate aftermath of the First World War. Various international conventions were drawn up which sought to restrict the employment of women, young persons and children then employed in a variety of potentially hazardous industries. The content of these conventions was incorporated into United Kingdom law by the Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children Act 1920. One of the principal provisions of that Act was the prohibition of young persons and children undertaking employment in certain specified industrial undertakings. The definition of “industrial undertaking” included the construction, maintenance and operation of a railway or tramway, and a child was defined as any individual not over compulsory school age.
In moving the Second Reading in your Lordships’ House of what was to become the Act of 1920, Lord Onslow—your Lordships will recall that we had one of his descendants as a Member of our House until relatively recently—observed that:
“The acceptance of these Conventions makes little practical difference as regards employment in this country.”—[Official Report, 9/12/1920; col. 3.]
This was because of the advanced state of social legislation in the United Kingdom at the time, but it was nevertheless clearly an enlightened and praiseworthy landmark in acknowledging the need to safeguard the vulnerable in our society.
However, in the period after the ending of the Second World War, the circumstances which had led to the 1920 Act had radically changed. In the transport field, many railway branch lines were closing, and tramways had almost entirely disappeared from the country. This led to moves on the part of many rail devotees to take steps to preserve some of these lines to provide future generations with something of the experience that their forebears enjoyed in travelling to work or school by these means, and so the concept of heritage railways and tramways was born, a concept wholly absent from the minds of the legislators of 1920. Often operated on an entirely voluntary basis, there are now more than 170 such lines offering rides to passengers, and this development has done much to encourage local employment and tourism.
It has also done much to draw the attention of children and young persons to the possibility of participating in these activities and possibly seeking a career on the national railways in due course. Apart from engaging young minds in these pursuits, rather than in other less socially useful activities, it is of course to the benefit of heritage sector rail operators to foster this interest as they think about who is to come after them in running their railways.
However, this is where the Act of 1920 presents a stumbling block, given its prohibition of the employment of children. Some of your Lordships may think that “employment” in this context just means paid employment. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Leading counsel has advised that the true meaning of the word when used in the Act extends to work in a voluntary capacity, so no individual under the age of 16 may perform any such activity on a preserved railway or tramway. It is the removal of this constraint that is the object of this Bill.
In 2018, the All-Party Group on Heritage Rail carried out an inquiry on young people and heritage railways, which was chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, then the Member of Parliament for Loughborough. She cannot be with us today, but she asked me to say that she strongly supports this Bill. Her introduction to the APPG’s report said:
“This report shows the important role of heritage railways in education and the training of young people, not just in the technical aspects of railways, but in life skills as well. It is a symmetrical relationship as young people benefit greatly from working on heritage railways, while the future of heritage railways is greatly dependent on the young people they attract.”
The group took evidence from Her Majesty’s Railway Inspectorate, which indicated that the interests of young people would be far better protected by risk assessment under the railways’ safety management procedures, rather than by relying on outdated legislation enacted for another purpose. This would ensure that proper consideration was given to competence, capability and fatigue, rather than just setting an arbitrary age limit.
I turn to the express provisions in the Bill. Clause 1 would remove the restriction on children working on a heritage railway or tramway by allowing them to undertake voluntary work on such lines. It maintains the embargo on their taking up paid employment on lines of this nature, and the standard legal safety and safeguarding requirements will continue to apply. Clause 2 is an interpretation provision, in which, in Clause 2(a), “heritage railway” and “heritage tramway” adopt the definition of those terms in the enforcing authority regulations of 2006, which stipulate that “heritage railway” means a railway which is operated to
“preserve, recreate or simulate railways of the past”
or to
“demonstrate or operate historical or special types of motive power or rolling stock”,
and which is
“exclusively or primarily used for tourist, educational or recreational purposes.”
There is a comparable definition for heritage tramways. Clause 2(b) defines voluntary work as an activity carried out unpaid, apart from any travel or other out-of-pocket expenses, on a heritage railway or tramway, with the aim of benefiting that body. Finally, in Clause 2(c), the expression “young person” is given
“the same meaning as ‘child’ in section 558 of the Education Act 1996 save that the person concerned must have attained the age of 12 years”.
This has been identified as the optimum age at which the person, if he or she has gained an interest in the subject, is less likely thereafter to lose that interest. Clause 3 is the routine provisions relating to extent of application and commencement, and the Short Title of the Bill.
This short and, I hope, uncontentious Bill, aims to correct an anomaly which was never foreseen when Parliament passed the Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children Act 1920. Preventing young people from volunteering on heritage railways was clearly not intended by Parliament when the Act was passed. The principal issue for heritage railways is that it is precisely between the ages of 14 and 16 that interests among young people are highest. If they cannot participate then, they tend to follow other outlets, such as football or computer games, and they miss out on one of life’s rich experiences, as well as being lost to the sector.
The 1920 Act does not apply across the voluntary sector but only to activities considered to be industrial undertakings. The Act was primarily concerned with safety risks for children working in factories and mines in those days, and safeguarding was not specifically addressed in the legislation. Awareness of this is much higher now and heritage railways generally have safeguarding policies in place to ensure the safety of young people volunteering with them.
I hope that your Lordships will agree and give this Bill a speedy passage. I look forward particularly to the Minister’s reply. I hope that she will agree to convene a meeting of representatives from the heritage railway sectors, her department and other departments, to see whether we can find a way through, either by adopting the Bill or by some other means. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I support this Bill, which my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester so ably described. He has covered so much of the background and the need for the Bill. It is a really important small piece of legislation.
I declare an interest as patron of the Helston Railway in Cornwall, which is one of the shortest heritage railways. It is a very good example of the need to have volunteers of all ages. It runs without any paid staff whatever, like some other heritage railways do, as it is quite small. I was there a couple of months ago and my friends there were telling me about the difficulty of recruiting young people, which my noble friend’s Bill tries to change, before they get interested in things that older teenagers get interested in. As my noble friend says, this would give young people an interest in what we might call the industrial undertaking. It is really important that they learn the importance of such businesses—whether it is the business side, taking locomotives to bits or making sure the track is safe—in a safe environment before they have to make choices later in their school or college career.
My noble friend said that there had been some discussion with the Office of Rail and Road on this. I questioned my friends on the Helston Railway about what the Office of Rail and Road does. I have had meetings with it myself, on this and other lines. Its role is to make sure that the whole operation is safe—which it has to be, of course. It is so easy for people, particularly volunteers, to cut corners and think it will be all right, and then there is an accident—I hope not a serious one. The railways have to ensure that all their documentation and procedures are up to date and absolutely suitable for whatever they are operating on. I pay tribute to the people in the ORR who operate in this field. They certainly operate with a light touch, but they also can come down like a tonne of bricks if they need to. That gives confidence to the people, largely volunteers, who run a railway that they could safely welcome younger volunteers, as my noble friend proposes.
The problem is that some of the people who drive the trains or do the infrastructure are getting on a bit. Very few people now remember how to drive a steam train. I am told that some of the younger visitors to these tourist attractions are as interested in the first generation of diesel as they are in steam. We can all have different views on that, but that is what some of the current visitors want and that is fine. The key is to be able to start at a young age, with as many people as possible getting interested in this so that they can carry on, perhaps for all their working life—although they might have to go away and work somewhere else. It is very important that the option is there to start something that is really exciting for a 10 or 12 year-old before they go off and do other things.
It is very easy to say that there are many other things to do in a town or city, but many of these heritage lines are in the countryside, where there is not much alternative work. I live in Cornwall, and some of the young people in the villages would love to work on this railway. It would give them something to do and give them a great interest—one they could keep for ever.
The Office of Rail and Road has more or less said that it will turn a blind eye but that if something goes wrong, it could always fall back on legislation. That is not a position that any voluntary organisation would want to get into.
I follow my noble friend’s request to the Minister as to whether there is an answer to the statement made in June 2019 by the noble Lord, Lord Ashton of Hyde, who was the Minister for Civil Society, hoping that the Government would actually come up with a solution to this issue and that, whatever is done
“in a paid or voluntary capacity … that is not incompatible with young people volunteering on a heritage railway.”—[Official Report, 5/6/19; col. 169.]
He made that statement three years ago now. Perhaps the Minister will have had time to think about it and come back with a positive answer.
Lord Jones of Cheltenham (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, for introducing the Bill and for his superb explanation of why it is needed.
When I was a young trainspotter, uncles and aunts often asked, “What do you want to be when you grow up, young man?” The answer was always, “A train driver”, and I had many friends who felt the same way. None of us achieved it because, by the time we had grown up, steam trains had been replaced by diesel locomotives, which somehow did not present the same drama.
Some of the most interesting people you can meet are old steam engine drivers. They know how to make these things work, maintain the correct quantity of coal, build up the appropriate level of steam and charge through the countryside leaving a trail of smoke behind them. They tell stories of near misses, when perhaps someone had missed a signal and they had to slam on the brakes to come to a juddering halt before they rammed into another train on the line. They know what it was like to plough their way through blizzards, trying to keep to a timetable. They are an outstanding generation of dedicated and skilled people. Sadly, as time goes by, fewer and fewer of them are still around, but fortunately many have passed on their skills to volunteers on the network of heritage railways around the country. That network needs to recruit the next generation of steam engine enthusiasts, which is what the Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, is about.
The career progression for a volunteer on heritage railways is the same as it was in the golden age of steam. You start as a cleaner, getting to know the locomotives, the engine parts and the drivers. After a couple of years you may become a fireman, and then eventually a driver. It is very structured. A volunteer on the Swanage Railway says: “It’s lovely to work on these really elegant old heritage machines. They’ve all got their quirks; even engines of the same class behave in different ways. You have to learn to know what they like and what they don’t want”.
Heritage railways across the UK attract millions of visitors and passengers a year, but the shortage of young volunteer drivers is worrying the industry. The Swanage Railway in Dorset has 42 drivers, the oldest of whom is 79 and the youngest 27. As the older ones step down from the footplate for the last time, there is a dearth of younger people ready to jump in. The shortage means that the railway draws in people from far and wide. One driver comes to Swanage from the east Midlands; another travels all the way from Preston. The Bill would enable and encourage interested young people to get involved with their own heritage railway.
Why do people volunteer? There are two main attractions: the locomotives themselves and the people. Everyone appreciates a steam engine and the engineering side of it, but the other half is the people. The railway is one big family. The beauty of it is that there are so many different jobs in one organisation: the drivers, the people in the booking office, and those in maintenance and catering. You get to know people across other railways as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, is very involved with the Gloucestershire Warwickshire Steam Railway —my heritage railway—and the Sapperton tunnel, which is featured in one of the Edward Marston books in the Railway Detective series. Looking at its website, GWSR currently has vacancies for volunteers in many departments, including carriage and wagon maintenance; safety and first aid; the trust’s information centre and promotions; estates management; the model railway at Winchcombe; railway catering services for the cafes at Winchcombe and Broadway stations and the buffet bars on trains; retail, or helping to run the shop at Toddington; special events, including the special Santa trains in December; and the Toddington Narrow Gauge Railway. Many of these voluntary positions can be a starting point for the young people at whom this Bill is aimed. I wish this Bill well in encouraging more young people to get involved in our heritage railways across the United Kingdom.
The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, on securing his Second Reading debate today, and for giving me the opportunity to put on a tie for the first time in six weeks, with my arm in a sling—quite a difficult one.
I support the noble Lord’s Bill, and I shall be very brief in doing so. I am a Staffordshire man born and bred, and I declare an interest as a deputy lieutenant of that county. That is why I am speaking: close to where I live on the edge of the Staffordshire Moorlands, we have a fine example of a heritage railway. The Churnet Valley Railway is a preserved standard gauge heritage railway, originally opened in 1849, which runs from Leekbrook to Froghall in north Staffordshire. A further branch line runs to Cauldon Lowe, where it used to service my former quarries at Cauldon. I believe that that line is one of the earliest light freight lines still in existence in the UK.
The Churnet Valley Railway is a vibrant and popular tourist attraction; I have taken my grandchildren on it many times. It is a truly magical attraction running through a beautiful hidden valley. Originally, it went to my former old family home, Alton Towers, in what is known as the Rhineland of England. But this excellent and spectacular railway, preserving a sizeable chunk of north Staffordshire’s rich history, would not exist if it were not for the volunteers who run it and make it happen. They are all great enthusiasts, and I congratulate them. However, such ventures must be able to attract the younger generation, both boys and girls, as enthusiastic volunteers to be trained up in a wide variety of skills if the railway is to have a vibrant future.
Finally, I make a small plea to my noble friend on the Front Bench. These railways rely on a supply of coal to drive their steam engines. Would she please try to ensure that coal will still be able to be sourced from the South Wales Coalfield for this purpose?
Therefore, I am delighted strongly to support the noble Lord’s Bill, and I wish him a fair head of steam in his endeavours to steer it through the parliamentary process.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, endorse the sentiments that have already been expressed from both sides of the House in support of my noble friend’s Bill, and I congratulate him on his persistence in bringing it back before us. When the Minister replies, I hope she will go further than before and, rather than promising action at some time in the future, she will give us a specific response.
The Bill addresses Section 1 of the Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children Act 1920, which states:
“No child shall be employed in any industrial undertaking”.
Like most of my generation, I did some work before I left school, delivering newspapers and working on a milk round as a 13 or 14 year-old. Of course, I was not covered by the 1920 Act, but on reflection, having spent some years working on the railway, I can say that leaping on and off an electric milk float in the 1950s was possibly more dangerous to a schoolboy than any action I have taken since as a railwayman. I hope that this long-term historical anomaly which referred to “industrial” jobs will not prevent the Minister giving us a satisfactory reply this afternoon.
There are many heritage railways in this country. At the last count, it was said that many of them depended almost entirely on voluntary labour and, of course, they do attract young people. There are few sights more moving than that of a steam locomotive. Those of us of a certain generation, of course, do not necessarily share the enthusiasts’ love of a steam locomotive. As a former goods guard in the 1960s I have to say that, when travelling tender-first on a clapped out “Austerity” at 4 am, the romance of steam escaped me from time to time. But to see locomotives these days, restored and brought back to life in the way that many heritage railways have done, is a moving and inspiring sight. Depriving our young people of the opportunity to work on a heritage railway because of this somewhat outdated Act is an issue that this House should do something about.
It is a fact that the hundreds of heritage railways in this country employ many thousands of people. Although we are assured by the Office of Rail and Road that the 1920 Act has never been used to prevent young people working on heritage railways, there is still the thought that that Act lurks in the background. In the event of an unfortunate accident, that 1920 Act may well be invoked by an insurance company in relation to a claim. I hope that we can get a proper response from the Minister and that my noble friend’s Bill, well merited as it is, will perhaps receive a better response than it has in the past.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate but, before I begin, I beg leave from your Lordships to mention another aspect of heritage that I had the great pleasure of engaging in yesterday evening, back home in Newport—in Caerleon in fact. The organisation BCA’37, run entirely by volunteers, ensures that the history of the Basque child refugees who came to Britain in 1937 during the Spanish Civil War is recorded and preserved. Caerleon has strong links to the organisation, as 30 children were placed in Pendragon House.
We have a series of events this week, with people from the Basque country joining us in south Wales to celebrate the 85th anniversary of the people of the UK, with no British Government support, welcoming 4,000 children—just one boatload—into the country. They were subsequently supported by volunteers and voluntary funds, and I am proudly wearing the badge that all the children wore as they came into the country. This exemplifies how volunteers are so important to our society. I was privileged to be part of that event last night, with colleagues from the Welsh Government and our Westminster representatives.
I add my congratulations to those already expressed to my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester on bringing forward his Bill and on the instrumental role he has played in establishing the APPG on Heritage Rail, ensuring it becomes an active and meaningful parliamentary group on behalf of heritage railways, in line with his work as president of the Heritage Railway Association. The world movement began in Britain in 1951 when a group of enthusiasts, led by, among others, the author and co-founder of the Inland Waterways Association, Tom Rolt, saved the narrow-gauge Talyllyn Railway in mid-Wales from almost certain closure. The Talyllyn project was the first railway preservation scheme in the world; since then, the movement has gone from strength to strength in Britain. Clearly, I am proud that it began in Wales.
Today, the number of preserved or heritage railways in Britain runs well into three figures, thanks to the work of dedicated volunteers and paid staff. They provide a memorable attraction for around 13 million visitors per year, who take 18.6 million journeys covering 130 million miles, contributing about £400 million to the economy. Wales is lucky to be able to claim ownership of a very good number of these, including the Pontypool and Blaenavon Railway, just up the road from Newport on the edge of the Brecon Beacons. That has been a wonderful re-addition to our area and would not have been possible without an awful lot of hard work from volunteers, who have undertaken numerous projects to improve the visitor experience.
I have enjoyed many a trip from Furnace Sidings to Big Pit, where I take my own visitors to see this amazing Welsh coal mine that pays tribute to the heritage of our industrial past, where people such as my dear late stepfather toiled underground to build the wealth of our nations. I am sure this story of heritage railways is being replicated across the UK.
It is therefore concerning that the 2018 report on young persons’ involvement in heritage railways from the APPG on Heritage Rail, which my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester chairs, found that the number of young, under-18 volunteers is only around 5%, that the number of young female volunteers is extremely small at 1% and that the outdated legislation in the form of the Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children Act 1920 has become a significant constraint on recruiting young volunteers under 16. It is an indirect consequence, as so many things can be. The Office of Rail and Road has been helpful in confirming that it had no intention of enforcing the Act and provided clear guidance on how to approach the management of young people engaged in railway activities. Either way, as the report says:
“This not only prevents them benefiting from the experiences their parents and grandparents had, but risks losing them altogether to railways, as they find another outlet for their interests”—
as other noble Lords have mentioned—
“at a crucial stage in their lives and when exploring future employment.”
When the report was debated in 2019, my noble friend Lord Rosser said of my noble friend Lord Faulkner:
“When he becomes involved … he becomes involved big time, and he has a very impressive success rate in achieving and delivering the desired objectives.”—[Official Report, 5/6/19; col. 165.]
And here we are again, as my noble friend would have expected. I have little doubt that achieving and delivering the desired objectives will eventually be managed, whether it is through this Bill or by the Government’s hand. In this case, the objectives are twofold, with the ultimate goal being to encourage the engagement of young people with heritage railways, but a step in that direction would be to ensure that a law which predates heritage railways does not indirectly stop young people being able legally to volunteer on them. As we have heard during the debate, the Government committed to progressing this matter in a safe way, so I look forward to the Minister updating us on that. I can understand that there have been slightly more pressing issues at hand over the last three years—and over the last three weeks—but I hope the Government have given some thought to this. After all, they have made a commitment.
As keen as we all are to encourage youth volunteers, my caveat is that it is important that it is done safely. I am particularly keen to hear from the Minister what assessment has been made since that debate on any possible risks. I urge the Government to cease prevaricating any further and enable this barrier to be lifted.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, for bringing to the House this important debate, which I believe he has tried to secure since 2017. I congratulate him on his tenacity. The Government think that it is important to recognise and support the valuable opportunities that young people have through volunteering. I stress that modern health and safety legislation does not prevent children and young people volunteering on heritage railways or tramways, which I believe is a great experience for all involved. Also, the noble Lords, Lord Faulkner and Lord Jones, referred to the difference these activities make to the local economies in which they are based.
However, it is important that such activities are carried out in a safe way, with employers, organisers and those supervising the activities making sure that any risks are properly controlled. The Health and Safety Executive requires duty holders to demonstrate that they understand any potential hazards that may come to young people when volunteering. Those hazards should be set out in the duty holders’ risk assessments, along with the steps they have taken to minimise them. To increase compliance levels in managing risks, the Health and Safety Executive uses a range of regulatory actions, from influencing behaviours across whole industry sectors to targeted interventions on particular sectors and activities. The Health and Safety Executive will continue to hold to account those duty holders who fail in their responsibilities to protect workers through proportionate enforcement action. Because the Health and Safety Executive takes a proportionate, evidence-based approach, the Government are convinced that modern health and safety legislation does not prevent children and young people from volunteering on heritage railways and that there is no reason to amend or repeal current legislation.
The law protecting children in the UK is a complex area, and this Bill touches on not only health and safety protections but also child labour laws and local authority by-laws. These are all devolved matters in Northern Ireland, and this Bill would impose changes there too. To repeal or amend the Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children Act 1920 may initially seem the best course of action; however, this involves a level of complexity and risk that makes it undesirable and unnecessary. This would still leave legislation owned by the Department for Education—the Children and Young Persons Act 1933—in place which limits young volunteers to undertaking light work only. In addition, many local authorities have by-laws under the 1920 Act which contain prohibitions on types of work that are not suitable for young people. Repealing the Act could have unintended consequences across a number of sectors.
The Government’s view is that there is no need to introduce additional legislation to ensure young people can volunteer on heritage railways. The Health and Safety Executive has policy responsibility for the 1920 Act, but in the case of heritage railways the Office of Rail and Road is the enforcing authority. Previously, both the Health and Safety Executive and the Office of Rail and Road considered what powers they have and how they would be applied in the case of young people volunteering on a heritage railway. Both regulators have reconfirmed that they would not enforce the 1920 Act solely to prevent children and young people from volunteering on heritage railways. The 1920 Act has never been used for this purpose.
A point worth emphasising is that modern health and safety legislation already applies to the activities of children and young people volunteering and requires a risk assessment approach to managing their health and safety. So, if there was evidence of poor supervision, exposure to risk or danger, the Health and Safety Executive and/or the Office of Rail and Road would take action under health and safety legislation, not the 1920 Act.
I think the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Jones, stressed very well the importance of young people having exposure to heritage railways, because it can inspire them in subjects they want to study and in careers they want to take, and we should make sure that opportunity is available to them. So, the Government support volunteers and volunteering. Volunteering can be a rewarding experience for young people and allows them to gain new skills, meet new people and make a difference in their communities.
I would like to recognise the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and the Heritage Railway Association for the important work they do in preserving this part of our nation’s cultural and industrial heritage, as well as for the opportunities that they and their members provide for children and young people on our heritage railways and tramways. My noble friend Lord Shrewsbury mentioned that he had put on a tie today, which is a major achievement, for this Bill, so we should recognise that. I would also ask your Lordships to take a look at the tie of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, which is absolutely fit for today and a great credit to him to promote his field of work.
I live literally yards away from the line that goes from Tenterden through to Bodiam on the steam railway. On a really great day, when the wind is blowing in the right direction, I can smell the steam when I am sitting in my garden—it is that close. It is very evocative and encouraging. I have gone on Thomas the Tank Engine, gone there for Sunday lunch and gone on the Santa special many times. The difference that it makes to young people and the economy is terrific. The young volunteers on that railway line thrive on their activities.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, mentioned the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ashton, about trying to find a solution. I will come on to that later because I will make a definite commitment with a definite timetable.
The UK is a true pioneer in the history of railway, nurturing and benefiting from the talents of Brunel and Stephenson, among others. We are rightly proud of this legacy and must ensure that the next generation is endowed with the skills and passion to protect it. Volunteering is vital for the future sustainability of the heritage rail sector, with approximately 22,000 people giving their time and expertise to support heritage steam organisations across the country. We know from the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Heritage Rail’s 2018 report, Young People and Heritage Railways, that almost 800 under-16s successfully volunteer without intervention from regulators.
This shows that modern health and safety legislation works. There is supporting guidance freely available, and the Health and Safety Executive and the Office of Rail and Road have previously offered—and are still willing—to work with the Heritage Railway Association to update their guidance for its members; to set out what tasks would be suitable for children and young people to perform on the railways; and to give heritage railway and tramway operators the assurance they require to be able to offer safe and appropriate volunteering opportunities.
As has been said, this is an ongoing issue, with a meeting between the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and my noble friends Lord Ashton and Lady Buscombe to discuss it further planned for the autumn of 2019. I understand that, unfortunately, diaries did not align, for which I apologise; I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, for pointing out that the past three years have not been easy. Anyway, we must move this on and end the delay in resolving this matter. I make a commitment that officials from the Health and Safety Executive and the Office of Rail and Road, with support from DCMS—I am prepared to join that meeting—will offer to meet the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, to discuss this issue further, particularly how the HRA guidance can be amended to better support managing the health and safety risks for young volunteers.
The noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, mentioned coal. The Government appreciate the unique importance of the heritage steam industry both in promoting the UK’s rich industrial heritage and for the wider visitor economy. We acknowledge the difficult circumstances facing the heritage steam sector at this time in light of the rising cost of coal on international commodity markets, due in part to the Russia-Ukraine conflict. We are in regular communication with the heritage rail sector to explore how we may be able to assist, including ministerial engagement with the Heritage Rail Association. However, ultimately, we view the decision on where to source coal for use in heritage steam and other industries as a private matter for the companies involved.
The noble Lord, Lord Snape, referred to insurance. The detail of each railway’s insurance policies is a matter between the insurer and the heritage railway operator. However, in 2018, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Heritage Rail heard from a witness representing the insurance industry that the 1920 Act would not make any difference to the cost or cover of insurance.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, asked why children are prevented from volunteering on heritage railways. As I have said, the Government support volunteering and recognise the benefits for all those involved. They are not limiting the opportunities for children to safely volunteer on heritage railways.
In conclusion, the Bill tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, seeks to allow children to gain valuable experience volunteering on heritage railways and tramways. The Government support this aim. However, we believe that the current framework does just that: existing modern health and safety laws allow children and young people to volunteer on heritage railways, while protecting their education and health and safety. Nothing would be gained from a change to legislation when other, simpler and more effective options are available. The existing framework is fair and effective, which is why the Government do not believe that the Bill is necessary. Nevertheless, the Government are committed to working with the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and all interested parties to achieve a solution; we will meet in the autumn when the House returns.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, first, I thank all noble Lords for their excellent contributions to the debate. The heritage railway sector will be gratified to learn how many friends and how much support it has: my noble friend Lord Berkeley spoke about the Helston Railway; the noble Lord, Lord Jones of Cheltenham, visited both the Swanage Railway and the Gloucestershire Warwickshire Steam Railway; the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, went to the Churnet Valley Railway; my noble friend Lady Wilcox of Newport cited the Talyllyn Railway and the Pontypool and Blaenavon Railway; and the Minister referred to the Kent & East Sussex Railway. My noble friend Lord Snape reminded us of the pleasures of being a goods guard on steam railways at 4 am before modernisation took over that part of the railway’s operation. He is now, I think, the only former working railwayman in your Lordships’ House and, as a result, deserves to be listened to with particular respect.
It is clear that there is general agreement that the 1920 Act must not be used to prevent young people under 16 working as volunteers. The Minister’s speech was really interesting, because she said that the provisions of this Bill may not be necessary because the provisions of the 1920 Act will never be applied. However, as more than one speaker—including my noble friends Lord Berkeley and Lord Snape—drew the House’s attention to, the Minister did not answer on what will happen should something go wrong involving a youngster working as a volunteer. She referred to insurance but there are other, deeper issues that also need to be looked at. Although I really appreciate her offer to meet representatives from the sector in the autumn—we accept that offer with gratitude and alacrity—we should be looking for stronger guarantees in relation to the 1920 Act than she has been able to give us today, however well-intentioned those have been. I therefore hope that the House will agree to give the Bill a Second Reading as a means of concentrating everyone’s minds on this subject. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Climate and Ecology Bill [HL]
Friday 15th July 2022
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Ecology Bill [HL] 2022-23 View all Ecology Bill [HL] 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text
Lord Redesdale (LD)
My Lords, first, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, for being here today, because I know that, like me, she wanted to be at the parliamentary clay pigeon shooting. Without our excellent skills, I am afraid that the House of Lords is facing defeat. I also thank all those who support the Zero Hour campaign, including the many volunteers, the staff both past and present, and the scientists, lawyers and campaigners who have helped draft and make the case for this Bill.
I had a whole section written about the need to prevent climate change going above 1.5 degrees, but of course, since I wrote it, we have seen the projections for the heat next week. While many years ago we used to argue whether climate change existed and whether it was manmade, we are now looking at the health service suffering the effects of this. I hope that people will take the warnings as seriously as possible, because there could well be deaths due to the high temperatures. I do not think anyone can dispute that this is a climate change-related event and that it will probably take place far more regularly in the future. It certainly highlights the need for this Bill—or the Government’s adoption of the targets within it—and shows that this is of growing importance. It shows especially that this is not a radical piece of legislation; it is something that we really need to look at.
There is support across the UK nations to follow the science, increase environmental ambition and continue the national effort we have begun to decarbonise our society and bring about a nature-positive future. That is what this Bill would do. It has nine clauses that will require the UK Government, in partnership with the devolved Administrations and with the backing of the public, to deliver a joined-up, science-led environmental plan. In short, it would set the crucial framework for us to achieve net zero before irreversible tipping points are passed.
Research from the Natural History Museum ranks the UK home nations among the 12 most nature-depleted nations in the world, yet current legislation—the Environment Act—calls for the UK only to halt biodiversity loss. The problem with this is that, as we are already at such an appalling state of natural depletion, simply halting the decline at this point would be disastrous. Wildlife and Countryside Link has reported that the currently proposed long-term targets for wildlife could see nature in a far worse condition in 2042 than today.
This is why Clause 1 in the Climate and Ecology Bill would also impose duties on the UK Government to halt and reverse the UK’s
“overall contribution to the degradation and loss of nature in the United Kingdom and overseas by … increasing the health, abundance, diversity and resilience of species, populations, habitats and ecosystems so that by 2030, and measured against a baseline of 2020, nature is visibly and measurably on the path of recovery”.
This would fulfil the UK’s obligation under the United Nations Convention on Biodiversity and its protocols.
Clause 2 would require the Government to
“publish and lay before Parliament a strategy … to achieve the objectives”
set out in Clause 1. This must include interim targets and impose a variety of restrictions, consistent with reducing the UK’s carbon dioxide emissions and
“restoring and expanding natural ecosystems”.
Clause 3 would require the Government to
“procure, by open tender, an expert independent body to establish a Climate and Nature Assembly … comprising a representative sample of the United Kingdom population.”
The assembly would then
“consider relevant expert advice and publish its recommendations for measures to be included”
in the Government’s strategy. I surmise that the Government are not very keen on assemblies. However, they have done great work in bringing together public opinion so that some of the difficult policies we are going to face, including changing people’s behaviour, are much more within the public ambit.
Clause 3 would also require the Climate Change Committee, the CCC, and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee to
“review the Assembly’s recommendations … and … publish a joint proposal for measures to be included in the strategy”.
The Government would then have to include in their strategy
“all recommendations by the Assembly that have the support of 66% or more of its members”,
where the recommendations are also jointly proposed by the CCC and the JNCC.
Clause 4 would impose a duty on the CCC and the JNCC to
“evaluate, monitor and report annually on the implementation of the strategy and on the achievement of the interim targets”.
In addition, the CCC would be required to
“recommend annual emissions budgets for each greenhouse gas for the United Kingdom, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland”.
Clause 5 would provide a mechanism through which the devolved assemblies could give their approval to the targets imposed upon them and the strategy created by the UK Government. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are leading the way across many environmental areas, and I pay tribute especially to the proposed Scottish nature restoration target that is currently being consulted on.
Clause 6 would provide for a mechanism through which the UK Parliament could scrutinise the Government’s strategy and either approve it or require that it be amended if it is considered insufficient to achieve the objectives set out in Clause 1.
Clause 7 details financial provisions, including that expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Bill, should it receive Royal Assent, including for the implementation of the strategy, would be paid for out of money received from Parliament. It is important at this point to note that the amount of money we should be spending on climate change mitigation and adaptation will rise considerably if we do not hit our targets, and it is already taxing considerably the resources of the Environment Agency. The money put aside could be seen as expensive, but if we do not start looking at moving to a renewable economy, the price of gas will cause an enormous amount of hardship in the future, as it has in the present. Of course, every megawatt hour produced by renewable energy reduces our reliance on Russian gas.
Clause 8 details the terms used in the Bill and their interpretation, and Clause 9 provides the commencement and territorial extent of the Bill. It would apply to the whole UK and come into force on the day it received Royal Assent. I beg to move.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Redesdale on introducing this important Bill and on his excellent speech in support of it. I was pleased to support the Bill, along with my Liberal Democrat colleagues and members of all parties, in its previous incarnation in the other place, where it was sponsored by Caroline Lucas. I pay tribute to her work and that of Zero Hour, which has been tireless in its advocacy for the Bill.
While Theresa May’s Government are to be commended for having adopted the net-zero target for 2050, we are way off implementing the measures needed to achieve it. Moreover, recent government decisions have run directly contrary to the legally binding target that the Government have set. For instance, who can forget Rishi Sunak’s decision to slash air passenger duty on the eve of the United Kingdom hosting COP 26 in Glasgow, the Government’s plans to license more fossil fuel exploitation in the North Sea and their refusal to end the policy of maximum economic exploitation of North Sea fossil fuels, or the UK’s central role in financing global fossil fuel investment?
As Carbon Tracker’s recent report highlights, listed fossil fuel companies make up 15% of the value of the London Stock Exchange, making it far more exposed than any other stock exchange in the world. According to Carbon Tracker:
“Only around half of the future ‘business as usual’ spending by oil & gas companies listed in London was found to be compatible”
with keeping within our 1.5 degrees target. This suggests that London will be landed with trillions of dollars of stranded assets, posing a grave threat to financial stability, not to mention to the future of the earth itself.
As each month passes, the already yawning gap between rhetoric and reality grows ever wider and the consequences of it become ever more terrifying. The Bill would help to bridge that gap by introducing the measures on climate and nature that my noble friend has set out, including restricting net CO2 emissions between 2020 and 2050 to no more than the UK’s proportionate share of the remaining global carbon budget, setting a legally binding target to reduce UK imported emissions and establishing a requirement to halt and reverse the UK’s catastrophic biodiversity loss.
I particularly commend the measures in Clause 3 relating to public involvement via a climate and nature assembly. Such deliberative democracy has proved highly effective in many places, such as the Republic of Ireland, where it ensured that public engagement in complex and often highly controversial issues has been taken on board. It is crucial that, in all the complex decisions we will have to take on climate and nature, there is full engagement with the public in that decision-making process.
This week I had the pleasure of giving a tour of Parliament to my godchildren, Darcy and Kira, who are visiting from Australia. They left Sydney as it faced unprecedented floods and arrived in London as it faced record-breaking temperatures. Around the world, extreme weather events are multiplying. Climate change is not something happening in the future; it is here now, a clear and present danger. It will affect all of us one way or another, but the poorest and the youngest will suffer the most devastating impacts of our inaction. Young people are looking to us to act to safeguard their future, so it is time for us to step up to the plate, take our responsibilities to them seriously and pass this Bill.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for this Bill. I know he has made many contributions about diversity in the past. I seem to remember that red squirrels are something we have discussed on a number of occasions, and I am glad he still works on that.
This debate is taking place at a crucial moment in our country’s battle against climate change. Despite the circumstances that have led to a change of Prime Minister, there was at least genuine confidence in the urgency and seriousness with which he was approaching the issue of climate change—he spoke out on a number of occasions. Therefore, it seems all the more extraordinary that, in the current events going on, we are hearing virtually nothing from candidates who want to be the next Prime Minister about this vital area. It is as if the only thing that matters is taxation. Taxation is important for all sorts of reasons, but where are the prophetic voices speaking about where we must be for the sake of vital future generations?
Within the current cost of living crisis, myopic thinking could trump the urgent need to tackle the reduction in global emissions and reverse biodiversity loss. Ultimately, if we are going to meet our targets, the Government must lead by example and create incentives for people and businesses to reduce their emissions.
By way of comment on this, I am very proud of the example of the strong line that the Church of England has taken on climate change. In February 2020, the General Synod adopted an extraordinarily ambitious programme to go carbon neutral by 2030, and just last week, as we were meeting in York, a road map was officially endorsed to achieve that target. We are hugely aware that this is going to be incredibly costly for all of us if we are going to achieve it. Nevertheless, ambitious targets are galvanising people who in the past paid lip service to it and are now trying to think of what practical steps we need to put in place each year as we try to adapt tens of thousands of historic churches, community halls and vicarages across the nation.
Many organisations, such as the Church, will be taking a proactive approach to try to meet their obligations, but we have to face the fact that others will not be doing that and will take an approach based on expediency and pressure from the top which will simply see things in financial terms. For that reason, the framework referred to in the Bill would help to bind successive Governments to taking the necessary measures to tackle climate change and restore our natural landscape. Much work is being done on this. Some Members of this House, indeed Members taking part in this debate, worked on the Agriculture Bill and looked at environmental land management schemes and so on, so a lot of work is going on.
I have one main caveat—I may have more as the Bill progresses. I will support this Bill as it goes through the House, but I am concerned that the requirement to reduce greenhouse gases other than carbon dioxide may not have been quite as thought out as it needs to be. We know, for example, that some methane is produced by cattle, but the facts are complex. Since 1996, the total number of cattle in the UK has dropped from around 12 million to just over 9.3 million, whereas over the same period methane levels have consistently increased. Statistics I have seen show that the UK is not even in the top 25 countries globally for its number of cattle. It is urgent that we look at the long-term need for food security and look realistically at the cost to the environment of bringing large amounts of food in from far-distant places in the world. Noble Lords will know that I am president of the Rural Coalition—I should have declared that at the start of my speech.
We need to make sure that we have an evidence-based approach. The danger is that if we simply find ways, for example, to reduce the number of livestock in this country, we might end up importing it at even greater cost to the environment. One urgent thing we need to do is to work with the National Farmers’ Union, and others that get the problem, to work out what is really going to address it. I absolutely support the need to reduce our methane output, but hope that we can do it by working with our farmers, not attacking them. Scientific innovations, such as the additives to cow feed, will reduce cow methane emissions significantly. In Australia, seaweed is currently being trialled as a way to change the diet of cows, which could pave the way for tackling climate change in an agriculturally friendly manner.
Incidentally—some of us were involved in a debate on this last week—another important aspect on which a number of us are working with the farming community is preventing nitrate run-off from ammonia into our precious chalk streams. We need to work with people to think about how we produce food and give ourselves food security, as well as to make the reductions that we desperately need and reverse biodiversity loss as we look to the future.
Time is certainly against us in the fight against climate change, which is why, despite my single reservation, I wholeheartedly support the bold framework of this Bill.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, on bringing forward this Bill. I support it and will speak very much in favour of it.
I echo the words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans on the extra health warning that it will be 40 degrees on Monday and Tuesday. They are temperatures that we have never seen, yet we know that the candidates to be Prime Minister have not mentioned this. It feels, yet again, as though parts of Westminster live in a parallel reality to the rest of the world—that makes me really frightened. This Bill is important, necessary and could not come any quicker.
The Bill—uniquely, I think—tackles nature and climate together. As we recognised at COP 26, the climate crisis cannot be solved without solving the nature crisis. Across the board, nature is our best way of mitigating catastrophic climate change. All the worst impacts have been mentioned, such as the flooding at the moment in Australia and drought in my home county of Somerset. I have friends who are not on the mains water; they have two springs, and their family has lived there for generations. They reported to me yesterday that the second spring has dried up; they are now effectively without water. These are unprecedented events which are becoming completely normal. The question of looking after our remaining areas of biodiversity could not be more important.
Scientists at the Stockholm Resilience Centre have identified nine planetary boundaries that allow a safe operating space for humanity, and climate change is just one of these. We have breached nine of these boundaries, including the limit on freshwater use—I just mentioned my friends in Somerset. Breaching one impacts on the others and risks dangerous, irreversible tipping points. They include, for instance, the Greenland ice sheet. I am sure we have all seen the situation in Italy, where glaciers are now slipping and killing people. This is a tiny fraction of what we are going to see.
In my remaining couple of minutes, I have some questions. We could talk about this subject for a long time. Considering the cascade of benefits that a dietary shift would have in the UK, including, as has been mentioned, improved food security, nature restoration, better public health and a huge boost to rural economies, will the Minister explain why the Government have not adopted the Climate Change Committee’s recommendation that we cut meat consumption by 20% by 2030? This would reduce emissions, including of methane, and free up lots of land for restoring ecosystems that absorb and store carbon.
As was mentioned, our Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, stated when he signed the Leaders’ Pledge for Nature that we must reverse biodiversity loss and increase finance. He said:
“We must turn these words into action and use them to build momentum, to agree ambitious goals and binding targets.”
Will the Minister explain why current legislation does not include the target to not only halt but reverse biodiversity loss by 2030? Our current net zero strategy recognises the importance of nature and the need for land use change but does not offer any transformative policies and it misses some of the opportunities to harness the power of nature. Does the Minister agree that we need joined-up legislation, such as this Bill, to provide a liveable future for our children? I am a member of the Environment and Climate Change Select Committee and we are looking at behaviour change and taking evidence across departments, across government. It is unbelievably patchy, not joined up and not thought through and there is no central intelligence, as such, or central policy guiding what the ministries are doing.
Finally, when the Office for Environmental Protection published its first report on 12 May 2020, saying that the key UK ecosystems are close to tipping points, the OEP’s chief insights officer, Simon Brockington, identified many things, one of which was seabed trawling, which destroys the integrity of ecosystems. He also identified the pollution of farmland and rivers with fertilisers. This issue has been raised in your Lordships’ House many times. It is something we could deal with, we have legislation to deal with it, but we underfund organisations such as the OEP and, in the meantime, rivers such as the Wye continue to disintegrate, lose fish and wildlife and, instead of absorbing carbon, become sources of carbon themselves.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and to thank the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for introducing this Bill, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Oates, said, is very similar to one introduced by my honourable friend Caroline Lucas in the other place. I join others in congratulating so many people who have been campaigning so long and hard on this Bill. I remember getting an email from someone in Oxford saying “I just got this leaflet through my door about this Bill. What’s it all about? I’m not used to getting leaflets about Bills coming through my door.” So, I congratulate everyone who has been working so hard. I say to them that they are making politics what you do, not what you have done to you. I fear that this is a process that does not necessarily work very quickly, but it is crucial.
I will start by talking about rivers, which the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, just mentioned, because when we talk about the climate and ecological emergency, we often talk very abstractly. I want to be really concrete, and on this Friday afternoon, I will be really kind to noble Lords and those who have joined us and put you all beside a lovely river in Norfolk. The water is flowing, you are under the shade of a lovely big tree and you have your toes in the water. It looks idyllic, but what is actually happening in that river? Let us say that this is on Sunday, when the heatwave that others have referred to has hit. The water is getting warmer and warmer, which means there is less oxygen for the animals that live in it. Once the water temperature gets past 20 degrees centigrade, it is actually hostile to the life of those animals. As the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, referred to, there are huge, unbearable levels of pollution in that river already, but with the evaporation that comes from the high temperatures, the water disappears, and the pollution becomes even more concentrated. There might be bullhead fish and white-clawed crayfish in that river—both red-listed species.
We need to have joined-up thinking, as the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, said. The climate and ecological crises, the way we have poisoned our planet with pesticides, artificial fertilisers and all kinds of other novel entities—all of these things together are making our planet unliveable. This Bill seeks to create a response that is fit for the Anthropocene.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, is doing great Sherpa work for a number of departments today, so I do not necessarily expect a response from her to this right now, but I ask her to take it back to Defra. I hope that we will get a response on the National Farmers’ Union report, The Foundation of Food, out this week, which is focused on the importance of soil and how the government policy of the sustainable farming initiative is simply not doing enough. This picks up the points made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans.
When we think about biodiversity and ecology, we do not really think about soil. We still far too often think about soil as dirt. But a square metre of healthy soil will have hundreds of thousands of small animals in it, and 90% of those species have yet to be named. We do not even understand in any meaningful sense what is there. There will also be kilometres of fungal filaments, and all those systems will be working together in a healthy soil with the plants. The plants will take up to 40% of the energy they create from photosynthesis to feed into those species. It is a whole ecological system. So, the next time you look out of a train window and see a field—level, neat and tidy, ploughed—think about how much has been destroyed by the passage of the plough through that soil. We should also look at the fact that the National Farmers’ Union is saying that we need to do much better to protect that life.
Finally, I will briefly consider the really important provision in this Bill for a climate and nature assembly. In terms of deliberative democracy, the climate assembly—which, sadly, was rather disrupted by the arrival of the Covid pandemic, itself related to the global ecological emergency—produced excellent, practical and democratic proposals. If you ask me what we should do about any of the multiple crises facing us now, my answer will always be that we need democracy. The people of the UK know that where we are now is profoundly unsustainable—economically, socially, environmentally, politically and educationally—and they have so many brilliant ideas and plans for ways forward.
I will just mention an excellent report from Natural England, Facilitating Dynamic and Inclusive Biodiversity Conservation in Britain, again out this week, which focuses on listening to people and working with communities, using a place-based approach to solve our climate and ecological emergencies. This Bill shows the Government a way forward. Another noble Lord said that maybe the Government do not like the people’s assembly approach. I suggest that the Minister talks to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, because I know that in a different departmental role, she was involved in overseeing those and seeing them work very successfully.
Baroness Hooper (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for being allowed to speak briefly in the gap. I regard myself as an enthusiastic amateur in this field, and I realise that many experts have spoken in the debate so far. However, I do have the experience of being vice-chairman of the European Parliament’s committee on the environment. That was in the early 1980s, when, for the first time, there was a focus on green issues and the need to take action in this field.
The experts who have outlined in detail all the issues that prompted the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, to bring the Bill before us are to be thanked and congratulated. I also congratulate the noble Lord on bringing the Bill before us and explaining its provision so clearly.
The severe weather conditions we are experiencing and that we see all around the world leave no doubt as to the urgent need for action. The United Kingdom, as part of the troika preparing for COP 27 in Egypt, has an important role still to play. I put on record my support for the Bill and I hope my noble friend the Minister will be able to give us a very positive push forward.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, as a number of Members have said, we have a Conservative Party leadership election at the moment that could determine where this country goes on this subject. I have to completely reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, that two members of that leadership campaign, Mr Sunak and Mr Tugendhat, have signed the Conservative Environment Network’s pledge, so maybe we are saved; I do not know. Future policy certainly seems questionable, but we will see where it goes.
One of the things that always happens in debates on the environment is that the Minister, whoever she or he is, reminds us that the UK is a leader on the climate challenge. Actually, it is true to say that we are. We can be proud to a degree as a country that we have had leadership in both Houses and, generally, on all sides of the political spectrum. It is subject on which we have made good progress to some degree.
However, I have two points to make. On climate, we are nowhere near where we need to be to meet our sixth carbon budget. As the Climate Change Committee’s report said so well last month, the situation is stark in that we are likely, under the present climate change strategy, to meet one-third of the necessary cut in emissions. We might be lucky to meet another quarter through the current strategy, but some one-third would still not be met.
We have those climate challenges, but the Bill is not just about those. I congratulate my noble friend on introducing it, and I should have declared my interest as chair of the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Local Nature Partnership. Very relevant to that is the fact that the Bill is also about ecology, ecosystem services and biodiversity. There, we are hardly anywhere at all. I am sure the Minister will remind me, but I think that we have missed 14 out 16 of our Aichi targets and we are pretty marginal on the other two. There again, not only are we worse than the rest of the globe but that performance is derisory in terms of what we need to do. Although there are targets that are trying to change that and prevent that move backwards on biodiversity by 2030, I see very few signs of us meeting them. As we have been reminded, the UK is one of the most nature-depleted nations on the planet, so we have huge challenges there. That is why I very much welcome the Bill. It might not be perfect in every way, but it would move us in a direction in which we need to go.
There are real reasons why I like the Bill. One of them, which has been mentioned already, is that it does not treat climate and ecology as separate subjects but brings them together. Areas that overlap both those subjects include nature-based solutions and adaptation, which tackle both these major crises together. I congratulate the people who have written the Bill on that.
I want to follow up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, about the citizens’ assembly. I think all of us had high expectations when, in 2019, the House of Commons Select Committees set up the citizens’ assembly that met in Birmingham. Unfortunately, as the noble Baroness said, the assembly was disrupted by the Covid pandemic, but it did not grind to a halt. It showed, as many of these assemblies have done, that if you bring together a mixture of citizens across the spectrum, and if they fully understand information that is not biased but practical, then citizens’ assemblies, education and the act of going through these issues with individuals and communities make it possible to deliver messages that have practical application to our citizens, and which will make our politicians—who, unlike us, have to be elected—brave. One of the criticisms we always have is that it is great to have targets but if we do not deliver on them, enforce them through legislation or make things happen, we are wasting our time. So I welcome the citizens’ assembly; I am not sure how it would work but we could flesh that out to make it possible.
I like the fact that the Bill relates to the earlier COP—I forget the numbers now, but I am thinking of the Paris conference; I am sure my noble friend knows which one it is—which started making real commitments on tackling climate change in future with the 1.5 degree target. The Bill takes its base from there, rather than the strange numbers we have from 1990 and the Climate Change Act, and apportions how much carbon is left that we can put into the atmosphere.
Returning to a point made by the right reverend Prelate that has not been mentioned much during the debate, I have always been an advocate of following carbon consumption figures, on which the UK is not as good as it is on carbon production. We have got better and the trend has started to be the same, but we are still far from where we need to be. On imports, whether of animals or whatever, the Bill would make sure that carbon consumption starts to be taken into consideration. The system in the Bill is not pure but through it, we would notice imports, so I welcome it.
This Bill is an important one, and it is a start. I would love it to get into Committee so we could shake it up a bit, but it is absolutely where it needs to be. It concentrates on where this nation needs to aim, and on real leadership for this country on both these agendas.
I have a question for the Minister. We are finally going to have—in December, I think—the biodiversity COP 15, which was originally going to be in China but is now in Montreal. It is a crucial conference but the run-up to it has not been particularly successful. I would like to understand from the Minister how the British Government view that and what ministerial representation we are going to have there.
I welcome the Bill and hope it will proceed through the House. However, we do not just need legislation; we also need action and implementation to make sure that our aspirations are really met.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I add my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for the opportunity to take part in this Private Member’s Bill, which seeks to tackle an issue that, I am afraid, despite all the warm words and commitments, is being failed by government. I add my concern to that which has been expressed across the House about the silence on net zero and climate emergency issues in the current Conservative leadership debates. It does not bode well for future direction of policy.
It seems appropriate that we are talking about these issues today. There were two items on the “Today” programme this morning on the launch of the British butterfly count, a really important piece of work for us all to take part in, and the stark news just announced that we are heading for a level 4 national emergency heatwave for the first time, predicted for the beginning of next week. As we all know, very sadly, the evidence shows that these extreme weather events are becoming even more frequent as time goes on.
I pay tribute to the many thousands of young people across the country who have done so much to raise the issues concerned and to keep them at the forefront of our debate. I also thank Zero Hour for all its briefings and the information flow that it continues to bring forward. I firmly believe that the climate emergency is the gravest threat facing our country. It will be the British people and future generations who pay the price of government and general failure. Action on climate is also the way to tackle the cost of living crisis and to boost the economy, creating tens of thousands of highly skilled jobs across the whole of the UK.
As the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has warned, responding to this crisis means
“rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society”.
I am afraid that we are simply nowhere near achieving that. For example, the Energy Bill being debated in the House next Tuesday will be the latest way in which the Government are set to let the country and the world down on green energy, blocking cheap power such as onshore wind and solar and refusing to invest for the future, including by cutting domestic energy bills through a national plan for energy efficiency. Where is energy efficiency in that Bill?
The UK is on track to deliver sufficient progress against only eight of 50 new key indicators set out by the Climate Change Committee; 11 are significantly off track. It also warned that the Government have credible plans for only 39% of the emission cuts required to meet the UK’s legally binding carbon budget. This simply is not good enough. What is needed is a joined-up, whole-of-government approach to successfully tackle the interlinked climate and nature crises. So, rather than prescribing specific action, this Bill would instead require the Government to achieve defined targets, including through the development of a strategy for reducing the UK’s overall contribution to emissions. Of course, that does not mean that individual considerations are not vital, and I have some questions for the Minister. I am very happy for her to come back to me on these issues, particularly about the steps that the Government are taking towards the same ends.
As this Bill makes clear, net-zero dates are an important marker, but it is the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that we put into the atmosphere that counts. Can the Minister explain how the Government intend to stay within their fair share of the global carbon budget, in order to give us the strongest chance of remaining below safe global temperature rises?
We urgently need to get a full, transparent picture of the entirety of UK greenhouse gas emissions, not just those that take place on UK soil but British import emissions. Could the Minister suggest a timeframe for the inclusion of imported emissions in the UK’s emission targets, so that we might finally take responsibility for our full emissions footprint and bring production home to the UK?
Given the Government’s stated ambition ahead of the COP 15 biodiversity summit to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030—a target reflected in this Bill—what plans do the Government have, before the Montreal summit in December, to align domestic policy with international ambition? Surely the Government can do better than simply halting nature’s decline. Could the Minister explain why it is seemingly good enough to call on other nations to restore nature while at home we are satisfied with managing its decline?
The Bill incorporates a climate and nature assembly as part of the creation of a joined-up climate and nature strategy to achieve its climate and nature targets. Citizens’ assemblies, juries or panels have been proven to work and support political ambitions across the globe. Many agree that the public must be more involved in the just transition we need to become a zero-carbon, nature-positive nation. Perhaps the Minister could set out how the Government mean to meaningfully involve citizens in their decarbonisation plans. If there are no such plans, perhaps she might instead consider raising greater public awareness of the behavioural changes we need to see.
By way of example—and to assist, I hope—when I was leader of Leeds City Council, we declared a climate emergency early in 2019, and were one of the first local authorities to do so. We set up the Leeds Big Climate Conversation, reaching out to all communities across the city, and a citizens’ jury. Its extremely constructive recommendations have informed the Leeds Climate Commission’s roadmap to net zero as a template for the city’s future actions. I think there is a fear of involving the public in this way that we need to get over. It certainly can be done, but the Government need to take more action.
Targets are essential to monitor and measure progress. However, what really counts is delivery and action—both, I am afraid, sadly lacking so far. I urge both this Government and any Government who follow to take this action seriously, and with the urgency so obviously required. This Bill would present a welcome step in that direction, and I am pleased to support its passage through this House today. I look forward with great interest to the Minister’s response to all of the points made in the debate today.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, on securing the Second Reading of his Private Member’s Bill—I fear that the Lords’ team in the clay pigeon shooting is firmly doomed.
At the outset, I pay tribute to my officials in the Box, because although they are BEIS officials, this is more of a Defra debate. I am the Whip for both departments, so some of this stuff is familiar to me, but they have been working like Trojans in the background to get me answers on specific points from two departments. It is a marvellous example of the way both departments have been working together at very short notice.
Tackling climate change is of course of the utmost importance to this Government. As many noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Redesdale and Lord Oates, noted, tackling climate change is of particular importance to young people. The Government are committed to being the first to leave the natural environment in a better state than that in which they found it. I also thank the Church for its work on climate and environmental issues, as highlighted by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans,
We have already achieved a lot on our road to net zero. Between 1990 and 2019, we grew our economy by more than three-quarters and cut our emissions by 44%, decarbonising faster than any other G7 country. However, I acknowledge that there is still a lot of work to be done and that we cannot do it alone. Worldwide emissions also need addressing urgently; importantly, the leading role we are taking is not just to reduce our emissions but on new industries and exports in tackling climate change around the world.
The UK already has a world-leading emissions reduction framework in place. The Climate Change Act 2008 was the first of its kind and made the UK the first country to introduce a legally binding, long-term emissions reduction target. Last October, we published the Net Zero Strategy, building on the Prime Minister’s landmark Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution. It is a cross-economy strategy which keeps us on our path to net zero by 2050. The strategy includes the action we will take to keep us on track for meeting carbon budgets and our 2030 nationally determined contribution.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, said, we must ensure that we reduce our emissions in line with carbon budgets. Last June, the Government set the sixth carbon budget, setting a level representing an approximate 77% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, including international aviation and shipping, compared to 1990. This bold step demonstrates our continued leading role in tackling climate change. Our domestic target is consistent with the Paris Agreement temperature goal to limit global warming to well below 2 degrees and pursue efforts towards 1.5 degrees. The sixth carbon budget is another indication of this Government’s dedication to Britain’s green industrial revolution, positioning the UK as a global leader in the green technologies of the future.
To oversee progress, the Climate Change Act established the Climate Change Committee, an independent statutory body to provide expert advice to government on climate change mitigation and adaptation. As highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, its role in providing such independent expert advice is widely accepted as global best practice. Indeed, our 2050 net-zero target was considered, in line with advice from the Climate Change Committee, the earliest feasible date for achieving net-zero carbon emissions. Our carbon budgets are also in line with the latest science as the level recommended by the Climate Change Committee.
As noble Lords will know, the Government have also brought forward the first Environment Act in over 20 years, with ambitious measures to address the biggest environmental priorities of our age; this includes restoring and enhancing nature, which is of immense importance, as the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, noted. In England, the Environment Act will drive the long-term action nature needs to recover through legally binding targets, new policy measures, a new environmental enforcement body—the Office for Environmental Protection—and placing environmental principles in domestic law in a consistent and transparent way.
Nature has been in decline for decades, so our target to halt the decline of species by 2030 will be a major challenge. Through this target, we are committing ourselves to an ambitious objective and leading the way internationally by going beyond what is required under the CBD and setting key targets in law. Our recent public consultation included a proposal to reverse this loss by 2042, alongside other proposed targets, including to improve water quality and availability. The noble Baronesses, Lady Boycott and Lady Bennett, referred to those as vital issues, which the Government have rightly seized. The Government have an explicit duty to ensure long-term nature targets are met. Five-yearly interim targets will help the Government stay on track in meeting the long-term targets, similar to the five-year blocks we have already set in our carbon budgets.
The four countries of the United Kingdom have also agreed to develop a new UK biodiversity framework. Our collective intention is that the new framework will set out shared priorities and areas for collaboration across the UK. It will support our collective responses to the global framework of goals and targets expected to be agreed at the Convention on Biological Diversity’s 15th Conference of the Parties, COP15. I am pleased to confirm to my noble friend that I received a WhatsApp message from my noble friend Lord Goldsmith saying that he will attend in his capacity as head of the delegation. This is our chance to agree a Paris moment for nature by adopting a high-ambition global biodiversity framework. We have asked the Joint Nature Conservation Committee to advise on and co-ordinate this process, on which discussions are under way.
A number of noble Lords, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, referred to public engagement, which we regard as incredibly important. The Government already track public views on climate change on a regular basis through the BEIS Public Attitudes Tracker, which is published every quarter. It measures public awareness, attitudes and behaviours relating to the department for policies on issues such as energy, consumer rights, artificial intelligence and workers’ rights. The survey shows that awareness of the concept of net zero among the public has increased compared with 2020, from 52% to 87%.
We also regularly fund public dialogues, which provide in-depth insight into citizens’ views to inform a wide range of policy areas. In recent years, we have run public dialogues on a range of climate and environment issues, such as net zero, heating, transport decarbonisation, hydrogen, food, CCUS, advanced nuclear technologies, energy and the environment. The Government will continue to engage the public on the changes needed to deliver net zero by the 2050 target and to listen to the public’s feedback. That is not to diminish the contribution of county councils, such as in Leeds, in running their own public consultations and feeding that information back to, in this case, BEIS.
The support of UK-based companies will be vital in meeting our net-zero target. Recognising the important role of measuring and reporting energy use and carbon data, the Government introduced a new streamlined energy and carbon reporting framework on 1 April 2019. Streamlined energy and carbon reporting is designed to be a light-touch reporting regime that sets out minimum mandatory reporting requirements. The Financial Reporting Council oversees compliance with streamlined energy and carbon reporting disclosures requirements as part of its role. At the same time, it spreads the benefit of measuring and reporting key energy and emissions data, and creates a level playing field where all large or quoted UK organisations are required to report publicly their energy use and emissions.
I turn to the other points made by noble Lords. The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, asked why we have not adopted the Climate Change Committee’s recommendations on diet change. Our policy is to make it as easy as possible for people to shift towards a greener, more sustainable lifestyle while maintaining people’s freedom of choice, including on their diet. The Government have no intention of telling people to eat less meat. We recognise that more people are choosing vegan and vegetarian options, and we are working to support sustainable food choices. Supermarkets have already demonstrated significant efforts to market plant-based products. Although food choices can have an impact on greenhouse gas emissions, well-managed livestock also provides benefits, such as supporting biodiversity, protecting the character of the countryside and generating income for rural communities. Our food strategy, published in June, identifies new opportunities to make the food system more sustainable.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, the UK follows the agreed international approach for estimating and reporting greenhouse gas emissions under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris agreement, which is for countries to report emissions produced in their territories. All UK domestic and international GHG emissions reduction targets are based on territorial emissions. The UK’s independent climate change adviser, the Climate Change Committee, has also recommended that this remains the right basis for the UK’s carbon targets. None the less, measuring consumption-based emissions provides helpful insight and supports policy development, enabling us to keep track of our carbon footprint and informing our efforts to reduce it—for example, through our efforts to reduce carbon leakage.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, noted, working with local authorities is of the utmost importance. The Government recognise that local authorities can, and do, play an essential role in driving local climate action, with significant influence on many of the national priorities across energy, housing and transport, which are all needed to achieve net zero. The net-zero strategy sets out our commitments in enabling local areas to deliver net zero. They include setting clearer expectations on how central and local government interact in the delivery of net zero and building on existing engagement with local actors by establishing a local net-zero forum, bringing together national and local government senior officials on a regular basis to discuss policy and delivery options on net zero. We are continuing the local net-zero programme to support all areas with their capability and capacity to meet net zero.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blake, also asked about energy efficiency and the Energy Security Bill. As she will know, the Government are investing more than £6.6 billion over this Parliament to improve energy efficiency and decarbonise heating, and an additional £3.9 billion of new funding to decarbonise heat and buildings, bringing existing government spending to a total of £6.6 billion across the lifetime of this Parliament. We are scaling up our consumer advice and information services to help households understand how to reduce their energy demand effectively—
Lord Teverson (LD)
I remind the Minister that the manifesto commitment was for £9.2 billion on energy efficiency.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention.
We announced a zero rate of VAT over the next five years for the installation of insulation and low-carbon heating.
The Bill would legislate in some areas where we already have a well-developed legislative framework in place and, where we do not, there are sound policy reasons not to adopt them, but I thank the noble Lord for bringing the Bill to the House and enabling this debate. The Government are not convinced that the Bill is the right solution to the matter that has been raised, but I assure the House that the Government continue to press ahead with our world-leading climate and nature goals. We will continue to monitor the situation and to make improvements where needed, as our record has shown.
In closing, I reassure the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, on the issue of red squirrels, in which I know the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, is also interested. He may have heard this week of the long-awaited research into a chocolate contraceptive paste put into funnels accessible only by grey squirrels, which will prove very effective in keeping down the grey squirrel population.
Lord Redesdale (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply, and I thank her officials. I know that it is very difficult working in two areas, but it has ever been thus—DTI and Defra, then DECC and Defra and now BEIS and Defra—and I have worked with many of them in the past. I also thank so many noble Lords for taking part.
I was absolutely devastated by the Minister’s admission that the Government will not take this Bill in its entirety and give it time to take it forward, but I take note of all the reasons given and look forward to going into Committee and, perhaps, moving a couple of amendments to make it more agreeable to the Government taking it forward.
I thank all those who have taken part in the debate for the issues they have raised, including my noble friends Lord Oates and Lord Teverson, who raised the issues of the assembly. I take on board what the Minister said about there being real value in making sure that people understand the issues, because we will need a massive change in behaviour—indeed, this Chamber is quite cold at the moment, considering it is so hot outside, and that has an emission cost; in future, perhaps we will just have to change dress codes in the Chamber.
I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans. I realise that the Church of England has done a great deal, and there is a role for many faith groups to raise this issue.
On the issue of red squirrels and the trials that the noble Baroness mentioned, the paste has been trialled in my woodland, because I have one of the few remaining populations of red squirrels on account of, over the past few years, the slaughtering of 27,500 grey squirrels in the local environment. The red squirrel is a key species, because it is quite likely that it will go extinct in England in the next couple of years without the work that is being carried out. That is through an invasive species, but climate change is having an effect on that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, raised the number of the targets that we failed to hit. One good thing that I recently heard is that the Climate Change Committee’s net-zero target for enough people to go vegetarian has been exceeded—and more than was expected to reduce the carbon count. I say to the Government that one of the areas that has been missed, especially on the Defra brief, is that permanent pasture can lock more carbon into the soil than trees. We have the issue that, if we are going to plant trees to save carbon, we need to ensure that it is done in the right place and in the right soil.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, raised the fact that her honourable friend in another place Caroline Lucas brought this forward, and it was perhaps churlish of me not to acknowledge in my introductory speech the great deal of work that she has done in this area.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, for taking part from the Conservative Back Benches. It is often the case, especially at this time in the afternoon, that we do not get as many noble Lords from different parties, but she has shown that there is cross-party support, and I know that this is a major issue among many of her noble colleagues.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blake, raised the issue of energy efficiency, which is always underrepresented. I very much hope that her argument about reversing biodiversity loss means that Labour Party policy will be changed, maybe by introducing a clause on reversing biodiversity loss.
I do not think that we can carry on as business as usual, and I very much look forward to bringing this to Committee. The Minister raised the simplified energy and carbon reporting regime, on which I did some work with the Treasury before it was brought in. It is a fabulous way for companies to understand their emissions and what they can do about them. The problem associated with them is that there is no enforcement procedure, which means that a vast number of companies which could do this, and would want to do this, will just ignore it because there is a cost implication. I hope that we could have a discussion with BEIS about this. I hope to bring this back in Committee and beg to move.